Fiona Stewart (event director) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A week ago, I was just about to create a page for Fiona Stewart, director of the Green Man Festival, when I came across a deletion discussion via the name disambig page. The previous page was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona Stewart (event director), seemingly because it was a puff piece. I've been writing a new version at User:Mujinga/DraftFS and I'm confident it passes WP:V and WP:GNG. I'd like the deleted page to be recreated so I could take a look at it and then merge in my new version. I left a note on the closer's talkpage but they haven't edited wikipedia since March 19. Thanks for any help. Mujinga ( talk) 11:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• It beats WP:CSD#G4. The AfD was over two years ago. You claim better sources. The title is not WP:SALTed (Create-protected). Mujinga, if you are confident, boldly re-create it. If you are not confident, use WP:AfC. DRV will not AfD-proof it. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:REFUND and history merge the deleted versions (unless they are junk). If you read the old versions, you should give attribution. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

My reading of WP:REFUND was that I should come here first but it is a bit ambiguous. I'm not in a rush so I'll wait to see if there's a consensus here. I feel the best practice way to history merge would be to recreate it first and then edit. Mujinga ( talk) 12:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I don’t know what you read where, but yes, it is ambiguous. Speedy refund for Mujinga. 14 years, 385 pages created, 8121 mainspace edits, he knows what he is doing. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• This really seems like a no-brainer, so I've restored this to User:Mujinga/Fiona Stewart (event director). My suggestion for the easiest way to comply with WP:ATT would be to work on that copy, move it (and the talk page) back into mainspace when you're done, and then tag your DraftFS for WP:G7. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Just to echo what SmokeyJoe said above, while you've given sufficient justification for userfying the old page and taking another shot at a mainspace article, I can't guarantee that somebody won't bring this back to AfD again if the issues from the previous AfD aren't resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Agreed, absolutely no guarantee - but that shouldn't be a problem. I do now see why it was deleted before, terribly undersourced. Thanks to you both Mujinga ( talk) 17:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Concur with result. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• The old versions were not “junk”, but were harshly reviewed at AfD for being badly undersourced. A WP:V failure as someone ( User:L293D SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)) noted at AfD. The old and the new have now been history merged and are back in mainspace, which was the right thing to do. No prejudice to anyone renominating at AfD, but I think it is unlikely to be deleted, there is enough published independent comment. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• We can close this, there's nothing wrong with the close and there's been an acceptable remedy. SportingFlyer T· C 08:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Punchline (character) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closer acted in good faith, but doesn't appear to have taken any policy-based arguments into account, nor did they provide any policy-based reasoning in their decision to delete. Technically there are more delete votes than keep votes (4 to 3), but this is WP:NOTAVOTE, two of the delete votes are "weak deletes", and one of them (the first vote in the discussion) is plainly wrong; that person said there were no secondary sources about the subject, but there were 15 secondary sources specifically focused on this subject identified over the course of the conversation, and that was only a sampling of those available. Even people voting delete (as well as several people who commented without voting) acknowledged the article meets notability standards and WP:GNG, but the closer does not at all address that at all in his decision. At the very least, there was no clear consensus established and the AFD should have been closed as "no consensus"; in fact, after the conversation was relisted specifically to attempt to generate a clearer consensus, there were only two more votes with different opinions (one keep and one weak delete), so I don't see how a reasonable observer could conclude that this generated a more clearer consensus to support deletion... — Hunter Kahn 16:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC) — Hunter Kahn 16:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- The closer was correct to give less weight to arguments that this character may become notable in the future. If that happens, the article can be re-created. Reyk _YO! 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Except that the closer seemed to give no weight to the arguments that the character is notable now, by WP:GNG standards... — Hunter Kahn 16:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I also disagree with your math. I count five deletes, one draftify, and one non-bolded argument that seemed to be leaning towards merge. Reyk _YO! 19:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. Opinions were evenly divided on whether the subject currently meets the GNG and both sides provided good reasons for their position, with neither convincing the other. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment from closer. Had you contacted me before opening this review, I would have explained my thinking, but I guess I'll just have to do that here. Specifically regarding the post-relist discussion, there were three comments. One analyzed the additional references presented just before the relist and found them lacking. The one keep argument said the subject was "a rising character", which to me sounds like "not notable yet", i.e. WP:TOOSOON. The third argument also cited TOOSOON. That added up to consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • To your first point, that person had already weighed in on the conversation previously. To your second point, I'd suggest you're putting words in the keep voter's mouth; just because they refer to the subject as a "rising character" doesn't mean the subject is not also notable now. I certainly don't mean offense to you personally; as I said, I know you acted in good faith. I just don't think it's reasonable to say there was a "consensus to delete" rather than "no consensus". — Hunter Kahn 03:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: If the deletion is upheld, this should not preclude re-creating as a redirect to a suitable target. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply

There's certainly nothing to prevent that as far as I'm concerned. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to NC The only valid arguments I on the deletion side are that a) WP:SUSTAINED isn't met and B) CBR isn't reliable. Fine, but there are lots of other sources in fairly mainstream sources (including The Mary Sue, Screenrant, and Le Soir [1]) and they have a lot to say about the character and reception. Yes, there was numeric consensus for deletion, but there are tons of sources (more than a dozen that are independent, reliable, and in depth). That the character is only 2 months old isn't a reason for deletion in the face of solid sources that already exist. Hobit ( talk) 04:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Essentially this discussion was a 6-3 in favour of deleting the article, including the nominator, with one neutral comment. A couple of the delete votes were Weak Deletes, but one of the Keep votes did not cite any relevant policy. You could argue that one of the delete votes also did not cite any relevant policy, but I do not think that would be entirely accurate. It is somewhat borderline, but I think the right decision was made here. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 07:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think it's really reasonable to assign two voters as Deletes when they specifically did not vote delete. But in any event, I don't the vote count is the most relevant thing here, but rather the fact that the article meets notability standards, as nearly every participant favoring deletion begrudgingly acknowledged (the only one who didn't was the first voter, who mistakenly said no secondary sources existed at all, having voted before any were shared in the AfD). — Hunter Kahn 11:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Providing reliable, independent sources is exactly what is needed by relevant policy. Are you saying the !vote with the sources needed to specifically cite WP:N to be a valid !vote in your mind? Hobit ( talk) 13:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I was referring the Keep vote by Rtkat3 which was "Let this page stay. This is a rising character here. We just need to develop the page to make it better". I do not believe that 'this is a rising character' cites any relevant policy with regard to whether the article should be Kept or Deleted. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse This is a tough one, because Hunter Kahn's argument WP:GNG is met, backed up with sources, is the best possible argument you can make at DRV. What puts this into the grey zone instead of a clear keep is that the discussion reviewed the sources presented and still came to a conclusion a standalone article was inappropriate at this time. I've looked through the sources myself and agree with TTN's assessment of them as "low-weight topical pop-culture dribble." The best result here, IMO, is to add this character to a list and then move to an article when stronger sources arrive. If someone lays out WP:THREE successfully that should be enough for an overturn (CBR and Screenrant use the same content skin and similar about pages and I've never heard of either of them, so I may have missed here.) I'm also not on here much anymore, just came back for a quick DRV, so don't bother responding to me - I won't see it - just straight up tell me I've missed. But the close seems reasonable for the discussion. SportingFlyer T· C 08:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The subjective opinion of you and TNN about whether the sources are "dribble" or not isn't really relevant. What's relevant is policy, and the sources used pass WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY; each one being questioned here has been discussed on WP:RS/N in the past and found to be reliable and appropriate for topics like these. — Hunter Kahn 11:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Good close. Someone wants to keep arguing, but the decision was made. Encourage draftification, but discourage bold recreation without compelling *new* evidence. The nominator tended to WP:Reference bombing in the AfD. Advise him to read WP:THREE. A couple of good sources are more all that’s needed and are more persuasive than a long list that’s wearying to examine. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Re: "Someone wants to keep arguing, but the decision was made." Apologies, I've never actually taken anything to Deletion Review before. Am I incorrect that this venue is if I one feels the consensus has been interpreted incorrectly or policy hasn't been followed? I don't mean to just re-litigate the AfD because I know that would be obnoxious, LOL, so of I misunderstood the nature of Deletion Review, then I apologize... — Hunter Kahn 14:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, DRV is for challenging the reading of the discussion, or for policy irregularities.
      My impression (I don’t know you) is that you are being overly hasty in your appeal, and that you have not, and are not taking the time to read what others write. Thus, you are very much not a reasonable observer. One very good reason for asking the closer about the close is that it will slow you down. The close was reasonable. Rapid bureaucratic escalation of your complaint is not a productive way forward. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • SmokeyJoe I promise you I'm reading everything that everyone is writing (actually, I'm a little relieved that you thought this of me, because I was worried I was replying too often to every point, lol) but if the appeal was hasty, I apologize. As I said, I've never gone to Deletion Review before. Was there another resource I should have taken instead? Should I withdraw this review and do that instead? — Hunter Kahn 12:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Sometimes, the nominator replying too much comes across as bludgeoning, but in this case I feel it reflects a sense of distress. You should have asked the closer, and given it a few days to think about. Now, there is nothing to be done while this DRV discussion is open. You have to wait, and that will probably be a good thing, for you, given the TOOSOON component. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply
          • I'll just ignore the thinly-veiled insults and thank you for the info. lol — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Would No Consensus have been a valid close? Yes. Was Delete a valid close? Yes. Would another Relist have been valid? Yes. Was there an error by the closer? No. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Léa Khelifi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe a relist was necessary as none of the delete !votes addressed the article's compliance with WP:GNG, but for one early !vote that seems to be based purely on the sources included at the time rather than a search of extant online sources - some of which were added after that point. Jogurney ( talk) 22:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as closing admin,xthere was a clear 4 to 1 view that this subject fails GNG. A couple of sources were presented in defence of GNG. The AfD went on for days after this with no further support,only further delete votes. Consensus was clearly to delete. Fenix down ( talk) 23:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Can we get a temp undelete here? It seems unlikely the sources are strong enough, but I'd like to see. Hobit ( talk) 03:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Having not seen the article and not taken part, I don't see any reason to overturn the closure. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Alllow recreation though I'm not bold enough to endorse or otherwise the AFD close. So far as I can see the references added were worthy of consideration. [2] [3] [4] [5] It doesn't look to me they were considered. The only delete !vote after the improvement was inherently non-guideline-based. Some admins apply WP:G4 by comparison with the article at the end of the AFD but where there has been substantial improvement that has gone unremarked this seems inappropriate. Tactically, it is better not to improve an article during an AFD but to wait for deletion and then recreate with the new material. However in this case there are plenty more references available so the article can be recreated anyway. Thincat ( talk) 10:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- pretty much per Fenix Down. Reyk _YO! 11:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• I believe that references 1, 2, 3 & 5 of fr:Léa Khelifi meet the WP:GNG. Three of these were in the deleted en article. I suspect that the AfD participants did not fully consider the sources, probably due to them being in French. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as somebody who !voted 'delete'. However I suggest the article is draftified, improved, and then we can re-review. Giant Snowman 18:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Actually, upon further review, this and this means WP:GNG is likely met. I therefore suggest we restore the article. Giant Snowman 14:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'm having problems with Google translate (my home computer is dying slowly), but those sources look okay, and two editors with a fairly high bar for such things think sourcing is probably okay. And frankly the discussion was focused on only NFOOTY, not GNG (even JPL's comments, which did discuss the GNG, were basically to ignore the GNG). I'm fine with either relist or overturning to NC. Hobit ( talk) 19:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Keep This was a clear miss, as Khelifi clearly passes WP:GNG. If not overturned, Khelifi is simply WP:TOOSOON and there should be no prejudice on recreation. SportingFlyer T· C 08:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'm not sure overturn to keep is the right decision here, based on the AfD there wasnt that consensus. It's also not the job of the closing admin to research sources themselves and make some sort of overriding decision. However I am more than happy for any editor to recreate based on new sources that satisfy GNG. This to my mind is simply standard practice. There certainly seems to be sources that would at least justify a draft. Fenix down ( talk) 22:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• I'm happy to withdraw the deletion review (assuming that is something that can be done), if it is okay to recreate the article based on the sources I raised in the AfD. In a perfect world, there would have been more discussion, but I understand that admins cannot keep relisting these debates endlessly. Jogurney ( talk) 03:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation There is nothing wrong with the close based on the discussion. It is not the role of the closer to independently review sources or claims made by discussants, only to evaluate the strengths of the arguments. A relist might have helped clarify things, but not necessarily. -- Enos733 ( talk) 04:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Robert McClenon. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 16:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Bruce McMahan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This subject is gaining more and more notability online and in print media. There are numerous reputable outlets reporting on the original subject. The subject has been reported on; using a complete and thorough review of filed court documents in multiple US state courts. There is no reason that this article should not exist; considering the notable active philanthropy and notoriety of the subject. I strongly urge and request a review of the original deletion on the grounds that any questions about the subject's notability have now become untenable.

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]} MrBumkee ( talk) 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Endorse. A few news reports and some primary source court documents are not enough for us to sustain an article, especially on a living person. Phil Bridger ( talk) 12:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The proffered sources are not independent secondary source coverage. Sourcing standards must be stringently adhered to for the such a WP:BLP troublesome topic. In general, individual crime stories are not encyclopedic. One indicator is the lack of relevance to any other article. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• endorse per Phil. The bar for a so purely negative WP:BLP is not met by the sources provided. Hobit ( talk) 22:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Staying clear of this one. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I'll go further: creating an article based on those sources would be an extremely bad idea. Court records in particular are explicitly forbidden as sources by WP:BLPPRIMARY. If someone's only "claim to fame" is allegations like these then we shouldn't have an article on them unless the case is very high profile. This isn't nearly enough. Hut 8.5 15:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per above - this is not anywhere near enough to overturn, even though the AfD is over a decade old now. SportingFlyer T· C 08:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• I think I might start an essay called "What BLP doesn't say". Our BLP policy says to remove unsourced negative content about living people. It doesn't say to remove well-sourced content about living people, and astronomically highly-paid individuals in aspirational positions who, according to a court of law, have sex with their daughters, shouldn't be able to whitewash their Wikipedia articles. If there was exactly one more source that I could even remotely pretend was reliable, I'd be recommending an overturn here.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• WP:BLPCRIME recommends we shouldn't include material accusing living non-public figures of committing crimes unless they've been convicted. The subject here isn't a public figure and doesn't appear to have been convicted of anything. Also WP:CRIMINAL says we shouldn't have articles on people who are mainly known for committing crimes unless either the victim of the crime is high profile or the crime is important enough to constitute a historic event, neither of those applies here. Hut 8.5 16:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Gouri Kishan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe that undue weight was placed on the poor state of the article by the closing administrator and one of the "delete" voters. I feel that more time should have been allowed to reach a consensus regarding WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 ( talk) 11:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closer In general it's unneccessary to run the DRV process for a single sentence article. If you think there should be an article, and have some sources, it is usually much easier to write up a brief article that establishes notability than it is to gather community support. An article that just says that an actress appeared in some movies, wihout any information about whether those roles were significant, is unlikely to be useful to a reader. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. The AfD failed to identify any WP:DEL-REASON. Sure, it's a stub (maybe even a sub-stub) but it's got two plausible looking sources, and a bunch more plausible looking sources were identified in the AfD. The two people who commented after the sources were presented gave vague reasons for deletion without making any effort to evaluate the sources. Userfying or draftifying would be reasonable alternatives in lieu of relisting. Or, as suggested in the AfD close, just go ahead and re-create the article in mainspace, taking care to include good sources which demonstrate that WP:NACTOR is satisfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist per RoySmith, the fact that the article is very short isn't much of a deletion reason at all. Hut 8.5 19:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Don't relist it, it's much quicker and much less work to create it again from scratch. Pop a note on the talk page pointing to this discussion. That should be sufficient to inoculate it against G4.— S Marshall  T/ C 00:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• TempUndelete, please. Glades12 ( talk) 10:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Done. Last revision is at this link. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you. After inspecting all this, I am neutral. Glades12 ( talk) 20:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The amount of discussion far exceeds the content of the deleted article. A young actress, very recent credits, is not yet demonstrated to meet WP:NACTOR, this is an obvious WP:TOOSOON. Draftify or Userfy on request, discourage bold recreation for at least six months unless a clear WP:THREE case is made, which would overcome the reason for deletion. Disagree with Roy Smith that the AfD failed to identify any WP:DEL#REASON. The AfD nomination was good. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I would have said to Delete if I had taken part, and the community and the closer acted reasonably. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• relist I'm not thrilled with the discussion and don't think it reached an actionable consensus. Hobit ( talk) 22:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: As the editor who applied for this review, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to contribute to this discussion (this is my first review), but I would like to make a couple of points about comments left here by the editors who are voting to "endorse", SmokeyJoe and Robert McClenon. In response to the comment, "The amount of discussion far exceeds the content of the deleted article," I don't believe that that is at all relevant; indeed, the fact that such emphasis was placed on the length of the article in the AfD is one of the reasons I applied for this review. In response to the comment, "I would have said to Delete if I had taken part..." I don't think that is relevant either, because the review, as I understand it, is to determine whether the closing administrator's decision was reasonable and correct based on that which did occur in the AfD, not that which might have occurred. Thanks, Dflaw4 ( talk) 04:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • You can get more time by going through WP:REFUND and WP:AfC. If you are right, if without the distraction of the "poor state", you can add notability-attesting sources, then AfC will accept the draft and move it back to mainspace.

In the AfD, you listed seven sources.

1. https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2019/aug/08/sunny-wayne-gouri-kishan-film-moves-into-post-production-2015591.html – New Indian Express.

It doesn't actually say anything about the subject.

2. https://www.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2019/nov/10/gouri-kishan-confirms-being-a-part-of-vijay-lokesh-kanagaraj-s-next-thalapathy-64-15407.html –Cinema Express.

Same as #1. Repeats the same fact, she will be in a film, but says nothing significant about her. It calls her "young", which is not enough. The article then goes on to interview her, which is not independent.

3. https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/review/2020/feb/08/jaanu-review-an-intimate-love-story-that-largely-works---2100475.html – New Indian Express, brief praise in a film review.

It calls her a "measured performer". Not even a full sentence about the subject.

4. https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2018/dec/13/anugraheethan-antony-is-a-universal-story-1910675.html – New Indian Express

The only comment about her is "got noticed for her performance in the recent Tamil hit 96 starring" [someone else]. Not direct coverage of any depth.

5. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/021018/96-movie-review-vijay-sethupathi-trisha-tamil-prem-kumar-best-adhithya.html – Deccan Chronicle, praise in a film review.

It mentions that she plays the character, but says nothing about her.

6. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movie-reviews/96/movie-review/66032687.cms – Times of India, brief praise in a film review

"The actors who play the younger Ram and Janu — Adithya Bhaskar and Gouri Kishan — are equally good."

That's it. Not enough.

7 . https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/from-june-to-vikrams-cobra-20-year-old-sarjano-khalids-dream-start-to-his-film-career/article30942188.ece – The Hindu, discussed in relation to another actor.

"Discuss"?!? She put her friend on to the project. That's a fact, not a discussion. No significant comment on the subject.

Your seven sources were appropriately ignored by the other participants, all too weak, and too many. Endorse the AfD, it properly made the right decision. WP:TOOSOON. Wait for direct and significant commentary on the subject before trying again. To make your case, follow the advice at WP:THREE. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• SmokeyJoe, thank you for your response. I have no intention of creating the article from scratch. Quite simply, I am challenging the claim that a consensus was reached, with particular reference to the emphasis placed on the state of the article, which is not relevant. As regards your analysis of the sources I provided, that should have occurred in the AfD. You claim that the sources were dismissed by the other voters, yet you have no way of knowing that—in fact, neither of the other voters commented on sources (or the subject’s acting roles) at all. You are inferring, by saying that the sources were "appropriately ignored", that the other two voters went through the sources, came to the conclusion that they were not satisfactory, and rather than simply say that the sources were not satisfactory, decided instead to remain quiet. I do not think that that is a tenable inference to draw.

In response to your individual comments vis-à-vis the sources, the first source (entitled "Sunny Wayne-Gouri Kishan film moves into post-production"), contrary to what you claim, does actually say something about the subject: "96-fame Gouri Kishan is playing the female lead. It is her second Malayalam film after the newly released Margam Kali."

The second source (entitled "Gouri Kishan begins shooting for Thalapathy 64") is a short article dedicated to the subject. And she is not interviewed, as you claim; an online quote is provided. This is not an interview-style article.

The third source states: "It helps that the younger selves of Jaanu and Ram are played by measured performers (Sai Kiran Kumar and Gouri Kishan)." I described that as "brief praise", which I believe is accurate.

In regard to the fourth source, you said: “The only comment about her is "got noticed for her performance in the recent Tamil hit 96 starring" [someone else].” But the snippet of quote you provide fails to convey context. The full quote reads: “The female lead is played by Gouri Kishan, who got noticed for her performance in the recent Tamil hit 96 starring Vijay Sethupathi and Trisha. Gouri played the younger version of Trisha’s character in the film.” This article is not about the film, 96, which, as you say, stars “someone else”, but is about another film in which the subject is the female lead.

With regard to the fifth source, contrary to your claim that the article “mentions that she plays the character, but says nothing about her”, she does receive praise, as I correctly noted: “The two youngsters, Adhitya, as younger Vijay Sethupathi, and Gauri, as younger Trisha, are aptly cast and they have performed exceptionally well.”

With regard to the sixth source, your quote is accurate.

With regard to the seventh source, yes, the subject is discussed by another actor. This is more frivolous, though, and I wouldn't rely on it too heavily for the purposes of WP:GNG.

I do not agree with your analysis of the sources; I believe that their cumulative effect is enough to meet WP:GNG—but, I reiterate that this debate over the sources should have taken place in the AfD discussion, not here. Your implication that the other delete voters perused the sources and silently rejected them is unsubstantiated. I believe more time should have been allowed for other editors to weigh in on the issues surrounding WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, which did not occur. A two-to-one split—especially where neither of the “delete” voters provided any policy reasoning to support their vote—is not a clear consensus. Thanks, Dflaw4 ( talk) 09:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

If you want to debate the sources, I ask you to nominate no more than three. If the three best are not enough, the cumulative effect of many worse sources will not be enough. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I don't want to debate the sources, SmokeyJoe—not here, anyway. As I said, they should have been debated in the AfD. Thanks, Dflaw4 ( talk) 02:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment the remedy here seems to be very simple: draftify/improve the article. I agree with RoySmith that no proper rationale for deletion was here, and WP:G11 clearly does not apply, but it's hard to argue for restoring the article in the state that it's in given it's not really all that useful in its current state and there's a clear remedy here. SportingFlyer T· C 08:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist – I cannot endorse a closing statement that is based on the state of the article rather than the state of sourcing. Probably is the right outcome based on the sources in the article and in the AFD (none of which are in-depth enough or independent enough to satisfy GNG in my opinion), but the rationale is contra-global-consensus. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 16:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted twice, all but one subsequent comment were delete. The last re-listing says "The late pro-delete contributions indicate that this AFD needs more time to generate a consensus."; two more deletes come in (with policy rationale), no more keeps were given, and then we close as "no consensus". I suggest there was clear consensus during the two relistings. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Initial contributions were Keeps, followed by Deletes. No Consensus is the most reasonable assessment of the consensus (that there wasn't one). Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I was one the relists so I won't formally weigh in. I will just note that at the time of my relist if I had closed it, it would have been as keep. However, Drmies rational deserved time for consensus to be considered and so I relisted. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Question- what is the point of relisting at all, if no amount of subsequent discussion can affect the outcome? Reyk _YO! 07:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• • It could have, and indeed did. If it was closed after a week, it probably would have closed as keep. If someone had put together a compelling argument for deletion, it might've carried they day. But they didn't; so it didn't. Wily D 15:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • That's not how I read RoySmith's or Nwlaw63's !votes in particular. I think in your effort to be smug and dismissive you've crossed the line into mendacity. In future, if you want to say something to me, make sure it contains more intelligence and less gloating. Reyk _YO! 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I - uhm - what? Is this response misplaced? Wily D 18:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - roughly equal headcount, no overly compelling argument either way. Sources aren't great, but they're not obviously totally worthless either; the kind of place where headcount does matter a bit; and where detailed analyses of the sources could make a compelling argument against headcount, but that wasn't done here. It's a no consensus; but was repeatedly relisted. If you really think it should be deleted, give it a few months, then renominate it and make more than a handwavey, assertion-based argument. Wily D 16:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'm seeing an inconclusive debate followed by a no-consensus close. The close is right for the debate, the problem being that the debate reached the wrong conclusion. I mean, we shouldn't have this article. They're a sincere but inconsequential group of young people who made a stir with a bit of ill-judged behaviour in 2013, and Wikipedia's not for that kind of thing. But wrong though it was to keep the article, there wasn't a consensus, so we can't overturn a no consensus finding.— S Marshall  T/ C 00:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Read WP:RENOM. The failure at AfD was the weak AfD nomination. User:Drmies, please do not toss uncertain soggy questions onto the AfD queue. AfD should be reserved for a clear considered case for deletion by the nominator. Be firm. If you are not sure, use the article talk page. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think my nomination was as soggy as some of the keeps were, Carrite's in particular having nothing of substance. BTW I read all the sources, including all the NYT articles. There was no there there. Drmies ( talk) 01:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • True, but the nominator sets the tone. WP:RENOM my answer. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the article was relisted, there was sufficient participation. The XfD closer made the correct decision. Lightburst ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete There's only a couple of the keep !votes I find persuasive, the ones I do (TheOtherBob) don't really dig into the sources, the tenor of the discussion changed after the first relist, and someone who !voted keep at the previous discussion even changed their vote. If I had come to this discussion myself I probably would have voted instead of closing it (I mean, I couldn't close this, but for the purposes of DRV review I try to figure out what I would have done) and I think the no consensus outcome is valid here, but I think delete is a stronger outcome based on the way the discussion shook out. SportingFlyer T· C 08:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete or relist – The !voters from the last AFD should not have been pinged, and such canvassed !votes should be discounted. Beyond that, I agree with SF's argument above. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 16:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Hedgewars ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) ( 2nd XfD)

It is time to revert the unfair salting which was performed on the page, due to people involved on its development not quite understanding Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, thus resulting in the article being biased. However, the game is notable, it is among the top played, most relevant open sourced games for Linux, being listed on several important FOSS medias. I have already came up with an article draft for it, which is posted under User:Eduemoni/sandbox/Hedgewars. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Given the long repeated deletion-recreation history of this article (split between Hedgewars and Draft:Hedgewars), I'm wary of restoring it. That being said, the current version at User:Eduemoni/sandbox/Hedgewars looks like a fresh start and written in a non-spammy style, so unsalt and allow recreation seems reasonable. If you could list the WP:THREE best sources to demonstrate this meets WP:NVG, that would help other reviewers. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I have changed the page and I also edit your comment to reflect this change, it is a fresh page, with fresh log, which is suitable for moving. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

With that being said I'm going to list WP:THREE, which proves Hedgewars notability. First, Snapcraft.com, a Canonical maintained app store, guide for installing Hedgewars across several Linux distros. ^{[hedge 1]} Second, MakeUseOf page and review on Hedgewars ^{[hedge 2]} and finally, MashTips.com lists the best linux games to play in 2019, which features Hedgewars. ^{[hedge 3]} I think the best approach to this page is to make it semi-protected, which would prevent unregistered people non-confirmed accounts from vandalazing or spamming the page. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• The MakeUseOf one is a solid review from what I can tell. The mashtips one is fine (short, but strong). The snapcraft one I think is primary and so not useful here. I searched and didn't find anything better. This is borderline on a good day. If this crosses WP:N it does so just barely. Hobit ( talk) 01:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Desalt and Allow Review Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the deletion and the protection against re-creation in mainspace WP:SALT. There is commercial promotion at play. Version 1.0 has just been released (months ago). Do not allow recreation by any mechanism except via a draftspace or userspace draft that follows the very good advice in WP:THREE. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

user:Eduemoni/sandbox/Hedgewars fails WP:THREE because the first three references are not WP:GNG-meeting sources, and it is WP:Reference bombed with 43 references. It is not reasonable to ask a reviewer to sift 43 references to look for the two GNG-meeting sources. The onus is on the proponent to list the best three, per WP:THREE. This is a rule to apply to previously deleted articles. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Commercial promotion at play? What? This is a free and open source game and the version 1.0 was released nearly six months ago. The game is among the most downloaded games in Linux, this is the reason why I used the Snapcraft link. And your claim that these three does not meet the GNG criteria, they are independent and reliable, specially MakeUseOf. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

OK. I go to User:Eduemoni/sandbox/Hedgewars and take the first three references:

1. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/best-linux-games/ Reads promotional. Written as a HOWTO. Links to the download site. This is not a distant-perspective commentary.

2. https://www.hedgewars.org/download.html Not independent.

3. https://www.hedgewars.org/about.html Not independent.

Fail. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Three listed here in the DRV:

1. https://snapcraft.io/hedgewars By Alfred E. Neumayer (beidl). The author looks to be assoicated with the compoany, so not independent. It's a promotional HOWTO. Does not meet the WP:GNG.

2. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/hedgewars-multiplayer-wormslike-game-hedgehogs-muo-gaming/ By Joel Lee July 20, 2012. It's a promotiona HOWTO, no critical commentary. No secondary source coverage. Does not meet the WP:GNG

3. https://mashtips.com/best-linux-games/ Reads promotional. Written as a HOWTO. Links to the download site. This is not a distant-perspective commentary.

Wikipedia is not a directory of games. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Eh, I'd argue those last two are reviews. I just went back and looked at makeuseof again, it's very much a review IMO. If there were 2 or 3 others as good as those last 2, I think we'd be above the WP:N bar. Hobit ( talk) 22:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Can you quote a double sentence of secondary source (transformed facts, opinion, contextualisation etc)? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Sure. Tons of opinion. "Though the game is immensely fun to play and a blast for all types of gamers, the interface is sorely lacking. To be sure, there are a lot of customization options available for you so that you can tailor your gaming experience according to your preferences–but aesthetically, the Hedgewars yellow interface is just plain ugly." That's pretty much all option. " Worms is one of those games that has been loved for many years – so much so that it’s been cloned a bunch of times. Today, I’ll be showing you HedgeWars, a comedic remake of Worms that keeps the strategy intact but injects a nice touch of fun and playfulness." is contextualization. Hobit ( talk) 03:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that’s the bit I called “the best”, too. Not significant enough in my opinion. I suggest a merge, not a stand alone article. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Let me make some points clear, which it seems you are missing. It seems you did not properly do your research homework and mixed up Alfred E. Neumayer [6] and Christoph Biedl (biedl) [7], they are both not involved in Hedgewars development, they are both non-profit contributors for several Linux Distributions and Open Source repositories and they contribute to Snapcraft which is actually maintained by Canonical LTD. A simple Google Search reveal these results. Neumayer is responsible for handling pull requests and merges from the developers repositories [8] to create snaps [9], while biedl writes the page, reviews the package and release it publicly. They are both popular contributors among Free Software Community. Secondly, as per WP:IS an independent source is from someone or something that has no vested interested in a given Wikipedia topic and it covers the topic from a disinterested perspective. They both, in a non-profit manner, provide thousands of dozens of softwares. Seems pretty independent from Hedgewars and Wikipedia to me. The makeuseof.com reference is not a promotional howto, it is pretty much a review, it criticizes every aspect from the game ranging from graphical user interface, gameplay and system requirements. Both makeuseof and mashtips do not fall under WP::PROMO, they describe from a NPOV the game, the first describes a Worms (series)-like game which is open source, is not opinion pieces (the mashtips is a lengthy article featuring several open source games), neither scandal mongering, nor self-promotional, neither advertising, marketing. This is a free and open source software, and it seems that you are concerned along its promotional or commercial feature which it does not have. You are citing a LOT of wikipedia policies and guidelines to make your point, but it seems that you are cherry picking which policy in here. while WP:NOT a directory, however the article is not written as a directory/dictionary and there is no policy which actually dictates that wikipedia is not a gaming directory, there are several game titles articles, because they are relevant. Hedgewars is among the most popular and most downloaded game within Linux distributions. While this is not sufficient to be considered as notable, it has been featured in several Linux magazines [10] [11] [12], it has been subject of scientific studies [13] [14] [15]. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 07:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The article I wrote is just a WP:DRAFT. It can be considered a fresh start, it is not its final form by any means. There are dozens of references which may be more suitable and show how notable the subject is. The article is not to be merged with any other kind of content, because it stands alone by its own. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 07:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I'm not all that concerned about commercial promotion given this is FOSS software, but it doesn't appear to have been covered significantly enough to warrant a Wikipedia article given those sources. I think the MakeUseOf is probably fine given a cursory glance at the article, but neither the Mashtips or Snapcraft.io websites come close to the WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 08:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • SportingFlyer, If I may indulge in some pedantry, FOSS is "Free and Open Source Software", so "FOSS software" is "Free and Open Source Software software". I should report you to William Safire -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I do not agree with Barkeep49's conclusion that there was a consensus reached, never mind the consensus being to delete. Granted, there are some appalling excuses for keep votes tending towards WP:ILIKEIT. However, not all of them are - my keep vote cited WP:LISTN, for example. This is, in my estimation, the very definition of no consensus, and if you check the talk page of the discussion you'll see I'm not alone in thinking this. Laun chba ller 12:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close This is basically a massively indiscriminate list for something that is going to impact a significant percentage of the worlds population. A list of people who died from the virus is perhaps relevant, or a category but not people who had it for the same reason List of people who have had measles would be irrelevant. It also seems incompatible with our BLP policy. Praxidicae ( talk) 12:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Why would a list of noteworthy people with Wikipedia articles who had measles be irrelevent? Much of the debate surrounding mandatory vaccines is based on the assumption that people who acquired measles had lasting injuries. Not a perfect data set, but still worth having Geo8rge ( talk) 13:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Clearly no consensus to delete here. May have been consensus to keep, but I'm not going to waste time debating whether it should have been keep or no consensus. Any BLP arguments were made in error, and given too much weight, as BLP does allow contentious claims provided they are properly sourced, which they were. And if a couple of them weren't, they should have been removed or sources added, not the whole article deleted. Arguments that the list will eventually become unmanageable/indiscriminate are pure WP:CRYSTAL, which works both ways and should be given no weight in deletion discussions. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Uphold It is clear from events that have transpired since this AfD was closed that this article, if restored, would be unmanageable and impossibly long. However, just because the crystal ball was right doesn't make it any more acceptable an argument to use at AfD, and my argument above for why the closure was incorrect at the time it was made still applies, so this is explicitly not an endorsement of it. Rather, per WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR, it is better to keep it deleted rather than restore and immediately take it to a second AfD. I am well aware that this is not a valid DRV vote, but perhaps we need a Scots verdict for when neither Endorse nor Overturn are fully acceptable. Smartyllama ( talk) 04:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Quick check: We have 950,000 articles about living people. Nearly all of them are adults and they travel more and have more contacts than the population average, so I assume their risk to get infected is at least as high as the population average. (confirmed cases*Wikipedia articles)/(world population) = 52. Hmm, much lower than I expected. Notable people are more likely to get tested or they are much more likely to be infected. Anyway, the list was already long, and it's only getting longer. -- mfb ( talk) 12:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, per Smartyllama. Undue weight was given by the admin to the (flawed) delete arguments in order to support a blanket deletion for something that was at worst a no consensus. Claims of violations of WP:NOT were made but never clearly explained. WPancake ( talk) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Editors not agreeing with explanations does not mean that they were not explained. The impossibility of maintaining the list in a way that vaguely approaches completeness, and the medical facts of the likelihood that most will never be diagnosed, and the minimal long term medical impact on the vast majority of those affected such that it is a non-defining characteristic have been thoroughly and repeatedly rehearsed and do not need to be repeated. What is it that WPancake still needs explanation of (as opposed to being convinced over)? Kevin McE ( talk) 13:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Request Could someone who has privileged access to the content of the deleted article please extract the information on fatalities, which was for the most part well sourced as I recall, and set it up as the basis of List of deaths due to Covid-19 (or something similar. Thanks in advance. Kevin McE ( talk) 13:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

