Melbourne bus route 601 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I'm asking for this to be reviewed as a matter of process as I don't think one can properly say there was a consensus in favour of deleting this article, at worst it was no consensus and should have been kept for that reason:

• This AfD was left open for 3 weeks
• Most of the discussion was in favour (at least nominally) of keeping, including from myself who changed their view after some sources were put forward.
• The third time the AfD was left open to gauge better consensus, only one !vote was added which occurred only very shortly before the AfD was closed and there wasn't really a chance to respond to that
• Some of that comment was incorrect (The Age is *not* a "local" source, it is one of Australia's largest metropolitan newspapers - the local source would be the local area paper from the particular part of Melbourne where the route is.
• It appears the closer has relied heavily on that last comment as gauging consensus, and I don't think that is right. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- it looks to me that either delete or no consensus would have been justifiable. I don't see that the closing administrator has done anything wrong here. I certainly don't see any reason for throwing the last vote on the discard pile just because it came late in the process. Reyk _YO! 11:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment from closing admin - Deus et lex, if you had asked for clarification on my talk page before starting a DRV, I would have happily provided an explanation of how I came to the conclusion I did. For future reference, this is highly encouraged (see step 1 of DRV instructions above). As I'm sure we're all aware, judging consensus is not about counting votes, it's about assessing the quality of arguments with respect to WP policy. In this particular case, the arguments to keep mostly boiled down to an WP:ILIKEIT argument. They argue that it is among the "most significant bus routes", that there would be a "noisy uproar and protests" if the bus route were cancelled, that the bus route has attracted long queues of riders, etc. A few links to sources were provided towards the end of the discussion, but none of them mentioned the bus route more than a single time. Therefore, I saw no indication of a consensus that the topic has sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG at this time. For me, this significantly reduced the quality of the arguments to keep the article, and therefore I found consensus to delete. ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 16:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• I can fully understand how the closing admin didn't see this as keep, SW did a fine job of arguing that above. But as he's reminded the nom here about good practices, so too should he keep in mind that when closing against the majority in a discussion it's a darn fine idea to leave something of a justification rather than wait to be asked. That said, there is a clear merge target and that's a more reasonable outcome per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-M. Perhaps the closer felt that there was nothing to merge, but then we don't know that because it wasn't in the discussion (the only argument that addressed merging was in favor of doing so) and the closer didn't address the issue in the close... overturn to merge Hobit ( talk) 01:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse - The conclusion is a reasonable close from the discussion, but, in view of the length that it was open, and that it isn't obvious on its face what the close should be, and so requires judgment by the closer, the closer should have explained why they closed it as Delete. Adequate close, wrong explanation (none). Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Is it possible to temporarily restore the page while the DRV is open? So that those of us mere mortals who are non-admins can look at it and see what kind of sources it had at the time of the AfD? Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 06:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Jo-Jo Eumerus and Scottywong: Would either of you be willing to do the temp undeleted requested? Hobit ( talk) 03:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Temporarily restored. ‑Scottywong | [confer] || 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse with a caveat. Delete was the correct result based on the discussion and the weight of the arguments. However, the best result here would be a selective merge/redirect to the the list of bus routes in Melbourne, as the nominator discussed in one of their responses. Hopefully we can keep the sourced information there. SportingFlyer T· C 09:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Diamond Standard ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The deleting admin, David Gerard, misapplied WP:G4. The new article is substantially different from the deleted version, and the reason for the prior deletion no longer applies. All crypto-related and interview-based references were removed, and the subject was recently substantially and independently covered in The Wall Street Journal. Following 18 months of Bloomberg, Fox, Royal Gazette and other coverage, and the subject surely achieves WP:GNG. Nixie9 ✉ 13:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• The article was substantially the same as the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Standard for being based on interviews. Nixie9 recreated it based on a new reference from WSJ! ... which was another interview. That is, the precise sort of reference the article was deleted for. If he did not realise the WSJ article constituted just yet another interview, he may not be competent to assess sources suitably.

In that AFD, Nixie9 repeatedly just failed to understand how everyone else was judging sources.

The editor has edited on no other topics in the past year. ( Contributions, deleted contributions.) At User_talk:Nixie9#November_2019, I asked Nixie9 if he had a commercial conflict of interest, and he said no. However, he did go on to claim a conspiracy of administrators against him to delete the article.

I suggested that if Nixie really wanted the article, that he create it through AFC, and not base any of the sources on interviews.

Nixie9 has created this same article repeatedly, and it was deleted three times before today by multiple admins. A previous DRV suggested salting the article. Today was the fourth deletion, and that's why I salted it against recreation. I have suggested that Nixie9 please consider that perhaps he's doing this wrong - David Gerard ( talk) 13:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I should note also that Diamond Standard, and Nixie9's edits on it, are blockchain-related, so are under the restrictions detailed at WP:GS/Crypto - he was previously notified of the restrictions in late 2019, but promptly deleted the notice from his talk page - David Gerard ( talk) 13:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• David Gerard brings a lot of unwarranted opinion, defensiveness, accusations, and hyperbole to this discussion. Baggage that should lead him to let others take the lead on the DRV and AfD. The company is not a crypto company. As noted in a front page, filling 3/4 of a page, WSJ article, the company has approval for CFTC licensed futures and options, and an active SEC filing for an ETF on the NYSE. Not that DG bothered to learn anything before rapid-deleting. I suggest that admins evaluate for themselves. Nixie9 ✉ 13:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • p.s. If the subject is not WP:GNG, why does DG feel it necessary to tar me with conspiracy theory claims, denigration about posting frequency, and insinuation about connections? I've created dozens of articles over 8 years, and now I have a job. I find this particular subject fascinating, because DIAMONDS!. Nixie9 ✉ 14:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Nixie9 I suggest limiting the discussion to the merits of the article, and not to accusations or comments about other editors here. David Gerard is a very experienced, long term editor with a good reputation here. He may be mistaken in some cases, as all of us may, but I am confident he is doing what he thinks best to improve the encyclopedia. I hope you will do your best to the same goal. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore as Draft I was notified of this DRV on my talk page by Nixie9, I suppose because I commented in the AfD on a previous version of this article -- which I had completely forgotten. But since I am pretty regular in reading and commenting on DRV posts, I am sure I would have seen this and commented in any case. I looked at the most recent deleted version (and I will be happy to do a temp undelete if any non-admin wants to see it). Many of the sources are indeed interviews or seem to be based largely on info from the company, and are therefore not independent, and should not count towards the GNG. (I do not, however, think it fair to describe most of them as "Churnlism".) The recent WSJ article is behind a paywall. I can only see the opening lines, but they do not seem like the start of an interview piece. It is at https://www.wsj.com/articles/easy-diamond-trading-set-to-be-available-for-first-time-11600680611 in case anyone has access. The royal gazette article dated 23 Sept 2020 refers to and quotes the WSJ piece several times. It does not make it sound like an interview piece. Note that merely quoting a company spokesperson or CEO does not make an article an interview if there is also independent reporting. However, even if the WSJ article is considered to be fully independent, that is just one source. I am not sure that the other cited sources in the deleted article are enough to clearly pass the GNG. It seems that the company Diamond Standard has yet to start full operatrions. When it does so, there may well be significant additional coverage. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. My suggestion is that the deleted article be restored and promptly moved to Draft, until such time as development of the draft can convince an uninvolved admin, or a future DRV discussion, to unsalt the title in mainspace. The draft may be put through the AfC process, indeed I think that would be a good idea, but that should not be mandatory. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draft is good - David Gerard ( talk) 17:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I have briefly read the (paywalled) WSJ article linked above and echo the concerns about its independence; it does seem quite heavily dependent on an interview with the founder. I agree with DES and David Gerard that restoring as Draft, and a more careful consideration of sources there prior to (potentially) moving to mainspace, seems a good way forward. Martinp ( talk) 03:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I just read it too. Isn't there just one quote from the founder? Everything else is sourced to external folks AFAICT. Hobit ( talk) 03:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I'm away from the computer where I have a WSJ subscription, so I can't check again, but I recall an unsourced first paragraph, a clear quote/paraphrase from founder in 2nd or 3rd para giving the impression that he is the primary source for the article, and little evidence of journalistic independence. I'm sorry, I won't have access again until post-DRV closure. Martinp ( talk) 12:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Paragraph 2 is sourced to the company. Paragraph 5 has a quote from the CEO. The last paragraph (21 I think) is sourced to someone who has an investment in the company. The rest is either sourced to specific external people or in the author's own voice and includes things like a brief history of the world diamond market. It is by no means an "interview" with the CEO. I find with the WSJ if you just keep loading the article it will let you see it after a while... Hobit ( talk) 16:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• I see that it's my AFD close that's up for discussion but since Nixie9 apparently isn't contesting it I have no comments. If I am wrong feel free to point it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Jo-Jo Eumerus The issue raised by Nixie9 , seems to be whether the version recently deleted as a recreation under G4 is or is not substantially simialr to the version you deleted after the AfD or not. You might have a view on that point, and on whether the addition of the WSJ article makes a significant difference. Or, of course, you might not. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 16:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment, well, I went ahead and temp undeleted for the discussion. I don't have an opinion at the moment, but I'll suggest to Nixie9 that the most successful practice at DRV for cases deleted on notability grounds is to identify the three best sources for establishing notability. Wily D 16:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse either the AFD or the G4. Any appeal to DRV that consists mostly of insulting one of the admins will get only cursory attention. This appeal consists mostly of insulting User:David Gerard, and that isn't useful. The title isn't salted in draft space. If a draft is submitted for review, the reviewer should be given has an undeleted copy of the deleted article to compare. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• The WSJ article is, well, in the WSJ. And it appears to have only one quote from the founder--hardly an interview. The author, while not the biggest name in the field, writes articles that can hardly be accused of being "Churnlism" [1]. The article itself is largely the same as before, but the sourcing is now *much* better. I don't know if this would make it at AfD, but one really good source would probably have been enough to overcome deletion at the AfD. I think this is that source. Let AfD make the call. Overturn speedy, list at AfD Hobit ( talk) 03:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn speedy. First of all, User:David Gerard is clearly an involved administrator and should not have taken administrative action here. He proposed speedying the prior version of the article in 2019 [2]. He !voted to delete in the ensuing AFD. [3] WP:INVOLVED leaves little room for argument: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past . . . disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." This misuse of authority is compounded by the fact that his action was completely unilateral, since Gerard in effect both proposed deletion and acted on the proposal. Second, there is really no argument that the db-repost criteria were met; the recreated version added two claims of significance not found in the original article: a current IPO and listing of an associated fund on an NYSE exchange. This is a nontrivial advance beyond the claims of the deleted text, and should have defeated G4. Third, the basis cited for applying G4 is clearly inappropriate. David Gerard stated above that the major new source, "the WSJ article constituted just yet another interview". This is nonsense. Putting aside the insistence that coverage in the US's most important financial newspaper is no different from puff pieces on clickbait-heavy Internet aggregation sites, just examining the WSJ piece puts the lie to the claim of identical coverage. The WSJ piece is a bylined article by a staff reporter drawing on multiple sources, including at least two different interviews. The idea that journalism in a highly reputable publication somehow becomes unreliable or unsuitable for demonstrating notability is utterly ungrounded in policy or guideline, and makes no sense whatever in the context of building an encyclopedia. If the deleting admin does not understand this, he is all but certainly not competent to assess sources suitably. No opinion as to the underlying notability issue, but I don't think this should go to AFD until a proponent of deletion can articulate a policy-based rationale for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 04:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Permit creation of draft, and judge it in the usual way Looking at it . there's a reasonable chance o actual notability, and sufficient references. I share some of the skepticism bout topics in theis general area, but there can be genuine new and imporant developments. 'm not going to join in the censure directed at thegenerally excelllent of the closing admin, but a second independent evaluation would do n harm. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Send to AfD. The last AfD was not recent, over 6 months, and someone claims new better sources. AfD is the proper forum to resolve the question. If SNOW deleted, the G4 deleting admin may feel validated; if kept, then chided. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy - (voted delete in the original AFD) - not a G4 based on the diff: it's not identical, in no small part because there are new sources like WSJ added, and other sources removed, plus text changed. It's clear these changes were intended to address the concerns at the AFD. Also, DG is WP:INVOLVED and should not be using admin tools with respect to this article. If the speedy is overturned and thereafter someone wants to take it to AFD, they can. Le v!v ich 21:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Gerard was clearly WP:INVOLVED - proposed a speedy in 2019, and then !voted to delete in the 2019 AfD. If it is determined that this is G4 material let someone else delete. Lightburst ( talk) 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Rafael Mikhailovich Minasbekyan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The article was quickly removed for publicity. I unsubscribed on the article discussion page when I saw the deletion template, but no one gave any explanations and the article was deleted. There was no advertisement in the text, if the nominee did not like some of the phrases, it will not be difficult to delete them. The article is significant, please consider its restoration. Thanks. Namerst ( talk) 11:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• I have temporarily undeleted this. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 18:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• The deleted version was rather too much of a resume. If I had noticed it I would probably draftified it. I don't think it really had a G11 level of promotion, but it was not a well-written article. There should But if the statements included are accurate (I can't verify the sources in Russian) this person was probably notable. There should be no bar to creating a better version, preferably in draft space, or to undeleting and draftifing. So allow recreation or draftify. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 18:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the restoration. Please tell me, can you restore the text to the article and help remove advertising phrases? Namerst ( talk) 18:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I ask experienced participants for help. If someone has time, please help me correct the text. Many thanks. Namerst ( talk) 20:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Not while this review is in progress, Namerst. After that, it depends on how this discussion is closed. But it is not just "some of the phrases" There need to be better sources, and it needs to read like an encyclopedia article, not a resume or a social media profile. From 1987 to 1989 – served in Border troops in USSR. is irrelevant and should go. The bulleted list of unreferened films and TV series should be at the least referenced, and preferably some paragraphs of prose added about at least some of these productions, bases on independent sources. The section on "Author of scientific articles and books" should select the more significant and influential ones, and demonstrate that influence by citing and quoting independent reviews, or stats on how often these papers are cited, or both. If there are high-quality English-language citations, some should be used. Provide translations of the titles and names of publications of non-English-language sources. And the help I could offer is limited because I can't read the sources. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The temporary restoration is only to allow people in this discussion to see what the deleted article was like, it should not be edited at all during the discussion. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 22:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Can I edit the text in the recovered version of the article? Or do I need to wait for the outcome here, and only then edit? Namerst ( talk) 04:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Please pay attention to my sandbox. Completely removed the section - Author of scientific articles and books. I think that it is not needed in the article. I also removed your remark and removed the offer to serve in the army. Highlighted with wiki links films that were on Wikipedia. There he is also listed as a producer in the template of each article. I am ready to further correct the article. Please tell me how I can still correct the text. Thanks. Namerst ( talk) 13:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Draftify or Restore recreation There is a valid claim for notability and does not appear to be overly promotional. I recommend sending it to AFC for review. -- Enos733 ( talk) 15:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G11 - The issue here is whether the article should have been speedily deleted as G11. It is not exclusively promotional or advertising. It is a mix of encyclopedic information and advertising. The only real issue here is whether the article should have been speedily deleted, not how to improve it or whether it should be in article space. It would be reasonable to give the author a choice of draftifying it and taking it through AFC or of trying to improve it in article space, in which case it may be either whacked at or nominated for AFD. This is not the forum to improve the article, only to avoid its speedy deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Revert and draftify - an actual article might be possible (this was not it). Sure, it was crappy, misshapen and somewhat promotional but nowhere near the level justifying a speedy deletion. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Draftify I have my doubts here, but thre's no harm in trying. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy send to AfD if you will. It might die there via WP:TNT, it might get fixed, or it might get kept (which would be a bit sad, but not crazy). But it is mostly just a list of facts. Not a great article, and certainly too much like a resume, but not all things start out perfect. Are their known or suspected WP:COI issues here? Hobit ( talk) 02:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy - not a great article, reads too much like a resume, but it's not overly promotional; it doesn't really contain any promotional language (puffery) or claims; just doesn't rise to the level of meriting speedy deletion. Someone can take it to AFD if they think the subject is not notable, or they can edit the article if they think it needs improvement. Le v!v ich 22:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Next Insurance ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article was published when the company was young and failed the notability test. I can't see the history of this article, but as far as I understand, it was poorly written without sufficient citations. The company grow significantly since then and is now considered to be a List_of_unicorn_startup_companies raised over 600 million USD. The company has multiple significant, independent, and reliable coverage by the media, which makes it suitable candidate to join the article space again. I would like to work on this article and fix it so it would be able to return to the article space.

As far as I understand MER-C deleted it and marked it as covert advertising. Another user, Effifuks, has recently asked to recover the article. This user works for the company and MER-C has raised concerns that the article would not be reliable and independent. I also understand the problem with covert advertising and using Wikipedia as a platform for this. However, the company is now significant and has a lot of coverage, so I believe it makes sense to consider it again.

Full disclosure, I virtually know Effifuks, as I listen to his Podcast, but another than that I'm not connected in any way shape or form to Next Insurance, and I have no personal or commercial/financial interest to help. Delbarital ( talk) 22:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (keep deleted). No sign that this company passes WP:CORP. It is a Unicorn (finance), which explains the persistent promotion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

User:SmokeyJoe, Thanks for the comment. I added some references for the notability. I'm not sure why in your view the size of the company works against it. Furthermore, similar companies have articles about them ( Root Insurance Company, Hippo_(company), Metromile, Lemonade, Inc.). Delbarital ( talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Question - What is being appealed or requested here? User:SmokeyJoe says to Endorse, or Keep Deleted, and I agree if this is a request to undelete, but it isn't clear what is being asked. Is this an appeal of the G11, to undelete the original delete article? No way. Is this a request to unsalt, to allow re-creation? That is what I am guessing it is, but that would bypass the issue of covert advertising by permitting open advertising instead. The title is currently salted in article space, but is not salted in draft space. The paid editor is already free to create a draft and submit it for review. If the reviewer agrees that it passes corporate notability, then and only then can we consider unsalting in article space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I request to move deleted article to my userspace, let me edit it and make sure it stands in the standards of notability, and then submit the draft for review. I actually don't know if the previous user that edited the article was paid or not, but this user will not be related to my attempt to recreate the article. Delbarital ( talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the salting in article space, because the paid editor is still free to create and submit a draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The relevant user is not in the picture. I want to create this article as a draft and submit it for review, but as far as I understand I need to get a permission first because it was salted. Delbarital ( talk) 01:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

That is not quite correct, Delbarital The title is not protected in draft space (or user space), and so you are free to create Draft:Next Insurance without any special permission. It is true that if a reviewer were to approve it, that reviewer would need to be, or get help from, and admin to move it to article space. It is also true that some AfC reviewers will not approve an article if the title is protected in the main article space. If this discussion were to approve your doing so, you could link to it and that might help convince a reviewer to consider a draft on its own merits. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

So right after I opened a new draft for the article, it was already tagged as potential self promotion. I understand the fear, but I only opened the article's draft in my userspace and started to fill the infobox details. This doesn't make any sense. Delbarital ( talk) 10:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Versions of this article were created by at least two different editors (or at least two different accounts) now both blocked. At least one additional now blocked account edited it. Do you, Delbarital have any connection with the company or any of those previous editors? In particular, are you being paid by Next Insurance in any way? DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi DES, I do not have any connections to Next Insurance. I virtually know one of the VPs, as I listen to his Podcast, but I don't know him personally. I never worked for the company, they never offered me a job and I never applied for a job there. I do not get paid by Next Insurance or anyone else. I never got anything for editing other than the joy of contributing to Wikipedia or helping others. For many years I've contributed to the Hebrew Wikipedia and I was, and still am, an advocate against paying editors or self-promotion. Delbarital ( talk) 10:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Lookin g at the version from 14 September 2020, that was largely supported by sources that were either not indepndent (based on interviews and press releases) not reliable (from a Forbes contributor, not staff), not including substantial coverage, or a mix of those. That version should certainly not be restored to the main article space, nor anything similar to that version. However, I think it likely that this company either is, or soon will become, notable. Thefoe I suggest that we allow creation of a new version in draft or uerspace. Technically, DRV permission is not needed for this, as the title is protected only in the main article space, as far asa i can see. But I think it would add comfort for both the creating editor and any possible AfC reviewer if we did explicitly confirm that permission. However the various deletions should be endorsed, without prejudice to a new and better version. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 16:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, allow creation of draft and evaluate. I (independently) agree with DES (except I didn't actually see the 14 Sept version). My quick hunt for sources did not immediately surface enough substantive and independent enough to overturn, but the recent (since 14 Sept) closed funding round and size of company make me strongly suspect it will attract that attention soon. So -- unless someone points out significant RS sources now -- I don't think we can overturn yet, but it's worth working on if someone wants to. The prior COI issues will require some care before moving to main space, but previous COI does not mean others without a COI can't take over. Martinp ( talk) 03:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for all the comments. After I read the old article and I compeltly agree that it was written almost as an ad. I will write a new draft and keep it in my userspace, then I'll submit it for review. No need to continue the discussion as I agree that the old article should not be recovered (that wasn't what I asked for anyways...). Thanks again for your time and comments. Best Delbarital ( talk) 06:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Smile Foundation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I would like to understand the closing admin's decision to arrive on "The notability of this organization (per WP:GNG) was not adequately demonstrated. Consensus is to delete." Effectively except for the nominator @ 331dot: with their crusade of "Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good works", none of the other delete !votes adequately supplied their reasoning with policy/evidence or answered subsequent questions.
The organization "Smile Foundation" has been covered as the main focus of a major research study [4], one of three Indian NGOs to be significantly covered by this Stanford Institute article [5], their website [6] lists 890 print media coverage from 2003 to 15 April 2020 with a couple of hundred other media coverage, Google news lists 230 results [7], their survey numbers in social sector in India is commonly quoted by major Indian media houses [8], [9], top businesses in India routinely partner with this org for their Corporate social responsibility programs [10], [11]. I am pretty new to the project but these should fit pretty well with proving this organization to be notable for having an article here.
For everyone to note: In the AfD itself, there were 10 distinct participants including the nominator. One was blocked for a week for socking and then came back and changed their !vote from keep to delete. Another accused someone of canvassing and voted delete. Another with acknowledged connection to the organization (earlier on their user page) participated and voted keep. Another was questioned by the nominator about their connection with the organization, which they denied and voted keep. Roller26 ( talk) 05:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not on any crusade; I noticed an article that did not meet guidelines, and took action. No more, no less. 331dot ( talk) 08:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse delete closure. Closer did an acceptable (or better) job of reading consensus, grounded in policy-based arguments, in a discussion which also had voices misunderstanding our notability guidelines, and quite likely also canvassed and/or having a conflict of interest; there is no reason to overrule their conclusion. A personal note to the proponents of this article: yes, it seems this organization does good work, and it also has quite a number of passing mentions in the press. However, the only source which seems to have come up which is in-depth and possibly independent is the so-called "research report". If you continue to be passionate about making the case this organization should have a wikipedia article, I would suggest you carefully and dispassionately read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, sourcing, and connected contributors, and (if you wish) create a Draft that addresses the reasonable concerns underlying the deletion consensus reached in the AFD. Martinp ( talk) 11:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: Martinp, your comment contradicts itself and does not make sense. The person closing this was an admin working in the AfD area so they are supposed to be well grounded in notability guidelines. Hence they should not have any issues in separating policy/evidence based discussions from users voting just for the sake cases. Therefore canvassing, COI issues, others not understanding notability has no meaning here. Secondly if you are so convinced based on your research that the topic does not meet notability guidelines and endorse the closing admin in their consensus reaching, then what good is my "carefully and dispassionately reading Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, sourcing, and connected contributors, and (if I wish) create a Draft that addresses the reasonable concerns underlying the deletion consensus reached in the AFD." As the basic thrust of the entire AfD was on the notability of the organization. Not once was the issue of it being a WP:TNT case raised. We already had an article which could be improved upon, no need to create everything from scratch just because a part of it is not to your liking. Also we can have COI editors touch and even actively edit an article without it needing to be deleted. We have to deal with such cases differently and not resort to deleting the article. The article was already semi-protected before getting deleted. In case that does not resolve the issue take it to higher protection, actively watch the page for COI editors, introduce discretionary sanctions or some other measures. Roller26 ( talk) 15:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Roller26, I believe the closer did a good job reading the discussion in the AFD, and gave appropriate weight to the arguments provided. However, sometimes people passionately involved with an article/organization end up torpedoing it in an AFD by focusing on press mentions rather than the "substantial" and/or "independent" requirements. It is possible -- though I think unlikely -- that enough sustantial, reliable, independent sources *could* be found, just were not found (or were lost in the noise) of the AFD. In such an instance, someone writing a Draft, revising it with feedback, and then presenting it as move to mainspace, might work. Though many people who try this route learn during the process that their read of what sourcing is needed was off the mark, and that the sources needed are actually not available and notability requirements are indeed not met. Hence my recommendation. My apologies for expressing it with a generic kind of "you"; I read the AFD and the nomination above, but have made no attempt to actually understand who said what and when. So I didn't mean to suggest you specifically should be reading up on guidelines. Just that I saw enough of the type of unbridled "why do we have to jump through so many hoops to get an article into wikipedia on such a [to the writer] great organization" passion, combined with the frequent confusion between "passing mention" and "in-depth coverage", in the discussion that it seemed useful advice. Martinp ( talk) 15:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closing admin - WP:GNG requires topics to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (note that "sources" is plural, meaning more than one). No keep voter sufficiently demonstrated that this topic meets the GNG guideline. The COI/SPA/canvassing issues with this AfD were relatively minor, and only reinforced the consensus to delete. Happy to restore this page to the Draft namespace if anyone wants to continue working on it and searching for sources that might push it closer to meeting GNG. ‑Scottywong | [squeal] || 19:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• The reason why this close is right is because the community invariably rejects sources of this quality. And the reason why it's wrong is that if the Smile Foundation were an American or European organisation of similar size, significance and purpose, it would have an article on en.wiki. In my experience, most mainstream Indian sources—about many subjects, not just this one—look like the ones the community rejected here, and this creates systemic bias on en.wiki against India, as well as most of East Asia apart from Japan. I want there to be an article here. But Wikipedia articles have to be a summary of what the reliable sources say, and if you summarize what the reliable sources say about the Smile Foundation, you don't get an article. You get a paragraph.— S Marshall  T/ C 22:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - There are three distinct related questions being considered:
  • • Does the subject organization satisfy organizational notability?
    • Does the article establish that the subject organization satisfies organizational notability?
    • Did the closer correctly evaluate the arguments as to organizational notability, and any other arguments?

The appellant is arguing the first point, but the first point is not directly at issue. Only the third point is critical. An answer to the second question can be answered if the article is temporarily undeleted for re-review by the participants in this DRV. However, temporarily undeleting the article is not necessary. I will concede that the organization almost certainly satisfies organizational notability. The closer correctly evaluated the arguments. It does not matter much why the arguments for deletion were stronger, whether the article does not adequately describe the organization, or whether the arguments did not properly describe the article. The close should be endorsed, and the appellant should be encouraged to write a better article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• I don't always agree with you Robert, but I generally find your arguments to be solid. Here I do not. Our inclusion guidelines largely do not care about sources in the article, they care about the sources that exist ( WP:TNT not withstanding, an argument no one claimed applied here). WP:ARTN and WP:RUBBISH makes that clear. Hobit ( talk) 21:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• overturn to NC Numerically the discussion is no consensus. I'd have rated the keep arguments as stronger given that high-quality sources, including academic ones, were provided and not rebutted. I don't see how to get to delete from that discussion. Hobit ( talk) 21:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hobit Which "high quality" sources were provided? One academic study was offered, and it wasn't clear how that established notability- leaving aside that multiple sources are needed. 331dot ( talk) 22:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Consensus that the ex-charity (government ex charity??) is not notable, noting “keep” !voters did not point to qualifying sources. My own searching suggests to me that this topic is defunct, never was Wikipedia-notable, and has even less prospect of becoming notable. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Consensus was that The topic is not notable, lack of WP:GNG-meeting sources ( mere mentions don’t count). Allow draftspace recreation and advise to follow the advice at WP:THREE. There is something to watch out for on systematic bias. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close While this could have been closed as no consensus, a Delete close was within the reasonable range of results. But there is and should be no bar to a new article about this topic, with better sources, if such can be found. Therefore allow recreation. Moreover, on request, allow the restoration of the deleted version in draft as a starting point. SmokeyJoe consensus, insofar as there was one, was that notability has not been demonstrated. No one mentioned checking Hindi-language sources, or other non-English-language sources. No one claimed to have checked all the hundreds of sources listed on the organization's web site. I see no consensus that GNG-qualifing sources do not exist, and a rather comprehensive multi-language search would be needed to establish that. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 22:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment from the appellant I would like to clarify what seems to be an implicit assumption on part of some editors commenting here. I had nothing to do with either the creation or writing of the article. I also don't have any particular interest in the topic or the organization. I had a grand total of 1 edit in the article (any admin can confirm this) which is when I deleted the unnecessary maintenance tags put in by a new user late in the AfD. I was browsing through the deletion sorting of Indian articles, when I came across this AfD. The reason I was intrigued was that I had vaguely heard the name of the organization. The reason for my current "passion" as an editor above put it was coming across Category:Charities based in India which has 485 articles in its category and various sub-categories. I also think that a couple more (maybe hundreds more) might be lurking about not properly categorized. This organization in terms of notability is definitely in the upper percentile of the group. I have myself successfully nominated such recently created articles for deletion. [12] [13] And before anyone throws WP:Other stuff exists, the guidelines and policies are only as good as they are applied in general to a majority of articles. I have also enquired about past notability guidelines and its application in practice [14] and I have been given to understand that they were pretty strong at least since the starting of the 2010 decade. Most of the 485 articles have been created in 2010s, even some organizations started in 2010s. @ Robert McClenon:, if you think that the organization is notable then either the article should be kept or at the very least the AfD should be relisted for reaching a better consensus. Also your 2nd point is moot, this was not a draft being submitted at AfC but an article which was for many years in the mainspace brought to AfD. Its upto the community to discover better (if it exists) sources determining its notability all round and not just in the article.
  

I have also dug around a bit and found other some worthwhile sources. As per WP:THREE mentioned above, [15] [16] Indian Express 2004 article. Also worthwhile mentioning are Hindustan Times 2009 [17] [18] Roller26 ( talk) 12:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, this was a correct reading of the debate. Looking at the article itself I am somewhat surprised it lasted this long: multiple previous deletions of copyrights, obvious advertising etc., and the last version prior to deletion was also an advert. Counting a pile of newspaper articles based on press releases does not magically bestow independence on those sources, and there was a lot of churnalism in the references section. Overall, not only is the decision a correct reading of the debate, but the content itself is not sufficiently compelling to suggest this might be marginal or worth another look. Guy ( help! - typo?) 17:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Draft:Manjappada Kerala Blasters Fans ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article page is salted due to inappropriate recreation attempts however as page ultras show there are currently precedents for this form of article for supporter clubs and it is unclear to me that the draft article should be salted which is the point at issue here. to quote the closer from their talk page (which I visited for another matter): "Please take this request to WP:DRV". I note the MFD nom. claim's that this can never be an article because of previous deletion discussions" is a WP:CRYSTAL extrapolation for a current entity is problematic. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 01:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• This title really never can be an article until such time as GNG-meeting sources are provided - unless you care to provide some? - and the history of recreations is more than sufficient to blacklist the title. (Just salting is kind of futile, though; the people gaming this will just game it at another similar title, and we'll eventually have to find and summarily delete that, too.) Endorse. — Cryptic 02:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment The recommendation from the previous AFDs and MFDs was to have the section grow in the main article with appropriate weight and then if it was big or notable enough for its own article to issue a split request. So far efforts to do so have been no good: either too much trivial detail or references were added and thus immediately reverted, multiple drafts with spelling or phrasing variants were introduced to game the system, or no decent effort has been done to beef up the main article section with quality sources. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 02:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Obviously I should clarify my comment. Maybe I have should have said not within six months. What I meant is that it was futile to keep the draft in draft space, when the purpose of draft space is the incubation of articles, and the community had already decided that the fan group was not notable. Does the appellant have a draft in user space that they want reviewed, or does the appellant simply want the title unsalted, and, if so, why? To address User:Cryptic, what the salting gains is that an AFC reviewer, on reading a draft that they think deserves a detailed review, will normally move it to its proper title in draft space, or, rather, attempt to move it, and be blocked by the salting, and then look up the history and Reject the draft. I didn't request the salting. I will !vote within 72 hours or so. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: (and I am short of time on this): Per Category:Association football supporters' associations there seems to be an acceptance that articles on a supporter can be notable. While previous MFD/AFD have not demonstrated this group to be notable that may be because it is not notable or because suitable sources have not been found (and some may be Malayalam) and we may be WP:TOOSOON as it would seem to me highly probable the supporters association would become notable in time, though that is WP:CRSYTAL; and we should not be preventing some people from collaborating creating or expanding an article on the subject. The recommendation to expand Kerala Blasters FC#Support might immediately result in WP:UNDUE weight and unbalance in that article. In the midst of Shahoodu, who disappointingly has not yet commented here giving his comments on the closers' tlak page, has I believe a draft at Old revision of User:Shahoodu/sandbox, the quality or otherwise of which I have no examination of whatsoever. In all events the closer said take to DRV; which is what Shahoodu wanted. It may or may not be Shahoodu has or has not been disruptive, but that should not block others from developing an article. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse salt. The decision has been made, repeatedly. Personally, I would invite User:Scottywong to instead make it a protected redirect to Kerala Blasters FC. That matches the mainspace title, and better instructs any future attempt to draft the same thing again. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

This is yet another case of a draftspace WP:UNDUE spinout. Relevant content belongs at Kerala Blasters FC#Support, and IF it qualifies for a WP:SPINOUT, get consensus at Talk:Kerala Blasters FC. Draftspace is not well used for creating narrow scope spinoffs. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation . I discussed this matter with User:DESiegel and he reviewed the new structure of this article and commented as not as good as I had hoped ,not as bad as I had feared.Please go through https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DESiegel#Request. The fan club was not notable at that time and got deleted two times for disruptive editing.But that doesnt mean it cannot pass WP:GNG ever. Shahoodu ( talk) 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Not sure whether this is an appeal of the salting in article space or in draft space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• My concern on raising the DRV was the salting of draft space, no objection to salting of mainspace. In principle the best way to determine if a spin off article is viable is to BOLDly create it and see how it looks than discuss it first on a talk page. As a general principle centralised draft space is more suitable for collaberation and avoidance of CFORKs and attribution issues compared to userspace. If people are disruptively flinging stuff at e.g. AfC or placing in mainspace then there is Ds/alerts and other sanctions. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• While userspace is most definitely worse, draftspace is not a good place to do spinouts, not without explicit discussion, preferably consensus, on the article talk page. The article talk page has a few old posts about supporters, but overall it is decidedly lacking in explicit collaboration. Draftspace makes collaboration harder, and hides the forking from mainspace editors. The deletion of the fork was a clear message, drafting the same fork is ignoring the decision. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse salting in article space. It can be assumed that allowing creation in article space would result in another deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse of salting in draft space. Less than three months have elapsed since the last draft had to be deleted due to persistent re-creation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation: Like shahoodu said, the article was not notable at that time.I also went through his sanbox and found it does pass wp:gng in the current circumstances because 3 years has passed since its second deletion.So the article must be recreated as it has enough reliable sources now.( WhiteFalcon1 ( talk) 06:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)) reply

What are you talking about 3 years? There have been multiple drafts that were resubmitted this year under name variants that have resulted in the salting, and the main article's section has still not been improved. This one under this name was repeatedly submitted in June/July 2020. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Let me clarify my statement: The last time the article was created via red link method instead going as a draft submission.But it was speedily deleted because of G4 and G5.I just want to say the admin could have moved that into draftspace instead of redirecting into Kerala Blasters page.According to other admins of wikiproject football india[ [19]] (please see this discussion), the latest structure only had problem with neutral point of view.That could have sorted out in the draftspace.( WhiteFalcon1 ( talk) 09:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)) reply

• Comment: Can we have a temp undelete of Draft:Manjappada Kerala Blasters Fans so muggles like me can have some clue on a gap analysis between shahoodu's sandbox and the previous deleted draft. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The previous articles were bad, poorly sourced. Saw citations at DESiegel's talkpage, if written in a well manner, with those citations and others RS, it can be notable. Maybe allow creation (draft) this time... ❯❯❯   S A H A 08:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Where are those citations? We need the WP:THREE best sources, ones that for sure would meet WP:GNG. That's never happened with the drafts submitted over and over this year. Instead we keep getting trivial mentions and routine news coverage. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Thats why I mentioned 'maybe'. I'm not saying it 100% ❯❯❯   S A H A 11:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment:The major four sources in the new structure of the article.

https://www.goal.com/en-in/news/kerala-blasters-manjappada-fan-club-of-the-year-indian/1j12lxkowhu2h1x76yen2gkaoo

1. https://www.theweek.in/news/sports/2018/12/05/Kerala-Blasters-fan-group-Manjappada-ends-boycott.amp.html
2. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2017/nov/17/yellow-army-kerala-blasters-12th-man-1703163.amp (please note yellow army is the english translation of manjappada.)
3. https://scroll.in/field/966863/indian-football-meet-manjappada-the-12th-man-of-kerala-blasters-and-isl-s-biggest-fan-group

Please go through this User:AngusWOOF. Shahoodu ( talk) 16:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• User:AngusWOOF, please go to th link I attached in my first comment There, User:DESiegel prepared a source assessment table and as per that THE WEEK and INDIAN EXPRESS is reliable source and it has a significant coverage about the organisation.Please go through that assesement table Shahoodu ( talk) 16:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Here's my feedback:

• 1. Goal.com - this is a routine news announcement - they won some award - that doesn't provide significant coverage of the group
• 2. The Week - also just a news announcement that they ended a boycott
• 3. New Indian Express - some coverage of the group; not clear if this is significant; sounds like it's a press release profile
• 4. scroll.in - this one's got signficant coverage; can you find another one like this?

AFC and DRV reviewers, what do you think? AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 16:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation I think that salting in draft space is generally a very poor idea. I was presented with , if I mam not mistaken, the same four soures and analyzed them at User talk:DESiegel#Request, as mentioned above. I thought and think that the coverage in The week was significant. Specifically I said: Significant event, shows influence of fan organization as well as its size and that the piece in New Indian Express was also, about that i said Major article about history of fan org and its current status and influence. I agreed that the Goal article was not significant coverage. About the significence of the scroll.in piece i wrote: Also covers history and current state of fan organization in considerable detail. I stand by those assesments as my view here. I think these should be sufficient sources to allow what seems to be a rather large and active organization to have a draft, and to be considered for mainspace after further development and perhaps additional high-quality sources. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 17:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

DESiegel by recreation you mean the draft or the mainspace article? Is it ready for mainspace?

AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

AngusWOOF I evaluated only the sources linked above, I did not see a draft based on those sources. Thus I am suggesting that draftspace be unsalted, and recreation as a draft be allowed. Then, that draft can be evaluated and perhaps further improved to judge whether it is then ready for mainspace. I am not advocating recreation in mainspace or mainspace unsalting at this time. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 19:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Important point that was not considered If we consider the first and second deletion of Manjappada , it was basically for not having significant coverage and were not properly structured. And the latest article created was atleast four times the size of the 2016-2018 article. Its well structured than before and had coverage in Times of India ,The week, The News Minute, Asianet News, Goal.com Sportskeeda, Khel now ,The bridge, New Indian Express, Scroll. Majority of them are the most reliable source in India.Still it got speedily deleted by without going for any deltion review this time.The admin involved here did not notice this Shahoodu ( talk) 18:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

No, the newer articles were deleted because of the tendentious resubmitting of crap that did not show GNG or any of the stuff that you are NOW presenting. The sources presented were trivial / routine coverage along the lines of Goal.com and because there weren't just WP:THREE, and AFC reviewers have been fed up with it. And it still doesn't show how it needs a separate page from the section. So focus on the three and when AFC and DRV folks are good with that. Also, since you have COI, it's even more important to have those secondary sources to support the bulk of the writing. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• 'Comment I urge, Shahoodu that you not attempt to argue the merits of previous deletions, but only whether the sources now presented justify a draft now. If you have one or two additional sources at least as good as those four, you might post links here, but a boatload of sources will probably put off the commentators here. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment.So far, the new article has two best reliable independent sources that gives enough coverage. So I will show one more best source here that will satisfy WP:THREE.Like DES adviced, I dont want to boatload the sources here. Shahoodu ( talk) 03:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC). reply
• My attention has just been drawn to two additional sources which look worth considering to me. These are:

• https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/5-things-that-other-fan-clubs-can-learn-from-manjappada
• https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/manjappada-diehard-kerala-blasters-fan-group-s-making-waves-111908

Both seem to me to include significant coverage of the fan group Manjappada as an organization, and help establish that a draft, at least, should be allowed. I can't speak to the reputation of the publications, however. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 13:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• About reputation of the additional 2 sources: Sportskeeda is a reputed'global website that covers sports.Most of the Indian football tranfer rumours are confirmed by them.And The newsminute is one of the most read online newspaper in India that mainly focuses on South India. Shahoodu ( talk) 13:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Sportskeeda relies on contributor articles https://www.sportskeeda.com/author-titles so it's written by a "Senior Analyst" who is "A total of 40 published features with at least 5 exclusives or Editor's Picks". So still user contributed, but maybe more vetted than unreliable places like Forbes / Medium contributors. The News Minute article is by a Senior Reporter for major newspapers https://muckrack.com/mithun-mk AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

So Salting in the draftspace must be removed.More sources are available along with these major 4.So it can be improved in draftspace and can be moved into mainspace if written from a neutral point of view Shahoodu ( talk) 04:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't count Sportskeeda, since the writer isn't a vetted reliable source. The writer is an equivalent of a Forbes frequent contributor but not staff. And it doesn't mean salting MUST be removed. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 06:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

What about newsminute then.I hope that might be counted. Shahoodu ( talk) 06:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment please note there are still more attempts this month to create the fan club article despite the salting Manjappada KBFC Supporters Club AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 20:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  I've contested the speedy to have a good look at whats going on rather than having all the evidence deleted; meat/sock puppetry; copying without attribution etc. etc. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Now at Draft:Manjappada KBFC Supporters Club - for investigations ... Cant stay in Mainspace with this DRV ongoing. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• @Any-admin: Can we have a temp-undelete of Draft:Manjappada Kerala Blasters Fans please? I might like to compare that with the article above and User:Shahoodu/sandbox for any correlations. @ Shahoodu and Insane1212 things are looking quite bad for you and Kerela related football articles and I will press for extremely high protection levels on such article with regex based blocking if necessary if there are further attempts to game the system. Edits may need to be processed via the edit request system and correctly sourced which you may find most inconvenient if it has to come to that. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: (by appellant): This is all a right mess. Multiple socks and crazy recreations. But I'm not totally impressed by the other side either. Bark, Woof, Humbug!, Quibble and annoying signatures while intended to be funny aren't the greatest and most inviting for discussion links. I'm also not in favour of telling people they must disrupt an article WP:UNDUE to begin a discussion on a spinout rather than developing a draft elsewhere. In addition to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Manjappada Kerala Blasters Fans (2020/07) I've trawled through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manjappada (2016/11); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manjappada (2nd nomination) (2018/07) which resulted in the redirect Manjappada ... and this is probably the key redirect which could be marked R with history and R with possibilities indicating that is the key page that could be developed if necessary. A section pinned Template:Pin section should likely be on Talk:Kerala Blasters FC to point this out. In terms of the drafts pointing with a little WP:SURPRISE to mainspace - Draft:Manjappada Kerala Blasters Fan Club (2019/09); Draft:Manjappada (2019/09) & Draft:Manjappada Kerala Blasters Fans (2020/07 - DELETED) redirecting to mainspace and deletions simply blocks people from their right to develop drafts ... things you get into questions is this Systemic Bias WP:GLOBAL etc.. To a degree the User:Shahoodu/sandbox and discussion of references presented here has probably shown an article as viable; if that had no tainted history and was at the location Manjappada I would expect a merge discussion to probably be successfully opposed and a deletion discussion to be result in keep no consensus. The supporters organisation is young (6 years old) and notability likely increases with each passing year or so; various CSD:G4's possibly don't take this into account. I am inclined to think the easiest clear start it to permit User:Shahoodu/sandbox to be cut-pasted over the Manjappada redirect and let an XfD discussion run if someone wants where the likely outcomes are either keep or else redirect (with history). Then at least the improved efforts are not wasted in draftspace and we (hopefully) have some control over proper attributions and a baseline position is properly and clearly established (or re-established). I won't object to a discretionary sanctions templating the articles after the result either. - - Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Djm-leighpark, I had originally asked for split proposal discussion first but that never happened. Building up a paragraph into multiple paragraphs about the group might have worked but that was interpreted by the fans as shoving the entire draft article into that section, and unreasonable undue weight as a result.

At this DRV, Shahoodu has been showing good faith that such GNG sources can be found after all, so I would be okay with a stub paragraph that would meet WP:GNG to be placed in draft and that can then be approved by AFC. But if you feel that there's enough to directly throw it back in mainspace, then you can push for that.

By the way, I only recently (last month) updated my signature here with more "cutesy" graphics because of another user who wanted to change their signature to stylize like mine. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 03:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

@ AngusWOOF: In my younger days I would have likely (tried) to have gone for a glitzier signature than your, though graphics is my one weakness. In my older grumpier days per WP:SIGAPP I'll likely say the signature annoys me. On a more serious note, and perhaps it is partially influenced because I am colour defective, your signature and perhaps even ArnabSaha have possibly undue prominence and distract from even prose. A stub pin a paragraph paragraph at AFC is a possible issue as such a draft paragraph would possibly/likely be identified as insufficient for its own article. I agree Shahoodu is showing overall good faith and skill here which we like to encourage; I just don't want to bet my underpants just in case there's an old skeleton in the cupboard that emerges. To be frank I am to a degree pushing for the cut/pasting of User:Shahoodu/sandbox over Manjappada as it solves a multitude of attribution/histmerge issue that might occur if I end up copying content from that into some other place, doing that also respects the sort of good faith content attempted by Merchant of Meluha (Its "sort of" because it likely was an attempt to bypass the earlier AfD of the article by the same account ... but at least that way the attempt to initially create the article which I AGF was a reasonable attempt). Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Masters, Missouri ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

How in the world is this a no consensus close? If uncontested AFDs are no consensuses now, that may need to be rethought ... Hog Farm _Bacon 14:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Relist for obvious reasons. Unless anyone disagrees, I believe any admin can do this and a full 7-day DRV discussion is not required. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  That is also my understanding and I have gone ahead and done that. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While I understand the rationale behind a NC close, I felt the policy based arguments favored a close of 'delete'. While some of the 'keep' !votes were well articulated and thought out, others cited other stuff, pageviews, other WP:ATA, and sources of dubious reliability to establish notability. While there were two very vocal keep !voters (both involved in the topic area) it seems to me that the uninvolved rough consensus was to delete. Coming here after myself, Rhododendrites, and Atsme reached out to Mazca on their talk page. I have great respect for Mazca, and the obvious effort they put into closing a contentious discussion, but I would favor an Overturn to 'delete'. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete - both the strength of arguments and numbers (for whatever they are[n't] worth) were on the side of delete here. I'll repeat some of what I said on Mazca's talk page. The quotes refer to statements in the closing statement: the main reason I even mention numbers is because Mazca wrote about opinions being "fairly split" on the application of WP:NOT, which isn't accurate. The "reasonable argument that this is a valid split," as I understand it, takes for granted that (depending on which person's argument Mazca meant) that there is a rationale for having a total list of all fatal dog attacks in the world and this is a split off of that (the case certainly wasn't made there) or that including every single fatal dog attack in a particular country would make sense in an article but needed to be spun out because it was too big. I don't see consensus for that, either (and indeed basically all of the delete arguments still apply). The close also mentioned the sources provided for coverage as a group, but didn't really come to a conclusion about that (the sentence ends with "this starts to cross into very emotive territory regarding certain advocacy groups"). But the RSN thread seems fairly conclusive that these are not good enough sources. On a final note, I reject the idea that this should be kicked to an RfC. We do not need to find consensus about all lists of people who died a certain way in order to apply our policies and guidelines to this particular case. Indeed those sorts of RfCs rarely come to meaningful conclusions. That's not to say there should be no RfC, but that it's no substitute for this AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse( edit conflict) Mazca had an excellent close: well reasoned: this was also the only possible result per our policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Someone was bound to be unhappy. Kudos to Mazca for applying policy and understanding guidelines. Eddie891 a no consensus means no consensus to delete In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. to close with delete one would need to WP:SUPERVOTE Lightburst ( talk) 19:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I had considered closing this and to that end, over multiple days, read every comment twice and substantial portions of the discussion another 2 or 3 times. Frankly in my gut I felt that best thing for the encyclopedia was to close the AfD as no consensus. However, each time I read the discussion with an eye to closing, I couldn't find any consensus other than delete. So instead of closing I declined to act. I don't know what that means for DRV but it's how I read that AfD. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Barkeep49: Given you thought this, why didn't you participate in the AfD? — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  {[re|Chalst}}, because I don't participate in AfD based on gut feeling - I participate based on relevant policies and guidelines when I have an opinion I think would be helpful to the discussion. I also don't close based on gut - I close based on the consensus (or lack of consensus) I see in a discussion as appropriately weighted by the policies and guidelines considered. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin - this is an astonishingly controversial article, and to be honest one I somewhat regret even touching the close on. My read on it was that it was a borderline case for various varieties of WP:NOT, and an also debatable case for WP:LISTN. Many of the delete votes picked on what I felt were very dubious failures of WP:NOT, pointing at sections of it that just don't really cover this type of article meaningfully. Other policy-based arguments involving WP:BLP mostly felt like editorial issues around how and what the data is presented, and didn't necessarily justify deletion, and the headcount only marginally favoured delete, with a lot of counter-assertions from keep voters that, to me, basically implied that none of the deletion rationales were genuinely cut-and-dried. There are a lot of complicating factors, given a long history of poor editor behaviours on this and related articles, and I was ultimately not comfortable calling this a consensus to delete. If a consensus here thinks a consensus can be found to delete, then so be it, I don't think I'd miss this article - but I just don't think the bar was crossed, and I think this needs to be solved via a more general RfC on how we deal with lists of fatalities. There are unambiguously issues to be solved here, but I'm not sure this is how we reach the solution. ~ mazca ^talk 19:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Just noting that on a headcount basis I tallied it as 17 delete, 13 keep (with 1 delete being a weak delete). People's mileage will vary as to whether 60% is marginal or definitive in a discussion with 30 participants. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  ? One of us is missing something. I count 20 delete to 14 keeps (ignoring weak/strong). Doesn't change the % much, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Barkeep49 If this review finishes with that same count (which by the way those who favor deletion always reject counts) it will be a no-consensus. It is not our policy to count and no our policy to supervote over a no-consensus outcome. Lightburst ( talk) 19:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  I understand how closes work Lightburst and have a great deal of experience with them and a track record with them I am proud of. I stand by my comments. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Understood - I did not think you did not "understand how closes work". This AfD closed as no-consensus twice. Also a merge discussion is ongoing, and now an attempt to overturn the second no - consensus. (summary of events for those keeping score) It was a contentious debate... Lightburst ( talk) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Rhodendrites your count is correct. I had not updated after Ritchie's close. So... 20 delete to 14 keeps (with 1 delete being a weak delete). People's milage will vary as to whether 58.8% is marginal or definitive in a deletion discussion with 34 participants. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  The meaning of consensus is that there is general agreement -- just about unanimity. 58% is just a simple majority, not even a qualified majority. A split of this sort is the opposite of consensus; it's division, polarisation and schism. Andrew🐉( talk) 23:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Back when VfD was a vote, the standard was 66.6% or more was the minimum for deletion. If the percentage is now relevant, which it probably isn't, I would still follow that standard. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close - closing admin made well-reasoned (policy-based) statement in closing the article. The numbers were not definitive and wikipedia isn't a vote-counting exercise anyway. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close He gave a detailed explanation to his close. Deletion review is not a do-over when you don't get your way. Dream Focus 21:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse If you are having to argue about consensus then you haven't got one and so the outcome was quite reasonable. The close was exceptionally well-explained and so there are no procedural grounds to overturn it. Andrew🐉( talk) 22:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Disagreement on consensus = no consensus is an entertaining, albeit completely bogus, argument. Gee whiz guess we might as well shut down DRV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • This is the third nomination of this article. The previous outcomes were keep and no consensus and so this one is quite consistent. It's trying to contrive a delete result from this which is bogus. Andrew🐉( talk) 23:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Well, I can't see a consensus in that debate. Please would the ARS kindly note that AGF and civility applies to them, as well as to everyone else.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close – The closing admin gave a well-reasoned and detailed explanation for there being no consensus to delete. As has been mentioned before, "dog bites man" is not news, but "dog kills man" is newsworthy and is in my view notable enough under WP:GNG. I understand it may be a controversial topic and some people dislike reading, for example, the sad and horrifying details of some pit bulls attacking children's faces. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. The article is well-sourced with multiple reliable citations and ultimately nobody is forced to read the article if they find the content distressing. – Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 00:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

*Overturn to delete Agree with reasons provided above by Eddie891 and Rhododendrites - and also because of WP:NOT and WP:LISTN. Thanks, Michael2468b ( talk) 00:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC) — Michael2468b ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock !vote stricken. reply
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete - the policy violations in this list are beyond the pale, and it surprises me to see so many endorse positions with non-policy based reasons. This list unequivocally fails multiple policies: WP:BLP, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:V - WP:REDFLAG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:IINFO, WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTSTATS. When a person is killed by the family dog, it may make the local news but it has no encyclopedic value, at least not anymore than a gory suicide or a chainsaw murder by Uncle Joe. If the person is already notable, we mention their death, in some instances the cause of death. Death by dog does not automatically make a person notable, especially when it's a child. It unambiguously fails BLP and the required high degree of sensitivity for contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. Many of the circumstances surrounding death by dog(s) are not even eye-witness accounts, and are unverifiable and/or uncorroborated because they are cited to either local news, questionable or unreliable sources; therefore, the list fails WP:V + REDFLAG. Sight ID of a dog is already proven inaccurate and unreliable beyond the dog's color, approx. size and shape.
  • SIDENOTE: While I continue to AGF, I cannot totally discount the fact that, rather recently, I was doxed off-Wiki (and so was another editor at the same time) in a very unkind and denigrating manner by a very active bully hater who has been recruiting other advocates to WP. That person is quite active on social media and the internet. ArbCom has been advised of the outings. There may well be an advocacy at work behind these types of lists, because as an encyclopedia, we validate those stats by publishing them, inaccuracies and all. Our lists of fatal dog attacks serve to foment anxiety and fear against certain dog types, which is a travesty but it serves the advocacies well when trying to pass breed-specific legislation that will result in the extirpation of certain breed types. The latter explains one of the reasons we must strive for accuracy, use quality sources, and strictly adhere to our policies with these types of lists. When the list fails policy, it's deserves to be deleted, and such is the case here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • The pit bull article, and ample reliable media everywhere, mention the fact that pit bulls cause more attacks on humans than all other breeds combined. And if you want that one part of the article removed, there is a discussion on its talk page about it right now, it not a valid reason to delete the entire article. Dream Focus 04:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I am sorry you were doxed, but reasonable people can disagree about whether multiple policies are failed or not, and I think insinuating that people who disagree with you are part of some sort of "advocacy at work behind these types of lists" is uncalled-for and not WP:AGF. Astro$01 ( talk) 04:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

    In the UK, where the statistics about fatal dog attacks are published by the Office of National Statistics, pit bulls are certainly not involved in more than all the other breeds combined. But we passed the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in response to serious concerns about bull terrier breeds, following several attacks that made the national news.— S Marshall  T/ C 07:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

    • SMarshall, you further validated my argument to overturn.
    1. Statistics - you nailed it - WP:NOTSTATS
    2. Statistics are used to pass laws that advocacies want passed - WP:NOTSOAPBOX
    3. This list is about WP:RGW which is a violation of WP:TE
    4. This list is a gross violation of BLP, and could easily be considered an attack page against certain breeds of dogs, many of which are misidentified, and as such, the article should have immediately been deleted.
    5. This list is about the US, not the UK.
       

    In today's US, we do not allow such haphazard profiling to condemn an entire breed/species of animal, including humans. The article is against everything WP represents. Consensus specifically states (my bold underline): Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is entirely up to the closer of this review to make the final determination, and I will abide by whatever decision is made. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

    • Atsme, the purpose of my post there was to correct some misinformation that exaggerated how dangerous pit bulls are. We've got proper statistics that show they're involved in a much smaller proportion of dog bite fatalities than claimed above; but nevertheless a much larger proportion than most other dog breeds. While I'm correcting misinformation, I've just checked, and I'm afraid that every single US state regulates at least four species of dangerous animal. In every state, I can walk down the street with a cat on a leash, and in no state could I walk down the street with a tiger. (There are a few states where I as a private citizen could keep a tiger in a cage if I had a permit, but then I can do that with a pit bull in the UK.)— S Marshall  T/ C 23:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Thank you, S Marshall. The US has some overly strict breed-specific bans against pit bulls and bully types that are not necessarily based on accurate breed IDs - they want all dogs "perceived" to be bully types extirpated. See this NPR article about a House bill that would prevent banning based on site ID (perceptions). Misidentification is a serious issue. Denver is considering repealing their ban. In the interim, shelters have been/are euthanizing innocent dogs based on inaccurate sight IDs. See this WaPo article, and there are multiple articles that are similar. The aforementioned is why this list should be deleted. We cannot possibly provide accurate breed types without positive IDs (proper genomics). Also, when humans are involved, statistics listing cause of death and circumstances should be subject to WP:MEDRS to qualify the sources we use. News articles and advocacies fail MEDRS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • We have specialist police officers who decide if a dog's a pit bull type. It's fair to say that the Dangerous Dogs Act is deeply unpopular with people who want to own big, intimidating dogs, and I expect that in due course it will be repealed and replaced with something better. Of course, the statistics on fatalities involving pit bulls are exactly the kind of thing people turn to Wikipedia for, expecting a neutral presentation of the truth. We need to find a NPOV way to cover this topic.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • You disingenuously claim that this entirely fact-based list that clearly serves to illustrate one simple fact - pit bull breeds are disproportionately represented in fatal dog attack. Your entire argument is a bad faith attach on a well-sourced list that leads to a predictable conclusion - pit bulls breeds are not safe family pets. Your suggestion is that people disregard the overwhelming evidence simply because it shows a certain set of breeds for what they are - instinctive killing machines. Don't like the article - ban these breeds and deaths by these dogs will stop. It is truly tragic how you claim that these dogs are misidentified. Labrador retrievers - even when misidentified - are not bred to kill. Even if a dog is not visibly a pit bull type breed, it is the pit bull genetics that ultimately lead to the drive to maul and kill. Truly shameful what the advocates for this killer breeds will do to endanger the lives of humans by trying to scrub the record of their repeated and horrific deeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldrichr ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Atsme: Curious that you accuse the user of WP:OR, which applies to articles, not talk pages discussions, and in the same breath condemn what you call are "PAs." To suggest that there is some improper purpose behind a list to make a breed of dog look bad also contains an element of bad faith to it. It's also completely wrong, because the list is designed to include attacks by all breeds. If there is a disproportionate number of attacks by one breed, that reflects either 1) bias in media, which we do not work to counteract, or 2) an actual statistical trend. None of this is grist for a deletion discussion. This needs to drop and there needs to be an end to 1) opening of del revs to rehash arguments and 2) lobbying the closer on their talk page about it. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 04:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The user said Atsme was in bad faith; objectively that is a personal attack. Her position is that the purpose of this list is advocacy. I don't agree with her, and I feel that deleting it would be advocacy; but that point doesn't amount to bad faith on either side, it's a collegial difference of opinion. It's within editorial discretion to use deletion review as a forum to discuss whether there's more advocacy in deleting this list or keeping it; in my view that's germane to a full review of the deletion decision.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

S Marshall an interesting and rather convenient collection of verifiable facts regarding BSL that is accessible online. See the section Dog Bites and Breed-Specific Legislation. I have provided a few key points from that list which directly reflects on the liklihood of inaccuracies in the WP list. I do hope editors will seriously consider the potential harm a list such as this may be doing to the credibility of WP because of the poorly sourced material and the policy vios, borderline or not. We should always err on the side of caution. What purpose this list actually serves is debatable, but in light of the aforementioned and the bullet list below, I am hard pressed to see any purpose or actual benefit in providing challenged stats that are based on anecdotal dog breed identifications when such stats involve the deaths of innocent, non-notable human beings, especially when such sourcing should be/is subject to WP:MEDRS and WP:REDFLAG. The closer apparently was not convinced that the policy arguments outweighed the fewer inclusionist arguments, and subjectively concluded NC. Perhaps the following may or may not prove helpful for whoever closes this RVW when considering the fewer arguments to overturn. (My bold underline)

• There is no national database in the United States for officially keeping track of dog bite reports. The CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog-bite fatalities in 1998 due to the difficulty of accurately identifying a dog’s breed, even for professionals.
• Recent studies indicate that workers at shelters misidentified dogs’ breeds 50 to 87 percent of the time.
• Breed-specific laws have been opposed by numerous organizations, including the CDC, the AVMA, the American Bar Association, the Humane Society of the United States, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

I realize RVW is focused on the basis for the close, which is typically the result of consensus based on a subjective evaluation of the arguments, and I have taken to heart the suggestions that you, CThomas, and SMcCandlish have wisely presented. Thank you kindly. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I've read this document, and, wow. Here in the UK we seem to able to do many things that Americans think are unworkable, immoral or insane. We can fully disarm our police force, we can provide healthcare that's free at the point of delivery, we can have an outright ban on the death penalty, we can publish official nationwide statistics on dog-related fatalities, we can have people whose job it is to identify what's a pit bull type, and we can legislate to severely restrict the ownership of the type. Why on Earth can't you?— S Marshall  T/ C 14:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

And here we have the heart of the problem--a discussion where users are advocating a political point of view rather than correct editorial considerations. That is reflected in the tactics being used here -- challenging a closure that was obviously correct and haranguing the closing admin about it.This is not a discussion about whether BSL is good or bad. It is about whether the past discussion was closed in accordance with normal closure procedures. It obviously was. This discussion has reached its conclusion. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 15:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Also, @ S Marshall:, Let's be clear about what Atsme said. The user said Atsme was in bad faith; objectively that is a personal attack. Her position is that the purpose of this list is advocacy. Atsme is in fact making bad faith comments, so this is a correct critique. Atsme repeatedly suggests "advocacy is at work" here and as evidence, alleges an incident of doxing and connects it to the discussion here. So users who disagree with Atsme are behind "advocacy" and are implicitly supporting "doxers?" I take exception to that. These characterizations very much appear to assign bad faith, and have no place in this discussion. And I don't think it's helpful to defend this kind of stuff. There are wholly legitimate reasons for keeping this list that have nothing to do with advocacy, and those reasons were articulated in the prior discussion. Further, alongside the repeat suggestions of "advocacy" by others uers, Atsme engages in explicit advocacy by suggesting that this list will serve to promote or garner support for a cause that she finds distasteful, BSL. I express no position on that, and this is clearly the type of analysis we should not be engaging in. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 15:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Is that a trick question, S Marshall? I will stick with WP policy, and say that despite WP's global reach, this particular list is US specific, and involves US fatalities by dogs (US citizens?) with no reliable positive ID (encyclopedic/scientific/verifiable) of breed type and they are using a system (sight ID) that is proven unreliable. The US justice system uses DNA evidence to positively identify a human perp, but not so with dogs; they get an automatic death sentence and are recorded using sight ID or other anecdotal information. I'm a resident of Bonaire, but they don't have those same issues here. Our biggest problem is dog poop on the beaches. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh offers some perspective. Notice how they didn't name dog types/breeds, circumstances, or the names of victims. Time also published an informative article with insight into statistics about sight ID and circumstances. Regardless, WP:BLP unequivocally states that ...material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States. And that is one of the reasons, among several, that I justifiably support the overturn of the close. Closes in controversial cases tend to require qualitative rather than quantitative research in the decision-making process, and even then it's discretionary. Our time as volunteers is valuable and it doesn't surprise me that we don't have specialized closers comprising a panel for such controversial topics. We discuss on the TP and attempt to reach a compromise, especially in cases where the initial close was 58% in favor of deletion including some of the opposition stating they probably would have deleted, but...at this point, all we can do is accept consensus and move on, (and ignore the PAs). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

What you are arguing is so far from the topic of this forum it is borderline disruptive. This is not the place for introducing arguments about "breed vs. owner" and "pro-BSL vs. anti-BSL" into the mix. This has absolutely nothing to do with the procedural question at issue here. It's great that you "justifiably" support overturning the close, but opposing positions are just as "justifiable" so I don't know why that's worth mentioning. Are you suggesting that other positions are not? And frankly, despite these very long posts, there really was not any clear error in the discussion closure that you have pointed to other than repeatedly insisting that those who disagree with you are wrong.'' Sweeping claims about dog breeds being difficult to identify (then why do we even have breed classifications if they are supposedly so arbitrary? this is logically counterintuitive) but any claims about a source incorrectly identifying a dog must be directed at that particular source, and this list currently makes use only of reliable publications as it should. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Atsme's arguments comprise several fallacies, but right now faulty generalization. The generality presented isn't true. Though she repeatedly asserts that "the media reports are wrong (on breed ID) so the entire list is trash" (paraphrased), so far in all the various discussions she has mentioned this (AfDs, del revs, RSNs, RfCs, Talk pages, User talk pages, etc.) she hasn't once presented any evidence that this is, in fact, the case in any (or several, or many) of the entries on the list. Instead, she premises her entire argument on viewpoints taken from studies financially supported by pit bull advocacy organizations National Canine Research Council and Animal Farm Foundation, where conflict of interest predictably returned faulty conclusions about breed ID (un)reliability. But most importantly for Wikipedia, Atsme hasn't presented any convincing case as to why she seems to think that the majority (or all) of the 1,245 reliable source citations in these 3 lists are wrong, Wrong, WRONG, W-R-O-O-O-N-G! Normal Op ( talk) 19:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Close - It seems clear to me that the discussion did not reach WP:Consensus, in that there was not any type of general agreement or accord on whether to keep or delete the article. It also seems to me that re-litigating the question here is akin to going to a Court of Appeal to ask for another new trial on the grounds that separate juries were just wrong the first, second, and third time they didn't see things your way. Astro$01 ( talk) 04:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Close as No Consensus - The closer's identification of the arguments is sound, and the closer's conclusion is a valid one from the arguments provided. I would have !voted Delete. The close of No Consensus reflects what was said. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Expected to see the ARS bloc and the SPAs, but disappointed to see experienced uninvolved editors getting this wrong in a way that enables continued use of Wikipedia for advocacy. That's not an appeal to decency or "the right side" -- it's just a request to take a closer look at the substance of the arguments presented in the AfD. For the avoidance of doubt, I have absolutely no involvement with this dispute/topic before seeing it come up on a noticeboard and thinking it needed someone uninvolved, then seeing the depths of problems (and FWIW, the POV-pushing SPAs are not all on one side, but this article seems to be a pet project). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Really?! There are anti-pitbull SPAs? Do you believe there is some sort of agenda by those who support this list against a certain type of dog? What about the many other list articles Category:Lists of animal fatalities? I see no advocacy here at all. Dream Focus 05:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • For context, I had originally written "anti-pitbull SPAs" but replaced it with "SPAs". DF restored it in my comment (probably accidentally, or because he was about to respond to it). Removed again because it's closer to what I meant and better reflects these discussions, which is not to say there does not exist problematic anti-pitbull editing/SPAs. -- I can't tell if this is sarcastic. I'll just answer directly: yes. Pitbulls. Since coming across this topic recently, been surprised by the intense level of advocacy going on, and taking a closer look, I've seen that this article (and Wikipedia articles about pitbulls) have come up many times in many explicitly anti-pitbull forums, including direct calls to action to "fix" these articles or save them from pro-pitbull activists (who also exist on Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell more often have the backing of policy and uninvolved editors). No idea about other lists. Don't think I've actually opened any of them yet, nevermind being aware of advocacy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close: The closer had a difficult job wading through the discussions and came up with a reasonable conclusion — that no consensus had been reached after 15 days (nor was extra time likely to change the outcome). Consensus is not "majority vote wins", consensus means some meeting of the minds (which wasn't evident in the AfD). Had the vote differential been something like 80/20 or maybe even 70/30 then one might conclude that "consensus" fits with the majority side. However, a 50s/40s split with about 30 participants (such as this one) represents "no consensus". I saw a higher number of cursory what-he-said votes from the Delete voters than I saw with the Keep voters; perhaps the votes without thoughtful arguments were given less consideration by the closer, bringing the vote-split even nearer to 50/50. I don't think there was any vote stacking and I don't see evidence of an advocacy cabal. I saw only one SPA (a Delete voter), and saw a lot of experienced editors had arrived to comment on the AfD (a good thing). The only red flag I see right now is that some Delete voters have continued to argue their viewpoints that should have been left back at AfD (instead of arguing just AfD/close procedural errors at DelRev), including complaining to the first closer on his user talk page, which got the AfD reopened, followed by similar complaining to the second closer on his user talk page, followed by this DelRev. As another editor said above, "If you are having to argue about consensus then you haven't got one." A Wikipedia article that has been frequently edited and contributed to along its entire history (11 years and almost 4,000 edits, in this case) and which has survived two previous AfDs certainly deserves more than a cursory count of votes. Two closers came up with the same result of "no consensus" for this AfD, and I concur with their decision. I endorse the close. Normal Op ( talk) 07:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and also for reasons provided by Rhododendrites — Yours, Berrely •  ^Talk∕ _Contribs 16:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Close An admin tried to purge a huge and well-sourced list and another admin unsurprisingly does not hand him the result he wanted. So now, he is trying to overturn that decision even though he himself has closed AFDs with no consensus in the past. Mazca's decision was perfectly reasonable. In the deletion discussion, the main difference between the two opposing sides was not the strength of their arguments but it was how they differently interpret the various policies that have been brought up. This list is not indiscriminate like so many have claimed as there is a specific criteria for inclusion which is media coverage. If you want to make that more narrow and excise some entries, you should take it to the talk page rather than try to purge the entire list. Also, the claim that this is driven by anti-pitbull advocacy is quite ridiculous. If a dog kills someone and the media decides to cover it and call it a pitbull, then we are going to call it a pitbull. StellarHalo ( talk) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  While I appreciate your support for my close, I do take issue with the first part of your comment - characterising this as any kind of battle between two admins is just not the case. Eddie891 nominated the article with a well-thought-out statement, the very best intentions, and knowing it was going to be a controversial nomination. I later closed it after, I felt, no consensus had been reached after two weeks - knowing my close was always going to be controversial too. Given multiple editors took issue with the close on my talkpage already, and the long-term issues with this area, I was entirely happy for Eddie891 taking it here to make sure my close was representative. ~ mazca ^talk 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close (uninvolved) After having carefully read through the AFD, I think the closer came to the right conclusion. Certainly there was a reasonably strong lean toward the delete side in terms of raw numbers, but the policy-based arguments put forth by both sides were fairly even, and I don't think that any were left unaddressed by either side. I disagree with the idea that consensus can't happen without near-unaninimity (a 2-to-1 margin at RfA is well within the discretionary zone, for example), but in this case I don't think the deletes were quite able to carry the day. For what it's worth, had I !voted I likely would have supported deletion, but as it stands I don't see a delete consensus here. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  What were the policy-based arguments to keep in your view, Cthomas3? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Greetings, Atsme. The keeps put forward N (and GNG) and LISTN, and rebutted the assertion of IINFO, NOTMEMORIAL, BLP, NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, and SYSTEMICBIAS. I'm not saying that their arguments were any stronger than those advocating for delete, and as I said I would have !voted delete myself. However,I didn't see in the discussion where the delete side had effectively countered those arguments enough to sway the overall consensus. Overall I thought it was leaning toward a (very) rough consensus to delete, but not enough to close it that way. CThomas³ ( talk) 14:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

A reminder that this is not the place to reignite the same discussion at the deletion, but to address whether there was anything blatantly incorrect about the closure. This is a mistake apparent in both the del rev opening and in the arguments that keep popping up here. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 04:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Seriously, if you can find any consensus in that mess, good luck to you. There are unquestionably issues with these pages, but there is equally unquestionably no consensus to delete them. And I say that as a notorious deletionist. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse- I don't see a consensus to delete in that discussion, though there clearly is a consensus that the article as it stands is opinionated trash and needs a lot of editing to get it into shape. I also think a lot of the attacks on the DRV nominator are tedious in their predictability and stupid in their content. Reyk _YO! 15:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete This list has so many problems, and has the potential to be the root of so many problems, and the number of policy violations involved point to deletion.-- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 17:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Reluctant endorse; RfC needed. While I think this article and its purpose (along with those of some related ones) are problematic from several policy perspectives, the purpose of DRV is not relitigating delete/keep rationales, but assessing whether a close was in error. This close was not in error. There was a sharp split in responses, and those in favor of delete did not present a consistent rationale, nor a very deep one. Just hand-waving at "WP:NOT#something" isn't a proper rationale; one must make the case why something actually matches a WP:NOT line-item (or some other policy), and the delete !voters (among whom I would have been) did not, for the most part, do this clearly. I agree with various critics of the piece that the principal purpose of this article is socio-political activism against particular dog breeds, relying on dubious sourcing that is apt to mis-identify breeds; and also that it raises WP:BLP concerns (primarily pertaining to the families of deceased children). A more encyclopedic approach would be statistics-based, and not a "tell every victim's story in gory detail" argument to emotion. However, some things the closer said in user talk are especially pertinent: "Trying to apply an RSN discussion to a side-discussion in a discussion as inconclusive as this is really going beyond assessing a consensus, and starts to feel like issuing an adjudication." That's true, but the the RSN thread in question raises actual concerns which are a valid part of the debate about this and similar articles. And: "I do think that an RFC to reach some more general policy/guideline on how WP:NOT applies to lists of "deaths by x method" is most likely to actually fix this disagreement, without getting directly back into the emotive dog attack area." More to the point, in light of something Atsme said in the same conversation, is that this list (and others pertaining to dogs) are unlike List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, List of fatal snake bites in Australia, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, and other lists of deaths-by-wild-animal, in that this does and almost necessarily will WP:UNDULY dwell on particular breeds alleged to be violent, and thereby have a WP:CIRCULAR effect of inspiring real-world action against these breeds (whether their involvement was correctly reported or not), and lead in a feedback loop to Wikipedia further reporting such actions, and more such actions being taken based on what WP says is the new normal, and so on. Thus, a more focused RfC or multi-AfD to address these domestic-breed-related death lists is probably in order. I would suggest an RfC, because there are multiple approaches, not just a binary keep/delete choice. E.g., they could be rewritten as articles on statistics of deaths without all the names and the excessive details, and be inclusive of published analysis of the data for accuracy, etc.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I disagree with the suggestion made earlier that this article is a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's not the fault of Wikipedia that the majority of fatal dog attacks seem to be from Pit bulls. In my view the article is not "anti-Pit bull" – likewise an article about fatal shark attacks is not "anti-sharks". The article simply gives factual details with reliable sources. It's up to each individual reader of the article what feelings or reactions they have to the fatalities. There are many people who defend pit bulls and this Wikipedia article won't suddenly change their views. I think we need to credit Wikipedia readers with the intelligence to be able to make up their own minds on the issue of dog attacks. As somebody myself who likes French Bulldogs, I was saddened to read in the article that a French Bulldog mix killed a 52-year-old woman in Illinois this year. But this sad fatality doesn't stop me liking French Bulldogs in the same way that those who are fond of Pit bulls won't suddenly start disliking the breed as a result of this article. Wikipedia should simply give the facts, it's WP:NOTCENSORED to protect either a dog breed or the feelings of Pit bull lovers. And ultimately if people are distressed by details of dog attacks, nobody at all is forcing them to read this article. – Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 01:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: If I had participated in the AfD, I think I would have !voted delete, but given the state of the AfD, Mazca's only possible close was as no consensus. Of those arguing for overturning, I only see real challenges to the close coming from Eddie891 and Rhododendrites - possibly I am missing something but the other 'overturn' opinions seem to be relitigating the AfD, which is not something we do at DRV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close I came to this article because it showed up at the reliable sources noticeboard. I have no interest in dogs or other animals whatsoever. But I thought, and still think, that the list was a pretty cool piece of trivia. Exactly the kind of trivia that should be featured on Wikipedia, in my opinion. ImTheIP ( talk) 00:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close largely as per SMcCandlish. Those favoring keep, have the better and more spelled arguments. If I were to overturn thi9s it would be to keep, not to delete. But I can't really find any consensus here. An RfC to aettle the policy issues might well be a good idea. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close There is nothing inherently wrong with a NC close based on the discussion. Nor would there have been anything wrong with a close of delete. Both closes would clearly be in the discretion of the closer. -- Enos733 ( talk) 15:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (no consensus). I read unambiguously a “no consensus”. Arguments did not persuade. See advice at WP:RENOM. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close The prior discussion showed a clear lack of consensus for deletion. It's surprising that it was even closed with no consensus; there probably looks to be consensus against deletion. Eddie891 offers no reason for overturning the decision other than that the consensus did not go the way that they advocated and they repeat the arguments that they made at the deletion page that did not ultimately sway. This follows an inappropriate and aggressive lobbying of Mazca, the closer, at their talk page by the delrev nominator and two other users they agreed with. This is a misuse of process and a waste of time. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

It's also worth noting that the nominator listed EIGHT different reasons for deleting the article, each of which were thoroughly addressed and effectively countered by at least one of the keep votes, whose reasoning was supported by other keep votes. This broad, hand-waving dismissal of the votes against the nominator's position as somehow weak on policy has less credibility based on a review of the actual discussion. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close: No consensus. Not even a shadow of a rough consensus. Can't just count votes. — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 17:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

WP:BADNAC - a rather controversial close. An administrator should handle this controversial close. I did ask the editor to reopen the AfD. I suggest speedy Overturn badnac and allow the AfD to proceed. Lightburst ( talk) 21:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Relist. I don't think it is necessarily a "speedy" matter to resolve this review, as this is a very fluid situation. More developments might arise that would tend to shift opinions over time, or the ongoing merge discussion may be resolved in favor of merging, which would moot deletion, but the rationale for speedy closure was definitely lacking. Alternately, User:DannyS712 might reverse his closure of the discussion. BD2412 T 22:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• (closer) Had I been given more than 10 minutes to respond, I would have preferred to discuss this with Lightburst, but since this has progressed to DRV, and mindful of the disagreement over the content, I have reopened the discussion. That being said, Wikipedia:Speedy keep does say that the discussion should be closed unless someone has the link to the article removed from the main page. I have restored the AfD tag to the article, and reverted my close of the AfD subpage. I'm not the most familiar with the DRV process, so I don't know if I missed something I was supposed to do. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 22:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict)Relist...but wait I think Danny made a good close. Controversial, sure. But it's on the main page, news is changing quickly, and it's notability could shift rapidly. Now, I think an AfD should get held. But Danny's right: it can wait a bit. Give it a week or two, and then relist it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Update: has been closed as speedy keep again by @ TheSandDoctor for the same reason -- DannyS712 ( talk) 01:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  While I agree with the fact that this shouldn't have been an NAC, the close was proper per WP:SKCRIT #6. I have no objections whatsoever to relisting at a later date, but only after the article is no longer linked on the main page (how it gets to that point I really don't care, just so long as it is proper per policy...i.e. times out or gains WP:ERRORS consensus to remove it from main page). -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse both closures (I !voted keep in the AFD) - WP:SK #6 clearly applies as the closing statements explained. As a separate reason to close the AFD, there is a pre-existing and ongoing merge discussion on the article talk page. We shouldn't have two pages simultaneously discussing the issue. Le v!v ich 01:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Motion to close as this whole discussion is moot and no longer about the current closure. The current closure alleviated the primary concerns raised by the DRV requestor (the fact it was an nac closure). -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

User:Pmatthews21 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Possible inappropriate CSD:U5; possibly especially serious as may have attempted to declare a user COI on the page. Was blue button contested prior to deletion at User talk:Pmatthews21#Contested deletion but contestation was not addressed by closer. Discussion with closer on their talk page section Deletion of user page Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Closer and CSD nominator notified. Temp-undelete requested so non-admins can view it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - temp undeleted to facilitate this discussion Wily D 08:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Doesn't remotely fit the U5 description (it is, in fact, the user's only edit to the Userspace, with about a dozen in article, draft, and talk spaces). It was in fact, pretty much a textbook example of WP:UPGOOD, a brief statement of their interest in topics and possible conflicts of interest. I assumed it must've been an error at first, but apparently the deleting admin was approached and re-affirmed they thought the deletion was appropriate, which is absolutely unfathomable. Wily D 08:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'm afraid you've misread WP:CSD#U5. All that feels-good nonsense about being related to Wikipedia's goals and excluding pages intended to be drafts and requiring a discussion if there's been edits outside of userspace was only put there so that people would be fooled into approving the criterion back in 2014. It's real, super-secret meaning is "Anything I don't like, written in (usually, not always) userspace, by a user too new to raise a credible fuss." — Cryptic 14:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• overturn speedy I understand where this is coming from, but yeah, seems like a declaration of interests which is quite appropriate and common. Hobit ( talk) 12:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Who are these shadowy userspace police? On what possible basis do they think it's appropriate to stop editors from introducing themselves? The mind boggles.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Repeating what I said on User talk:Anthony Bradbury: We ask people to declare that they have COI. That's what this user did. Then slapping them down because they also included some marketing-speak seems disingenuous. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The page, which comprised one sentence and one userbox, did not violate any userpage policies and should not have been deleted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per my remarks regarding the deletion at User talk:Anthony Bradbury: "It looks to me like they were declaring what topics they intend to work on and included a COI tag accordingly (though they weren't entirely successful). I don't see any content subject to U5 or G11 on that page." I bring up G11 as the deleting admin noted that they believe it could have been speedy deleted with that rationale as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn and WP:TROUT for Anthony Bradbury; not in the least bit friendly or compliant with policy. Stifle ( talk) 16:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment It still seems to me that this editors userpage, consisting as is stated above of a single sentence, indicates that their intention is to improve marketing, but makes no mention at all of any past or planned editing in or improvement of wikipedia. Perhaps I am interpreting the userpage guidelines too narrowly. ---- Anthony Bradbury ^"talk" 21:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Anthony, the vast majority of your deletions are good, but I do think you may need to slightly recalibrate your line-drawing on what is acceptable on a userpage. User:Phenom2019 is another one that I'm not sure warranted deletion. Deleting a userpage, especially without prior discussion, will generally be understood by a new editor as our saying that he or she is not wanted here. That message should be reserved for editors whose pages are more problematic than these. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I note, understand, and will comply with your request/suggestion.---- Anthony Bradbury ^"talk" 21:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn was a compliant statement of their COI The market speak was just an attempt at clarity, and could have been addressed through discussion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as an acceptable user page. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strong overturn This is not even close to a U5-eligable page. The user properly declared a COI (or at least attempted tyo do so, the format is not quite correct) and indicated general intentions. Whether that user is here to help build an encyclopedia is best judged from teh article space contributions, which look good. I note that the tagging editor has since been blocked as a sock, suggesting that any attempt by that editor to enforce rules was a bit hypocritical. I suppose that Anthony Bradbury acted in good faith but I urge that admin to review the CSDs and U5 in particular, and to remember that CDSs are to be applied narrowly and strictly. Can this really be described as writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals or as not adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?? I do not think so. A snow close seems proper here. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

EBCDIC 037-2 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page was caught in a mass deletion of pages with information taken from IBM's primary sources, but it documented a code page discussed ONLY in secondary sources. It could use additional citations beyond the Marist Pipelines web page, but it's information that was notable enough to make its way from SHARE discussions back into an IBM product eventually. Not R ( talk) 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Request Listing for review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Robert McClenon: assuming you meant temporary undeletion I have now done that. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (treatment as per rest of bundle), no objection to draftification: In the sense that at the AfD there was little if anything to distinguish this page from any other codepage and one expects treatment to be consistent. The current sourcing is insufficient to save the page individually, and the nomination is too much of a WP:VAGUEWAVE to even work out if sources should exist. In my opinion the drv. nom. should have asked the DRVAFD closer for a draftify or userify of this page to prove the sources could be developed into the page and presented that draft to DRV for consideration. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Djm-leighpark: since we're here already do you want to discuss your larger concerns about this BUNDLE? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: Not a suitable time for me to raise those issues, RL stuff and more. And this is a specific page DRV is in my view inappropriately raised. I'll only discuss on this DRV if I really have to. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Djm-leighpark: I agree that the article needs further development, and I've asked for help with that on the CMS-PIPL list. I'd be happy to develop it in a user page and come back here once it's fleshed out.

What's missing to distinguish it from all the other EBCDIC code page articles is that this is not an official code page from IBM. It was not acknowledged by IBM at all until the info in the unofficial CMS Pipelines doc (referenced in the article) was moved into the official doc in 2016. Not R ( talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Not R: For future reference the best pathway in my opinion is to ask the closer for a WP:REFUND to userpace/draftspace for article development; If they don't respond in 48 hours then try at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion making it clear youve asked the closer and you requesting userfication; if you are refused then raise a DRV for the purposes of getting hold of a draft. Hopefully in this instance someone will grant you a draft, but be aware it may be very difficult to get it to a state suitable for mainspace. But in essenece you shouldn't be blocked from a good faith attempt. Hopefully you may be granted a userfication consensus from this DRV now it is here and you have agreed to accept that route. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Djm-leighpark: Thanks, the boilerplate in the discussion didn't mention WP:REFUND, and it wasn't clear from the hatnote at WP:DELREV that another action might be appropriate in this case. In fact, it's still not clear to me after having it pointed out--I'm not spotting anything in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 to tell me whether this falls under Wikipedia:Deletion discussions or WP:PROD. Not R ( talk) 01:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - It's a codepage. It needed deleting. Thank you, User:Barkeep49, for temporarily undeleting. It wasn't worth the review, but we did not know that. No error by closer, and no reason to religitate. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• There almost wasn't a need for an temp-undelete as Barkeep49's version (sans proper attribution) was and is currently available at b:TransWiki:EBCDIC 037-2, so some of us were aware of the state of the page and its (lack of) attribution. The AfD consensus showed a strong desire to WP:PRESERVE, not delete, possibly at WikiBooks. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse a good close with a 30 day grace period to discuss. Lightburst ( talk) 02:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I have put, and probably wasted, considerable effort into trying to preserve the bundle of articles, and bundle that is a precedent for several hundred other articles. I have indicated for personal reasons I do not wish to disclose I would prefer not to discuss the bundle, see the previous AfD and discussion with the closers, and the 30-day grace was in respect of the bundle and not the individual article. The community have the right to move discussion the outcome of the complete AfD with regards to all the bundled articles and if they wish to do that please make that explicitly clear and a different discussion will occur. As raised the DRV is for a single article out of the whole bundle that the DRV nom. good faith believes to be different in some respects than the rest. In a nutshell I am (slowly) gathering evidence as to why AfD bundle should be overturned or modified but I do not have it clearly together at this time; but I am not presenting it half-cock at this somewhat inappropriate albeit good faith DRV raised for a single articles within the article — unless that is what the community wishes. My apologies for seemingly answering every post; by this point in good faith we should probably be giving the nom. his draft/usersfication of a single article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per Djm-leighpark. The idea caught on that WP:INDISCRIMINATE was applicable in the AfD and I think this was a mistake: all of the tables were clearly useful and verifiable supplementary information to the highly notable EBDIC page; most encyclopedias, both print and online, have supplementary tables and having these as separate pages is consistent with summary style. Perhaps there is another Wikimedia project that is better for housing this content than the main encyclopedia; however this kind of utilitarian consideration is not what guided the deletion argument, and until this mess is sorted out, the deletion of all these pages has done its bit to weaken the reference value of Wikipedia. However, this single page is not exceptional in the set of codepages and undeleting it alone is not a constructive step. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am not entirely comfortable with the mass nomination and deletion here, but it seems that is not on the table at the moment. I see no objection to draftifing this while additional sources are sought. In its current state it does not have enough sourcing to demonstrate separate notability, but it might in time. The suggestion by Chalst that the various code pages could stand as supplementary tables under summery style appeals to me. We often have separate paged for bibliographies of the works of a notable author, for example, when the bibliography on its own might not be notable. The general concept of code pages, and even of EBCDIC code pages, is clearly notable, but cramming all the pages into a single article is obviously unworkable. Perhaps these might be considered as, in effect, sub-pages of such an article, but that is for a discussion of the full bundle when we get to it. In the meantime permit draftification. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 14:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure as the deletion process has been properly followed. No objection to draftifying individual items if there is a good-faith intention to expand or improve them, but that should not be used as an end-run around the consensus. Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• I'm honestly not thrilled with the close. It was well within discretion, but it seems like a crazy thing to lose from Wikipedia. Feels like something Wikipedia should host. So endorse based on the rules, but I think we should rethink our rules. Hobit ( talk) 12:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• complete transwiki, and Endorse however the transwiki may not be done for all pages as required, eg IBM code page 875. If that is the case they should be restored until that process takes place. Assuming that they should go to Wikibooks, then proper attribution is also needed for those pages that have explanatory text, and not just a table. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Graeme Bartlett: I view this as not addressing the purpose of this DRV, namely the specific page in question, is attempting to expand the DRV to the whole bundle ... which has implications for many hundreds more articles also, probably ending up around e.g. Wabun code & Morse code for non-Latin alphabets for example. It brings up various issues, WP:TRANSWIKI being an "obsolete" former procedure being one of them, the fact that the Transwiki (import) space on Wikibooks is some form of Hades unless there's a volunteer identified and willing to transform them into a book compliant with WikiBooks purposes. I do agree the code pages transwikied to seem to have an attribution problem in my view,(While Barkeep49 is shown as as having attribution for the pages on WikiBooks that was absolutely not Barkeep49's fault) and as such I am of that utmost belief that need to be resolved in some way. But I see that as beyond the scope of the purpose of this particular DRV. If this DRV has to be expanded to the whole bundle I will be voting endorse, overturn but I don't really have the bandwidth to get involved in that at this time ... lets just say getting called to a hospital at 1am localtime a few nights ago is a pretty good RL indicator I should be avoiding that.... Djm-leighpark ( talk) 05:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Alan Milliner ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closer review To all administrators, I have requested a deletion review on Alan Milliner, an Australian football referee who had been an international referee until 2017 upon his retirement, and has referred the Hyundai A-League matches for that matter. They have officially decided to delete that page, which I would take it easy on it, and has completely come up to my mind to ask for a deletion review. Because if he didn’t pass the GNG, why did he exist? And if the sources are not reliable enough, how come there is an official source from FIFA , to the AFC, to the Hyundai A-League and Football Queensland (on behalf of his retirement)? Even that, how can’t secondary sources cannot be accepted as if I just found the best way I can find, even if Wikipedia encourages the content to be neutral? If anyone decides that final say on that regard, I will respect the decision. With that, I am ready for this closer review. Ivan Milenin ( talk) 00:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the issue is WP:N. The discussion concluded that there aren't enough sources strong enough to meet that guideline. On a quick look, I too am not seeing the degree of independent sourcing needed. Hobit ( talk) 01:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close could not really have been closed in any other way. Perhaps refs should be covered by the football SNG, but currently it seems that they are not. You need to understand Ivan Milenin that the fact that a source is "official" does not guarantee an article, indeed it may be of less value than an unofficial source, as it may be considered not independent. You write if he didn’t pass the GNG, why did he exist? Wikipedia has many article which should never have been created, or which were created when standards were looser, so this argument is simply not persuasive. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 02:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  However, there is no bar to creating a new draft in an attempt, to find and cite sufficient sources to establish notability, if you wish to. Indeed I would not object to this being restored as a draft or a userspace draft. I would advise putting such a draft thorough an AfC review but that is never mandatory. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 02:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close - clearly correct. I think Ivan Milenin has not quite got what is special about the criteria applied to sourcing in notability assessments: it is not enough that the sources be reliable, as per the core verifiability policy, there must be a number of significant sources that are independent of the subject for us to regard the topic as having the kind of coverage needed to sustain a balanced article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The AfD could not have been closed any other way, and my quick look at google hits find near misses for things that meet the WP:GNG. To reverse the decision, you’ll need to show good GNG-meeting sources, see WP:THREE for some very good advice. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion; fails WP:DRVPURPOSE reasons not to use deletion review items 1-3. Stifle ( talk) 12:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment If your need at least three best sources, possible, then there should be. 1 is about that he received a FIFA badge asa referee, 2, which is how he started, and 3 on his retirement. Let me know if any of these work. Ivan Milenin ( talk) 13:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Ivan Milenin I believe that your 2nd source, the a-league.com piece, is from his former employer, and so is not considered independent, and cannot serve to help establish notability.Please correct me if I am mistaken. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - as closing admin. Consensus was clear in the AfD. I have no problem with restoration to draft space of an editor thinks that they can satisfy GNG, though I'm not seeing any significant sources presented post the AfD that are not primary. Fenix down ( talk) 18:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as per User:DESiegel (with whom I usually respectfully disagree) on both points. The close was correct, and the SNG should include referees, but that is an issue for WT:NFOOTY. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Another comment Robert McClenon, if that is the case, then should I talk about it on the WT:NFOOTY talk page? I completely agree that football referees should be included to satisfy notability, and that there is not a problem for creating a draft space for this page. But If this is the case, can I address this to the talk page? Ivan Milenin ( talk) 23:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to User:Ivan Milenin - Yes, probably. I am not involved in that WikiProject and do not know what they will think, but what you want to do is to revise a policy, and DRV is for appeals based on standing policies. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse a good close - probably the only one that would make sense. Lightburst ( talk) 02:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - good close. Giant Snowman 14:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close clearly matches the consensus at the AfD. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Sandra Grant Bennett ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I asked the deleting administrator Stifle "I'm surprised at your close here. "Notability is not inherited" is an often used phrase, but that doesn't actually imply deletion of an article; what the relevant part of the guideline does say (immediately afterwards) is "However, person A may be included in the related article on B.". Additionally, the final "keep" !vote in the AfD was a well-thought out argument and suggested "merge" as a compromise, which I would agree with. Can we relist this instead?" and got directed here. My preferred decision would be to relist the AfD for another week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse own deletion as that was the consensus of the discussion. Relisting was not an option open to me as there was plenty of contributions. Stifle ( talk) 15:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I disagree, my view of the !votes in question are;

1) A well-argued !vote, but why are they asking for a delete instead of a redirect (no mention of being an implausible one)?

2) Okay, but same issue (a COI problem is not a reason to delete)

3) A 7-word argument to avoid, ignore for consensus

4) A compromise

5) A 15-word argument citing a policy that does not suggest deletion, weak for consensus

6) A well-argued !vote, better than all other !votes aside from the nominator, also suggesting a compromise Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Relist I was a participant in the AfD. I urged keep based on my own research. But as a compromise I stated in the AfD that could agree with Ritchie333's merge target as a WP:ATD-M. Wm335td ( talk) 20:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• relist Merging is generally a good plan where there is significant coverage, and there appears to be some (though I'm not seeing WP:N getting met). No one specifically made an argument against the merge and two people supported it. So a relist asking people to consider the merge seems wise. Hobit ( talk) 01:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. The discussion was developing. Early delete !votes were thin, the merge suggestion was not answered, and User:Wm335td‘s !vote was thoughtful and deserves a reply, not discarding. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I see the discussion leaning to "delete" with a possibility of "merge". "No consensus" would be a bad close. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Reopen/Relist - anyone closing an AfD on the pretense of evaluating consensus needs to be able to act like a disinterested party. Whether the closer was actually supervoting or just acting like it ... Caesar's wife and all that. Realistically, one week, the last vote a 'keep' presenting newer or at least better arguments ... it's not a good close anyways. Wily D 14:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, as that was the consensus after plenty of input.— S Marshall  T/ C 14:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Can you justify that, with the breakdown above? Can you explain why "Sandra Grant Bennett" is not a suitable redirect term to Tony Bennett? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Firstly, because I think it's important to treat women as people in their own right and not as accessories to their husbands or their husbands' careers. That's why I'm not really very comfortable with the practice of redirecting a woman's name to that of her husband; the overtones of that are unfortunate. I'm particularly uncomfortable with redirecting a woman's name to that of a man she divorced thirteen years ago.

Secondly, because I think that the view of a majority of good faith, established editors at a well-attended discussion represents a consensus, and it's harsh to give a closer a hard time for obedience to it. My position is that Stifle was right to implement the consensus as written rather than to try to second-guess it: I wish that more sysops would do this.

In this regard I realize that there's a counterargument: before we expect discussion participants to agree to a deletion, we want them to exhaust the alternatives. We don't see evidence, from that discussion, of the alternatives being exhausted. The question is whether we need to. Do editors have to show their working in full? Is it necessary for them to type out: "Delete. I considered the possibility of merging, but was unable to identify a suitable merge target. I considered the possibility of redirecting, but feel that this is inappropriate in this case..." or do we read the word "Delete" and assume that as experienced Wikipedians, they've done due diligence?— S Marshall  T/ C 21:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Is it necessary for them to type out: "Delete. I considered the possibility of merging, but was unable to identify a suitable merge target".

User:S Marshall, it is necessary to say something, but please don't suggest that empty verbosity. If someone !votes "merge, not notable for a standalone article but can be covered in other article", then a response should be "Do not merge to other article because [reason]". At AfD, too many people are Keep/Delete binary and apparently blind to WP:ATD options, and it is a good role for DRV to remind people that "merge" has default precedence over "delete" if there is a suggested merge target and the problem is mere notability. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

What if someone types "merge" late in the debate? Are all the previous contributors expected to watchlist the AfDs they've edited so they can come back and respond? If they fail to do that, does one late "merge" counter a whole cluster of early "delete"s? Or is it better to assume that experienced, good faith Wikipedians are aware of ATD and have done their homework?— S Marshall  T/ C 07:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

No, it is a poor assumption that people do things properly at AfD. If someone raises a sensible “merge” option in the discussion, the nominator should be WP:SLAPped, and the discussion relisted if not closed. Sometimes people do not take WP:BEFORE#C.4 and WP:ATD seriously enough. Obvious merge targets should be addressed in the nomination. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to No Consensus or to Merge - In my opinion, the arguments were leaning against Delete, based on policy reasons. Notability is not inherited does not mandate deletion. Relist is a reasonable option. Closer acted in good faith but made a mistake. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist we should always look for alternatives to deletion - and one or two alternatives were available. The closer made a reasonable close based on the participation, however there is some evidence which suggests that a relist may have been approriate. So a relist is a good choice. Lightburst ( talk) 02:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist Particularly when considering that the keep !vote was cast late in the discussion, and that the deletes were generally cookie cutter, It's worth allowing further input. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• I just want to note that if this redirect were just created, no one would flinch. WP:RfD is the place to discuss redirects. The bar for a redirect is really really low, wee WP:CHEAP. The problem is we have AfD regulars putting a much higher bar for a redirect than we have in practice. I can't imagine the redirect would have a snowball's chance of getting deleted at RfD. Hobit ( talk) 17:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I have to agree that this was a bad close. There is no consensus to delete: 4-2 by head count but the keep/merge arguments are better reasoned, and Wm335td's keep came late in the day and should have been allowed more time for consideration. WP:RELIST advises us that it's appropriate in situations where there's "few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy" and both apply here: there were only four participants that offered a policy-based argument (I exclude "per nom" here). –  Joe ( talk) 14:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Hello, I recently had six AfDs relisted in a DRV from August 24. At the time those records were relisted, 2 additional records were deleted under the same rationale. The title article here (Hruz) and Robert D. Sundby ( AfD) both fall into the same category and suffer fromt he same flawed deletion rationale as the previous six articles. These are judges of an important statewide court, but their articles were nominated for deletion because the judges of the court are elected in one of four regional districts and there was apparently confusion over whether this makes them minor judges.

Please relist and I'll work to expand all of their articles with additional information. -- Asdasdasdff ( talk) 22:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Relist (or temporarily undelete for review) - There is a misunderstanding concerning the notability of judges. Judges who are not covered by judicial notability may nonetheless be covered by general notability, as we saw with other Wisconsin judges. Robert McClenon ( talk) 11:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist as per the other WI Judge articles. Thomas_Hruz did not show that it passed the GNG, (in fact only one source was cited) but the matter was simp0ly not discussed in the AfD, and it may well be that sources could be added to show GNG satisfaction. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 13:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• I don't mind relisting (closing admin here). But please someone else do it, since we are doing a deletion review (if it was a discussion on my talkpage, I'd do it myself). -- Tone 18:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment it looks like this review needs a WP:UNINVOLVED administrator. The XfD closer has consented to a relist. Wm335td ( talk) 20:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Alumni of Brunel University ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Accidentally created duplicate category page of 'Alumni of Brunel University London' B Enkay 45 ( talk) 07:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Good morning User:B Enkay 45 and I hope you're well. You're in the wrong place, I fear; Deletion Review is here to deal with appeals regarding deleted pages and deletion discussions. I've gone ahead and deleted Alumni of Brunel University as that seems to be what you wanted done; in future if you create a page accidentally simply add {{ db-g7}} to the top of the page and someone will drop by to delete it. Stifle ( talk) 08:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Yes indeed, that was all I needed. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by B Enkay 45 ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Andrew Fraser (lawyer) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Andrew Fraser is a notable person who had a major influence on the Australian law world. He defended some of Australia's most infamous people. It is important that information about him differs from his television show Killing Time as facts were dramatised and names were substituted. Georges ( talk) 01:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I closed the discussion. In the discussion, all three participants expressed the opinion that Fraser was not independently notable and that the content would be better merged into the TV show. Are there any sources available which show independent notability and would warrant a different outcome? ( t · c) buidhe 01:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• @ Buidhe: Andrew Fraser and his tv show are significantly different and warrant their own article. I have links to sources below that prove Fraser's significance...

[20], [21], [22], [23]

Also here is the proposed edit will be made to the page if it becomes un-merged. User:Geo3012/sandbox - Georges ( talk) 02:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• If that's the best there is, I'm not impressed. Three of these sources are not independent of the subject and don't count towards GNG. ( t · c) buidhe 03:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Deletion review is a venue to handle cases where deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a venue to repeat arguments that were (or should have) been made at the AFD. Stifle ( talk) 08:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure as the proper conclusion of the closer. I might have !voted differently, but we do not re-litigate the AFD discussion. I would suggest that Relisting would be a good idea, but this is a valid result. If the closer is willing to relist, please relist. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close, although the discussion was very weak. Of the four sources listed above by Geo3012, onpy one is of value, three are not independent. However, if the draft is developed to clearly demonstrate notability, ther should be no bar to moving the draft to mainspace. At the moment it probably passes the GNG, but has a problem with WP:CRIME, just as the article did. If sources that are not primarily concerned with Fraser 's crime and conviction are sufficient to pass WP:BIO then this could be approved. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse sadly there was minimal participation. The closer did not get it wrong. Maybe draft? Wm335td ( talk) 20:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Wm335td, please note that User:Geo3012/sandbox already exists as a draft version of this, as was mentioned earlier in the discussion. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 14:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

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

I’ve been working on this draft after finding it curious that this page didn’t already exist. Came across the issue on the Insight Partners page and was surprised given their role in exposing some pretty big name security vulnerability issues. I ran with it, thinking it was an appropriate article to create, especially coming across other pages in the same arena that are seemingly less notable. I didn’t realize the long deletion history on this draft until it was ready to go. Honestly I probably wouldn’t have even given this one the time had I seen that first. But since it’s already been done, thought it would be worth giving this another shot. The company has a lot of coverage and has been involved in high profile security issues ( Amazon Alexa, Google and Samsung smartphones, Tinder (app), etc.). From what I could see, it’s obvious the past deletion issues were from COI editors, and explains why it was even attempted before they actually reached a notable status - it should be noted that all of these high profile issues have come out since the last attempts that I can see on this draft, and I believe these tip the notability scale. Given the history, it’s sure to come up, so I want to put it out there that I have no vested interest in this company, other than the fact that I have a curiosity for cybersecurity. I’m requesting to have the draft reviewed (currently in my sandbox: User:Metromemo/sandbox) and the lock removed on this page if others agree that it meets WP:GNG. Metromemo ( talk) 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation; deletion was 7 years ago and the draft seems fine. Stifle ( talk) 08:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse all previous AFDs and all previous DRVs. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Allow re-creation in Draft, knowing that the result will be reviewed twice, once at AFC, and then again at Articles for Deletion. We are only agreeing to allow a neutral editor to try to do what paid editors have repeatedly failed to do so far. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Besides the Checkmarx and Checkmarx (company) that have AFDs, this has also been deleted at CHECKMARX, CheckMarx, Checkmarx (corporation), User:Tschnick/sandbox, User:Checkmarx ( talk), File:Checkmarx_Logo.jpg, File:Checkmarx_v4_code.pdf (which, appallingly, consisted of the wikitext of one of the deleted articles), Draft:Checkmarx ( MfD discussion), and Draft:Checkmarx/אסף רזון. There's also CxQL ( AfD discussion) and User:CxQL ( talk) for their internal software, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/checkmarx.com (which is still blacklisted), and c:File:Newlogo67BS.png. And that's just what turned up with my first zero-effort regex; there's likely more around.
  All this isn't to say that an article on this company is forever impossible. But any new one is going to have to pass a very, very strict check of our notability and sourcing guidelines to get accepted. This is about as clear of a User:JzG/And the band played on... situation as it gets. — Cryptic 19:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Wow, what a mess. I only saw about 3 attempts, so this goes deeper than I thought. Interested to see how it pans out given the history. Metromemo ( talk) 19:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation (no need for AfC). As noted, this is likely going to AfD no matter what. As far as I can tell, the last attempt to create this was around 2014. So while there was a ton of effort to get this to have an article, that seemed to stop and it became notable. It's not so clearly notable that an AfD is right out, but there is no reason to walk through AfC first. Hobit ( talk) 21:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation, either in mainspace or in draft. If in draft, an AfC review is in no way required, althoguh it might be helpful. Significant time has elapsed sicne the various previous deletions, and evidence for notability seems to be stronger now. I have not revieweed the current draft for readiness for mainspace. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 20:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Question - Are User:Hobit and User:DESiegel recommending unsalting, if they say to permit creation in mainspace? It is currently salted in mainspace, as it should have been, with the history of deletions, and the history of the gaming of names. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Correct. Given it's a really new account that created it, I can see the reasons for concern. But the topic is clearly over the bar for notability and it seems to be written in a fairly "just the facts" kind of way (too much so IMO--a summary of what the company does and how it makes money would be nice even if that has to come from primary sources). AfC is, IME, unlikely to see the approval of an article that is salted. And frankly, AfC should never be a required process--it's just too much of a hot mess. Hobit ( talk) 12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I had missed that it was salted, but it makes sense that it had been. Yes I am favoring unsalting here, basedm on the content of the current draft. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 13:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Disagree with unsalting, or allowing re-creation in mainspace. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grenoble jojo, which simply illustrates that there is an old history of misconduct, enough of a history to provide reason for caution in the present. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Realizing I just responded above: to what point? I'm trying to understand how AfC helps us here other than creating a hurdle. Do you think the topic doesn't meet WP:N? Do you think it's too promotional? Something else? Why does it need further review? What can AfC do that we can't do here? Hobit ( talk) 12:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I fail to see the relevance of the SPI, they newest section of which is from 2017. There is, I take it, no suggestio that Metromemo is a sock or a paid editor, correct? Is ther na serious doubt that this topic is notable? whether the sandbox deft is sufficiently developed for mainspace is a separate question, but I strongly object to using AfC as some sort of required hurdle. its purpose is (or should be) to assist inexperienced editors in cresting valid articles and in knowing what is valid. Any user in good thing can always move any draft to mainspace, without an AfC review, if s/he thinks in good faith it is ready for mainspace. To say otherwise would require a policy change approved by a site-wide RfC. This was salted because of abusive attempts to create promotiojnal content. No one argues that the surrent sandbox draft is abusive or promotional, do they? That sockpuppets, some of whom may have been paid editors also, formerly engaged in promotion on this topic does not make the current drqft any worse, does it? We are not trying the punish the company by withholding an article because of previous promotion, that the company may have been responsible for, are we? I hope not. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Robert McClenon as you should know, many AfC reviewers simply will not approve a draft if the title is salted, although that is not in accord with the written AfC rules. What path forward for this draft are you suggesting? DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 13:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Well, that's an article with a really shitty history, but this draft is fine. I've been over it carefully with a skeptical eye, and I'm confident that this is in line with Wikipedia's other articles about corporations. Unsalt and move to mainspace.— S Marshall  T/ C 17:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Replying to User:DESiegel, I have provided my opinion in an essay. More specifically, I am willing to accept that User:S Marshall has been the reviewer, and that it can be desalted and accepted into article space based on the review of User:S Marshall as a neutral experienced editor. It can still be reasonably taken to AFD. In my opinion, with that history, it should be discussed at AFD, because the consensus should be that of the community rather than only of two or three neutral editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Robert McClenon You have now made two bolded statements in this discussion ("Endorse" and "Disagree") and now this comment which seem to reconsider your earlier views. Have I correctly understood this last comment as withdrawing objections to recreation, since any article is always subject to an AfD id any editor chooses to start one? DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • User:DESiegel - I have struck the disagreement. As I said later, I wanted a review by a neutral editor, and User:S Marshall has provided the review. So, yes, you correctly understood my comment, which perhaps I should have provided more clearly. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Jennifer E. Nashold ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 24 Deletion Review for Paul C. Gartzke was intended as Deletion Review for all six of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals judges whose articles had been deleted in a span of a few days. The rationale used for all six was the same. Please restore or relist Jennifer E. Nashold (referenced here) along with Rachel A. Graham ( AfD), Michael T. Sullivan ( AfD), Daniel L. LaRocque ( AfD), and Paul Lundsten ( AfD). Happy to redo the discussion if needed. -- Asdasdasdff ( talk) 07:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• I don't think you made it clear that your nomination was relating to multiple AFDs. Pinging @ Sandstein: as closer of the DRV in case they wish to review. Stifle ( talk) 09:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Stifle and Asdasdasdff: sorry, I seem to have overlooked that the DRV concerned multiple AfDs. I'll relist the other AfDs now. This makes this request presumably moot. Sandstein 10:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

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

I asked the editor who closed it yesterday (at User_talk:Tone#Could_you_reopen_and_relist_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khemed?) to reopen this with "An identical article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Theodoros was just redirected. I think this would benefit from more discussion, I haven't noticed this AfD and I'd like to comment on it; one keep argument is invalid and the other lists sources that IMHO don't discuss the subject sufficiently. With 2 delete votes (given the default one from tne nom) and 2 keep votes this should have been at best closed as no consensus, and best, it should be just relisted. Also ping nominator User:Goustien." but they have not replied despite being active, so here we go. To be clear, the invalid argument I refer to is the second one which is a combination of WP:ITSIMPORTANT/ WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for my response to the first keep vote, the sources cited seem to contain only passing discussion of the topic that does not go into any non-plot related discussion outside a sentence or two about the name of the entity. And yes, I get ahead of myself here, this is del rev. Anyway, two on the side of delete vs two keep votes (one pretty bad), this shouldn't have been closed yet. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Ah, you started DRV before I could reply on my talkpage. Anyway, I don't mind relisting, but the consensus was cetainly not "delete", so "keep" is a valid close. Redirect can be also discussed on the talkpage. -- Tone 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I thought you saw the message since time stamps suggested you made several other messages since. Since you agree with relisting, let's just do so, since a valid close could be no consensus, but I don't see how you can argue for keep in the light of the above. Middle ground is the best :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• If you're agreeing to relist that's fine; if not, I think the outcome should have been no consensus but that has much the same effect as a keep. I realise some editors prefer a longer waiting period before renominating an article if the AFD was closed keep as compared to a no-consensus, so I guess I would change the closure to recognize that. Stifle ( talk) 08:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - If the closer agrees to relist, that is fine, but the close is fine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - but I agree with Robert McClenon that the closer can decided to relist if they want. It looks like a no-consensus as it is, so the close does not disturb me. Lightburst ( talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. When I recently asked Tone to consider relisting this based on the consensus above, they suggested I should redirect it instead: [24]. As this discussion is still not closed, I am not sure what to do. I'd appreciate advice or action from an editor more experienced with the DelRev process. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. Numerically this was 2 keep vs. 2 delete and had therefore no consensus yet. In terms of arguments, one person asserted the existence of relevant sources towards the end of the discussion, which means that the merits of these sources were not thoroughly scrutinized. The other "keep" argument was WP:ILIKEIT. This does not yet support a "keep" consensus. Sandstein 09:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. By nose-count, I could see closing this as NC. Looking closer at the Keep !votes, however, one makes some good policy-based arguments and presents some reasonable sources, but the other is a mix of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OSE from an editor with limited experience. I don't see how that adds up to a consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• I rather think we should keep this, but yeah, probably best as a relist. Hobit ( talk) 12:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

In closing the deletion discussion Joe Roe stated that the Delete camp had presented a stronger argument. I must object to this since more than half of the Delete votes came before my complete rewrite of the article with scholarly sources, which addressed the topic in a neutral manner. As Joe noted, the vote was more or less evenly split, with (unproven) claims of canvassing by the Delete camp. Of the users who don't usually contribute to Balkan-related articles, four voted Keep and three voted Delete. So I'm not sure how the consensus was to delete this article. The outcome should have been no consensus. Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 18:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the original closing decision: The outcome was correct and the admin noted that Whilst the !vote tally (which seems to have been heavily affected by canvassing) is more or less even, the strength of arguments is in favour of deletion.. After your edits and the relisting which followed, there were 3 !delete and 2 !keep in total. Before your edits, the !vote tally was basically the same, so nothing changed because of that. After your edits, the article got relisted and there was plenty of time for anyone to reconsider their comments and new perspectives to emerge. Nothing changed. The larger issue which is highlighted by this decision is that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes don't count as much as arguments and the closing admin took note of arguments and not a simple vote tally about which many editors had concerns about possible canvassing.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 21:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Consider draftity and rework as an article on the book. The article had some problems, but also some clearly good sources and content. Perhaps this mess can be saved by reworking this as an article about a book which is the major source of this topic? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Piotrus: As I said in the close, I'd be happy to restore a version to draft so the material can be reused elsewhere. –  Joe ( talk) 06:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closer. This was obviously a complex discussion and I fully expected it to come to DRV whichever way I closed it, though I'll note that Amanuensis Balkanicus skipped the "discuss the matter with the closer" step from the instructions above. I stand by my judgement that there was a rough consensus to delete. As I explained in my close, the !votes were evenly split but the arguments for deletion had a much stronger policy grounding and were not refuted by the other side. Canvassing always complicates an AfD, but my approach is not to discount the opinions of people who "don't usually contribute" to the topic. Rather, I took the (glaringly obvious) canvassing as a sign to not put much weight on the tally, and instead look more closely at the arguments, which showed the delete side raising policy-based concerns about the difficulty of writing an NPOV article with one or two sources of questionable quality, and the keep side largely relying on bare assertions that sources exist or that the events described happened and therefore should be covered. As for Amanuensis Balkanicus' rewrite, I don't mean to dismiss their work, but their changes were extensively discussed in the AfD and nobody else seemed to think that they actually addressed the problems. –  Joe ( talk) 06:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse, with author being allowed to submit in draft, but can the deleted article or articles be restored for examination? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Request to restore for review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Robert McClenon, I have temporarily undeleted for review. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • • Thank you, User:Eddie891. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the outcome was hotly debated and there was not a consensus. The closer attempts to explain a supervote - but should have ruled this a no consensus. The article could be nominated again and again. Lightburst ( talk) 22:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

As Peacemaker67 states meat puppetry and canvasing was quiet likely occurring in the keep camp not the delete camp which. Not the first deletion process to have this. This along with the closer stating “ the arguments for deletion had a much stronger policy grounding and were not refuted by the other side.“ It’s not just the number of votes but the arguments made. Possibly the content would fit in as a mention in an existing article? OyMosby ( talk) 01:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• That discussion is so irretrievably tainted by meatpuppetry that it's virtually unclosable. I think we've got to go with relist as an EC-protected AfD (semi-protected will be insufficient, I think).— S Marshall  T/ C 18:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close While I !voted on this, I think it is worth noting here that this article was created by an editor who has now been indefinitely banned from editing in the Balkans area of WP, and this article was mentioned as evidence in the AE discussion that resulted in the TBAN. We shouldn't be rewarding this behaviour by undeleting this highly POV article. Many of the keep votes were most likely meat puppets never before seen in the editing area, and given that, the close was good. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse but with Relist being a better option, as described by User:S Marshall. The close was correct, and the Delete case would have been stronger if there had been no canvassing and sandcanning and meatpuppetry and mop-peapetry. However, we should have a neutral point of view article on the subject. So either Weak Endorse with the option of re-creation, or Relist, with the options including Rewrite. I am Endorsing the close only to mean that the closer did their difficult job correctly, even if the result is unfortunate. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close It seems that meat puppetry and canvasing was occurring in the keep camp not the delete camp which. This along with the closer stating “ the arguments for deletion had a much stronger policy grounding and were not refuted by the other side.“ It’s not just the number of votes but the arguments made. Much of the article based on a single source and wildly POV even with desperate attempts by the appealer to fix the article it still was very POV. The article was created by an editor Topic banned a second time and has had articles deleted for similar ethnic biased articles. And has been interesting heavily supported to “vote keep“ by the same editors some of which never really edit on English Wikipedia which only further makes me suspect canvasing and manipulation of some sort. Closer made the right call and the result is definitely not unfortunate but an example to halt further article behaviors like this one. OyMosby ( talk) 01:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close This article was written as a political pamphlet. Some of the information which exist and which are not part of the article: " Zadar area.. Before members of JNA left the barracks they took some of the books with them, and set some of the books on fire. Books were burned in the Đuro Đaković JNA barracks for twenty-three days, but some of the books were still saved by Zadar librarians. Aleksandar Stipčević points out that this is "the first burning of the library fund in Europe after Hitler and the first burning in Croatia after the communists burned many libraries after World War II."(page 5, Zadar, 2016. final paper [25]) There is no such informations in this "neutral" article. The biggest problem is that in every European state part of the books are destroyed or removed based on some rules, however legitimate removal of books was not visible in the article because it would refute the original purpose of this article, which is a political pamphlet. Mikola22 ( talk) 21:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• relist mostly per User:S Marshall. I'm seeing what appear to be a number of sources from a number of good publishers (e.g. Oxford) which causes me doubt about those !voting to delete. This is also a topic where primary sources should judiciously be used. Does "Obligatory Instructions on the Use of Library Fonds<sic?> of School Libraries" exist? What did it say? The article should include that (with quotes where helpful). It sounds like there is little doubt this happened. And we have what look like good sources about it. I'd love to see a discussion that doesn't involve people who are involved with the topic that can just evaluate the sources. Hobit ( talk) 15:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. This is not about whether the topic is notable, most of the delete votes accept that it may be. The point is that WP:TNT was the appropriate course of action, because the article was written in such a POV way. I would have no objection to someone creating a neutrally titled and written article about the book, for example, but this article is not it. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: The fact some events may have happened is a different thing than what the narrative of this article put forward as its subject. These events could be integrated in a broader article about the destruction of libraries in the Yugoslav Wars, but the article's subject as a whole was a political narrative which wasn't grounded in bibliography, but the listing of unrelated events. During the 54k, month-long AfD these issues were broadly discussed, so a relisting wouldn't contribute to the emergence of perspectives that haven't already being put forward.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 01:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close: The delete argument was that the article was a CFORK that would tend to attract POV. The delete side of the argument elabortated on this with references to several similar disputes and made positive suggestions, such as possible broader topics that could house the salvageable content, while the keep arguers essentially ignored the main point. I don't see the case for a relist if no new keep arguments surface. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strong endorse of the original closing decision: Closing editor has given us strong, clear and well-reasoned arguments for his decision, on both occasion, on the AfD page and here in his comment near the top of this review.-- ౪ Santa ౪ ^99° 15:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#File deletions by Jonteemil ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

See discussion. The deletion requests generally didn't receive the attention they needed. Note: mass restoring files is easier with Restore-a-lot. Load it on Wikipedia by copying the section from User:Alexis Jazz/common.js to your common.js.

The above list was made by User:Mdaniels5757. Pinging @ Govvy, GiantSnowman, Ymblanter, Black Kite, Jonteemil. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 00:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Pinging @ Davey2010, Mazca, Awesome Aasim, SixFourThree, Marchjuly Pinging @ Fastily, Swarm, Masem — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 00:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Restore all: this "mass nominating files per WP:NFCC8" completely misses the point of NFCC8. You cannot just look at an image for one second and decide "oh, this fails NFCC8". (This is what has happened.) NFCC8 is supposed to prevent copyrighted television screenshots from, let's say a game, being uploaded just to show Kevin Durant making a slam-dunk, as such an image does not enhance a reader's understanding of "Kevin Durant" or an NBA basketball game. (Even if such an image was used in an appropriate article, it would still fail WP:NFCC1.) None of these images fail NFCC IMHO. They were just mass nominations for the purpose of getting rid of as much copyrighted content as possible, which is disruptive. I am assuming good intentions here, but there really is a question of WP:MEATBOT as many of the nominations use the same NFD reason. A a s i m 03:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict)@ Awesome Aasim: WP:NFCC#8 doesn’t just only apply to non-free screenshots; it applies to all types of non-free content as well, particularly former/historical/alternative non-free logos per WP:NFC#cite_note-4. A former logo simply having a non-free use rationale doesn’t automatically mean the use in question is WP:NFCCP compliant per WP:JUSTONE. In addition, some of the files listed above actually did receive !vote(s) in favor of deletion; so, at least one other editor thought the file’s deletion was warranted and I’m not sure that mass restoring all of the files would be appropriate. At least one of the files ( File:Aston Villa FC logo (2000-2007).svg) ended up being deleted that I saw after it was restored by Black Kite (by mistake) was correctly nominated and deleted in the first place in my opinion. Moreover, while I agree with you about WP:MEATBOT and that nominating all of the files all at once (or at least on the same day) was unwise, quite a few of the files that were nominated actually had the problems described by Jonteemil or had other NFCCP issues and thus were correctly nominated in my opinion. I do think there were some mistakes made such as nominating PD-licensed files or files which most likely are PD that could’ve been avoided if Jonteemil had followed a more careful approach as was suggested to him at WT:FFD#Mass FFD nom a month before all these files were nominated. However, if any files are restored, the relevant FFD discussion should be re-opened and resisted so that the actual non-free use can be assessed. — Marchjuly ( talk) 06:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all with the understanding that there should be a proper review if any of these could possibly be given better NFCC rationales, or could be possibly below the threshold of originality, or the like, as cautioned to the user of what should have been done before these were mass nominated and when the user brought these up. They were warned specifically against mass nomination of this type. -- Masem ( t) 04:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict)@ Masem: Since you’re an admin, perhaps you can look at the deleted files and see which ones actually might be good candidates for relicensing as {{ PD-logo}} or {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. I see no reason why you couldn’t simply REFUND them and relicense those files yourself since they were most likely WP:SOFTDELETEd and wouldn’t have been subject to the NFCCP to begin with. Anyone who disagrees with the relicensing could start a new FFD about the file as a WP:PUF file. As for the tweaking of rationales, all the tweaking in the world of a rationale will make no difference if the actual way the file is being used doesn’t meet the NFCCP. A file’s non-free use rationale(s) should reflect how the file is actually being used for sure, but if a use is non-compliant to begin with then a valid rational cannot really be written. So, once again, any files which are restored to allow their rationales to be cleaned up should also have their respective FFDs reopened and relisted so that they can be further discussed. — Marchjuly ( talk) 06:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all - improperly nominated/deleted, needs full discussion. Giant Snowman 06:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Since you’re an admin and can see the actual files, perhaps you can pick out specific ones which you feel should be restored. As I posted above, Jonteemil did make some mistakes, but some of the files nominated actually had NFCCP issues and seem to have been correctly nominated. Simply restoring all of the files just because they were all “mass nominated” seems just as bad as mass nominating them might’ve been in the first place. Moreover, as an admin you could restore any file which might fall under SOFTDELETE and relist the FFD so that it can be further discussed, can’t you? — Marchjuly ( talk) 06:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all if all FFDs are reopened, then delete/keep depending on the outcome of the respective discussions. If the FFDs are not intended to be reopened then keep all being deleted. Jonteemil ( talk) 08:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all Although there are a couple I felt might have been right to delete, it's better to er on the side of caution. There are a lot of comments above mine which I total agree with and hopefully Jonteemil will learn from this. Govvy ( talk) 11:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• The last file in the list, File:Nef-interview-vibe-compressed.jpg, is the only one that wasn't deleted in reference to the August 14 FFDs (though it was listed there). The stated reason for deletion, F4, is maybe a stretch, since it was tagged as not having a license tag and the uploader had attempted to tag it as {{WP:TAGS/PD}} (sic) and Jonteemil removed that. It would've been a wholly correct F4 speedy if it had been tagged as not having a source, though. In any case, it's a copyvio from https://static.vibe.com/files/2016/01/nef-interview-vibe-compressed.jpg and must not be restored with the other images here. (I also see now that this had been mentioned at the FFD, including by the uploader.) — Cryptic 11:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all due to procedural errors -- proper notifications were not given, and WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD apparently did not receive proper consideration. In addition the mass nomination tended to overwhelm FFD, so that proper consideration was probably not given to files that should not have been deleted. Allow renomination, one at a time, and not too many on the same day either, (perhaps not more than 10?) to find those that should in fact be deleted. Do not auto-nominate -- a human should applt ATD before writing a proper nom ststement in each case. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 16:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • All that FFD requires is that the uploader of the file be notified of any discussion; notifying WikiProjects and using {{ ffdc}} are suggested, but they're not required. So, I'm not sure it's fair to say that proper notifications were not given as long as Jonteemil notified the files' uploaders. Now one of the problems with only notifying the uploader is that the person who uploaded the file is not always the same person who added the file to an article; moreover, some files were uploaded so long ago that the uploader is no longer active. Even so, I don't think someone can be faulted for doing only what was required.
    Uploaders of non-free files often don't bother with the file talk page; so, there's usually no WikiProject banner added. Some WikiProjects are set up to receive automatic notifications of pages nominated or tagged for deletion/discussion that fall under their purview, but this won't work for file's without talk pages. There's also no WP:DELSORT process for files discussed at FFD. These are all things which can be discussed at WT:FFD (perhaps something automatic can be set up like User:Community Tech bot that adds notifications for Commons files nominated to Wikipedia article talk pages), but again I don't think Jonteemil should be blamed for doing just what's required. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • WP:BEFORE redirects to a section of WP:AFD; these were FFDs so those instructions do not apply. I do not see any of the ATDs as applicable here. Nor were any required notifications not given. Stifle ( talk) 08:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore Jonteemil's nominations only - there are a few procedural deletions and a couple of clear copyvios where the deletions should be upheld. At any rate, I agree with DES above - only a few renominations per day should be allowed. Jonteemil severely overwhelmed FFD, and this should not be allowed to happen again. We could also use some closes on the outstanding noms with clear consensus to keep. schetm ( talk) 16:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all but last, per WP:DRVPURPOSE point #5.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• I would keep deleted. There is a very decent chance the images fail NFCC, mainly for the same reason, which is that they are old or alternative logos of organizations, clubs, or businesses which are used in the article for decoration. They do not significantly add to readers' understanding of the articles, and their removal was not detrimental to that understanding. Removal of large numbers of items of inappropriate content for the same reason should not be delayed or frustrated by having to laboriously hand-type bespoke nomination statements. Remember that there is a presumption against non-free content on Wikipedia and the onus falls on those seeking to include or retain it to justify the inclusion. Conversely, bearing in mind the volume may have frustrated editors' bona-fide attempts to contest some of the deletions, I would convert the deletions to soft-deletions and anyone who wishes to have one restored to seek to justify including it can do so. Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Any that had only a single support for deletion would count as a soft delete, like a PROD, and could be restored by a simple request at WP:REFUND or by any admin. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - As I said at ANI, multiple times, I literally reviewed the deleted files and they overwhelmingly appeared to be appropriate copyright violation deletions. The main issue appears to be that of alternate/historical logos that need a specific fair use rationale, rather than a generic boilerplate logo rationale. They fail copyright policy. They can be fixed. And yet users want to argue ad infinitum about procedural errors or two or three examples of images that should not have been deleted. One volunteer could have entirely fixed this issue by now, but instead we're still going through every argument in the book to try to blanket overturn-these straightforward deletions and sweep the copyright violations under the rug. No one could refute this at ANI so now we're trying another venue, but even still no one's volunteering to review and fix the copyright issues, which seem to be valid in almost all of the images in question. But, oh, we don't like mass deletions. Who wouldn't want these images? Let's just ignore the policy, because we don't feel like putting in the work here. Not impressed. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore All, if these images are so clearly copyright violations then they'll be deleted again. At the moment, there was a clear violation of procedure when all of these were deleted with no opportunity for a proper discussion or a consensus to develop. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It's not correct at all to say there was a clear violation of procedure when all of these were deleted with no opportunity for a proper discussion or a consensus to develop.no opportunity for a proper discussion or a consensus to develop. The files were nominated for discussion at FFD and the discussion remained open for at least a week. The uploaders' of the files all were notified as per FFD requirements. If files ended up deleted, it was because the administrator who reviewed the FFDs felt that a consensus was established to do so. As it states at the very top of the FFD main page, Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised, and in some cases at least one other editor actually WP:!VOTEd that the file should be deleted. So, not following proper procedure is not the issue here, and there's no minimum number of editors which need to comment in an FFD discussion for a consensus to be established. Now, if there's a particular file that you feel needs to be reconsidered, then perhaps if it can be restored if you can clarify why it should be in terms of relevant policy. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted per Swarm. Copyvio should not be restored unless there's a compelling argument that it's not copyvio. ( t · c) buidhe 02:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted I completely fail to see the argument for restoring these. There was no procedural error, the files were listed for 7 days at FfD, and the uploaders were notified by FastilyBot. Several editors looked at some of the nominations and !voted keep on them, and some of those were closed as keep. No rule I can find says editors are not allowed to nominate lots of pages for deletion quickly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply