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

Draft page was speedily deleted, citing WP:G11 policy. After discussing the situation (with both critical and supportive editors) at User_talk:Theroadislong#Request_for_further_feedback_on_SudShare_article, User_talk:Randykitty#Draft:SudShare, and on the unofficial Wikipedia Discord, my thoughts are as follows:

I now believe that while the draft could fairly be read as promotional in tone at times, and while I did make a few mistakes with my referencing, it was not unsalvageable, and did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. One significant argument for this is due to a number of experienced editors who indicated that they didn't personally read the original text as being promotional. A public example of this can be found through the links above, though the majority of the discussion so far has taken place on the Wikipedia Discord, which I'm not sure is "admissible evidence" here (apologies for bringing it up if it isn't). In my opinion, this should be seen as strong evidence that WP:CSD was unintentionally misused here, as it is meant for "unambiguous" cases only. I know User:Randykitty feels very strongly about this, and I do respect their opinion here (in fact I plan to edit the page with their criticism in mind if it gets undeleted, even though I respectfully disagree with them about it), but one editor feeling strongly does not mean a page should be speedily deleted without discussion if the situation seems ambiguous to others (who do not have a COI, of course, which excludes me).

According to WP:G11, "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." I would like to note an additional argument here that both of these criteria are satisfied. Please see User_talk:Theroadislong#Request_for_further_feedback_on_SudShare_article for my previous writing on the topic (though do note that I made some erroneous assumptions during that discussion, which should be kept in mind).

In short, I would like to request undeletion of Draft:SudShare, due to a well-intentioned but ultimately improper use of WP:G11, and in order to allow me to continue editing the page to remove any promotional aspects of the article, which I believe should be fully doable.

Yours, Yitzilitt (paid) ( talk) 06:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• There seems to be enough of a discussion to warrant a discussion. Undelete, or Undeleted and send to MfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Having reviewed the undeleted page, and talk page. It meets WP:G11. However, if someone, in good standing, in good faith, wants to discuss it, take it to AfD for the discussion, where they can better learn why it is being deleted. These discussions belong much better at AfD than on various user_talk pages and at DRV. At AfD, sorting, advertising, and organised logging is done better, and it better involves the whole community. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  I forgot that this was draftspace and MfD, not AfD, applies. The advantage of MfD over user_talk pages is much less. In mainspace, I would not be surprised to see this G11-ed, and it would have no chance at AfD. In draftspace, hopeless stuff is left alone longer, but there is no doubt that this draft is hopeless. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  SmokeyJoe Do you mind if I ask why you think it's hopeless, rather than merely needing (possibly extensive) work? I totally understand if you don't want to bother answering that of course (especially as you just recommended AfD for that sort of discussion), but I'm willing to do a significant amount of work to get this up to par for mainspace inclusion. Honestly at this point I'm doing this more for the principle of the thing than for my job (as I don't get paid any more or less regardless of the outcome here), so I'd be happy to be pretty ruthless with the article. Yitzilitt (paid) ( talk) 21:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  1. It's a small startup company actively advertising.

  2. No sources look independent, and there is concealed advertising.

  3. A paid editor is its only proponent.

  4. By being reference bombed with bad promotional sources, it is inherently bad promotional content, and even if notable, WP:TNT applies.

  I don't think it comes close to meeting WP:CORP. But if you do, follow the advice at WP:THREE. Don't waste your time and reviewers time with large numbers of worse sources. If the topic can't pass WP:CORP with the three best sources, it can't pass. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• If the last revision of the draft is indeed "unambiguous advertising or promotion", I must have had a completely wrong idea of how G11 is supposed to be applied. In particular, the section on the history of the company and how it was born does not seem particularly promotional to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the G11. An admin has seen it, either before or after deletion, and disagrees with the G11, and that means that there is reasoned disagreement.
  • • In my opinion, while G11 is applicable to drafts, the test for deletion of drafts as G11 should be even more restrictive than for deletion of articles. Mildly or moderately promotional drafts should be declined or rejected. That is what the draft process is for. Drafts should also only rarely be sent to MFD as promotional; they should normally be declined or rejected. (Drafts that are promotional and not submitted should be ignored, and will die a natural death.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Would it be possible to get this in writing somewhere in the policy for WP:G11? I have to imagine I'm not the first person this has happened to, and there doesn't currently seem to be any actual discussion of a difference between drafts and mainspace G11s on WP:SPEEDY. Obviously sometimes use of G11 on drafts may be necessary, but when it isn't, what harm is done? After all, the fact that an article is in drafts means by definition that it is not yet approved for mainspace, and may contain issues which need further work. I'm a bit concerned that newer good-faith editors may make the same mistakes that I did, and have their work deleted before they can fix it in drafts, due to well-meaning admins taking a literalist (and deletionist) reading of the current policy. Yitzilitt (paid) ( talk) 23:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  WT:CSD would be that place although I find it unlikely to succeed - point is, promotionalism isn't simply a matter of something being unfinished, articles need to be deliberately written in a certain way to be promotional. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Jo-Jo Eumerus I think that's actually less true than many more experienced editors would assume.

  From your perspective as someone who's been doing incredible work on Wikipedia for years and years, I'm sure it feels like second nature to identify what sort of writing is encyclopedic and what isn't. For new editors, that intuition isn't developed yet, and there are limited methods outside of pure experience to gain an understanding of what's acceptable and what isn't. (Yes, the Manual of Style exists, but I have yet to meet anyone who has read it in full before making their first edit.) Writing in a promotional style is extremely common in popular writing (Cf. literally all of Twitter), and people tend to mimic the styles that they are used to. I would posit that a significant number (if not necessarily the majority) of drafts using some amount of promotional language are created by good-faith editors who are simply confused about writing style on Wikipedia, and may be in the process of actively improving their writing style through the AfC review process.

  I can't really speak for others though, so if you don't mind, I'd like to share some of my thought process while writing Draft:SudShare, in the hope it provides an illustrative example of what I'm talking about.

  One significant reason given by Randykitty for reading my draft as unambiguous promo was that "Mentioning current pricing is almost always considered promotional." After re-reading WP:NOTSALE, I have to agree with them (at least in the statistical sense), but while editing, the reason I mentioned the pricing was for two primary reasons, neither of which were (consciously at least) related my declared COI. The first was due to a sloppy reading of WP:NOT on my part, where I half-remembered the caveat incorrectly (I missed that product reviews, even from reliable sources, don't count as justification for price inclusion), and didn't bother checking my faulty memory until it was too late. The second reason was that I tried to base my writing after already existing articles on mainspace about similar topics. Based on my reading of the articles for Uber (which mentions the percentage it makes from commissions in the first paragraph) and Instacart (which talks about pricing in depth), I naively assumed it was actually encouraged to include details about pricing (stupid, I know).

  My guess is that there are many others out there who have made similar mistakes, and as that sort of thing can easily be removed from an article without effecting the rest of it too much, I would in fact consider that "a matter of something being unfinished," rather than a necessarily deliberate act of promotional malfeasance.

  Yitzilitt (paid) ( talk) 06:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  I think that I partly agree and partly disagree with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. I have seen drafts deleted as G11 that were not written in what I thought was a promotional style. I would not have tagged them for G11, and I think that the admin made an honest mistake in deleting them. I think that a draft should only be deleted as G11 if it does not have information that can be reworked into a neutral article by a neutral editor. We tell paid editors that they should use draft space and AFC. If we delete their drafts as promotional, rather than declining or rejecting them, they will stop using draft space and will put their crud into article space to see if they can get away with it. Even if a draft does contain marketing buzzspeak, I normally think that it should be declined or rejected, and usually should not be deleted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. I consider myself rather WP:INVOLVED here, so I didn't want to review the AFC myself. However, based on what I've read of it, I really think it was far and away from being overly promotional. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 17:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment I reviewed the draft article and declined because I thought it was rather promotional, paid editors are usually held to a higher standard at AFC, further work on the draft would allow it to pass I'm sure. Theroadislong ( talk) 19:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Temp undelete for review please Thanks, Jclemens ( talk) 02:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• I have undeleted the draft for the purpose of this DRV. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Would it be improper for me to ask if you could temp undelete the talk page history as well? I never got to see the last comment on it, since it got deleted before I could check, but after I'd received a notification someone had mentioned me there. If that's not relevant, that's totally fine of course. Yitzilitt (paid) ( talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Done. That last comment actually played a significant role in my decision to go for G11. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G11. Perhaps the draft is less than neutral; perhaps it was correctly declined; perhaps it needed some ruthless trimming. But none of that triggers G11, which applies only to pages "that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements" (emphasis in original). When I look at this draft, I just don't see anything like that: there are some problems, sure, but it is clearly much closer to "encyclopedia article" than "unambiguous advertisement". Especially in light of the extra grace we give pages in draftspace (which, by their nature, should be imperfect), speedy deletion was inappropriate. It's easy to use G11 to express disapprobation of paid editing and the inevitable non-neutrality that it results in, but this draft hardly meets the actual speedy-deletion criteria. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn This does indeed contain promotional language, and this isn't as bad a G11 as others I've seen, but it is in *draft* space, so the proper thing to do is fix it before acceptance and mainspacing. Back to draft for fixing before mainspacing, please. Jclemens ( talk) 23:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn There is avery clear understanding at G11 applies in Draft only in the most outrageous and hopeless cases. and we do see a few each day. After all, drafts are in draft space in order to get fixed. In any case, if anyone other than the author objects, G11 is not applicable. .This has come up before, and we probably have a statement about it somewhere in the maze of afc instructions; if nobody can find it, it should be added. DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I've searched said instructions, and couldn't find any mention of any qualifying statement about how G11 applies to Draft pages. So yeah, I think it needs to be added. Yitzilitt (paid) ( talk) 21:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn without finding of fault. I don't think the G11 was entirely unreasonable (I can't say I wouldn't have deleted it myself had I come across it), and I can't find anything at WP:CSD#G11 or WP:Spam to support DGG's assertion above that G11 should be applied more narrowly in draft space. Nonetheless, if the author is engaged enough to file a DRV and wants to work on the article to make it acceptable, we should give them that opportunity when there is something salvageable. In this case, there is probably enough to establish notability and write a neutral article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

James Forrest (baseball) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Fails the GNG. Article was improperly closed as keep when the article fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:SIGCOV. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination) (baseball player who technically met WP:NBASEBALL but who failed GNG was merged) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman) (baseball player who technically met WP:NBASEBALL was redirected). There is a longstanding consensus that the sports notability guidelines are not in and of themselves determiners of notability. The close as "keep" should be overturned. Therapyisgood ( talk) 19:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse – the closer's job is not to police compliance with the notability guidelines. Unless the majority's arguments are logically fallacious or fundamentally at odds with policy, a closer should defer to the numerical consensus. The keep !voters here reasonably determined that it was appropriate to rely on WP:NBASE's presumption of notability given the probability that offline sources may exist, and that's not an issue that DRV can or should relitigate. Feel free to renominate the article in due course: I'm sympathetic to your argument (I !voted redirect in a very similar AfD not too long ago), but DRV isn't the place for it. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as AFD nominator - I found the argument that it is sufficient to meet "the spirit" of an SNG quite odd, but you can't possibly say that discussion found consensus to delete. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - There are cases where strict insistence on general notability would have the unintended effect of maintaining systemic bias, and where the use of the SNG is a useful way to minimize and correct systemic bias. This is one of these cases. The Negro Leagues were often inadequately covered by the mainstream media, so that GNG may not be feasible. In this case, the rough consensus appears to have wisely ignored GNG and used baseball notability instead, and the closer correctly assessed the consensus, so that both were improving the encyclopedia, which is what we are trying to do. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• I don't think we should be bending over backwards to include articles of non-notable persons just to counter "systemic bias", but that's not a discussion for here. Therapyisgood ( talk) 15:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• I concur. The standard is what has been written about elsewhere. Writing a well-sourced article about an under-represented subject is improving the encyclopaedia and countering systemic bias. Writing a five-sentence permastub that includes nothing beyond statistics is not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• I think organizationally, until we have more information, a merge would have been a better outcome. But endorse given the discussion. I recommend a merger be discussed on the talk page. Hobit ( talk) 23:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:EMERSON applies. Jclemens ( talk) 00:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own decision per the consensus at the debate. Note that the outcome is not a bar to an editor proposing a redirect or merge via the talk page. Stifle ( talk) 09:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per all above. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Consensus was correctly evaluated, even if your or I might disagree with the arguments advanced. Start a discussion about a merge on the talk page and/or renominate it in a few months but you're not going to get the outcome overturned at DRV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete he fails WP:GNG and also does not meet the SNG. The "spirit of a SNG" - especially a sports SNG which must defer to the GNG - isn't enough to overcome that, and the closer should have discounted that. (Please note my hope is someone can properly source the article, but with only 11 games played this may not be possible.) SportingFlyer T· C 22:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per above votes. There was clear consensus to keep in the original AFD (and the lone "delete" vote misrepresents WP:GNG and even conceded that Forrest may pass WP:NBASE) Frank Anchor 16:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Brake check ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am requesting review of this close under criterion 1, as I believe that FormalDude's interpretation was incorrect. The AfD discussion had been open for 15 days and had been relisted twice when I found it and !voted to keep the article. The closer left a very basic message upon closing the discussion as Merge to Tailgating. Of the 7 !voters in the discussion, only 2 suggested merging to the Tailgating article (none of which cite any specific Wikipedia policy). I disagree that there is a consensus to merge to that article.

• [1] - In response to my initial statement of "I very strongly disagree with this close; a plurality of !votes were to keep the article, as the !vote to merge were divided on which article to merge to.", FormalDude simply states, "Stronger policy-based arguments were made in favor of merging. It's not a ballot." They seem to be focusing on replying to my point that keep !votes had a plurality when accounting for the split in the merge !vote. I accept this as fair given how I worded my comment, but still no explanation was made as to why Tailgating was chosen over Road rage. I am also well aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy.
• [2] - After my response of, "The only policy-based argument on either side that I see is a !vote to merge to Road rage and not Tailgating, though...?" and "As someone who believes that the subject can be expanded on, it'd be easier for me to write about the subject within an article on Road rage than one on Tailgating.", FormalDude ignores the former and responds to the latter statement, saying only that "My closure does not prevent you from still doing that."
• [3] - By this point, A7V2 (another keep !voter) comes to FormalDude's talk page and says, "Hi FormalDude. Could you please elaborate on the relevant policy(s) which were cited by users advocating merger with tailgating? As far as I can tell, clear arguments AGAINST such a merger were made, but not refuted. I'm struggling to understand how you came to your decision on consensus here.". In direct response, FormalDude replies, "Notability guidelines. The topic was not notable for a standalone article.". This, in my opinion, is a very unsatisfactory elaboration on multiple facets. 1) It does not answer A7V2's (or my previous) question on why Tailgating was chosen specifically over Road rage. 2) Notability concerns (which the nominator of this AfD had no issues with) were answered in keep !votes by pointing to the previous AfD, which is what I am guessing A7V2 was trying to point out.

Furthermore, I believe that this is a WP:BADNAC under point 2 (close call better left to administrator). Either way you look at it, the !votes were 4-3-1 merge/keep/delete or 3-2-2-1 keep/Tailgating/Road rage/delete (counting the Nom as a delete !vote). This close should be overturned and the discussion relisted. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus, or, alternatively, vacate and have the discussion reclosed by an admin. This is definitely a BADNAC since the outcome clearly wasn't clear, and I'm also not too impressed by the closing statement (or lack thereof): giving no explanation for such a surprising closure wasn't a good idea. At a minimum, the non-admin close should be vacated. I also don't agree with the merits of the closure: there was broad agreement that the content should be preserved in some form but no agreement on what that form should be, and none of the !votes were sufficiently persuasive from a strength-of-argument perspective to enable the closer to choose between them without supervoting. I suppose one could argue that there was a consensus to merge somewhere and that this was thus appropriate as a bartender's close, but given the numerical closeness and the lack of a clear policy basis for discounting the keep !votes I don't see consensus to merge at all. (I don't understand the closer's statement that "Stronger policy-based arguments were made in favor of merging". The only policy invoked anywhere in this discussion was WP:NOTDIC, which the merge !votes didn't even mention and which the keep !votes adequately rebutted.) The participants here simply didn't agree, and trying to force an outcome upon them is never going to be a good idea, particularly if you aren't an admin. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Consensus wasn't clear enough for this to be a good NAC. There wasn't enough support for merge in general. In addition, an administrator could have made a call that Tailgating as a target is congruous consensus-wise with the other proposed target being Road rage. But it is not so obvious that this would be so. Tailgating, for example, is not merely an equivalent-just-more-precise target, as it would have been hypothetically as a daughter article of Road rage (it is not a daughter article). These delicate issues, that aren't about "is there consensus?" is when sysop discretion actually does apply; so one is needed. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 20:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Vacate I'm willing to undo my closure so that an administrator may conduct the close. –– FormalDude ^talk 21:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Please do so and we can close this DRV. Jclemens ( talk) 00:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Done. –– FormalDude ^talk 02:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Vacate and relist An unusual discussion - there seems to be (rough) consensus to merge, but no consensus between Road rage and Tailgating as the target. One of the "keep" voters explicitly notes that ambiguity as the reason they didn't support a merge. Rather than "no consensus", one more relist may help, and as the closer is explicitly OK with vacating that seems to be the best option. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As it's clear that the discussion won't close as Delete, do the standard AFD guidelines against NACs apply here? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment (involved) - I share the concerns of GhostOfDanGurney. My biggest gripe is that "notability guidelines" is cited as the policy basis for this decision when there was little to no discussion of actual notability outside of myself pointing to the previous discussion where notability was firmly established. Participants in an AfD just a few months after a previous one should not be expected to drag out the same sources given in the past to establish notability, participants and closers should read the previous discussion. The nom even stated that they were not basing the nom on notability, given the previous discussion. A7V2 ( talk) 22:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Monisha Shah ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Concerns over interpretation of Per Consensus by Closer, and failure to elaborate on that decision when requested on talk page is a disappointment and results in escalation here. Closer seems to have demonstrated lack of recent practice by failure to use XFCloser and making a minor technical error on closing and not correcting it when pointed out. Not really a problem in itself but a question mark if should have been closing this AfD as it can look like a !Supervote. Case for relist also increased as removal of references for an article by a delete !voter is a means of disrupting defence. The subject's Wikimedia appointment is not particularly relevant, but the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) appointment was, as was to a lesser degree that at the BBC. While a Relist was probably the correct decision at the time of I am not convinced that is a healthly current result given the gap, and I would suggest unless a keep, overturn or Allow recreation result is expected a draftification (preferred) or userfication (fallback) is given. Obviously I !voted at the AfD and obviously IDONTLIKEIT and obviously of the Closer had responded I might not be here. ( We all have RL but if you've not got the time then one should probably eloborate close reason or not take on this nature of AfD close, but of course anytime RL can always crop up). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 12:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• I rather did not like that AfD. The COI issues on the keep side were plain and my sense is that there was some type of discussion elsewhere to get so many delete !voters. But reality is that there is a reasonable argument that WP:N is not met and that seems to have won the day. I'd lean toward keeping such a bio myself--WP:N is close enough for me and I'd prefer we have articles on people like this. But that's not where the discussion got to. weak endorse weak only because something seems odd about the whole AfD. Issue that caused me to be weak addressed by Joe Roe below (rhymes!), and as such I've updated my bolded !vote. Hobit ( talk) 00:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Hobit ( talk) 13:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  It was discussed at COIN before the AfD. I imagine that's why it was better attended than usual. –  Joe ( talk) 17:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Ah, that makes me more comfortable with the whole thing. Thanks. Hobit ( talk) 00:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Joe Roe and Hobit: Perhaps unsurprisingly, the COIN thread was also discussed on wikipediocracy. SmartSE ( talk) 18:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  And that's the other shoe. Thanks. I worry that we might be losing an article we'd otherwise have over issues unrelated to the article. That said, the claim that WP:N isn't met isn't unreasonable... Hobit ( talk) 19:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I don't really understand Djm-leighpark's objection to the closure: technical problems don't invalidate the close, and the short statement, while not ideal, isn't a sufficient basis to change the outcome. Unless there's actual evidence of canvassing (and I think Joe's explanation of the high participation is correct), there's nothing for us to do since the delete !voters had a substantial numerical majority and made reasonable and well-defended arguments. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • For the record, I don't think draftification/userfication would be appropriate either: the consensus was clear that Shah is non-notable just two days ago, so unless some sort of additional sourcing can be presented I don't think the community has much appetite for relitigating that debate. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I don't understand the basis for this appeal. The consensus is overwhelming. Counting the nominator, it appears to me to be 16-4 for deletion. Is the nominator saying that the closer should have supervoted against consensus, or is the nominator saying that the AFD was fatally flawed and should be relisted again? If yes or yes, I disagree. Any other close than a Delete would be a valid appeal. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The close was possibly poor, an explanation from the closer would have been helpful, but it didn't happen, and I can obvious AGF reasons why not. The UK !voters are probably more concerned about the Committee on Standards in Public Life CPSL/BBC aspects, others more concerned about the chair of the board at Wikimedia UK aspect. To be clear, to keep it simple, in all events please draftify or userifiy is requested; the former is preferred to avoid any CFORKs. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comments like ...failure to elaborate on that decision when requested on talk page is a disappointment...not correcting it when pointed out...obviously of the Closer had responded I might not be here...We all have RL but if you've not got the time then one should probably eloborate close reason or not take on this nature of AfD close, but of course anytime RL can always crop up...an explanation from the closer would have been helpful, but it didn't happen, and I can obvious AGF reasons why not are unfair when you are referring to things that were raised for the first time on Friday, today is Sunday, and the closer hasn't edited since. You could have waited more than 48 hours, over a weekend, that's a holiday weekend in the US, before faulting the closer and starting a DRV. A closer needn't edit every single day in order to close an AFD. Levivich 21:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Levivich: Evaluating my possible RL timelines next week, which are unclear to me but some are heavily serious, I choose to raise this one at this time, 48hr has elasped and I'm drifting from CPSL out of shortish term memory. And if people wish to have a go at me that's fine; and if this is heading for an an endorse result and its continuance is unhealthly that's fine .... withdrawal is accepted providing there is no objection to draftification or userification. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 22:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Don't complain about "people wish to have a go at me" when you "had a go" at the closer in your nom, and again in your follow-up comment, which is what prompted my comment. There's no problem with you launching the DRV if that's what you want to do. You could have just said, "the closer didn't respond yet and I didn't want to wait because [reason]". But instead you chose to fault the closer for not responding to you, and that's what I take issue with. You also said multiple times that the closer's non-response is what caused you to file this DRV, which plainly isn't true, as you just admitted you chose a time that was convenient to you. If you want to file a DRV, file a DRV, but don't pin it on the closer for not responding within 48 hours over a holiday weekend. Levivich 22:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• There's too much disagreement about what the article actually contained at various points to opine without reading it so a Temp Undeletion for Discussion would be very helpful. Jclemens ( talk) 22:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  •  Note: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel ( talk) 00:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Daniel: Please do the same for the article's talk page, where the deleted sources are discussed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Pigsonthewing: I have restored the talk page and blanked in a similar manner to the article; earlier revisions can be found via the history. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• On one pass through the references in the deleted article (which is much reduced from the AfD-ed version), I lean to !vote "Keep", enough GNG-meeting sources. Maybe the sources are not independent enough, or don't cover the subject directly, enough? The AfD does not discuss the best sources well enough. To the "Keep" !voters, I advise them to point to the WP:THREE best sources. User:Pigsonthewing provided too many sources, and User:Smartse rebuffed many, but it is not clear whether all were rebuffed, and I think that most of the other participants didn't engage in deep source analysis because there were far too many thrown on the table. Proponents should point to no more than WP:THREE sources that demonstrate notability, or others will not read any of them. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Since when was "too many sources" a reason for deletion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

    "Too many sources" in source analysis means that too few review the sources. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

    The problem with a WP:REFBOMB is that once participants have sampled enough sources and seen nothing that constitutes SIGCOV in RS/IS they tend to conclude that further investigation is a waste of time and !vote accordingly. I'm no proponent of WP:THREE and I actually think that a little bit OVERCITE on stub and start type articles can facilitate further expansion, but because articles are so often stuffed in bad-faith with trivial references to imply notability when there isn't any this needs to be done judiciously. Regards, 91.221.17.220 ( talk) 15:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus The amount of editing to remove sources during the AfD was clearly overly aggressive and inappropriate, and thus it is problematic to assure any !voters saw a non-gutted version of the article. Frankly, this looks more like a political urination contest than a legitimate AfD, and I'm inclined to tell everyone to wait a while and start over. Wikipedia's anti-COI immune system, made up of well-meaning editors, can occasionally (and yes, this is such an occasion, I suspect) overreact and lead to unhelpful results. Jclemens ( talk) 07:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Where is this idea there is something wrong with editing an article when it's at AfD coming from? People do it all the time. It's a good way to work out whether there's a salvageable topic underneath an article with content problems. It's so common that it has its own XYZ: WP:HEY. If there's something wrong with those edits, anyone is free to revert them. And discussants can always see the prior version in the history, which there is a link to in every AfD, as well as the recently added "edits since nomination" link to the diff. In any case, I do not see how one editor's choice to trim down the article should override 16 others' support for deletion. –  Joe ( talk) 07:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  I'm also puzzled by this. The content of an article is irrelevant to an AFD discussion as notability is judged on the sources presented at AFD. Jclemens' argument would hold some weight if numerous independent sources had been removed, but that was not the case. Further, challenging the outcome of an AFD is not what DRV is for - it is for judging whether or not the closer correctly judged consensus and as already pointed out here, the consensus was clear. SmartSE ( talk) 10:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Smartse, there have been very rare occasions when DRV has ignored that principle and overturned an XfD because the XfD reached an outcome that was catastrophically wrong. "What DRV is for" is to improve deletion outcomes on Wikipedia. The argument JClemens makes is rarely successful at DRV, but it isn't completely outside our scope.

  JClemens also raises another point which has yet to be taken up: he mentions a "political urination contest". For the benefit of those of you who aren't up to speed on British politics, I should say that recent and ongoing events in Her Majesty's Government mean that it would be extremely convenient for our political right if the Committee on Standards in Public Life had a lower profile. Can we be sure that our decision here was free from POV influence?

  Finally, on reading the AfD, your position that the consensus was clear does very much seem to be open to challenge.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  The issue with your presumption is that the editor (me) who edited the article to conform to WP:BLP (aka clearly overly aggressive and inappropriate) is neither British or right wing... If removing clear and unambiguous BLP violations (along with some that were less clear and rather ambiguous) counts as a "political urination contest” then pop a squat besides me and we can shoot our streams all over this place. There is no “but its at AfD” exception to BLP even if some seem to believe (mistakenly) than an article should be frozen with no additions or removals when its nominated for AfD. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  As was made clear on the now-deleted talk page of the article in question, your edits did not merely remove "clear and unambiguous BLP violations", but removed valid, well-sourced statements with a justification that misquoted and was contrary to policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  And that's the rub Horse Eye's Back: as a nonspecialist, looking at sourcing and editor conduct, your edits look terrible. No one is suggesting that "edit[ing] the article to conform to WP:BLP" is inappropriate: modest deletions of clearly inappropriate content DO happen all the time and without objection. What you did was prune out a number of sources that didn't particularly violate any policy whatsoever, during an AfD, when you favored deletion. That's a user conduct issue for which you should be counseled, and as a consequence, the AfD is tainted by your unreasonable editing. Whether or not the article is kept or deleted, you have at least one uninvolved editor, me, who says that your conduct is sufficiently outside of expected behavior that the result should be a re-do because that's what's most appropriate to demonstrate integrity in the process. Jclemens ( talk) 23:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  ( edit conflict) User:S Marshall Ok but nothing has been presented here to suggest a catastrophic error that is contrary to policy. If the subject clearly met WP:BIO but the !vote tally went against that, then fair enough, but that is definitely not the case here. If her appointment on CSIPL was as important as you seem to think it is, how come there was absolutely no coverage about it in RS? Your opinion and the keepers at the AFD are irrelevant without there being sources discussing it. As for your suggestion that this is politically motivated, I think you need to take your tinfoil hat off, and if you must, look through my contribs over the last month to see how laughable that suggestion is. SmartSE ( talk) 14:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Hackles down, gents: I did not say that either of you, personally, were a right-wing shill or political advocate. I questioned whether our decision there was free from political influence and there were a lot of people involved in making it. Look at the !votes below, framing the AfD as a very clear consensus, despite the rather obvious dissent from well-established editors and their well-reasoned positions given during the debate we're analyzing; or framing the DRV nominator's concerns as a minor technical error. I put it to you that the frames being put on this are rather hard to reconcile with the facts, and this wouldn't be the first time politics had affected a Wikipedian decision.

  I do totally understand and sympathize with the concerns. I too am tired of constant promotional editing on Wikipedia, and that article was indubitably promotional. But this is an accomplished and successful woman who would be notable even if totally unconnected with WMUK, and the decision to delete her article rather than to edit it into a NPOV biography is, with all due respect, an outlier in terms of our policies.

  We should explicitly decide here whether a non-promotional article about Ms Shah's membership of the CSIPL and other high level public appointments is permissible. I could write an article about her that doesn't even mention WMUK, and I wouldn't want to see it G4'd.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- On reading the undeleted article and several of its past revisions, I agree with the majority that this was inappropriate citation overkill and promotion. Having an impressive resume and being notable are often correlated, but are far from synonymous. I think the participants got this one right, and the closing admin evaluated consensus correctly. Reyk _YO! 10:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Nothing has been presented to suggest that deletion process has not been properly followed. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 10:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• I am astonished that we can decide to delete the biography of someone on the CSIPL. That's an amazing decision. Wow. Needs a lot more explanation than was provided there, because this is pretty much self evidently a notable person. Does the closer think the community decided to delete this version of the article for egregious promotionalism, or do they think this person should not have an article at all? I think the latter case is rather hard to justify.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Are you arguing that someone on the CSIPL is automatically notable? Or that WP:N is met? Or something else? As I said, I'd support having this article as I think the sources are just at the bar. But that's not where the discussion got to and I don't think we have anything near a consensus about automatic notability that applies here. Hobit ( talk) 14:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Short answer: yes. She is *exactly* the sort of person - a member of UK's Committee on Standards in Public Life, formerly a trustee of Tate and on the board of the National Gallery - about whom one would expect to be able to to find an encyclopedic article on WP. The locus of the failure (my view) here is possibly with notability criteria; and the test that the system has failed is that this person, despite holding highly significant roles in UK society, is excluded from the encyclopedia. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 14:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - DRV isn't a rerun of, or an end-around, an Afd. I see no legitimate rationale for an overturn. A minor technical error wouldn't affect the clear consensus. EnPassant♟♙ ( talk) 15:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Drv is not a venue to supervote against what was a very clear consensus. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse with the option to draftify on request, but I have to criticise Doczilla for giving an incredibly weak closing rationale, which should have at least summed up the arguments on both sides and explained why consensus to delete had the upper hand. Looking at a couple of opinions, while some "delete" rationales are detailed and convincing, others are weak pile-ons. With a close like that, a DRV was almost inevitable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. Very important point. Hobit ( talk) 19:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closer appears to have correctly found that there was consensus to delete. The discussion was good, thorough, and quite easy to follow. It resulted in essentially clear consensus. Unlike the nominator I don't see anything wrong with this close: Closer not being the expected closer-routineer? Cool, big plus! Supervoting? What... why? Irrelevant technical error? A-okay. To relist after more than seven days had passed and a nice long, thorough discussion was had with no discrete unresolved threads? Terrible idea! Proposing a whole array of outcomes none of which garnered consensus in the AfD? Bit strange. Etc. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 17:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• I do not agree that elaboration was necessary. I could have taken into consideration the fact that several of the "keep" voters announced their COI issues. The arguments for deletion were clear enough, but there was no need to write an essay about them when consensus was clear and the time spent on useless rambling could be spent reviewing other AfDs or just living my life. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, it's policy that you have to explain yourself. So I take the view that I can either spend a minute writing a brief explanation up-front that I think will satisfy everyone's concerns, or I can do nothing and have to spend ten minutes writing a far more detailed explanation because people have complained. Or, as the old saying goes, " If You Don’t Have Time to Do It Right, When Will You Have Time to Do It Over?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Ritchie333: This seems to be a bit below the belt to me - what exactly do you suggest Doczilla did wrong or should have done differently? In my experience (and sadly WP:OFD doesn't include this stat) the vast majority of AFDs are closed with very short summaries and that seemed entirely appropriate here when here was a clear consensus to delete, both numerically and on a policy basis. Djm-leighpark impatiently opened this DRV without waiting for a reponse from Doczilla but their very next edit was to post the explanation above which is entirely reasonable. Should admins not sleep or leave the house for 48 hours after closing a discussion? SmartSE ( talk) 14:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Smartse: Something like "The result was delete. This is a marginal case, but basically the analysis by SmartSE and Jip Orlando has not been adequately refuted. I would remind everyone to keep calm at an AfD discussion and accusing other editors of having a COI is not necessarily helpful." And I agree that Djm-leighpark should have waited for a response before running off to DRV. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Ritchie333: Ok thanks. I agree that would have been better, but there is nothing in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions or Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators which says that such explanations are required, so I still take issue with Doczilla having done anything wrong. SmartSE ( talk) 15:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't think I'd describe it as "anything wrong", more simply "sub-optimal". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The majority of xfds are closed with simply The result of the discussion was foo; sure it's polite to expand upon that if so requested, but failure to do so is mostly a rather minor faux pas. There is a strong community expectation that a more detailed explanation will be provided in close or highly contentious cases, but even then I've seen plenty of bare no consensus closes where everyone just shrugged and moved on. Admittedly this is more of a I'll know it when I see it issue, but IMO this is not the type of discussion where a failure to write a lengthy close can be considered the gross oversight needing a drv; it seems most other community members agree with me, but ymmv. Regards, 91.221.17.220 ( talk) 16:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

"The majority of xfds are closed with simply..." Indeed; but then the majority of xfds are simply less disputed than this one was. There is no equivalence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

This XFD was easily amongst the least disputed of deletion discussions. The only way this could have been less disputed would have been by removing the people with clear conflict of interests (eg, you) from it, and a large portion of the chatter would have gone with it. What you mean here is 'less disputed by me'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I'll thank you not to claim to know what I mean, when you are so utterly inept at doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus (Disclaimer: I rarely work on BLPs, even less often participate in AfD, live in Mexico, and have no clue what the UK's Committee on Standards in Public Life even is. I've never heard of the subject, either. I came here after seeing Tagishsimon's note at Women in Red.) Concur with Ritchie333 that failing to explain how closer reached the conclusion is problematic, but disagree that the close was justified. Whether or not she is on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the Committee on Standards in Public Life, or the writer has a COI if they are not violating Wikipedia's policies and have disclosed that they have a COI, are totally irrelevant, as is whether the article was well-written, or not. The closer should have discounted those arguments, as well as assertions, not supported by any of the sources that she was a "marketing professional" (sources say she is a media/broadcasting and business development executive) or she was accomplished but non-notable (Being noted in sources over time makes her WP-notable).

Per policy/guidelines, the question for an article to exist on WP is does the person have sufficient coverage, in multiple reliable sources, over time, to develop a reasonably complete, neutral biography. We have that: origin, education, career, more career. She has been noted in various sources from at least 1999 to present. The Asian Express and Broadcast articles both provide significant coverage of the subject and supplemented by the other sources that were in the article (even eliminating those that are not independent) clearly show that there has been adequate coverage, over time, sufficient to write a reasonably complete neutral biography and an article that easily would meet both WP:Basic and WP:GNG. SusunW ( talk) 20:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Please note that I used the phrase "this is like the articles of many non-notable marketing professionals..." not that she was one. I never said she was. Jip Orlando ( talk) 20:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Noted Jip Orlando. The problem is not that you evaluated the material and came to that conclusion but that others agreed with you and the closer did not explain how they weighted what appears to be "pile-on" votes. SusunW ( talk) 20:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

What suggests Asian Express is an WP:RS? Levivich 20:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Levivich [4] SusunW ( talk) 20:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Wrong question. What suggests it is not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

No, it's the right question. The burden is on those advocating for the use of a source to show the source is an RS; we don't presume a source is an RS (or a GNG source) unless shown otherwise. To answer your question: lack of byline, lack of masthead, lack of published editorial or ethics policies, lack of being cited by other RS, and their stated goal of promoting Asians in Britain (see the link by Susan above). Levivich 21:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Lack of by-line is not necessarily indicative on non-reliability, nor is having a specific aim to highlight persons who would otherwise be un- under-represented in mainstream media. It has a masthead and editorial policy stated on its print edition [5] and is cited and described in other sources. [6], [7], [8]. SusunW ( talk) 22:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Levivich, when you say The burden is on those advocating for the use of a source to show the source is an RS, I've searched our policies and guidelines and I can't find that anywhere. Could you show me where that's from? When you try to rule out the Asian Express for having a stated goal, I'd point out that WP:BIASED is a lot more nuanced than that.— S Marshall  T/ C 22:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Disputes over whether or not a source is reliable can best be resolved at WP:RSN, which I've found to be a very useful dispute resolution venue. Certainly much more useful than DRV. EnPassant♟♙ ( talk) 22:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

This does seem to be the only remotely new information noted in this discussion, but it is WP:CHURNALISM and just a word for word remix of this press release. SmartSE ( talk) 15:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The Broadcast piece was also not in the article, unless I missed it combing through the archives of previous versions. Your link to an essay is an opinion, not policy or guideline. Asian Express isn't word for word, as it leads with where she is born, but that's a minor point. Our guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations says "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics", of which this is not [academic]. Good that you found the press release; I could not. Unless you are saying that the government is not a reliable source, using its PR is no different than paying, say UPI or the AP, to reprint their stories. As with all sources the question is who wrote it, who published it, and what is their reputation for accuracy. I think we've established that the sources [Government, Asian Express] are unlikely to stake their reputation to print unreliable information, even if they reprint press in some instances. SusunW ( talk) 14:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The reprinted gov't press release isn't independent and thus is not a WP:GNG source. Levivich 15:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Concur. However, it is reliable, and along with the Broadcast piece, which asserts "BBCW chief executive John Smith said: 'Monisha has made a major contribution to BBC Worldwide in terms of building our business in emerging markets'...", clearly shows that what she did was not routine. Combining the sources we have sufficient information to write a reasonably complete and neutral bio of the subject with clear notability based on sourcing. Thus, she meets Basic, even if we aren't at GNG. I get that you voted delete and have a strong opinion. I wasn't involved in the AfD and don't have any opinion of her or the positions she has held. I am looking only at policy/guidelines to see if there is enough info to write the article and whether the close should have explained the rationale of how they weighed the delete. In the great scheme of things, the close will likely be endorsed, and the article likely recreated, IMO. SusunW ( talk) 16:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Not independent? Are we seriously ruling out Her Majesty's Government as a source by saying it isn't independent from Monisha Shah or WMUK?— S Marshall  T/ C 01:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Uh, yeah, we're seriously ruling out Her Majesty's Government as a GNG/BASIC source because it's not independent of Shah, because Her Majesty's Prime Minister appointed Shah to Her Majesty's Committee, which is sponsored by Her Majesty's Cabinet Office, and has among its duties, advising Her Majesty's Prime Minister, and it's Her Majesty's Government who paid Shah for working on Her Majesty's Committee, with money from Her Majesty's Treasury. So when Her Majesty's Government issues a press release saying Shah's been hired, that doesn't count as independent notability. Levivich 01:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I see. Following a rule off a cliff.— S Marshall  T/ C 02:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse DRV is not AfD 2.0 and no good argument has been given that the read of consensus was incorrect. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Have read this discussion, at all, Guerillero?— S Marshall  T/ C 22:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  This level of WP:IDHT is what makes me suspect we have a political urination match going on, rather than a consensus-building discussion, S Marshall. It's the worst facet of Wikipedia, when a bunch of people who have a political agenda pretend that Wikipedia policies unequivocally support their POV, and the failure to take seriously the independent concerns raised reminds me of... Well, nevermind. Jclemens ( talk) 23:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Reel it in Jclemens, no excuse for making this so personal. See WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Calling inappropriate behavior inappropriate behavior is actually more of a WP:SKYISBLUE issue. The fact that, instead of thinking "Maybe I shouldn't have edited in such an aggressively biased and transparently hostile way during an AfD?" you instead try and accuse me of bad behavior for pointing out yours, suggests that counseling is unlikely to lead to your enlightenment. But by all means, keep arguing, because the only way for your 'side' (whatever and whyever it may be) to lose this DRV is to expose an even more partisan side than what you showed in the editing during the AfD. Jclemens ( talk) 00:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn for someone else to re-close, on the basis of DRVPURPOSE point 5: substantial procedural errors. The closer's behaviour amounts to a breach of WP:ADMINACCT. Policy says: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested. I've had DRV on my watchlist since 2009 and I don't recall ever before seeing an admin refuse to explain their close. But in this deletion review, just above, Doczilla does exactly that, and there's no explanation in the close itself. Not only does fair process require that decisions have reasons, it also creates issues with WP:G4 -- we can't write a fresh version that overcomes the reasons for deletion because those reasons have not been articulated. This can't stand. It's a close that doesn't give closure.— S Marshall  T/ C 01:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Oh look, and offwiki canvassing on Wikipediocracy, which is about 50% Wikipedians who hate WMUK and about 50% a self-help group and therapy provider for people who failed at Wikipedia.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

How is this worse than on-wiki notifications at WiR, where 100% of members are explicitly incentivized to increase the number of biogs on women? How many of the !voters were drawn here from that notification versus the one on Wikipediocracy (or on Wikipedia Sucks, for that matter)? JoelleJay ( talk) 21:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Because all the people who respond from WIR haven't been site-banned for cause? Wikipediocracy is a safe harbour for sockmasters and people we can't work with; you don't go there to write an encyclopaedia.— S Marshall  T/ C 02:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Exactly...if most of the people at Wikipediocracy can't participate in AfDs or DRV, how is it canvassing? My point is that one venue has hundreds of active members in good standing whose participation could easily sway consensus, and the other has a bunch of people who literally can't !vote. If we agree that it's fine for notifications to be posted at WiR, then surely discussions at WO or whatever shouldn't be censured as "canvassing"? JoelleJay ( talk) 07:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (uninvolved). Nomination rambles about several unimportant topics - if it's a minor technical error, then don't bring it up at all, and accusations of a supervote usually come when admin favors a minority position, not the majority one - but does bring up one potentially relevant point: the removal of sources by !delete voters. Sometimes !delete voters do get a bit overzealous in trimming, yes, but examining the page history, these deletions were entirely merited. Even if the article is brought back in the future - and I'm sure it will be brought back in a year or so after more sources exist - the removed references should absolutely stay out: they're trivial, passing mentions on topics of unclear importance. Who cares she was a judge at an art show? These deletions were good faith, positive changes. As such, the delete result should stand. SnowFire ( talk) 04:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There are good reasons why we close AfDs by admin decision rather than as a straight vote, but if the admin is going to go against the raw numbers—especially in a case like this where the numbers skew so strongly—it needs to because the minority have demonstrated that policy is on their side. In this case, there were five people arguing to keep at the AfD but three of them are variants on "this is a topic on which we should presume notability even if we can't find sources". (There are some rare circumstances where presumption of notability is legitimate on a BLP, but this isn't one of them.) As such, I don't see how the closer could have closed this in any way other than 'delete' since any other outcome would have been a blatant supervote and nobody's suggested any legitimate grounds to invoke the closer's power to supervote.

  Statement of the obvious perhaps but I'll still say it; a lot of the keep voters at the AfD and the overturn voters here seem to be under the impression that this closure has invoked WP:SALT, which isn't the case. If and when the reliable sources actually exist to create a neutral and well-sourced biography, there's nothing to stop anybody from recreating the page tomorrow. ‑  Iridescent 06:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist for further discussion . Earlier versions of the article had more sources and better described notability. There was some very aggressive editing, basically gutting the article to make it an easier deletion target. That is seriously not Ok. Once again, sources can be used for both verifying info and to establish notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The close was in line with the consensus of the discussion that was had. Quite a few comments here are attempting to re-hash the discussion or complaining about things that were not discussed. But to humour, lets see 'Purpose' at WP:DRV.

Deletion Review may be used when:

• 1. "If someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" - given the clear consensus of the discussion, you would need to make a damn good argument for why such a one-sided discussion consensus should be ignored in favour of a minority opinion. (see Iri above).
• 2. Not applicable.
• 3. "If significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" - there is no indication of this.
• 4. Not applicable.
• 5. "If there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion." - at best, you could argue there was a single minor procedural issue, and even then thats not a written process its a matter of convention. Its certainly not remotely close to being 'substantial procedural errors'.

I wont go into further detail about when it shouldnt be used, but take a look down that list, and if your argument falls into that section, its irrelevant for the purpose of DRV. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Actually, 3 is applicable, as I pointed out above. If I was able to find 2 significant articles (when UK sources are often blocked from Mexico), within a few minutes, others could have as well. To my eye, that brings into question the process for this AfD. Be that as it may, to Iridescent's point, someone could simply recreate the article using those new sources. I'm out, as I must resume work on the project I am working on. SusunW ( talk) 15:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse technical errors do not invalidate closes. The use of XFDCloser, or any other tool is not required and closes without it occur as a matter of routine; in fact I've seen errors that resulted from misclicks while using that script, I just correct them pinging the closer in my edit summary to let them know I have done so and move on. Editing of articles that are at AFD is common and even encouraged e.g. WP:HEY. It can potentially be disruptive, especially if done in bad faith, but it's a complex issue and not one that prejudiced the outcome here, no !votes suggested ignorance of WP:ARTN. Notability is not inherited nor is there an SNG that covers the CSPL or BBC, this has been explained. A relist would be defensible, but a bit out of the ordinary given the strength of the consensus that had emerged. I think it's polite to provide a longer close explanation promptly, but it's also polite to allow the closer some time between the request and drv, a week's delay between close and drv is not particularly extraordinary. Ultimately there were no procedural errors that would warrant overturning, nor did the closer incorrectly interpret consensus. BLPs are usually subject to the strictest application of GNG, and for good reason. That said I see no issue with restoring a copy to draft space, it is plausible that offline sources exist or that GNG may be satisfied in the future, some articles, even BLPs have been deleted and later returned to mainspace once notability was established. Barring new developments that make notability overwhelmingly clear I would respect the outcome for 6 months and not submit the draft for review until the middle of next year. It also allows time for the circus to move on (cf. the Kyle Kulinski case). It's worth noting that draftspace is the preferred venue for COI submissions, and it would have been better to use the AFC process to begin with. Regards, 91.221.17.220 ( talk) 16:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse in agreement with Iridescent. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Even if this were a coin-flip -- I don't think it is -- there clearly isn't enough here to overrule a good faith closing. And to say the closing wasn't in good faith because of a small technical flaw requires extreme wikilawyering. As for the argument about whether a person "deserves" a Wiki page, that's just utterly confusing. Having a Wikipedia entry is not a reward for merit and Wikipedia's role is to recognize notability, not confer it. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 23:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse but trout the closer. The outcome was correct based on numbers and arguments, but a contentious discussion like that would really have benefited from a couple of sentences of summary and it should have been obvious that such a brief closing rationale was going to be challenged. By saving a few minutes of their time in not writing a closing statement, they've wasted considerably more of the community's time by leaving the close open to the this near-inevitable challenge. Ultimately though, the last thing Wikipedia needs is another thin BLP on someone who isn't a public figure; such articles cause nothing but trouble for Wikipedia and the subject in the long run. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment (by DRV nom.): I'm reasonably certain the DRV has determined draftification will be permitted by the closer. I had come to the AfD late, tired, and because the article and been hacked down probably determined analyzing through too hard and going to do my head in and put in the !keep vote with the expectation of a relist. Its likely the article was not fully developed, had possible COI tainting, and perhaps was not well argued. I'd normally expect SPS from things like this videoRtxsQ052euk on the UK Cabinet Office official YouTube Channel to be brought to bear; I like to sometimes feel a bit of character in the old biosgraphies than a raw list of appointments. If it had relisted I might have had a go at a HEY though it probably would have been mentally damaging and would have been a fight through edit waring. Perhaps I ought to apologise to Doczilla, to a degree his user page freaked me ... what's going on on here .. I'm too busy to RL to respond to stuff .. that sounds stupid but I felt a marked lack of empathy from it: distinguished professor of psychology, who teaches courses on mental illness, social behavior, forensic psychology, and mass media, including a course titled Batman. Challenging? Let keep it simple. Accept my apologies for not not giving you an extra 24 hours, I'll try to look up the global bank holidays in future. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Apology accepted. And thank you for that. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak endorse While of a very different order, in the current context, it's still worth signposting the care with which the close of the AfD on MKuCR was handled in contrast with this. Two arguments were presented in the keep side, sourcing and presumed notability, both were effectively refuted (SIGCOV/sourcing weaknesses and no inherited notability) and no subsequent delete arguments added anything new as a result of the counterpoints; consensus is delete, but qualifying my endorsement as closers owe a duty to the editorial community and the broader public to elaborate reasons for their judgments in cases like these (eg where there are extended discussions or where there are people in the public domain). Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 05:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I strongly agree with the assessments by SnowFire and Iridescent. I also want to reiterate that it's not at all standard let alone required for closers to give detailed explanations for close decisions that are in line with such strong consensus, although it would have been preferred if they'd done so in this case since there was so much discussion. The outcome was clear; and from the sources presented in the article, at AfD, and in this DRV, it looks to be the correct one: the dearth of reliable, independent, significant coverage indicates this person is not notable at this time, per BASIC and GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I am extremely loth to disagree with S Marshall, whose judgement, particularly here at Deletion Review, I have found to be almost impeccable. However, after seeing the article and AfD flagged at Wikipediocracy (I normally avoid mnaming the site on-wiki, but it has been named above), I examined the sources cited (prior to the removal of some) and searched for additional sources myself. I'm normally a pretty good searcher, although British newspapers are a problem since I don't have access via a UK library. I didn't find anything I could add to demonstrate notability, which I considered marginal, and no one added useful sources to the AfD rather than the article, so I did not participate. While I have never pretended to be a good judge of consensus in discussions, I was not surprised by the closure as "delete". Two core issues appear to be raised here as reasons for overturning that close. The closer's not having written a detailed rationale does not in itself violate ADMINCOND or the requirements for closing an AfD. Many Wikipedians (although I am not one) are worried that our numbers of active admins are too low and administrative backlogs are a serious problem; it would be counterproductive to harshly criticise an admin for trying to help out by closing an AfD, unless it was a bad close in itself. That brings me to the second and more important argument that I see being advanced here, in particular by S Marshall, which is that the closure was incorrect because it failed to correctly weigh the arguments made, and specifically (my interpretation of what is said above) that the subject's term on the Committee on Standards in Public Life confers automatic notability. This appears to be an honest difference of opinion between Wikipedians, and I concur with the closer that that case for notability did not win out in the AfD. S Marshall says above that they could write an article on the subject that would demonstrate notability; I would encourage them to do so if this decision results in endorsement of the deletion decision, but only if the Committee term is not the basis for notability. If it is, I submit that the information about the subject in the article on the Committee suffices, and if the current focus on the Committee in UK news media is leading to its becoming so prominent that it will in the near future be seen to confer automatic notability on its members, the way to proceed is to reflect that increasing prominence in that article; if this is happening, it will become apparent from the media (and possibly academic) coverage of the Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvadottir ( talk • contribs)

  Yngvadottir, this is getting slightly into the long grass, but I strongly question the current focus on the Committee in UK news media is leading to its becoming so prominent that it will in the near future be seen to confer automatic notability on its members. The CSIPL isn't the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which is the one that regularly makes the news, but an obscure advisory body whose function is to monitor the performance of regulatory bodies rather than to act as a regulatory body itself. ( Even the BBC barely mentions it, and owing to its contractual obligation to cover all government proceedings the BBC tends to pay more attention than the rest of the media to bodies like this.) I very much doubt that one UK resident in a thousand has ever even heard of it, or that one in ten thousand could tell you what it does. ‑  Iridescent 08:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Aaaah, thank you, I think I was confusing them, and I see I actually forgot to sign, so my ping didn't work. But that was intended as a summary of the implications of S Marshall's argument, particularly at 13:29 and at 16:35 on 29 November. ( Tagishsimon's response at 14:27 on 29 November and 2 or 3 opinions at the AfD also indicate a view that appointment to the CSIPL confers notability. As I wrote, I do not see this view as having carried the day at the AfD, and it seems to me to be the more important of the two dominant issues raised here. Yngvadottir ( talk) 09:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  They are in fact related somewhat, when Iridescent talks about being an advisory body, that advice does feed into issues the Commissioner is focusing on due to the remit of the commissioner on ethical standards of Members of Parliament. I am one of those 1-in-a-1000 UK people who knows about it but *only* because I fed into the 2021 COVID review (due to my job) and at no point did the committee members themselves come up. The committee gets more visible when something it is investigating is a hot topic, currently COVID, procurement, MP's contracts-for-friends is one of those. Previously it was Cash-for-questions etc. The rest of the time it just putters along in the background being very quiet. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse consensus was clearly on the side of delete, and even with the issues brought up above I see no reversible error. SportingFlyer T· C 22:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This has been running for 8 days now and consensus again seems pretty clear. Can we get an evaluation and close? EnPassant♟♙ ( talk) 21:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

LiveWorkPlay ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Apologies if I am not doing this right. As best as I can understand, there was a page that was deleted in 2018, and that is the only discussion that I can find. I started a completely new draft in 2021 (and as you will see, screwed up in various ways, because finally getting it into the right process as someone who works for the organization) but that is not relevant to the final product, which was appropriately edited by many senior editors, with extensive scrutiny, and then published by an administrator. And after that, not a page I was actively editing, other than perhaps an updated reference or two. It does not make sense that this page was suddenly deleted, having just undergone that extensive scrutiny. I don't think that a long story about it is appropriate here, but basically, I have come under attack recently, with (for example) a false allegation (dismissed) of sock puppetry. I am sad to say that this article was likely deleted. or arranged to be deleted, for this reason. I realize making such a case becomes rather complicated, and hopefully, unnecessary, since the evidence as related to the article itself should suffice - the article was published appropriately in 2021, with lots of input and scrutiny, and although I am sure it will be pointed out that I fumbled the start of it badly, in the end, this is just not relevant - what is relevant is the quality of the article (again, not finalized or approved by me) and the deletion of it without discussion, and I would certainly be interested in the rationale of why the other senior editors and administrators were correct to approve it, but now incorrect and thus there is some justification for deleting it. Thanks. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 21:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

If I could have a temp-undelete (preferably including both the G4'd version and the AfD'd version), I'd be appreciative. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Close this request, which appears to be more a general complaint by a paid editor who thinks that they are being mistreated than an appeal. I see little need for a temp-undelete, but if there is one, I will comment on it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry if it was unclear, I tried to focus on the reality that the 2018 article has nothing to do with the 2021 article, and that the deletion of the 2021 article has nothing to do with the article itself. The paid editor reference is a red herring - I didn't understand about COI (which I declared as soon as I was made aware) and the issue of working for a charity when you start an article about it (paid editor label), but after sorting all that out, the article went through the proper process with a ton of scrutiny, and so this is not a "general complaint" about my being mistreated, it is a fact-based appeal where my status as someone who works for the charity is irrelevant (save for it being a handy distraction from what actually occurred). I followed all of the directives and experienced senior editors and administrators took the lead, so it is really their work that was deleted, or at least, their approvals of the cumulative effort that were suddenly overridden and deleted. I would add that I am a hardworking human being who does not make a living posting articles on Wikipedia, and I hope it is not seen as insignificant that article deletion was weaponized, just because you see me as a "paid editor." I have not touched that original article and moved on to other things, trying to be a contributor here like everyone else. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 16:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• The appeal does at least suggest that the article is "completely new", which would render G4 inapplicable. I also note that one admin has characterized the two versions of this article as having "entirely different text, with almost zero overlap in sources used", so there is a legitimate question about whether the deletion was appropriate. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 02:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'd like to see how it compares. If it's different, we need to identify the G4 as wrong, and if G5 is what it should have been, then so be it. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. I have reviewed the version of the article as deleted in 2018 and the version most recently deleted per CSD:G4, and they are substantially different. As such, CSD:G4 does not apply and the deletion process has not been properly followed. I cannot immediately see any other CSD that might be applicable, but there is not of course any bar to someone acting accordingly should they find one. Stifle ( talk) 15:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your time, it is really encouraging that this process followed the facts. I see that it is the norm to dismiss claims of "mistreatment" (I totally get it, less skilled and experienced Wikipedians like myself do ham-handed things all the time, and take offense when people who know what their doing try to correct their errors and get a bunch of childish indignation in return for their efforts) but it wasn't a mistake that this particular article experienced sudden deletion, and I think that's a pretty unfortunate abuse of power which is part of an ongoing pattern directly connected to the false sock puppet accusation and other preceding incidents. I have done nothing wrong since my initial screwups when I first opened an account - as in, once I declared everything that needed declaring and the process played out, I have learned and moved on and there's not one factual issue with any articles or edits I've contributed. I just want to be in this community in peace, not being stalked with everything I do and processes used as punishment. You can choose to believe this was some sort of accident, but seems obvious it was not. All that said, I do appreciate that the process worked - I was told by an admin "don't hold your breath" but all of you here resolved it very quickly, and I am grateful for that, it means a lot, not because of the article, but because the facts actually mattered. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 16:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• I too would like a temp undelete if possible. Given's Stifle's comments, I think this is headed toward an overturn. Hobit ( talk) 18:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
•  Note: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel ( talk) 19:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Being an admin who patrols the many pages that are tagged for speedy deletion every day, I gave this page a scan and compared it to the version deleted through the AFD but I did not carefully review the change in sources. They are much improved from the last version. In hindsight, I probably would have advised the editor who tagged the article to nominate it again at AFD rather than tagging it for CSD. With even more hindsight, I should have questioned the page tagger, an IP editor from Australia with no other edits, but I've found that sometimes regular editors log out to tag pages for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I'd very likely be a delete !voter at AfD, but this is clearly not a G4. SportingFlyer T· C 22:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn – G4 is not applicable unless the new version is "substantially identical" to the previously deleted version, and that clearly isn't the case here: there's really no overlap whatsoever between the two versions, either with respect to the content or with respect to the references. Any notability concerns can be worked out at AfD. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 and deal with possibly undisclosed paid editing, block evasion, or other conduct issues with conduct tools, not content tools. Jclemens ( talk) 03:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Just for the record, there is no undisclosed paid editing, block evasion, or anything else (not by me - but definitely the deletion and some associated attacks were done in violation of many Wikipedia principles). I did not understand some of these issues when I first joined, but I disclosed COI almost immediately, my status as someone who works for the charity (and put up the little paid editor badge once I understood the policy), and took the advice of senior editors and administrators to back off from the article which I did not edit after October (and it was edited and published through the appropriate process by others). At some point continuously referencing errors I made as a new user becomes unacceptable, right? Thanks for your working through this. As you have seen, it is a rather innocuous article - no one is going to become rich or famous from it. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 04:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

My sincerest apologies if I gave the impression that any of these allegations were established. I am merely noting that if any of them are applicable they do (or should) not impact the deletion processes, which I do not believe were correctly applied in this case. I'm essentially acknowledging an issue, and then saying we're not considering it here. Jclemens ( talk) 17:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks Jclemens I have been through many months of harassment that generally involves defending false accusations - I see that you were doing exactly as you say, and thanks for your efforts, it would seem I have allowed myself to be conditioned to expect a certain perspective, which is unfair of me. Cheers. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 18:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn This was the version that TonyBallioni deleted in 2018 and this the one deleted by Liz in 2021. While the sourcing isn't particularly impressive on either, they clearly are different articles [the newer version has a number of new sources] and thus the G4 criteria are not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

A bit of context - the article as it was in November 21 is only about 150 words, and that is after something like 500 edits, mostly before publishing. The amount of scrutiny, was, objectively speaking, quite intense, to the point that any content whatsoever was difficult to include, and this in turn made sourcing very difficult. A plethora of stronger sources are available, but they can't be cited without the content. Thus, we have a very short article, with very limited content, and correspondingly, we only have the sources that go along with the content that survived. For example, https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/29/ontarios-sheltered-workshops-to-close-forever.html was included at one point as it is a highly significant notability/source, with a government official stating that this is one of the best agencies in the entire province (out of more than 300 agencies, and stated in one of the biggest newspapers in the country, as part of a very public and prominent investigative series). But that content got removed, and thus the source got removed. It has been quite a catch-22, so to speak - more sources needed for notability - here they are - that content doesn't belong - can't have the source that goes with it. So in the end, we have a very stunted article, with very stunted sources, and not an easy path to address the problem of sources when it has proven difficult to add them, because the content doesn't survive. If there's a way to simply list a bunch of articles that help establish notability without riling up another 500 edits of the content that goes with them, I would love to work with someone because I never figured out how to solve that, and took the advice to get my hands off the article (but then, you end up with criticisms that can't be addressed, because locating sources and figuring out how to include them is not the easiest of edits for random people who might somehow find their way to the article). I know that is not for here, but if anyone is looking for a project (I guess I am the project) please let me know, eager to learn. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 18:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Iamthekanadian if you are serious about learning how to be a productive wikipedia contributor, see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks RoySmith beli3eve it or not, when I am not being attacked and falsely accused of things, I do enjoy just going around and quietly working on articles. I am not here for any other purpose than to be a productive contributor, but this is very hard to do if being harassed and lacking the skills or posse needed to defend oneself against it. But I do appreciate this idea, thanks. The puzzle of how to demonstrate notability (on any topic) without using content and sources to demonstrate it is one I am eager to solve. Iamthekanadian ( talk) 23:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

After scoring 7 goals during the latest international window, Kane is now well within striking distance of Wayne Rooney to become England's top international goalscorer. Following some discussion at the association football WikiProject, it seems that restoring the article to DRAFT status is now preferred. The reason is because we now feel the article should be maintained and updated so it can be published once Kane draws even with or passes Rooney, thus meeting the consensus at WP:FOOTY regarding notability of lists of international goals. The article title currently redirects to Harry Kane#International. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn the 2021 AfD to redirect per WP:ATD. This is one of those times where an admin should feel absolutely free to ignore numerical consensus and do the policy-based thing. Having said that, I see no issue with restoring the article to DRAFT either, but deleting an article that should have been redirected was a lapse in administrator judgment in the first place. Jclemens ( talk) 19:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Adhering to consensus and deleting the article isn't a policy-based decision? ✗ plicit 00:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That's correct. Not one single delete !voter articulated why deletion was to be preferred over the obvious redirect. While there may well have been consensus that the article should not exist as a standalone--although the delete !votes, as a whole, sucked--administrators are supposed to follow policy, not count noses. Jclemens ( talk) 03:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    • and I'll note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Zinedine Zidane was just NAC'ed in such a manner. Jclemens ( talk) 19:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
      • It's almost as if the debate resulted in a consensus to merge! ✗ plicit 00:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Just like the consensus of this discussion was actually to merge or redirect, once one discarded non-policy-based deletion votes. Jclemens ( talk) 04:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Wait, we're notifying wikiprojects of DRV discussions? Is this new or am I just noticing now? Jclemens ( talk) 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This has always been done for WikiProject Football - see also ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#List of international goals scored by Harry Kane. Giant Snowman 21:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Yowzee wow! That practice has clarified and explained an awful lot of things I haven't understood about football-related deletion decisions. A WikiProject with its own inbuilt ARS!— S Marshall  T/ C 09:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Wow, perhaps one of the most bad-faith comments I have ever seen on Wikipedia! It's nothing of the sort, it's purely a list of discussions people might wish to join in, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves - just an organised version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts. This sort of deletion sorting is common and widespread - cricket has similar at WP:CRIC#AFD, NFL at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Article Alerts etc. Oh and feel free to review the deletion archive we maintain to see all the articles that have deleted (or kept, or merged0... Giant Snowman 11:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse original decision as being sound, but given that the situation has moved on since then, I agree that we should now overturn and move to draft. Giant Snowman 19:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle ( talk) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and move to draft space I always wanted to keep the article originally. Least now we have a footing to work with in draft space when needed. Govvy ( talk) 16:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Govvy. Good to have in draft space as it is highly likely that Kane will become all-time top scorer for England in 2022 and good to have this article ready when that happens. Rupert1904 ( talk) 19:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse original decision. The AfD could not have been closed any other way. If the situation has changed since then I see no harm in writing a draft. Reyk _YO! 09:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse original decision. Can be overturned and restored to mainspace if and when Kane draws/overtakes Rooney. There is no rush to publish the article the minute Kane draws/overtakes Rooney. -- SuperJew ( talk) 06:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse original decision, the correct interpretation of consensus and guidelines at the time. Fenix down ( talk) 00:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Klocks Crossing, Ohio ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe the closer did not sufficiently critique the "Keep" votes in this discussion. The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND which requires "populated places without legal recognition" to meet GNG, but we have editors contradicting the guideline and arguing that being mentioned in obituaries, society pages or simply having any population at all is sufficient to establish notability. Please note that the current sources in the article are GNIS (which doesn't contribute to notability) and a local history book which describes Klock's Crossing as a whistle stop that once had a charcoal burning operation. – dlthewave ☎ 16:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Endorse. WP:GEOLAND is a guideline and the consensus in the AfD doesn't contravene anything of such importance (a policy such as WP:NOT) that !votes which seemingly bypassed it would need to be discounted. Keep !votes should have been better informed by all the relevant conventions. Delete !votes should have had a more thorough rationale like the one you've offered here. Closer sees discussion, assesses it and closes. AfD is not an educational institution. Something to nominate again in the future. Nothing to do here now. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 18:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Couldn't have been closed any other way. Some history or institutional memory on how notability guidelines in this area have evolved over time might be instructive here; this would have been a speedy keep at some points in the past. Jclemens ( talk) 18:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

WP:GEOLAND has basically been stable since it was adopted in 2012. I think that we should expect editors to apply policies and guidelines in their current form, not what they remember from a decade ago. – dlthewave ☎ 16:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn yes GEOLAND is a guideline, but nobody tried to argue that the subject meets GEOLAND, so that isn't relevant. GEOLAND only grants near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, and there isn't any evidence that this was ever legally recognised. Other types of populated places have to meet the GNG. Two participants tried to argue that it's notable as a populated place anyway, but that view doesn't have any basis in any notability guideline. Nor are there any sources to back up that view: the sources cited in the AfD about people being from there or things happening there don't establish that it was a populated place without engaging in original research. The article doesn't claim it was ever a populated place. Two participants argued that it was notable because of the sources, however the sources cited in the discussion are clearly trivial mentions which don't constitute significant coverage as the GNG puts it. Hut 8.5 18:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse While a closer can discount comments that are not based on policy, or fail to address questions about sourcing, I do not think it is appropriate for the closer to search beyond the arguments made in the discussion (that is, it is not an expectation of the closer to review the sources presented in the discussion and determine if they are substantive or trivial mentions). In this case, all of the keep voters asserted that there were sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. One of the delete comments questioned whether the sourcing provided was trivial, but two subsequent participants disagreed. With most participants suggesting the sourcing was sufficient, and a numerical majority in favor of keep, a keep close is within the closer's discretion. -- Enos733 ( talk) 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the right close by the closer. It isn't for DRV to decide whether the community was right or wrong about notability. I see no evidence of notability, but I do see a properly closed AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

If the 'community' doesn't agree on the discussion that notability was established, then the closer has no right to declare a consensus for keeping. Avilich ( talk) 16:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse clearly the right close and well within the GEOLAND policy - whether anyone argued that policy in the AfD is irrelevant. SportingFlyer T· C 14:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own closure, as per the consensus of the discussion. As Enos733 points out, as closer I am bound to review the discussion and the arguments made in the discussion, but not to independently research the topic. I am entitled to discard !votes which do not conform to Wikipedia policy, but GEOLAND is not a policy, it is a guideline; guidelines are subject to interpretation by local consensus. Stifle ( talk) 15:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• endorse pretty clearly the only way it could be closed given the discussion and our guidelines. Hobit ( talk) 18:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Obviously a crude headcount was done here: the last two keep votes are worthless and should've been disregarded, and it was not established that any of the sources provided met GNG or GEOLAND. The keep voters made virtually no effort to argue against the points raised by FOARP. It's remarkable to see so many 'endorse' votes saying 'couldn't have been closed any other way' and 'clearly the right close': there's simply no evidence of that. Avilich ( talk) 15:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

This is especially baffling given how often we hear "bad votes won't negatively affect the outcome because they'll be discounted by the closer" when trying to address AfD disruption. – dlthewave ☎ 15:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Dlthewave: This is especially egregious with regards to – taking a sample from this discussion – the one who goes by the name "Jackattack". It's very clear that his sole purpose in AfDs is to spam keep votes in an inclusionist rush, specifically on AfDs in which sources of some sort have been provided and in which the numerical consensus does not lean too much towards delete (ie. wherever a keep vote can be thrown around without much controversy). His keep votes, as you can see, are often not even a minute apart from each other, and it's evident that such a person has no time to look at sources or vote constructively in general. And yet his input is probably what tipped this from a no consensus close to a keep. You'd think that if a nobody like myself can easily keep track of things like this, then AfD closers should do so too. That they don't do so, and that they don't discard such low-effort noise out of hand, doesn't exactly speak to their aptitude for assessing consensus. Avilich ( talk) 16:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Discounting !votes has little to do with disruptive editing per se. Keep votes were glossing over GEOLAND, and were not educated by all the relevant conventions but they were not disruptive. This is fine. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 17:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Close is reasonable given the discussion, even though the article is very thin. The local history book on Clinton County, Ohio does devote half a paragraph to the former station, including its facilities. This coverage is a bit more than a mere mention or trivial coverage, so the barest of WP:V requirements is met. As such, I don't believe the Stifle had reasonable discretion to ignore the consensus and he closed the discussion accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Larry Kosilla ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Admin nominated page for deletion without discussion or substantial reasoning for nominating the pages deletion. This writer has contacted admin without response and user is clearly not active. Citations include NY Times, Road & Track, CNBC all noting subjects notability in the automotive industry contrary to admin citing A7 and G11 for speedy deletion criteria. The editor requests the page be restored or move back to the draftspace for further editing as the sources and material have significant merit for inclusion to Wikipedia. Danceislife2021 ( talk) 18:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'd appreciate a temp-undelete so I can take a look at this. That being said, Danceislife2021, I would agree with Ritchie333's suggestion at the Teahouse: creating an article from scratch can be really difficult for new users, and it's generally best to first get some experience contributing to articles that already exist. In particular, our definition of "notability" oftentimes doesn't square with how that word is used in common parlance, which means that new users often write articles about topics that seem notable but don't end up meeting our inclusion standards. That can be immensely frustrating, especially when you've put lots of good-faith work into your article. I don't know if that's the case with Mr. Kosilla (and it seems that you do have several reliable sources, which means this deletion may well be reversed, at least for now), but regardless of how it turns out I'd recommend trying your hand at some of the many other tasks we have for new editors, which can be much less discouraging. We certainly need all the help we can get! Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Overturn speedy deletion, on both counts. Neither the A7 nor the G11 were concordant with policy. A7 requires that the cited sources also be free of any credible claim of significance. In this case, the NY Times piece cited in the article claimed that Kosilla was "one of the top car detailers in the country", which surely precludes A7. (More broadly, A7'ing articles that cite on-point full-length articles in major national press outlets is generally a very bad idea.) I don't know whether this article would survive AfD (although it very well might), but an A7 deletion is far more of a stretch than the criteria permit. The invocation of G11 isn't much better: the article seems neutral enough to me, and I truly struggle to see how it could be considered to be "exclusively promotional and [needing] to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as [an] encyclopedia article[], rather than [an] advertisement[]". In sum, this speedy deletion was way off the mark. I note that this is the second erroneous speedy deletion from this administrator discussed here this month, so it might be worth considering whether there's some sort of a pattern here. My apologies to Danceislife2021: you did a much better job writing this article than most new users do, and you certainly didn't deserve to have to go through all this bureaucracy just to keep it from being incorrectly rejected without discussion. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your feedback. As this was my 1st major contribution, I took great care to cite several reputable sources that have done full pieces on the subjects notability within the auto industry. The NY Times Source was also full page feature in print. I've contacted the deleting admin about moving article back to draft space if it was deemed not ready for publishing but they do not seem to be very active. The article was drafted with other minor contributors via TeaHouse. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Danceislife2021 ( talk) 19:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) Also requesting a temp-undelete to evaluate the G11. However, doing a source check I would at minimum overturn the A7, a quick source search finds at least 2 articles about him from NY Times and Road & Track that meet WP:BASIC as appellant has said. Jumpytoo Talk 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• If it was a valid G11 - and the administrator who deleted it is quite experienced - overturning the A7 is functionally meaningless. As it stands I can't see the G11 draft, so can't comment. SportingFlyer T· C 00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• I believe there is a small difference, in that an endorsed G11 is easier to surmount (write a non-advert article) than an endorsed A7 (non-notable, likely article not possible). Jumpytoo Talk 18:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Temporarily undeleted for this discussion. Stifle ( talk) 09:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. There is a credible claim of notability, and the article is not an advert. Neither of the deletion criteria cited by the deleting admin apply, and as such the deletion process has not been properly followed. The original deletion nominator, User:DMySon, may opt to bring the article to AFD. Stifle ( talk) 09:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The article looks fine to me. The sources support the claim of significance, and the article is neutrally written. If I saw this at AfD I would of voted to keep the article, so oppose procedurally sending this to AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 18:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn with a huge helping of trout Jinian, the deletion looks terrible. While you might be forgiven for not immediately recognizing Road & Track, at the time of deletion there was a link to a New York Times profile of this individual. Please tell us you just forgot to check the reflist on a CSD, rather than you reviewed the article and thought it was a good deletion? Jclemens ( talk) 19:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak Overturn both G11 and A7. The article is not promotional and does make a credible claim of significance. I have not reviewed whether the subject passes general notability, which is the function of AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - At AFC, I would decline this on account of tone and neutral point of view without the need to focus on notability. This article smells of paid editing. (I am aware that an editor says that they are only a fan. Editors who are merely enthusiastic should learn not to write like flacks.) If this article gets into article space, I will !vote to Delete it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• overturn speedy probably meets WP:N. Certainly not an A7. I think "promotional" is more debatable, but so debatable it doesn't reach the level of a G11. I agree with Jclemens, the A7 is actually really bad. WP:N is a strictly higher bar than an A7 and this seems to meet WP:N. edited, had a typo and was massively unclear. Hobit ( talk) 13:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Hobit ( talk) 18:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Almost identically worded to the article I deleted as a G11 a couple of weeks earlier (nominated by User:Giraffer). Could we maybe hear from User:J.walker203, who created that previous version? I've looked at all the versions of this and the promotional intent is glaring in the earliest versios. Could we also find out why both article creators are so focused on this subject? In short, is there an undeclared COI here.? Deb ( talk) 09:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  If all of that if true, Deb, then you deserve a trout. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 01:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Thanks. I love trout. Deb ( talk) 15:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• No COI, just a fan of the subject as an automotive enthusiast. You're correct that I pulled some information and prose from previously deleted version. There is nothing promotional or any unambigious advertising in this article. It has been drafted several times to be neutral and don't understand why you're referring to a different article other than this one as a criteria for deletion. The editor is of the notion that Wikipedia articles are to be improved and amended over time. So criticizing the draft process of the article for being promotional before it's even published seems contrary to the idea of "drafting". Danceislife2021 ( talk) 14:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Danceislife2021 You'll understand my concerns. Could you explain how you accessed the deleted version, which was removed ten days before you created an account? Deb ( talk) 14:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Deb I do not follow? I pulled some info and sources during the drafting of THIS article and during the process submitted it to Teahouse for other editors to work on. I understand your concerns of COI which if you did further investigation of sources including NY Times, you'd find subject does not have employees. Because of the large amount of available reputable sources on subject, thought this would be a well backed first contribution. As other users have noted, this article seems to have been deleted without any thorough consideration of the sources or notability of the subject. There is no COI nor promotional material in MY article. Again, my intention was to contribute relevant material with merit to the automotive project. I acknowledge your concern but respectfully believe it's unfair and nonobjective to make a decision on my article based on a different deletion instead of the actual material of this article. Danceislife2021 ( talk) 15:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Danceislife2021 - What I'm asking you is how you accessed the text of the deleted version of the article. A supplementary question would be - why did you think it was going to be all right to base your new article so closely on an article that you knew had been deleted, and to move it from draft space into article space without waiting for a review? Deb ( talk)

You know there are Wikipedia mirrors on which one can find most anything, right? And that IP editing is not a crime? Please don't pollute DRV with user conduct accusations--if SPI is needed, go there. But until and unless that happens, we're judging based on sourcing, not on assumptions of motive. I note specifically that there is no CSD criterion for "admin thinks it's suspicious for COI or UPE." Jclemens ( talk) 07:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• If the purported author here didn't have access to the previous version, then endorse as copyright infringement. There's too much overlap between the supposedly independent creations for any other explanation than both being copied from the same source. — Cryptic 15:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• How is using some of the same sources as another article copyright infringement? I stand by all the words of my article being my own. I did not pull any text from another article. I pulled "information and sources" as I stated above well into my drafting of the article. When I looked up the subject on beginning the article, that's how I found the previous version and used sources. I also used a similar wiki page Doug Demuro for reference on the styling, prose, and formatting of the page. I don't understand your grievance with the procedure of my drafting the article. Rather, than analyzing the work that was published and submitted, you're taking an issue with my drafting process which is completely irrelevant to this deletion review. There is no COI, no A7 or G11, so the only basis of your argument is you don't like how the article was drafted. I fail to understand why you have taken such issue with this article that every other user deemed worthy of review. Danceislife2021 ( talk) 15:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Danceislife2021 This response is far from reassuring. Deb ( talk) 16:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Deb, I do not see how using an existing Wikipedia article purely as reference for formatting and structure is incorrect. Additionally, your point about using sources is confusing. Because the sources were used for information in previous article, does not discount the integrity of the sources. Are you implying because the sources were used previously, I am not allowed to use them? You're welcome to your opinion but I will not pursue this discussion as I have no connection to the other article you deleted other than retrieving some sources for my own writing. Danceislife2021 ( talk) 16:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The last personal life part is problematic but that could be removed as opposed to deletion. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 17:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment The copyright argument above is pretty poor--it would end up in the same article and the copyright and licensing agreements would all be met. Coping from a Wikipedia mirror or cache and putting it into the same article isn't any type of problem as far as I can see. Hobit ( talk) 13:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Hobit - A red herring. The creator is adamant that he copied from a deleted article. Deb ( talk) 15:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I agree with that statement, but I'm not 100% sure of your point. As it stands, that version is back in the article history. So I think there can be no copyright violation given the the nature of our BY-SA license. Am I missing something? Hobit ( talk) 16:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Hobit I think what User:Cryptic was suggesting was that, if wording as specific as "At Age 23, Kosilla left his job on Wall Street to pursue his passion for working with cars" was not copied from the deleted article, both must have been copied from some published source (it's not from the one cited in the current version of the article). Deb ( talk) 16:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
        • That is a false claim Deb. From the beginning of this review you have tried to paint this article in a bad light by fabricating a comparison of an earlier “draft” to a previously deleted version. I have stated many times on the record that I used only sources and formatting from a previous version and other Wikipedia articles to help construct my own during the DRAFTING process. The final published work is in no way related and your posts misleading to other users. Your bias is clear as you take issue with any other user that finds your argument invalid. I ask that other users judge the final completed article and disregard this misleading claim. Danceislife2021 ( talk) 17:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hobit Thanks for bringing this information forward. I stand by the fact I only used similar sources and formatting which can reasonably account for the similar wording. I'm more than happy to improve the article further if it's undeleted as I want this issue put to rest. Danceislife2021 ( talk) 18:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• No Discernable copyvios While it's not even the CSD under consideration, I ran Earwig's tool and found nothing concerning. Jclemens ( talk) 07:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks - that seems to confirm that the wording was copied from the deleted article. Deb ( talk) 08:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Deb, please take this as formal notice that I will move to have you blocked from this discussion if you continue to make false claims. As was discussed above, using formatting from a previously deleted article is not against policy and this article is clear of any copyright issue. Your lack of a credible argument and continued false claims are disruptive to this discussion and harassing to this user. Danceislife2021 ( talk) 11:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• I would note that even if this version of the article was taken from the deleted version, that still wouldn't be a ground for speedy deletion: G12 expressly notes that a "mere lack of attribution" of a compatibly licensed work doesn't suffice. (Of course, it may hint at other issues, such as sockpuppetry, but that's a conduct issue, not a conduct one, and is thus outside our purview.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed - you are quite correct. What I'm suggesting is that Jinian's decision to delete could have been influenced by checking the article history and noticing the anomalies, and was perhaps not quite as reckless as is being suggested above. Deb ( talk) 14:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Detelinara Stadium ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe there was not enough time for discussion. We have more arguments that the subject is notable but we could not present sources in time. So in a way you could say that the "significant new information has come to light." Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 14:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Well, what are they, then? — Cryptic 14:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Here you go again:

• https://www.021.rs/story/Novi-Sad/Vesti/290142/Uskoro-rekonstrukcija-tribina-stadiona-RFK-Novi-Sad.html
• https://www.europlan-online.de/stadion-na-detelinari/stadion-5783.html
• https://rtv.rs/sr_lat/vojvodina/novi-sad/pocela-rekonstrukcija-fudbalskog-stadiona-detelinara_1136578.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160304121543/http://rfknovisad.com/od-beskucnika-do-sportskog-centra/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20130312042104/http://srpskistadioni.in.rs/prvaliga/fknovisad.html
• Book F. K. "Radnički" - Novi Sad, Detelinara : 1925-1966 : sećanja na fudbalski klub koji više ne postoji by Milenko Jelić, 2005
• RFK Novi Sad by Borivoj Milosavljavić, 1983. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 14:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse redirect: Ludost Mlačani had a full week at AfD to present qualifying sources. He didn't bother to do so, and never actually raised a valid policy ground not to redirect. As far as the sources he now deigns to present goes, the first one is a press release by the city (and so both a primary source and debarred from contributing to an assertion of notability), the second and fifth are brief fact sheets debarred from contributing to an assertion of notability, the fourth is from the football club's website (and therefore a primary source), and the two books cited do not provide significant coverage to the subject, as opposed to the football team. The third source looks decent -- if it is indeed reliable -- but that is not enough to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 18:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Also, pinging @ Paul Vaurie, Number 57, Polyamorph, GiantSnowman, and No such user:, who voted in the AfD and whom Ludost Mlačani did not inform. Ravenswing 18:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: I'll go by the sources offered in relation to DRVPURPOSE #3:
  1. 021.rs (reliable local source) story: routine local coverage; Detelinara is a neighborhood of the Toledo, OH-sized city and this story is "neighborhood news" that isn't of significant interest already at the city level
  2. europlan-online.de page contains no text, only some yellow pages type content and a few basic raw facts
  3. rtv.rs (regional-level state television) content is a transcript of the mayor's appearance on the regional television where he addressed the local community and talked about how the dilapidated stadium will be repaired; 90% of the text are his quotes
  4. rfknovisad.com is a primary source
  5. similar to 2
  6. books: not about the stadium; each is about a club
  . No evidence of SIGCOV. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 20:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment, rfknovisad.com is not a primary source. The stadium is not owned by a club but by a city. RFK Novi Sad is one of the users. There are currently 6 sport clubs using this facility and a Radnički Sports Society (RFK actually tried to build their own satdium back in 2012, but that plan fell throgh https://www.ekapija.com/real-estate/642003/KZIN-PR/kanarinci-lete-sa-detelinare-fk-novi-sad-planira-izgradnju-novog-stadiona-centra). And are regional sources forbidden or what? If that is the case those news were published also in national media (e.g. https://www.ekapija.com/news/2918100/pocela-rekonstrukcija-novosadskog-stadiona-detelinara-u-planu-sredjivanje-tribina-i-fasada). Also Novi Sad is a second biggest city in Serbia and the capital of Vojvodina which is an Autonomous province bigger than some European countries. And why is a book with a part about the stadium not ok? ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So clearly the books are fine. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 21:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

It's a primary source and it doesn't matter who owns the stadium. Routine urban-neighborhood-level news is forbidden. It doesn't matter if they come from a local news org or "national media" (Serbian-language news portal), the type and scope of coverage is the issue. Also, the bigger Novi Sad is, the fewer residents of Novi Sad itself even know about this small stadium. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 22:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Obviosly you do not know what you are talking about. Ask anyone, practically all the residents in Novi Sad know about Detelinara (which is irrelevant information here anyway). And I do not understand, the scope of a news about a stadium is always local, each stadium has a location. Then also an article about the reconstruction of Santiago Bernabeu is urban-neighbourhood-level news, as that stadium is located in the neighbourhood of Chamartín. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 23:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

—know about the stadium, not about the urban neighborhood. It must seem like I don't know what I'm talking about if you don't actually read. And how can't you understand that your point about Novi Sad being relatively big is counterproductive. The bigger Novi Sad is, the less relevant even locally this building is. It's not only not worthy of a separate article, it isn't worthy of a mention in the Novi Sad article (see the table); were it located in Bačko Petrovo Selo however, probably it'd deserve a mention there, as it would be interesting to note that a settlement of that size has a stadium of any kind. I forgot to add, this is what an article on Santiago Bernabeu (used as a source in that article) renovations looks like: Real Madrid hope €525m Bernabeu renovation gives them 'best stadium in world', ESPN. 24 Sep, 2018 — Alalch Emis ( talk) 01:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, know about the stadium, not the neighborhopod (well, also about the neighborhood of course). The articles are about the stadium, not about the neighborhood. Maybe you did not understand, Detelinara is the name of the stadium. And what gives you a right to decide what is worthy to mention in the Novi Sad article and what not? Did you delete it? I know it was mentioned the last time I checked. And I do not really see the difference between your source and mine, except yours is "reliable" ESPN and mine is "not realible" Serbian national/regional media outlet. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 08:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Beyond Alalch Emis's sensible comments, you're being disingenuous. In these stadium discussions, you've routinely based your opposition on your belief ( unfounded though it is in actual policy) that the prominence of the club is the determining factor. Which do you actually believe? Ravenswing 06:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Where did I say that exactly? Either way it is notable. If you ignore the clubs, it is still one of the two biggest and best known stadiums in the city of Novi Sad and if you want to relate it to the club, it is used (among others) by RFK Novi Sad, one of the biggest legendary cult clubs in the country, that also played in Yugoslav First League. This was huge, 10.000 people used to gather here. This stadium for Serbia is something like Grünwalder Stadion is for Germany. Of course noone would think of deleting that one. And for me one of the main factors is the level of play on the stadium (including the past). I just hope the closer will be objective and will ignore all the prejudices, bellitling, ridiculing, underrating, discrimation and biases. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 09:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

You're joking, right? [9] "Long standing top level stadium", [10] "This stadium was used also for higher leagues in the past.", [11] "This stadium is used in a top professional football league", and so on and so forth. This has been the core of your arguments, and is the core of your argument here. Ravenswing 09:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, is not that exactly what I just said??? "And for me one of the main factors is the level of play on the stadium (including the past)". You just comfrmed it. It is not the club, but the competition, that is the most important. And it is not MY argument, it is the standard argument in stadium debates. So far top level professional league stadiums were always considered notable (except obviously since last week for some reason the Serbian ones). Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 09:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply

""Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." That's the official Wikipedia guideline. Your personal preference is not. No, it is not a "standard argument;" if it was, it would be a discredited one, because neither WP:GEOFEAT nor WP:NOTINHERITED allows presumptive notability to buildings on account of their tenants. You are certainly free to believe whatever you please, but applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies are what we rule on here. So far, over several weeks and numerous such debates -- in which you've invested a full fifth of your Wikipedia edits to date -- you have failed to identify a single official notability guideline supporting your preference.

In any event, there's no point in engaging further, since you seem so heavily invested in getting the last word. Ravenswing 12:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Why do you concern in what I invest my edits? I invest them in topics I know about. And you know very well I would not make so many edits about it, if you would not have deleted half of the football stadiums in Serbia (and not a single one from any other country if I am correct) just to illustrate a point. It is not strange for me to invest my edits in those topics, since I am researching this field for my whole life, while it is strange that you out of a sudden invested several weeks for something you clearly never had any interest in (some might even call that a disruptive behaviour). And I know what the policies say and I think I explained well enough why this stadium is notable on its own merits. You started with the irrelevant "club argument" and you claimed as a main rationale for the deletion that it is not notable, because it is (and I quote) "sports stadium for fifth-tier team" (and then I was the one who explained it to you that according to policies the current tier of a club is irrelevant, since this is about the notability of Detelinara stadium, not RFK Novi Sad). So maybe you are the one who did not understand the NOTINHERITED policy. Althogh the relation is noted here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability (another indication that makes this stadium clearly notable). Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 13:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ugh. I expect you either didn't notice (or hoped we wouldn't notice) that that link is an ten-year-old essay without any official standing from a defunct Wikiproject. This is just another of several elements which points to why I mentioned your edit count; that you are an inexperienced editor with demonstrably little understanding how Wikipedia works. Ravenswing 05:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

It is not defunct, but inactive and it is the only notability standard for sports venues. I know it is an essay and I never claimed it is anything more than that. I just wanted to show you, that it is is not "my personal preference", of what you wrongly accused me. It has been used as a consensus for years. Again, just check all the 450+ stadiums from the category and previous AfD debates. And exposing experience of editors is not an argument but a personal discreditation. Do not worry, I understand very well how the Wikipedia works, thanks for your concern. Also I though you did not want to have the last word. :D That said I would also like to see some comments from the actual WP Football editors. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 09:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - the discussion had the required 7 days. The arguments for redirection/deletion were closer to the guidelines (i.e. WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG). There is no policy-based reasoning that every stadium that has ever played host to a sports team playing in the top tier of their national league absolutely must have a separate article. Effectively, the redirect hasn't deleted anything as all of the information is already covered in RFK Novi Sad 1921, which is barely more than a stub anyway. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• I think there's enough reason to permit recreation. Personally, altho I in general think we have too many minor sports articles. I do think that every stadium that has ever played host to a sports team playing in the top tier of their national league should have a separate article. That's a little less than "absolutely must", but its a reasonable rough guide. DGG ( talk ) 10:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• This entire discussion is a huge mess and should almost certainly have been a no consensus. There's no reason why we can't have an article on this either but GNG should be better demonstrated in the article, so at worst if the decision is endorsed, draftification should be allowed. SportingFlyer T· C 13:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Before the redirect, the entirety of the article was "Detelinara Stadium is a multi-use stadium in Novi Sad, Vojvodina, Serbia. It is used mostly for football matches and is the home ground of FK Novi Sad. The stadium has a capacity of 6,000 spectators." That much information is in the FK Novi Sad article already, and ignoring the relevant guidelines (GNG and WP:GEOFEAT) to overturn the redirect doesn't elevate this stadium beyond the sub-stub it's already been for 13 years. If there were sources that met the GNG, that would be one thing. If there was a genuine notability criterion giving presumptive notability to stadiums just because, that would be one thing. But there aren't, and there isn't.

  Beyond any of that, there already had been a consensus at AfD to redirect. Ludost Mlačani just didn't like the decision, and promptly came here for a bit of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Ravenswing 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• That's not a "sub-stub," that's a stub. The only questions here are whether GNG is met and whether it's better off as a stand-alone. The consensus at the AfD was that a stand-alone article doesn't need to exist but most of the discussion ignored GNG. With additional sources, a stub could probably be supported on notability grounds. The other thing is that you have to be very cautious when searching for notability in foreign languages. Another correct search term here would be "Stadion na Detelinari," and there's almost certainly something if you can get access to Dnevnik archives or other Yugoslavian archives which isn't the easiest. There's no real reason we can't have an article here - the onus is on those wanting to keep it to add more sources, the 021 and RTV sources are clearly okay but cover the same topic at the same timeframe and can't really flesh out more than a sentence of an article, the other web sources aren't, the books might be very good sources if independent but don't appear to be online. It's not an argument for restoring as is, clearly there's still a little bit of work involved, but it's not far away. The other wrinkle here is that this stadium may have never hosted top flight football - the Serbian article reads "This football club got its stadium in 1966 by merging with Radnički Novi Sad," whereas Novi Sad were in the top flight from 1961-64. SportingFlyer T· C 01:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Even if we imagine this to be a notable topic (according to me: not; but whatever): Notability doesn't guarantee a separate article ( WP:N is ... not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page...). I don't see, based on all the sources provided including the "new" ones presented here, how this could be a sustainable article. It's less than a normal paragraph long and will stay that long, unless someone really digs into those unproven books to find some possible relevant information. That would point toward draftification. Consensus to redirect was eminently policy-based in light of relevant facts and circumstances. Did anyone demonstrate how the article could be expanded? Either in the AfD or as a WP:DRVPURPOSE reason #3? No. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 17:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Articles don't need to be long, they need to be notable. SportingFlyer T· C 01:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Your view here does not seem to take into account the policy cited above ("... not a guarantee ..."). — Alalch Emis ( talk) 17:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Irrelevant of the notability issue, there is no clear reason why we need to breakout this article from its parent. Space isn't an issue. So organizationally the creation of the article seems unneeded and honestly unhelpful. Hobit ( talk) 18:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Nothing has convinced me that the deletion process has not been properly followed. As the article has not been deleted, it is possible to re-establish a separate article at a future time when this is justified; this does not need a DRV but can be discussed at the relevant article talk page or dealt with via WP:BB. Stifle ( talk) 09:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Think Like a Winner! ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Deleted by Jimfbleak after being reviewed and approved by other admin. Insight 3 ( talk) 07:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Technically the other admin ( EurekaLott) only declined the speedy deletion request but stated that the article needs "more work"; they didn't "approve" the article necessarily. I don't think it's generally good practice to speedily delete an article after another admin rejected a speedy deletion for the same reason. That said, I can't help but think that Insight 3's additions made it much more promotional. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• I'd have probably speedied the version EurekaLott declined, and I think most admins would have. Nothing in it would survive unchanged in a neutrally-written article except the infobox and maybe the first sentence, not even the cited sources. — Cryptic 12:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for ping. In the light of this DR I had another look, but see no reason to change my decision. As always, I'm happy to abide by any decision made here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Can someone please temp-undelete? Jumpytoo Talk 18:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Please temp-undelete, or speedy undelete and send to AfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse based on the title alone, but will strike this !vote and review the temp-undeletion when that is done. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Temp undeleted for discussion Wily D 02:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - previous rejected, CSD is for uncontroversial deletions, not for trying to do an end-run around consensus and the community as was done here. Wily D 02:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send to AfD as promotional-ish, but not so bad to trigger G11... twice. Jclemens ( talk) 06:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G11. I concur with User:Jclemens that it is not bad enough for G11. I have declined the draft, which does not meet book notability. The article, when undeleted, should then be deleted by AFD as not meeting WP:NBOOK or general notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn – per WP:CSD, which is policy, "[i]f an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used". That's particularly true in this case, where G11 is very much a stretch: there's no blatant "you should buy this book", and there's at least a little neutral information about the book's author, publisher, subject, etc. I agree with Robert that this is unlikely to get very far at AfD, but speedy deletion is not appropriate in cases where an uninvolved editor has contested it. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Send to AfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to AFD Clearly doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS so we know the outcome. But for the sake of process, yes. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 02:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to AfD - not blatant enough for G11 but certainly warrants a community deletion discussion Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, send to AfD Not so bad to need G11. Might not meet NBOOKS, but there are two apparent book reviews in the article, so send to AfD for discussion. Jumpytoo Talk 04:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• I think an article on a book that merely lists the table of contents is a reasonable G11, but since not everyone agrees, AfD is probably the better place to discuss it. Any reasonable objection to a speedy like G11 from an established editor is enough reason for AfD, because they could have stopped the CSD had they noticed. DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to AfD Should be deleted but the deletion isn't uncontroversial, so to the procedure we go. SportingFlyer T· C 13:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• How is a table of contents "overly promotional"? It's a bad article, but not a G11. overturn. Hobit ( talk) 18:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

G. A. Campbell (disambiguation) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Invalid G14 speedy deletion. This disambiguation page had a primary entry and two other entries. The AfD deleted one of those entries. That still left two valid entries. Very possibly the page should now be redirected to the primary with a hatnote to the second meaning, but G14 does not apply to such cases. Deletion is not required at all, and there is no valid reason to hide the history from editors. The AFD closing admin should merely have removed the deleted entry from the page. I raised this with the deleting admin, user:Geschichte, but have had no response. Spinning Spark 21:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Either Speedy undelete, or speedy undelete and list at AfD. AfD is the place for the discussion, with its processes for attracting people interested in DAB pages. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• While " Gordon A. Campbell, co-founder of Chips and Technologies" certainly meets WP:DABMENTION, it's not immediately obvious whether G. A. Campbell (disambiguation) disambiguated that page as WP:G14 states if you don't often work with disambigs. This has come up here before; WP:CSD should be clarified, certainly before spewing vitriol at admins who speedy such disambigs. Also, not getting a response you like isn't at all the same as not getting a response. — Cryptic 11:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  What do you mean "spewing vitriol"? I've done no such thing. I politely asked the admin to reconsider. Yes, I got a response in the form of (an apparently rhetorical) question, but that is not an actionable response. That would be either "yes you're right, I'll revert that action", or "no, you're wrong, and here is the policy reason for it". That didn't happen, it was just left hanging – so here we are at DRV. Spinning Spark 15:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  This is how I read the reply: it refers to WP:HATNOT (no piping) precluding your suggested alternative to two-entry DAB deletion suggested in WP:ONEOTHER, leaving only deletion as an outcome; I presume Geschichte thought that the the disambiguation page does not appear to be needed and no buts, because it's reasonable to think that there aren't some undiscovered viable entries. As a not-needed disambiguation page, it is an "Unnecessary disambiguation page", so it's subject to G14, despite not being expressly mentioned in there. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 22:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Deletion with no other action has resulted in the deletion of a disambiguation item that should not have been deleted. Moving the whole page to G. A. Campbell without leaving a redirect would have been ok. Moving the extra item to a hat note and then removing it would have been ok (and then G14 would apply). Just deleting it is not ok and that's why G14 does not apply in this case. Spinning Spark 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Undelete, with the option of listing at AFD. G14 is a criterion for speedy deletion, and, like all speedy deletion criteria, must be clear and unambiguous. The presence of only one item in a DAB list is clear and unambiguous evidence that the DAB is unnecessary. A DAB page is often valid when there are two entries. So undelete, and if anyone wants an AFD, AFD is thisaway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Undelete and AFD - I think that will settle it for good! Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 02:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G14 was properly followed per Cryptic's and Alalch Emis' comments above, but no problem here with a discussion. SportingFlyer T· C 13:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per my above considerations of the closer's probable rationale. No realistic scenario can be construed whereby WP:ONEOTHER deletion is avoided. Suggested alternatives (like making a bad, HATNOT-contravening, edit knowing one will revert it the next second) are merely theoretical. Admin seems to have made a "real-life" call that G14 can be connected to this deletion reason. I'm not aware of a policy norm that allows only for strict construction of WP:CSD. The deletion was reasonable and constructive. A not-needed disambiguation page, that is an "Unnecessary disambiguation page" was deleted. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 21:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

List of currently erupting volcanoes ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I disagree that there is a rough consensus and the stated reason for consensus is incorrect:

There's rough consensus that a list of this type presents NOTNEWS problems (a list of historical eruptions by year would probably be OK). I'm discounting the two "Keep but rename to List of active volcanoes" opinions because they make no arguments. (Corrected misquote of the close with altered punctuation Caleb Stanford ( talk) 01:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC))

There were not two opinions, but six to keep the page, why does the closure and deletion only say two? Am I misunderstanding the policy for AfD consensus? @ Sandstein: @ Reywas92: @ The High Fin Sperm Whale: @ UnitedStatesian: @ Mangoe: Pinging some who might be interested in the discussion. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 18:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Overturn I don't see a clear consensus to delete, and I think most of the earlier voters did not see the WP:HEY changes that replaced the outdated bulleted list with an up-to-date table. Many voters had a misunderstanding of what an " active volcano" is, which is not well defined and includes volcanos that have erupted thousands of years ago, and there was blatant misuse of WP:NOTNEWS, which says we are not original reporting, news reports, or passing routine events, not that we are forbidden from compiling information that will change. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Overturn I still think the nom. was an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and thus deletion was not justified. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

comment I'm a little surprised at the outcome as it did seem to me that there was some consensus towards keeping some version. My objection was to simply repeating a single outside source which changes relatively frequently. I'm not going to oppose overturning though ti wouldn't be my preferred outcome. Mangoe ( talk) 19:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Caleb Stanford DRV instructions advise contacting the deleting admin before making a DRV request, so I'm not going to comment on the merits here except to note that the request seems to fail to understand either the closure or how AfD works, and that pinging specific AfD participants in a DRV raises WP:CANVASSING questions. Sandstein 21:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Sandstein Thanks for the information about DRV, I apologize for that omission. Can you clarify why you said there were only 2 keep votes? Caleb Stanford ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I wrote that there were "two 'Keep but rename to List of active volcanoes' opinions" not that there were "2 keep votes"... Sandstein 21:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Although no consensus was possible on this one, a delete decision was also within the range of closer discretion. The closer is entitled to discount opinions that do not offer a rationale based in policy, or offer no rationale at all. In fact, doing so is the sign of a thoughtful close.

Also, I have to agree with Sandstein that pinging only those participants who !voted keep is an outrageous piece of canvassing. Either every participant should be informed or none of them. In my view, the closer should ignore all contributions by canvassed participants in order to avoid "vote stacking" of the discussion. Spinning Spark 22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Sandstein: @ Spinningspark: I pinged both Keep and Delete votes. I specifically pinged those who had written longer comments for and against on the talk page. I did not ping those who offered no justification for their keep or delete vote, e.g. Lugnuts, as I agree with the closer that non-justified opinions should be ignored. If you would, can you please take another look and retract the false accusation if possible. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 22:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Ok, I concede that you pinged one !delete voter. That still leaves the list heavily skewed towards keep and is therefore a canvassing issue. By your own admission you have selected people to ping based on your assessment of their contribution, not on a strictly impartial basis. Spinning Spark 22:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for correcting the record. Yes, I agree it was not an impartial or random selection, but it does not fit the description of canvassing: "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion" (emphasis added), though that does not mean it was appropriate, based on the response here. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 23:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the extremely prominent "quote" of Sandstein's close here, which is so selectively quoted as to constitute a lie of omission. — Cryptic 22:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry if the quote was selective, that was not my intention. What I object to is calling out 2 keep votes and not addressing the fact that there were 4 others with actually-reasoned arguments. That is an unfair omission whether or not the close was valid. If it was not clear, I agree with discounting the 2 not-reasoned votes. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 23:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

It is almost required for a closer to highlight any opinions that have been discounted. Far better to do that than to silently ignore them. That makes the basis of the close very clear. If the closer does not highlight particular arguments or contributors then it can be assumed that they were accepted as valid rationales. Spinning Spark 07:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. It was proper to discount the "Keep but rename to List of active volcanoes" !votes which offered or pointed to no arguments relevant in a deletion discussion. The second such comment referred to some "updates" but it was left unclear how any specific updates pertain to deletion in this case. If this second discounted vote is not in fact (fully) discounted, we still get a rough consensus to delete centered on a NOTNEWS argument. No need to stress the role of an administrator's discretion, as this was a very clean and easy to understand result (obvious rough consensus, while being rough, is still consensus). Talking here about how NOTNEWS relates to volcanoes is borderline relitigating. AfD participants thought it to be the controlling policy and this view is not something DRV can negate (one participant says "blatant misuse" but I don't see how it could be anything near that). — Alalch Emis ( talk) 00:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There was a clear consensus against allowing an article defined by "current". A few people suggested an article for active in 2021. I think a better idea is List of active volcanoes, and make a sortable table, including sortable by date of last eruption. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Yes, this seems like a consensus that an article defined by "current" is unwanted and the keep arguments did not really address the problems why e.g the maintenance burden of keeping it up-to-date. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• I think the way forward here is to write another article, possibly using this one as a starting point. Most of the commenters on both sides expressed support for either a list of active volcanoes (a commonly used term) or a list of eruptions by year, and nobody presented an argument against that. Hut 8.5 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  +1. That sounds like a great solution. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 20:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  I worry a little about the inclusion criteria for the former thing - I don't think that all reliable sources use the same definition of the word "active volcano". IMO the per-year articles are more like a PITA and I find a list of volcanoes by eruption in a given year to be largely useless, but that's it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse there is clear consensus that the title List of currently erupting volcanoes should not be an article, both the vote count and the strength of argument (primarily WP:NOTNEWS) are against it. I don't see a consensus that List of active volcanoes couldn't be created -- but the close doesn't advise against that either. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I was about to say Weak Endorse, because the closer weighed the strength of policy arguments correctly when there was no consensus. Then I saw the canvassing. This is a messed-up DRV, and we can leave the close alone. The AFD does not prevent creating a list of active volcanoes either in article space or by submitting a draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, valid interpretation of consensus. Also fails WP:LC item 9. Stifle ( talk) 09:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and a very good close, primarily on the strength of argument. SportingFlyer T· C 13:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Restore and change the title to List of active volcanos. I think it's perhaps a little absurd to delete an article because the title was misworded, and I see no obviousconsensus tha it would be necessarily deleted uder the improved title. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC) . reply

It seems that it would not be the same article however. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 21:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Kingdom of Grenada ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Somerby started a new discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 16#Kingdom of Grenada indicating that they actually wished the old discussion to be revewied and the redirect retargetted to Monarchy of Grenada because "I do not agree with result of the previous discussion, and I see no consensus there for retargering to Emirate of Granada. PS I do not know how correctly open a request to review a non-admin closure, thus just opening the new discussion. Somerby ( talk) 18:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)". reply
I procedurally closed the new RfD in favour this DRV. This is a procedural nomination only, and I will express my opinion below. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I argued strongly in favour of the present target, but I don't see how the discussion could have been closed in any other way, particularly given my replies to Somerby and Certes. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment why must it be one or the other? This looks like a case of WP:NOPRIMARY which specifically suggests that a two-element disambiguation page is the better answer. Jclemens ( talk) 01:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  This is getting in to re-arguing the discussion, but if you read my comments there you;'ll see that there absolutely is a primary topic and I had to work hard to find results related to anything else, and even then they weren't relevant to the Caribbean island nation. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Right, but Grenada exists and for an "X of Grenada" to point to anything else is non-intuitive, no matter what the detailed source analysis says. Both options are wrong, unless you're one of the few people interested in arguing the spelling of political entities that haven't existed for over 600 years, which I am not and which I perceive our readers to not generally be, the argument turns on which one is less wrong. THAT is what prompts me to suggest disambiguation: both other options suck, to one degree or another, and I could care less whether the discussion considered that outcome or not as DRV is not bound to boolean this-or-that thinking. Jclemens ( talk) 08:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  I couldn't disagree more: When there is a truly overwhelming primary topic, as in this case where I was barely able to verify that "Kingdom of Grenada" is even ever used for the present day state, that topic should be primary regardless of what we personally think is "right" or "wrong". Uncommon uses should be linked in a hatnote directly or via a disambiguation page. See also National Capital Territory, which despite the very generic name redirects to Delhi because (surprising everyone in the discussion who isn't Indian) that's what the sources say is the clear primary topic. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  I've just tried again to find evidence that the island is ever known by the term "kingdom of Grenada", and it took the following search string before I was able to find more than the one document (which is a single mention of "The Kingdom of Grenada Gazette", a publication whose existence I cannot verify in any unrelated document): "Kingdom of Grenada" -wikipedia -Granada -Spain -Arabic -"new kingdom" -moorish -muslim -nasrid -nasri -spanish -pope -caliphate and even then the results are not exclusively about Grenada and, other than the one mentioned trade deal, are unreliable user generated content. It's an utter failure of WP:V let alone primary topic. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  I don't think that Grenada ever has to have been referred to as a kingdom for the principle of least astonishment to demand that Kingdom of Grenada either land there or explain why it does not. I don't doubt that Granada was also called Grenada. But one exists and has a monarch, and the other has not existed for over half of a millennium. The weight of existence is not, in my opinion, well represented in the discussion under review. Thus, I believe a disambiguation page is the least bad alternative, in that it leaves both those advocating for the existing commonwealth entity (that, while never a kingdom, has a monarch), and those advocating for the extinct Iberian political entity both unsatisfied. Jclemens ( talk) 00:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  It doesn't matter when either exist(ed), what matters is that as many people as possible using the term find the article they are looking for with the least effort (which is the point of WP:PRIMARY). All the evidence presented (including the zero you've presented here) shows that the primary topic for people searching on the internet for "Kingdom of Grenada" is the historical Iberian emirate, by many orders of magnitude (unlike "Monarchy of Grenada"). Anyway, I'll stop misusing DRV to re-litigate the RfD now so that uninvolved editors can determine whether the discussion was closed correctly. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  I appreciate that you have strong feelings about this and believe policy to be on your side. I disagree with your conclusions, but thank you for taking the time to set them forth clearly and cordially. Jclemens ( talk) 02:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (re-open) WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 16#Kingdom of Grenada. This does not belong at DRV. There was no deletion. Arguably, Somerby is protesting the close by User:CycloneYoris, but he is doing it poorly, in not starting a discussion at User talk:CycloneYoris. He is a new editor who presumably doesn't know this custom. If his protest is of a bad close, my !vote here would be to send back to RfD.

User:Thryduulf appears to have performed an admin function at RfD2 while WP:INVOLVED, due to his role in RfD1. This should be a brightline. Do not close a formal discussion when you are WP:INVOLVED. The word "Procedural" is not a WP:INVOLVED escape clause.

Allow the re-opened RfD to play out. The RfD was indeed weak, and RfD remains the proper forum to discuss the targeting of redirects.

Read advice at WP:RENOM, regarding the later nomination needing a better nomination statement.

-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

It is not a violation of INVOVLED to move a discussion to the forum clearly intended by an inexperienced user. It's almost certain that the second RfD would have be speedily kept given the very recently closed discussion, which saw pretty average participation for an RfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This is a very odd discussion and I don't know if reopening would help because it's predicated on facts and a disambiguation. I think this is the correct and factual result. Since the other option seems to me to be a delete and salt, I think it's a good close. SportingFlyer T· C 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

World of Comedy Film Festival ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There would seem to have been inadequate checking for sources by the nominator; the nominating statement only mentioned Google News as a venue which had been checked for information. Discussion around the article's notability does not appear to have taken into account the independent, reliable sources listed by the University of Toronto Archives. Richard Nevell ( talk)

• Endorse. Discussion could not possibly have been closed any other way. Deletion review is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 12:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The AfD nom's argument, and the discussion, being seen as imperfect in some part does not meaningfully connect with any of the five WP:DRVPURPOSE reasons. There was a consensus to delete. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The University of Toronto listing and description is not enough. The lack of coverage does seem surprising. There are many Category:Film festivals by type but few Category:Comedy film festivals. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  The closing admin came to a reasonable conclusion that there was consensus amongst the three people who had voiced an opinion on the matter in the AfD. However, I suggest that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" since there are sources which were not adequately discussed at the AfD. It is more than just a UoT listing and desctiption, as described above; there are numerous sources covering the subject:

• Anderson, Jason (March 9, 2007). "World of Comedy". The Globe and Mail.
• "In Loving Memory Of Carla Nolan Z"L". Edmonton Jewish News. June 21, 2018.
• Kirshner, Sheldon (March 4, 2010). "Comedy Film Festival Founder Filled a Niche". The Canadian Jewish News.
• Knight, Chris (February 28, 2009). "World of Comedy Festival Explores the Relationship of a Woman and Her Warm Brew". National Post.
• Terauds, John (February 4, 2005). "World of Comedy Film Festival Returns for More Laughs". Toronto Star.
• Wilner, Norman (February 24, 2009). "Short Supply: WORLD OF COMEDY FILM FESTIVAL at Innis". NOW.

Richard Nevell ( talk) 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as the obviously correct close. But why didn't the appellant raise the question of additional sources (in a discussion that was closed only 24 hours ago)? Does the appellant want to submit a draft? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as above, Richard Nevell had a chance to discuss and !vote whilst the AfD was active but did not. LibStar ( talk) 23:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closure was appropriate. But, a draft could be submitted again including these new sources and see if a reviewer wants to accept it. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 01:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Relist to allow the additional sources to be evaluated. A remade article would likely get AfDed again due to how soon the previous AfD was, so don't see the point of doing the draftication dance. Jumpytoo Talk 02:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I'm going to remind Richard Nevell that an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article. The article as written was inadequate; however, if you believe that you can write and source an article that demonstrates its notability better than the first version did, then you are allowed to try again, and it is not necessary to overturn the original deletion discussion before you're allowed to do that.
  I will say that out of the seven pieces listed in that archival fonds, I saw three of them when I did the ProQuest search I talked about in the AFD discussion, and they simply didn't add up to much: Chris Knight's "World of Comedy festival explores the relationship of a woman and her warm brew", John Terauds' "World of Comedy film festival returns for more laughs" and Jason Anderson's "World of Comedy" are all just very short blurbs that briefly mention the existence of the festival and list a few films playing at it, but fail to cover the festival in any kind of depth for the purpose of actually counting as WP:GNG-worthy coverage. The other four sources listed in the U of T fonds aren't from publications available in the ProQuest database, but since the fonds features direct links to live copies of those articles I can tell you that they aren't much better: the Canadian Jewish News and Edmonton Jewish News hits aren't about the World of Comedy Film Festival, but just briefly namecheck its existence in the process of being obituaries of a person who was involved with it, which means they don't help to establish the notability of the festival. The Soo Today hit is not journalistic coverage about the World of Comedy Film Festival, but simply a straight-up reprint of the World of Comedy Film Festival's own self-published press release about itself, which means it doesn't help to establish the notability of the festival. And Norm Wilner's "Short supply" just goes right back to being the same thing as the ProQuest hits: a brief blurb that passingly mentions the film festival while being much more about individual films than about the festival per se. So if this is the sum total of all the sourcing that it has, then that's just not good enough.
  If you really think you can do better, then you're certainly still free to work up a new draft or sandbox version for evaluation — but you really, really are still going to have to find quite a bit more sourcing than you've shown here. GNG looks at a lot more than just whether the number of raw footnotes has surpassed two — it also tests for depth of coverage, for example, and discounts short blurbs and glancing namechecks as not necessarily worth much on their own. Bearcat ( talk) 04:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clearly the correct result. SportingFlyer T· C 13:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Marissa Lenti ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I'm here in hopes of restoring this page to draft status so I can enact improvements, with the aim of restoration to mainspace. The primary argument for deletion was the lack of presence at conventions, no secondary coverage, and [WP:NACTOR] was deemed not to have been met. Now, there's some secondary coverage with secondary sources available, significant pre-covid convention attendance in 2019 alone and enough details in text interviews with Lenti and peer David Wald here and here to establish a section or two about Lenti, beyond the filmography credits. Putting the above aside, I am even more confident that I can establish reliable sourcing for filmography, and that NACTOR is now met, enabling the SNG path as well. Lenti now has indisputable leading roles as Yuna in Kuma Kuma Kuma Bear, Chiaki in Gamers! and Shoko in Kokkoku, amongst other significant roles. (Note: example credits sourced from https://www.marissalenti.com/resume, but all of the credits I referenced can be reliably sourced in press coverage and/or other means - only citing one source to start this review for easy access.) - thank you in advance for your consideration and patience, and I will happily address concerns, and provide more information and research as needed! Canadianerk ( talk) 13:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Restore to draftspace. This article was deleted over five years ago on notability grounds, so I think a request to try again is reasonable. The article would likely end up at AfD again – anime voice actors certainly aren't my area of expertise, so I won't try to predict how that will go – but if you think she's become more notable since 2016, then it's perfectly fair to give it another try. I take the view that five-year-old AfDs have little salience when the available sourcing may have changed, as in this case. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Restore to Draft It is possible the subject has beocme notable DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• (ec) Speedy restore to draft and restoring older, notability-deleted articles where there is an assertion of ongoing coverage should be an almost-automatic thing that REFUND should handle. Jclemens ( talk) 20:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The article in its original form was about the company itself and did not contain advertising. Advertising edits were made by another user. Валерий Пасько ( talk) 20:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'd appreciate a temp-undelete. Thanks. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Cryptic. I'm leaning overturn: words like "pioneered" and "cutting-edge" are certainly less than neutral, but that can be fixed pretty easily. G11 requires that the article be "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten" to be encyclopedic, and that doesn't seem to be met here: there is some referenced neutral information about what the company does. I think that tagging the article with {{ advert}} was more than adequate; draftification might have also been an option. If notability is in question it can go to AfD, but G11 seems a bit of a stretch. I'd also note that a G11 nomination had previously been declined, so renominating it was certainly a party foul and arguably a violation of WP:CSD. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the deletion. I'm suprised that procedure is being posited as trumping the decision of two reviewing editors in good standing who came to the same conclusions, 5 months apart, on this brochure article, that was never really improved. scope_creep ^Talk 23:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Two AfC reviewers do not substitute for the objective criteria for WP:G11. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G11 - The article is not "exclusively promotional", although it does need to be rewritten. This reads like a lot of drafts that I decline at AFC; I don't tag them for G11. Notability is not established, and AFD would be highly desirable. Speedy deletion is not cleanup either. Sometimes G11 is used when the proper remedy is either blocking a promotional editor or removal of promotional content or both. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G11 Per Robert McClenon, and I also endorse his suggested next steps. Speedy deletion is not for obvious things, it's for things that are so obvious no good faith editor would disagree. Jclemens ( talk) 02:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Undelete and send to AfD. Clearly promotional, a Russian commercial company with all Russian references and no Russian Wikipedia article Russian article Lingonberry (company), deletion is likely, but a challenged G11 should speedily go to AfD for a proper discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Overturn G11. I think G11 is always inappropriate when there are many references and a native language Wikipedia article. (It's helpful to link to the native language Wikipedia article) SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, send to AfD Per others, a previous G11 was declined here so this should of been PRODed or sent to AfD. A quick source search found at least 1 book source so I would not apply WP:NOTBURO here, there is a non-trivial chance enough sources can be found to assert notability. Jumpytoo Talk 05:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• There is an article about this company in the Russian wikipedia: Брусника (компания) Валерий Пасько ( talk) 19:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Does brusnika mean lingonberry or cranberry? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

lingonberry. Cranberry on Russian means "клюква" (klükva) Валерий Пасько ( talk) 15:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Undelete and AFD agreeing on this to have a proper discussion and then a closure. G11, I feel, is a lot on personal perspective. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 15:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and either rewrite somewhat or send to afd. I tend to be among the admins most likely to use G11 on promotional articles; a few of my G11s have been considered over-broad by other admins and declined. I would not have even considered using G11 here. There is too much other substantial content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 368 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This page should be undeleted as it was a similar incident to British Airways Flight 2276, Korean Air Flight 2708 and the recent United Airlines Flight 328. Also, this was on the headlines, so it received significant coverage. These Boeing 777 incidents of engine flameouts are very notable. Username006 ( talk) 11:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I have temp undeleted the article so people can see its history and content at the time of deletion.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 11:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Leaning overturn to keep. The AFD itself was quite some time ago, but I am sympathetic to the nominator's rationale, and the keep !vote that was expressed in the AFD itself. It's fine to say it's a WP:MILL event, but if there's no clearly determinable difference bewteen this and British Airways Flight 2276, which was speedy kept at AFD, then I would have to say the "delete" !votes don't seem to hold too much validity, despite there being more of them. I have a suspicion that editors may have unintentionally assigned more importance to events in the US and the UK than those in Singapore, although I'm happy to be proven wrong!  —  Amakuru ( talk) 11:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Given the comments below on the state of the article at the time of deletion, I'm amending my !vote to Endorse deletion but allow recreation. Write a properly sourced page which asserts the notability of this specific incident, and then let's see how it stands up to scrutiny.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 10:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse don't think the debate could have been closed any other way. The OP can certainly create an improved version but the article would need more sources to demonstrate notability. British Airways Flight 2276 has plenty of citations, this one had four, of which three were aviation databases. Hut 8.5 12:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Hut 8.5: The Guardian: [12], USA Today: [13] etc. reliable sources make mention of this event. They are convincing enough for an article of itself. Also, it is rare to see an accident involving Singapore Airlines which has had only one fatal accident throughout. This is a major incident after all similar to BA2276, KE2708, UA1175 and UA328. They are not articles like AA31 or QF692. Username006 ( talk) 15:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Both sources, The Guardian & USA Today, were published on the day of the event. There was no ongoing coverage. No secondary source gives historical perspective. It therefore fails NOTNEWS. Immediate news reporting is not convincing enough for an article. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

There's nothing stopping you from writing an improved version with better sources. Personally I'd want to see that the incident had some lasting coverage beyond the immediate aftermath of the event. If you want to start with the previously deleted version then we can restore it to draft space. Arguments that we should have an article on something because of other articles which exist often aren't very convincing at AfD. United Airlines Flight 328 resulted in widespread aircraft groundings and was still getting coverage six months later, for example, and the article is a GA. Hut 8.5 17:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The close is clearly within the discretion of the closer. One keep and multiple comments for delete based on policy. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Oh, interesting. Have we retired WP:AIRCRASH?— S Marshall  T/ C 17:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Enos733: Consensus is not only dependent on AFD. It may vary from time-to-time with significant coverage later on and guideline changes. The British Airways Flight and the Singapore Airlines Flight were powered by the GE engines and not the PW engines with both flame-outs. Also, several other languages have a dedicated article on it. Username006 ( talk) 18:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation Discussion got it wrong--GNG was clearly met by references in the article at the time of deletion--but closer would have been barbecued for even trying to relist it. This is not an unknown problem: an ad hoc group of Wikipedia editors believes that notability standards in a particular topic area should be higher, and opine accordingly at AfD. They haven't sufficient support to get WP:AIRCRASH promoted from essay to guideline, but still are able to show up and deliver outcomes as if it were. This creates a problem for G4ability of this article: some admins would argue that G4 applies even if more sources were added, because they don't change the underlying problem. Now, that's a misreading of G4, but a pretty popular one that we should acknowledge and correct. Therefore: I propose DRV specifically note that recreation is allowed in this case. Jclemens ( talk) 17:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Properly deleted at AfD. While it was in the headlines, all news coverage is news from the time of the incident, and so it fails WP:NOTNEWS. I see no case for recreation or justification for DRV to encourage recreation or even recreation in draftspace, as there is no indication, offered or that I could find, for anything having changed since the AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- Consensus got this one right. A mechanical fault caused a plane to turn back without any fatalities or even any injuries. The participants in the AfD were justified and correct in saying "Well whoop de do", the closing admin was correct in assigning those !votes all the weight, and if this is the kind of pap article that WP:AIRCRASH seems to allow then too bad for WP:AIRCRASH. Reyk _YO! 13:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  AIRCRASH wouldn't allow it, hence my question.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Ah, I figured people were trying to justify this non-event under the The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations bit and the paragraph about the cause of the fuel leak. Sneaking it in under the cover of some over-inclusive clause of an SNG seems less of a stretch to me than arguing this meets the GNG on its own merits. Reyk _YO! 09:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Well. Air incidents are a bit like sports in that even very trivial stuff attracts coverage, so it could be a GNG pass. To my eye, this is a reliable source. The article also cited this and this which don't seem to have anything at all to do with the incident and this, which is rather better, and looks like a database of air accidents curated by an interested person who cares about the truth; I'd view it as likely accurate but as indiscriminate as those sports-related databases that we're constantly required to accept at AfD. The notability case looks arguable either way, to me, but as a matter of encyclopaedic judgment I would have !voted to merge or redirect or otherwise in some way not-keep it at AfD. I'll avoid entering a word in bold in this debate, I think.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  There is no doubt that it happened. The doubt is that anyone subsequently bothered to publish any comment. Even a comment “the incident is of no particular long term significance” would be an ongoing comment helping to justify an article (helping, not enough) but there is not even that. All sources coming from the newspapers on the day, all reporting facts without transformative comment, means that a mention on another page would fail WP:PSTS. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  It is very hard to contrive a use of this as a secondary source. There isn’t even any criticism or subjective comment on the flightcrew’s failure to use a checklist correctly. Everything on this topic is data. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Closed appropriately. There will be sources and news for an incident like this but this seems nothing out of the world. If there was WP:SUSTAINED with investigations on why it happened and so forth, might have been a different case. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 15:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Quiet Parks International ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

/info/en/?search=Quiet_Parks_International

https://www.quietparks.org/

Quiet Parks International is a non-profit committed to saving quiet for the benefit of all life. Quiet Parks International was formerly known as the One Square Inch of Silence Foundation. /info/en/?search=One_Square_Inch_of_Silence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.122.136 ( talk) 16:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close. No request for review; no reasons stated. If we imagine the request is to to overturn the G5, challenge is not WP:DRVPURPOSE-relevant. No chance of success. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 21:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• It was deleted per WP:G5. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close/endorse. No valid reason to overturn presented, and the deletion seems undeniably correct. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Close Simply echoing what's already been said. Nothing new to add. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 02:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

CoinDCX is India’s premier crypto currency exchange. Recently it reached unicorn status valued at over a billion dollars. They claim to have 3.5 million users. Credible sources are available online. Much smaller companies such as /info/en/?search=CoinSwitch_Kuber have approved wiki pages. Nikhilaug ( talk) 05:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CoinDCX reply

• It can certainly be frustrating to see apparent inconsistencies between our articles: sometimes it's due to the vicissitudes of what reliable sources choose to cover; other times it's just because nobody ever got around to nominating the other article for deletion. Still, what matters is that this article was examined in detail by a group of experienced editors who looked at the sources and ultimately decided that, in this case, our inclusion criteria weren't met. Since the deletion followed our procedural rules, it should be endorsed: we aren't able to revisit the arguments made in the deletion discussion. If the company ever becomes more notable, you might consider creating a new draft and submitting it through the articles for creation process. Until then, I hope you'll continue contributing to other parts of our encyclopedia: we need all the help we can get. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  In this case it just seems that nobody has got round to nominating CoinSwitch Kuber, which seems to suffer from the same problems as those identified in the discussion of CoinDCX, for deletion. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• From the AfD

   : Comment Kindly review these sources

1) https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/coindcx-ropes-ayushmann-khurrana-for-its-latest-campaign/article37052089.ece 2) https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/storyboard/storyboard-dive-into-the-seductive-world-of-crypto-advertising/ 3) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/coindcx-launches-otc-desk-for-institutional-crypto-trading-in-india/articleshow/87159824.cms

All three fail due to not being independent of the subject. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Please can you kindly check below 4 sources

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-10/saverin-backed-exchange-becomes-india-s-first-crypto-unicorn

https://qz.com/india/2045269/indian-crypto-unicorn-coindcx-gets-funds-from-facebooks-saverin/

https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/coindcx-becomes-india-s-first-crypto-unicorn-with-90-million-fund-raise-11628567457045.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/coindcx-turns-unicorn-raises-90-million/articleshow/85199942.cms

( Nikhilaug ( talk) 17:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)) reply

These four sources are hard work to thoroughly evaluate. Information from non-independent people has to be ignored, and then the remaining information evaluated. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

1. Interview with the CEO. Quotations from the CEO are the basis of content throughout. Not independent

2. Same as 1.

3. Information from the company and from the CEO are the basis of content throughout. Not independent

4. Same as 1.

Is "first Indian cryptocurrency exchange to achieve unicorn status " a Wikipedia-notability criterion? I doubt it.

Endorse deletion, fails WP:CORP, primarily due to no independent secondary sources. The AfD "delete" !votes were correct. The "Keep" !votes' "frequently mentioned in news and media" carries no weight due to the "mentions" being non-independent promotion; and "unicorn" status and "valued at over a billion dollars" not being reasons for having an article. Consensus was that WP:CORPDEPTH was not met. The AfD was properly closed as "delete". Do not allow re-creation without strictly GNG-compliant sources as the basis of a new draft. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Also majority of the admins in the deletion discussion gave draft option instead of delete.( Nikhilaug ( talk) 17:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)) reply

• Endorse The sources Nikhilaug provided were already provided in the AfD, and they were challenged with reasons I'd agree with. I would not be opposed to a refund to draftspace, though there will need to be more WP:CORPDEPTH compliant sources before this company is ready for mainspace again. Jumpytoo Talk 18:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  If it becomes notable, the deleted version should not be used, because the deleted version is based on non-independent promotional sources, and sets the style of coverage as self-promotion. WP:TNT would apply. It is important that the article begin, based on, good sources. I discourage requesting refund to draftspace, and if refunded to draftspace, it will make acceptance only more difficult even if new sources demonstrate notability. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment I nominated it so I am not sure how much of my endorse/overturn opinion is valid here. But the company doesn't meet notability as per WP:NCORP but yes, it might in future. Also to highlight that the article in that was far from WP:NPOV. Draftsapce vote came from few editors and not admins. I would be opposed to that since I feel there is undeclared COI here (or I am not aware if it was ever declared). WP:OTHER doesn't allow us from arguments such as that other page exists. In future, if new sources emerge, might be good to discuss notability and then initiate a fresh draft that follows WP:NPOV. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 19:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer, and that is what DRV is for. This appears to be another case where the appellant doesn't like the result, and also says What about X. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a good close. Relitigating the AfD with the same sources already discounted there is beside the point. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Joseph Patrick Kennedy III ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This deletion was done in February 2010. Subsequent to that, Joseph Patrick Kennedy III was elected to four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, and has a WP article named Joe Kennedy III. I propose that we create Joseph Patrick Kennedy III as a redirect to that page. Thanks to all for their contributions and let's discuss as appropriate. KConWiki ( talk) 21:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and redirect as per Nom. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 23:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt and allow redirection. Since the reason for protection is obviously no longer relevant, I would think that any administrator can simply unprotect; a week-long discussion shouldn't be necessary. (By the way, future requests of this nature probably belong at WP:RFUP, since this isn't really a challenge to the deletion.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect created obviously the reasons for the salting are no longer applicable as he's notable. Star Mississippi 02:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Berozgaar Professors ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page should not be deleted because I have made every possible effort is maintaining a neutral point of view. I have only presented the facts and described them in brief. Previously my article was deleted for advertising, so I looked upon it and really found it biased, but this version of the article is neutral. This page is also a member of the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies" which protects the rights of companies to make a page about themselves. The quality and importance of the article should be directed by Wikipedia's portal for companies. I am not promoting anything, I'm just sticking to the facts. I talked with one of the administrators of Wikipedia who has been improving WP for over 18 years. He said if you are affiliated with the page, you need to declare a conflict of interest, which I did of the article's talk page using the template "connected contributor (paid)". This template can only be applied to talk pages, that's exactly what I did. After all this, it still got nominated for speedy deletion and got deleted stating that my page had no importance. Like it definitely has importance, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to hold information about topics. The Wikiproject companies clearly state that companies need to be expanded over Wikipedia. I had submitted my page under the Wikiproject Companies portal, which is a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. One other thing is that I contested the speedy deletion of the page, but the admin never replied or gave any response to my statements. Anyways, thanks again and please restore the page to as is. Enormous Efrit ( talk) 21:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I think you are slightly misguided about what wiki project companies or any project is. The subject is not notable and hence it was deleted. I suggest you read WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 21:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is an A7, and the nominator doesn't dispute substantively that there is no credible indication of importance; Wikipedia holding information about topics isn't it. Other statements by the nominator aren't relevant for challenging speedy deletion under this criterion. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 22:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Could we have a tempundelete of both page and talk page please? Among other matters I'd like to check whether this user's attempt to contest the speedy deletion was handled with sufficient kindness and what guidance, if any, was offered to them.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Thank you Cryptic!— S Marshall  T/ C 09:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  So, my basic problem with this is that this user has had the same article declined at CSD and speedily deleted on several occasions, has read our instructions and followed the process to contest the speedy, and has been virtually ignored. Nowhere in the process did anyone use anything but a templated message to them, and that makes me sad. We used to try to engage with new content creators but I don't see any evidence of that here.

  The nominator should emerge from this DRV with the knowledge that they have been heard and understood, a clear understanding of the reasons why we don't want to publish this article and an idea of the circumstances in which that decision would change. He's got all the way here because nobody's talked to him properly on the way.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  (Later) I can see that there's a cursory conversation on User talk:Jimfbleak.

  Enormous Efrit, I'm sorry that you've come all this way without receiving what I would see as a clear explanation of our thinking. We do try to be better than this.

  I'm afraid that WikiProject Companies isn't quite what you say it is. It does not protect the "rights" of companies to make a page about themselves. I'm sorry to say that there is no such right. We are not obliged to publish an article on Berozgaar Professors, and we are definitely not going to publish one right now.

  Wikipedia is attractive to people who want to bring publicity to their enterprise. We rank very high in search engine rankings, and anyone can create an account and start an article, so it's very tempting to write here for the purpose of generating business. And we don't want it: such content creates such a burden on our editors to check, review and improve it and we just don't have enough volunteer time. So we've had to develop quick and efficient processes for identifying and removing such content. You've run headlong into those processes and they've become so efficient that hardly anyone has spoken to you like a human being. It's ghastly, really.

  Our rules about businesses say that businesses have to be "notable" before we will consider hosting an article about them. A business is "notable" when more than one reliable source writes about them. Our definition of "reliable source" is very detailed, so it has its own page ( here). The sources in that article about Berozgaar Professors are very far short of the level of reliability that we require, and there is absolutely no chance at all of us publishing an article with only those sources. You need two really good ones.

  I wish you hadn't put in so much effort before learning this. Would you be willing to consider writing about something else instead?— S Marshall  T/ C 11:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse nothing in the article contains any indication of importance or significance, which was the reason for deletion. Apart from some links to the website which is the subject of the article none of the references cited even mention the subject, and these links largely don't support the statements they are cited for, e.g. a statement about the copyright restrictions on material they publish is sourced to some general information about copyright law (including US copyright law, which doesn't even apply in India). There is no "right" for companies to create pages about themselves on Wikipedia. I suggest the OP review the notability requirements for companies and websites and try using the articles for creation process instead. Hut 8.5 13:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • They did, and it was declined with a template message.— S Marshall  T/ C 14:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Resubmitting it would have been better than posting it to mainspace. The AfC submission was declined for not being adequately sourced, which was entirely reasonable as it didn't cite any references at all. Hut 8.5 17:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I CSD tagged this. The references (apart from their own website) didn't mention the company, and the article was "how to use the product" rather than "what is the company". This after they claim to have engaged with feedback. Perhaps the Teahouse people can teach the article creator more kindly; all I care is that this not be a mainspace article in anything remotely resembling the form it is presented in. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Respected Nomadicghumakkad, Alalch Emis, Hut 8.5, Cryptic, User:力, and most of all Marshall, thank you so much for participating in this discussion. I appreciate the time you spared me and deeply apologize for the inconvenience that I have caused. I now realize all the criteria that I must fulfill before publishing an article, and I promise I'll abide by it. The thing is, I was really confused about why the article was repeatedly being deleted. On a former occasion when it was deleted for advertisement, I knew what went wrong and how I could improve it. But in this case, the reason provided was a complex one, which thanks to Marshall, I've understood now. From the very beginning, I was only asking for an explanation as to what went wrong and why it was nominated for SD, but all I got was pre-formatted templates on my talk page which redirected to respective Wikipedia guidelines. Anyways, I've understood now what went wrong and how I can improve. Please understand that I do not want any fame or recognition from Wikipedia by using unethical purposes for creating a page about Berozgaar Professors. As I had declared, Berozgaar Professors is in my Conflict of Interest, but I one hundred percent tend to comply with the terms of Wikipedia, and so I will not indulge in anything for my own benefit and will be totally neutral. Throughout all these processes, I learned a lot about Wikipedia, and my respect for the admins for their quick actions on any decision and judgment has skyrocketed. No one here is right or wrong, we all did what was necessary on our part, and I respect each and every one of the admins who participated in this matter.
  Excuse me when I say this, but I'm only a 14 year old boy lighted by the vastness of all the things that are deep within Wikipedia. I got to know how to raise concerns, how to engage, and most importantly, how to improve. I'm pretty young so I think there is so much more for me to learn not just about Wikipedia, but about life in general as well. Furthermore, if I'm not wrong, my article was lacking notable sources and needed at least two for proper reference, right Marshall? I'm in talks with an international Magazine and other entities which are interested in my work. So I think it's just a matter of time before I'll make Berozgaar Professors up and fine again. (I can recreate the page as stated in "If an article was deleted because the subject was not notable, but since that time many more independent reliable sources discussing them have been found or published, you can re-create the article if you include these new additional sources.") Until then, please remove the restrictions that are currently imposed on Berozgaar Professors, so that in the future I could make it again with better sources and proper notability.
  
  PS. dear Nomadicghumakkad, the citation that I placed about the U.S copyrights law which you said didn't apply to India was in fact done because BP is an international entity, people from many countries publish their work with BP not just from India. And apparently, that particular citation was placed just after the citation on 'concept of fair use in India'. I purposely added both the citations to cope with the National and International copyright rules on Fair use (depicted as Section 52 of the Copyrights law in India).
  
  Here is my profile if you want to see me :) Enormous Efrit ( talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sameer Wankhede ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am writing this as instructed by the closing admin Scottywong.

The closing note of the AfD shows improper counting, poor analysis of sources, and misrepresentation of BLP1E.

Counting those !votes that were not struck, it seems that there were 20, including the nominator, who voted for "delete". There were 17 who voted for "keep". This is much different than Scootywong's count of 16 !keep and 24 !delete.

This is after we ignore the obvious vote rigging, done by a person who voted for !delete two times. [14] [15]

Though the voting count does not matter, still it seems that there was almost equal support for either choice.

Scottywong's argument that "vast majority of sources in the article focus on the recent event that began in late 2020" was misleading because it would mean that article must not be created about a person who hasn't received coverage before 2020.

My discussion with Scottywong shows that the admin took a misconceived argument, "There were concerns that the Sunday Guardian may not be a reliable source. An editor even pointed out a fairly major error in the reporting within that story (referring to Wankhede as working for the Indian Police Service rather than the Indian Revenue Service)" [16], into account. There was no concern about the reliability of The Sunday Guardian. Other than that, to say that a source becomes unreliable only because it mentioned the subject as "Indian Police Service rather than the Indian Revenue Service" echoes half-baked information. A 2015 article say "led by two additional SP rank officers -Namrata Patil and Sameer Wankhede" and "Samir Wankhede is a 2004 batch IPS officer and was posted at Mumbai Airport before joining the NIA." There was no error when these sources mentioned Wankhede as "IPS" instead of "IRS".

I already notified the admin about this misunderstanding but had no response. [17]

The article also seemed to have improved a lot during the AfD as one comment noted. [18] It is well possible that there wouldn't be that many votes for !delete if the article had been improved earlier.

Finally, the BLP1E couldn't make any sense because of significant coverage outside the arrest of an actor's son, which could be found from reliable sources before this year. [19] [20] [21] Nobody could prove that the coverage in these reliable sources was insignificant.

Overall, the AfD should have resulted in "keep" or "no consensus". TolWol56 ( talk) 17:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. This was a difficult discussion to close, and I think the closer did a great job evaluating the consensus here. It was closely split, but ultimately not enough to warrant a "no consensus" outcome. –– Formal ^talk 17:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closing admin - I believe I explained my rationale clearly in my closing statement, so I won't rehash it here. While the overall vote count doesn't matter all that much, I'm still perplexed how two different people can come to such different counts. I've done a more exhaustive and careful count of the votes and put them in a table below. It appears I was off by a few votes (probably due to various inconsistencies with how people composed and signed their votes), but there is still about a 12% differential between delete and keep votes (23 delete, 18 keep, 56%-44%). I think that all we can conclude from this is that there was somewhat more support for deleting this article than keeping it, but it certainly wasn't a landslide in either direction. While the strength of individual arguments is ultimately what determines the consensus, I believe that counting votes is also important to understand the overall level of support that each side has. I don't close AfDs by counting votes, and I have frequently closed AfDs in favor of the minority voters. Expand the table below to see my vote count in this AfD:

#	Delete	Keep
1	Venkat TL (nom)	GreaterPonce665
2	Arunudoy	Jehowahyereh
3	Suneye1	Mukt
4	TrendSPLEND	Dr. Abhijeet Safai
5	Equine-man	Hatchens
6	OhNoitsJamie	DMySon
7	122.172.46.29	106.214.126.2
8	TrangaBellam	AltruisticHomoSapien
9	Eevee01	122.169.93.58
10	25_Cents_FC	LearnIndology
11	Nenetarun	Yoonadue
12	183.82.104.213	TolWol56
13	RegentsPark	Dhy.rjw
14	106.206.53.153	Yogesh Khandke
15	Ravensfire	Rsrikanth05
16	LukeEmily	122.161.72.152
17	115.98.59.92	S_Marshall
18	ThisFeelsABitOff	desmay
19	115.97.187.217
20	4meter4
21	Tayi_Arajakate
22	Scope_creep
23	FormalDude

Regarding the rest of the argument, the most convincing argument from the delete voters is that this individual is not notable per WP:BLP1E. The single event that put this individual into the news happened in late 2020. So, it's generally safe to say that any news articles about this event from late 2020 onwards cannot be used to prove that the individual is notable for more than one event. The vast majority of sources in the article and presented within the AfD were from late 2020 or later. I believe I only saw one or two articles from before 2020, and the reliability of those sources was called into question in the AfD, and that question of their reliability was not adequately refuted, in my opinion. The discussion between Tayi_Arajakate and S_Marshall towards the bottom of the AfD is where this is discussed in the most depth.

Either way, as I said in the closing statement, this is admittedly a borderline case, but I felt that there was sufficient consensus to justify deleting the article. I'm curious to see how the rest of the community views this close, and of course, happy to abide by the community's decision. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse He is surely in news a lot now because he had Shahrukh Khan's (popular Indian actor) son after a raid at an alleged drug party. The son got bail though. He has been in news in past as well because of his attempts to get bollywood celebrities caught with drugs cases. But, fundamentally, it's a government servant doing his job. He is only getting all this publicity because he is dealing with celebrities and people love to read gossip. And that's all that is. If this was a person doing his job with regular criminals, there won't be any news. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 21:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC First, I want to complement the closer on the close. While I disagree with it, I think it is well explained and as detailed and as clear as one could hope. The above additional comments are delivered in a professional and clear way. So that's great. The problem I have is that the discussion didn't really conclude that BLP1E applied. There were a lot of bad !votes ("person doing his job" isn't a reason to delete and the keep side had a number that were equally bad). But given the numbers, to find for a delete outcome, there has to be a fairly strong case made. And BPL1E doesn't apply just because the person has only been in the news for a year or so. In fact I'd really like to know what the closer thinks the "one event" is. "Man doing his job?". If that's an "event" we need to remove nearly every sports figure. Sorry, the !vote is too close and the arguments for deletion too far off to find a delete outcome here. It certainly isn't a keep, but I'd say it's as classic an NC outcome as we could hope to see. Hobit ( talk) 23:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, the closer did as good a job as possible in that mess of an AfD and it's not a closer's job to address new arguments which should have been brought up during the discussion. There is obviously a concern about The Sunday Guardian's reliability, to claim otherwise is to claim that no one questioned its reliability.

I suppose I'll address the new arguement; the 2015 article is from The Times of India ( RSP entry), where there is community consensus that it is not a generally reliable source and it is making the same mistake as The Sunday Guardian. Pretty much every source that has covered him describes him as an IRS official and not the IPS, for instance see ( The Indian Express ( RSP entry), The Hindu ( RSP entry), Livemint, etc) or even TOI's own recent coverage ( [22], [23], etc). I can only assume that the staff at TOI back then thought that being in an investigative agency must mean police and printed that, the article itself provides him with a brief passing mention. If one trawls through other low quality sources, one can probably find the same mistake repeated.

I also don't get Hobit's contestation that there was no strong case made for BLP1E. Yes, if a sports figure had received coverage for solely participating in say a single major tournament, their article would be deleted under BLP1E. If there were no SNGs for them but there are, while there is no similar SNGs for government employees doing their job. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse There is no sense pointing out whether he was IPS or IRS. Many civil service officers in India give upsc again after qualifying, to shift from one service to another. This is the reason SGL article says IPS and a later India Today article by the same author "Kiran Tare" 7 yrs later says IRS. What is of concern though is lack of reliability and verification. Indian news sources often make dubious and sensational claims. For eg, both of Kiran Tare's article I mentioned above says "Wankhede's action added a revenue of Rs 87 cr in the Union government's exchequer last year". Then this Aajtak article says "under the leadership of Sameer Wankhede, a drug and drugs racket worth about Rs 17,000 crore was exposed" (translated). You'd see that all sources covering him use sensational and dubious claims. State and federal govt departments in India never make such off-hand remarks and glorify their officers in this way because all their officers are expected to maintain a low profile without seeking media attention. I looked at many articles covering him prior to the Cruise ship drug case, and all of them are either routine coverage or unreliable. Best course now that the article is deleted is to wait for sigcov for an evidence of WP:SUSTAINED and maybe create an article later. - hako9 ( talk) 04:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  hako9, I'd point out one thing in those two articles though. While it's possible to give UPSC again after qualifying for the first time, it's not possible to enter two services in the same year to become both a 2004 batch IRS official (specified in the India Today article) and a 2004 batch IPS officer (specified in the SG article). I don't disagree that many of their claims are dubious and sensationalist but this one was explicitly refutable so I brought it up. The recent sources make no mention of him every being in the IPS, and they are likely not going to get it wrong now that one of the allegations is that he entered the services by forging documents. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• As someone who participated in that debate, my position is that BLP1E didn't apply because in the post-2019 coverage there were two subjects covered (the drug matter and the scheduled caste matter), and two news sources exist which pre-date either of those incidents. I can make sense of the claim that this is an unremarkable person but I think that if these things had happened in London or New York, Wikipedia would consider them remarkable enough to have an article about him. Indian sources are a very difficult problem though because the quality is often incredibly low.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the close was within the closer's discretion. -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. The close hinges on an idea that BLP1E applies, but there was distinctly no consensus around it's applicability. It's undeniable that there's a relatively long period of coverage. Still, the argument that BLP1E applies is well-formed: It says that if the single "main" event which makes the subject notable was subtracted, the remaining coverage would not have made the subject notable, so this would indeed be a "person notable for one event", and not notable for other events in relation to which they were also covered -- this was referred to as routine coverage by participants. The argument that BLP1E does apply is also well-formed: it says that even if the main event had been subtracted, the remaining coverage could have actually made the subject notable, or nearly notable, but in tandem with the main event, certainly notable. This is a good rebuttal. Closer refers to a thread between Tayi Arajakate and S Marshall as offering the most depth in this regard, but this thread is so clearly unresolved. In the end, most participants seem to accept BLP1E as the controlling policy, and can't agree on the outcome. So there was no consensus. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 17:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC I also participated on the AFD. My opinion is just what like Alalch Emis described. BLP1E was probably the only reason behind the deletion and there is still no consensus that it really applied due to significant coverage predating the arrest of the actor's son. desmay ( talk) 20:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment One way to look at it would be to see if subject qualifies WP:THREE while excluding the coverage for Aryan Khan case. I searched for coverages before August [24] and most of the coverage are his statements on his high profile cases. There is no significant coverage on who he is and what his journey has been, except [25]. If we find two more like this, we can argue it's not WP:1E. However, this India today article has label India Today Insight. I am unaware what it would indicate in terms of reliability. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 23:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  One need not be notable absent 1E coverage to merit an article, but one has to have at least one RS beyond all the 1E-associated RS, so a single additional good source prior to the 1E coverage would moot BLP1E--we don't need multiple Non-1E RS, just multiple RS, not all of which can be 1E. Jclemens ( talk) 06:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  So now we're in an intriguing situation where the "endorse" side asserts that Mr Wankede is only notable for one event. I think the question the "endorse" side need to answer is which is the one event?

• Context: Shah Rukh Khan is one of Bollywood's more popular and successful actors. His son is Aryan Khan, age 23. On 2nd October this year, officers of the Indian Narcotics Bureau arrested Aryan Khan aboard a cruise ship travelling from Mumbai to Goa on charges of violating an Act that concerns the possession, consumption and sale of controlled substances. Aryan Khan then appeared before a court that deals with cases involving unlawful narcotics. This created an intense media circus; so intense, in fact, that the BBC have produced an article about the intensity of the media coverage here. I find this so remarkable that I'll stop and say it again. The media coverage of this event is itself generating media coverage.

• Sameer Wankhede is the head of the Indian Narcotics Bureau and the lead investigating officer into the alleged crime.

• It's common ground between both sides that given the gossipyness and general unreliability of the Indian Media, and the fact that Aryan Khan has not been convicted of anything, we have to be incredibly careful what we write.

• It's also common ground that , of this problematic bunch of sources, the Indian Express is the most reliable. Let's examine the Indian Express coverage in some detail.

• In this article, the Indian Express sets out Wankhede's rather central role in the allegations against Shah Rukh Khan and his son. If the one event is Aryan Khan's arrest for drug trafficking, which took place in October 2021, why does this article devote so much time to unrelated incidents that took place in 2011?

• In this article, the Indian Express sets out allegations that Wankhede was ineligible for his position owing to the fact that he didn't rightly belong to the correct scheduled caste. It does admittedly mention Aryan Khan briefly in the first paragraph. The background is Aryan Khan's arrest for drug trafficking, but that is not the subject of the article.

• In this article, the Indian Express describes additional, separate allegations against Wankhede and his department. Again, it does admittedly mention Aryan Khan briefly. The background is Aryan Khan's arrest, but that is not the subject of the article.

• And to make the matter even more complex, during the AfD I discussed with Tayi Arajakate (whom I find a very pleasant and reasonable interlocutor, by the way, and I differ from him only in the most collegial and cordial manner possible) two news sources from 2013 which pre-date the arrest. Tayi Arajakate is of the view that these sources are unreliable. I questioned whether they are really unreliable for the claims they make; but tragically I'm unable to link them here because the article has been deleted and I omitted to link them during the AfD.

• I respectfully put it to you all that the idea that all of this is about Aryan Khan's arrest on 2nd October is simply untenable.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• [26]- why does this article devote so much time to unrelated incidents that took place in 2011? because media wants to dig his history for gossip.

[27] - After SRK's son was arrested, Nawab Malik made public comments and allegations about Wankhede. It is not disputed that Cruise ship drug case was the event that led to this feud.

[28] - Well, I'd say just look at the heading and sub-heading. It is undeniably all connected to that single event. I looked at many stories that covered him before this case. Reproducing my comment even though I deleted it from Afd earlier diff

So what exactly do we have about him before the Cruise ship case? In my view, nothing of encyclopedic value, a lot of tabloid stuff though. Pre 1event coverage -- A customs officer fining bollywood celebs for evading airport searches, getting death threats (incredibly common for civil servants in India), dubious claims of benefitting the drug enforcement department due to his actions etc. I wouldn't even be able to construct a single line of material on him without violating WP:NOTNEWS. I do agree with you that the media circus ensuing from the cruise ship drug case is, as you say, remarkable. I'd still be against overturning. I'd instead favour creating an article on the event itself or wait for significant coverage on Wankhede to recreate it. - hako9 ( talk) 13:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, the problem here is that very expansive use of "undeniably all connected to that one event". I mean, if you'll forgive my reasoning by analogy, everything we say about Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is "undeniably all connected" to the day when she was born into the Royal Family. Everything we say about Lee Harvey Oswald is "undeniably all connected" to the day he shot John F. Kennedy. The reason why we don't say these people are notable only for one event is because there are sources that cover other aspects of their lives.

You also invoke WP:NOTNEWS, so let's give that a detailed analysis. The first limb of NOTNEWS clearly doesn't apply -- this is not original reporting, it's a source-based article. The second limb concerns "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities", but we've agreed that, in your own words as well as mine, this is a remarkable media circus. It's not routine. The third limb says "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event...." and in this situation, I think that wording is incredibly vague and hard to apply. I would say that the news coverage goes a considerable way beyond that single event, and I would point to what are, by Indian standards, very long, detailed articles about background and history. I can see how you might try to make a case that it's all in the "context" of the arrest but I do think that's quite a stretch. The fourth limb of NOTNEWS certainly doesn't apply because Wankhede isn't a celebrity and neither is Khan's son (who doesn't even have his own Wikipedia article). And even if he was, this is hardly at the level of the examples that fourth limb gives about individual goals scored.

And that's why I genuinely think you have to stretch BLP1E and NOTNEWS very far out of shape before you can apply them here.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I didn't mean to dismiss the article with WP:NOTNEWS. I only invoked it for dismissing particular news items that I mentioned in my collapsed table. I would say that the news coverage goes a considerable way beyond that single event. I do concede here that it apparently does seem like stretching the limits of BLP1E. But here is what I thought when I looked at that long afd. What exactly would I or any other editor write in the article, if creating from scratch. I wouldn't really put in any single item pre-cruise ship event for the reasons I stated. And if the post event coverage is all that is, then in what way would it be an article on Wankhede and not about the event. - hako9 ( talk) 14:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I think that's a novel argument that wasn't made in the AfD. If DRV re-lists this, then we might have the chance to give it proper scrutiny. Thanks for agreeing that this decision seems like stretching the limits of BLP1E.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I am digressing a bit here but I would like to ask. Assuming notability is established and blp1e doesn't stand, is there anything in the post Oct 21 coverage (incl caste controversy), that you'd be comfortable with adding into the article about the subject, that wouldn't violate WP:BLPCRIME, WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:NOTNEWS and other content guidelines? My contention, to reiterate, is that if the allowable content is so thin (pre and post Oct 21), is a standalone article justified? - hako9 ( talk) 10:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm a little leery of that framing. My position is that by Wikipedian convention, it's not for me to "justify" the addition of sourced content -- I think the burden is in fact on others to "justify" removing it. But OK, let me take the question at face value and see where it takes me.

Using only the Indian Express sources, with twenty minutes' work I get:

Sameer Dawood Wankhede is an Indian public official currently working as the Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau in Mumbai . His father, Dnyaeshwar Kachru Wankhede, was a police officer. His mother's name was Zaheeda Begum. He was born into a scheduled caste. In December 2006, he married Shabana Zaheer Qureshi in a Muslim ceremony. In 2007 he cleared the Indian Civil Services Examination and in 2008, he joined the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Indirect Taxes). He worked as a customs officer at Mumbai International Airport and in the Service Tax department, rising through the ranks to his current position. In August 2021, jointly with his team he was awarded the Home Minister's medal for excellence in investigation. Although he has handled many cases (more than 90 in 2021), he has attracted a great deal of media attention for his role in the arrest of Shah Rukh Khan's son on 2nd October 2021.

It's appropriate for us to carry this content. The media circus makes this a plausible search term. And in this encyclopaedia where people are "notable" for having played professional-level cricket for 12 minutes in 1973, Wankhede is way, way over the bar.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

.... And the academy awards for the best Straw man goes to S Marshall. Venkat TL ( talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Venkat TL: that was an excellent counter by S Marshall, imv. There's no need for such irksome remarks. - hako9 ( talk) 12:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Imv, the straw man in the last line is worth the appreciation. Venkat TL ( talk) 12:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

If you used the above text to create an article and left out the final sentence, it could arguably be speedy deleted under A7. Your proposed text seems to highlight the fact that he is only notable for the single event described in the last sentence. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

That's clearly right, and earlier in this discussion I've explicitly agreed that the arrest is the context of the sources even when it isn't the subject of the sources. But that doesn't mean BLP1E applies. If you look, there are actually three limbs to WP:BLP1E and all three of them need to be satisfied to justify a deletion. The others are: (2) if the person is a low-profile individual, and (3) if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. If I squint at this case in exactly the right light while turning my head sidewise, I could maybe see an arguable case that Wankhede is low-profile, but I can't see any way it fits limb #3.— S Marshall  T/ C 00:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment Striked my endorse. A stub length article is quite possible here. Content issues are surmountable. WP:ATD-E. I am still split on whether we should stretch blp1e, as S Marshall, puts it. I really can't make up my mind, tbh. - hako9 ( talk) 12:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I had nominated the article. The close was within the closer's discretion. AfD closers are expected to look at strength of argument, not just vote count ( WP:DGFA). It is unfortunate to see the dispute created by the OP over the head counts. Here the Keep comments were largely based in passing tabloid type coverage as WP:GNG, when it is not. Several Keep !voters claimed the subject met the notability guidelines but didn't provide any supporting reasoning or evidence. It was reasonable for the closer to down-weight these comments because of this. The closer has provided a detailed closing summary that I feel perfectly explains the summary of the discussion. Although this is not the place to rehash the arguments for or against the article, lot of time and words are spent above on this. I have already elaborated my views in the AfD discussion, so I will not repeat them. Just wanted to add, that until someone gets convicted, (which is highly unlikely IMHO) there is no way to write an objective article on the subject, without violating the WP:BLPCRIME of the subject or his victims. After culling stuff to conform to WP:BLP there is nothing special in the article that makes the subject deserve an article. There are some tabloid type articles run in Indian media about his watches and shoes too. None of that can be added here or be used to claim notability. If this is overturned or the article restore, it will open floodgates of new articles for barber, security guards, etc of filmstars and filmstars sons. Every cop, incometax officer, municipal officers dealing with the film stars and getting tabloid coverage will claim their own article. That Indian media has lost its mind, is not enough reason for Wikipedia to do the same. After all is said, Wikipedia standards for WP:ANYBIO should be honoured. Venkat TL ( talk) 13:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I can see why you think the discussion above is re-litigating the AfD. The closing rationale was: While this is a borderline case, I believe there is sufficient consensus to delete the article primarily due to WP:BLP1E. At issue in this DRV is the question of whether Scottywong was right that BLP1E is the determining factor. Whether he was right depends on whether BLP1E can be stretched to fit the sources. It's not possible to discuss this without a detailed consideration of what the sources say, hence the very detailed discussion between Hako9 and myself.
    You say, there is no way to write an objective article on the subject, and I invite you review the stub I literally just wrote in the discussion above that in no way violates BLPCRIME.
    On the rest of what you wrote, I dispute and join issue with you in every respect.— S Marshall  T/ C 14:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for your efforts. IMHO, your proposed stub is still unfit for Wikipedia. No amount of "wordsmith"ing will make up for the lack of internationally recognizable achievements from Wankhede. Venkat TL ( talk) 14:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
      • It's a valid proof of concept: some encyclopedic content can be sourced to that article. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 16:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
      • @ Venkat TL: You seem to be claiming that having "internationally recognizable achievements" is the bar requirement for inclusion? Could you explain why you think that? Is there some policy or guideline that hints at such a thing? Hobit ( talk) 22:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

        Please refer to WP:ANYBIO for the requirements for inclusion, and my comments on AfD page for my views. I am not going to rehash the arguments as WP:DRV is not the place for such discussion. Venkat TL ( talk) 07:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

        • The problem is you are proposing a standard that isn't in line with our guidelines or policies. AfD votes based on standards that aren't in line with our guidelines are a problem for DRV. 17:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
          • I am not "proposing" any standards. Just reminding you to refer to the existing ones. If you believe that arresting/investing a film actor's son makes a guy notable for Wikipedia. Well then. Good for you. Anyway please read WP:DRVPURPOSE and do not use this page for side discussions. -- Venkat TL ( talk) 18:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
            • You indicated that not having "internationally recognizable achievements" is a reason to not include this. The actual standards include WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP1E. What matters here is coverage not why that coverage exists. And discussing what the standards that should be used (and were used in the discussion) is very much a matter for DRV. Hobit ( talk) 20:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply

              Yet, this person passes none of those actual standards to get a page. You and a few others keep claiming coverage exists, without admitting that the coverage that we have here is the coverage of the event of arrest of a film actor's son, it is expected that the characters will also get included in it. You along with others continue to misinterpret the event coverage as the coverage for the subject. The articles prior to 2020 are tabloid type. Venkat TL ( talk) 07:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

              • @ Venkat TL: the claim that WP:N isn't met is just plain false. It's clear that we have multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject. You've acknowledged that. I feel like you don't understand our inclusion guidelines. It doesn't matter *why* the coverage exists for meeting WP:N, just that it does. WP:BLP1E cares about the why, not WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 19:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

      • But ANYBIO is not the requirements for inclusion. WP:BIO is a key guideline and I've noticed an occasional tendency to misunderstand it or to quote only one part of it out of context. Let's refresh our memories on what it actually says.
        WP:BIO begins by giving the general rule: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
        WP:BIO then goes on to list "additional criteria", and it says about these additional critera: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:ANYBIO is one of these additional criteria.
        It follows that WP:ANYBIO is not a requirement for inclusion. What our guideline actually says is that WP:BASIC is the requirement for inclusion and someone who passes WP:ANYBIO is likely to pass WP:BASIC.
        It's common ground among all the parties that Mr Wankhede has been discussed in many unreliable sources. He's also been the subject of several articles in the Indian Express, which our reliable sources people have evaluated as a reliable source. He's also been the subject of articles in a number of news media whose reliability we have not yet considered. I can follow the case that this is a BLP1E, even if I disagree with it, but I don't think the case that Wankhede fails WP:BIO is even remotely tenable.— S Marshall  T/ C 14:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC. I had made enough improvements to the article but I find it agreeable now that the article should be strictly stub per S Marshall and Hako99. Mukt ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: Good work from the closer who evaluated the consensus. Sameer came in the news lately due to the WP:SENSATIONAL drug case which involved a very famous celebrity's son. Apart from a few trivial mentions before this incident, there is no coverage and so it still is BLP1E.IMO, a government worker doing his job is definitely not notable for an article unless he has done something significant and received coverage for his role in it. The subject wouldn't have been in the news if the case did not involve one of the most popular celebrity's son in the country. - SUN EYE 1 10:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC WP:BLP1E needs to meet strict scrutiny, which it does not here, either in the AfD or the overall sourcing demonstrated above in this DRV. Jclemens ( talk) 20:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC If a single event is sensational enough, if pass BLP1E. What makes things sensational? The media, and it's certainly the media that has done so here, far out of the intrinsic importance of the case. In many similar instance I've argued for delete, on the basis of NOT TABLOID, and that no amount of tabloid coverage was worth bothering about for an encyclopedia . I see from the arguments above that this may not always be true--enough movie-star's-son type coverage can in exceptional cases do it. What has convinced me is SMarshall's demonstration that The media coverage of this event is itself generating media coverage. That makesi t significant enough that someone might reasonably come here looking for information (and I suggest the article be rewritten to emphasise that aspect, and just possibly renamed, Arrest of Aryan Khan. (BLP is still involved, of course, no matter how we title it.

additionally I would at least because of the entirely improper method that the closer used, which was vote counting--vote counting to such an extent that they illustrate the details of it here in a table. The only acceptable uses of such a count is to demonstrate that there is not complete agreement. What haas to be considered is the arguments, not the votes, and the key disagreement as analyzed above is the interpretation of BLP1E. I think there should be consensus in S Marshall's view of that, but it seems that there isn't, and so this becomes nonconsensus (I don't see the point of actually relisting, because I think this discussion� has made matters as clear as they're ever going to be). DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

vote counting to such an extent that they illustrate the details of it here in a table. Hmm, Guess who bought that issue up in this drv. Let's be fair here ok. The closer did a good job, considering the rationale and arguments that voters presented there. Shitty evidences presented in a court will lead to faulty judgements. It's not the closer's job to go above and beyond what was presented to him in that discussion. It was always a close call no matter how one looks at it. - hako9 ( talk) 07:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• While I agree with the rest, the charge of vote counting against the closer I'd say is mistaken. First of all, any close *should* count !votes. That's part of consensus evaluation. It isn't *just* a vote, but when weighting different views, numbers do play a role. Secondly, the table in question was only generated because there was a disagreement in !vote count. But otherwise, yes, there is plenty of coverage, and even coverage of the coverage. Maybe this should be an event article, but that wasn't proposed and this isn't AfD. Hobit ( talk) 08:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• I agree that we shouldn't give Scotty a hard time over that close. DRV shouldn't be a hostile environment for closers; and that was a relatively good one by DRV standards (we see a lot of poor closes because of what we do here).— S Marshall  T/ C 10:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Stephen Hogan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I do believe he is notable enough per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, if not borderline notable per one editor who had shown me the light throughout the editing process. Thanks. Supermann ( talk) 03:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I believe I am the "one editor" Supermann was referring to, as I had a hand in editing the article as well. I'm unsurprised the AfD happened or the outcome of it. In my opinion, Hogan has some minor notability as an audiobook narrator (there was a Times article on Irish audiobook narrators that dedicated several paragraphs to him), but at best would be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The AfD discussion failed to mention that the article was rejected at AfC due to the creator repeatedly submitting the draft without sufficiently addressing concerns and repeatedly putting forward the reviews mentioned in the AfD rational as the "three best sources", a decision I agreed with at the time (the creator later moved it to the mainspace after being told it was allowed). I also have reservations on the Dublin Live article, because while Hogan had a large role in the article, he is not the focus of the article CiphriusKane ( talk) 05:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Yes you are one of the two editors, though I still respectfully disagree you applied "too soon" for him, when we can easily verify his many memorable roles/on-screen credits after 20 years, as long as we are willing. Have you finished The Tudors where his head as that of Henry Norris (courtier) got chopped off? The Dublin article was more about Sardar Udham, but we also got to learn about his world view as an Irish. I wouldn't have known about Jallianwala Bagh massacre, had it not been the movie. And I do agree his role in that film is much less than those of Starship Troopers 3: Marauder and Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith. Had his role performed enhanced interrogation techniques on Udham Singh during the investigation or he played the role of the villain massacring the Indians, then I agree it would have been a more significant role. Needless to say, I appreciate your criticism. Supermann ( talk) 16:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I rarely watch TV and films these days, and I said WP:TOOSOON on the basis that there was potential that Hogan would have a more notable role in the future. That is all I am going to say on the topic CiphriusKane ( talk) 04:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

An article such as this is gonna be deleted by people like you who rarely watch TV and films and who doesn't like the "no firm rules". Fabulous. Thanks and I appreciate your criticism. Basically, it comes down to a bunch of non-film expert experts who have never seen his work preventing people's access to knowledge. And I fundamentally disagree with this. And I apologize 100 times. Maybe Wikipedia is indeed not the right place for this content. It's a burden on Wikipedia to host this content. It hurts the brand. Supermann ( talk) 16:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment (as closer): DRV is not for re-litigating a process which disappoints. User:Supermann seems determined to put this subject into mainspace despite being told several times during AFC that the article lacks sufficient reliable sources to meet general notability requirements. In the AFD, User:Drmies and User:TheBirdsShedTears appear to agree with nominator User:DGG subject fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. In the discussion, only Supermann holds for inclusion. Some socking during the process did not affect the outcome. The RS Times article mentioned by User:CiphriusKane is a series of interviews with various actors who've been performing audiobook readings during the pandemic. I personally did a BEFORE to verify applied sources and look for new ones. I believe an article for the subject could be created (and I would not object if the the article was successfully passed at AFC), but would need substantially better anchoring sources, which I could not find but might still be produced. The subject seems a fine working actor with credits in films, TV, theater and now audiobook narrator (the field where I think it's most likely to find RS). It gave me no pleasure to delete the page, but felt unable to support keep myself (or I would have contributed to the discussion). BusterD ( talk) 10:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Thanks for tagging me, BusterD, and for properly deleting the article. If an AfD goes 2 to 1 (3 to 1 including the nominator), one can have doubts, relist, etc. or even close as "keep" or "no consensus", based on the arguments put forward. The problem is that Supermann's argument (and I'm skipping over their weird opening sentences) basically boils down to "he was in movies and he's notable". Yes, there was a sock (a funny one), but that doesn't affect the outcome. The AfD was decided properly. Drmies ( talk) 14:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  My argument was funny because I have only seen some of his movies and TV shows, but not ALL, and certainly not any of his audiobooks and theaters works and game voiceover. If it was up to me, I would have stopped the editing at just those two former genres, but then editors kept wanting more. In turn, it's the theaters works and maybe audiobooks that have convinced notability, though I still prefer movies and TV shows, because they are at our fingertips. I didn't make my argument lengthy at the time, because I presumed people would have read all the argument on the talk page or my talk page by now, but maybe they didn't. And I am sorry that my experience is still junior to everyone here that I simply can't write to convince otherwise. Supermann ( talk) 16:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Supermann, I think you should read guide to declaring conflict of interest for future references than showing interest in a non-notable subject. The subject in question is a non-notable actor and is currently not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you still think it passes notability guidelines, you may create a draft and submit it for AfC review. However, if you recreate this in mainspace by yourself, it is likely to be speedy deleted under WP:G4. Dublin Live article popped up a day after the subject was taken to AfD, therefore, it is not considered as an independent and reliable source. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 15:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

But before you create a draft, please make sure you post all discussions, including AfD as well as this one on draft's talk page. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 15:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I read that COI guideline and there is simply none whatsoever. I am just a tax accountant based in NYC. The article was cut down to bare minimum without any fluff by page reviewers after lengthy discussions. You are saying he made a mistake. I can't remember who that reviewer is. Hogan has 2 significant roles based on his lines in the movies Starship Troopers 3: Marauder and Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith that any of us can see with our own eyes, if we are willing to do so. I bet you still haven't seen any of them. And 3 other significant roles in theaters that I guess none of us could witness but have to rely on media reports. The Dublin article popped up because there have been keen interests in the importance of the movie Sardar Udham that ultimately failed India's internal nomination for the 94th Oscars. All of these movies are important subjects in human's history. There is no way that Dublin article was coordinated with me. Have you even seen that movie that is about the aftermath from Jallianwala Bagh massacre? People constantly talk about Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but you have afforded me with nothing but extreme level of skepticism, while those sock puppets User:Nyxaros2 kept vandalizing everywhere under your nose. I understand you are not admin, but I think it's time you refocus where the enforcement should truly lie and let readers have access to the knowledge which is why I joined Wikipedia and decided to give back. I have never deleted any article, because knowledge is power. I just don't appreciate how a simple article of his can bring down the entire quality of Wikipedia? I am not saying he is as notable as Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Pierce Brosnan, but come on, after such a lengthy filmography. I respectfully just disagree with your observation. And I apologize in advance if you find me disrespectful. I am sorry. Supermann ( talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I see your comments on AfD and here too. Please read WP:CIV, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Here on Wikipedia, we do not determine notability by watching a film, but we look into reliable sources. Sockpuppetry has nothing to do with notability as well as AfD outcome. I suggest to maintain civility and assume good faith while commenting on a specific topic. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Also, notability is demonstrated by reliable sources (independent of the subject). Presenting opinions and personal views do not override notability guidelines. TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 16:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

But you are overriding them with your own read on the guidelines which is not the way I read it: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Maybe I have reading comprehension issues, since English is not my first language, yet I am still contributing. And one of the five pillars also says, "Wikipedia has no firm rules." How do we reconcile with that? Thanks. Supermann ( talk) 16:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

You may keep presenting your opinions. This subject fails WP:NACTOR and may take some time to meet our notability guidelines. The present sources are insufficient to fulfill notability criteria. Also, Dublin article seems insufficient for satisfying verifiability as well as notability. Regards TheBirdsShedTears ( talk) 18:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Supermann posted this message to the WP:NPEOPLE talk page. I believe this is a violation of WP:CANVASS as it's clearly trying to push a POV (that we're massively misinterpreting the notability requirements here, a common theme regarding their behaviour towards the article) CiphriusKane ( talk) 04:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  The canvassing article says, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." (personal attacks removed.) Even nominating Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith for deletion too? History will remember this. Thanks. Supermann ( talk) 13:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC) reply