This seems to be from 16 March, if it's of any use. The rest should be available at Deaths in 2020.-- Laun chba ller 13:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Individual articles mention if the person was diagnosed with COVID, likely because the individual issued a press release or it was news worthy. So I don't see why it is listed in articles but a list of articles mentioning it is forbidden. Were there any not notable people on the list? Geo8rge ( talk) 13:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete as a preponderance of keep votes was explicitly stated in the close. Rather than respecting the views of this majority per WP:DGFA, the close engaged in wikilawyering to cast a supervote. The close conceded that there were valid ways that the article might be improved or restructured but failed to follow this logic per policies such as WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Again, this was contrary to the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete". And, as this is a topic of particular public interest, it sets a bad example to be suppressing information about it. People will continue to seek out this information and there are plenty of respectable sources providing it such as the New York Times. Wikipedia has been establishing a good reputation as a clearing-house and consolidator of such public information and we should not give this up so lightly. Andrew🐉( talk) 14:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse - ( edit conflict) So, to first confront the above (based on their original !vote), they didn't engage in wikilawyering, they enacted the fairly clear rules about AfD reasoning being required to be policy backed. The article also couldn't have been improved/restructured as it was - a list of deaths would be a fundamentally different beast. Though I'd probably have advised noting he'd be happy to aid pulling that content out if requested. Considering the relevant arguments, I don't think this call was beyond the bounds of possibility. There were specifically rebuttals to the indiscriminate (et al) delete arguments, and I'm not sure the weighting for a straight delete was what I'd have gone for, but nor was it nuts. At this point, I'm going for a weak endorse - if that is rejected, I'd support either a relisting, or a No consensus. I would not support a panel close. Nosebagbear ( talk)

• No, they didn't follow "the rules". WP:DGFA is the page which explains the rules for making closes. There was manifest doubt in several respects but the closer still deleted regardless. Andrew🐉( talk) 14:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• That discussion resulted in two consensuses. The first was that we could have a List of notable people with a confirmed diagnosis of covid-19, or list with a very similar title. The second was that this was not that list. The closer's analysis of the debate was broadly correct, if a bit oddly-phrased in places. I think the right outcome for this DRV would be to endorse the close but restore the content to draft space in order to facilitate reworking to the new-style list.— S Marshall  T/ C 14:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Overturn Most people in discussioon voted for Keep. I think the list should be kept, but called now List of people with coronavirus disease 2019/2020, because we have now year 2020. -- 88.70.214.139 ( talk) 14:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• • The disease is actually called " Coronavirus disease 2019" (or COVID-19 for short). Paintspot Infez ( talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Closer's Comment So it was not an easy close. The part, even now, that I admit the most uncertainty with was whether or not to have preserved the death information. To do so in a license complaint way would have also meant preserving the rest of the information. Given the BLP concerns I decided that called for deletion rather than selective preservation. I don't think there's anything else for me to address at this point that I didn't already in the close. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close It was a nuanced assessment, not just of the consensus, but the !voting itself. —— SN 54129 15:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Not only was there a clear consensus to keep, the nom made zero mention of BLP as their rationale and there was initially little to no mention of BLP not only from the keep voters, but even from the delete voters - have a look and you'll see. It was only later in the discussion that some delete voters started bringing up BLP and many people, including me, began to counter that the article is in clear adherence to BLP. Oakshade ( talk) 15:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I agree the nomination was poor and I gave it almost no weight. However there was much discussion beyond that. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. I'm not sure which magic formula has brought people to think that so many people interested in keeping a page should be overlooked eventually. Just let things be if enough people like them. Just let them be. Let them be, really. Thierry Caro ( talk) 15:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn While you could argue there was a consensus to keep, I would argue that you couldn't possibly come up with a more clear example of "No consensus", so I think the decision to delete was inappropriate. The closer cited BLP issues but gives no indication at all about how BLP is violated, which I would argue it isn't since all entries are well-sourced, and because it's impossible for someone to be added on this list if there isn't already an existing primary source about their diagnosis, therefore it's already public information. (There's also no shame in simply being diagnosed with an illness, so I don't know why so many people are worked up about it being a possible BLP violation in the first place.) I know this would've been a tough close either way and I know Barkeep49 acted in good faith, but I think his decision flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS and his policy-based arguments for deletion are weak. — Hunter Kahn 15:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

BLP - must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. The list almost universially was working from reliable sources that were relaying press releases. More dubious were reliable sources relying on celebrities posting about what they think their diagnosis was on their social media, but a notable person posts something on facebook, there is no privacy issue. Geo8rge ( talk) 16:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: Consensus was not reached, and there are comparable articles for other diseases. I would comment that entries should be limited to people (i) who have enough notability to have their own Wikipedia article, and (ii) who have made it publicly known that they have COVID-19. -- Ortho rhombic, 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

New York Times has no problem: Celebrities, Athletes and Politicians With Coronavirus [16]

• Overturn. I hate to criticize my fellow volunteers, but the overwhelming number of experienced users wanted to keep this list. We can't all pile on and parrot back what another editor says, so sometimes you just have to say 'per Bearian' or whatever. This list was being shared on social media, and our readers are looking for this information. Bearian ( talk) 16:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is the kind of close I wish more admins were willing to make. It seems these are the primary arguments of overturn supporters here (with my responses):
  (1) Nom: while there were bad !votes on both sides, not all keep !votes were bad and there was therefore no consensus. But the closer never argued that all keep voters were bad; closer discounted some keep and some delete opinions and weighed the consensus, and nom made no argument why this was actually no consensus.
  (2) BLP given too much weight; well-sourced claims are fine under BLP. !voters in the AfD did not claim the whole article was a BLP vio; delete !voters argued both that (i) policing the article for BLP vios would be difficult so there would always be violations, (ii) the list gives undue weight or unnecessarily detailed/centralized coverage to the COVID-19 aspect of someone's life (think of someone with a two-line stub article being included in the list, for example).
  (3) Undue weight was given to delete arguments, and NOT argument not explained. Seems like due weight was given to me, and AfD voters primarily cited NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, which notes that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". While this argument probably works only in conjunction with other policies, this does not invalidate the closure.
  (4) WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete". DGFA specifically says a "rough consensus" prevails, and in context, "When in doubt, don't delete" refers to the capacity of the deleting administrator (i.e. when in doubt of own neutrality, don't delete).
  (5) AfD nom didn't mention BLP. But that doesn't really matter if it's discussed by !voters.
  (6) Closer did not enumerate BLP violations. But !voters did, and the closer doesn't have to.
  (7) There are comparable articles, and a list should be made that only includes self-identified notable cases. But that's not what this list was, and the history will contain all the cases that don't meet these criteria.
  I can find no other grounds to overturn, so I must endorse. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  I am disappointed to see experienced editors making arguments here that are inappropriate for DRV. I hope they will be disregarded by the closer of this discussion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Re (4), the closer clearly had doubts because they say above that it was "not an easy close" and "even now, that I admit the most uncertainty". When they are not sure themselves, they should not be imposing a minority view and claiming that it's a consensus. That's more than rough – it's riding roughshod. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think that's what I wrote. It's not what I meant. "Not an easy close" just means that I put a lot of thought and care into the close. Some closes are easy - the consensus is clear and no explanation is needed and you can just use the default language of XFD. The most uncertainty was around the consensus that a list of deaths is notable and how that ties into BLP. Best Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think many of those asking for an overturn here might do well to read Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose. This isn't a rerun of the AfD. Since my interpretation of WP:BLP policy is clearly at odds with many (most?) more regular Wikipedia contributors, I'm not going to explicitly endorse the closure here, but instead ask those who are basing arguments for the lists on the basis that if something can be sourced, it can be used, what exactly they think the purpose of the instruction to write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" is? And no, the article wasn't always sourced to the subject's own announcements, and even where it was such announcements can be compelled by media pressure. If people are going to use 'it has been sourced, so we can use it' arguments, they should be honest, and remove the "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" clause from WP:BLP altogether. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No. 1 there is "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly". Bingo, that's just what this closer did. Thanks for sharing. — Hunter Kahn 17:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Stating opinion as fact doesn't become any more convincing by writing 'bingo' before it. And your own arguments for an overturn seem to rest largely on assertions that WP:BLP policy doesn't apply. Arguments which may be proper for an AfD, but aren't relevant to an assessment of what the consensus at the AfD was. But whatever, this review isn't going to be decided by !votes. At least, I hope not, since if that is the case, Wikipedia may as well scrap it policies and guidelines wholesale, and instead solve all content disputes with 'like' and 'dislike' buttons. Meanwhile, per Wikipedia:Consensus, AfD's have to be closed after being "viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", which is what Barkeep49 says he has done. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • You seem to have either completely misunderstood or willfully mischaracterized my position. But given some of the truly outlandish things you've said related to this debate, I suppose that's not surprising. — Hunter Kahn 02:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• (did not vote in AFD) Endorse per Kevin's reasoning, and I also agree with Kevin that I wish more admin were willing to make this kind of close. This is what NOTAVOTE looks like. Once you discount the throw-away votes on both sides (keep, it's useful, or delete, it's evil, etc.), what's left are policy-based delete rationales that have the support of longstanding global consensus (like NOT and BLP), which were never really addressed by keep voters other than to assert or express their opinion that the article doesn't violate policy (see the comment by AndyTheGrump above for more on this point). Some of the keep rationales were nuts, like "it doesn't violate BLP because it's cited to a primary source" (what??). This type of article is very clearly against our core policies, it just doesn't matter how many people show up and say "Keep, it's notable". Similarly, it doesn't matter how many people who voted keep in the AFD show up here to say "overturn", or how many who voted delete in the AFD show up here to say "endorse". As the saying goes, "DRV is not AFD round 2". It'd be swell if editors who voted in the AFD explicitly noted that in their votes here. It'd be even better if they didn't vote here at all, and let uninvolved editors with fresh eyes discuss the close. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 16:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• (!voted to deleted in AfD <- These should be required disclaimers for AfD participants, imo) Endorse – I am surprised, going through the !votes again today, to find that the proportion of non-arguments is heavily weighted against keep !voters. I expected it to be about even, or slightly against keep. That is not to say that there were not weak !votes to delete, but by rough count I found the proportion of non-arguments to be between 3:1 and 4:1 against keep !votes. This is especially true in the early days of the AfD where many keep !votes hinge on some variation of not useless or COVID-19 is significant. Both utterly irrelevant arguments.
  The latter period appears dominated by "well sourced, notable" and rebuttals of delete arguments. The main argument to delete does not hinge on poor sourcing or the insignificance of the subject. It hinges on an aspect of BLP policy, not indiscriminate, and providing DUE weight. There were attempts to address these, but with varying success. To the argument that contentious material must be removed, the keep side pointed out – rightly – that unsourced/poorly sourced contentious claims must be removed. Most of the claims are neither poorly sourced nor unsourced. This delete argument is thus weak. To the argument that the list is indiscriminate, the keep side argued that the list is highly discriminate because only notable people are/should be listed. That rather misses the point, since if even 1% of the ~95 950 thousand notable BLP subjects catch the virus that leaves us with 9,500 entries. This delete argument is thus strong. To the argument that the list provides undue coverage to a single minor aspect of each individual's life, I failed to find a valid counter-argument, except for a minority that proposed only deaths be listed (also addresses IINFO). In this case, the delete argument is strong. However, as noted in the close, there is some consensus favouring a list of notable deaths.
  In summation, discounting non-arguments significantly impacted the strength and number of keep to delete !votes, there were no particularly compelling arguments to keep, and there were two strong arguments in favour of deletion (IINFO and DUE) that were not sufficiently countered. Hence, endorse. Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Addendum regarding my own "!vote" My own "argument" to delete was IAR as the list strikes me as thoughtless. I maintain that view, but in a deletion discussion it holds extremely little weight. It did not impact my assessment here, though I am pleased to be able to endorse the close. Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. I was not involved in the previous discussion, but there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. I would request that the closer voluntarily withdraw their close and relist the discussion, perhaps for a three-admin panel closing. BD2412 T 18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Article history temporarily undeleted pending outcome of this DRV. Mz7 ( talk) 18:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• (did not participate/vote in the AfD) Overturn as a consensus – either to keep or delete – was not actually reached. While the virus is expected to infect a sizeable part of the world's population, for now I think it would be justifiable to keep a list since that expectation has not yet materialized (and I hope it would not materialize even if the current situation says otherwise). Moreover, I think the list of notable people who died due to the coronavirus disease 2019 should be kept too; if this article gets deleted with finality I think there should be a separate article for it, or if not, a separate section in the pandemic's main article (especially if only few notable people die because of it). EDIT: Just saw the new article.

Another EDIT: Comment - Or, why not just put the notable people infected in separate sections of their respective countries/countries where they got the virus, just like in the Philippine article (where Christopher de Leon, Juan Miguel Zubiri, and other notable persons are listed in 2-3 paragraphs)? But instead of paragraphs, make it in bullet form/table form? -- Originally posted by Vida0007 ( talk) 19:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC); Edited by Vida0007 ( talk) 11:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC). reply

If the information belongs in those country articles, then what argument is there against presenting the same information in a different format in the deleted list? Fishal ( talk) 20:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per Bearian and Andrew. Reputed media houses are publishing such lists, why banned here? See above given link of NYT, and others such as [17], [18], [19]. I think there are enough sources to keep it. Störm (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close BLP concerns make this an easy target. We don't need any such list of diseased people. The way things are going, the list will include pretty much everyone, so it's pointless anyway. Do we have a list of people who catch the regular flue? A list of people with toenails? If a notable person dies of this - as a few have already and there will be more to come - then that goes on their BDP article. We saw increasingly long lists of cases in (for example) 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States before there were thousands and they were scrapped. We have better things to do, surely? -- Pete ( talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: I voted keep in the AfD, however, the basis for my overturn !vote is not based on my keep !vote. I simply think it should be overturned because there was not a clear consensus in the discussion. I've nominated an article for discussion before that's ended in no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BLVD Place). In this case there was no consensus because both sides raised valid policy points that couldn't be reconciled. The same thing is happening here.  Bait30   ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I was a delete !vote on the AfD. The majority of editors favored keeping the list and I was surprised to see deletion. I could endorse the close, but then I would be going against our policy of consensus, and it would endorse a supervote. If I !voted to overturn the close it would be against my own desire to delete the article. S there you have it. Lightburst ( talk) 21:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: There was clearly no consensus. A bloc of delete !votes were a result of canvassing. BLP concerns are easily addressed bu requiring reliable sources (no tabloid or social media) and were being addressed with the requirements in the Editnotice. JeanPassepartout ( talk) 22:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ JeanPassepartout: On what basis do you claim that a block of the delete votes (and only the delete votes) were the result of canvassing? That's a serious claim, and if it's true, it should be taken into consideration. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 13:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  He's referring to this ridiculous comment in Jimbo Wales' highly-visited talk page. The number of delete !votes jumped exponentially following this. WPancake ( talk) 13:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  <math teacher hat>First of all, they didn't jump "exponentially" (see Exponential growth); that doesn't make any sense here.</math teacher hat>. It was obviously non-neutrally worded, but I don't think you can just discount subsequent delete votes in such a high-participation discussion based on just that. There were keep votes following that thread as well; trying to disentangle would probably be pointless. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 14:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: There exists List of HIV-positive people, I don't see why there shouldn't for people with COVID-19. RiceGoneWILD 23:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Aside from WP:OSE, that article will be nominated for deletion once this DRV closes. If only the admin who closed that AFD in 2011 had applied NOTAVOTE, that list wouldn't exist either. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 13:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I think Andrew Davidson summed this one up rather well. The discussion does not show a consensus to delete the article. I am sympathetic to claims that this article is a BLP violation, since those are serious and should be purged regardless of whether or not they get "keep" votes. However, this article is not an open-and-shut encroachment, so I am not convinced there are any blanket reasons that tip the scales in this article's case. (As a disclosure: I didn't vote, but I have edited the article.) Nohomersryan ( talk) 23:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Comment: When I saw this was "somehow" (unironic bias?!?) favor deleted when its pretty mixed by users for the page's future, for a varies of reasons. Then, I will keep my original stance at the AfD on a Strong lean Keep, regarding again, if more cases coming in the matter of days. Chad The Goatman ( talk) 00:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: A lot of ppl who voted to delete in the AfD were misinformed, they assumed we'd be posting every name of ppl infected but that is ludicrous, it was only meant for those that meet the notability criteria. This is not a disease from which one recovers 100%, maybe if these misinformed ppl had read the article on it, a lot of ppl that recovered still have problems breathing because it has a long lasting and possibly permanent damage to the lungs even if one recovers..the list would have been eventually in months to come culled down to only the major notable deaths (Those with pre-existing wikipedia pages) but it would still be a list with history so ppl who read the wiki can go back in history and check the names of those that were infected cause there is no other way of getting it, there aren't sites online which lists those, this virus is deadlier than HIV since it can kill you within a week of infection and currently with no cure, you can live with HIV for decades and yet somehow people who have no knowledge of science voted to delete this list.. Wikipedia's basic rule was to compile and collect factual data, not remove them cause the level of IQ on this project has dropped sharply in the last 10 years..you can't just delete information without giving it time to develop.. the pandemic has just begun, 165 of 195 countries on this planet now has it and its likely it will reach all 195 within 6 weeks (it reached mine yesterday)..I feel sad for this project when i started 14 years ago, it was a hive of knowledge, now all the bees have been killed and the hornets have moved in.. it deserved BETTER-- 27.123.137.25 ( talk) 00:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - it was ridiculous to conclude there was a consensus when there obviously wasn't. DigitalPanda ( talk) 00:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (did not contribute to afd), the admin close was sound with a good explanation of their reasoning behind it. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The closing admin had sound grounds for the decision. When COVID passes, those infected do not need a lifelong stigma from forever being known for that illness. WWGB ( talk) 01:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (did not !vote in AfD) I’m seeing very few people calling for an overturn based on the close itself and instead simply restating their AfD comments. While a nose count did indeed favor the keeps, once the surprisingly high number of empty !votes are set aside (many ITSUSEFUL/OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the keeps, mainly strongly worded IDONTLIKEITs for the deletes) and the policy-based arguments are weighed, there is a reasonable consensus advocating for delete based on WP:BLP and various WP:NOT concerns than there are people arguing WP:LISTN or other valid keep reasons. So which arguments didn’t the closer weigh properly? As often as they came up, I don’t see how saying "the deaths are notable" or "it's okay if it only lists notable people" are any kind of policy-based rationales, especially when that's often the entirety of the comment with no additional explanation. Something being useful, or encyclopedic, or important to the reader, similarly has no basis in Wikipedia policy. There were a few WP:LISTN-based votes, but there were also specific refutations of that using WP:NONDEFINING arguments. On the keep side there were some hand-waving attempts to refute BLP and NOT, but just saying you don’t agree isn’t sufficient refutation in my view; at the very least highlight what part you think doesn't apply and why. And to be clear, I think it's fine to !vote "per someone else", but many of those keep !votes were in reference to statements that in my opinion carried no weight themselves, and thus the "per" !vote received no weight either. Based on my read of the AfD, I agree with the closer that there exists a rough consensus for delete. CThomas³ ( talk) 02:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: (!voted keep) Perfect example of how AfD is not a vote. While I believe the list could be kept so long as the proper criteria were implemented and tried to refute arguments for deletion in my !vote, most other keep !votes lacked grounding in policy. Some arguments for deletion were also frivolous, but most were reasonable and made clear and valid links to policies such as INDISCRIMINATE, BLP, and NOTNEWS. There may be a consensus to explore creating similar lists (such as a list of notable deaths), but the consensus is clearly against the list in its current form. I echo CThomas's concerns that editors seeking to overturn the close are treating the DRV as a rerun of the AfD. – Tera tix ₵ 02:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: (!voted delete) DRV is not for re-litigation, it is for examining a closer's work. In this case, I think Barkeep did a very good job considering a very tough AfD in a very harsh environment. He expounded on his reasoning, made the process clear, and did exactly what we expect of closers. I can't imagine how having someone else close it would help. The only place to go from here would be to have a team admin close, but I can't imagine we'll end up with a close that is better than Barkeep's. As I noted in the AfD, this DRV is also full of non-policy votes and folks coming off the street to just...hoot and holler. I pity any future closers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 03:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Alternative A possible WP:ATD here could be renaming and refocusing the page as List of Coronavirus deaths or something of the like. I think many folks on both sides thought the deaths notable, the question lay in if the cases without death were still list worthy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 04:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I don't see consensus to delete, but I also don't see how this list can possibly be maintainable or reasonable in size (unfortunately). overturn to NC is the only real outcome based on the discussion, but I'm pretty sure it's the wrong outcome. After some thought I think we're at overturn to NC but we should perhaps reconsider this soon (perhaps convert this to a list of people who had by a certain date? delete it? I don't know. It seems a shame to delete it...) Hobit ( talk) 04:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: (didn't discuss AfD) WP:LISTN establishes notability, not that an article should automatically be kept. The closer did a great job at explaining that the WP:NOT claims are completely correct and that WP:LISTN literally says It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Username ⁶⁸⁹² 04:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: The list should be kept as it was a summary of information available on wikipedia pages for notable people. For me the battle was lost when the New York Times and other top tier news sources published their own lists. Geo8rge ( talk) 09:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Many commentators here seem to be re-litigating the AfD, which is odd. —— SN 54129 11:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the result which was to delete the article, which I also put in an opinion to delete. This process seems to be to decide if something untowards happened with the closing action, a policy violation or serious error in judgement, it does not appear thtthis forum can be used as a court of appeals if people just plain disagree. I posted a sample at the discussion talk page of some of the bad opinions to keep and I will provide it here again too-

• "Was looking for this article for information and found it, so it served its purpose. Lots of such type of articles exist so this one should too"
• ""When the nom acknowledges it meets list requirements but claims IAR, that's enough said right there."
• "This is an important dynamic list."
• "Well considered article"
• "split if necessary"
• "To dicuss this is stupid. Still dont find a good reason to delete. WP should keep this article to counter/debunk Fake news"
• "a much needed data on high-profile people with covid-19."
• "the delete !votes are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the policies they keep quoting. I call WP:SNOW on getting a consensus"
• "keep however remove redlinked names"
• "provided it is managed well and only includes notable individuals"
• "because they are notable people"

None of these are valid, and I did not even get through the entire page. If a closer's job is to analyze the arguments and not just do a straw poll, then the numerical advantage of the keeps is rendered irrelevant. It was a good close. ValarianB ( talk) 11:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Let's go over some of the delete votes as well, shall we?

• "Delete this utter stupidity."
• "This list is pure and unadulterated evil."
• "Ick"
• "Delete per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY. WTF people?!?!"
• "It is an unmitigated blessing to the world that Wikipedia did not exist in the 1940s, as AndyTheGrump's suggestion that we would have an article entitled "List of Jews known to be hiding in Nazi-occupied Europe" is near-certainly correct and – what's worse – dozens of editors would defend it because well sourced and notable."
• "Delete What a fucking embarrassment to the "global encyclopedia" this is."
• "Speedy delete It is below any morale"
• "Delete this is a ridiculous list."

Let's not pretend the WP:ILIKEIT/ WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments were limited to only one camp. That and the many, many delete votes that hinge solely on WP:BLP, which is a weak argument even according to other delete voters. WPancake ( talk) 12:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

You have selectively edited some of those entries. The "ick" one is obviously invalid, but the "wtf people" cites WP:BLPPRIVACY, the "fucking embarrassment" one has a sound rationale following that opener, as does "below any morale". I will not engage with such a dishonest response further. ValarianB ( talk) 13:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Neither the "embarrassment" vote nor the "any morale" vote cite any policy. WPancake ( talk) 13:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I respect Barkeep as this decision was not easy to reach but the decision on this Afd should have been no consensus as there were almost equal proportions to either keep or delete the article. Generally long controversial Afd discussions end up without reaching a clear and concise consensus. For example the Afd on Media bias against Bernie Sanders reached no consensus and the Afd on List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 was pity long enough and should have been decided as no consensus. Abishe ( talk) 12:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Sigh (original nom). My bias is probably obvious, so I'll spare everyone that. But for those arguing to overturn as no-consensus based on the volume of keep !votes, I think we should be wary about how difficult such a mindset would make it to delete any sort of high-visibility current event article. I also wanted to mumble some sort of regret at the turd sandwich that this turned into, and that someone was going to have to step up to take a big bite out of (kudos to Barkeep for that, and for whomever has to bother with this son-of-turd-sandwich too). Maybe I was a bit naive to think that the discussion could have been a smaller/more-focused one. My original statement may have sounded a bit ... playful, but I was dead-serious in bringing it. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 13:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, albeit with minimal enthusiasm. I'm quite certain that the decision was made in good faith. Deb ( talk) 13:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Lots of users do things in good faith that the community does not support. I will learn and reflect from this no matter what but especially if the consensus is that my close was incorrect. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I think this close was within admin discretion, due to the BLP concerns.-- P-K3 ( talk) 14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, done in good faith, but I feel that the article is notable because it covers notable individuals affected by this rare pandemic. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 14:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Relitigating? —— SN 54129 14:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (!voted Keep and rename in Afd) Closer took great pains to explain his reasoning in detail. Leeway must be given in situations such as this, else admins will shy away from contentious Afd debates. The game of baseball would grind to a halt if every umpire call was second guessed like this. StonyBrook ( talk) 15:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The very fact people think an "existing primary source" would be useful at all is scary. All articles need to be based on secondary source, not primary ones. Reliable secondary sourcing as well, not statements on twitter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and I can't believe we are having this discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - noncompliant with WP:NOT...and it's sick (no pun intended). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• comment Above someone says there are 95 thousand BLPs. There are actually 946,000 biographies of living people, 10 times as many, and withso many articles on mebers of even current national legislatures missing, there is strong evidence we would have at least twice that many if we had biographies on everyone default notable. With our highest birth-year category being 1989, it is also probable that the size of this category will keep growing. In 5 years are new biographies of living people going to note that they were diagnosed with COVID-19 a few years ago, recovered and went on to publish notable works, compete in sports or be elected to public office. I highly doubt it, and unless you can argue that in 2032 it will be a known fact what all the US presidential contenders COVID-19 infection status is I will argue this is a non-defining thing about most people and not worth creating a list. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• That was me. It was a typo. Corrected. Mr rnddude ( talk) 03:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment The claim that any of us thought this could ever involve "posting of every name of peope infected" is just ludicrous. We have however realistically dealt with the fact that there are 946,000 biographies of living people in Wikipedia. it is very hard to see how the number of living people who are notable who get the disease will be held below 10,000. True, I also think it is ludicrous we treat as notable people who play in one game in a fully pro-soccer league or play one first class cricket match, and I think it is a policy violation we let articles languish for over a decade sourced only to IMDb which we declare to be non-reliable. However with every member of ever 1st level sub-national federal legislature and ever national legislature being notable, that means that there are probably at any time at least 20,000 notable people just who are serving in some sort of legislature, and with some only serving 1 term, I do not think the estimate of 150,000 living notable politicians and that we have only 50,000 of those articles at present is unreasonable, unless it is insanely low. New Hapshire alone has over 400 legislators. I have not seen anyone claim that we will include past COVID-19 status in articles going forward. I have spent lots of time removing unsourced categorization from articles, so I know that unsourced issues are major in Wikipedia. I have also followed COVID-19 coverage enough to know that out timelines, which look as if they are covering all developments, are severly lacking. This is just not a justified way to group people because having this disease is not defining. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close I can't see how this is a bad close. Barkeep49 gave a detailed rationale in his closing statement, explaining how they weighted votes and how they arrived at the conclusion they did. From a look through the !votes, I get the feeling that his assessment was reasonable - there were a great many 'non-argument' !votes, which rightly should carry little weight, which potentially sway the 'first impressions' count. I don't claim to have read every argument as closely as I'm sure Barkeep49 will have done, but from what I've read I'm not seeing a good reason to overturn this decision. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn There was no consensus that it "does not comply with WP:NOT" as the closer said it did. There is no BLP issue here either, there no reason why anyone would be upset someone mentioned they had this particular virus, Tom Hanks and others actually told people they had it. Consensus was that it met all requirements to be a Wikipedia article. The closer cast a supervote and ignored what everyone had said. Dream Focus 01:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That final comment is beneath you, Dream Focus. You can argue that the close was wrong without saying that the closer ignored what everyone had to say. I don't always agree with Barkeep49's closes, but I have no doubt whatsoever that he always thinks long and hard about the arguments on both sides. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Dream Focus: You were pinged ^^^ as it may not've gone through. —— SN 54129 11:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Strength of arguments, not headcount, is what should determine the outcome, and the keep/endorse side does itself no favours by throwing out arguments which normally aren't serviceable ones. Even discounting that, this close was within admin discretion range. A list of notable people dying to the disease is reasonable, but that's emphatically not what this article is. The attempts by people to restore the text while this DRV is ongoing doesn't help the Overturn case at all, and may be a compelling argument as to why COVID-19 as a topic is now under community discretionary sanctions. — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 02:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close That's personal health data. LaMèreVeille ( talk) 02:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Keep this thing deleted simply due to the fact that we have a privacy policy on here, especially regarding health issues, that should be respected. There are only a smattering of “notable” contractions such as Tom Hanks / Rita Wilson, Idris Elba, Kevin Durant, Andy Cohen, etc. but what are we doing here? Breaking news on random people? ⌚️ ( talk) 03:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. AFD isn't a nose-counting exercise, and the weight of actual arguments overwhelms any vote total. -- Calton | Talk 03:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (did not participate in AfD) Apart from any notions about what arguments should have been made in that discussion - it seems that Barkeep49 did a thorough job of assessing those that were presented. I can't find fault with his conclusion. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 03:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. I wrote in a non-WP-related chatroom on 18 March in relation to the AFD, just after having !voted in it, "I don't envy whoever has to close this (feel free not to read any of it)". I have read and reread closer's statement, and find no fault with it. It correctly begins by noting that !votes are not votes to be counted, and that ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments carry little weight. It then turns to the policy issues raised and assesses them; before finally balancing those arguments and reaching a reasoned decision. That's what's supposed to happen.

I strongly suspect that this case would be at DRV whatever the decision had been; and that any DRV would have attracted a large number of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT !votes and attempts to relitigate; rather than arguments based on "deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate (from #Commenting in a deletion review, above; emphasis in the original). I have tried to follow that guidance. Narky Blert ( talk) 04:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

PS - I !voted delete. Narky Blert ( talk) 04:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close Contracting coronavirus is not a lifelong affliction unlike say diabetes and the sufferers invariably recover, so was someone going to update the list once those with coronavirus recover from it, or was someone planning to come up with another ridiculous list? This list should never have been created in the first place. Blackmane ( talk) 05:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close this is a contagious disease and people who get infected will likely survive but then they will have a permanent article in Wikipedia that reminds their friends that they had the disease. If the list was about "notable people who died from coronavirus" I would have a different opinion. See WP:RECENT. The closer weight arguments and I think in this case the delete arguments were stronger.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 06:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I do not think it follows that it will be a permanent article. Articles are often deleted years after they are created, and what seems valid now may not seem valid in a year's time. Deb ( talk) 09:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- AfD isn't a snout count, and clearly the strength of argument was with those aguind to delete. This was a tricky close, but the correct one. Reyk _YO! 07:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• I'd like to briefly remind DRV participants here, including those favoring endorsing the close and those favoring overturning the close, to be mindful of the proper arguments at DRV (whether the closure was correct) and avoid relitigating the merits of the AfD itself. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Rename the article notable people who contracted Coronavirus Geo8rge ( talk) 11:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. This is a "no consensus" situation. WP:LISTN, raised by many participants, is a valid policy-based reason for keeping this article. To summarily dismiss policy-based keep arguments is inappropriate. feminist ( talk) 13:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the strength of argument here is definitely on the Delete side. A large fraction of the Keep comments boil down to that they think the list is useful, it cites sources or just statements of opinion with no supporting argument. However even looking at the better reasoned Keep comments I don't think several of the Delete arguments have been rebutted effectively, in particular (a) the fact that the list will get very silly as more people contract the disease (if 50% of the population gets it then the list could include up to 50% of living notable people) and (b) the fact that getting COVID-19 and surviving is not a particularly significant part of a person's life, to the point where we probably wouldn't even mention it in an article about that person (unlike, say, HIV or diabetes, which are life changing diseases). Hut 8.5 13:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Once you remove the ITSNOTABLE and ITSUSEFUL Keep comments there's practically nothing more (with apologies to the few editors who did try to justify their votes with something other than WP:ATA). Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. IMO a well-reasoned close based on policy. The argument above mainly comes down tot he point Barkeep made in closing, whihc is that if you count the "votes" it's a keep, but that's noit how we work. Guy ( help!) 19:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I agree entirely with Kevin, Levivich, Black Kite, and Guy. (I voted delete in the AfD.) -- JBL ( talk) 01:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn either to No Consensus or to Relist - This is a difficult case, largely because Wikipedia policy, which states that strength of arguments rather than numerical count must be assessed, is difficult to apply. Also, two important principles must both be kept in mind, although they work against each other in this particular instance. The first key principle is that Process Is Important. Even if following standard processes results in a less than ideal result, it is usually better to follow process than just to Ignore All Rules and decide what the Right Thing is, because bypassing process is itself a less than ideal process. The second key principle is that Consensus Is Not Determined by Voting. Consensus is determined by strength of arguments. However, there is no obvious way other than numbers to determine strength of arguments.
  • • In this case, the problem is that a numerical vote has resulted in what is clearly, in terms of policy, the "wrong" answer, and the closer has supplied the "right" answer based on policy. But Process Is Important. If this close is endorsed, it will encourage closers to supply the "right" answer when there is a numerical consensus that is "wrong", as in this case; but that will also encourage closers, mistakenly and in good faith, to supply the "wrong" answer because they think it is the "right" answer. Only under the most unusual circumstances should a closer decide that the majority is "wrong". We already get enough frivolous appeals at DRV saying that a closer should have disregarded numerical consensus.
    • Both the AFD and this DRV show that there is No Consensus, because the community is divided. There are two possible ways out. Endorsing the close is not one of them. One of the ways out is to overturn the close to No Consensus, and allow an immediate renomination (without waiting one or two or three months). The other is to overturn the close and Relist. The two options are really versions of the same thing. The AFD should be allowed to run for more than 7 days, maybe for 30 days, and should be closed by a panel of three admins. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Discussions (especially about BLPs) are about policy. All participants have a responsibility to put forward policy based arguments, and consensus is not necessarily measured in raw votes. The policy discussion leaned heavily toward delete, as the closer observed in their closing statement. -- Enos733 ( talk) 03:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)   reply
• Endorse - I did not participate in the AfD and honestly don't know which way I would've gone. It's a very hard case, and there were several decent policy-based arguments. Ultimately, I think there are ways to frame a close as either a no consensus for delete outcome here, and that Barkeep's rationale was sound enough that we can consider this within the closer's discretion. Importantly, it doesn't rule out a list of deaths, which seems like a reasonable compromise title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. Usually there will be several strong arguments in a discussion where the majority want to keep, and in those cases I would defer to public opinion. However, the arguments on the keep side were largely based on the article being "useful", "notable" and "well-sourced". While it is good that the list is useful, notable and well-sourced, they did not address the problem of the list being "an indiscriminate collection of information". Whether a person has had a disease is not a defining characteristic of the person; at most it might warrant a very brief mention in the biography. Most people suffer a number of diseases during the course of the lifetime, and to assemble lists to characterize people based on which diseases they have is a disturbing idea. If it were any other disease that isn't front and center in the public mind we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is tempting, and probably defensible, to close the AFD as "no consensus", and wait for a "delete" outcome a year later when the pandemic is behind us, but I find no fault with Barkeep49's closure or rationale either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn In a close case (or one that is at least not heavily lopsided), the better argument should prevail. But when headcount is heavily on one side, yet the closer perceives more virtue to the arguments of the other, that should be "No Consensus". Ultimately I think this article will be deleted. (It would seem weird today to encounter an article "List of people with Middle East respiratory syndrome".) But no article should be deleted in a way that can be reasonably perceived as a WP:SUPERVOTE. Vadder ( talk) 16:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and Overturn, Both - The correct result is to split the article, change the title to List of SARS-COVID19 deaths or whatever you want to call the Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome associated with the virus COVID19 (I believe the above is the accurate term) and restore that. The list of illnesses is clearly emphemeral health info justly deleted on NOTNEWS and BLP grounds. Carrite ( talk) 16:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Carrite: It has already been made. —  J947 ^{( user | cont | ess)}, at 18:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I think the original close considered all the !votes neutrally. The result was not "no consensus" when all arguments were considered based on their merits. When considering only policy-based !votes, these trended toward "delete". epicgenius ( talk) 21:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Just came across List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19 which I thought some here might have an opinion about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - what, list all millions of them? Do you remove them when they recover or die? Close rational looks good. Nfitz ( talk) 04:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (did not participate in AfD) It's NOTAVOTE. I think that the closer made a defensible and reasonable judgement after excluding non-policy based rationales (eg. ILIKEIT). b uidh e 12:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strongly Endorse Regardless of citation at what point is collecting a list of people who have a virus helpful? This is something a medical authority does, not this website, not to mention this probably violates a couple of laws having this kind of list on wikipedia. Govvy ( talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I did not !vote in the AfD. I reviewed the AfD and found Barkeep49's close to be proper. It is an admin's role to judge the weight and strength of the arguments. DRV shouldn't be a venue to re-litigate; it's an appeals process when the close is fundamentally flawed. This is not the case here. Jip Orlando ( talk) 13:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• (Strong) endorse. As what I had pointed out in AFD, the current LISTN is insufficient for determining the notability of a list (and especially a list of "notable people" of something or whatever). The deletion of the list does not violate the five pillars, and in fact ensures that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Σαν μο σα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 07:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Doesn't make sense to me to have articles listing people with certain non-chronic health conditions. Where's the list for people with influenza? — guywan ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse NOT INDISCRIMINATE was the argument that defined the debate and justified the close. The list may have seemed like a good idea when only a few otherwise notable people had the disease; it's gotten exponentially more absurd since then, and may well reach the point where it would be simpler to have a list of notable people alive during the epidemic who did not have the disease. Whether there would be a point in notable people who died of it might be a separate question, and I gather we already have such an article. I'm not sure this can be supported either: List of notable people who died of heart disease in 2020 might turn out to be a reasonable comparison. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - [20] another article (by Foreign Policy ) which legitmizes this list. Störm (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. A high quality close by Barkeep, thoughtfully constructed and well reasoned; the relatively few concerns of WP:SUPERVOTE at this DRV (given its size), is also apparent. The policy trade-off of LISTN vs. NOTEWS/INDISCRIMINATE/BLP is clear from the AfD, and Barkeep's summary. The "nuance" captured by Barkeep is that – so far – the numbers of people getting infected with coronavirus seems to be both large, and materially greater than the number of deaths (obviously, deaths are notable). This is different from List of HIV-positive people, where, for a period, infection was a near death sentance; it passed AfD, and has not been re-sent post this AfD (nor should it). In contrast, List of Spanish flu cases, has been re-sent to AfD, following the same "nuance" of this AfD, however it will probably survive as a result of the unambigious notability of the Spanish flu pandemic. Again, List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19 was a recent SNOW DELETE at AfD, so even when the universe of the list is restricted (i.e less INDISCRIMINATE), the "nuance" becomes even more apparent (given the lack of any death – or near death – of any football player), and the result is undisputed. A good close by Barkeep, and while a large AfD is going to leave a lot of people unhappy, they should regard the time and care taken. Britishfinance ( talk) 21:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Luciano Federici, Innocenzo Donina and Benito Joanet have died, but all long retired. Kevin McE ( talk) 08:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Noted Kevin McE, and noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish flu cases, was just closed as Keep (which, per above, makes sense). Britishfinance ( talk) 11:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. AfD is not vote counting. Barkeep seems to have done a very good job weighing the relevant policies that were cited in the !votes at the AfD. I could say "per others" here but there are a ton of good comments in this section endorsing the close. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 21:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. AfD was conducted and assessed correct. It is not a tally of votes but a discussion to decide whether or not it fits in with the encyclopedia. As accordance with WP:INDISCRIMINATE it doesn't. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Stagg Chili ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

There was no discussion between editors or on the talk page before deletion. This page could be linked to Hormel, which is the brand's parent company. Hello-Mary-H ( talk) 22:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Send to XFD as a Procedural Close - This doesn't seem to be the right forum, because there hasn't been a deletion discussion or a speedy deletion. There appears to be disagreement about whether to retain or restore a stub or redirect the stub to Hormel. If the stub is the status quo, an AFD can decide whether to keep the stub, delete the stub, or redirect to the main article. If the redirect is the status quo, an RFD can decide whether to keep the redirect, delete the redirect, or stub the redirect. Send this to an XFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close The page has not been deleted and so discussion here is not appropriate per WP:DRVPURPOSE. Andrew🐉( talk) 19:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Neye (company) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The page was nominated for speedy deletion for being "blatantly promotional". I contested the nomination, pointing out that all content was completely neutral, unpromotional and properly referenced information about the history of the company and its headquarters etx. I then tried to ask what part of the article had been found "blatantly promotional" since that would make it possible to be more specific in my argumentation but next time I visited Wikipedia (sjortly thereafter), the page had already been deleted. I have tried to discuss the matter with the closer twice (on his own talk page and in connection with a discussion on my talk page) but he has failed to respond. Another user (from "requests for undeletion") has told me that the problem may have been that I was too specific in the "Retail locations" section but I did not add any adresses or external links. Calling that "blatantly promotional" is as I see it unjustified since it is completely neutral and factual information, even if it should not have been included. I included it to add a few blue links to a few articles with not very many articles linking to them as it is (I thought that was good practice). I have a hard time seeing how a blue link to a district, street or shopping centre can be "blatantly promotional", considering that the information is pretty useless compared to how easy it would be simply to visit the company's website/web shop. But it is as already mentioned pure speculation that this was in fact the reason for deeming the article "blatantly promotional" about the article since neither the nominator nor the closer have been willing to point it out or engage in any discussion of the matter. Ramblersen2 ( talk) 22:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Restore and Send to AFD - The discussion on the appellant's talk page indicates that there is reasonable disagreement as to whether the article was spam, and speedy deletions should be uncontroversial. Let the community decide. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - User:Ramblersen2 - If articles that you have submitted are being tagged for speedy deletion, both as G11 and as A7, perhaps you need to rethink some of your submissions. If other editors think that you are writing like a paid editor, maybe you are writing like a paid editor, which is a mistake. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • User:Robert McClenon: I have written more than 2,500 articles (I lost access to my old account User:Ramblersen after having a new password sent to an old e-mail address) and I don't think I have had a single article deleted on these ground before and certainly not been involved in a discussion like this one), wouldn't that indicate that I am in fact not writing like a paid writer? The closest I have still got to an explanation was that User:Muboshgu told me that the problem may have been the "Retail locations" section, a 100 % fact-based list (with information that should perhaps not have been included), do you seriously think that including such information qualifies as "writing as a paid writer"? If the mere fact that someone who didn't even bother to sign his comment on my talk page have deleted a page without even being willing/able to explain what makes me guilty of writing like a "paid writer", I can only say that I bitterly regret having spent so much time on contributing to Wikipedia. Ramblersen2 ( talk) 11:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Tempundelete, please.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

done. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, Roy. After reading it, I don't see this as an appropriate G11.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Restore and send to AfD if necessary. I followed WP:REFUND rules in not restoring it, but I do believe the speedy deletion was a mistake. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore so that the rest of us can see it. A historic, high-end luggage company sounds like a reasonable topic while the idea that this will be significant as an advert sounds less plausible. Andrew🐉( talk) 19:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore. WP:G11 really seems like a stretch. I'm not sure this meets WP:NCORP, but AfD is the place to discuss that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: This was hardly promotional at all. The subject's notability seems borderline, so the article may have to be sent to AFD at some point, but speedy deletion was clearly not the right way to go. Glades12 ( talk) 19:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore without prejudice to AfD. That is far from the best article we have on a company, but it's very clearly an attempt at writing an encyclopaedia article so the requirements for G11 are not met. Jimflbleak also needs reminding that administrators must be prepared to answer good faith questions about admin actions - and that includes explaining why a page you speedily deleted met the speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Send to AfD. as for any questioned speedy deletion of this sort. (I don't expect it will be kept, but that's the way to decide). DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Southern Pacific 9010 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Keep consensus was heavily influenced on contributors favouring the subject rather than policy. Majority of discussion focused on the notion of WP:ILIKEIT and not about the general quality of sourcing and overall notability of subject. None of the contributors that I queried responded to my concerns, IMO meaning they had no evidence to give. This should have closed as a no consensus or relisted. Appreciated this hasn't been deleted but it should have been on the lack of sourcing. Night fury 11:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Void close and relist although overturning to a flat-out delete or merge wouldn't be unreasonable. The article is a poster-child for WP:FANCRUFT and the AfD was a disaster. I have great sympathy for Pax:Vobiscum who had to close it, but making the tough calls is what we admins get paid to do. The vast majority of the arguments in the AfD are classic WP:ATA. If we have pages on ... I do not see why ... cannot have their own is WP:OTHER. The page has existed for over eleven years is WP:OLDARTICLE. It is the last of it’s type is a good argument to disqualify WP:A7, but nothing beyond that. All of those types of arguments should have been ignored. Looking at the sources (both in the article and presented at the AfD), they're deplorable. A mix of Facebook (seriously?), fan blogs, etc. The Trains Magazine articles at least look reasonable, but they're press releases (note the Home/News/News Wire/... slugs), which are generally not considered to contribute to WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I've struck part of what I wrote above as inappropriately snide. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Heh, it is quite rare for a paid editor to become an admin. Glades12 ( talk) 19:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment. See the discussion with Nightfury on my talk page for my reasoning. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. The nomination is actually based on our notability guidelines, but none of the keep !votes are. The two arguments for keeping it are (a) we have other articles on individual trains, and (b) it's the last in existence of the very small number made and therefore significant. The first of these is logically fallacious. The second is certainly a claim of significance, but significance doesn't equal notability and there wasn't any attempt to relate this to the notability guidelines. Nobody except the nominator supported deletion so I don't think we can justifiably close as Delete, but the quality of argument is overwhelmingly on the nominator's side. I wouldn't oppose a relist but it was relisted once already and had plenty of participation. Hut 8.5 22:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist just because no answer is right, and In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Relisting is less than desirable, but sometimes is the least undesirable option, and this is such a case. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Is there a trainspotting wiki we could transwiki to? — S Marshall  T/ C 10:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Per WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW, the views of the participants in a discussion trump guidelines such as WP:N which say explictly that "occasional exceptions may apply". The discussion was relisted and reasonably well-attended and the consensus of the discussion was indeed to keep. If people who didn't attend the discussion don't agree with this result, that's too bad. Ultimately, such discussions are determined by the people who take the trouble to show up, not by a rulebook. Andrew🐉( talk) 18:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. At first I thought this must be a non-admin closure by an editor with nowhere near enough experience to be closing discussions, but then I was amazed to realise that the closure had been done by an administrator with well over a decade's service. It could easily be mistaken for a made-up deletion discussion written to illustrate points from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it violates so may of the principles made there. Just look at a few of the "keep" arguments: "If we have pages on notable steam engines, like Southern Pacific 4449, I do not see why notable diesels like SP 9010 cannot have their own": a perfect illustration of WP:OTHERSTUFF; "The page has existed for over eleven years": WP:OLDARTICLE; "the article has numerous sources, establishing Wikipedia-notability": WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I can't find anything in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions that covers "It is the last of it’s type, so it should have its own page", but it should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Wikipedia's notability guidelines that that reason does not bear any resemblance to any criterion in those guidelines. As for "it's not that terribly different from the rest of Category:Preserved diesel locomotives, most of which have no claim to notability except being preserved", the mind boggles: not only is that an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it even explicitly states that the "other stuff" in question has almost no claim to notability. While the "keep" advocates were posting such totally non-notability-guideline-compliant reasons as those, Nightfury and Nosebagbear were correctly pointing out that those reasons were not reasons for notability. There is no reasonable way whatever to read this discussion as a consensus to keep in Wikipedia's sense of the word consensus, and I respectfully suggest to Pax:Vobiscum that if she or he really has so little understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines as to think this discussion was a consensus to keep, then she or he might be well advised to stay away from closing deletion discussions in future. JBW ( talk) 22:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

At the end of the day the question the AfD boils down to is: can the three sources be considered reliable and do they constitute a significant coverage? I do not have access to Cauthen 2013 or Strapac 1969 so I cannot be the judge of that, and the AfD did not provide any answer to this question. I have no problem admitting that Nightfury is probably right saying that no consensus would have been a better close, but I do not see how this could be closed as delete. The AfD had already been listed for close to three weeks, so relisting it yet again seemed unlikely to be helpful. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 11:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Note: The article was not tagged as at DRV until roughly a minute ago. Please take that into account before closing. Glades12 ( talk) 19:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'm mostly puzzled I didn't see the AfD in the first place. Nor did most of the usual railway editors. The nomination began literally as "non notable and unremarkable" (why?) and was no better after that, with vague handwaves and "shudders".

This is a real preservation project, for a highly remarkable loco, both as a class (diesel-hydraulics are almost unknown in the US) as an example in service (the "camera car" service was unique) and for the preservation effort since. I don't see the US railway preservation press (I'm a continent away) but this is a rare project for something of this scale, and particularly for a diesel (diesels don't attract the prestige that steam does). Technically it's unique: a major restoration, on a US diesel which is (I think) a unique survivor of a whole type (not just a class) which was hardly seen in the US to begin with.

As to the DRV, then I see no merit to that either. "There was no consensus to delete, therefore let's overturn and delete it" Really? Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Andy Dingley:, the problem is a lack of good sources. Can you list three sources which are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage? If you can do that, I'll gladly endorse the keep closure, and my guess is so will everybody else. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, but I'm not even playing that game. I'm on the wrong continent. Didn't I already say that the railway press (which I might reasonably look at) in my country are paying fairly limited interest to this project? And that whatever the US has in place of Modern Railways doesn't often show up in my local newsagent? [21]

So, no. I completely reject this deletionist idea that if one editor from the opposite side of the world can't justify keeping an article in zero time flat, then it ought to be deleted.

That said, there is a fair bit around. [22] Here's one of the big US rail news sites (or as it will be pejoratively discredited, "just some fat old railfans"). [23] Here's a major canon source, albeit primary: [24] Here's the loco project itself, who publish via Facebook – although WP (a user-generated website) has a dogmatic position that no group can use Facebook as its main publishing channel [25] Then there are obviously primary sources, but why do we continually pretend they just doesn't exist? [26] [27] Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, though not against merging: The two Trains articles linked in the references are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage. That makes this a borderline call, hence my preference for a merge. However, I'm sympathetic to the arguments that this would unbalance the article about the locomotive class, and so I'm not against keeping either. Space isn't exactly a limitation on Wikipedia. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 21:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I see a lot of poor arguments for keeping, but I don't see any refutation of the arguments for keeping that actually are policy based, particularly that this is a notable example of the class but coverage of it would be undue on the main article. Keeping a spinout article that is primarily notable in the context of a larger article is firmly within policy and practice. I could live with overturning this to no consensus, but there was certainly no consensus to delete in that discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Eh, there is no way there is consensus for deletion given that discussion, it qualifies for IAR Keep if nothing else. If this was a BLP, especially a NBLP, we'd likely reach a different conclusion with this level of sourcing, even with such an overwhelming number of keep !votes. But it isn't and frankly I think Wikipedia is probably better for having the article. endorse Hobit ( talk) 14:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist and explain in the listing to provide input based on application of Wikipedia standards of notability. The keep arguments expresses why the commentators believe it is notable, but seems to be based on their personal perception rather than understanding Wikipedia criteria of notability and applying it. Addressing articles that may fail to meet WP:GNG is like picking up litter. The presence of litter elsewhere shouldn't be used to prevent litter removal efforts. Graywalls ( talk) 07:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: to quote myself from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Mahila Congress: Pragmatically I personally evaluate this AfD is currently at the point where any closer evaluating a consensus to delete would be taken to the WP:DRV WP:TROUT farm, although things may change. With that triage evaluation I thus may choose to do other things such as brock watching. I will quite likely of course receive the last word.. The serious point here is AfD's can take a tremondous amount of effort to counter for relatively trivial gain and wear away at mental health and limited amount of life. To the example here I see no evidence WP:BEfORE criteria #C#3 or #C#4 was followed so I question whether the AfD was valid in the first place. There was minor badgering during the first listing, which may have put others off from joining: but a neutral comment may have been appropriate. @ Sandstein on first relist indicated issues with the Last of its type argument and indicated basic response was notability requirement. Subsequent !votes continues to put forward the last of its type argument however, and crucially, notability was claimed by two references and not challenged in the XfD discussion, so there is no reason to overturn. There is a case for a merge, and there is case not to merge, and perhaps not to merge yet, especially with low-importance start/C class articles. But merge discussions are best held outside of AfD by those with a non-negative bias against the subject. It general preserved locomotives will usually have a sufficient history beyond the operational extant of the type whereby a subpage for preserved locomotive or preserved fleet may be appropriate as would likely cause undue and possible disruption to the class type article and WP:TRAINS may perhaps be advise to confirm this in my opinion. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Coverage of WP is decided by the users, not by the administrators, and the close was therefore correct in evaluating what people who wanted to comment thought proper. It violates no provision of WP:NOT., which is the basis of decisions on contents. (as supplemented by BLP). DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

DGG, I agree that Coverage of WP is decided by the users, but only to a certain extent. There's certainly room for disagreement about the quality of sources. For example, some people felt the articles in Trains magazine deserved more weight as being WP:SIGCOV than I do. Some people argued that since this was the last of its type, it's notable. I disagree with both of those, but they're reasonable arguments, editors deserve wide latitude when making those kinds of judgement calls, and AfD closers should certainly take that into account.

On the other hand, many of the arguments in the AfD should clearly have been ignored. There was an argument that we should keep the page because it had existed for eleven years. There were arguments that because we have articles about other preserved locomotives, we should keep this one. Arguments like that are clearly non-policy, and no number of them should add anything to the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ RoySmith Its pretty obvious many of the !keep voters here were pretty inexperienced and failed to forward arguments properly. The "last of its type" was obviously a naive argument and obscures the (unique) "camera car" argument. An article of eleven years should have had for example a notability tag in place for a couple of months, or perhaps even a warning at WP:TRAINS to avoid the disruption of an AfD; or a request at WP:TRAINS to see if a merge could be achieved; but these arguments were not forwarded. Inexperience counts badly at AfDs and can result in content loss. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 18:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse agree with DGG - WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and we should follow it more than we do at AfD. Editors are able to nominate the article again as many times as they like in order to get a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Lightburst ( talk) 18:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse With all due respect to the user bringing this to DRV - I can understand any frustration with the process - the discussion of whether the topic was sourced enough to be a Wikipedia article was lacking, but without any delete !votes apart from the nominator along with a couple users discussing sources, there's really no other way to close this AfD. SportingFlyer T· C 08:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Not all the keep arguments were altogether convincing, but some sources were nonetheless presented, e.g. trains.com, so the basic verifiability requirements are arguably met. Without much support for deletion I see no way in which this could be closed with a delete result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete, which would really save time since it's obvious (by now) this is not a notable train (because there is, at most, one source, trains.com, and you can't write an NPOV article using only one reliable source), but at the very least, relist. Roy said it well in his first !vote. The keep !votes were entirely WP:ATAs, like WP:OSE, and "it's notable because it's the last of its kind" (what?? where in Wikipedia do we say anything is notable for being the last of its kind?). I'm surprised at my colleagues saying AFDs are decided by who shows up. I mean, so we're throwing WP:NOTAVOTE out, and saying ITSAVOTE? AFDs are really binary: either you have two or three in-depth independent RSes, or you don't, and if you don't, it's a delete, because that's the global consensus, as recorded in our policies. "No sources, no article", no matter how many people show up and say "Keep, it's a notable locomotive, we have other articles like it," or whatever non-source-based reasons they may put forward. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 16:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Reading the article I will concur it is not a notable train because it is a locomotive before it was a camera car before converting back to a locomotive. The fact a model was created specifically for it adds to the notability: [28], there is a youtube video of this [29] however there is a problem as the model moves under its own power and I don't think its mean to. @ RoySmith may care to determine the validity of this source if we are beginning to talk about sources. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 17:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. As I wrote in my relisting comment: "'The last of its type' is not a valid argument against notability concerns as per our guidelines and practices. Basically, only reliable sources are a valid argument against notability concerns." On these grounds, the "keep" opinions should have been disregarded as contrary to our guidelines and practices, which is why it was wrong to find that there is a consensus to keep this article. However, for lack of any substantial support for deletion, there isn't a "delete" consensus either. The correct outcome, therefore, is no consensus - even if that doesn't change the fact thtat the article is kept for now. Sandstein 07:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Leila George ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I would like to have Leila George restored. Since the closure of the afd well over a year ago Mortal Engines has been released and been reviewed widely. George has also since had a significant role in The Kid. That's multiple significant roles. She has also got more coverage for GNG such as [30] and [31]. These things directly address the concerns of that afd. Checking with the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila George they stated "That sounds fine. I have no objection to restoration" [32] and pointed me to DRV [33]. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the deletion as correct at the time it was carried out, and restore the article on the basis that Ms George is now somewhat notable and a restoration would facilitate adding the new sources.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• I've gone ahead and restored the deleted versions in the history. Not quite sure why we're here. The deleting admin agreed that restoring it was fine, what's unclear is why they bounced the nom to DRV instead of just restoring it themselves, but whatever. I see there was a bit of edit warring about the redirect ( WP:G4 a redirect, really?), so maybe at least this DRV can lend an authoritative voice to the restoration to prevent that from happening again. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

User:Tellyaddict/userbox/snowmanbuilding ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

WP:DRVPURPOSE use cases #2, #4, and #5: unilateral deletion without explanation or a CSD number. I'm not sure exactly what was deleted but it sounds innocuous and allowed by userbox policy, especially if in user space. I tried contacting the deleting admin, but it is clear that he just doesn't like off-topic userboxes. Although this was deleted in 2007, it is still transcluded on five userpages. I'm not sure if this is worth keeping, but I would like it reviewed given lack of suitable reason for deletion, as well the contemptuous attitude demonstrated today. –  void xor 20:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Restore. Unclear why anybody cares about it, but it's in userspace and it's harmless. The real issue here is this edit by John Reaves which is totally inexcusable for an admin (or even an ex-admin). The only reason I haven't blocked them on sight is to allow them to respond to this DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I didn't realize the depth/history of this dispute. I agree it's not worth stirring up. I was mostly reacting to the WP:UNCIVIL response of the deleting admin, but also agree that this is the wrong forum to be pursuing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• • If you remotely cared about this project, you wouldn’t be talking such nonsense. And the only reason you haven’t blocked me is the fact that you don’t have a leg to stand on. -- John Reaves 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore - This is probably very sad, because this appears to be a case where an administrator has gone to pieces. But this is a content forum. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks so much for the sympathy. Also, what the hell is a “content forum”? -- John Reaves 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • The distinction between content disputes and conduct disputes goes back to the early years of Wikipedia. A content forum is a forum where Wikipedians resolve issues about encyclopedic content. There are also conduct forums, such as WP:ANI, where editor conduct is addressed. The issue here is whether the userbox should be restored and not why you, User:John Reaves, cursed about it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Do nothing. There was a lot of trouble with this user, over ten years ago. I'm guessing that User:John_Reaves was emotionally involved. John Reaves was always prone to that. I assume there is some historical context for this edit, and I do not believe that anything good will come from digging into long gone troublesome cases. The history is very murky, but this is an interesting place to start reading. It is from the middle of the story. Do not undelete without either: (1) An explanation as to the context of the time and relevance moving forward; or (2) an appeal from an editor in good standing who is one the users with the userbox transcluded. Feel free to remind admins to stick to accurate CSD codes, but don't start with mostly retired admins over actions 13 years ago. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• We've got to restore this. Arbcom have made clear and specific findings about how sysops should deal with unencyclopaedic material in userspace, see MZMcBride's first desysopping principles #4 and #5. We have absolutely no option but to enforce Arbcom's decisions and principles. Oppose any punitive action towards sysops, ex-sysops and discussion closers at DRV. We've never done that and there are good reasons why. DRV needs to be a safe space to encourage reflection and, where appropriate, admission of error. If there was ever a user conduct issue discovered at DRV we would refer to a drama board.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Those principles postdate this deletion by more than a year and a half and don't purport to be retroactive, so of course we have an option not to enforce them. If there's reason to, anyway. As far as I remember, the only arbcom cases preceding this that are at all relevant are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. But this wasn't {{ User pedophile}} or even {{ User GWB}}; to all appearances, it was completely harmless. John: What's the context we're missing that has you so upset? — Cryptic 12:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Hmm. The way I understand decisions and principles may differ from the way you understand them. I think Arbcom's "principles" describe the way things are: prevailing consensus, custom and practice, etc. I think their "decisions" are the way things shall be henceforth. I agree that their decisions aren't retroactive. I suspect that their principles might be... because violating a principle is grounds for sanctioning an editor even if that principle has not been previously articulated by Arbcom. But am I overthinking this?— S Marshall  T/ C 13:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. I don't think voidxor is intentionally trying to stir up drama, but the net effect is that this user is and it needs to stop. It's a terrible idea to be poking these bears, so to speak. If you're concerned about broken userboxes on user pages, you're welcome to remove them. Though it seems your concern is greater than that of the users who actually have placed these (now broken) userboxes on their pages and left them there for years. John Reaves is absolutely correct these discussions are a distraction and a waste of almost everyone's time. We do not need to re-litigate the userbox wars and we do not need to give attention to these subpages that belong to users who were appropriately blocked or banned. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  I never intentionally poked a bear. I saw a deletion that didn't make sense (even given the policy as of 2007; userbox migration started in 2006) and asked the deleting admin for clarification before proceeding. That is WP:DELREVD step #1 too. The reaction I received made me further question the motive for the deletion, so I brought it here. Had I wanted to focus on conduct, I would have gone to ANI. As far as re-litigating the userbox decisions, I've been citing those decisions all along because this deletion seems to have gone against them. –  void xor 19:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  To be clear, I don't blame you and I think you're trying to do the right thing. But I think going through these deleted userboxes is going to dredge up muck and I think we should prevent that. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Why are we bothering to debate this, exactly? Sure, it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but it is a pretty pointless userbox created by a user who was indeffed for disruptive editing and it was deleted thirteen years ago. I can't see any value in restoring it or debating it here. We have better things to do. Hut 8.5 22:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• At heart, DRV exists because editors matter. When a good faith editor is unhappy about something, we engage with them and take it seriously and work out whether a mistake has been made. If it's not worth discussin, we could speedily restore and close the DRV. Given that this was an out-of-process deletion, I don't think it's open to us to speedily close the DRV without restoring.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Editors matter, absolutely, but do disruptive SOCKing blocked editors' NOTHERE userboxes count? From 13 years ago? Ugly stuff happened in the userbox wars. Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear. The Germans#Don't mention the war. Acknowledge the history. Don't try to fix the history. Don't clean and hide the history, but acknowledge it and move on. The user in question came back, unblocked, for another two years without ever returning to this userbox. Why should someone unconnected bring it up here and now? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Does this editor need standing to open a DRV? I don't recall any other DRVs being declined because of that.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Well no, definitely not decline due to lack of standing to open. He is welcome to open this DRV, and we should discuss it seriously. My considered opinion, based on a a little bit of reading around the user, User:Tellyaddict & User:Qst, and my memory of the feel of the userbox wars, is that yes there was a procedural problem with the deletion of an unimportant userbox, but there is no harmed editor who has edited for ten years, there is no evidence of the deletion having been an issue for any user who used the userbox, there is no evidence of continued misuse of the delete button by the semi-active admin, and it was 2007. The wrong thing was done, but I don't think that WP:EM implies a need to undelete it. I think digging up such old deletions is counterproductive for the improvement of the project. If you think I am wrong, then maybe I need to ask for a temp_undelete. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I don't necessarily think you're wrong in what you say there, but I'm curious about where you stand on the Arbcom principle I linked.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I've been thinking about this a bunch, and have come to the conclusion that we should keep this deleted, if only to discourage this sort of thing in the future. There's probably been millions of deleted pages since we started this thing. I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could find thousands of bad deletions, even egregiously bad ones. Every discussion has a cost, and there needs to be some value that we get back for that investment. For reviews of recent actions, we potentially get value in three ways. We restore valuable material. We give somebody who has a stake in the page their due process. We educate active admins so they do a better job in the future. None of those apply here, so this is just effort expended for no potential return. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• S Marshall, I stand very firmly with those two principles. #4 Notification of deletion. Quite right, John Reaves should enter proper deletion log records. However, the statute of limitations is surely less than 13 year for a “not needed“ where a CSD code belongs. #5 Personal expression in userspace. I think I might be Wikipedia’s most contributing person to this question when it arises, and push comes to shove at MfD. Reasonable leeway in userspace for a productive Wikipedian is an old and well respected principle. In this case, at that time, the user’s ratio of userspace snowmanbuilding to productive contributions was overtly under challenge, and was substantiated. The principle speaks to the admin’s responsibility to talk to the user, to ensure that the user understands the problem. I think that angle was fine, even if what John did was handling the problematic user poorly. Like I said above somewhere, if any user, in good standing (not blocked, presently active), who has ever had this userbox transcluded, wants this back, then yes undelete. But don’t undelete this time. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

It is documented. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

User:S Marshall, I don't agree that I have !voted to "not review". I have reviewed. The nominator's request is

"I'm not sure if this is worth keeping, but I would like it reviewed given lack of suitable reason for deletion, as well the contemptuous attitude demonstrated today."

My latest stab at a consensus position is: That deletion was improper. However, given the age of deletion, and the contemporaneous controversy surrounding both the user involved and userboxes in general which is not ongoing, do nothing more. Do not undelete, not without an actual interest in the deleted userbox. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'm with you on all your reasoning until the very last part. My thought process goes: (a) By unanimous consensus, this deletion was out of process; (b) By unanimous consensus it's unproductive to discuss; therefore (c) We should restore without discussion.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Auto-restore any bad speedy, checking in the process that G10, G12 etc don't apply, has a logical simplicity to it. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Speedy overturn per WP:DP, "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately." This may stop the continuing waste of time per WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew🐉( talk) 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy undelete per User:Andrew_Davidson and User:S_Marshall. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore an unacceptable admin action does not magically become acceptable even after 13 years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply

K. Surendran (politician) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This AFD was formed due to a clear political rivalry.The deletion was justified at the time. However, he has received a flurry of coverage in the media since appointed head of BJP Kerala state.makes he is clirly meet WP:GNG More specifically. Although a politician has not won any election but ,If he has received significant media attention as per WP:POLITICIAN (2) He is presumed to be notable.About Him more than 100+ reliable sources available in outside of wikipedia..Before I came here Also contacted the deleted admin.He moved the article to a Draft space and Now I expanded the Draft. But the admin said,Mainspace move depending on the opinion of the editors who supported the deletion of the article in the discussion. They're never ready for Support, and I have no choice. The article is worthy of presence in Wikipedia as per WP:POLITICIAN , WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC. This is a magazine that came out about him recently Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  11:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. This is really out of scope for DRV. There's zero chance we're going to overturn a well-attended, unanimous, AfD. The article is in draft space, submit it for review. If it gets accepted, the mainspace title can be unsalted at that time. Until then, there's nothing for DRV to do. BTW, the fact that the portrait image is a professional quality photo, obviously downloaded from the internet but noted as "Own work" by a user named "Honesteditsvj", doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings about the overall situation. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Struck the bit about the photo being a copyvio. Based on the upload date and the date of the Indian Express article linked to above, it looks like they got it from us! -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'm not completely convinced that the AFD got this right. They might have held Mr Surendran to the wrong standard. He fails one particular SNG, but at first glance, that looks like a possible GNG pass to me. From a search of RSN archives, I think the New Indian Express and The Hindu may possibly be reliable, although I'm less sure on the other sources.— S Marshall  T/ C 22:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a correct assessment by the closer of the consensus. User:S Marshall is probably right that the AFD got the wrong result, but that isn't what we are doing here at DRV. (Is it?) Less than a month after the AFD, I am not ready to say to go ahead and create a draft. If I were the AFC reviewer of the draft, I would Reject a draft on notability grounds if it were so soon after the AFD. (I normally Decline a draft if there was a previous Delete at AFD, but if it was this recent, I would Reject.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If the AfD got the wrong result, there needs to be a way to correct it. Deletion review's role is to scrutinize deletion decisions and, when we find them defective, find a way to repair the error. Although this is rare, deletion review has on occasion overturned an XfD to the diametrically opposite result on the grounds that the original decision was simply wrong. As a really clear example of this I'd cite a review of a CfD from more than ten years ago: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24. This case is not similar and I would not advocate a straight overturn in this case, but subject to the views of other editors, we might perhaps go so far as to relist at AfD with a request to consider the GNG angle.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment In the sense that some are making edits here with political objections there is a dispute within and outside Wikipedia about some of the editors involved in the AFD debate, which undermines the credibility of this AfD.I wasn't involved in the AFD debate,I submitted the news links that prove this person's notability before the Deleted Admin but the admin says; That the article was deleted based on the views of the editors who participated in the discussion. Draft Move' will be contingent on the opinion of editors who supported deletion of the article in the discussion. I can't argue with them, because my knowledge is limited.I am afraid that if I invite other editors on the talk page of the Delete Admin, it will become canvas and become lawless. So I have no other choice to consult the opinions of other experienced editors.
  • Here I submit a few reliable sources which confirm Surendran's Notability.
    • Magazine
    • Ndtv (national media)
    • The Hindu (National newspaper)
    • timesofindia/indiatimes.(National newspaper)
    • The newindianexpress.com
    • Thehindu
    • Timesofindia
    • National news
    • The newindianexpress
    • mathrubhumi news
    • Manorama news
    • keralakaumudidaily newspaper
    • deshabhimani daily newspaper
    • deccanherald

Thanks -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  06:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Padavalamkuttanpilla: You state that "there is a dispute within and outside Wikipedia about some of the editors involved in the AFD debate". Please identify which editors involved in the debate are the subject of such a dispute, and explain how this relates to the credibility of the AfD. Please bear in mind that User:Johnpacklambert and User:Bearian are among our most experienced and trusted editors, and although I am less familiar with User:GPL93, I have no knowledge of any dispute involving them and no reason to doubt their credibility. BD2412 T 01:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi BD2412 Sorry I was just talking about 'DBigXray'. Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  04:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

You said "some of the editors", which is clearly a plural phrase. What other editors besides DBigXray were you referring to? BD2412 T 04:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse: I honestly think it's too soon to reconsider notability. This coverage is really only talking about his new appointment as state president, which might be considered to fall under WP:BLP1E and all other coverage doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. I could be convinced otherwise, but for the moment I'm leaning to endorse the recent rather emphatic consensus to delete close. Maybe revisit in six months and see if the news coverage persists. Waggie ( talk) 06:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The sources I have pointed out here are perhaps the most recent ones,He was deeply mentioned in several sources even before this article was deleted.you can verify the draft or check it on the Internet.-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  07:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was nothing defective about that discussion, and I would have voted delete myself. I'm not sure state presidents of political parties have inherent notability - this seems like a WP:BLP1E, and we're typically pretty careful with political articles. Suggest draftifying. SportingFlyer T· C 18:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  SportingFlyer, it's already at Draft:K. Surendran (politician). -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Then it seems as if that were a decent suggestion :) SportingFlyer T· C 03:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. First off, thank you for the chance to comment. I've been active on and off for 13 years as a Wikipedian. I have been "out" about who I am and what COI's I have since I was doxxed over a decade ago. Anybody can google me and see my social media accounts. I have had a reputation as an inclusionist. I'm not notable (yet) but as a blogger, academic, attorney, and political activist, but I'm out there. I've also been out in another sense - my domestic partner of almost 12 years is Asian-American. So I have no biased reason to delete this. My only bias is that the subject just doesn't meet our current standards for notability. I remind the gentle reader that we are an American charity. The taxpayers of New York, Florida, and 48 other states indirectly subsidize our work here. We are not a web host for political parties. Our charitable status in fact forbids it. In 2007, a person might have been excused for wanting their state/local political party officer to have a "page on Wiki". However, it's 2020, and the state of affairs should be known by all. Bearian ( talk) 10:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

It's worth noting that while we are an American non-profit, donations do not just come from the US. ^[1] It's also worth noting that donations in no way affect our editorial policies and guidelines, this is something that Wikipedia editors feel very strongly about and would be the case irrespective of our non-profit status. Waggie ( talk) 00:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I have no COI and my previous voting history on state-level party leaders has been consistent regardless of nation or political affiliation. Even with the new draft I notability isn't there, although if coverage is sustained over a period of time Surendran could meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 13:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The close was appropriate considering the deletion discussion. No voices in support of retaining the article. While many of the arguments made in support of overturning the close may have validity, they should have been brought up in the deletion discussion, where other editors could evaluate and respond. -- Enos733 ( talk) 03:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Bapunagar Darpan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Administrator did not specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary as per Wikipedia:Deletion_process. The article is about the local bi-weekly news paper which is registered entity. I want to expand the article as well but it gets deleted again and again though I have added reliable sources. I would be grateful if the deletion result could be revoked. - Hamza Ghanchi 10:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. Deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bapunagar Darpan. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Allow WP:REFUND to draftspace or userspace. It is a new local newspaper, WP:TOOSOON applies, it may be found to be notable later, and so it is good for being a draft. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Draftify to enable this user to improve it as he requests.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but Draftify - I do not see an error by the closer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The appellant states that the administrator did not specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary. I have looked at the closing instructions for administrators, and it appears that the closer is supposed to say that the result was Result, such as Delete with optional additional information. Am I missing something, or is this a complaint that the closer didn't add something optional? Was the reason for deletion that there was a consensus to delete? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I can only assume that the OP wants the deleting admin to specify in the deletion log entry that the page was deleted for violating WP:N, WP:NOT or whatever. This isn't usual practice, when deleting a page as a result of a deletion discussion admins usually just link to the deletion discussion and leave people to read that if they want to know the rationale. Besides it's not the deleting admin's call as to whether the subject is non-notable or whatever, they're just implementing the consensus of the discussion. I can't see anything wrong with this deletion and there's no good reason given for overturning it here, but I'm sure we can draftify the page. Hut 8.5 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse / draftify. Based on what was in the deleted article, and what I found in searches, I think it highly unlikely this is notable, but I can't see any reason to deny restoring this to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bapunagar Darpan. If the editor can present few reliable sources, I would suggest draftify. He has failed to provide any reliable source at AFD and unlikely to have any RS because this local newspaper is established in 2019.- Nizil ( talk) 12:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  We're not the draft police. If this user wants to work on a draft it's not for us to stop him.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Parthesh Patel ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I have created the article of the Gujarat based political analyst Parthesh Patel but it got deleted though it had multiple reliable sources which cites the importance of the person. During deletion, Administrator did not specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary as per Wikipedia:Deletion_process. The article is well explained in details and it did had trustworthy information. I want to expand the article as well with more information and media but it gets deleted again and again though I have added reliable sources. I would be grateful if the deletion result could be revoked.

Here are the references which cites the importance of the entity. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]} - Hamza Ghanchi 10:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. Parthesh Patel was WP:SNOWBALL deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parthesh Patel. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Discourage allowing REFUND or recreation as a draft for six months to show respect for the clear decision at AfD. This never-elected “politician” is not close to notable, and there is no reason to think this may change soon. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The notability of the person is about the social media adviser to the biggies of Indian Politics. He is in line with Prashant Kishor who helped individual parties to win election with the help of social media. I request you to re-look at notability of the article.-Hamza Ghanchi 08:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Draftify as above. The deletion may have been correct but that's no reason to stop this user working in draft or userspace. Applicant should note that this person is quite a long way below Wikipedia's notability threshold and better sources (not more sources, better sources) will be required before the draft can go in the mainspace. It may be more productive to work on something else.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Question - Is this about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parthesh Patel or about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bapunagar Darpan? I don't see an error by the closer either way. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

This is about the article of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parthesh Patel, I have bunch of references to the article which clearly states about the importance of the Person, Can you help me get it approved?-Hamza Ghanchi 08:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse Created three times before and each time deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parthesh Patel and recreated Draft:Parthesh Patel. - Nizil ( talk) 12:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse there was no error in either AfD (both of which I participated in) and Patel has been deemed non-notable three times now. This appears to be more of a case of an editor who is unhappy with the outcome of the AfD than any particular error by a closing administrator. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 20:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I do contribute to the Wikipedia Gujarati and Wikipedia English and I have history of creating new articles of persons and places, I do know about importance of notability of the person and that's why I cite multiple reliable news sources which proves the notability. Can we have this article approved?-Hamza Ghanchi 08:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to have an article approved, this is a review to see if the administrator properly closed the AfD (which he did). Best, GPL93 ( talk) 13:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Couldn't have been closed any other way. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 09:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Note A post-deletion recreation by the original article creator has already been started at Draft:Parthesh Patel. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 09:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The draft is essentially a copy-paste from the deleted mainspace page, so if nothing else, it needs proper attribution and/or histmerge to comply with our licensing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

MauBank WithMe ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The administrator did not specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary as per Wikipedia:Deletion_process. I contacted the administrator to seek clarifications to know the reason (See User_talk:78.26#Article_deletion). The reason given was that the references provided in the article was not as per WP:INDEPENDENT. I believe that the closer interpreted the discussion incorrectly, since as per the discussions, it is clear that the app is notable in Mauritius and the references provided are from notable independent news outlets in Mauritius. In this respect, I would really grateful if the deletion result could be reconsider. Thanks. Kingroyos ( talk) 10:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• endorse- It seems that the closing administrator correctly judged consensus in this discussion. Reyk _YO! 12:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear friend, please clarify why you think so. -- Kingroyos ( talk) 16:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. There's no possible way this AfD could have been closed differently, especially with a detailed evaluation of every source in the article. Had I run across this, I might have deleted it under WP:G11. Please note WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear friend, please refer to the subsequent reply where I gave some clarifications as to why the references were wrongly interpreted and no reply was given to that before closing the discussion.-- Kingroyos ( talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the deleting administrator did provide the reason for deletion in the deletion summary, the reason for deletion was the AfD result and they linked to the AfD. The consensus of the AfD was clear, the sources provided were analysed in detail and shown not to be sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 15:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear friend, Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. In addition, no reply was given to me before the deletion process was closed.-- Kingroyos ( talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The debate was not closed on the basis of majority vote but on the basis of WP:CONSENSUS, which is how we close these discussions. The fact that nobody replied to your comment doesn't make it correct, on the contrary it doesn't seem to address the issues which were raised at all. Hut 8.5 16:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - This appeal, like the appellant's Keep argument in the AFD, are walls of text. There is no error by the closer and no real allegation of error by the closer. If the appellant wants more coverage of an island country, that is a systemic bias issue to be addressed in some other forum than a deletion content forum. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear Friend, please note that I just wanted to show that we cannot expect to have references from well known newspapers worldwide but only from well known Mauritian newspapers as the App is only available in Mauritius.-- Kingroyos ( talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment - User:Kingroyos appears to be raising an issue of systemic bias about inadequate coverage of Mauritius. DRV is not the forum to raise that issue. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• The thing is, Kingroyos, that on Wikipedia, when someone gives their view in a discussion, they don't have to engage in dialogue with you about it afterwards. You're welcome to reply to them, but their view stands unless they change it themselves. This is so because the alternative would be an environment where the last person to reply wins, and we couldn't possibly make decisions in that environment.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The notability threshold for commercial products is especially sensitive to the suggestions that purported sources are not really independent. Kingroyos' defence of the sources absolutely falls short of the standards expected here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse good close. Perhaps draftify and submit when the article can be improved. Lightburst ( talk) 18:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Close was fine. If the app is truly notable, no prejudice against trying to create a draft on it, but it doesn't seem likely based on the thorough discussion. SportingFlyer T· C 18:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Ralph_Weber_(businessman) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe this page was deleted by a company selling Wikipedia profile postings called "Wiki Professionals Inc." from Jason Nolan. They emailed me with an offer of reposting this profile for $799. A profile should not be deleted because a company seeks to profit from it. I will gladly enhance this listing with better sources and remove any links that feel like a direct marketing effort. Give me an opportunity to make this profile fit Wikipedia's current regulations. The page was created a long time ago under different regulations. Route3 ( talk) 18:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• This is out of scope for DRV. I suggest you email legal@wikimedia.org and tell them what has transpired. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Debra Arbec ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Her nomination for Local News Anchor at the 7th Canadian Screen Awards (which is national) is a nationalized claim of significance and so rises [her] to the level of notability and the only delete vote came for the same person whose AFD voting Smartyllama recently raised concerns about, so I suggest a relist or third AFD. ミラ P 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist While there are no keep !votes, there is only one delete !vote other than the nominator, and it is someone who is a notorious deletionist with serious credibility issues at AfD. I don't think it's appropriate to endorse JPL's views alone as consensus of the community. As the AfD had not yet been relisted, I think that is preferable rather than closing as no consensus. Smartyllama ( talk) 18:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Smartyllama: Better the issues with JPL are raised at WP:AN not here. ミラ P 18:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Miraclepine: I'm not trying to rehash everything with JPL here, but the article shouldn't have been deleted when he was the only delete !vote and DRV is the appropriate venue to discuss that deletion. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Smartyllama: I meant in general. ミラ P 20:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Miraclepine: So you're saying I should do exactly what I'm doing and limit this DRV discussion to the deletion of this particular article? I'm confused. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Smartyllama: I meant we'd have to go to WP:AN to find every AFDs that had just one delete vote that was by JPL and was closed as delete (but not soft delete). ミラ P 20:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Miraclepine: Let's focus on this one for now, I don't have time to research everything JPL-related and write something up at ANI. If you want to, go for it and I'll chime in. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Relist - a very quick Google news search says she was nominated for the 6th Canadian Screen Awards and 8th Canadian Screen Awards as well - which makes the claim of User:Johnpacklambert questionable. Someone should notify User:Bearcat as well. Nfitz ( talk) 16:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Question - What is the filer requesting? Overturn the Delete to No Consensus? Overturn and Relist? Re-Create as Draft? The closer didn't make an error in closing as Delete. Relist would be a good idea anyway, and Re-Create as Draft should be permitted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• On the one hand it seems harsh to overturn a closer who implements a unanimous consensus, but on the other hand, JPL !voting "delete" is about as surprising as Dream Focus !voting "keep", and should carry about as much weight. Needs relisting to be examined by editors whose evaluation of the sources is less of a foregone conclusion.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• I do believe the nominator is misunderstanding the process — and note that I'm explicitly saying this as the nominator of the prior discussion. If a person has a stronger and more sourceable notability claim than they had at the time of the original discussion, then DRV does not have to overturn the original discussion before a new article is ever allowed to be recreated — the new notability claim and new sourcing change the equation, so a new article can be created, and DRV does not have to overrule the prior discussion first. The only thing you can't do is recreate the same weak article without showing any stronger evidence of notability and sourceability than the first article did — if you can do better than the first version, then you do not need the first discussion to be overruled by DRV before you're allowed to do that.
  And furthermore, just because a concern has been raised about a commenter in the discussion does not mean everything that person has ever said in every AFD discussion has been permanently invalidated or overturned by consensus. I'll grant that JPL doesn't always add very much to AFD discussions, and tends to just put in a cursory vote without always explaining his reasoning very well, but there's been no consensus established that every AFD discussion he's ever participated in needs to be automatically flipped the other way just because he was there.
  So there's no need for this discussion: if she's got a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than she had in the past, then just write a new article. You don't need DRV's permission to do that, so there's no need to ask for it. Bearcat ( talk) 17:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure it's any (or much) stronger now. She'd already been nominated for the 6th Canadian Screen Awards and 7th Canadian Screen Awards when this AFD ran late last year. Her recent nomination for the 8th Canadian Screen Awards isn't in itself a game changer - though perhaps her nomination for the 6th Canadian Screen Awards should have been. As such, I'd think a DRV discussion is necessary - with such low participation, and without any relists, I'd think that a relist was necessary. A bigger issue is that neither the nominator, sole delete vote, or closer appear to have done any due diligence. A simple news search for her name, quickly pops articles about her nominations. Also of concern is JLP's delete votes - casting 12 in a 15-minute period that day, most only 4 words long; it's hard to believe there was any time spent researching the issue. Note that JLP is already topic-banned from starting too many AFDs - perhaps he should also be also topic banned from voting without spending 10 minutes for each AFD doing some due diligence! Nfitz ( talk) 17:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Award nominations are not a notability guarantee in and of themselves. A person has to win an award, not just be nominated for it, before the ability to source the fact magically secures her notability all by itself regardless whether any other sourcing is available or not — merely being nominated still secures her notability only if you can get her over WP:GNG on the quality and depth of her sourceability. It works kind of the same way as politicians: if a politician wins the election, then you're allowed to start the article as soon as one source can be shown to verify that they won it even if that source is just a list of the winners, but if they were merely a candidate, then you still have to source them over a significantly higher volume of reliable source coverage about them than the winner has to show, and cannot rest their notability solely on the presence of their name in a list of the candidates.
Thing is, even on a Google search, I'm still not finding strong evidence that she actually clears GNG; the only sources about her that are turning up at all come from her own employer, which means they aren't independent of her for the purposes of helping to establish her notability — and merely being a nominee for an award that she hasn't yet won as of today is not in and of itself enough to exempt her from having to have more coverage than that. If she wins the award this time around, then that will clinch it right then and there regardless of what other sources she can or can't show — but merely being a nominee does not mean she's already exempted from having to pass GNG on more coverage about her than I'm actually finding. Bearcat ( talk) 18:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That sounds more like the discussion that should be had at AFD, than here ... not sure why it wasn't raised. I think that extending the AFD listing another week or two would have been a better way to establish consensus. Nfitz ( talk) 21:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and Relist Under point 3 of the DRV criteria, with a thin consensus and new information, the AFD should be given time to breathe with more input. KaisaL ( talk) 10:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse It seems the only reason why this is being brought to DRV is because of JPL's AfD history. There was no error with the close, and the nominator has a good history at AfD. I have no problem if you want to recreate the article, but there was absolutely nothing defective at all about this AfD. SportingFlyer T· C 21:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Surely, if you endorse, then it's undelete the article not recreate. Because there was WP:NOQUORUM the article can be restored for any reason on request. So really the only outcomes here are undelete the article, or relist it. Nfitz ( talk) 01:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Quorum or no quorum, there's simply no substantive reason, on either process or content grounds, why undeleting an old version would be somehow necessary or creating a new one would be somehow inadequate. Bearcat ( talk) 13:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

It's easier to start from something than from nothing. That's a hell of a reason. Making someone do extra work for no reason doesn't seem reasonable. Is there a copyright problem or some other issue with starting from the old article? Hobit ( talk) 04:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Indeed, I'm puzzled, especially given that it's easy to find GNG sources for this person. Most people have no access to the article, to restart it - why waste time? Why wouldn't it simply qualify for an automatic undeletion per WP:SOFTDELETE given the lack of quorum? Nfitz ( talk) 17:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Agreed - no reason to make editors waste their time duplicating others' work rather just to get back where we were rather than using that time productively to improve the previous article, or others. Smartyllama ( talk) 22:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'm fine with a restore (per SOFTDELETE) or a relist (per common sense). Hobit ( talk) 14:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Draft:Adsemar ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This does not count as hoax since it clarified that the subject is fictional, and speedily deleting it under that incorrect criterion is excessively bitey considering that the author is a newbie. (This would admittedly meet A11 as an article, but it was a draft.) I tried contacting the deleting admin at User talk:Primefac#Draft:Adsemar, but he/she didn't bother responding. Glades12 ( talk) 06:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Yes, technically an invalid speedy deletion, but the deleted page said explicitly that it was about a fantasy world made up by the article author. That is absolutely not an appropriate use of Wikipedia so I don't think restoring it would be a good idea. Hut 8.5 07:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• For the record, it's not that I "didn't bother" to respond, I just didn't find it as high a priority as other things in my life (both on and off-wiki). I will agree that it's a bit of an IAR deletion, but I have no intention of restoring a pointless draft. If it does get restored, it will simply be declined or rejected at AFC and then eventually deleted anyway. Pinging DGG who originally placed the tag. Primefac ( talk) 11:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• IAR Endorse. If this was in userspace, it would qualify for WP:U5. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and this has zero chance of developing into an encyclopedia article, so there's no reason to keep it. The entire text consisted of Adsemar is a fictional world created by Dillstan. In the world there are many races(Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Kantchis, Scielanveres). Call it WP:G2 if you have to. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

A fictional world made up by the author of the article can not be distinguished from a hoax; I could write just the same without even making up a world. And what would be the proper treatment for "X is a fictional world made up by my friend John" ? or "I had a dream last night: " But usually I would in fact cal lit a test page for lack of anything closer. The alternative is to call it vandalism, because nobody however ignorant of WP could think this appropriate content ,but I don't like to use the V word for anything that is not actually malicious, but just a foolish joke. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I can't see the deleted article, but if "the deleted page said explicitly that it was about a fantasy world made up by the article author" as stated above, then it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as a hoax since it's not trying to pass it off as true. Smartyllama ( talk) 22:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Smartyllama: yes you can see the deleted article. I quoted it, in its entirely, above. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Neutral - This technically should not have been speedy-deleted from draft space, and technically should have been sent to MFD. It isn't worth wasting the time of either the MFD regulars or the DRV regulars, who are mostly the same editors anyway. It doesn't matter. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Every time someone ignores all rules to speedy delete something like this - and make no mistake, it should have been deleted on sight, and everything similar should be - it becomes that much less likely that we'll ever be able to speedy them legitimately. — Cryptic 05:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Wikipedia isn't Dillstan's blog.

  Strictly speaking it's our role here at DRV to see that the deletion processes are correctly followed, so I suppose we could restore the draft and then MFD it immediately, but that's one of the most fatuous wastes of editor time that I've ever contemplated. For me the big lesson from this DRV is that we need to start a discussion on whether to expand A11 into the other namespaces: maybe it should be converted to G15?— S Marshall  T/ C 16:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse IAR deletion- and I also endorse the suggestion to expand A11 from article-only to cover all namespaces. Although in practice this will still mostly apply to articles and to a lesser extent drafts and the user space, in principle you could also have redirects, pictures, and other kinds of pages containing nothing but made-up gibberish. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Ooh, maybe not userspace. There's a longstanding consensus that good faith editors are allowed to keep personal, unencyclopaedic stuff in their userspace. Remember Mzmcbride's first desysopping? But drafts, redirects and filespace, definitely.— S Marshall  T/ C 17:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• User space does contain a lot of bizarre content but I'm reasonably sure things like fantasy sports leagues, fake reality shows, and such get deleted regularly at MfD. But I think you're probably right that NOTWEBHOST would apply more frequently than a userspace equivalent of A11. Reyk _YO! 12:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per IAR, but we are not a web host. SportingFlyer T· C 21:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Userfy - This episode is a bit WP:BITEY (not a new user, but one who is still learning the ropes) and we should not be endorsing use of admin powers to deal with something that could be handled by regular means, e.g., move to user space or a comment on the Draft talk page saying the page had no chance; if you have to invoke IAR, why not PROD first? Using IAR to justify abuse of admin powers is inappropriate here: the page was causing no actual problem (I think we should only be concerned with abuse of WP:NOTWEBHOST when an editor creates more than one two-line page), would normally disappear in accordance with policy after 6 months, and irregular deletions are less justifiable in draftspace than article space. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  So just to clarify, you want to restore and shift to the userspace, while simultaneously telling the creator that it's never going to be an article and will eventually be deleted? The other option being to restore it and then delete it six or twelve months down the line when it meets G13? I understand that it's "causing no actual problem" but this sounds like kicking the can down the road; if the end result is eventual deletion then (while most parties here agree that it probably shouldn't have been deleted) it's pointless to restore. Primefac ( talk) 13:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  If we restore this then the likely result will be an MfD with a very obvious conclusion. The material would also not be acceptable in userspace so userfying it is not a solution. PROD doesn't apply outside article space so that's not an option here either. Hut 8.5 14:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• WP:BLOCK User:Glades12 for trolling. It was disruption coming to DRV to complain about their fictional world draft being deleted, was blatant intensification of the abuse of Wikipedia through creating a draft on about a fictional world. The draft was abuse of Wikipedia, coming to DRV was trolling. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ SmokeyJoe: The draft's creator is Dillstan, not me. And no, neither account is a sockpuppet. I am obviously losing the debate here, but "he's trolling" is a wild assumption. Glades12 ( talk) 07:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  To add, I do not know who Dillstan is outside of WP, and I only know that they are the page creator from memory. Glades12 ( talk) 07:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  I thought you wrote it. How did you come to know anything about the page? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  I found it while browsing Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for any obviously incorrect nominations. I even removed the {{ db-hoax}} tag, but Primefac deleted the page a few seconds later, so here we are. Glades12 ( talk) 10:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Ok, fair enough. I thought you were the author. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Do nothing. Primefac has the reputation of being attentive to the letter of CSD rules. Let’s consider this feedback on the meaning of “blatant hoax”, but this case on its own doesn’t say much to me. I think a draft on a fictional world fits “blatant hoax”, noting WP:WAF. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Do not Endorse but keep deleted Although technically this should not have been speedied, it has no shot of surviving MfD, so per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTBURO, there's no point in putting it through this process. This is not an endorse !vote since the speedy was improper, but at the same time now that it has been speedied, there's little point in restoring it just to delete it again seven days later. Smartyllama ( talk) 12:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Userfy no harm in seeing if an article can be made. If it is a Hoax or cannot be improved it will be deleted. WP:NORUSH Lightburst ( talk) 18:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Under what scenario do you envision this might turn into an article? I can see an argument that this didn't strictly meet any WP:CSD and should thus be reversed for being out of process. I don't agree with that, but I could at least understand why somebody would make that argument. But, thinking this might actually turn into an article? Sorry, that's just nonsense. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Sandeep Maheshwari ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Earlier in 2017 this topic was deleted under G11 and administration put on it. But I want to make article on it as for the new creation in 2020. Kashish pall ( talk) 14:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Over the past eight years, this has been deleted seven times; twice for WP:A7, four WP:G11s, and most recently, WP:G5. It was after the last one that this was protected. My recommendation is to write a draft and get that reviewed at WP:AfC. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Neutral to allowing a draft to be reviewed. In other words, I am not even sure that it is worth allowing a draft to be reviewed, but go ahead and waste the reviewer's time. It is my understanding that partial block has been implemented, and partial block sounds like a good way to deal with tendentious resubmissions of crud. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Endorse deletion, speedies and salting. Endorse requirement to produce a draft via WP:AfC before seeking a review. Advise following advise at WP:THREE. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

* Undelete Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari as CSD#A7 doesn’t apply to draftspace. Maybe it will be re-deleted per G11. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'd have G11 speedied the most recent revision of Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari too. And revisions from 24 May 2015 and earlier must not be restored, since they're copyvios (and also speediable as G11, including the ones I deleted as G13 without further comment at the time). I haven't looked at all the revisions in between; maybe there's a tolerable one in there somewhere. — Cryptic 23:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe RHaworth used the wrong CSD button. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • He pushed the right button when deleting it. I'm not concerned that he cited A7 when salting; it's one of the few standard options in the dropdown, and gets the message across. — Cryptic 04:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Sorry, I misread the log. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and salting of the mainspace page, but I believe that the user has made an error in their request. The page that provoked this request was my deletion of Draft:Youtuber Sandeep Maheshwari. After the deletion the user posted a long list of mostly unusable sources on my talk page. But after I explained the requirements for notability they came up with this Hindi language newspaper article. Although the draft is very poor quality and needs a lot of work, I now think that the subject might actually be notable. I was considering unilaterally restoring the draft, but as the user has opened this discussion, I'll wait for it to come to a conclusion and just recommend overturn my own deletion and move to Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari. Spinning Spark 12:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Are saying this user's got to write a draft, get it reviewed via AFC (which is backlogged), then submit a request for page unprotection before it can be moved to mainspace even though the deleting sysop thinks there are good grounds to consider this person notable? In the circumstances I would question whether it's appropriate to require that much procedure.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  I don't think that drafts need to pass AfC before being moved to mainspace, it's just that passing AfC will protect the new article from a future AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  User:Chalst, AfC doesn’t protect an article from AfD. AfC is where we send COI and other troublesome editors who are more likely to waste peoples time than contribute. For all others, see WP:DUD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  What I meant is that when it comes to judging articles, XfD !voters bear the history of the article in mind. An article with this past history would very likely attract a swift AfD and ill-disposed !voters if it had not gone through the AfC process and so be a waste of everyone's time. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  The issue is really moot and not worth discussing. The draft is so awful that there should be no question of allowing it into mainspace without serious improvement first, and AFC is the place to get that done. Spinning Spark 11:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  What's worth discussing is how DRV should interact with AFC and salting. There's a conversation on WT:DRV that might benefit from your input?— S Marshall  T/ C 12:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• allow restoration of draft. Given it's salted, the draft is going to have to be pretty solid to get someone to unsalt. So it may not be the AFC process, but perhaps reaching to the deleting admin (SS) would be the right move once the draft is actually in good shape. Hobit ( talk) 05:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and unsalt article to permit restoration of draft per User:Spinningspark. The author should be aware that the road to getting this article in namespace is not completely straightforward: passively waiting for an AfC takes ages, and given the deletion history of the article, an AfD is likely to happen if an AfC is not passed and likely to be rigorous in looking for conflicts of interest in sourcing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and change create protection to ECP. That way any experienced reviewer can move an acceptable draft to main space. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 19:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think unsalting mainspace is a good idea. That will most likely result in more poorly sourced, promotional-sounding attempts being deleted. It is unlikely that any admin would refuse to remove protection once a draft had been accepted at AFC. Spinning Spark 20:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Sajad Raad ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Not long before it was closed as delete, I added what I believe to be a GNG source to the article, which no editor had a chance to see. Earlier I had added a link to many news article to the AFD discussion, which no one had commented on, and I had expanded most of the references in the article to include translations of the titles. I believe that given the active work on the article, that this should have been relisted, not closed. Nfitz ( talk) 06:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - as closing admin. Nfitz is correct, there had been some ongoing work on the article. However, regardless it was 4 votes to one, with all the delete votes of the view that this player did not satisfy GNG and that the sources added were merely routine match reporting, transfer talk or stat sites, an opinion I felt carried great weight when I considered the close. An additional source was added 10 hours or so before the close which Nfitz claims satisfies GNG. Aside from the fact that the addition of one source that might satisfy GNG would be insufficient on its own when the existing sources were already rejected as routuine, the source added was simply the player himself denying rumours that a transfer was imminent. This source is clearly not only routine, but also, essentially WP:PRIMARY given the article is the player himself issuing denials. This AfD had already been relisted once and there was no indication that there was going to be any progress in identifying genuine GNG-satisfying sources. Fenix down ( talk) 15:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I've tempundeleted this for review. I believe you're talking about this edit, which was added about 14 hours before the AfD was closed. I have no opinion on the source itself, but my general philosophy is if somebody provides one or more sources very close to the end of a discussion, I'll relist it to allow time for the source(s) to be evaluated. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Primarily that edit - but now I can see the edit history, it appears there were no comments at AFD since I'd tried to improve the existing references a few days earlier - the sum total of changes since the previous AFD comments is here. Also note that there is a well referenced article in the Arabic Wikipedia at ar:سجاد رعد حاتم. Nfitz ( talk) 15:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as somebody who !voted delete - this edit would not make me change my mind re:GNG/notability. Giant Snowman 19:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – there was already consensus that the sourcing thus far was routine; with the late-added sources also being routine, there is no reason to think it would have affected the outcome. (It would be different if someone had found a full length biography at the last minute.) Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 19:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the most recent edit didn't establish compliance with the GNG (the added Arabic-language source is routine coverage). Jogurney ( talk) 20:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - There doesn't appear to have been an error by the closer; and the delete was correct because the league in which the subject played is not on the list of fully professional leagues anyway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• How is it routine coverage? Routine is transfers reported locally. This is very different. When foreign sources are speculating about a player, it's because they are notable. If this were simply the local Iraqi media reporting this, I can see the point. There's also a LOT of supposedly 'routine' coverage. The sheer quantity of coverage suggests notability. This is really a point for the AFD discussion - however I thought the existing 10 references were more than sufficient. But here's some more, from just the last 2 months 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10! Nfitz ( talk) 01:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• So what do they say? The AfD was quite clear that the coverage received so far was thought to be routine. As you know, there is long standing consensus that transfer articles and match reporting are not suitable for GNG as they are often speculation and almost never involve significant coverage of the player himself. Looking at the sources you have presented, I am not seeing anything that indicates the decision to delete was wrong:

1 - no significant coverage, brief denial of a transfer rumour then wider discussion of his current club.

2 - won't google translate for me, can you let us know what this says. Not seeing significant coverage though in a very brief five sentence article.

3 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.

4 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.

5 - four sentence article reporting the denial of the same transfer rumour reported in source 1

6 - won't google translate for me, can you let us know what this says. Not seeing significant coverage though in a very brief six sentence article.

7 - won't google translate for me, can you let us know what this says. Not seeing significant coverage though in a very brief six sentence article.

8 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.

9 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.

10 - four sentence article reporting the denial of the same transfer rumour reported in source 1

The problem with all of these is that there is nothing you could use to write an encyclopedic article, bar possibly the use of one of these sources for a brief mention of the transfer rumour, but that would be nowhere near GNG. Mentions do not equal significant coverage. Can you please explain how the presence of google hits indicates that the closure of this AfD was wrong? Fenix down ( talk) 09:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Most seem routine - though the report in the article from a different country speculating about a transfer isn't. The point is, that is 10 articles in variety of publications, some national, in only 60 days - and more than just match reports. There are literally hundreds of articles, if you you extend the search back beyond 60 days, to the last 2-3 years - and I certainly haven't reviewed them all. While the coverage is routine, it's more than a trivial mention in many of these reports. There is significant (though often routine) coverage. The sources are reliable. The sources are secondary (many of them at least) and independent of the subject. WP:GNG is easily met. There is no exclusion in GNG criteria for "routine" coverage. If a king were to die, it would be routine to have national coverage. Routine doesn't mean trivial. Nfitz ( talk) 18:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply