Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Inappropriate use of WP:G12. The stated reason for the deletion was a copyvio from www.leagle.com, but that was just a reprint of a SCOTUS decision. As had already been explained in the review comments, SCOTUS decisions, as works of the US government, are not copyrighted. When Energynet queried RHaworth about the deletion on his talk page, the response was that, the basic problem is that reproducing the court's judgement does not make a Wikipedia article. We need an article about that judgement, not the text itself. That may be true, but the fact that an article is badly written isn't a WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• But neither Energynet nor Roy Smith has provided a link to the SCOTUS case written up on a .gov website. The point I was making was that there is no point in restoring the text: it is better to start again writing a non-copyvio, proper article. But if another admin is willing to restore the current state, I have no objections. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • There is no requirement that sources be available at a .gov website (or anywhere else on-line). This is obviously the text of a SCOTUS decision. It's even on wikisource, where it says, "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government", not to mention being available under CC BY_SA 3.0. To claim that this is a copyvio is absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • [1], if it makes you happy, though it proves exactly nothing one way or the other. — Cryptic 19:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I believe that RHaworth is missing a major point here. I deleted the entire segment under question when I saw the warning and then filed a protest as posted in the box. My protest and the fact that I deleted the section in concern was done prior to deletion! How is this fair that my protest and deletion of the section of concern are now gone as evidence? I also lost over two hours of additional work attempting to build up a response to the final concern on the piece not related to the copyright concern that I was also trying to sort out at the teahouse! Lastly, in direct reply to Rhaworth's demand that I have not produced a copy of the decision from a .gov site, is because I have not found one to post, nor was I told that this was what was needed to stop your deletion. Energynet ( talk) 16:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and WP:TROUT everybody involved in getting this deleted:

• The source is clearly a decision of the US Supreme Court, which is in the public domain not only as a work of the US federal government but even as a court decision.
• There was no content from the source in the article at the time of deletion. The author removed it and replaced it with something that looks like an encyclopedia article.
• You don't need a .gov link to prove that something is in the public domain as the work of the federal government, particularly something which was published long before the internet was even dreamed of. The source is blatantly a Supreme Court decision. In any case even a dubious assertion that something is in the public domain is enough to prevent G12 speedy deletion because those cases are supposed to go to WP:CP.
• Yes, Wikipedia articles should not consist of text taken from court decisions, but merely being badly written is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Particularly not in draft space where the whole point is to improve articles to get them up to scratch. Which is exactly what the author was doing.

Supreme Court decisions are very likely to be notable and I'm sure this draft can be fixed up to go to mainspace, as long as the people who are supposed to know speedy deletion stop abusing G12. Hut 8.5 17:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• This goes past "overturn" into oh come on territory for me. I can overlook a British admin not knowing that all US federal government works (and even non-federal court decisions) are in the public domain, but only up until the point that that's pointed out to him. The argument that an unedited copy of a public domain source is inappropriate as an article is correct, in mainspace: it's reason to move to draft - where this already was - or perhaps to delete at an AFD, but never to speedy; and it's not even relevant here, since it was no longer an unedited copy at the time of deletion.
  The only thing remotely defensible about this deletion is that there was also a claim of an infringement from [2] in e.g. this revision. I can't assess that, since the source site doesn't display for me. At most, it calls for revision deletion up until the point where it was removed. — Cryptic 19:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

a response to Cryptic. I have almost no idea about the terminology you are using, but the [2] reference in original piece that you mention came from a 1938 Library of Congress newspaper article that I thought was in public domain, and was using in quotes as the only piece at that moment (I believe this was my 2nd or 3rd attempted rewrite) and was only my third citation I'd found at that early point. When this also became controversial - I used parts of the quote to form the first paragraph to summarize the decision, and then just a link to the LOC reference - it was a lot different when done. The original intent was clearly not to plagiarize but to quote directly... Energynet ( talk) 05:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn or temp undelete. Plainly a dubious G12. A questionable copyright infringement is not an emergency, if in doubt we can look at it in the history. Likely, an the basis of what has been said, there is no copyright infringement. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn not an admin, can't see the history, but based on the above discussion I am satisfied the G12 was incorrect (public domain sourcing). Also want to support Cryptic's point - the article should not be a copy and paste of public domain text. I think this has been satisfied and has nothing to do with the G12, but want to make sure this point has been reiterated. SportingFlyer T· C 23:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• I can't see the article but if there was unattributed copying of this 1938 The Washington Star article (and I don't know if there was), that would be copyvio (despite it being at loc.gov). – Leviv ich 05:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• I don't think there is any copyvio from that news article. That claim was made at the same time as the claim that it was a copyvio from the Supreme Court decision. There is a paragraph in the decision which is quoted in both the draft and the news article, I suspect that's what they were getting at. Hut 8.5 17:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Supreme Court judgments are public domain as a work of the US Federal Government. Stifle ( talk) 10:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Snowing in September. Fancy that.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Lee Tae-yong ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article Lee Tae-yong was deleted (rightfully so) back in 2017 for his lack of individual notability outside of his group. As a result his article now redirects to his band's page. You can find the relevant deletion discussion here. This was done for several members of his band. Since the closer's account seems to have been deleted, I can't discuss it directly with the closer.
I'm bringing this article for deletion review since I believe "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".

Since 2017, I believe he has become notable enough to warrant an article of his own, because:
1. Lee gained enough individual notability outside of his group (solo work and activities),
2. he contributed significantly to his group's body of work (songwriting and leadership),
3. he is now a member of two distinct notable bands (NCT and SuperM - an upcoming group which is already extensively discussed in media), and is the only member of the latter group not to have an article of his own,
4. his body of work is comparable (if not more extensive) to some of NCT's members' who do have an individual Wikipedia article.
This is my first time dealing with the deletion process, I apologize for my lack of competence. I drafted a better and updated version of the article in case it was restored successfully. 3a4t ( talk) 10:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Draftify - Permit submission of a draft to AFC. If approved, replace the redirect with the draft that will become an article. I've reviewed a lot of these drafts of individual band members, and this DRV is the right way for the requester to be making this request. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I already submitted the draft some time ago because I was unaware that it had been previously deleted. The draft is here: Draft:Lee Tae-yong. Is there anything else I should do with the submission or do I just wait for it to be reviewed? Pinging @ Robert McClenon: 3a4t ( talk) 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment - I've accepted the draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Skycoin ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Significant new information has come to light; https://finance.yahoo.com/news/skycoin-announces-public-release-skywire-025400519.html This project is consistently ranked in the top 5 cryptocurrencies for Github commits, which shows a very active team of developers. The project has been around for about 8 years and includes early Bitcoin contributors. It is not just a cryptocurrency; it is a decentralized mesh network with thousands of hardware nodes around the world. It is a more legitimate project than many other cryptocurrencies that do have a wikipedia page Ezeebop ( talk) 14:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Given the concerns raised around quality of sources, and statements such as "There is no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources". This is a press release, it's not independent, so how is it helping? -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 14:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Alta Loma, Texas ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Since I was unable to get help understanding exactly what this page wants I'm blundering on.

Mr. Sphilbrick has been given all the things asked for and is not putting items he deleted back. State of Texas says there is no Copyright on Historical marker pictures or the text on them. There are many Texas Historical markers on Wikipedia and almost two thousand on Commons. And for the entire US there are almost 25000. This involves both a picture and text from that picture. foobar ( talk) 00:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Those trying to sort this out might wish to look at this discussion, where our resident copyright expert opined that the informal advice from someone at THC was not sufficient. There are other errors in the assertion, but not worth responding to, unless they become relevant. S Philbrick (Talk) 00:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Since I don't have the original communication on "there is no Copyright...", I read the text of the discussion linked. Really to note someone saying they are not aware of a copyright concern is not the same as someone saying there is no copyright, not by a long way. No opinion otherwise. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 07:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• List at FfD. DRV isn't the best place to have a discussion about the copyright status of an image or if it should be speedied (which I think is what happened, no one has linked to the image or where the image was and as a non-admin I can't figure it out). This isn't an open and shut case, so to FfD it should go. Hobit ( talk) 15:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • OK, this appears to be a link to a commons image? If so, the use of admin tools to not only remove the link but the *history* of the link seems overkill. I mean a link to a commons image shouldn't be delreved or whatever was done I don't think. Not my area of expertise, but I'd like an explanation as to what was removed exactly and why the tools were used here. Hobit ( talk) 01:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • It was four paragraphs of text that was revdelled, not just an image link. — Cryptic 09:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Three things. 1) Finding multiple appeal routes and being a novice I asked where this appeal should be put and was told to put it here (see my talk page). 2) The picture is located here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alta_Loma_Historical_Marker.jpg . 3) Am I supposed to be notified when someone posts to this appeal page? I have received no notices. I just happened to come here and saw three new posts. foobar ( talk) 17:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • DRV was quite reasonable. It's just that one of the outcomes of DRV is to send folks off to a different place. Think of DRV as an appeals court. Sometimes the court remands cases to another court. Also, it appears as if this is a commons image. So it may well be that FfD is the wrong place too (I can't see the deleted contribution). Hobit ( talk) 01:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• There doesn't seem to be a link to my discussion with Mr. Sphilbrik /info/en/?search=User_talk:Sphilbrick#Yes%2C_I_emailed_you foobar ( talk) 17:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I'm assuming we're supposed to be reviewing the revdel of this edit, which was done because it contained text from a historical marker. DRV doesn't review revdels very often but I don't see why not. Firstly if somebody wants to include text from an external source on Wikipedia then the onus is on them to show that the text is in the public domain or is available under a compatible licence (or that it can be used under our rules on non-free content, but this clearly can't). I'm not persuaded that this text is in the public domain. The statement on Diannaa's talk page is definitely not adequate, as it says the content cannot be used "to create the appearance of our endorsement of a person, product or service" (the CC-BY-SA licence Wikipedia uses has no such restriction) and "I am not aware of any copyright or other limitation" falls some way short of a statement that there is no copyright. The only other evidence that's been provided is this email screenshot, but we have no idea who this person is or whether they have the necessary authority and the statement itself ("looks good to me") isn't the kind of thing we expect from copyright release statements. Unless you have something better I'd suggest just rewriting the text in your own words (we are talking about 200 words of prose). Hut 8.5 13:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse revdel, more or less. I've uploaded photos of historical plaques, and included in the commons page a transcription of the text. I make it clear that this is just a rendering of the image into text form. I'm not a copyright expert, but it seems to me this isn't even an issue of fair use, but simply a description of the image to make it more useful both to people who are blind, and to search engines, in much the same way that somebody might write, "There is a girl standing under a tree. She is wearing a blue dress". So, I think Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alta Loma Historical Marker.jpg is absurd. On the other hand, just taking that raw text and plopping it down, unchanged except to put a "History" heading above it, is clearly a copyvio. In that context, it's no longer a mechanical description of the image, it's a reuse of the text. Even if the Texas Historical Commission doesn't assert copyright, it's just not how we write encyclopedia articles. So, maybe it didn't really need to be revdel'd, it certainly needed to be rewritten. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Update: the commons deletion discussion turns out to be not to be as absurd as I thought it was. Go read it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't know why you think it absurd - it's not the representation of the text in ASCII that's copyrighted, it's the text itself. Displaying it as part of a jpeg doesn't change that.

What's absurd here is that the communications director of the Texas Historical Commission either doesn't know the copyright status of the text they produce, or refuses to answer questions about it. If I were a Texas taxpayer, I'd be incensed. — Cryptic 21:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Close - This appears to be an appeal of the revdel of the addition of an image. Some of us are not administrators and have no idea how we are supposed to decide whether the image should have been revdel'd. I don't know what the forum is, but this is not a useful forum. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• The edit did add an image of a plaque but it also added text taken from that plaque. The fact non-admins can't see deleted pages doesn't usually prevent us from reviewing deletions here. Hut 8.5 06:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Catahoula bulldog ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closer suggested bringing it here, and has been notified. In the closing statement, the closer pointed out, “The article as it currently stands is woefully lacking in WP:RS, and has been tagged as such for three years.” Exactly. The reason it lacks RS is because the subject is not notable which was stated as the reason to delete or redirect in the AfD - it is a fictitious breed based entirely on anecdotal reports and fails WP:GNG and WP:V. There simply are no RS to cite to establish notability. Members of WP:WikiProject Dogs have spent a great deal of time researching and trying to find reliable sources. Normal procedure for article creation/acceptance is WP:V, WP:NOR and widespread coverage in secondary and third party sources to establish notability, not to create an article and then spend 3 years trying to find RS to justify keeping a non-notable subject. The delete/redirect/merge arguments were strong. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Question - does WP:V and WP:GNG not count for dog articles? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The list of sources listed below are UNRELIABLE SOURCES - I cannot believe what I'm seeing. The misunderstandings, misinterpretations and acceptance of unreliable sources is off the charts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

People are just disagreeing as to if WP:V and WP:N are met for the topic. Sources have been provided in the discussion. Hobit ( talk) 15:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to redirect-without-deletion, to Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog. It is not correct to identify four different outcomes in an AfD (delete, keep, redirect, merge) and require consensus for any one of them. In this case there is a consensus for one important thing: that no separate article is warranted. There are five editors who argued for an unconditional keep: Nomopbs, Krtimi991, Hal333, AvalerionV, and SpinningSpark. The second, third and fourth of those !votes were cursory and should be given less weight. On the other side, six editors argued to get rid of the article, either by deletion, merge or redirect: Atsme, Montanabw, Ched, AReaderOutThataway, Cavalryman and The Gnome. All six gave good reasons. We then have Andrew D who was happy to keep or merge. Had the six editors I mentioned above all said No article, and then given their reasons, their reasons would have been substantively the same. When the AfD is examined in that way, as it should be, there is a rough consensus for "no article", based on numbers (6:5), strength of arguments (definitely, given the three cursory keeps), and support for arguments (clearly). The best close in this circumstances is a redirect without a deletion. That means (a) we give effect to the consensus that we shouldn't have an article, (b) we allow for the merger of content to take place from the history of the article, at editorial discretion, and (c) we allow for the redirect target to be changed at editorial discretion. Outcome (b) even brings a seventh editor, Andrew D, on board with the consensus. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • My "keep" certainly wasn't cursory since I linked to a reliable source. Spinning Spark 09:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Gah. That discussion is a mess. The article is poor. Sources for the topic seem to exist, but aren't integrated into the article. And I'm not sure how reliable most of those sources are. Merging is probably the best outcome, at least until someone is ready to add sources. And I'd say either "keep" or "redirect" was the consensus, with (IMO) redirect/merge leading the way. I've no idea what I'd have done, but I think it had to be either merge or no consensus, so I have to endorse the NC call. I'd have endorsed redirect, merge, and perhaps keep also. Hobit ( talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I disagree with the analysis above regarding no article. The keep !votes are not strong, to be fair, but there's not really a consensus to delete, nor does a consensus to merge exist considering the number of potential merge targets. Being unsourced does not mean an article fails WP:GNG, and there's enough potential sources mentioned in the discussion to at least give the benefit of the doubt that the article could be kept, i.e. WP:V was met. But this is a total mess, as the article's still currently unsourced, and there's no agreement on what to do with it - I would try either a merge discussion next, or to the keep !voters, sourcing the article properly. SportingFlyer T· C 07:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, the closer made a fair assessment of the discussion. This appears to be here because the OP doesn't like the outcome, not because the close was faulty. If anything, the closer was at fault for giving too much weight to the argument (now being rehashed at this RFV) that this dog is not a "proper" breed. The closer stated there was no consensus either way for the position that such dogs should not have articles. That argument is entirely without merit in policy, and, on the principle that policy-based arguments should be given more weight, it should have been summarily discounted. Also being rehashed here is the claim that there are no reliable sources. That is now being disingenuous since I provided at least one reliable source in the discussion. Spinning Spark 09:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Spinningspark, nom filed your citation on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. [3] Normal Op ( talk) 16:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The closer did the best they could with the information provided, and the voters did the best they could with the information du jour when each voted. The 2019 AfD in question [4] was the second AfD for this article; the first was decided as Keep six years ago in 2013 [5]. On the day it was nominated for AfD (6 August 2019), it had four citations [6]. By the day the AfD was relisted (13 August, though it had 4 Keeps), nom had deleted all but one of the citations to make this version [7]. On the day the AfD was relisted a second time (21 August), this is the version [8]. The following day (22 August), after the AfD Close for No Consensus decision, the nom appealed directly to the closer [9], removed the last remaining citation to leave the article citation-less [10], and filed this appeal [11]. That's a lot of effort put forth to achieve the deletion of just one article. In support of any non-deletion option, we have the four original citations ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}, 151,000 Google search results [12], at least nine more breed info pages, books, or mentions on breed-related webpages ^{[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]}, and the breed is often enough mentioned in general discussion or news without breed information ^{[14] [15] [16]}. The people clearly consider the Catahoula Bulldog to be a 'thing' (whether it is a breed, crossbreed, mutt or whatever) and is not a fringe idea requiring omission from Wikipedia. The dog is clearly notable enough to have some sort of mention in Wikipedia. A little bit of effort on the article (or a section in one or both of the parent breed pages, Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog and American Bulldog) should clear up this whole mess and end the perpetual discussions about it. Normal Op ( talk) 16:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Wow, you're right - looking through the history, the nom of the AfD and this DRV stripped all of the sources from the article in the middle of the deletion discussion, and before anyone else had !voted delete. I admit this looks a lot different as an article without the sources, which could potentially have influenced the later voters, and I know I myself don't check the article's history before I !vote. This is some of the most tendentious AfD editing I've seen, and the conduct in my view is bad enough that if this were at ANI I'd actually support a short term block for the nom if one were proposed. The delete !voters should have been able to review the sources in the article on their own. SportingFlyer T· C 18:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Wow is right - all UNRELIABLE SOURCES. Funny how all of this activity came all at once. Hmmm. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Of note - for the sake of transparency, Normal Op was recently blocked and there is an open discussion to t-ban him from the dog topic, widely construed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PAs, tendentious editing by advocacy editor. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • You mean you have proposed a topic ban. The user is not currently topic banned or blocked. That is pretty much a classic ad hominem attack and is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Spinning Spark 09:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Read what I wrote - how on earth did you interpret "an open discussion to t-ban him" as meaning "currently topic banned"? No wonder we're having communication issues. I also included the diff so there should be no confusion. You accusing me of an ad hominem is the actual PA here, not anything I've said. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • "...how on earth did you interpret..." I didn't, you should read what I wrote. You are attempting to discredit the editor rather than responding to their arguments. That's the very definition of ad hominem. Spinning Spark 18:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Sure, there are some pretty clear consensuses that can be read from the discussion, like "this article currently has no sources" and "what are we going to do about it" and "I'm thinking we should challenge some of the unsourced content... maybe? Are we doing that now or later?" The closer definitely could have closed this as "this don't be a page no more" (not really a thing, but NOTBURO so whatever) but there would still need to be a discussion of what and how much to merge. Closing as "merge" can automatically and immediately start that discussion and closing as redirect would probably be the cleanest option now but do either of them fully reflect the consensus of the discussion? ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ So maybe we close this as merge/redirect? There are delete !voters but we can just roll them into the consensus per ATD or something... but the keep !voters do have a (PAG based) point (look, I'm pointing at sources! maybe they do exist! I'm not 100% sure how many there are you're not saying they're not sources either.) At this point all we're really missing is someone suggesting draft/userify (look, it's not there yet but it's clearly got potential. I'm just suggesting we let someone work on it a bit) or transwiki to a sister project. But hey, truly perfect situations for a no consensus closure (or any other close really) are hard to come by. Is this a reasonable reading? I think yes. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 16:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete thr article already. Zero RS...not recognized by any kennel club. Sounds like a made up "breed" to me. I once had an AustralAmericanShepherd...he was named MONGO after me. Real breed...have pictures to prove it!-- MONGO ( talk) 23:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse It is my opinion that it is bad faith to strip and article of all sources and then demand deletion. Atsme did just that. Good close! Lightburst ( talk) 00:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was no consensus to delete the page as there was only one delete !vote. Determining the direction of further editing of such a page is not the function of AfD and closers are not required to unpick and resolve complex content issues – that's best done on the talk page, using the RfC process. The nominator is forum shopping this matter in various places, including RSN and NPP and so there seems to be no shortage of other ways forward. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Endorse There is no need to relitigate the deletion discussion. The closure was proper and based on a careful reading of the argument that there was plenty of ground to fix the article's flaws or explore alternatives to deletion. Patiodweller ( talk) 13:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. There was no consensus to delete, or for anything else. See advice at WP:RENOM. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The closer summarized it well in stating that the discussion was all over the map. Therefore No Consensus is the best close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Tomi Thomas ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

It seems the closer did not want close against a large number of "Keeps." Close like this disincentivizes thorough research of sources and claims, because whatever you do, if there are a large number of empty "Keeps" that will amounts to nothing. And in converse, this promotes "joining the trend" so as not waste your time doing a research that no one cares to read.

Even though I made a detailed analysis that shows how the article was built on more than 10 utterly unreliable sources and user-generated contents (which none of the "Keeps" reliably refutes), the closer felt that since they 'disagree' (without evidence) with my analysis then the consensus was to "Keep." The sole source he based his reasoning republishes WP:DAILYMAIL articles [13] and claims no journalistic professionalism [14]; this shows you can simply circumvent DailyMail ban by finding vanity sites like these that republish them.

I am bringing this close for a review. I discussed it with the closer and he agreed. – Ammarpad ( talk) 09:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse but with leave for immediate renomination. It wasn't the administrator's job to decide who won the argument. Administrators are not adjudicators. It was the administrator's job to decide where the consensus lay. Ammarpad: you might have had the better arguments, but you didn't have anything approaching consensus. After the maximum number of re-lists, the closing admin had no choice but to close the discussion as "keep".. Part of the difficulty you faced was that you didn't start the AfD, and it wasn't started well, with a nine-word non-sequitur nominating statement. So... I suggest allowing Ammarpad leave to re-nominate the article at any time, which would ordinarily be discouraged following a "keep" close. A good nominating statement that lays out the sourcing problems from the outset might result in an AfD that takes a different course. In my view, the keep !votes were so poorly considered, and the sourcing problems so obvious, that here at DRV we should exercise our supervisory prerogative to say "do it again".-- Mkativerata ( talk) 11:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

It seems you're equating "consensus" to "majority." It's not. Consensus is determined by strength of arguments and conformity to overall Wikipedia fundamental policies and guidelines. Deletion discussions are not done in void, they must to conform to the Wikipedia-wide consensus/fundamental standard; WP:RS included. Even if 100 people come to AfD and say they "agree" to use the unreliable sources, that can't trump the established site-wide policy, nor can their large number means "consensus." No, I won't renominate it, there's nothing that I can say more. I spent several hours analysing each and every sources, and posted analysis (that no one refutes up to now). Some people decide to say, just that does not matter. To me, it matters, but if the consensus here, is also it does not matter, then there's nothing to pursue further. Perhaps, I am a bit pedantic for insisting only sources with proven reliability can be used to build biography of a living person. – Ammarpad ( talk) 13:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• endorse The argument for deletion hinges on a publisher not be reliable. There was nothing close to consensus that that is the case. Anyone wishing to renom this should take it to WP:RSN first. If the discussion at RSN concludes that pulse.ng isn't reliable, great. Renominate with a link to said discussion. If not, I'd suggest walking away. Hobit ( talk) 22:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse In order to close this as a delete, the closer would have had to make a judgment call on the sources - I agree the keep votes weren't great, but at least some of them had the opportunity to review the sources, so keep was the only possible outcome here. I agree with Hobit that renomination would be possible if Pulse is found to be unreliable but I've used Pulse as a source before for soccer articles and didn't really have any problems with it, and I'm not sure this would be deleted if renominated even if Pulse isn't regarded as a reliable source - I did a WP:BEFORE search and found enough sources to vote at least a weak keep. SportingFlyer T· C 06:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - WP:SOURGRAPES to come here after such an overwhelming keep result. WP:SNOW Lightburst ( talk) 00:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse while there can be policy based reasons for a few deletes to outweigh many keeps, I don't see any indication that this AfD was such a reason. This strikes me as a normal disagreement over reliability of sources and how that impacts notability and a keep consensus seems like the appropriate closing of that AfD. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Consensus was to keep. See advice at WP:RENOM. Do not renominate for deletion for at least six months from the close of this discussion, and then, if you do, make a better nomination statement. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - In this case, the consensus was sufficiently solid to keep that it is an obvious valid conclusion. Either a No Consensus or a Delete would have to be justified. A Keep speaks for itself. Appellant writes: "I discussed it with the closer and he agreed". Agreed to what? That you had the right to go to DRV, which is of course? To reverse their close? I don't see that. If the closer is agreeable to a renomination, then a renomination is permitted. If not, just wait six months. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I doubt a renomination would be useful, but surely it's not up to me to tell somebody if they're permitted or not permitted to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Bike or Die! ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was a highly popular game on the PalmOS platform, similar to X-Moto on PC. It is difficult to find references and sources for this game since many of the older PalmOS websites have since closed down. But the game lives on on iPhone today with Bike or Die 2 (much less popular, likely due to the lack of hardware controls on iphones and the simplistic graphics by today's standards), and the main website is still online for more info. Almost all of the other [ Palm OS games list have died since except for this one (and Warfare incorporated) - but this is just one example of its notoriety. A very large online community was generated around this game, which was significant for what were largely offline devices. Deletion history here

There are other articles I would suggest for deletion on the [ Palm OS games list], but this is not one of them. pinchies ( talk) 17:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment (the one who created the AfD) You are free to nominate any of the PalmOS games on the list you wish if you think they are not notable. That doesn't mean Bike or Die is notable. There are also multiple issues with your deletion review:

1) There were no issues with the closure, which is the basis of a deletion review

2) There were no new sources brought forward, also one of the points of a deletion review

3) "highly popular game" and "A very large online community was generated around this game" What is your proof of that? I will WP:AGF that you have no WP:COI in this, but WP:ILIKEIT/ WP:ITSNOTABLE aren't good arguments.

4) WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument does not stand, as per WP:NRV we need evidence for significant coverage. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 17:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Meh / Relist. I can't say the close was wrong per-se, but I dislike deleting pages based on so little input. Had I closed this, I would have either relisted it or (more likely) closed it as WP:SOFTDELETE. I'm not impressed by the nom's argument that since it's difficult to find sources, we should forgo the sourcing requirement, but there's no harm in letting them make that argument at AfD and see how it plays out. Who knows, maybe somebody will find sources? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

PS, draftify seems like a reasonable alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• I hear your comments around "I like it" and "no available sources" being poor excuses to relist - totally fair enough.

Here's a quick effort to find some examples from others, some more credible than others:

• https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Bike_or_Die "Bike or Die! has remained an active community despite the decline of the Palm gaming community in general. "
• https://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidGaming/comments/24qeig/miss_my_palm_tx_what_android_game_is_most_like/
• https://the-gadgeteer.com/2008/04/24/toyspring_s_bike_or_die_palm_os_game/

Reviews Bike or Die! has received many five star reviews, by both customers and official reviewers.

• [ Mobile Tech Review Full review gives five stars for Fun Meter and Addictivity.
• [ 15,000 downloads at MyTreo.net
• [ 16,000 downloads at Palm Gear, with many five star reviews.
• It was #5 on the list of action games at [ handango] ... right after bejewelled, pacman, Atari retro, and ... bejewelled 2, and with a 5 star rating.

My complaint would be that assessing articles like this one for deletion based on lack of sources is difficult, as many of the websites have closed down - as you will notice the large number of archive.org links above. I don't think a lack of present day sources is reason to suggest something was not notable at the time, but I understand that the burden of proof falls on the article writer. Without having seen the original article I am not in a position to assess whether this was the case or not. I would like to add the links above as supporting evidence to the article, if it does get relisted. Thank you for your consideration. I have no conflict of interest except a passion for this old game, that I wasted many many hours on as a teen.

For better or worse, it has actually been deleted and reinstated before too: /info/en/?search=Bike_or_Die pinchies ( talk) 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• The section headers need to be removed here as it's made it more difficult to comment than usual, but there were only two !voters at the AfD (including the nom) making it a soft delete, so I really don't see any harm in a relist given the DRV has been challenged, even though this could have been avoided entirely by just asking the closer on their talk page. SportingFlyer T· C 20:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  "The section headers need to be removed" I've done as likewise it was breaking formatting of the whole page, making it more difficult to comment and to me my mind at least making it a confrontation between the lister and the other commenters rather than a discussion. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 20:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment I'm fine with restoring this, but perhaps it would be preferable if I restored to Pinchies' sandbox so he could work on it further first, and possibly submit via AfC when he's done? 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 22:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Reclose as Soft Delete The author can then make a request for undeletion or have the article go to draft space. That said, I do think the onus is on the author to make the case that there is sufficient sourcing for the article. -- Enos733 ( talk) 00:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Reclose as soft delete with largely the same thinking about next steps as Enos. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Response from requester Firstly, apologies for the formatting problems, I appreciate your patience. I'm happy with the suggestions to have the article as a draft to work on, and to try to improve the quality and sourcing before submitting it for review. Also did not intend to make this a confrontation, I think I misunderstood how this review process is supposed to work. I appreciate the open minds and frank discussion, so thanks to you all. Finally, I am a bit curious - is there anyone here who has used PalmOS, or tried this game in particular? pinchies ( talk) 05:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist as first preference; draftify as second preference. I remember playing a really good bike game some years ago, and when I saw this DRV this morning I thought it was about the game I'd played. That was rather shocking because the game I played, and I don't play many computer games, was such a good game. And I recall doing reasonably well at it. But then it struck me that I've never had a Palm OS, whatever that is. It turns out through my googling that I was thinking of Elasto Mania, which I see has quite rightly attracted a 96% google review score (but who are the 4%???) and a wikipedia article in no apparent danger of deletion. Anyway, back to the point: this was a low-participation AfD for a subject that could well be notable. I think re-opening the AfD would be the best course, as many if not most admins would have re-listed it. If there's no consensus here to do that, draftifying seems acceptable to the article's creator and a good approach. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Reclose as Soft Delete as per Roy Smith. But draftify is comparable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist Here is one time where we need more participation. WP:RUSHDELETE is a useful guideline Lightburst ( talk) 02:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist. It was a low participation AfD, and the sole non-nominator !vote was rather perfuctory. Nsk92 ( talk) 19:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Jessica Yaniv waxing case ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Highly contested AfD and deletion review. But majority users wanted Keep or Revive this article.

This reasonings are entirely subjective to the closing admins. There was no consensus for deletion or Deletion review.

I oppose the deletion because If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. -- Sharouser ( talk) 15:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Galbraith (property consultancy) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The reason for deletion is that the company if not of any note just ogin around its daily business as any other firm in this industry does. If this is the case why are all estate agency/property consultancy articles not removed, such as /info/en/?search=Savills or /info/en/?search=Knight_Frank ? The Galbraith article was just as relevant as either of these appear to be. If they are classed as more noteworthy I would like to know why. 51.148.106.137 ( talk) 11:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and even speedy close Invalid rationale (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST even if just an essay) that doesn't address the result of AfD itself or the way the consensus was interpreted at all, nor it is offering any evidence that the subject became notable since then. Not to mention it is done by an IP user whose edits are only about this (possible COI). If you believe they are not notable, you are free to nominate both Savills and Knight Frank if you wish. That doesn't change the fact that Galbraith is/was non-notable at the time of the discussion. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 15:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse it did go through an AfC apparently and the AfD wasn't the best in terms of participation, but I'm not seeing any reason to overturn on the merits at this time (though I haven't seen the article) as all that's being referenced here is WP:OSE. SportingFlyer T· C 20:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The close was clearly appropriate on the arguments presented. I've independently looked for coverage in reliable sources of this business. All I have found is (a) quite a lot of real estate news about particular properties that Galbraith sells, and (b) press-releasey articles on business websites about Galbraith hires and promotions and the like. The problem on count (a) is that it isn't significant coverage of Galbraith, which our notability guidelines require, and on count (b) is that the coverage isn't in reliable sources that can give us a good independent assessment of the company. Deletion was both procedurally and substantively correct.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as per User:Jovanmilic97. No error by closer. Only real issue is whether the IP has a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the AfD was unanimous, so no other possible way to close it. Speedy close as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. Not to mention almost certainly WP:COI and/or WP:UPE. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Aleluya (En La Tierra) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article was moved to draftspace without consensus by a now CU-blocked user. This should have been left to run its course or be closed by an admin. Note was redirected through AN. Thanks Night fury 08:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist - being CU blocked aside, it should have had a discussion at the very least. Being closed less than an hour after it's listing seems odd, if nothing else. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Endorse, and a huge trout to myself for not picking up on what Mkativerata ( talk · contribs) did. Article creator moving it back to draft space completely justifies procedural close. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist for full discussion. Stifle ( talk) 10:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• The diffs say that it was the article creator who moved the article back into draft space: [15]. All the AfD closer was doing was recording that occurrence and closing the AfD accordingly. [16] Is that right? If so, the closer's description of the close as a "procedural close" seems entirely correct, and he or she did the right thing. And we should have no problem with an article-creator draftifying an article for which they're the only editor, so that the article avoids the guillotine of an AfD and the creator can do some more work on it. I think there's nothing to see here. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy endorse. This is all a little weird (including the WP:NAC by a sock), but the end result is clearly reasonable. The article's out of mainspace, and the primary author gets to continue work on it in the safety of draft space. I don't see that anything else has to happen. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close per RoySmith and Mkativerata. SportingFlyer T· C 22:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as per RoySmith and others. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse By my reading, on 14 August: The article was created at 22:24. It was put up for AfD at 23:09. At 23:12, the author moved it to draft space, which rendered the AfD obsolete. Because of this, a non-admin "procedurally" closed the discussion at 23:53. It's unfortunate the user who closed the discussion didn't make it clear that it was the OP who moved the page and not the closer, but the closure was nonetheless correct. The outcome (a draft is now in draft space) is also, imho, desirable. Suggest speedy close if my analysis is correct. -- kingboyk ( talk) 18:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Endorse peer Roy Smith rationale. Lightburst ( talk) 00:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

User:Outfoxedkc/sandbox ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page was submitted to WP:AfC. I deleted it under WP:G11. The author, Outfoxedkc, contested this on my talk page and seems unwilling to accept my explanation of why it was deleted. Rather than continue what appears to be a pointless discussion, I'm bringing my deletion here for review. I'll tempundelete it in a moment. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I see this has been re-created at Draft:Chesley Brown International -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. With pages like this it's probably not useful to get into a debate with the creator about whether they're editing for pay or otherwise have a conflict of interest. The easier course is to point to the fact that wikipedia does not accept promotional articles, no matter who writes them. This page is replete with corporate puffery: "In 2006, Chesley Brown once again set an industry standard"; "By 2003, Chesley Brown had grown from an organization of just one, to a multimillion dollar company with over 500 employees in 27 states and three countries"; "They introduced the Client Partner Program, which provides security management as a critical component of property management, considered an innovation at the time." Squarely within G11. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse looks like a perfectly reasonable deletion to me, practically every sentence in the article is written to present the company in a relentlessly positive light and the overall effect is to make it sound like a piece of marketing for the company. That's the exact opposite of what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be like. Fixing the problem would have required a near-total rewrite. Hut 8.5 21:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Having read the selected quotes, I don't need to see the rest of the page. It is G11. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the clarification. That's all I was looking for. Having an explanation is helpful for understanding and improving. Outfoxedkc ( talk) 21:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• A reasonable contest of your G11 should see you undelete and nominate at MfD, not bring it to DRV. Contested speedies should be speedy listed at XfD. This topic looks very unlikely to meet WP:CORP. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

File:Venera9.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This image, copyrighted by the Russian space program, was the only image of the surface of Venus on wiki, and one of the few that exists in the world. Following an extensive FfD discussion in 2016 with input from 6 editors (+closer), the image was kept at Venus, with no statements in favor of deletion besides the nom. When the image reappeared at FfD last December with a nom raising no new issues (and also based on a false assertion since the image is in fact specifically mentioned in Venus), it garnered no discussion beyond a neutral reference to the prior FfD. Despite this, it was deleted. This deletion was in error as there was no indication that the consensus established in 2016 had changed. The FfD should have been relisted again or closed as no consensus instead. A2soup ( talk) 07:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment I don't see any indication that this was discussed with the closer, User:Fastily, so pinging them here. My first reaction is that the first AfD was much better attended and argued, so the second, AfD, which had no real input beyond the nomination, shouldn't override it. On the other hand, we tend to be very conservative with copyright claims. I'd like to hear from the closer why it was closed this way before offering an opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I discussed it with Fastily: User_talk:Fastily/Archive_6#Deletion_of_File:Venera9.png. Their talk page archiving is just very swift. A2soup ( talk) 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that pointer. Relist per Hobit. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• relist While I know FfD has a lower bar for deletion and "discussions" like this are commonly closed as delete, I think the previous FfD should must be considered and either a NC or relist outcome would have made more sense. Hobit ( talk) 15:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist a "discussion" with one participant shouldn't overrule a much better attended discussion in which the same issues were raised. Hut 8.5 20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist. “the only image of the surface of Venus” available, or the best available to use, sounds like a good fair use rationale, assuming it was used to illustrate content about the surface of Venus. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist as per SmokeyJoe. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Something like this might conceivably be justifiable if there was any meaningful notice that the file was being considered for deletion. It's good - great, even - that FastilyBot autonotifies the uploader, so long as the image is orphaned and the uploader's made any edits in the past six years. (It wasn't and they didn't.) But it's preposterous that the first inkling that editors of Venus, a featured article, got that the image was being considered for deletion was after it was already deleted. No talkpage notice, no {{ ffdc}} in the caption, nothing. — Cryptic 04:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. Considering this, change to a straight Overturn. Inadequate notification. Deletion rational plain wrong. The images were discussed directly in the article, as well as the caption speaking to the image and the article, in the version during the FfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist per above. SportingFlyer T· C 04:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. RobThomas15 ( talk) 00:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Properly run, interpreted and closed discussion. Some claims that the topic is important were weak because the claims weren't connected to sources, and didn't address the reasons for deletion. Wikipedia articles do not exist for research. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• What's changed since the last time you brought this to DRV? — Cryptic 02:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- I disagree. It looks as though the AfD closer did interpret consensus correctly. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close as WP:TENDENTIOUS. Thank you Cryptic for pointing out the history behind this, where I see I closed the last DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Endorse given the question posted here it's pretty clear the nominator doesn't understand the purpose of an encyclopaedia -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 21:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close Already brought to DRV once and endorsed, nothing new shown, needs to be closed as improper and re-endorsed. SportingFlyer T· C 03:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Harald Seiz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Was under the impression a minimum of four published titles (here five) plus wide mention (including headlines) in diverse articles and origination of new concepts (here cryptocurrency linked to gold) would qualify subject for inclusion. Grateful for any new or improved sources or additional relevant information. (Am travelling and not able to devote much time to the issue at present, hence this avenue rather than the usual.) Scarbluff ( talk) 21:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Scarbluff, congrats on finding this place. Good news - you don't actually need to be here right now. Halad Seiz hasn't been deleted. Instead it was nominated for deletion where if no one objected it could have been deleted after a week. However, you're clearly objecting and so I have removed the PROD on your behalf. If you have further questions about deletion processes please feel free to ask them at my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Close. No deletion. PRODded, de-PRODded but it has yet to go to WP:AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Sandra Appiah ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closed as "delete" with one !vote in favor of deletion and two !votes against. Counting the nomination, that's a pretty even split in opinion; I'd usually expect a "relist to build consensus" in that kind of situation, particularly when sources were given but their reliability not yet fully evaluated. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and reopen. I haven't yet formulated an opinion on the notability of the subject, but no consensus is apparent in the 2-2 split of nominator+commenters in the AfD, and none of the comments can be discounted as non-policy-based. As this did not yet have any relists, I think reopening it is better than changing the decision to no consensus. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist for another week. There's some plausible arguments made about sources being sufficient, so with an even headcount, I don't see why anybody was in a rush to declare a consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist per nom and above. – Leviv ich 00:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist for another week Looking at the sources presented in the article I'm not sure the close was technically incorrect, but the lack of participation and the even response rate makes this a good candidate for a relist. SportingFlyer T· C 02:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. I think the delete !voters have the better case as it stands but they don't yet have a consensus. It strikes me as rather high-handed for the discussion to be closed, with no explanation, at this point. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist as above, given the split opinion, limited participation and the fact it hasn't been relisted previously. Hut 8.5 10:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Relist - After one week, and what appeared to be no consensus, the best action would have been a Relist, and the second-best would have been No Consensus. A Delete, although likely the right final answer, is hard to justify as proper closer judgment. Relist. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. No matter how many times I read that close, I cannot find confidence that it reflects the discussion. WP:Supervote. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Relist for all the reasons previously stated. There simply weren't enough comments to achieve a clear consensus. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 13:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Kaitlynn Carter ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

She is covered in general reliable sources now, including Fox News [17] and People [18] as well as in countless entertainment news sources. For better for worse, as notable as any of the Jenner/Kardashian clan now. В²C ☎ 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I can't get my head around Fox News and People being WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps: Use WP:REFUND instead? Lightburst ( talk) 23:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for now - there's not enough "meat" on the sources to show her notability isn't entirely inherited. WP:REFUND does not apply here at all, the AfD had more than enough participation (four unanimous delete votes.) SportingFlyer T· C 00:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

AfD Looked sparse. Two actual delete ivotes and one comment. And the nomination. So three delete ivotes. Perhaps the OP can ask the closer to draftify the article and continue to work on the draft until ready to submit. Lightburst ( talk) 00:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

At WP:REFUND: "deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator." Even arguing the comment wasn't a vote, this was clearly discussed. SportingFlyer T· C 02:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: I am trying to find solutions for the OP. You are trying to become an administrator. Lightburst ( talk) 02:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not even sure what that means. SportingFlyer T· C 04:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I don’t care enough to deal with all this deletionist bureaucracy. Something about her popped up in my google news feed today, and I was curious to learn more about her and was surprised to find no article here. She’s treated as notable by news sources. Even The NY Times [19]. So should we. This shouldn’t be so difficult. — В²C ☎ 06:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The two offered sources contain mere mentions, and they are gossip news. See WP:THREE. There is a rush of mentions in the last few days, but the sources are all very low quality, too low, for forming the basis of a BLP. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

An insistence on putting the burden of proof of quality references, aka WP:THREE, on the author or other article advocate is very appropriate for an article previously deleted at AfD. Two or three good sources. One thousand mere mentions does not substitute. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comments. She at least qualifies by WP:ENT #2: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. WP has thousands if not hundreds of thousands of biographies of people that get far fewer reads than this one will. The benefit of restoring the article to readers searching for sourced information about her is obvious. What is the harm in restoring this article? I'm befuddled by the resistance. -- В²C ☎ 17:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • These sub-notability guideline indicators are just indicators to whether the topic is likely to meet the WP:GNG, which is an indicator of whether the article would be kept at AfD. The article was deleted at AfD, so a re-creation cannot point to loose subnotability indicators. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • WP:ENT specifies the criteria for notability determination of entertainers in particular, which applies in this case. This topic qualifies under GNG anyway. -- В²C ☎ 17:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
      • No, not criteria, but mere indicators. To understand WP:Notability, you need AfD experience. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Permit creation of draft to be submitted to AFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Why start over? We just need to undelete the previous one and go from there. I don’t have much AfD experience but if this is typical, yikes. Way worse than the DMV. — В²C ☎ 05:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, restore to draft/userspace. Close looks fine given participation at the time but if an experienced editor wants to work on it there's no reason why it shouldn't be restored on request. While it might have been more usual to go through REFUND or directly to the closing admin, there's no point in process for the sake of process. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Mea Culpa, upon reading the DRV instructions more carefully I now better understand some of the comments here. First, in my defense, I saw 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose and interpreted that to apply in this case. However, upon rereading, I see I should have read the section on when not to use DRV, including: "2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first ...", which I did not do, and "9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.", though I was not 100% sure this request would qualify as "uncontroversial", and some comments above support me on this. So for next time I know to make the undelete request to the closer directly next time. However, now that we're here, can't we just agree to undelete it? -- В²C ☎ 17:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Your position makes sense here, but it's on you to find enough sources to overcome the presumption of notability here. I looked through the sources you've presented and I cannot see any of those articles passing WP:GNG for notability reasons. We do have WP:THREE as an essay which also serves as a good rule of thumb - if you can find three sources which clearly pass WP:GNG, I wouldn't have any objection to creating a draft article for her. Please keep in mind she is not necessarily obviously notable to most of us here - I've never heard of her, for instance, so I'm going to have to look at the sources presented here to determine whether she's notable. Also, WP:REFUND would have been controversial because four users supported deletion, none supported keeping the article, and at least one user noted the original article may have been created by a sock account, which if true would be a perfectly good reason why it shouldn't be restored and we should start from scratch. I hope that's a helpful explanation as to why this may have seemed a bit difficult up to this point. SportingFlyer T· C 19:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, helpful. Thanks! Here are more sources:

1. NY Times (16 mentions in this article): [20]
2. LA Times (4 articles over several years): [21]
3. People Magazine (dozens): [22], including: Miley Cyrus Kisses Kaitlyn Carter after Liam Hemsworth split (FWIW)
4. CBS News: [23]
5. IMDB: [24]
6. Fox news (6,000 results): [25]
7. AOL: Who is Kaitlynn Carter?
8. Cosmo: [26]

Yeah, some of the sources are obviously gossipy, but nevertheless reliable. The bottom line is there is enough information out there for people to want to look her up (which is how I got here) and to put together at least a basic article. As to the original article, I don't see why it matters who created it - what's the content? No sense in reinventing the wheel if there is well sourced information in there, right? -- В²C ☎ 00:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Gossipy sources, reliable or not, tend to be primary sources with the passage of not very much time, and thus do not meet the WP:GNG. Be sure to find sources (two or WP:THREE) where the author of the source is making some subjective comment on the subject. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Some, most, of these "sources" are unsuitable sources and counterproductive to a request to reverse an AfD consensus. See WP:THREE. If the first 3 are not good enough, no number of weaker sources can suffice. WP:Reference bombing is a reason to decline a draft. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• • Support userfication or draftification with a recommendation to submit through AfC. Time in userspace or draftspace is a good idea give the recent burst of mentions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Okay, this is beyond ridiculous. If The NY Times, LA Times, and People (published by TIME) are not good enough, I give up. Reminder: WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. — В²C ☎ 07:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
      • One problem at least with those you pointed out above is depth of coverage. The requirement is that it's talking about the subject not minor name drops/mentions. As you list them above as "mention" x times. What you actually need is a source which talks about them as the focus of a few paragraphs. i.e. it is about the individual, a source which listed the name once but did dedicate a few paragraphs to the subject is likely a better source than a "big name" who merely mentions the name a dozen time with little or no further coverage. The essay linked a few times WP:THREE is giving useful advice, we are all volunteers here, no one is obliged to go and dig through and evaluate sources, so those who wish to make a case should do the work and present it succinctly, doing the leg work to present the best sources - if those supporting the inclusion of a topic can't be bothered to do the work, why should those who are indifferent (or worse) bother to do it? I don't think NOTBUREAUCRACY means what you seem to imply. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 21:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• As the closer, I would have been fine restoring this to draftspace upon request as a courtesy, which also would have been the least bureaucratic way of handling this. But per the above, I don't think anything was wrong with the close itself as a reading of consensus. As for while we're here, taking my closer hat off, no, I wouldn't deem the LA Times or People coverage to be significant—the subject's topical coverage needs to exceed mere mentions and be independent from that of her relationship with Brody Jenner. So I wouldn't accept the article at AfC based on the enumerated sources, but it could sit in draftspace for a while until enough such sources appear, but alas, that discussion is way outside the purpose/scope of DRV. (not watching, please {{ ping}} as needed) czar 02:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Operation Voicer ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I deleted a recreation of page per WP:BLPDELETE after it was summarily deleted by User:TonyBallioni per WP:BLPDELETE, which was upheld on review at AN. My very best wishes has asked me to reverse my deletion on the grounds that there are no BLP violations since it doesn't have as detailed coverage of individual defendants. I'm taking my deletion here for review with the page {{ TempUndelete}}'d, as I agree that the argument that this version of the page is acceptable is colorable. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: see permalink of AN discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Restore new version of the page. I would not dispute that the previous version of the page has been correctly "speedy" deleted because of the BLP concerns. I did not even see the old version. Also, I would not dispute anything that had happen on AN. However, I simply think that the current and presumably very different version of this page ( here is the draft) has no significant BLP or other problems, sourced and therefore can be restored. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Send to AfD Without looking at the diffs of the two articles, I'm making an assumption this doesn't qualify for a WP:G4, and so we should have an extended deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T· C 21:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• The WP:AN review appears to be this.

BLPDELETE is taken to be a version of WP:CSD#G10.

There’s an awful lot of detail, and the detail seems weak to borderline for a BLPDELETE. This one is not easy. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, I guess the WP:G10 was invoked. However, looking at the current version of the page, I do not see any reason whatsoever for WP:G10. Simply naming the officially convicted perpetrators? This is done on every page about criminal cases. Something else? Yes, one can cut a few details, but not at the expense of specific facts related to the crime. Anyway, a well sourced page about an official police operation is not an "attack page". If anyone thinks that was not a notable operation or not a notable crime, they can make an AfD nomination. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Query - forgive me @ L235:, but what does "as I agree that the argument that this version of the page is acceptable is colorable" mean? Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I think that means "legitimate". If people feel uneasy to simply restore the page, they can make a "procedural" AfD nomination. But I think that would be waste of time because the page will be kept. I would only shorten this page slightly. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I broadly meant "plausible" ( [27]). I thought it was plausible DRV would reverse, but WP:BLP directs admins to err on the side of privacy and so I brought this to DRV instead of a straight undelete. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Attribution failure. There is a lack of attribution to early authors, of Operation Voicer & User:Tots & little ones matter!/Operation Voicer. This creation is a copyright violation. Is there a reason to not temp undelete earlier versions. Can we please discourage copy-pasting, history merge the lot. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

No, it was linked to the user who created the page [28]. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Was he the sole author of the deleted page? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ SmokeyJoe: Yes, Maternalistic Lioness (formerly Tots & little ones matter!) was the sole author of the originally BLPDELETE'd page. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• I do not see justification for a BLPDELETE. Reading here, I suspect that much of the rationale for BLPDELETE came from the revdeleted edit summaries. I do read an excessive flavour of advocacy POV, of excessive use of primary source information, WP:SYNTH, a lack of grounding of the topic in reputable reliable secondary sources that comment directly on the topic, which is "Operation Voicer". I think the page is excessively padded with details, including the names of perpetrators. I am inclined towards a WP:TNT WP:AfD !vote. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I think BBC and Independent are good. Others might not be so strong, but I do not see any primary sources cited on the page (court documents, etc.). My very best wishes ( talk) 14:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

There’s a huge amount of pulling facts from news reports. Newspapers reporting facts, the article pulling out the facts. This is preserving primary source information, not secondary source information. It’s something to look at. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, the newspapers reported some facts, and these facts have been included to the page. What is problematic? Being "primary" is about the sources, not the facts. All these news sources, like BBC are secondary. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You are mistaken about source typing. Source typing depends not just on the source, but on the information extracted and how it is used. Newspaper reports tend to always be primary sources anyway. To be a secondary source, there needs to be a story, commentary, creative input by the secondary source author. The cited sources are very weak there, and the article is sourcing the reports solely for facts. There is an excessive reliance on primary source material, in violation of WP:PSTS, leading directly to WP:SYNTH temptations and WP:POV problems. However, I do not agree that there are serious BLP violations. The worst of the problem is an imbalance in sourcing, too many narrow focus newspaper reports, which is not a speedy deletion justification. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The definition of secondary and primary vary quite a bit by field. As *I* think of it here, a court transcript is primary as is a court filing or the video of a sporting event. A newspaper reporting on the case or the sporting event is generally (but not always) secondary. [29] gives one overview, [30] gives another. There are plenty of others. Hobit ( talk) 11:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

An encyclopedia is an historiographical document, and historiography is the field that applies. Wikipedian is not journalism, where primary is the eye witness, and secondary means second hand, processed and less reliable. It is not science. In historiography, if you sift the original facts out of many sources, all you have done is collected the primary source information. Secondary source material a transformation of the primary source material by the authors of the secondary source material. The many newspaper reports cited for facts, for names, crimes and sentences, are strikingly lacking of author opinion, qualitative statements, even abjectives applied to the the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Restore New Version, and put up an AfD if you want to: The article was deleted on "speedy" BLP grounds but those have been rectified with the "new" version. If there are non-speedy BLP grounds to delete, then that should go a full AfD with the article restored in the meanwhile. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 14:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Nathaniel Phillips ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Nathaniel Phillips plays today in the 2019–20 DFB-Pokal for VfB Stuttgart against F.C. Hansa Rostock. [31] According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues this is "a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues". So he meets WP:NFOOTBALL now. He meets WP:GNG as well. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Yoda1893 ( talk) 17:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment A new article was created now by S. A. Julio and I found another version at Draft:Nathaniel Phillips. Maybe these versions can be united? -- Yoda1893 ( talk) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I am in full agreement with you that a subject playing in a fully professional league meets NFOOTBALL. However...there is a handful of editors who have placed additional hurdles which are not codified in Wikipedia. So I am unsure how to proceed. I gave up since the consensus on AfDs is a matter of about 4-5 people who have made the decision to create additional criteria. Lightburst ( talk) 18:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close The player failed our guidelines at the time of the AfD and now passes them, assuming WP:GNG can be shown - there's absolutely no need for this DRV, just go ahead and create the new article. SportingFlyer T· C 20:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Permit recreation. Circumstances have changed significantly since the last AfD. I cannot envisage a new AfD coming to the same outcome. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Procedural close – isn't the closer supposed to be consulted first before a DRV is filed? A DRV is not necessary here. The close isn't being challenged and the article has already been recreated. – Leviv ich 03:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the AfD. The article is already re-created. The case is made that the new version beats G4. Consider undeleting the history and history merging. Anyone may take the new article to AfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AfD/Keep New Article/Merge History: Editors are permitted to re-create deleted articles if the new version corrects the problems cited in the AfD. That's exactly what happened in this case. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 15:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

JK! Studios ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Introduction

Wikipedia policies and guidelines were not followed in the closing of this AfD as delete. Essentially three policies or guidelines were ignored in favor of the minority position. The most egregious of the three departures from policy: User:Lourdes became involved in the discussion siding with the delete ivoters, and when I mentioned that Lourdes should not be the XfD closer of this AfD because of involvement, Lourdes retroactively marked their involved comments as "administrative” with a what appeared to be a taunting note to make a point and then went out of their way to be the XfD closer on this AfD (links and chronology below). Recently another editor asked on Lourdes talk page, to have a copy of the article (in case any editors want to see it) after Lourdes deleted it, and so the original article is here.

1. WP:CONSENSUS Essentially the XfD closer (User:Lourdes) chose the delete argument that this comedy troupe is a corporation and must pass WP:NCORP instead of WP:ENT A guideline for ensembles.
2. WP:NOCONSENSUS is the next possible closing result: there was a 7 keep 4 delete ivote result.
3. WP:CLOSEAFD An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. or An editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved...

Lourdes became involved in the AfD when editorializing the relisting of the AfD - when questioned about that editorialized relisting, the administrator came to the AfD and commented publicly. Another [ https://en.wikipedia.org/? title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JK!_Studios&diff=next&oldid=909260342 editor disagreed] with Lourdes assessment of what constitutes WP:RS. Lourdes commented in the AfD and again supported the minority position. I suggested that Lourdes closing the AfD would not be appropriate per WP:CLOSEAFD, Lourdes then retroactively marked their involvement as "administrative". I commented that the demonstration of power by Lourdes does not benefit the project. A few days later I was quite surprised that Lourdes went out of their way to close the AfD in favor of their own bias, in what I can only determine is a display of power. If any other administrator closed this AfD there would be much less controversy.

In conclusion

This AfD did not follow procedure and in the closure of this AfD Lourdes ignored WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOCONSENSUS, and WP:CLOSEAFD. I asked the administrator to reconsider that closing. In addition another editor has commented on Lourdes talk page. I do not believe the actions of Lourdes benefited the project or reflected well upon this administrator as an arbiter on the project.

• Overturn I participated in the AfD and I believe the delete decision should be overturned for these reasons. Lightburst ( talk) 00:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Void close with no prejudice. WP:CLOSEAFD says, An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion.... Lourdes participated in the discussion. They argue that their participation was only, administrative comments, but by the time we're down to dissecting exactly what participate means, it's time to move on and let somebody else close it. Even if the close wasn't strictly forbidden, it certainly was poor judgement and troutable. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I've stuck the trout. I'm sure Lourdes had the best intentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, by "void close", I mean back out the close, relist it, and leave it for another admin to close. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I want to say a bit more on this. My practice on things like XfD closes is that I try (very hard) to only interact with a given proceeding once. If I relist something, I won't close it. This is a conservative interpretation of involved, but I do it to prevent exactly this sort of mess.

Normally, at DRV, there's a mix of two arguments going on: 1) Should the page be deleted or not, and 2) Was consensus judged correctly by the closing admin. In theory, DRV is only concerned about the latter, but often, it's hard to untangle the two. Here's it's even worse; we've got three threads. In addition to those two, we've got, 3) Was the admin involved? My philosophy is to never even come close to letting that third question crop up. Don't be guided by, "Can I justify calling myself uninvolved?". Be guided by, "There's absolutely no way anybody could think I am involved". By only touching an XfD once, I ensure that. This is the, "appearance of impropriety" argument you often hear.

After relisting the AfD, and especially after getting into an argument over the relisting, what Lourdes should have done was walk away. There's plenty of other mops in the sea. Any of them could have done the close, and then we wouldn't be here. Well, maybe we'd be here with people arguing the first two questions, but at least untangling two threads is easier than untangling three. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Reclose. While I think the close reflects the notability guidelines for organisations, since it's here partially on basis of WP:INVOLVED, I don't see the benefit of debating the finer points of what counts as involvement. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 02:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Reclose Someone else should close it. He was certainly involved in the discussion, and only an uninvolved administrator is suppose to close things. Dream Focus 02:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin comment: The AfD was opened by Domdeparis, and re-listed twice, including once by me. Lightburst (who has opened this Deletion review) came to my talk page to query my initial re-listing mentioning that vote stacking was in favour of keep, his preference. I gave them the explanation on my talk page of why the keep !votes were discounted during my re-listing. Lightburst proceeded to the AfD page and mentioned that my explanation was condescending and claimed that I was an involved admin – this is even before I had left any comment in the AfD (post the re-list). The AfD is on my watch; and when I noticed the above statement by Lightburst, I left a reply at the AfD containing the following response (I am breaking down the sentences of that single response to enable editors to decide whether any of my sentences in the AfD shows me as being involved (words in square brackets are for clarity)):

1. First group of statements in my response: Here, I have re-clarified to Lightburst what my talk page statement meant: "I am sorry if my response [on my talk page...] sounded condescending. I was pointing out to your apparent lack of understanding of our reliable sources/verifiability guideline/policy and misunderstanding of what consensus means. I listed out exactly why none of the keeps were worth consideration [while re-listing]."
2. Second group of statements in that single response: As Lightburst had alluded on my talk page, and repeatedly thereon, that consensus is a vote count, my response clarified what consensus meant for any article: "While you may continue believing that consensus is equivalent to voting, it is actually not. If you find even two reliable, independent non-primary sources that have covered the subject significantly (please don't include interviews or press releases; read WP:RS), there's no number of delete !voters who would be able to get the article deleted.... And vice versa."
3. Third group of statements in the same response: This is a response to Lightburst calling me involved even before I had left any comment in the AfD and demanding that someone else should close the AfD. "On your other query, there's no hard and fast rule on my closing this AfD; any other admin can too. Or I will, if I reach here first, when the re-listing period is over."
4. For readers's benefit, here's my earlier re-listing comment, which Lightburst claims (above) makes me doubly involved: "I would have gone ahead and deleted the article given the evident consensus, but just on the side of caution as someone might find a couple of reliable sources (as suggested by multiple editors), relisting this"

• WP:INVOLVED quotes: "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 which 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. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."

In my clear view, all the statements I have made to Lightburst constitute reasonable discussion and explanation of my re-listing and advice to them on their query about consensus and about what approach they should follow in determining consensus. I don't believe any of these make me involved. If any editor thinks otherwise, please point out which statement makes you feel I am involved. If, like RoySmith says, leaving any statement in an AfD makes an admin involved, then we should simply get rid of WP:INVOLVED and have a one-line rule. Thanks, Lourdes 03:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I'm really not fussed about any of this as I think the analysis of the keep !votes and the close itself was absolutely correct. That being said, there are problems with the procedure - I'm convinced the only reason the involvement happened was because the relist was questioned, but I don't have any problems with this being reclosed by someone else, but I also don't think this should be overturned to no consensus. SportingFlyer T· C 06:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (Came here because of this.) Nothing fishy here; just the normal disruptive keepist revisionism and attacking admins who close in a way they don't like. See also this where the closing admin explained a relisting a week earlier, pointing out that many of the "keep" !votes needed to be dismissed, and no indication was given that this explanation was not accepted. That after a week there was one new SPA !vote and one new delete !vote, and now the discussion has come to DRV seems somewhat questionable. Forcing a relisting admin to make a string of administrative comments so that you can then claim they are too "involved" to make a close seems like a bad-faith attempt to game the system. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hijiri88 has a history of following and hounding me (there are 3ANIs between us). This is not the place for these squabbles but FYI: recently the editor agreed to a voluntary IBAN (Hijiri88 has had 6 enforced Ibans and did not want another one). Lightburst ( talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hijiri88 has had 6 enforced Ibans and did not want another one is an unsubstantiated personal attack. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Void closure, best that the closer be uninvolved. Stifle ( talk) 09:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse despite the fact that I opened the discussion I genuinely believe that the closure was done correctly and Lourdes was at no point involved despite multiple efforts to drag them into the discussion and get them involved. The comments made by Lourdes were clearly uninvolved analysis of the arguments made by the different participants. I don't know if this is a usual tactic to try and get decisions overturned but it certainly smacks of WP:SOURGRAPES. At no point in the discussion did Lourdes make any comment about the notability of the subject. They relisted the discussion with this comment I would have gone ahead and deleted the article given the evident consensus, but just on the side of caution as someone might find a couple of reliable sources (as suggested by multiple editors), relisting this. Lightburst went to their talkpage to ask for an explanation about the relisting and seemed satisfied with the reply commenting Thanks! I was not sure you applied the WP:CONSENSUS policy correctly...or our other policy WP:NOCONSENSUS. and then 3 days later had a total change of heart and wrote this I went to the relister's page to question the relisting comments, and I got a very condescending response. I only hope that a different uninvolved admin closes with a fair reading of this AfD.. Admittedly Lourdes' first reply on their talk page was a little short and then they replied with a comment on the deletion discussion that may seem a little peeved (possibly brought on by the volte-face) but still remained in the domain of "advice about community norms". If Lourdes had closed the discussion without relisting it as they were well with their administrator's prerogatives to do so we wouldn't be here. If anyone should complain it's the delete !voters but I for one was feeling magnanimous! -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 09:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and re-close. It is not for an administrator to wade into a debate, set a standard of proof for either side to meet, and then close the debate in accordance with that standard. That's called adjudication; administrators do not adjudicate but determine consensus. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I fail to see how the administrator could possibly be accused of being "involved". If anything, the administrator assisted the Delete !voters by pointing out (several days in advance of the closing) their incorrect interpretation of policy/guidelines and their lack of rebuttals. But there's something potentially more sinister and disruptive at play here. For me the most worrying aspect is the "Rescue Squad" participation which smacks of meat puppetery. I provided a short analysis on the !voting of three editors here. Does anyone else see a problem here? HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Is there a similar way of canvassing delitionists? From what I can gather from the different comments it is the number of !votes that counts towards consensus and not the quality of the !votes. The simple fact that a group of inclusionists communicate AFD discussions to each other regardless of the subject matter looks very much like canvassing to me. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Disturbing accusation from the High King and troubling comments from Domdeparis. The ARS improves articles. Domdeparis nominated the article for deletion, ARS members made improvements to the article - I made two myself... This accusation and or conspiracy theory has no place on a deletion review. Lightburst ( talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Like it or not, but anyone canvassing for delete votes- even to cancel out canvassing going the other way- is going to get blocked for it. Reyk _YO! 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Reyk:Don't worry, my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek! I personally would never canvass either one way or the other. The extra sources that were added were all very clearly analysed by HighKing. I would like to point out that Lightburst totally inappropriately used an WP:ADHOM comment in reply to HighKing's !vote The HighKing votes to delete at AfDs 89.2% of the time. in an attempt to discredit him. This unfortunately backfired because the link he used to show that HighKing is a deletionnist gave some very impressive !voting stats "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 94.4% of AfD's were matches and 5.6% of AfD's were not." despite having participated in nearly 2,000 discussions. When you start to try and discredit a !vote in this way one can legitimately pose the question as to whether this is not some kind of crusade against deletion !votes. This was followed up a few days later by another adhom comment from a a different member of this "Squadron" including some very impressive latin legalese to add gravitas to the accusation. The very fact that they use a military term for their group is worrying in itself and points to some kind of bellicose attitude towards AFD. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The fact that more editors disagreed with the High King's interpretation should carry weight on Wikipedia where consensus is supposed to matter. You and the High King were in the minority and you had an agenda because you nominated the article for deletion. You should take a look at the work of the ARS before you make these wild claims. Demonizing the ARS is a wrongheaded approach on this deletion review. FYI: you can find monsters if you believe in them and look for them. Lightburst ( talk) 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - I find myself agreeing with the "keep" arguments made in the original discussion. The article had enough good sources to bring it well over stub status. For now, the article is good enough to keep, and there is momentum to continue to improve it. The user Rollidan has a copy of the article in his userspace [43] and has expressed interest in continuing to build it up. However, the article would be more likely to grow and develop in the mainspace. Worldlywise ( talk) 13:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Plainly, the Keep arguments are overwhelming and clearly moire numerous than the deletes. To the extent that "policy" was being interpreted, the clear WP:Consensus was that the delete arguments were wrong, and failed on the merits. The closer 'wore too many hats', and conflated the oles of advocate, commentator and closer, presuming to exercise a Liberum veto over a clear consensus. This was a WP:COIand a violation of WP:INVOLVED,The blatant procedural irregularities became inextricably intertwined with the merits, and rendered the whole exercise ultra vires and void ab initio. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- I don't see any issue with the result. It seemed to reflect the strength of the arguments presented. And I don't think procedural quibbling is helpful here. Reyk _YO! 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn or Reclose per RoySmith. Regardless if one agrees with the close result, the closer was unquestionably involved with the AfD. As Roy said, if we are at the level of nit-picking what involvement means, and the closer is defending themselves with a wall of text trying to explain things, it is easy enough to let someone else close it. Also the closer's choice of wording comes across triumphant ( "One down! Two down! Three down!") followed by a personal attack directed at Lightburst: "you personally have little idea of what is meant by reliable sources" - there is smoke there is fire. -- Green C 15:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- Without regard to whether Lourdes was involved or not, the clear result of this this AfD should be delete. The Keep arguments were mostly provided by members of the Article Rescue Squadron who usually vote as a block. Instead of providing policy-based reasons to keep the article, they attempted to attack the nominator's credibility. Declaring that there was not a WP:BEFORE search is a WP:PERSONALATTACK. It is so easy to declare BEFORE was not performed, but it is completely meaningless when there is a complete failure of the person making that declaration to provide the sources that they claim to exist. If sources exist, why didn't anyone add them to the discussion so they can be evaluated?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 19:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Relist – This is as clear a case of good-faith administrator judgment error as I have seen. First, the administrator found a consensus to Delete although a majority of the !voters favored Keep. That looks like a supervote, and should only be done under rare circumstances that are easy to justify, and should certainly not be done by an administrator whose involvement has been challenged. Also, since this was a controversial close, the details of the administrator's reasoning should have been in the close, not shoved off to the talk page. Second, the administrator appears to have been involved prior to the closure. Third, there is a rule in common law courts that it is not only necessary for justice to be done, but that it is also necessary for the appearance of justice. This is not a common-law court, but common-law wisdom can prevail. A request for an administrator to recuse from a closure should be granted even if it is questionable, only denied if the concern is arbitrary and vexatious. The question about administrative involvement was valid. Even if Lourdes reasonably thought that she was uninvolved, she should have erred on the side of wisdom and let another admin close the AFD. I did not participate in the AFD and do not know how I would have participated, but this is an error in good faith. I am sure that the closer thought that the good of the encyclopedia was involved, so that this was a case of Ignore All Rules, but some rules are to maintain not only fairness but the appearance of fairness. Overturn, and Relist for one more week. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Reclose per Lightburst and Dream Focus. Challenger.rebecca ( talk) 00:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Huh. Long time no see, Rebecca. [44] [45] You don't seem to have ever participated in any deletion-related discussions at any point in the past (in fact the above was only your 46th edit outside the mainspace and one of only four since 2017), so your showing up here is rather suspect; there's also this [46] [47] where you claimed, despite an almost non-existent editing history outside the mainspace, to be very familiar with the activities of an admin I had conflicted with in the past. "I like the editors on this side more than the ones on that" is not a good reason to overturn a valid AFD close. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Correct judgment of consensus, correct understanding of WP policies. No other close would have been reasonable. . I do not think there was excessive involvement, and I tend to be pretty much of a stickler for this. I see this rather as an admin trying to be very carefully scrupulous, and getting unreasonably blamed for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Strong endorse – Lourdes's assessment of consensus was spot on: there was consensus that there weren't two GNG sources, not even close... a.k.a. consensus to delete. In my view, that's not a closer establishing an arbitrary standard of proof, that's a closer upholding policy, i.e., upholding global consensus ( WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:V, WP:N). Lourdes was not WP:INVOLVED; I think re-list comments such as the one she made are very helpful in offering participants an idea of how the discussion looks "from the outside", from a closer's point of view. This helps focus any further discussion. I encourage it. An admin doesn't become INVOLVED by making a re-list or because an editor disagrees with the re-list. All of Lourdes's comments were about the consensus of the discussion, not the notability of the subject; thus she was acting in an administrative capacity and was not INVOLVED. Because it was a correct close by an uninvolved admin, it should be endorsed. – Leviv ich 05:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Not a horrendous violation of NOTINVOLVED. It would have looked better, given the late discussion engagement of participants with the admin-relister. The result seems correct. Invite any uninvolved admin to countersign the close, but if that doesn’t happen, overturn for a cleaner reclose. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ SmokeyJoe: Technically, of the three uninvolved admins who have commented here, two said "overturn without prejudice" (Roy explicitly said "no prejudice"; Stifle stated that it would be best to have an uninvolved close, without actually saying they would have closed differently), and one endorsed; does DGG count as "involved" now that he's said he doesn't think Lourdes was involved and supports Lourdes's close, or under your proposal could we just take the other admins (neither of whom said that if it were them they would have done anything different) as saying they would recognize a close from DGG and call it a day? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I think, no, DDG is not INVOLVED and could boldly countersign the close, making the DRV moot. That would be very bold for him., I don’t expect it, however it would have been a very reasonable thing to do before this DRV was opened. However, my reading here is that a re-close, which could be an identical close counter-signed, will be the consensus. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and reclose as per Mkativerata's reasoning. Endorsing this result would render WP:NOTINVOLVED useless. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 16:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Definitely overturn and reclose: per Robert McClenon's excellent overturn rationale. Essentially, the closing administrator issued a supervote cancelling out the will of the AfD editors. It appears the administrator knew that editors might have issues with the rejection of consensus and so further stated in the closing remarks: If any editor has an issue with the closure, they can contact me on my talk page. There was a clear case to be made for either consensus to keep or no consensus. Talrolande ( talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Reclose I firmly believe that Lourdes's action was accurate and done in good faith, and a reclose will very likely be exactly the same result, but I agree that a question of involvement was raised and therefore the wisest course of action would have been to let another admin handle the close. CThomas³ ( talk) 18:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• reclose In general there is a really high bar for commenting on a deletion discussion and then closing it. There are plenty of closers, so there it would be very rare for it to make sense. There isn't a clear and sufficient justification for doing so here IMO. Hobit ( talk) 00:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Looking at the discussion again, I think it's quite debatable if WP:INVOLVED is violated or not. Call this a "reclose due to an overabundance of concern about things not only being right, but looking right". Given that so many admins can, and do, close AfDs, while it was perhaps within guidelines to close here, it was just a bad idea to close after engaging on the topic. Hobit ( talk) 18:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Question If the result here is "overturn without prejudice" or "reclose", can this DRV's closer go ahead and reclose the AFD themselves based on all the "overturn without prejudice; I personally would have closed the same way as Lourdes, though" comments? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, that would be unwise. The whole point of this DRV is about being WP:INVOLVED. If the same person who closes the DRV then goes an re-closes the AfD, surely that's inviting exactly the same complaint. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Roy, with due regard to your viewpoint, I am repeating a point I mentioned above: WP:INVOLVED quotes: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Closing the DRV is an administrative act, and therefore the closer would not be considered involved. Thanks, Lourdes 17:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Yep. But in deletion discussions it is generally considered poor form to close multiple discussions on the same topic. There are plenty of admins active in the area. And it might make it seem like the closer has an agenda to handle more than one. If the case is clear, they can safely do just one and let someone else do the right thing elsewhere. Not policy, but it seems to be what we actually do. Hobit ( talk) 01:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Agree with you Hobit. Telling an admin that they are involved is obviously quite different from suggesting good form. Closing multiple discussions on the same topic over a period of one's tenure is bad form; closing multiple discussions on the same topic around the same period because one saw the common thread (e.g. I've seen multiple articles and lists of pageant winners land up on AfD, and the same administrator cleaning up the whole lot) is absolutely good form. And here, if the closing administrator of this DR decided to re-close the AfD (because they've understood the premise much better than a drive-by admin would), it's absolutely good form in my opinion. Thanks, Lourdes 03:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Jessica Yaniv waxing case ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Highly contested AfD with 54 participants was closed with the following reasoning: Although the numerical tally is about even between those who want to keep and those who want to delete this article, the arguments invoking NOTNEWS (and, to a lesser extent also BLP1E), in combination with BLP concerns lead me to close this as delete.

This reasoning is entirely subjective to the closing admin. There was no consensus for deletion, and choosing the following arguments from delete! votes was poor judgment. BLP concerns do not apply when The Guardian, The Times and The Herald among others covered it. Or are you going to rev-del links to The Guardian as BLP violations? WP:NOTNEWS isn't a strong argument either because it's a case setting sort of a precedent in transgender rights and ethics in the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal - hence many medias discuss it. Furthermore, I was surprised to see it tilt towards deletion at this phase because there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE during the case and the article got better sources as it was being discussed.

I did not participate in the AfD, but I believe it should be overturned for these reasons. Pudeo ( talk) 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• (involved) comment all of these sources were discussed in the AFD. WP:BLP applies to information about living people, and the Tribunal hasn't made a decision, so the argument that this case has set a precedent is implausible. I don't see any evidence of new or continuing coverage from reliable outlets.

The only reason we even had this discussion was because a sockpuppet acount ignored the objections from multiple editors and made an end run around a broad agreement that JY shouldn't really be named on Wikipedia. The suggestion offered during the last last DRV discussion about Yaniv should be applied here: let somebody gather high quality sources and make a case at WP:AFC. The burden for finding consensus should be on the editors who want to create this. Nblund ^talk 20:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The closing statement is "the arguments invoking NOTNEWS (and, to a lesser extent also BLP1E), in combination with BLP concerns lead me to close this as delete." For me that's not really the point. The point is that very few people on the keep side engaged with that argument. A remarkably large number of keep !voters did little more than say sources + coverage = article. That's clearly not the point when regard is had to NOTNEWS and related policies and guidelines. That means a closing admin has no choice but to give less weight to !votes like "Keep. This got enough coverage to be notable", "Keep since subject easily, and for some unfortunately, passes the relevant notability criteria.", "Keep the article passes WP:SIGCOV & WP:GEOSCOPE", "Keep.This article absolutely passes notability" and "Keep. In the UK, this event has received significant mainstream coverage". Those quotes were the opening sentences of the final five keep !votes. The nomination was addressed at an entirely different matter. Those five !votes, and others, are close to irrelevant. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 22:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Let's look at the 4 criteria for not-news: (1) There was no original reporting in the article, as all statements were sourced. (2) There was no routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities; on the contrary, the sources ranged from August 2018 to August 2019 and included non-Canadian media such as The Economist. (3) Who's who was about the bare minimum to explain the facts of the case. Much, much more was deleted under WP:BLP arguments (i.e., note the material not deleted certainly passed the constant and immediate BLP policing, and credit should be given to those editors who spent hours day and night ensuring any cites which might even be tangentially BLP issues got deleted within minutes, if not seconds). (4) Diary: "news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." A review of the article will conclude it is not a diary. Conclusion: claims that the article did not pass WP:NOTNEWS are not correct. XavierItzm ( talk) 07:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment for now - the talk page that was deleted contained significant evidence for this case at ANI. Eighteen editors have spoken in favor of a topic ban for the editor in question prior to this article getting deleted, starting here. The editor in question was one of the delete !votes in the AfD discussion (they later crossed it out just to change it to speedy delete right below) and they commented extensively throughout the discussion. -Crossroads- ( talk) 22:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - Involved - I really don't understand how the closer came to their conclusion. Per WP:AFD, If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be relisted for further discussion.. This means that the only way the article should have resulted in Delete is if consensus supports delete. Absent a consensus for delete the article is either kept or can be renominated for deletion. My question for the closing editor is how can they view this as anything other than no consensus? Clearly on the number of opinions this was no solid consensus.

24 editors favored keep (I'm including all forms of keep including merge unless the editor said "delete or merge")

20 editors favored delete (no merge, the article and talk page are salted).

4 favored "delete or merge" (the article goes but the discussion and possibly content stays available)

Based on weight of numbers this is clearly no consensus. What about strength of argument? The closing editor offered scant details of their thinking only stating that they were swayed by NOTNEWS and BLP1E. Perhaps but that means they felt that 24 editors couldn't come up with a reasonably convincing counter argument. Given the bits spilled that seems unlikely. Notnews isn't convincing given the possible ramifications the case could have when people talk about balancing the rights of protected classes vs the rights of otherwise uninvolved individuals. This case is getting extensive coverage so "not news" seems weak to me. Same with the BLP1E. If nothing else the closing editor must provide a far more detailed justification to explain why the "keep" arguments were not only not sufficient to result in a "keep" based on weight of argument, but were so poor as to fail to establish "no consensus". When 54 editors opine about a topic and seem to be evenly split the closing editor must offer some very strong closing case if they are going to say, in effect, "slightly more than half of you were so wrong as to not even warrant a no-consensus decision". Springee ( talk) 01:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Why wp:NOTAVOTE isn't a reasonably reply: Yes, consensus isn't a vote but weight of opinions logically does matter. Consider a hypothetical case where just one editor favored delete but offered an argument that was the sum of the best of those in favor of delete. Now how many here can honestly say they would accept delete if the actual tally was 53:1 for keep? Certainly at some point weight of numbers matters. NOTAVOTE protects from the deciding firmly for or against in a case where the numbers are roughly evenly split. What it does not do it allow us to ignore the no consensus option.

The following from NOTAVOTE apply here

Polls may be helpful in coming to a consensus and in evaluating when a consensus exists, but consensus can change over time. Editors who disagree with a consensus opinion may continue to civilly disagree in an effort to change community consensus. Editors who appear to be in the majority should make an effort to continue discussions and attempts to reach as wide an agreement as possible within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If a straw poll is inconclusive, or if there is significant disagreement about whether the question itself was fair, then no consensus results from the poll. The solution is to seek wider input or use alternative means of discussion and deliberation. Springee ( talk) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• I'm including all forms of keep including merge unless the editor said "delete or merge" That's a silly way to total !votes. When assessing consensus in a close situation, you have to look at their actual argument; in those situations, it's far more common for merge !votes to get counted as delete than as keep, especially if they echo the arguments for deletion (as most of the merge comments in that discussion do.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

It's a perfectly reasonable way to group things. "Merge" and "Keep" both retain the article contents and edit history. "Delete" removes the article and talk page history from Wikipedia. That is why I chose that way to break things up. Springee ( talk) 21:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn -uninvolved- Just looking at the numbers should have resulted in a non-consensus which should have been a keep. There is no BLP issue, the subject is in the news and the sources are well sourced and RS, not tabloids. It's also not a BLP1E because this is indeed it is getting far and extensive coverage and the fact that it had gag orders, worldwide news, etc. Further, I just want to echo many of Springee's points above, there is a current ANI discussion about one of the editors who took part in the AFD, and further to that, the numbers of the editors, while, yes, we don't vote, but to delete with the numbers of people opining was not correct or based in sound policy and should be overturned. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn on two grounds: (1) the closer is wrong that the arguments on the delete side were stronger, and (2) due to behavior issues by a participant and edit warring, the AfD should be considered a "mistrial." (1) Counting the !votes, the nominator, disregarding the sock and the SPA, and counting the "or merge" !votes with their primary preference, I count 21 for keep, 2 for merge, and 20 for delete. The vast majority of the keep !votes say specifically that it is notable. Obviously, this should be taken as them saying that it meets WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. These are not irrelevant at all. On the delete side, we have a fair number of weak arguments. One said it was POV, one called it tabloid nonsense. Some stated that being an ongoing or single event was a problem, but that is not necessarily so. Some invoked WP:BLP1E, but this has to do with whether a person is notable aside from an event; for the event itself, WP:NEVENT is what we go by. WP:NOTNEWS is also being misused. That is from the page "What Wikipedia is not"; the point there is that "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia", we do not engage in original reporting, and we do not note every detail. In other words, we are not a news service. But at the top it does say, "Editors are encouraged...to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." NOTNEWS does not mean we do not cover any recent or current events. The relevant notability criteria are GNG and NEVENT, and far more keep comments than delete ones engaged with that. (2) As I referred to above, at ANI, and especially beginning here, there is a very relevant discussion going on involving an editor who !voted and who commented heavily in this AfD. The accusations involve bullying and driving away other editors from this topic area. The outcome could easily have been affected by this. 18 editors wish to see that editor's topic ban reinstated; if that editor had not participated, the outcome, again, could have been different. What is more, there was significant edit warring going on during the AfD, and some participants may have seen an unnecessarily expunged article missing important RS. With these factors, it seems the AfD did not take place fairly. Because of both the existing AfD arguments mentioned earlier and the irregularities in the process, this deletion should be overturned. I did !vote in the AfD, but did not comment otherwise, nor was I involved in the article itself or its talk page. -Crossroads- ( talk) 02:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn uninvolved. Clear no consensus for deletion. Frankly that looks like a supervote. Mr Ernie ( talk) 03:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment (involved) - Most overturns invoke vote counts but this is !vote. I maintain NOTNEWS and NEVENT apply and the deletion was correct. I fear this is more about the users involved (Fae, Rhinocera) than the article itself. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - One person shouldn’t have deleted a whole article completely when there was such a high amount of evenly split !votes. Looks like a no consensus/keep according to me.— N Ø 08:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment This is going to be a difficult DRV to close since the AfD was well-attended and there's already a number of !voters here who were involved. I won't be !voting here since I voted delete in the AfD, but there are some odd procedural concerns I want to point out to the closer: we just closed a DRV on the person's former name here, and there have been several attempts to create an article about the individual involved in the past. I actually think the best course of action here is what S Marshall ( talk · contribs) suggested at the original DRV, which is to cover this as neutrally as possible in Transgender rights in Canada (but without any redirects in terms of name) as the event itself is notable enough to cover based on the international press. As I believe I noted in my !vote, the article here has been more about the person involved with the case than the actual case, and as the article itself noted, commentators believe it is unlikely to set wide precedent since it's so unusual. Based on that, I don't think the close was procedurally incorrect, and there's other better places for this information to exist. SportingFlyer T· C 08:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• I'd also like to add that in a close review of the AfD, the Keep !voters arguments can be concisely summarised as "this event received enough coverage to be notable," and the delete !voters arguments can be concisely summarised as "this fails WP:NOT." As a result, whoever closes this now a bit off the rails DRV needs to look at the arguments here which look specifically at whether the closer's arguments WP:NOT were satisfied as a justifiable conclusion. SportingFlyer T· C 22:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closer: There's one thing that I forgot to include in my close rationale: WP:NOTAVOTE. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I participated in the AfD so I think it's customary that I don't vote in this deletion review, but I have to say - I would have posted this on DRV if someone else didn't get to it first. This was clearly an AfD that favored Keep (or, at the very least, no consensus) , but it was summarily closed without explaining why in any detail. The article is actually quite good and well supported by citations from The Economist, Canadian Broadcasting Company, PinkNews and more over the last year. The closing admin also failed to consider that the article was nominated for deletion only 30 minutes after it was created. The closure was clearly a super vote. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  To be honest, I doubt the fact that it was nominated for deletion 30 minutes after creation mattered at the closing phase, since much of the discussion took place after the article was improved. But yes, I'd agree that it looked like a weak "keep" or "no consensus". But it's the classic problem: if you think the article should be deleted, "no consensus" is not enough because it defaults to status quo which is that the article stays. -- Pudeo ( talk) 16:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I think the fact that it was nominated for deletion only 30 minutes after it was created matters because many of the initial Delete votes were cast when the article was nothing more than a stub. This means that early Delete votes should carry much less weight than they ordinarily would because the article barely existed at the time they voted. By the end of the AfD, the article was well-supported with citations from many reputable publications like The Economist. It's a notable court case. The situation drew a lot of controversy because the plaintiff is controversial in their own right, but the fact remains that the article is well-supported. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 00:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: That the article was taken to AfD within 30 minutes did not at all figure in my close because it is absolutely irrelevant. The state an article is in is not important for an AfD, AfD is not for cleanup. The question at an AfD is not "is this a good enough article" but "should this subject be included in the encyclopedia". As such, a one-line unsourced stub might well get a "keep" at AfD, if sufficient sources exist and there is enough of encyclopedic interest to be said (whether that is in the article or not). Also, you keep repeating like a mantra that NOTNEWS was debunked in the AfD. I obviously disagree, which is why I cited it in the close. Just repeating it over and over doesn't make it so. And no, this was not an "AfD that favored Keep (or, at the very least, no consensus)", otherwise I would have closed it in that sense: numerically there was no clear majority for any solution, but (for the umpteenth time) AfD is NOTAVOTE, it's the arguments that count.

I don't intend to make more comments about this matter here (but then, I usually don't make any comments at all during a DRV and see what happened here), I feel that my close was clear enough. -- Randykitty ( talk) 21:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't think that reflects the reality of AfD, though. We both know that many AfD participants will quickly skim an article and make a decision based on that. Not everyone is going to put in the diligence to completely research a topic before they vote. I have no doubt that if the article was listed in its final state, it would have garnered many more Keep votes. It's clear that the start of the AfD was Delete-heavy and then moved to Keep-heavy about midway through. That's because the article improved immensely in the span of those few days. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 21:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC) And yes, I know you cited NOTNEWS in the close, but I would expect a better justification than just linking to the policy - especially when your close runs against the result of the discussion. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 21:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn(Restore) -- Sharouser ( talk) 15:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I'm seeing a lot of headcounts here, but this seems like a good example of why consensus != numbers. Especially problematic considering this AfD saw off-wiki canvassing. The disruption caused by some of the participants may take up space, but doesn't obscure the central arguments, already summarized by RK, et al. (Since others seem to be doing this, FYI I supported deletion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The votes were evenly split, the reasons for deletion are debatable, the article itself was valuable, with unbiased information about a significant case from reputable sources such as the Economist and Canadian Broadcasting Company.-- Chocobisc ( talk) 16:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC) — Chocobisc ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

A newly registered user's first edit is a DR? User:Chocobisc's typing skills are also that of an experienced editior. I'm calling out Chocobisc as a SOCK, but I don't know who. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not a sock, I've been watching this article because of the marked for deletion notice on it. I signed up because I wanted to add to it or at least contribute on the talk, I was observing and learning the way things work. The article was deleted before I felt confident in how to contribute. I understand my vote probably counts for less because I'm new though. Chocobisc ( talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Probably this case. Sockpuppetry does their cause no favors. -Crossroads- ( talk) 18:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hurting this cause is the last thing I want to do, I'm sorry. I don't want to derail this any further, please do an investigation if needed. I live in South Australia though, not Germany, and my IP should show this. Chocobisc ( talk) 18:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. There is no evident consensus in the discussion, and the overwhelming majority of the !votes on both sides are policy- and guideline-based. However, BLP1E's primary purpose is to distinguish between situations when an article should be written about an individual and when coverage should be to an article about the event from which their possibile notability arises; it has its weakest, if any, force in assessing whether an event receiving extensive RS coverage merits an article. Similarly, BLP concerns are weaker when an individual purposefully injects themself into a central role in a public controversy where negative responses are both foreseeable and inevitable. Therefore, the article on the case should be undeleted, with the individual name article be retained only as a redirect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 17:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

where negative responses are both foreseeable and inevitable: This sort of sounds like carving out BLP exceptions for people who are "askin for it", which is definitely not a policy and probably shouldn't be. BLP applies to content about living people, particularly when a person is not widely known, and when the material in question is potentially harmful. Nblund ^talk 18:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Perhaps some sort of mention in the BCHRT article? He's basically playing them like a harmonica. Half Shadow 18:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ HalfShadow: Who is? The article creator? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ EvergreenFir: Yaniv. He's basically turned it into an extortion racket - anyone says or does something he dislikes, he screams "Transphobic! Human rights violation!" and rushes to set up a complaint. He's gaming the system. Half Shadow 19:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ HalfShadow: Per MOS:GENDERID and WP:GENDERID, the pronoun is "she". Regardless of your personal beliefs, please do not misgender people on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn This clearly passes WP:GNG. The arguments in the AfD against this do not hold water.-- Mister Stan ( talk) 20:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC) — Mister Stan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. However,Mister Stan has been an editor since 2010. reply
• Comment - A quick google for '"jessica yaniv" wikipedia' shows the off-wiki canvassing has commenced for this DRV, too, now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • "Off Wiki Canvassing" as you characterize it, can also serve to alert people who are active and semi-active Wikipedia editors (like myself) of issues that are significant. After reading the original AFD discussion and this Deletion Review, I don't have enough information yet to make a definitive comment here, but second hand (on Wikipedia) information does make the AFD close sound questionable. (It does seem bizarre that there are no copies of deleted articles restored somewhere for people to look at in the event of a deletion review.) Unless you are seeing evidence of obvious sock puppetry, I would suggest—as the banner on the top of this discussion urges—to assume good faith. Carl Henderson ( talk) 21:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Carl Henderson: WP:APPNOTE lays out the appropriate ways to notify editors of a discussion. Notifying people off wiki (particularly in the forums and formats I'm seeing) is not one of them. Your good intentions don't change the fact that you are coming to this discussion because of inappropriate canvassing efforts. Nblund ^talk 22:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Nblund: Wikipedia does not operated in a cultural vacuum; when Wikipedia deletes an article about a controversial case it often becomes a newsworthy item in and of itself. It is not necessarily canvassing for people to report on or comment on such issues. I found out about this issue via Instapundit, a very old blog (now a group blog) with a conservative to libertarian slant that functions as both as a new aggregator and a point-of-view comment platform for the bloggers. Where I learned about the issue should not serve to discount any well reasoned (I hope) comment I make on the issue. Carl Henderson ( talk) 23:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

This is a disappointing response. So this post, presumably.... The problem for us isn't that people write about Wikipedia. The problem for us is the extent to which normal consensus-building !votes are affected by off-wiki canvassing to people likely to !vote a particular way. We can't stop (and shouldn't stop) people from writing about Wikipedia, but if a large group of Wikipedians can be mobilized based solely on ideology by off-wiki sites, that's problematic for our model of decision-making/conflict resolution, and why closing admins need to take it into account. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The AfD was linked off-wiki but that happened in (give or take) the last 24 hours or so of the deletion discussion. There were many reasoned Keep votes beforehand and even after. If there are random IP editors showing up after it was linked, then perhaps that's a consideration but a link off-wiki is not a reason to discard the many Keep votes and arguments set forth by plenty of established editors. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 01:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse An article passing WP:GNG does absolutely not indicate that it passes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E; WP:GNG itself includes a statement that makes clear that WP:GNG is no reason to keep an article that does not pass WP:NOT. The comments by the "keep" side apply the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia incorrectly by ignoring WP:NOT and focusing on WP:GNG and have been appropiately given little weight. Lurking shadow ( talk) 20:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The discussions attracted heavy external attention (putting the numerical totals in doubt); more generally, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP together are a strong argument for deletion and one that requires serious arguments in response - this article essentially threw a spotlight on a non-notable individual based on a single news cycle worth of coverage for a relatively low-profile event. Simply passing WP:GNG or having coverage (arguments which the vast majority of the keep !votes relied on) is insufficient per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and almost none of the keep !votes even attempted to address the obvious WP:BLP issues. Deletion discussions are not a vote; especially in a situation like this, where there has been substantial external lobbying, it's important to look at the relative strength of the arguments being made. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Nitpick: Maybe you didn't mean it literally, but "a single news cycle" doesn't seem accurate. According to a comment from XavierItzm above, the article had sources going back to August 2018. Colin M ( talk) 15:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• The full citations for the August 2018 and October 2018 coverage in magazines and newspapers across the Atlantic are included in the AfD. Unlike many other refs which were contested and deleted from the article (some for good reason!), these 2018 refs were never challenged and remained with the article all the way to its erasure. XavierItzm ( talk) 05:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: we have policies and this was a clear WP:NOCONSENSUS keep. Lightburst ( talk) 21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • WP:GNG is a guideline that does have no effect on an article meeting WP:NOT. WP:NHC says that arguments that contradict policies or are common fallacies are discounted. Comments that answer with "Is notable" to the assertion "Doesn't pass WP:NOT" contradict WP:GNG because that guideline clarifies that it is not sufficient for a topic to meet its requirements to deserve an article if WP:NOT is being violated. Lurking shadow ( talk) 22:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Lurking shadow It is very clear from this deletion review, and from the 54 editors participating in the AfD that you are reiterating the minority position that did not have support from the majority of editors here or in the AfD. I of course disagree. In any event it WP:NOT is a guideline. Lightburst ( talk) 22:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Lightburst:Please click WP:GNG. You see that it is named a guideline. Now check WP:NOT. You'll see that it is a policy. Lurking shadow ( talk) 22:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

a policy that the majority of editors believe does not apply here. Wikipedia is full of contradictory policies. And policies which require reasonable editors to interpret. The majority interpret differently that you on this AfD. Here is guideline for you. WP:GEOSCOPE We disagree maybe we can leave it there. Lightburst ( talk) 23:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. That was a proper justification by the closer because the page is indeed an obvious example of NOTNEWS. That was clearly a kind of content that appears in newspapers, but not an encyclopedic content. Are we going to record here every incident that was published in several newspapers, regardless to enduring notability? I hope not. That is the essence of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Yes, sure, a closer should exercise judgement in such cases, and that was good judgement. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

FYI, the above user !voted Delete in the AfD. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 13:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Cosmic Sans: How is that any more relevant than when the AFD "keep" !voters do the same? Of the first seven "overturn" comments above, five (including the sock) are from people who already !voted keep in the AFD, and you didn't write such comments under any of them. You don't seem to have done that anywhere under the "keep -> overturn" !votes, but you've done it twice for the other way (the above, and the Here come the parade of delete !voters comment). Honestly, I find it interesting that when an AFD is justifiedly closed as "keep" and then a delete !voter tendentiously opens a DRV, chances are a lot higher that at least one of the "delete" !voters will switch over and endorse the close as within policy than the same thing happening in the opposite (this) scenario; on top of that, in this particular case, it seems the majority of the "overturns" are from those who !voted "keep" in the AFD, while those of the ten "endorses" (including my own) six are from previously uninvolved editors and four are from "delete" !voters (with you underlining that fact in the case of two of them). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Hijiri 88: I'm pointing it out because the editor did not disclose it. I'm not saying that AfD participants shouldn't participate here, but that it should be disclosed. We aren't here to re-do the AfD. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 13:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Cosmic Sans: Yes, and I'm pointing out that you do so for those on one side but not the other. Why is it apparently only a requirement, in your view, for those who !voted "delete" to disclose that fact here? (And for what it's worth, your own disclosure only consisted of saying you had "participated" in the AfD.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 17:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Hijiri88:: WP:AGF please. I'm not going through the list and calling everyone out. It just so happened that I recognized a couple names who !voted in this discussion and who participated in the AfD but did not disclose that fact here. As for me, I did not !vote in this Deletion Review, but I nevertheless disclosed that I participated anyway. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 17:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You recognized almost all the delete !voters who happened to endorse the close, but none of the keep !voters who favour overturning it. There's AFD and there's refusing to call a spade a spade. As for you, I don't really care, but you can't pretend your main purpose here isn't to overturn the original close. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 20:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Cosmic Sans: You've made ~28 comments on this deletion review today in the last two days. This is getting a bit close to WP:BLUDGEON - perhaps you should back away and do something else on Wikipedia for a few hours. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Simonm223: Untrue. I have made five comments on this DRV today, not 28, and most of them were because I was pinged in a reply. In fact, I think only one was added that was not in response to a ping, although I didn't count. I'm honestly very confused as to why you posted this. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 18:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)I was counting within a 24 hour period, not within a calendar day. You know, since we're probably in different timezones and so the actual start and finish of the day in our time zones is relative. And regardless, the point remains that you've been doing almost nothing but commenting here since this deletion review started. I'd suggest you need to step back. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Simonm223: - At least you corrected your count - you were only off by a factor of two. But your math is still flawed as you appear to be counting every single edit I've made - as you can tell from the revision history, I have many minor edits where I'm correcting my indentation as I often screw that up. The vast majority of my comments on here have been answering replies that other people have left for me. I see no problem with that. Thank you for your suggestion, though. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

What's more striking is that you appear to have about as many edits to projectspace pages about this article than you have ever made to articlespace in 4.5 years of editing. That's a rare statistic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Rhododendrites: - does this have some kind of relevance to this DRV? Cosmic Sans ( talk) 01:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Only as a follow-up to Simonm's observation. I tend to be more wary of [a high degree of focused activity that could be construed as] bludgeoning from users that seem particularly interested in a single purpose/topic/outcome than I am of users who engage with Wikipedia policy (and Wikipedia) more broadly. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Uh huh. Since this has nothing to do with the DRV, I am going to stop taking the bait. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 01:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and re-close as no consensus. The discussion had a very high level of participation with solid WP:PAG based arguments on both sides. There is no way a consensus exists for either deletion or keep. I am generally a fan of RK and appreciate admins who are willing to take on lengthy and often complicated discussions in need of closing. But I have to disagree strongly, though respectfully, with this close. [Full disclosure: I did not participate in the AfD. However if I had, I'd have called this a weak delete based on NOTNEWS and the likely minimal long term significance of the subject as well as the WP:10YT. But all of that is immaterial. There were very credible PAG arguments on both sides in roughly close proportion to one another.] - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I found a copy of the "Jessica Yaniv waxing case" article on a site that mirrors Wikipedia dated 08/09/2019, and have reviewed it. Based on my review and the conversation on Wiki, I believe the decision to close the AFD with a "Delete" was in error and should be reversed. The deleted article is well-sourced, and clearly covered newsworthy events. The article about the cases that Yaniv brought; not Yaniv herself, and seems scrupulously neutral in its characterizations of her. Thus I don't see WP:BLP or WP:GNG as applying. The "International Attention" and "Commentary" sections serve to establish that this case is having a demonstrable impact on the discussion of Trans-related issues both inside and outside of Canada so any application of WP:EVENT or WP:NOT in my opinion is dubious. Further complicating the issue of WP:NOT is that Yaniv just made the news again—as the AFD was being discussed—after being arrested for brandishing a stun gun on a streamed debate (about her Human Rights Commission complaints) with YouTuber and conservative trans activist, Blaire White [48]. Carl Henderson ( talk) 23:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment It would be nice if people making vague appeals to WP:BLP (including the WP:BLP1E portion) and WP:NOT (including the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE portions) could explain specifically what statements apply to the article such that those should override the WP:GNG. Otherwise, such a statement is entirely subjective, could be applied to literally any article, and seems to mean nothing other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, the possibility of off-wiki canvassing cuts both ways. -Crossroads- ( talk) 01:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

This has been a persistent problem on the BCHRT article as well as the associated WP:BLP/N entry for the Yaniv section of the BCHRT article. It has been reviewed many times, I don't even know how many times, by admins for BLP violations and there are none. It survived an arduous slog on BLP/N. We've tread that ground over and over again but nobody can actually articulate exactly what the problem is. Summarily dropping a link to a policy is not sufficient, especially when a majority of editors favor Keep and disagree with that interpretation. This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT wearing a BLP/NOTNEWS hat. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 01:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• No, it is exactly the opposite - per policy. According to Wikipedia:Notability (in a nutshell), "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia". Therefore, everything WP:NOT does not belong to WP, no matter how notable (like the page/subject under discussion). WP:NOT overrides the WP:GNG. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• This is an example of the problem I referenced in my last comment. Is there a word for citing inapplicable policy without detail, as if that was enough? Maybe we should call it "Drive-by policy citation." Anyway, that's precisely what most of the Delete !votes did, and precisely what's going on now. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. This is not "routine news reporting" of a court case. BCHRT cases are rarely discussed in the news even within Canada, but this case has international reach. Over the last year, it's been covered by international publications like The Economist (UK), The Australian, The Glasgow Herald, and US publications as well. This is far from routine and as far as anyone can tell, only one other case in BCHRT history has ever generated even close to this much international attention. The case has been considered in legal policy debates in Australia and Scotland. It continues to generate new reliable sources by the day. This is far from your routine BCHRT coverage. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 13:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC) This, by the way, is why I invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For example, on the BCHRT Talk page, I asked any user claiming a BLP problem to actually cite the portion of the BLP policy that's at issue. Nobody could. So I assume that BLP/NOTNEWS is being used as a more palatable argument than just IDONTLIKEIT. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 13:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You say this is something of a long-lasting significance. I do not know. After reading the WP page under AfD, there was a clear impression that the subject has no long-lasting importance and just a minor incident reported in press. Hence the votes to delete and closing. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

My point is that no cogent policy rationale has been set forth to support this deletion. The idea that NOTNEWS applies has been thoroughly debunked on this page and, it seems, nobody is even attempting to refute that. To make matters worse, the closing admin summarily deleted the article with only the most minimal of explanations despite the fact that the discussion favored Keep or at least no consensus. Now, if people want to claim that it was only a "minor incident", all I can do is point to the plethora of international discussion to prove that wrong. BCHRT cases do not get this kind of coverage. This case, though, was cited in legal policy discussions in Australia and Scotland. It was covered all around the world. Pretty far from a minor incident. But that's really beside the point, because I'm not seeing a clear policy rationale for deletion. It seems to be more or less that people don't like the article, probably because the subject is a drama magnet. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 14:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Crossroads1: I disagree that this event meets the requirements of WP:GNG, but even if it did, this is a necessary, but not sufficient justification for creating a standalone article. @ Cosmic Sans: the justification has been explained, even if you disagree with it. To reiterate: WP:BLP, in essence, just says that BLP content must strictly adhere to core policies. The sourcing here is so weak and non-neutral that we can't write an article that conforms to those requirements. Nblund ^talk 14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I'll have to disagree with you about the courses (I don't consider The Economist, The Canadian Broadcasting Company, and The Australian to be "weak and non-neutral"), but the point is that the discussion favored Keep or No Consensus. Nevertheless, the closing admin decided to override that with a one-line summary devoid of any real rationale. I think that if an admin wants to override the result of the discussion, they should set forth a very good and detailed reason. Instead, we got a closing rationale that looks like a supervote and was, in fact, less detailed than some of the delete !votes. The closing admin has made it clear on their talk page that they will refuse to provide more rationale than was used in the close. Even if you want this article deleted, surely you can appreciate the problem with an admin swooping into a discussion and closing it the way they'd like to see it closed without providing a detailed rationale for that. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 15:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I would expect that there would be a more thorough close statement if an admin wants to close an AfD as delete even though a majority of editors wanted the article Kept. That's only compounded when you consider that the article was nominated for deletion within only 30 minutes after being created, so many of the Delete !votes only saw the article when it was in a stub state. Those votes should be given less weight, or perhaps not considered at all. (I'm willing to bet that many good articles on Wikipedia would catch !delete votes if they were judged only by their state of affairs 30 minutes in.) Specifically, I'd want a more detailed application of NOTNEWS. As explained in this discussion, none of the NOTNEWS criteria actually apply. There's no way this could be argued as "routine coverage" of a BCHRT case when it appears that this is only the second time in history that a case has received substantial coverage in outlets outside of Canada as well as factored into legal policy discussions in Australia and Scotland. Summarily closing the AfD against the wishes of the majority of the editors without a detailed and well-justified reason seems inappropriate, and should be grounds for this AfD to be reclosed as No Consensus. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 17:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and close. Per application of IAR, I believe it would not be productive to have this BLP drama-magnet on the wiki, regardless of whether the coverage meets our criteria. While it might be possible to write an article that isn't WP:NOT, I think it would be much easier to postpone such efforts to after we export all the drama to the dramaboards. Restoring a non-violating revision under an appropriate level of protection would probably be acceptable. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 02:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  Hear, hear!. !voted in AfD. This probably will merit an article down the road - at the moment it is below the belt in Signal-to-noise ratio, multiple BLP concerns, and drama over multiple Wikipedia boards. There's very little that passes the 10-year test at the moment. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. At best this was a no consensus. The delete votes did not adequately refute the importance of the tribunal as a test case (as described by various international news sources). Polequant ( talk) 08:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - this should have been a "no consensus" at best. Kelly ^hi! 13:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Question/Comment for DRV closer: How "not a vote" is this particular "not a vote"? If the numbers matter at all here, then I think it's appropriate to notify the other AFD participants at the very least. Nblund ^talk 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I would caution against this discussion becoming AfD Round 2. The question here is whether the AfD was properly closed and whether it should be overturned or endorsed. The opinions of those who were not involved in the underlying AfD are quite honestly more valuable than the people who were involved, you and I included. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 14:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I would caution against that as well, but considering the number of participants who are reiterating arguments from the AFD it looks like "selective AFD round 2 + some additional off-wiki canvassing". This DRV shows up all over reddit, but it hasn't been publicized at any of the relevant noticeboards where it might actually draw in a (non-selective) group of uninvolved editors. Nblund ^talk 14:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the Keep comments in that AfD are largely some variation on "the subject passes the GNG", followed by links to sources and arguments about the reliability of particular sources. None of that addresses the central argument for deletion, which is that the subject's notability derives from short term media coverage, i.e. WP:BLP1e / WP:NOTNEWS. Those policies deal with cases where subjects get substantial coverage in reliable sources, sometimes a lot of coverage, but are nevertheless not suitable topics for articles. Pointing to recent news coverage does nothing to counter those arguments. A few Keep comments do discuss these arguments but not in much detail and mostly by bald assertions, so I don't think they are enough to make it a no consensus closure. Hut 8.5 14:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:BLP1e applies to articles about people, not about events (or tribunal cases). I can see a BLP case for eliminating info irrelevant to the bikini-wax case and unnec. info about Yaniv - but I don't see how this can be dismissed as routine news. A number of women in a major liberal Western country, have been taken to a court-like tribunal (under threat of financial penalty) for refusing to even countenance handling male genitalia as part of a service they normally only offer in one-on-one, non-medical situations in their own or in the client's home, to biologically female people. They lack the skill, training or willingness to provide the service asked for. This situation has come about because of laws supposedly ensuring dignity and equality of treatment to both sexes and all gender identities. How can that not be extraordinary? How frequently are women threatened with fines for not wishing to handle someone's gentitalia? Yaniv is almost certainly going to 'lose' the tribunal case of course, and whatever ruling is given will serve as a 'interpretative qualifier' of the bare regulations - but, even so, the significance is established already. Pincrete ( talk) 16:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

But it can still be WP:BLP1E even if it isn't named after a person. You can summarize the event itself in 2 to 3 sentences. Even assuming that there will be a ruling is presumptive: three of Yaniv's complaints were simply withdrawn without a ruling. Nblund ^talk 18:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

We're not interested in how "extraordinary" the situation is. What we care about here is whether the subject has enduring notability or not. Will people still be writing about it in a few years time? If not then we shouldn't have an article on it. There are several different policies and guidelines which say versions of that for different topic areas, but that's the main issue. This is obviously a hot-button topic which has provoked a lot of heated commentary because it involves gender issues people have strong opinions on, but that doesn't mean in itself that the subject will get lasting coverage. News stories usually have a very short shelf life and the subject may well fade into obscurity as soon as the news cycle moves on. It might get lasting coverage if it gets cited as a landmark case or as precedent, but I don't see much of an attempt to establish this (e.g. by comparing it to similar cases which happened long enough ago that we can see whether they got lasting coverage). Hut 8.5 17:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

It is already being quoted in relation to discussions about similar laws in Scotland and Australia - that's significant already. It already has many months (12?) of reasonably informed, high quality coverage. Very possibly this case will only serve as a cautionary tale about excessively ambiguous wording in such legislation, but the case is as yet unsesolved so it's significance is still unclear. The case is already being cited by a wide spectrum of 'biases', including 'feminist-y' opinion pieces claiming a total disregard for non-trans-women as well as by anti-trans activitists and a few people saying the case detracts from the real issues. I hesitated about voting on the AfD because the one issue on which I was uncertain was whether long term notability was yet established, finally I decided that it was, and that given the 'extraordinary' situation of a court potentially punishing a number of women for being unprepared to handle the male genitalia of a complete stranger, effectively because that stranger had recently declared themself to be a woman - it would be unlikely to be forgotten anytime soon. Pincrete ( talk) 18:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

This is WP:CRYSTAL right here. You are assuming, based on speculation about the shape of the subject's privates, that there will be a lasting impact when none is yet demonstrated. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn -uninvolved, who meant to ivote but didn't have time - Just looking at the numbers should have resulted in a non-consensus which would have been a keep. There are some potential BLP considerations (naming Yaniv? Accusations of inapt online conversations with underage girls. Mentioning previous attempts at suing 'waxers'?) - but these are all solvable by sticking to necessary info about this case. IMO Yaniv will almost certainly 'lose' the case, but it has already acquired notoriety and will serve as a cautionary tale about well-intentioned, but carelessly framed legislation. Pincrete ( talk) 17:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per the endorsements given above. (I !voted to delete in the original AfD.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Overturn The keep side made far better policy-based arguments and they had a mountain of articles from newspapers of record backing the claim to notability. They also formed a majority of those who voted, which makes the outcome even more unusual. Patiodweller ( talk) 18:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Involved editor Canvassing off-wiki is definitely a problem here considering the multitudinous far-right blogs currently claiming that we are trying to make Yaniv "disappear from Wikipedia"; and canvassing was definitely a problem during the AfD. However AfD isn't a vote count, and the closing statement was consistent with everything that led up to the AfD. Including the fact that the article was created by a user who was subsequently blocked as a sock puppet of a Wikipedian who was indeffed for making transphobic statements. And hello, look at this, people are misgendering Yaniv in this deletion review too. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with this. As you say, the closing statement was consistent with everything that led up to the AfD, which is what a DRV is supposed to evaluate (rather than being a rehash of the AfD). It was a tough close, but a fair one. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Sigh - Here come the parade of delete !voters to Endorse the closing of this AfD without actually commenting on the propriety of the closure. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 18:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• To be fair, there's also a parade of keep !voters or off-wiki !voters trying to overturn it. This is an exceptionally rare DRV. SportingFlyer T· C 20:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying they shouldn't participate, but WP:DRV states that "Deletion Review should not be used... to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion." It's not a re-do of the AfD. The question is whether the deletion closure was appropriate as handed down. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 20:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, the specific question we're looking at is, was the delete !vote reasonable? There have been a number of overturns which are keeps and a number of endorses which are delete voters at AfD, but this is turning into AfD part two, which isn't acceptable. It's going to be a very difficult DRV to close, because there are a lot of new voters to DRV here who may have been canvassed from off-wiki. SportingFlyer T· C 20:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I agree that it will be hard to close. I hope that this DRV, however it turns out, is closed with a little more explanation than the underlying AfD. I, for one, put in a lot of work into this article (as many others did) and to have it deleted despite a Keep/NC result based on a conclusory statement was a little disheartening to say the least. Especially when the WP:NOTNEWS argument was so easily deconstructed, as XavierItzm did in his 8/12/19 edit which is at the top of the page. It just smacks of a supervote rather than a good reason for deletion. I think out of respect to the editors who wrote the article, if the discussion favors Keep or NC then there really ought to be a very good rationale presented to delete it. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 20:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Article is notable, and it's obvious that there is no consensus to delete. Then again, LOBU also had no consensus to delete and it still got deleted, so I guess consensus really doesn't matter. Just my two cents. I feel like the deletion rationale was basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Rockstone talk to me! 20:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AFD is consensus based, not numbers based. The closer did the right thing in weighing the arguments, not the numbers. To those trying to re-argue the AFD, DRV is to examine the closer's action, not rehash the debate. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Who here is saying that keep side wins by vote count? A few of us tallied up the !votes; this was to show that it really should be a no consensus, since both sides had strong and weak arguments, and saying that delete's arguments are stronger is subjective and questionable (as is, arguably, the reverse). -Crossroads- ( talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse We can't run an encyclopedia where decisions are supposed to be made by discussion and consensus, and then every time a discussion happens in which half the editors !vote one way and half the other, but the former don't have a decent policy-based rationale, and then the closer closes in favour of the latter, members of the former en masse complain that since the !vote was 50-50 (more or less) then weight of arguments doesn't matter. Either those arguing to overturn have not read or understood WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, or they understand that they are (clearly) wrong now but were themselves "keep" !voters guilty of non-policy-based !voting and so have a vested interest in not having the consensus statement be that they were wrong. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Your argument fails because both sides had policy based arguments. One side may have been stronger but since the closing editor didn't elaborate as to why they felt one was stronger than the other the process was undermined. Esentially your argument is "the closing process doesn't matter so long as you are happy with the results". Springee ( talk) 00:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

As I've noted above, one side's policy arguments were "it passes WP:GNG," the other side's arguments were "it fails WP:NOT." These two arguments directly conflict - this isn't your run of the mill DRV where the sourcing is absolutely borderline and there's no consensus on whether WP:GNG is met, so the closer has to weigh the WP:NOT arguments. SportingFlyer T· C 00:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

That is certainly your opinion. Others in the discussion offered reasons why that view was wrong. However, for the closing editor to fulfill their obligations to the process they are required to properly explain their reasoning and explain why it shouldn't be seen as no-consensus. They have offered no more explanation than you. You aren't obligated to. As the closing editor RK is and if they can't then the discussion should be reopened and closed by an editor who can. Per WP:NHC the closing editor If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. Certainly RK did not follow that last bit. Springee ( talk) 00:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

This is no different than virtually every DRV I've been involved in: disruptive "keepist" editors and random people who just happened to think the article should be kept claim that because there was theoretically room for a cowardly "The votes are split -- no consensus" close that is always what should be done. This happens all the time -- honestly I wouldn't be surprised if most AFDs that turn out this way come to DRV -- and it's really disruptive. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Hijiri88: - There is nothing disruptive about this DRV. It was clearly a NC or Keep result. If the closing admin wants to override that, I would expect a more reasoned closure than simply a citation to policies that arguably do not apply. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 14:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

It is disruptive to claim that every time an admin closes against one "side" despite most or even just half of the "votes" being on that side their close must be undone. This is disruptive here, it was disruptive when it happened two days later here, and it was disruptive back in May when it happened here and here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 17:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Hijiri88: - I never claimed that. My point is this, as I stated in another comment: "In a highly-contested AfD that numerically favored Keep and had WP:PAG-based arguments on both sides of the aisle, a Delete closure should be well-supported by policy and well-reasoned. Simply citing to policy in a one-sentence closure without actually discussing those policies or providing rationale is not appropriate under these circumstances. You might expect that out of an anemic Delete !vote but not a closure. Nobody has a problem with an AfD being decided on policy, but a supervote closure is not that." And whatever objections you have to past deletion review entries are really not relevant here. I did not participate in them and I have no idea what they're about. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 17:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I never said you claimed it; you just jumped on my comment and assumed that you were the target, when I honestly have no idea who you are. Doing this to everyone, as you apparently have been, is the definition of WP:BLUDGEON. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 20:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Hijiri88: - Given that you were replying to my comment, I thought it was a fair assumption that you were talking to me. If you meant to respond to someone else, you should fix that. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 00:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment as if this thread needs another one... As others have said this shouldn't be AfD pt2, rather it asks if the closing of the AfD was conducted correctly. The closing editor's job is to assess consensus and decide Keep, Delete or no consensus. If they feel the quality of the arguments were heavily in favor of one side or the other then the editor must explain their reasoning so others can review it. If the quality of the arguments are roughly on balance then either no consensus or perhaps weight of numbers should decide. In this case I think all agree that weight of numbers was a no-consensus. Randykitty's ultimate conclusion might be right based on the arguments but the offered explanation was inadequate to allow others to understand why. Randykitty cited policies by name but failed to provide any meaningful detail. This is critically important in a case where policy based arguments were offered by both sides and Randykitty didn't say either side was wrong, only that one side was more convincing. Again, they might be right but it is the responsibility of the closing editor to provide that detail.

I find the arguments about canvasing to be ironic if we are also going to say the approximate parity in views doesn't matter (ie we didn't declare a no-consensus). Canvasing is about getting out the vote. However, if quality of argument is all that matters then why get concerned about a number of "I agree" responses. Along the same lines we shouldn't dwell on the involvement of sock editors. If the argument made by a sock is strong then someone else will endorse it. If not, well NOTAVOTE. The fact that the article was started by a sock also doesn't matter since, per EVADE, a legitimate editor can endorse the edit as if it was their own. Regardless, the problem with this closing is it was done incorrectly. Incorrect closings, even if we agree with the direction of the closing, should be a concern for all editors as they undermine our trust in the system and discourage people from putting their time into editing. I supported keep but will accept delete so long as the process is done correctly and in a way that we can all feel was fair. Springee ( talk) 00:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I'd suggest that WP:DENY should take precedence when a transphobic sock creates a WP:ATTACK page to smear a non-notable living person. And when the presence of that article leads to several Wikipedia editors speculating as to the shape of her genitals. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I do get your concerns. I believe you and I have observed this on other topics where a blocked editor added content to an article and IIRC even started an RfC. However, if editors in good standing take over the edits then DENY and/or EVADE no longer apply and the attack aspect could be/was corrected. Non-notable person is your opinion and not without merit but others disagreed and again, not without merit. per wp:EVADE, reversions of contributions of blocked editors is allowed but Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. Once editors in good standing took over and "make it their own" it's no longer a sock edit. I don't know what the article was like when created but that doesn't matter once other editors correct those issues as was the case here. Springee ( talk) 13:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Considering the circumstances, there would be effectively no way to create an article that would be at all useful to the project, demonstrate lasting significance and be compliant with WP:BLP1E - contrary to some of the assertions made, being an activist does not make one a public figure. I do a fair bit of activist stuff. I do doorknocking campaigns for issues of significance to me, write letters to politicians, call politicians, sit on citizen advisory boards, attend protests and counter-protests and write to newspapers. I am absolutely, completely, not notable. Likewise, the article subject is not notable for anything except that postmedia decided her activism was controversial enough to stir up the transphobic vote for the Conservatives ahead of the federal election in October. Once that's in the rear-view, I am pretty certain, based on my knowledge of the Canadian media landscape, she will be entirely forgotten by the press. So while I understand that you believe this page can be revived per WP:EVADE, despite its inauspicious origin as an unambiguous example of WP:ATTACK against a non-notable activist, but I am not convinced it can be while still being extant. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Your arguments around NOTE are those of the actual AfD. My comments here related to was the closing process followed properly which is the question that should be answered here. Springee ( talk) 17:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. Clearly, there was not a consensus in favor of deletion in the AfD, so I disagree with the closer's decision to close as "delete". I also disagree that the article violated WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the deletion rationale (I also commented in the AfD): isn't the reason we have policies like WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, the reason decisions are more complicated than just mechanical counting, that content is supposed to be based on policies, for consideration of things like notability beyond one event and encyclopedic relevance rather than 'newsworthiness', and not on "votes"? (Doesn't the presence of "votes" canvassed off-wiki which, as noted by others above, often didn't engage the relevant policies, highlight the reason for this especially well?) As others said above, this is just turning into AfD Pt.II, with users who wanted to keep the article favouring overturning a close that picked policies over their headcount. (For as much noise as we make around here about decisions being based on policies and not headcounts, people always dislike when it actually happens.) (I would also like to say I found it bad that at the same time as AfD was proceeding with 'merge' as one option, a separate merge discussion was proceeding on the article's talk page, which was just inviting confusion.) -sche ( talk) 17:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

In a highly-contested AfD that numerically favored Keep and had WP:PAG-based arguments on both sides of the aisle, a Delete closure should be well-supported by policy and well-reasoned. Simply citing to policy in a one-sentence closure without actually discussing those policies or providing rationale is not appropriate under these circumstances. You might expect that out of an anemic Delete !vote but not a closure. Nobody has a problem with an AfD being decided on policy, but a supervote closure is not that. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 17:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Uninvolved endorsement: while the discussion was hairy and just counting !votes might result in a close shave (sorry, couldn't resist), the closer correctly applied policy, particularly NOTNEWS. Jonathunder ( talk) 15:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The closing Admin made a reasonable assessment, and came to a reasonable conclusion and decision based on policy (including deletion policy). This decision is well within their purview and discretion as one of the duties carried out by Admins. Their explanation was sufficient and further explanation is provided in the relevant policy pages.

Also, the closing Admin provided further explanation in this discussion by pointing out WP:NOTAVOTE. Another editor noted that NOTAVOTE usefully comes into play when "delete" ivotes and "keep" ivotes are essentially evenly distributed. Just like an umpire, the Admin called it as they saw it - and that is their job. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The closing editor did not provide provide sufficient explanation of their thinking, especially given then all but ignored the views of over 20 responding editors. That is the issue here. While they pointed to policies, others have pointed to the same policies and reached different conclusions. Thus the closing editor either needs to provide additional justification so their logic can be reviewed or the closing needs to be reversed and a different editor can properly close the discussion. This isn't a question of what the "correct" answer is, this is a question of not short changing the process. Springee ( talk) 17:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Closing editors routinely close contentious AfDs with "the consensus is X" and no further explanation at all. In this case, the closing editor paid special care to describing their reasoning. I think your characterization is inaccurate. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Please cite an example where so many editors replied and both sides offered policy based arguments yet the closing editor's explanation was so limited.

User:Springee has made the same argument over and over again in this DRV. I think once or twice is sufficient for whoever closes this DRV. I never said anything about a correct answer so I don't know what that is about. Others reached a different conclusion in the AfD (the Keep ivoters) but that is not the issue. The issue is that the closing Admin did their job within their purview and discretion. Also, as I said before, further explanation is provided in the policy pages. We can pretend this is not what is indicated if someone is inclined to do so. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 17:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You say I've said it more than once. I guess that's true. However, I haven't seen anyone who says the closing was correct actually try to address the concern. You say further explanation is provided in the policy page but that is really a poor answer. When both sides cited policy it is the obligation of the closing editor to provide a proper explanation rather than something that looks like little more than a supervote. As I said, RK's thinking may be right but we can't know given the limited explanation. That's bad as it leaves those who see this as a clear, no consensus, understandably feeling that the close was based on the editor's personal opinion rather than a true read of consensus based on policy. This is why I talk about respecting the process vs just being happy with the answer. Your answer, Simon's answer and others suggest that you are happy with the outcome vs you can argue the closing was handled correctly. Springee ( talk) 17:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I think we're on the same wavelength, Springee. I can say, as someone who opposed the deletion of this article, that I could have accepted the deletion if it was done with clearer rationale. When there are policy arguments on both sides, and when the numerical tally favors Keep, I would expect the deleting admin to perform a deeper dive than just linking to policy and calling it a day. For an admin to say, essentially, "I looked at both arguments and found delete more persuasive because of (some policy)" is nothing more than a supervote. A closing admin is not an arbitrator or a supervoter. In other words, if a policy-based close is going to override what appears to be a clear example of Keep or No Consensus, that should be explained in some detail. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 18:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment (involved). Like others, I wanted to highlight the canvassing that has gone on. The conservative blog PJ Media has blogged and tweeted about this, and they have over 65,000 followers on Twitter. The anti-trans Reddit r/gendercritical, and the "Toxic Hotbed of Transphobia" Mumsnet, have also made noise about it. Some corners of the internet are very eager to get this page undeleted, in spite of the basic principle that Wikipedia is not a newspaper (let alone a tabloid newspaper.) I'll also note that, by contrast, I'm not seeing canvassing from the other side of the debate in my searches.

Anyway, I won't comment on whether the close was proper or improper, necessarily, but I will repeat a point I made during the AfD, that I think a small entry on the BC Human Rights Tribunal page about the case, instead of either a whole article or nothing at all, could be a good middle ground between the two sides. WanderingWanda ( talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• weak endorse NOTNEWS does apply and a close based on it here isn't crazy. I think NC would have been a better close, but it's within administrative discression IMO. That said, nothing in this AfD/DRV should be considered to be limiting the creation of Jessica Yaniv. It seems as if there is pleny of coverage for such a BLP. The only argument against seems to be the existance of a AfD from more than 3 years ag and under a different name. Hobit ( talk) 00:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Did not participate in the AfD. Pudeo's opening statement was excellent. There is a wide streak of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here amongst delete/endorse !voters as well. And the AfD, whether Randykitty's close was technically a supervote or not, should have been detailed in the manner of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/Things_people_say. Seth Kellerman ( talk) 05:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The close lacked the analysis or reasoning one would need to ignore such a large number of !votes and so appears to be a supervote contrary to WP:DGFA as it did not "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". For example, the arguments of the delete !voters were repeatedly rebutted. They said it was one event, but it was shown that it was multiple events. They said that it was a short burst of news, but it was shown that there was continuing coverage. It's for the !voters to assess these issues and they were clearly divided. This was not consensus; it was the exact opposite. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Dr.P.C.Thomas ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

P. C. Thomas (educator) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page was deleted for Notability, The person about whom I have written is a well notable person, he has received many awards and some of the notable awards are, LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD by the Education World Magazine 2016, DR. A.C. MUTHIAH AWARD for 2010 for “Excellence in First Generation”,PRAVASI BHARATHI (KERALA) AWARD for the best Educationist by the PravasiBharathi Committee, Kerala,RAJIV GANDHI MEMORIAL GOLD MEDAL OF MERIT, for Educational Excellence,he was also nominated by the President of India as a member of the Court of Central University of Hyderabad for a period of three years. He is Rotary International Director which is mentioned in the magazine The Rotarian issued August 2001 Page 37, so please let me know if this page could be restored. Biggreentreeus ( talk) 16:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Looking into this the actually article is P. C. Thomas (educator) which was deleted as WP:A7.-- 64.229.166.98 ( talk) 19:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• There's roughly one sentence in that article that would've been out of place on a resume. It might be dubious as an A7, but it's a slam-dunk G11. — Cryptic 19:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• The author of the article is a sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MukeshMahe. The article would not be subject to WP:CSD#G5.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Joe Loughmuller ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

In my opinion, there was a "delete" consensus here, especially with the arguments made, and the only one Keep vote is an example of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. The closer stated on his talk page that the matter should go right here as he doesn't intend to change his closure per "Unhappy with my AFD closure? Please list at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I consider all my deletion decisions carefully and do not change them based on talk page requests." The fact that the closer pulled 6 no consensus closures within just 4 minutes, doesn't give the impression that he was careful here per [49] Jovanmilic97. ( talk) 10:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and re-list. This is an inexplicable close: against the arguments, against the numbers, and with no explanation. Well, it is explicable in one disappointing sense: the administrator closed it one minute after closing another AfD: [50], [51]. In the circumstances I'm not willing to assume that the administrator had considered the matter earlier and returned to close it later. As for what we should do now, I think a re-listing would be better than trying to re-decide the matter here at DRV and stand in the shoes of a closing admin. I for one haven't done sufficient work to do so. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (delete). The sole "keep" !voter was scrounging for reasons to keep, because they wanted to "keep". He didn't find anything ... and subsequently User:Jovanmilic97 & User:Bearian did more, more thorough source searching and reading, and I am afraid that the sole keep !vote would have been obliged to change their !vote, if they had returned before the close. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• I can't find the "Unhappy with my AFD closure?" conversation. Link? -- RoySmith (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Here you go! It is a notice when you try to edit his talk page. Can only be seen in desktop mode [52]. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 11:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Yeah, that was an oops moment. Amending to delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Ed Mylett ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

ED Mylett Show is current #7 on the business podcast chart, Ed Mylett is the host of this podcast. Ed is the author of the self-help book, #Maxout your life which has a 5-star rating on AMAZON. Ed's has shared the stage as a motivational speaker with other business legends such as Tony Robbins, John Maxwell, Phil Knight, and others. Ss6694 ( talk) 16:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close and block the nominator First of all, I think you deserve to be blocked for an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE per your contributions that are centered around this AfD [53], and second, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 1 you have opened already exists and it's going the SNOW endorse route. Not sure why this second DelRev has been opened. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 16:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Electric Brain ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly — Flicky1984 ( talk) 13:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• This was a close discussion, on the heels of a previous NC debate. It deserves a more detailed closing statement than just a single word. @ Yunshui: could you give us additional insight into how you weighted the comments? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, ultimately this discussion boils down to the very simple question of whether there is sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article. The two sources which were at the forefront of the discussion were the Nintendo Life and Super Play articles, which as User:FOARP and User:David Fuchs demonstrated, do not provide the level of coverage required to establish notability. The !votes in favour of keeping the article argued primarily that the lack of sources was not an issue (or rather, was to be expected) due to the age of the publication, citing the essay WP:NMAG. However, this essay does not trump the notability policy, which requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable independent sources. The consensus, as I interpret it, is that the few sources available do not represent this level of coverage, and consequently that the article does not – in its current state – meet the requirements for inclusion.

I would prefer not to engage in further discussion of this close - that's not an attempt to be evasive, but I agree that it was a close call and so would like to see what conclusion others come to without my input. You’re right, perhaps a line or two of explanation would have been helpful. At the time I felt that the reason for deletion was fairly obvious; evidently not! Yunshui  ^雲 _水 14:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Shouldn't this be speedy closed per WP:DELREVD? The nominator has failed to "discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly", which is listed as an instruction before coming here. I expected this to happen when I saw the closure (which imo required an extra comment from Yunshui). No opinion for anything else right now. I do have to point to WP:NRV, so we cannot pretend that sources exist when "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 15:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The relevant part of WP:DELREVD says "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly", so it is not a strict requirement. If User:Flicky1984 had tried to talk this over with the closer on their talk page, I suspect User:Yunshui would simply have told them exactly what they said here anyway so it would not make much difference. As it happens I think Yunshui made the right call, sad though I am to see this article deleted, because the sourcing simply wasn't there. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and is not simply a case of vote-counting but instead weighs the quality of arguments as well. EDIT: the one use I could see for relisting this is to come up with an alternative to deletion - I did think about a redirect/merge to Onn Lee instead but he doesn't seem to be that notable. I suppose it could also be merged/redirected to the publisher, but I don't know if they are useful either. FOARP ( talk) 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Just did a strike of that part, you are correct in that regard. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 20:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs debunked the sourcing on 31 July, putting forward a compelling rebuttal of whatever limited policy-based keep rationales had remained standing to that point. Between then and the AfD's closure on 5 August there were no further keep !votes and one further delete !vote. That has to weigh on the mind of the closing admin, I would think. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - there were only 2 policy supported Keep !votes, vs 4 reasoned delete !votes (though personally I despise AfD "!votes" that make people go and hunt down what they said in the previous AfD rather than copying it). There is certainly some deletion rebuttal of the Keep viewpoints, it's not total as it's acceptable somewhat a judgement call, but it's there. Though I'm not sure I buy Mkativerata's point that a rebuttal is clearly proved by the post-activity being a single delete !vote. While a NC close wouldn't have been bonkers, I think a delete close was more reasonable. I do think that the closer Yunshui should have provided a more detailed close explanation. Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I thought I was going to be headed for a different outcome for quite a bit of that AfD but my thinking largely parallels Nosebagbear. The delete !votes explain why the keep sources don't establish notability. The keep !voters with the exception of Flicky1984 make no effort to show otherwise. Thus I think applying appropriate weight that delete is an appropriate reading of consensus. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I'm satisfied with the fact the sources being used to keep the article were shown to not sufficiently meet WP:GNG. I'm a little concerned keep voters may have been suppressed since this was a pretty fast renom after a NC close, but at the end of the day, I think WP:GNG wasn't met based on the reading of the article, and delete an acceptable result. SportingFlyer T· C 23:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist personally I feel that this should have been a 2nd NC close, just like the first AfD with the main claim being WP:NOTTEMPORARY. As User:SportingFlyer, I'm also concerned at the speed of renom and lack of further input from the nominating editor; almost a drive-by nom. The first AfD was barely 3 months ago and the large improvements and extra sourcing added to the article at that time are, IMHO, worth more than a speedy renom and delete. Finally, I feel that more time should have been given for keep voters to present themselves, contrast with the first AfD that was relisted two times after the initial nom due to NC. It's for that reason I am voting Relist and I hope others will follow suite. — Flicky1984 ( talk) 00:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Flicky1984, I've taken the liberty of striking your relist here in bold - since you nominated the article for restoration, which counts as a !vote, it gives the impression you're !voting twice. Of course, your comments clarifying you're asking for a relist are more than welcome! SportingFlyer T· C 02:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oh! I was not aware my initial review was an automatic vote for restoration. I'll leave everything how it is now. Thanks. — Flicky1984 ( talk) 12:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Sources were either unreliable or directories. This is a correct interpretation of SIGCOV. Guy ( Help!) 17:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Reclose with a better explanation or revert the close and allow someone else to do so. Terse closes like are disrespectful to the participants, and insufficient for later editors to understand why the discussion was closed that way. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

No disrespect was intended, but the need for an explanation is now very clear. I have copied my rationale over to the deletion discussion, since it is evident now that I erred in not explaining the logic behind the close. Apologies all round, especially if anyone felt I was being disrespectful. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 12:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks also form me. Whilst I still feel that more time before the close would have been beneficial, this reclose is a good resolution. Finally, I'd appreciate it if Yunshui could provide a copy of the final source for the page to me so I can keep it in my Userspace drafts until such time that more sources come to light. I only have an older copy of the source. Many thanks! — Flicky1984 ( talk) 19:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Flicky1984: Happy to do so; the most recent version prior to deletion has been restored to User:Flicky1984/Electric_Brain2. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 20:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you. — Flicky1984 ( talk) 21:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Delete was a valid reading of the consensus. (No Consensus would also have been valid.) Closer user proper judgment. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn or re-list There was not a consensus to delete in the first AfD or this one. I am not going to comment on the article, but we should follow our closing guidelines for WP:NOCONSENSUS. There was time to re-list the AfD. Lightburst ( talk) 17:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Timothy Meaher ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

False reporting of copyright violation, bad faith speedy deletion, failure to respond to talk pages, failure to respond to dispute resolution.

User:NahalAhmed reported page as copyright violation as speedy delete - reason was copyright violation. As pointed out on now deleted talk page, there was no copyright violation, the pages that were alleged to be copied seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia. Further the alledged copied page was the wikipedia template page for biographies. I did request a dispute resolution. However the user has not engaged. The article has now been deleted, and the deleting user, User:RHaworth seems to have deleted the link, without even reviewing that the copyright allegation was false. I find this whole scenario in extreme bad faith, and an abuse of the speedy deletion system, and a failure to engage in even the most basic dispute resolution process. I wish to petition to get the deletion reversed, and further an investigation in false speedy deletion notices being created. Master Of Ninja ( talk) 19:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• On the surface, this looks like a particularly egregious mis-application of G12. NahalAhmed could you shed some light on why you tagged this, and RHaworth why you accepted the tagging and deleted it? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• For goodness sake - "dispute resolution", "arbitration". Before using language like that, establish that a dispute exists! First you should give me a chance to admit that I made a simple mistake. Restored. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 20:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Thanks for inviting me to participate. Especially when I was looking at the new pages editing, the copyright show was on this page. I'm sorry that I used CSD tag in the article of the copyright wording being shown 78% of the page due to my technical problems. This page is actually a percentage 20% copyright issue. I’m sorry for my mistakes , isn’t eligible for copyright. Thanks for notice me.-- Nahal ^(T) 11:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Why didn't you raise this with RHaworth before bringing this here? For that matter, why did you immediately start grandiose "dispute resolution" proceedings with NahalAhmed before, you know, actually trying to talk to him? And why immediately start screaming "extreme bad faith" as well as clearly frivolous claims of harassment and malice? Let's get something straight. Lots of websites copy Wikipedia, and it is not always completely obvious in which direction the copying has gone. These two editors are not the first to accidentally get tripped up by it and won't be the last, but this is not bad faith on their part. Instantly escalating to the maximum level of feigned outrage is not the way to deal with the issue. Reyk _YO! 11:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• I think this can be closed as moot, since DRV isn't needed here - I missed on a mirror site once with a new article, it happens occasionally, it can be fixed without needing to petition DRV immediately after the fact. SportingFlyer T· C 23:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• close, I notice that the nominator despite expecting everyone else to be constantly online and responding instantly has not edited for a couple of days, seems little point in keeping this open. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 21:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Ed Mylett ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Ed Mylett is an Author, public speaker, entrepreneur, public figure, and host of the top business podcast in the world. He has over 1 million followers on Instagram and is perceived as one of the most well-respected speakers in the world. Please, reactive his page

https://www.influencive.com/top-12-motivational-men-on-instagram/ https://www.influencive.com/the-businessman-turned-social-media-star-thats-breaking-all-the-records/ https://www.entrepreneur.com/video/320742 Ss6694 ( talk) 14:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the second link above was in the AfDed version and none of them are very convincing as evidence that the subject passes WP:BIO. The AfD was clearly closed correctly (it was unanimous) and I don't think any of those links constitute good evidence to revisit it. The guy is an entrepreneur and "influencer", I don't think that "one of the most well-respected speakers in the world" is an even vaguely accurate description. Hut 8.5 21:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Not the best attended AfD, but unanimous and clear - the links provided don't make me think there's been anything that's been missed. SportingFlyer T· C 06:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse both the sources mentioned seem to be of the third party submit stuff to us which we don't check much variety, hardly quality sources for notability purposes. Indeed the first states on the article "Opinions expressed here are the opinions of the author. Influencive does not endorse or review brands mentioned; does not and can not investigate relationships with brands, products, and people mentioned and is up to the author to disclose." - if the publisher isn't willing to stand by the content of the articles it's publishing, then they are of no real value. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 22:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for all the reasons above. And because if the language seen in this nomination statement ("perceived as one of the most well-respected speakers in the world") is the kind of language seen in the article, as I strongly suspect it was, it would have been a G11 candidate too. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Concur with User:Mkativerata that the promotional language in the appeal has made the closer's case. But close was reasonable anyway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. A properly run and closed AfD. To later challenge a previous consensus to delete, consider WP:THREE to be the standard for the challenge. Leading with an instagram source is an immediate fail. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Ritesh Agarwal ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page was recently created by User:Deenos3 as Ritesh Agarwal (entrepreneur), which I have manually moved to Ritesh Agarwal, details of discussion. A user has put a note of speedy deletion based on G4 on my talk page which seems to be incorrect as I was not the creator.

Also Ritesh Agarwal is fairly notable and has sufficient in-depth news sources from Forbes (staff), Times of India and all newspapers in India has listed him and his entrepreneurial accomplishments are well covered. I don't think that there is any newspaper or any reliable source in India that has not covered him in-depth and is fairly notable outside of his company OYO. He is chairman on two boards of Confederation of Indian Industry and has several awards from Forbes, Ernst and Young, CNBC, Hurun India Rich List and several others. Every 5 or 6th hotel in India is now managed by his group. His net worth is well above ₹4,400 crore as per Forbes here, making him one of the youngest richest people within India ( source). He is as notable as Vijay Shekhar Sharma, Bhavish Aggarwal and Naveen Tewari and is one of the biggest pioneer of the hospitality industry in India and recieved Gaurav Samman by The Government of Haryana. His deletion was based on 2016 AFD which is completely wrong and his page must be undeleted. Ritesh Agarwal truly deserves a place on Wiki. Meeanaya ( talk) 05:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Questions from my end since I can't see the history - does WP:G4 apply here, and are they notable if not? SportingFlyer T· C 06:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• I don't think it's a G4, the article had different text and different sources (many of which have been published since the AfD). I'm less sure whether he has notability independent of the company he is known for founding, most of the sources are mainly about the company and our article on them isn't huge. I suggest we restore it and send it back to AfD. Hut 8.5 06:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Didn't think G4 applied, but wanted to ask. Without looking at the history, restore/send to AfD makes sense here. Thanks! SportingFlyer T· C 07:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• This is rather obvious PR, multiple WP:SPAs over a period of years. A redirect to OYO Rooms would probably be appropriate, but that's also a PR job. Guy ( Help!) 12:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

This guy is much above notability and is one of the biggest entrepreneur in India. Google his name once and you can easily find the reliable secondary news sources for him and really doesn't needs a paid PR now, he is organically covered by each and every Indian newspaper, online media and Television. There is not even a single reliable source, where he is not covered. I am sure, he will very easily pass WP:GNG. It was an obvious mistake to pull down his page based on G4, which is not even applicable. Meeanaya ( talk) 07:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

My suggestion was to redirect these to Oyo Rooms and develop the Oyo article to be free of PR. Agarwal's notability is synonymous with that organization; that he is even on these other organization boards is because of it. His other ventures are related to Oyo Group. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

So it means he fails WP:GNG, So here are a few examples that also fails WP:GNG, as they are also not on any board and also not notable outside of their company

• Bhavish Aggarwal- He is co-founder and not notable outside of Ola cabs. His notability is synonymous with that organization.
• Vijay Shekhar Sharma- He is only a billionaire and not notable outside of his company Paytm, if the company doesn't exists he is not notable.
• Naveen Tewari- He is founder of Inmobi and not all notable outside of his company.
• Satya Nadella- He is CEO of Microsoft and his notability is synonymous with that organization. If he wasn't CEO, he would have easily failed WP:GNG.
• Archie Mountbatten-Windsor- He has also passed WP:GNG with just 2 months of age, I am certainly not sure what he is notable for at this age, so is there a different notability policy for entrepreneurs here or entrepreneur Wiki pages could help their PR so we should not create them?

The question we are discussing out here, is whether he passes WP:GNG with the current news coverage or not, the answer is yes, so if he passes the notability he deserves a page. If he fails, it could be applied to several other pages of entrepreneurs, where notability is synonymous with that organization. Similar to Prime Minister Obama, who could not be notable if he was a senator earlier and later President. The comments seems to be very weak, when it is said Ritesh Agarwal is not notable and his notability is synonymous with that organization. Meeanaya ( talk) 04:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS tends to be a bottom of the barrel argument and attracts little real interest, the solution to a polluted pond is not a shrug of the shoulders and continuing to dump garbage in the pond. You've got Obama's notability wrong. He's not notable as former president, he's notable for the coverage addressing him directly and detail, the fact that he was president of course attracted a lot of that coverage because people are generally quite interested in the US president - i.e. the world has decided that the person performing that role is notable and demonstrates that by having ongoing interest. So that is the question does the subject here's role mean that there is a general interest attracting interest such that reliable sources provide ongoing coverage of them, providing coverage directly and in detail on this subject. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 21:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• The fact that someone's notability ultimately derives from doing something is not an argument against notability. So "Obama is only notable because he was President/Senator" or "Bill Gates is only notable because he founded Microsoft" are not arguments against the notability of those people. What is an argument against notability is if sources only cover the subject in passing in the context of something else, and never or rarely in their own right. So if all sources about Bill Gates mentioned him in passing while talking about the early history of Microsoft, and never anything more substantial, then he would be covered in articles about the history of Microsoft and not in a standalone article. Obviously there are much better sources for Bill Gates (several book-length biographies, for example) which is why he has a standalone article. Hut 8.5 21:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Clearly correctly closed AfD. To challenge the old AfD, take the advice at WP:THREE. Do not tell us primary source details like net worth, that just tells us that you don’t understand Wikipedia’s inclusion standards. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

User:Hut 8.5, here are a few examples (These all news links are covering Ritesh Agarwal in-depth and not just his company, No articles in this list are written by any contributors/guests, they are written ONLY by staff)

1. Ritesh Agarwal's journey from being a SIM-seller to the helm of OYO Rooms ( https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/entrepreneurship/ritesh-agarwals-journey-from-being-a-sim-seller-to-the-helm-of-oyo-rooms/articleshow/48322588.cms)
2. 45 Indians in Forbes list of achievers under the age of 30 ( https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/forbes-list-of-achievers-indians-under-the-age-of-30/story/227768.html)
   ( https://www.ndtv.com/business/oyo-rooms-founder-in-forbes-list-of-achievers-under-30-1262283)
3. Will the real Ritesh Agarwal please stand up? ( https://www.livemint.com/Companies/7CN7u5d4i3bfYgBAZLdLpM/Will-the-real-Ritesh-Agarwal-please-stand-up.html)
4. Oyo founder Ritesh Agarwal to triple his stake with $2 bn share buyback ( https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/oyo-founder-ritesh-agarwal-to-buy-back-shares-from-early-investors-for-2-bn/articleshow/70292114.cms)
   ( https://www.livemint.com/companies/start-ups/oyo-founder-ritesh-agarwal-to-triple-his-stake-with-2-bn-share-buyback-1563529810359.html)
5. The 21-year-old building India's largest hotel network ( https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34078529)
6. Making an impact in hospitality industry ( https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/making-an-impact-in-hospitality-industry/article7621313.ece)
7. The Real Story of Oyo Rooms' Ritesh Agarwal ( https://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/opinion/the-real-story-of-oyo-rooms-ritesh-agarwal-783004)
8. At 21, He's the Mind Behind Multi-Million Dollar Start-Up OYO ( https://www.ndtv.com/people/at-21-hes-the-mind-behind-multi-million-dollar-start-up-oyo-1204353)
9. Ritesh Agarwal: Finding room for growth ( http://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30/ritesh-agarwal-finding-room-for-growth/42163/1)
10. Want to start your own business? Know what helped OYO’s Ritesh Agarwal start his own company! ( https://www.businessinsider.in/want-to-start-your-own-business-know-what-helped-oyos-ritesh-agarwal-start-his-own-company/articleshow/47718013.cms)
11. How OYO's Ritesh Agarwal transformed the business of budget accommodation ( http://www.forbesindia.com/article/8th-anniversary-special/how-oyos-ritesh-agarwal-transformed-the-business-of-budget-accommodation/46971/1)
12. From SIM Card Seller to Multi-Millionaire: A 24 Year Old’s Incredible Journey ( https://www.thebetterindia.com/133859/ritesh-agarwal-oyo-dropout/)
13. Bejul Somaia taught me how to hire right: Ritesh Agarwal, CEO, Oyo Rooms ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/people/bejul-somaia-taught-me-how-to-hire-right-ritesh-agarwal-ceo-oyo-rooms/articleshow/59953562.cms)
14. OYO Founder CEO Ritesh Agarwal felicitated for work in India’s hospitality sector ( https://www.indiablooms.com/finance-details/6337/oyo-founder-ceo-ritesh-agarwal-felicitated-for-work-in-india-rsquo-s-hospitality-sector.html)
15. THE 23-YEAR-OLD OWNER OF OYO ROOMS TALKS ABOUT BEING A YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR ( http://www.vervemagazine.in/people/ritesh-agarwal-oyo-rooms-on-entrepreneurship)
16. OYO would see a further reduction in losses this year: Ritesh Agarwal ( https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/oyo-would-see-a-further-reduction-in-losses-this-year-ritesh-agarwal-117120500044_1.html)
17. Oyo Rooms CEO Ritesh Agarwal narrates his Odisha story ( https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/oyo-rooms-ceo-ritesh-agarwal-narrates-his-odisha-story/53882529)
18. Ritesh Agarwal had a fascinating success story at 22 ( https://e27.co/he-built-his-first-startup-in-2012-shut-it-down-started-another-in-14-got-softbank-to-back-it-and-turned-it-profitable-20160511/)
19. Oyo's Ritesh Agarwal finds backing from Mizuho, Nomura ( https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/oyos-ritesh-agarwal-find-backing-from-mizuho-nomura/articleshow/70339335.cms)
20. Why Ritesh Agarwal's $2-bn deal to hike his stake in Oyo to 30% is a riddle ( https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/why-ritesh-agarwal-s-2-bn-deal-to-hike-his-stake-in-oyo-to-30-is-a-riddle-119072200028_1.html)
21. At 24, OYO founder Ritesh Agarwal becomes youngest entrepreneur in India, says Hurun India Rich List ( https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/at-24-oyo-founder-ritesh-agarwal-becomes-youngest-entrepreneur-in-india-csays-hurun-india-rich-list/story/283043.html)

A quick Google search turned these results, I am not sure what really good sources are if they are not, still there are plenty more for him, Can you please check User:AngusWOOF, User:SmokeyJoe, User:Hut_8.5 and User_talk:JzG. Meeanaya ( talk) 05:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Adding a few more to the long list