WP:KI ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Absent any indication that this would be better off as a shortcut to a different target, it's harmless and there's no pressing need to delete it. If there is a more suitable target, anyone can retarget it there.--Did Q28 make a mess today? 08:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation as a soft delete due to lack of consensus--no one but the nominator opined. Jclemens ( talk) 18:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as no error by closer, as a Soft Delete allowing some reuse. Redirects are different from articles anyway, but we knew that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Treat as soft delete and allow recreation if anyone is bothered. Stifle ( talk) 09:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• As the closer of the deletion discussion, treating it as a soft deletion and allowing recreation seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The Power of Velayat ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article was deleted due to WP:G5 (The subject is notable and important). I want to recreate the article and develop it. Pahlevun ( talk) 23:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Question - Is any action required by DRV? A G5 speedy deletion is about the editor (or sockpuppet) who created the article, not the topic of the article. Should the filer simply be told to create the article, subject to normal editing and the risk of AFD? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Undelete as an uncontroversial request by a non-sockpuppet. For future reference, I believe this can be done at WP:REFUND. (This shouldn't require a full seven-day discussion: a passing administrator should simply restore the article and close this DRV.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Given Cryptic's comment below, undeletion would be a bad idea. Feel free to recreate the article (you don't need our permission for that), but starting from scratch would be more productive. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• The creator's SPI says they're a serial copyright infringer, so this shouldn't be restored without close inspection and a great deal of caution. Certainly not uncontroversial. — Cryptic 05:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• I think starting it again in draft space is always allowed (except few cases). But yes, it is appreciated that you are reaching out before creating a draft. Once a draft is ready, you can come at this venue and then folks can take a call if it is ready for main space or not. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Feel free to start over again. Draft creation is optional. Jclemens ( talk) 17:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Provide the list of references from the deleted article (a reference list has no creative value requiring attribution), and let them start again. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Sanchez, Raf (9 March 2016). "Iran test fires missiles branded with words 'Israel must be wiped out'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 10 March 2016. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  • Chiacu, Doina (9 March 2016). "Iran fires ballistic missiles, U.S. hints at diplomatic response". Reuters. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  • "Iran fires ballistic missiles in new test: state media". AFP. 9 March 2016. Archived from the original on 9 March 2016. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  • "Iran test-fires more missiles, claims they are designed to reach Israel". ABC News. 9 March 2016. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  • "Iran reportedly test-fires 2 long-range missiles while Biden visits Israel". Fox News. 9 March 2016. Retrieved 16 March 2016.
  • Sharafedin, Bozorgmehr (9 March 2016). "Despite Threat Of Sanctions, Iran Tests Missiles Marked With The Phrase 'Israel Must Be Wiped Out'". Huffington Post. Retrieved 16 March 2016.
  • "Iran successfully test-fires Ghadr missiles". Mehr News Agency. 9 March 2016. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  • Cassella, Megan (8 March 2016). "Iran missile tests did not violate Iran nuclear deal: White House". Reuters. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  • Video of Eghtedar-e Velayat war game (as an external link, not a ref)
  • Video of firing Ghadr-F and Ghadr-H (as an external link, in addition to its use as a ref) — Cryptic 10:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

    Thanks. I think that's all that should be done here. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation by a non-sock of the user in question. Provided no copyright violations, the sources seem good to recreate the article in good faith by another user. -- MuZemike 00:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation per MuZemike. Jclemens ( talk) 06:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Shri Ramswaroop Memorial College of Engineering and Management, Lucknow ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per point 2 colleges and universities are de facto notable. Fz ^t c _s 15:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The appellant is citing an outcomes essay, and they are not notability guidelines, but only predictions of what normally happens at AFD. The closer correctly assessed consensus, which is that reliable sources are not available. The appellant should be allowed to resubmit a draft with better sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Robert: an essay about what usually happens (which even on its own terms only says that "most" universities are notable) does not permit us to overturn a consensus about what should happen in this particular case. More broadly, I'm not sure WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is altogether accurate anymore: I've seen quite a few AfDs of universities result in deletion recently. (Whether or not that is a good thing is, of course, beyond our remit.) But regardless, the consensus here was to delete; you're welcome to draw up a draft if you can identify reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:OUTCOMES is an essay with no official standing, deletion discussions certainly aren't bound by it, and it doesn't state that all universities are notable anyway. There was no other way that discussion could have been closed and the article didn't even cite any independent RS, as required by WP:V. If someone wants to write a better article about it then are welcome to try, and if they want the (very short) deleted version to start from then I'm sure we can restore it to draftspace. Hut 8.5 18:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Per the other people. There's zero wrong with this close. WP:OUTCOMES is an essay and has no official standing. I'm pretty sure I said as much in the AfD. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 02:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is tricky and can be confusing. But essentially, any school or college needs to have reliable secondary sources no matter they award a degree or not. It is usually confused with WP:UNIN which is more of an advise and not a guideline. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 14:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Robert McClenon. Resubmit draft, better sources. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse decision on this AFD since there were WP:V problems. However, tertiary educational institutions do indeed usually merit articles, so I am open to seeing an article on this university, provided that reliable sources are provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Speedy Deletion ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This was formerly a WP:XNR to Wikipedia:Deletion policy and probably Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and I'd wandered if the likes of Articles for deletion should redirect to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia where it is discussed. However recently an even more suitable article at Deletion of articles on Wikipedia has been created and Articles for deletion was re created as a redirect there per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 9. I therefore propose we do the same for Speedy deletion as well as perhaps Proposed deletion. Note that the RFD was "Speedy Deletion" (capital D) but lower case Speedy deletion should exist with the appropriate tags and categories etc. I'm aware of the arguments for and against keeping XNRs such as WP:PANDORA but if we have an article discussing the project page redirecting to it seems appropriate. I'd also note that if you search for Speedy Deletion currently you get results such as articles that are currently nominated for speedy deletion which isn't that useful and therefore has some of the issues with CNRs anyway though the Deletion of articles on Wikipedia does show up 1st. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt - I feel like it's reasonably uncontentious to allow unsalting to redirect it to an actual article. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt. As long as Deletion of articles on Wikipedia remains unchallenged in mainspace, redirects to it of this sort should be allowed to exist. The original reason for deleting, WP:XNR and WP:R#DELETE bullet #6, does not apply here, but to be clear, XNRs from mainspace are still unacceptable and the history should remain deleted. Spinning Spark 12:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• I'd also note that Speedy delete exists and Speedy Delete was kept at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 9#Speedy Delete though these redirects should have been included in the 2016 RFD for "Speedy deletion" which would have resulted in deletion. These should probably be retargeted to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia and if that article is deleted we should probably change them to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 12:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  There is also Criteria for Speedy Deletion that exists but Criteria for speedy deletion is salted. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Clearly, the first one has just not been noticed before and should be deleted, but left available for recreation as a mainspace redirect. The second one should be unsalted. Spinning Spark 17:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Salting. The application of protection was excessive, both in level and duration. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk)04:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• (involved — contr. to the Deletion article) Overturn salting per all above. Deletion of articles on Wikipedia changes things significantly. All such terms (including Criteria for speedy deletion) should target this article. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Akhil Bharatiya Poorva Sainik Seva Parishad ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This is an army council and there is no promotion of any kind, it rejects the confirmation of CSD A11 This page is as per the standards of CSD A7 It should not be deleted It is attached with all reliable sources article which also includes books In which there is information related to the article, please check and send it again to mainspace. Wiki97828 ( talk) 04:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• The article apparently claimed that the organization was part of the Sangh Parivar, which is at least arguably a credible claim of significance. A temp-undelete might be useful here, particularly if there really are reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Dear Extraordinary Writ ... Reliable sources are associated with the article, you must see it once and maybe send it back to mainspace otherwise transfer it to draftspace I would like to work on it Wiki97828 ( talk) 10:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Whether or not the deleted page was meeting A7/A11 or not, I'm quite sure this organization is another run-of-the-mill right-wing group claiming affiliation with the RSS and Co. Fails WP:NORG. Java Hurricane 08:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Java, Extraordinary Writ I will work on it and send it again to mainspace / draftspace... thanks

• Per my comment above, I think this was nominally a bad A7. Since Wiki97828 has said he's happy with draftification, I think that's the best outcome: as others have said, the article in its present form is unlikely to get very far. So, restore to draftspace. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 02:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• The article cited a bunch of sources and therefore isn't a great A7. However I think it would be better restored to draftspace rather than mainspace. The first sentence described the subject as "all India Ex-Military Servicemen Council". This was sourced to [1], which doesn't support this. The next sentence is also sourced to two articles which don't support the statement either. The rest of the article is sourced to a bunch of Google Books links and I'm not sure they support what they're being cited for either. If you include citations in an article then those citations do need to support the statements cited. Hut 8.5 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Hut 8.5 I am in support of this point, please send it to the draftspace.. thanks

• Overturn and allow listing at AfD. Any reasonable objection to an A11 should be speedily overturned. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Nobody ever said anything about it being an A11 except the article's author. — Cryptic 05:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

    True.

    Any reasonable objection to an A11 or A7 should be speedily overturned in favour of a discussion. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - none of the sources I can read are at all beyond trivial mentions. In that sense it looks like an okay A7. But some aren't online? Is there an actual source in the books? Or are they trivial/tangential mentions? Wily D 01:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy, send to AfD if desired per SmokeyJoe. This should be a DRV common outcome. Jclemens ( talk) 01:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• I'm on the edge here. The organization is yet another, run-of-the-mill "social service" group with no special notability, or indeed any real significance, and a quick search of Google News turned up little significant coverage about the organization, in both English and Hindi. In my experience, organizations here claim affiliation with the RSS all the time for a feeling of legitimacy, and unless sources actually call the organization as a member of the Sangh Parivar, I'd be unwilling to call this claim a credible claim of significance; and the three sources I saw do not say that, or anything at all about the organization in question. I have not yet seen the offline sources, so I will not say if the A7 was good, and I will run a more extensive search on Google Books and JSTOR to see if some sources do turn up. I'm not seeing any point in draftifying: if something comes up, I'll add it to the article, and if nothing comes up, the organization would be failing WP:NORG. For now, I feel that sending the article to AfD should be the right course as there are objections to an A7 above. I'll get back soon on this. Java Hurricane 02:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  Okay, I'm not going to get time to do a thorough search anytime soon. Best to send to AfD then. Java Hurricane 09:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Midnight Traveler ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

WP:G12 applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. <blockquote>...</blockquote> preceded by an attribution to the original writer and a citation to the quote source clearly constitutes a credible assertion of fair use. And even if there was copyright violation, I'd have a serious hard time understanding why the rest of the article (i.e. everything in this version except the "Production" section), which had 867 words of prose and 17 sources, must be deemed not worth saving. Nardog ( talk) 14:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G12 as after running Earwig's tool on it, everything seems to be cited appropriately to the refs in the current version. Not sure what happened here, but it looks like a deleting admin mistake, combined with a hesitancy to say "oops", and a nominator who's pretty hot about it. Anthony Bradbury, feel free to explain here, in a way that you don't appear to have done yet at your talk page, if there's something else copyvio-ish that we can't see as non-admins. Jclemens ( talk) 19:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think non-admins can weigh in on this. They would have to go by me and admins' descriptions of the deleted version, which would not be neutral. Nardog ( talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • We do it all the time, although having the deleted revision restored for evaluation would be a helpful thing, it's often not done in cases of copyvio, so if another admin looked at the deleted rev, came to the conclusion that there was, in fact, no copyvio, he or she could restore it. Jclemens ( talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • This appeared to me to be a fairly straightforward G12 deletion. It is not, I feel, important enough to spend more than the already time it has taken up. I therefore will restore forthwith the original version; if I was wrong, which is entirely possible - I am only human - then so be it. If it looks to another admin that G12 applies then, again so be it. ---- Anthony Bradbury ^"talk" 22:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you for this. Looking at the deleted rev myself, I agree that those are some pretty long quotes that maybe should never have been used in the first place. Furthermore, the citation should probably have been at the end of the block quote, for visual connection with the citation, but I note that that's not even recommended by MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. I agree that the large quotes should have been paraphrased, but I don't know that G12 was the best tool to resolve the overlong quotations. Jclemens ( talk) 01:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close? Seems to be resolved; page has been restored; and G12 does not seem to currently apply (although the wisdom of giving long quotes is questionable, if it can be avoided/paraphrased instead, but it is not a copyvio in its current state). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • See Special:PermaLink/1050870898, which the deleting admin just restored. We don't leave copyvio in history for obvious reasons so I don't see how "not a copyvio in its current state" is a reason for speedy close. Nardog ( talk) 01:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That can be dealt with using revdel (a regular admin action) and does not require DRV. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I'm good with a revdel (oversight is unnecessary) of the versions with the full long quotes. Jclemens ( talk) 01:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I don't follow. He restored it for evaluation for this very DRV. The question isn't whether the revisions should be kept, but whether G12 applied (past tense) to them. Nardog ( talk) 01:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Right, and my conclusion is that those were some LONG blockquotes, so whether or not the G12 was necessary or the best approach, they did have to go as excessive use of copyrighted material. Once everyone is done reviewing them here, they should be REVDEL'ed again, because we won't need them any longer. If you're looking for vindication that the G12 was wrong... well, I'm still of the opinion that it was unwarranted, but it's not as clear-cut a case as I was thinking it was likely to have been based on the article in its current state. Jclemens ( talk) 04:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Now that I look at it, I agree it's long. I was tired after spending hours on the article (it's the research, not the writing, that's arduous) and I got lazy. But I wouldn't call it " unambiguous copyright infringement", let alone "there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving". One could have (and should have, IMO) blanked the section and revdeled it.
            As I said the deleting admin's talk, my concern isn't that he deleted it, but that he maintains it was "within policy", which indicates he would do it again if he encountered an article with the same amount of sourced content but with the same proportion of quotation. If the creator was a newcomer, they wouldn't know to argue for revdel and it would crush their motivation to keep contributing. That would be a net loss for the project. Nardog ( talk) 05:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
            • You can spend a lot of time and energy trying to get someone to apologize when they're not inclined to. I think he's made his position clear. Jclemens ( talk) 06:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment For the record, I think this is ready for close and there's nothing more for DRV to do here, except maybe for an admin to re-REVDEL the revisions with the long blockquotes that we're agreed should be paraphrased. Jclemens ( talk) 17:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Draft:2021 Erste Bank Open ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am taking this draftification to DRV for 3 reasons. Firstly, the AFD should have been closed as either Keep or No consensus, I presented reliable sources covering the event at the AFD, which were not seriously challenged by later Draftify !voters; Closing as Draftify looks more like counting !votes than assessing consensus to me. Secondly, the basis for draftification ( WP:TOOSOON) no longer applies as the qualifying portion has already started and the main event starts tomorrow [2]. Finally, an attempt to improve the draft and move it back to mainspace has already been moved back to draftspace on the basis that this AFD is still controlling; I don't want to start a move war over this. Iffy★ Chat -- 09:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep Nominated on grounds of WP:TOOSOON and lack of sourcing. Sources were found and not contested, and TOOSOON was also contested. All three keep voters provided reasoning while one of the three delete/draftify votes was simply "per nom", while another simply repeated "TOOSOON" and added WP:CRYSTAL, but offered no explanation as to why these guidelines apply. Given "keep" has the most votes, and the poor quality of the deletion and draftify arguments, I think this was a bad close and should be overturned to keep. NemesisAT ( talk) 17:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Allow mainspacing and note that there is no minimum time frame between draftifying and restoration. In fact, there are plenty of events nominated as TOOSOON where a simple nose-count on the basis of the article as it existed at the time of nomination might yield a deletion or draftify, but in the interim 7 to 21 days, RS may have been published, and, highlighted in the AfD or not, not affected the outcome. The bar for mainspacing isn't improvement vs. the time of draftify/deletion, but vs. time of nomination unless there's very clear circumstances showing that post-AfD-nomination sources were thoroughly considered in the discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 19:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the draftification, and allow submission for review at any time. That's how draft space works with too soon stuff. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep The arguments for deletion/draftifying were all essentially WP:VAGUEWAVE; or one assertion that there was "no significant coverage" (despite sources having been presented in the AfD itself). I do not see how this could have been closed as "delete" or even "no consensus" with such weak arguments. A reasonable closer, usually, disregards arguments which have little basis in policy, or merely point at one without explaining why (I'll note, as an example of why merely pointing at TOOSOON is not convincing, that a possible counter-argument would have been "this is in only one week's time, and there is already coverage about it"). A reasonable close, one which would be a "reasonable summation of the discussion" (as opposed to a mere headcount), would have found consensus to keep here. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No evidence was presented at the time of the AFD to counter the nom's assertion that no sourcing existed, so at that time the consensus was that it was clearly too soon. Presumably now, with the tournament about to start, that's all a bit moot, as coverage will no doubt appear and the article will be restored. But the AFD and the close were sound. I suggest we move on as this has a slightly pointless feel to it.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 00:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Amakuru: You've obviously missed Keep has received significant coverage in e.g. Die Presse [1], Kleine Zeitung [2], Tiroler Tageszeitung [3]. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP.... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Doh, and I actually even noticed I'd made that mistake shortly after posting and penned a retraction, but forgot to save it. I think consider me an overturn to keep, given that the initial premise of the AFD was faulty, even when it was filed. And doubly so now given that the tournament is about to get underway. Cheers  —  Amakuru ( talk) 07:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - I don't see a delete consensus in the discussion. And some of the delete justifications revolve about WP:CRYSTAL - even if that was a valid reason a month ago, the tournament starts today. The nominator noted there was no significant coverage - a month ago; this is no longer true today. Nfitz ( talk) 00:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Keep. The Delete comments didn't address specifics, except for "no references except for the official website", which was refuted by providing other sources. The WP:CRYSTAL argument is very dubious, the article isn't making any sort of prediction. Hut 8.5 07:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy allow mainspacing, regardless of any issues in the AfD, the concerns expressed there clearly do not apply anymore and any new concerns should be litigated in a new AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 02:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Article has already been restored to mainspace. Might be best to just close this discussion at this point to avoid wasting any more of people's time. Smartyllama ( talk) 18:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn on points 1 & 2. Point 3 is interesting, I think the AfD closer should have been invited to a discussion on re-mainspacing, but it is hard to examine this question given point 1. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Tower and Sword ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The discussion does not seem to show any obvious consensus to delete this (and other such categories). The Military Order of the Tower and Sword, the recipients of which were the subject of this category, was and still is the most senior award in the Portuguese honours system and the highest award conferred to by the Portuguese government, something like the Order of the Garter in the UK (although membership is extremely limited in that one), the Legion of Honour in France, or, to some extent, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the US (which all have the appropriate categories — to wit: Category:Order of the Garter, Category:Recipients of the Legion of Honour, Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients — and that no one seems to find ripe for deletion).

The closer cited WP:OCAWARD to affirm that the award was not a defining characteristic for the majority of its notable recipients; reading through the discussion, this view seems to have stemmed from most users voicing that this was an award solely exchanged among nobility, heads of state, consorts, sovereign family members, and so forth — that assumption is, as I explained above, wrong and so using that rationale does not seem to follow. RickMorais ( talk) 16:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• It's awarded considerably less prolifically than the Legion d'honneur, even taking into account Portugal's lower population. To the extent that the subject discussion was about this one category, there might be scope to reopen it. Unbundle and relist this one category.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• question. We’re the categories listified before deletion. I disagree that there was a consensus to delete without listifying. “Listify and delete” appears a reasonable rough consensus, but not straight delete. Listify to a talk page can be sufficient.

I note again, that CfD closes look heavy handed, and it is that way because the practice at CfD is that “no consensus means delete”, but that is not written, so “no consensus” is routinely stretched to “delete” to achieve the same end. In this, CfD is different to all other XfD. See my post at WT:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Consensus to create categories. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Mass AfDs often group things that shouldn't be grouped. I'll support unbundling and relisting this one. Hobit ( talk) 01:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

George L. Knox II ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This highly contentious discussion required a more thorough justification in the closure. A simple Keep without any explanation was both an incorrect result and a woefully inadequate explanation of the reasoning for closure. In contrast two other similar pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter I. Lawson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller were each closed as No Consensus. Mztourist ( talk) 13:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I closed the discussion as keep and it did not strike me as particularly contentious. The improvements that took place during the course of the debate led to a wave of editors favoring keep, and I took that into consideration. Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• There was no consensus that those were actually "improvements", there was substantial arguing that the problems remained, but you ignored it and counted votes instead. Avilich ( talk) 14:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Mackensen I don't see how you can possibly form the view that the AFD was not "particularly contentious". I disagree that there were any substantive improvements to the page and agree with Avilich's comments on the low to non-existent quality of source analysis of the later Keep !votes. Mztourist ( talk) 15:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus Giving no rationale at all for closing such a contentious discussion was completely inappropriate, what was done was essentially a head count ( WP:NOTAVOTE) simply because keeps were in the majority. The discussion on the sources, which is all that matters, was one-sided: one party argued extensively that the existing sources, including those in the careless cite-bomb at the end, were inadequate, and this went mostly unrebutted. Most of the keeps were 'per above comments', 'sourcing has improved significantly' (without even looking at the actual sources and completely ignoring the arguments against that), and inherited notability. It must be also noted that many keepers in this and the other linked discussions above were canvassed at Article Rescue Squadron. Avilich ( talk) 14:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  I presume you're referring to [ this] discussion and if that's the case "many keepers... were canvassed" is unlikely to be true. The only participant in that discussion who voted "keep" in the AfD was Lightburst, who started the discussion. I for one was not aware of that discussion when I voted, so I wasn't "canvassed". NemesisAT ( talk) 15:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• This and other linked discussions; your vote was inadequate for other reasons. Avilich ( talk) 15:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Which discussions? Your claim that the keep votes were canvassed lacks evidence. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• 1, 2, 3... Avilich ( talk) 15:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• ARS, Users don't need to have participated in the discussion at ARS to join the Keep !vote pile-on, ARS just informs them of it. Mztourist ( talk) 15:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  That discussion was posted on 23 September, and looking through the AfD history I'm just not seeing any burst in keep votes around that date. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• 7%6thirteen originally put the Mac Ross AfD in the ARS presumably for canvassing keep votes, and the article was kept because of the subsequent flurry of keep votes. Once Lightburst saw that worked, he did the same thing with other articles as well ( here and here) so the usual ARS inclusionists could then pound on Mztourist's other nominations, which includes this one. The one which he forgot to add, McClure, was closed as delete. Avilich ( talk) 15:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  We're discussing this AfD here, not any others, and I stand by my comment that there is no sign of the keep votes being the result of canvassing. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• This AfD is one of several affected. Many of the keep voters here are the same as in the other nominations, and they only appeared in each of these nominations, including this one, because they have a convenient canvassing hub for being notified. Avilich ( talk) 16:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

This same batch of nominations also included Walter I. Lawson and Stanley C. Norton, both of which were either kept or failed to reach consensus (in discussions nearly identical to the one for Knox), and neither of them are listed at this page you're linking. If the mere fact of articles being kept is proof of a conspiracy among "the usual ARS inclusionists", how come it happens in deletion discussions they're not talking about? jp× g 00:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment More ARS canvassing taking place. Avilich ( talk) 16:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the only other possibility was a no-consensus which would result in a keep. Lightburst ( talk) 21:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• A possibility you yourself admit, then. That's all that's necessary to cast doubt into the legitimacy of the close. Avilich ( talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, DRV is not for arguing technicalities. The complaint here is that the closer did not make a detailed explanation. If the OP wanted to know more, they should have queried the closer directly rather than coming here, as explained at WP:DRVPURPOSE. The closer has now explained their rationale, which seems quite reasonable and so we're done. Andrew🐉( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • No Andrew, the complaint was that the result was incorrect and lacked any explanation. Mztourist ( talk) 06:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• I think this would have benefitted from a more complete closing statement. I feel that's a few too many "delete" !votes to dismiss without comment. I'd like to see a chain of reasoning that I can follow.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Well, as I've said, I just didn't see it as all that contentious, assertions to the contrary. The nomination primarily raised issues with sourcing, issues that were specifically addressed during the course of the discussion, and latecomers to the discussion responded to those changes. I think it's appropriate to take that into account when a debate is open for an entire month. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • You didn't explain taking anything into account as your close lacked any explanation. Given the extensive discussion of sourcing and the additional sourcing it was clear that there was still no consensus on notability. Mztourist ( talk) 06:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the only reasonable outcome--there were no new delete opinions added after the relist, which specifically asked for further commentary on the improvements. The trajectory of the !votes is sufficiently clear that a closing statement, while it would have been a good idea just to keep the drama to a minimum, doesn't significantly impair the validity of the closing. Jclemens ( talk) 00:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Actually there was a weak delete added after the realist; one which offered the option of merging any RS information to list of Tuskegee Airmen. Intothat darkness 16:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  So there was; I stand corrected. That obviously weakens my trajectory argument, but I don't believe enough for me to revise it. Jclemens ( talk) 21:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Inadequate closing statement, but not wrong. It was either “keep” or “no consensus”, definitely not “delete”. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Inadequate closing statement, endorse outcome we don't need a book, but "keep per WP:HEY" or something like that would have been better. Both keep and NC were within discretion IMO. Delete was not. Hobit ( talk) 02:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Nominator for the AFD didn't get the result they wanted. You can't just take something to deletion review and complain about the results. Accusations of canvassing is ridiculous. Most things that are listed on the ARS page do not generate many people going there to comment, sometimes none at all. Dream Focus 02:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As noted above, ARS is used to notify a group of Users to !vote on certain AFDs, that is canvassing because they don't bother trying to improve the page. Mztourist ( talk) 06:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That isn't true. Anyone can look at the history of the article from the time you nominated it for deletion Lightburst and JPxG both did a lot of work on improving it. [3] This is common in most cases. Kindly stop spreading lies about the ARS. I always search for more coverage and add anything new I find into articles if I find anything worth adding. Dream Focus 08:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Lightburst created the ARS entry, I don't know what led JPxG to the page/AFD and none of the other Keep !votes (including you) made any improvements to the page. I can't say for certain they joined the AFD because of the ARS entry just as you can't say they didn't. I stand by my comments about ARS. Mztourist ( talk) 13:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I am not affiliated with ARS; I use my custom AfD dashboard to find open discussions. I stand by my comments about this argument being unreasonably silly and hostile. jp× g 03:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Look, whatever about the original intent of ARS, it is absolutely undeniable that it operates as a way of soliciting Keep !votes at AFDs but does very little if any work on the articles. I still remember the squealing when they got their privileged banner deleted (and then ignored the consensus to delete it, necessitating a second TFD). Stifle ( talk) 09:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment- "It's not canvassing if we do it" should be translated into Latin, inscribed on a bronze plaque and installed as the ARS's official motto. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know, I think 2016 want's its motto back: "It's not a personal attack if it is referring to ARS" :-) But seriously, if you have a complaint, best to bring it to one of the drama boards or, given the long-standing nature of the complaint, to ARBCOM. But I seriously didn't know ARS was still an ongoing thing. Hobit ( talk) 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Or rather than going to the drama boards, we could bring balance by reviving the Article deletion squad?— S Marshall  T/ C 16:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus There was actually very little addressing of sources, and as was noted in the original discussion many of the claimed improvements were simply ref bombs that added nothing new to the article. Keep voters also tended to avoid questions of notability and other issues. For something like that, a far more detailed analysis should be required rather than what was presented by the closer. And while a no consensus close is in essence a keep, it acknowledges there were still issues with the article instead of presenting what to me is a false picture of an article that is both properly-sourced using RS and is notable. Intothat darkness 17:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but I would have liked a more substantive closing statement. There's no requirement to do so, but its generally considered good practice to explain why you closed a discussion a particular way. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 02:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus -- by view is similar to that of Intothatdarkness. There is clearly no consensus about how to handle the articles on the individual Airmen. I don't know myself which way I would !vote--I could justify eithe keeping or deletion. Though WP does not follow precedent, it should aim at some degree of consistency. A more general discussion is needed. (I don't think it matters who voted for what--the problem before us is what to do with the article.) DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and new close. Any discussion this contentious needs a thoughtful closing statement. —valereee ( talk) 18:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the delete's all predate the WP:HEY, other than one weak delete, which pushed for merge. The delete arguments ignore that the article is well referenced with significant sources. Keep is quite a reasonable outcome, looking at the discussion. Perhaps a sentence saying why wouldn't have heard. No prejudice against the closer now adding a sentence or so - but really, do we need a DRV for that? This was never going to be closed as delete - so why didn't User:Mztourist simply ask the closer to explain his thinking (apologies if they did, but I couldn't find any sign of that). Nfitz ( talk) 00:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Which planet are you on? Most of the delete arguments addressed those "improvements", and argued that they're not improvements at all. The keeps all said 'meets HEY', 'article has improved significantly', or just dropped notebombs without responding to those objections (not one keep did this). And besides, you're supposed to comment on the discussion and the close, not the article and it's sources. Avilich ( talk) 01:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Meh. I'd personally have closed as no consensus, but that has the same functional effect as keep.
  I take an extremely dim view of the canvassing by ARS. Stifle ( talk) 09:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment It looks to me that considerable editing took place on the article from about 23 September. The edits were by people !voting keep and delete at AFD and they were all claiming to be improving the article. After 23 September there was a single delete and a single weak delete but all the other comments were keep or were further comments from people who had already !voted (and had not changed their minds). I don't see how any rational conclusion could have been reached with such a rapidly moving target, so much so that maybe the whole discussion could merely have been closed. Before giving a bold vote here I'll wait to see if anyone faults my analysis. Thincat ( talk) 18:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse; although I will say I was surprised to see it closed "keep" with no further commentary, since it had run for a full month (and gotten, at times, quite nasty). I don't think there is any prima facie evidence of a bad close; a bunch of people wanted to keep and a bunch of people wanted to delete. It isn't particularly scandalous, in my opinion, that the delete !voters think that the keep !voters were wrong. In what world would they not? The fact that somebody disagrees with a decision is not evidence of misfeasance. And I don't get the aspersions about ARS here: the implication that everyone who !voted to keep was "canvassed" is, to me, silly and unwarranted. I don't know about other participants, but I am certainly not a member of ARS, and I don't check their page for anything (I mainly find active deletion discussions using my own custom-built dashboard). jp× g 00:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per the AfD and this discussion. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• (I commented above) Endorse keeping, though for a long time I thought no consensus would also have been within discretion. It has been claimed at the AFD and here that keep arguments were refuted or rebutted but that is not what I see at all. Instead, a contrary opinion (that the sources and personal importance of the subject are inadequate) was lengthily and vocally repeated, seemingly intolerant of any different opinion. The early delete opinions (some of which seem to be based on "inherent non-notability") were not treated in this manner. So, if I had closed the AFD I would have closed as ‘’keep’’ explaining I was not giving any extra weight to opinions stridently asserted to be correct. If I had !voted in the AFD I would have remarked on the subjective nature of WP:ANYBIO where it says “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability”. Thincat ( talk) 07:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Those who invoked ANYBIO as a rationale to keep did not do so with significant coverage in mind, but instead with inherited notability based on a group award and with 'fighting for your country' or 'breaking barriers' qualifying as 'widely recognized' contributions (ANYBIO#2). Avilich ( talk) 21:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Uninvolved unlike many of the comments I'm seeing here. At a minimum, overturn with the no consensus option, but as I read through the AfD, the deletes really do seem to carry more weight. That is muddled by the ARS canvassing and sniping that pretty clearly disrupted the process here.

I'll agree with others here that the keep votes were very weak often engaging in superficial refbombs or not truly tackling notability. The burden is on the keeps. It does come across, even after reading the closer's comments here, that the close violated WP:NOTAVOTE. Also, having a "wave" or momentum at the end of the discussion is not grounds to give that idea more weight when summarizing a discussion. Unfortunately, that line of thinking comes up occasionally in closes as fallacious reasoning. Definitely too much going on here to endorse the close at least. KoA ( talk) 18:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This discussion had six delete !votes and seventeen keep !votes, including the last sixteen !votes in a row. There is room for closers to apply WP:NOTVOTE within reason, but to apply such an extreme against-the-numbers close here, there would have to be evidence of vote-stacking or an extraordinarily strong disparity in the quality of the arguments. Neither of those apply here—several of the keep !voters provided detailed, policy and guideline–based rationales for their position and every single !voter after them agreed. To say that the consensus of the community here is to delete is plainly incorrect. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 17:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn as nominator. This is a clear supervote, and the closer's dismissive attitude at their talk page gives me serious concern. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 17:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)^{Refactored on reflection ( diff). Although the close was deeply misguided and did not respect consensus, the closer was attempting to do the right thing and I don't think this reflects on their overall competency. 19:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)} reply

  Courtesy pinging those who !voted at the AfD (regardless of !vote) but haven't yet commented here: @ OCNative, Clarityfiend, Uhooep, Coolcaesar, Johnbod, Gidonb, and Wikiman5676: feel free to add your thoughts. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 01:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per SDKB. NW1223( ^{Howl at me}/ _{My hunts}) 17:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as there was obviously no consensus to delete. The close's reasoning was illogical as it first said that "we don't go by headcounts" and then, after discarding most of the !votes, it used a headcount. You can't have it both ways. If you're going by strength of argument then you consider only the arguments. If you're going by headcount, then you do just that. So, far as the argument goes, the close conceded in conclusion that the topic was viable; they just didn't like that version. But, as the article has a huge history of over 1500 versions over 15 years, it is not sensible to delete that long history which may well have contained better versions. Andrew🐉( talk) 17:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Contrary to the nominator's assertion, WP:NOTVOTE is not something closers can choose to apply at their discretion, it's a fundamental part of how every single close is supposed to be made. Per our WP:CONSENSUS policy, Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. In principle, it doesn't matter if it's one person versus a hundred if that one person makes an argument in line with policy and the one hundred don't. Rather, I say kudos to the closer for recognizing that comments in favour of keeping that do not address the argument for deletion do not carry weight. Far too often (including in the AfD in question) have I seen editors arguing for keeping something because it's notable when the argument put forth for deleting it is something else, such as being an improper WP:CONTENTFORK or violating WP:NOT. To put it another way: if there is consensus against deleting a page for WP:DELREASON A and separately consensus for deleting that same page for WP:DELREASON B, consensus is in fact in favour of deletion.
  Regardless of whether this was a good outcome (my preferred outcome would probably have been to change the scope), it was a good close (though unpopular, clearly), and a good precedent—deletion discussions should be about the arguments, not the number of adherents, and that means that the specific issues that have been raised during the discussion should be properly addressed by those who favour a different outcome. Overturning it would set a really bad precedent to the contrary. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The administrator who deleted the pages did not seem to carefully read through our explanations and arguments, in addition to not respecting a clear consensus to keep. Our explanations clearly and repeatedly refuted the arguments proposed for deletion, but the administrator chose to side with the one or two editors on the deletion side who continued repeating their own flawed arguments and, in my view, abusing/misinterpreting Wikipedia policies. As I have explained repeatedly in the deletion page that there is no original research or synthesis, as every entry in the list is confirmed by at least one reliable source. Notions like "academic affiliations" is universally well-defined, not made up by us. Universities have their own freedom not to use this universal definition but adopt their subjective criteria when they claim their own Nobel laureates, which has nothing to do with us. We are perfectly neutral. Editors like Ber31 also repeatedly explained these points in the deletion page, but the administrator simply ignored our explanations. Hence, the consensus to "keep" is clear and the administrator's "deletion" decision must be overturned. Minimumbias ( talk) 18:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I would like to add a further comment: The administrator who deleted the pages only quoted the NOR policy and claimed that many editors who supported "Keep" did not directly respond to claim of NOR violation. This is plainly wrong. Editors like Ber31 and myself gave extensive explanations to prove we were not violating the policy. Several other editors like Gah4 and Tiredmeliorist also pointed out that there were no new conclusions reached, hence we did not violate NOR. Editors like Andrew and Mysterymanblue also responded to the NOR in their own ways, for example the latter said that "My response to the first concern is that every list and institution uses different criteria for what counts, so we should use the most expansive definition of affiliation out there." Other editors also stated that any argument they would use had been used by others. Thus, the fact is, we have many editors who supported "Keep" and who also responded to the NOR claim. The administrator either chose not to recognize this fact, or did not read the discussion carefully. Finally, the administrator did not ever explain how he/she still thought, after seeing our careful explanations and a majority vote of "keep", that we still violated NOR, as explained by Goldsztajn in the administrator's Talk Page [4]. Minimumbias ( talk) 19:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comment: As explained in the closure, I closed the AfD based only on the opinions that discussed the argument for deletion: that the article is supposedly OR. In my view, if an article is credibly alleged to fail a core policy such as WP:NOR, opinions that ignore this argument altogether are no better than mere votes, which we routinely disregard. If OR is the issue at hand, an argument such as "keep because it's notable" makes no more sense than "keep because the sky is blue". Even if there were local consensus in this AfD to disregard the OR issue because people like the article or think it's useful, that cannot be determinative. Local consensus cannot derogate a core policy. It can determine that the core policy is not violated, but to do so it needs to engage with the application of the core policy to the article at issue, and most "keep" opinions here did not. I stand by my closure. Sandstein 18:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  You are ignoring the fact that the primary keep argument, that the list meets WP:NLIST, was an implicit response to the OR argument for deletion. The main criterion of NLIST, has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, exists as a barrier against original research. Nearly every list on Wikipedia draws from multiple sources, in plenty of cases one for each entry; to call that SYNTH/OR would be an extreme interpretation of policy. You don't personally have to fully agree with that view, but in a consensus-driven project, the fact that sixteen editors in a row did should have carried weight. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 19:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  No. It is possible that a topic is notable because it has been covered by reliable sources (as this topic undoubtedly has been), but that the contents of our article about this topic are not supported by these sources and are therefore OR. That's why I wrote that the article can be restored if this can be done in a form that resolves the OR issues. Sandstein 21:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Alalch Emis laid out very well below the difference between OR issues that justify a tag and OR issues that justify deletion. You are acknowledging that the topic is notable and could merit an article, so that means your close was per WP:TNT. I very much disagree with you about whether the problems in the article were so bad as to merit TNT (content writing is the hardest task on Wikipedia), but more importantly, it's not your or my call to make. It was a question of editorial judgement for the AfD !voters, and your job as closer was to assess the consensus they reached. "Sixteen !voters in a row came down on side A of a question of editorial judgement, but I agree with side B" isn't an assessment of consensus; it's a quintessential supervote. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 04:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  ( edit conflict) Sandstein many admins, on seeing such a disconnect between the issues the participants were discussing and the basis on which they felt it was necessary to close the decision, have chosen to relist with a specific note to that effect. You didn't do so in this case. Why not? Jclemens ( talk) 21:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Relists are intended to address insufficient participation. That was not an issue here. Sandstein 22:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Sandstein So, in retrospect, might it not have been a slightly less drama-inducing option to actually relist with a comment to the effect of "OK, so consensus is that it's not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, but we still don't have the OR argument addressed well enough"? I don't know why I bother to phrase that as a question: of course it would have been, and should have been. Your approach, even if arguably within administrator discretion, was sub-optimal in looking at alternatives to deletion and gaining consensus from participants. A good administrator crafts a contentious close on a basis that everyone understands and endorses, even if they disagree with the outcome. This was a missed opportunity, regardless of how this DRV is closed. Please learn from it. Jclemens ( talk) 00:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) Endorse I've read the discussion and come to the same conclusion as Sandstein: almost all of the keep votes say that the list is notable without making any attempt to refute the original-research argument, and thus were properly discounted in determining whether there was consensus that the article is original research. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Closer is not applying WP:NOR properly in a deletion context when he bases a consensus to delete on what he reads as implicit consensus (failure to refute prima facie arguments) that there is OR in the article. To delete because of OR would mean that the subject / list topic as judged by it's title (and therefrom implicit reasonably formulated scope) is an original creation. Participants said that this cross-categorization is not an original creation, when they cited NLIST "because similar list exists in X (book, website, etc.)".
  Closer discounted such arguments saying that non-notability is not the reason for which deletion is requested, and that instead the nomination was formed around a WP:NOR argument. This could have been a good analysis in some other case but here it is not. If this is a notable list topic, how can it be OR already at the base level of the list topic? Notability of a list as argued here by keep advocates implies that someone else already created a list of this sort, so NLIST being (hypothetically) fulfilled for this list topic would neutralize the concern that it is an original creation. Further, it being fulfilled, but there still being an OR problem, would mean we are no longer looking for OR at the level of the list topic (which is relevant for deletion), but at the level of specific content issues in the article, however systematic and terrible they may be (which is generally not relevant for deletion).
  From this it looks like the delete NOR arguments and keep NLIST arguments were reasonably mutually responsive. So pro-NLIST comments should not have been discounted. When the comments that shouldn't have been discounted are not, it proceeds that there was no consensus to delete.
  I don't like the DRV nom's comments about the closer, they are over the top. /deprecated/ — Alalch Emis ( talk) 18:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Participants said that this cross-categorization is not an original creation, when they cited NLIST "because similar list exists in X (book, website, etc.)". I think the key word here is similar, which was a point brought up during the WP:AfD by XOR'easter: Establishing notability of a group requires references about that grouping, not a somewhat-related one. I'd argue that what we're looking at is an equivocation problem that has muddied the water considerably. I brought that up during the AfD: It's actually possible to construct a valid list with this title: a list of Nobel laureates by their university affiliation at the time they received the Nobel Prize. That list would not be novel, because sources do actually list Nobel laureates that particular way. But it would not be a different version of this list, it would be a fundamentally different list altogether. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • If it's possible to construct a valid list with the title, and there's at least a little bit of content in the article that isn't pure garbage, deletion, as in a real delete, which was done, is not the way forward. Return to draft could be good. Incongruence between the "formal subject" (as denoted by title) and "material subject" (what's really written in the article) is NOT solved by deletion, unless literally everything needs to be deleted as OR (or for whatever other reason) and the article practically wouldn't exist anymore — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I mean, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to turning it into a draft, but I don't think it would have been reasonable to have closed the discussion that way. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I don't think anyone argued for draftification, so closing the discussion as "draftify" would have been out of line. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Very well said. Regarding your last sentence, I refactored my !vote on reflection. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 19:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I don't think the close is a fair summary of the discussion. Two main arguments were advanced for deleting the list: that it contains original research, and that it is an unencyclopedic cross-categorisation. Most of the Keep comments focused on refuting the latter, and that argument has now been thoroughly shredded. However there is a large degree of judgement in deciding whether something should be deleted as original research, and indeed in deciding whether something is original research in the first place. Containing original research is not itself a valid reason to delete something, either the topic needs to be fundamentally OR or the article should be so bad that we should blow it up and start over. The first condition clearly doesn't apply here because there are third party sources which can be used to populate lists like this, so we're down to deciding how bad the article is, and that's very much a judgement call for the participants rather than the closer. Some of the Delete supporters appear to be arguing that the list is OR unless it's entirely referenced to a single source, which seems a rather extreme interpretation to me. Hut 8.5 19:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- I agree with Pppery and the closer. The whole conversation, besides the guff about cross-categorisation, was basically this: "the list is founded on original research". "keep- notable". "that's nice, nobody said anything about notability, it's OR from top to bottom". "But notable!!". If the entire article had been a copyvio or an abusive tirade against it subject, would any amount of "keep notable keep notable keep notable" win the day? Nope. Same basic principle here. Disclosure: I did not participate in the discussion except to lament once again that prefacing personal attacks with the word "keep" seems to exempt them from the WP:NPA policy. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The first reason given for deletion by the nominator was "trivial cross-categorisation". I questioned if the school they went to mattered, and the response was that the official biographies of these people always listed it, so I went ahead and voted it should be kept. This is not a "trivial cross-categorisation", as the nominator said, but a valid one. As for the second reason for the nomination, the original research seems that someone didn't update the list to the proper number of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, some of them outdated and thus incorrect. Easily fixed. No reason to delete the article based on that. Basic counting is not original research. Overwhelming people said it was a notable topic, a valid list article, and the article should be kept. Dream Focus 20:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • That wasn't the argument for calling the list OR. The problem wasn't that any information was outdated, but that judgments were being made using invented criteria for what counts as "affiliation" and what doesn't. That layer of judgment on top of the facts is fine for a research project, but not for here. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • There are plenty of lists on Wikipedia with subjective criteria; see Category:Dynamic lists. We don't delete the list of people from Manchester just because it's not precisely clear how long you need to have lived in Manchester to be from there. In these situations, we should try to define criteria more precisely and put that in an editnotice, but it is a weak argument for deletion, and it's certainly not so overwhelmingly strong that it justifies going against an overwhelming numerical majority and trend for keeping. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 21:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a participant; the closer correctly identified that many of the "keep" !votes did not engage with the rationales for deletion. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn This closure is highly inappropriate. I'd first like to point to what Wikipedia:Deletion Policy says on when original research merits article deletion: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes. It does not say that all articles that contain original research must be deleted. Certainly, the original research must be deleted, but the article may stay if it could "possibly be attributed to reliable sources." Thus, deleters who argued on the original research front had to show not only that the article contained original research, but that extent of original research was so great that the article could not have reasonably been fixed. I therefore believe that the closer incorrectly concluded that prima facie evidence that the article contained original research was a sufficient reason for deletion.

The closer also appears to have missed a number of arguments that directly addressed the original research claim. The closer said "For the most part, only two people attempted to refute the NOR arguments - Minimumbias and Ber31." However, I directly addressed these claims in my !vote, which the closer apparently did not see: I also will note that, while primary sources are used heavily in the article, this seems to be more out of convenience than anything else. There is surely a reliable secondary source for every Nobel prize ever issued. Since the secondary sources do exist, this article is more in need of a clean up than a deletion. I believe that, at the least, this indicates that the closer did not consider the entirety of the discussion.

The fact that notability arguments did not directly use the term "original research" is not enough for them to be discounted either. As a reminder, the relevant portion of the deletion policy says the following: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes. In other words, original research-based deletions are a subset of deletions based on a lack of reliable secondary sources, that is, deletions based on non-notability. By asserting that the subject of an article is notable, commenters asserted that the article could possibly be attributed to reliable sources, and thus that deletion was out of order.

Some have said that, even if a hundred people made arguments not based in policy and one made an argument in line with policy, the one-percent superminority would prevail. This is clearly contrary to the spirit of WP:IAR, which provides for flexible rules that can be bent to make the encyclopedia better. Even if deletion here was mandated by policy - which it isn't - such a strong consensus in favor of keeping this article to fulfill Wikipedia's mission of covering notable issues would overcome the voices in favor of deletion.  Mysteryman blue  20:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I think you may have missed or misunderstood a significant portion of the WP:OR arguments. A lot of them centered around the criteria for the list being WP:OR, as opposed to the individual entries. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, I did address that in my original comment at the discussion: because every list uses different criteria, we should use the broadest criteria and separate by type of affiliation. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of reliable secondary sources that provided a lists of Nobel laureates based on affiliation.  Mysteryman blue  21:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Closers are supposed to assess the strength of policy-based arguments, not merely count votes. That is exactly what the closer did in this case. It is a bolder move than I would have likely made, but I think that's an admirable thing. To overturn would be to move towards mob rule instead of policy-based consensus in deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• EndorseThe deletion arguments are that this is afoul of NOT (a lot of things can be non-encyclopedic, even if they happen to have sources) and NOR (not because the subject cannot be sourced [that would be fail of V], but because the way the subject is treated is essentially a novel construction, which cannot be found as is in sources, and which is in fact often in disregard with the sources because they don't match the OR construction of the list: something that is first published on Wikipedia is by definition WP:OR). No amount of "but it's notable" and "I like it" is going to change that, and no amount of relitigating is going to change that. None of the overturns or of the keeps address the core delete argument, or the OR construction of the list (when the list openly says stuff like "the University's website has number X, but here, because [OR reason], we have Y", there's not much room for ambiguity). Saying "overturn because vote count" is not only bad precedent, but is fundamentally at odds with every part of Wikipedia policy and longstanding practice. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  User:RandomCanadian: Your core argument was refuted by me in the AFD. Please carefully study: diff 1 diff 2. Ber31 ( talk) 10:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  You can think you've refuted something as much as you want, but your argument does not in any way address the fact the counts given by the article do not match with the sources, are based on criteria which are different from the sources, and more importantly, the whatever the criteria, if there is no source which points out that "[Nobel winner A] is affiliated with [institution B]", then we can't include it because taking "A won a Nobel" and "A studied at B [at some - often unrelated - point in their life]" together is the textbook example of WP:SYNTH. The closer obviously judged that your argument on the OR aspect of this was not in the majority. Stop re-litigating. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Different universities use different subjective criteria to count Nobel affiliates, but we cannot do that on this website because of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The only "criteria" that can be used on the list is the universally accepted definition of "academic affiliation". You are not getting these points. RC: ..taking "A won a Nobel" and "A studied at B [at some - often unrelated - point in their life]" together is the textbook example of WP:SYNTH. I disagree. WP:SYNTH questions can be tricky, but IMO routine calculations do not count as WP:OR or WP:SYNT. Ber31 ( talk) 14:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  It cannot, by definition, be "routine calculations" if its "subjective". Routine calculations are by their very nature objective: nobody can argue that 5 x 3 = 15, or that 25 is 50% of 50. In any case, I'm not going to re-argue the AfD here any further: your position as regards OR was in the minority (despite you writing walls of text to defend it), and the rest of the keep arguments did not even attempt to address the issue, instead merely pointing at the red herring of the subject being notable. Any closer aware of our policies or even of basic argumentative logic knows that arguments which are off-topic or otherwise fail to get the point must be disregarded, and you do not show how the closer otherwise made a "clear error in judgement" (of the kind that would be necessary to overturn this) in determining the consensus of the arguments that actually addressed the relevant issues with the article. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ RandomCanadian: "nobody can argue that 5 x 3 = 15, or that 25 is 50% of 50" hmmmm. -- JBL ( talk) 20:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per WP:NHC: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy." The fact that more editors spent time demolishing the non-encyclopedic cross-categorization demonstrates that the other argument(s) was not the controlling issue. Jclemens ( talk) 21:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Very much, if not most, of the discussion was specifically on the OR issue. Whether some editors decided to ignore that entirely, and pile-on the "passes LISTN" votes (most of them don't have any significant argument, they're just unsupported assertions, hence "votes") after the fact, does not mean that WP:NOR (a fundamental policy) gets to be ignored at the expanse of WP:N (a guideline, which is specifically meant to avoid issues of WP:V and WP:NOR in articles) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, actually, because they read your nomination and didn't feel like it was worth discussing, they inherently dismiss the NOR argument, as well they should have, because making the argument requires one to torture the sense of OR to include pretty much every list of notable elements. I mean, I'm not trying to be offensive here, but it's just a terrible argument that, if accepted in the way you presented it, requires us to fundamentally rearchitect lists on Wikipedia. Jclemens ( talk) 21:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • The only thing that is incredibly tortured about OR here is your misapplication and your call to panic. Something that is based on an original methodology is OR even if it can be synthesised (in multiple original methods, as shown by the need for arguments about this on the talk page) from existing sources. Dismissing something without addressing the concerns (or by addressing a red herring, as many of those arguing for deletion point out) is not effective argumentation, and is an argument that a closer has every right to ignore. Claiming "but more people made the same repetitious and invalid argument" is not a reason to give that argument any more weight: otherwise we're openly encouraging canvassing and SPA disruption (because now, what prevents you from having an army of your friends come and argue the same flawed argument as you, if arguments are just counted?). WP:NOTAVOTE is there for a reason, and the overturns fail to provide a convincing argument why it should be ignored or why the closer was wrong. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • So you don't think you're wrong, I believe you are, but I'm not inclined to keep talking past each other, so I'm going to ignore the irrelevant part of your rebuttal (see what I did there?) and talk about the part I believe it is more helpful to engage with. First, socking is a red herring: any XfD is inherently compromised by socking, because socks are motivated by outcome and not restricted in tactics; they will continue to adapt, or not, to what they believe will achieve their desired ends. Second, I didn't write WP:NHC; to the best of my recollection, I haven't ever edited that page. If that's not what it's saying, what is that clause in policy for? Jclemens ( talk) 22:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • WP:NHC is an advice page, not a policy or even a guideline. I'm not sure that all of it is particularly helpful advice, either (do we really want to invite disputes over who is a "responsible" editor, for example?). XOR'easter ( talk) 22:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
            • It's also a bit ridiculous to claim that keep voters fixating on one comparatively minor issue because they couldn't answer the major one is evidence that the major one is irrelevant. What contorted thinking! Reyk _YO! 23:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
              • The first and presumably major complaint in the deletion nomination was "non-encyclopedic cross categorization." If the latter, less important (in the mind of the nominator) concerns are less well addressed while the major complaint goes down in flames, and yet form the sole basis of the outcome against numerical input, that's a particularly odd way to read a discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 00:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                • Then you are misreading my rationale, for clearly the two reasons are given equal status (as they should, both being breaches of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:NOT and WP:NOR). Nor do the keep !votes even address the NOT issue (something being covered in sources does not make it encyclopedic: WP:NOT is a stricter criteria than mere WP:N), much less the NOR one. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                  • We're not seriously considering chucking out arguments based on the order they were listed, are we? Imagine if someone provided a list of sources in some AfD or other and I insisted on flicking aside all but the first because obviously if they were important they'd have been listed first. I'd get shouted down and rightly so. Given that inclusionism usually relies on repetition and volume rather than content, this is a very interesting tactic to adopt. Reyk _YO! 12:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                    • In this case, I think order does matter. To me, the first argument ("non-encyclopedic cross categorization") and the second one, that the cross categorization requires OR, are nearly the same argument. Both don't like the cross categorization because of a lack of sources. Both were shot down in the discussion because there are plenty of sources. If the NOR argument had been the leading sentence, then folks likely would have said "hey, here are the sources, your NOR argument is bogus" rather than "hey, here are the sources, your non-encyclopedic cross categorization argument is bogus." Hobit ( talk) 10:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                      • I (the one who wrote it, so should know what I meant) have told quite a couple of times that the order did not matter. Of course, you're free to misinterpret it however you want, I have no control over that. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn addressing the closure in its own terms, it failed: by (rightly) rejecting a head count and asserting OR as the primary determinant, by that very framing the closer needed to explicitly demonstrate a weighing of arguments around OR assertions, which was entirely absent. On their talk page and here, the closer has not demonstrated a reasoning for their acceptance of the OR assertions - repeating policy no one disagrees with is different than explaining how the closer determined the OR argumentation was correct if not by head count. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The !vote was clearly in favor of keeping, just because all the delete voters used the same acronym and the keep voters didn't doesn't invent consensus. It's not clear what WP:NOR violations existed in the article, either from the close or the arguments. The stronger arguments to delete aren't even based on NOR. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Looking at the similar discussion on the Fields Medal article, I see two possible causes of OR. The first is, roughly, "What is the University of Paris?", and the second is "when is someone affiliated with a university where they neither received an academic degree nor had a full-time teaching/research position"? I am absolutely certain that both can be resolved without deleting the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Discussions are not votes: discussions are supposed to find consensus by having editors argue the merits of each position - clearly, the only argument that was had here was about the lack of merit of keeping something that was fundamentally original in conception: whether a dozen people added unargued/poorly argued "keeps" (which were rightly ignored as missing the point) does not give their non-argument extra weight. "just because all the delete voters used the same acronym and the keep voters didn't doesn't invent consensus" is essentially the "dismiss something without actually refuting it" argument, which is not convincing, either. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Except the various "discounted" votes based on notability were clearly arguing that the title concept is not fundamentally original. Also, did I find the correct OR concerns? If it is such a clear policy case that there are OR violations to ignore a 17-6 vote, it MUST NOT be difficult to identify what the OR concerns specifically are. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • It wouldn't be so hard if this hasn't been hopelessly bombarded by useless keep votes. "notability is not inherited; and disregarding that entirely, it is not a reason to keep a page which is based on original criteria (which, more often that not, match few if any of the reliable sources on the topic) for its content." (quote, myself) is a typical, simple and concise example of this obvious OR concern which has not been addressed by any of the keep votes. This is also obvious from the extensive description of criteria in the lead (inevitably, with no source which supports the conclusion given in Wikivoice) [see archive link below]. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment, could the article be temporarily restored while the review is ongoing please? Vpab15 ( talk) 22:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It would require steward intervention. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • It's accessible via the Wayback Machine here. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks! I thought the article was supposed to be undeleted per Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion, but it seems that isn't always followed. Vpab15 ( talk) 23:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • It's not that it "isn't always followed"; it's that
          1. Undeletion is on request, and nobody had requested it yet; and
          2. As mentioned, because the article had in excess of 5,000 revisions, steward intervention would be required to delete it again if it were fully restored.
             I think an admin can restore it, though – and we could certainly restore the top few revisions, although this would risk a CC-By-SA breach by not having full history. Stifle ( talk) 16:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • If it had too many revisions that an admin couldn't undelete it without steward intervention (which is what I think you mean), then that argues strongly against deleting it right away on the basis of a contested AfD. Jclemens ( talk) 00:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I think the closer did an admirable job in deciding delete for this discussion. Throughout the discussion the main crux of the nomination was not suitably addressed or refuted by keep voters. It takes quite a lot of courage and is heartening to see a closer engage in the actual arguments and policy rather than just doing a vote tally and I think this should be applauded. (Disclosure: I engaged in the discussion on the delete side). I would also add that most Overturn voters have not mentioned the closer's comments that the list can be recreated if this can be done in a non-OR manner. Rather than fighting this here why not begin a non-OR version of this list? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I think the best outcome would have been to narrow the scope to only list the universities where the recipient was affiliated with at the time the prize was issued. So, to that end, I support allowing the article to be created with that narrow (and unchanging) scope. However, we must judge the reasonableness of the closer's decision. In this case, I think a delete close was bold, but justified under existing policies. The delete votes were grounded in policy while most of the keep votes were not. As for the question of OR, I think when a number on Wikipedia is in conflict with a list published by a primary source, there are inherent questions about verifiability. -- Enos733 ( talk) 23:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • #1 Using only where the subject was when the prize was awarded is a poor idea. Many people win awards for older work that they did someplace other than where they are right now. I'm guessing this isn't a topic you are hugely familiar with? #2 That would be just as "OR" as what we have, so the same (wrong-headed IMO) deletion arguments would apply. #3 The keep !votes largely cited policy quite well, showing that sources support the entries and the topic which is key to both the non-encyclopedic cross categorization argument and the WP:OR argument. Hobit ( talk) 10:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn pretty bad close. Clearly a notable topic as there are plenty of sources and every fact is sourced. The argument made for deletion is that the structure of the page was original research. Many of our pages have a structure that is exactly that—-look at our article on the British Empire. I know of no book with the same structure or emphasis of topics. It’s based on decisions made by the editors of the page. This is true of many, and probably most, of our longer articles. If a small minority pushing that as an issue is enough to delete an article, that’s a lot of articles that could be deleted…. The closer just accepts the OR argument without question. It was countered many times. Common sense isn’t OR…. Hobit ( talk) 23:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  1) You are relitigating the discussion 2) The OR argument is not about the structure of the page but about the content of it. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  1) No I'm not. (I too can make unsupported assertions. If you have a point you'd like to make, explain it. I can't read your mind. 2) Can you name one fact on the page that is OR? Hobit ( talk) 01:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Since you're specifically asking for my opinion, here's an example that is obvious enough in itself: Harvard University, United States Total: 165 (Univ Count: 51)[8] - an article blatantly ignoring sources to instead substitute its own methodology is OR, entirely disregarding whether one thinks they LIKEIT, whether the subject fails NOT, whether it meets LISTN, or whichever other issue. Another obvious example is Barack Obama being listed for 3 different universities, based of course only on a biography of Obama - obvious SYNTH (in addition, clearly, none of them have any link with his Nobel, showing how this is indeed not just an OR issue but also a NOT issue of "two unrelated characteristics" [at least in this case]). This is also accurately reflected in the close: there's exactly nothing preventing you from making a non-OR version of this article. None of the keep arguments address the OR issue, so as Stalwart points out below, "arguments with invalid rationales should be disregarded", which was correctly done by the closer. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  This is all very odd. Did B. Obama win a Nobel? Has he been affiliated with the three schools? If you don't like the sourcing, fine. But are you actually arguing any of those claims wrt Obama is false? Or that it takes "original research" to verify them? Again, the structure of the article can be argued to be OR I guess (but, again, that's true of many, if not most, of our articles). But the claims are not OR. And I'm honestly at a loss how your statements wrt Obama show "original research" in any way. Hobit ( talk) 06:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  I can't figure out how you don't consider this OR. Taking "A won a Nobel" and "A studied at B [at some - often unrelated - point in their life]" together and combining them into "[Nobel winner A] is affiliated with [institution B]" (as in the case of Obama) is the textbook example of WP:SYNTH. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, so you're arguing about the structure of the article yes? Are you claiming that for each person we'd need a source that mentions both things (they won the award and they were associated with these schools)? Or that we need sources that care about the intersection of the two topics generically? For the case you list, both exist of course, so I'm guessing you mean some third thing. Could you clarify? Maybe it's because I'm an academic, but I assure you when someone who had been in my department won a Nobel Prize, it was all over the local press and the specialized press related to his area. We still have a whole display up about him years later. I assure you, the schools he'd been at as a student and faculty member were mentioned in the vast majority of the articles. Hobit ( talk) 21:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  If this was as easy as you suggest, why are the numbers in the article fundamentally different from those of many other sources? Clearly, there are multiple different subjective criteria (is somebody who spent a short period for something entirely unrelated to the Nobel really "affiliated" with that institution?), hence this is not as easy as "A went to B, therefore he is affiliated to B", and this list is built on only one set of them (as it spends a great deal of time justifying itself in the lead), one which happens to disregard most sources on the matter. Something that disregards sources, that needs to justify its own original criteria, and that is not published in a form even remotely ressembling this anywhere outside of Wikipedia, is OR in all senses of the term. Anyway, this is the kind of argument that should go at AfD, not at DRV, so I'm done here. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - sub-optimal close. There is no requirement that each argument contrary to the nomination should systematically refute each point made in said nomination. That would be especially redundant in cases like this, where the specific point the closer seems to be looking for was made (fairly comprehensively) by several editors very early in the discussion. Subsequent editors need not re-make that argument. The argument made in the close is exactly that; an argument. And a fairly articulate one at that. There was no urgency to close the discussion; it had not been relisted even once. Which suggests a supervote that should have been a contribution to the discussion, rather than a rationale for closing it. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 00:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Relisting is not necessary when the discussion has been fairly extensive. There is a requirement each argument provide a valid reason. "It's notable" when the concern is "it's original research" (note: the original rationale does not even mention notability) is not a "valid reason". In fact, it's a textbook example of a red herring. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  That's right, its not necessary, but its a better option than closing with a rationale like that. We're not talking about differentiating between valid or invalid rationales. Arguments with invalid rationales should be disregarded. But arguments with rationales that are simply different to the direction the closer would have liked the discussion to go are not the same thing. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 01:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  This seems to be more of an argument for relist than overturn though? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 01:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  It should have been, and I wouldn't object to the discussion being relisted now. But on the question of endorse or overturn, I remain of the opinion that this was a sub-optimal close and should be overturned. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 07:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Relisting would not have been appropriate. The purpose of relisting is to obtain more input when a debate lacks participation or lacks policy-based arguments to the extent that it's impossible to determine a consensus. It's not correct to relist just to kick the can down the road for another week because you don't know how to close. Stifle ( talk) 16:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Sure, but the argument in the close (which is problematic in and of itself) is that there was a lack of policy-based arguments to address the particular things the closer was concerned about. By comparison to this close, and because this close was framed the way it was, relisting would have been a better course of action from this admin. And if the admin were to vacate his own close and relist the discussion instead (with a note specifying his concerns at that point in the discussion) that would be slightly out of process, but acceptable. To be clear, my view is simply "sub-optimal", not "worst close of all time". St★lwart ¹¹¹ 01:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  the particular things the closer was concerned about OR issues were raised in the nomination and repeatedly mentioned by participants in the discussion, it's not as if Sandstein invented the issue! -- JBL ( talk) 17:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  WP:OR was mentioned many times, but never explained. Especially no showing reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. It isn't so obvioius that the article reached any conclusions, it is just a list. Gah4 ( talk) 23:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Whether or not that is true has nothing to do with my point. (It is an argument that perhaps someone could have made in the AfD, but that's not relevant here.) -- JBL ( talk) 23:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Actually, I think that's absolutely relevant. The closer seems to be concerned that issues relating to WP:NOR weren't addressed. But they were. That's plain to see from the discussion. In fact, they were addressed by some of the first contributors and dismissed. The then closer shifted the goalposts and retrospectively demanded that, "keep" arguments must directly address and attempt to refute these arguments for deletion in order to be given weight in the closure", which is total nonsense. There is no such requirement. The closer is free to hold that (incorrect and non-policy) view, and to express that view within the discussion, at which point it can be laughed at and summarily dismissed. But it is another thing entirely to use that (incorrect and non-policy) view as a basis for closing a discussion. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 06:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  It is not relevant to the specific point I was making. Sometimes closers make up issues not covered by the discussion (as here) and that's bad but it's absolutely not what happened here, and that's my point. I decline to take the role of opposition in the (completely separate) argument you are trying to have with me. -- JBL ( talk) 11:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  I'm not trying to have any sort of argument with you. You commented on my contribution. In fact, you commented on my response to someone else's question about my contribution. *shrug*. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 23:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. University affiliation is a complicated question. Editors arguing in favor of keeping the article didn't grapple with the question of original research, but you have to in this case. I also can't see a justification for relisting the discussion. There was a full discussion and plenty for a closer to work with. For what it's worth, I think there's probably consensus that it passed LISTN, but that's somewhat beside the point. The nomination wasn't about that, it was about original research, and that point was never really rebutted. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - It might be that WP:OR wasn't especially rebutted, but it also wasn't especially argued. I asked a few times, and never got a reply. It would be nice if WP:OR was black and white, but there is a lot of gray. Gah4 ( talk) 03:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Clearly within an admin discretion to weigh what the participants are actually arguing and whether the arguments are supported by policy. Otherwise, deletion discussions could just be closed by a bot if all that is desired by some is a headcount. Zaathras ( talk) 03:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. User:Sandstein's decision to delete the page was unilateral. User:Urselius, who didn't participated in the AFD, also expressed his dissatisfaction on the Talk Page of Sandstein. [5] Six editors "voted" to delete the page, and seventeen editors "voted" to keep the page. The "keep" side provided detailed arguments based on policies of this website as to why the list shouldn't be deleted. User:Pppery: almost all of the keep votes say that the list is notable without making any attempt to refute the original-research argument, and thus were properly discounted in determining whether there was consensus that the article is original research. That is incorrect. User:Minimumbias and I repeatedly explained in that AFD why the list doesn't violate WP:NOR. Other editors on that AFD also pointed out that the list doesn't violate WP:NOR or WP:SYNTHESIS. User:Gah4 pointed out that the list doesn't violate WP:SYNTHESIS. [6] User:Andrew Davidson explained why the list doesn't violate WP:NOR. [7] Routine calculations do not count as original research. User:Tiredmeliorist also explained why the list doesn't violate WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:NOR. [8] In that list, every entry had at least one reliable source. The list is deleted, so it is extremely difficult for people who never participated in the discussion to see how the list really was, and do a detailed review. Detailed analysis is a difficult job. When people are making decisions under uncertainty or imperfect information, they use intuition rather than reason while making decisions, and people also tend to make their decisions on the basis of what others are saying–not on the basis of their own detailed analysis. The list was enormous, and it had plenty of vital information. All of that is lost. It will take a big effort to recreate that kind of list. Lots of editors devoted time and energy on that list. All it takes is one bad decision by an admin to destroy the efforts of so many editors over so many years. Ber31 ( talk) 04:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Please refrain from canvassing by pinging only people who made keep arguments you deemed to be persuasive. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  User:Pppery: I am not pinging anyone. Please don't be cynical. By the way, User:Gah4 and User:Andrew Davidson already voted on this page before my "vote". Ber31 ( talk) 05:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  It's kind of ironic that you pinged me in an edit in which you explicitly said I am not pinging anyone ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  "Pinging" wasn't intentional. Got it? Please don't make false accusation. Ber31 ( talk) 17:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  I think there was also some canvassing here unfortunately. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  WP:IQUIT is not a good stance to take. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  "If we don't keep this why should I even edit at all?" is not the reason why I am retiring from Wikipedia. I have explained my reasons for retirement on User talk:Minimumbias. Ber31 ( talk) 06:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Actually, I am quite grateful to Ber31 for pinging me bc I only get a short time on WP each day, lol. Sorry to see you go, but the recent deletionist frenzy over lists is enough to wear out the best of us. I think the AfD is too powerful a tool -- imagine if we could create articles as easily as they delete them? The AfD decision here is case in point to such intemperate power. - Tiredmeliorist ( talk) 14:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  I will retire after the final decision on this list is made. Your arguments are great! Ber31 ( talk) 17:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The closer did an admirable job using their discretion in deciding delete for this discussion. They ignored a blind head count in favor of keep and focused on the core of each sides arguments. Delete voters (I was one) saw the article for what it was: a truly massive (over 800 references - more then the World War II article) WP:SYNTHESIS of WP:OR, complete with countless unsourced notes about caveats regarding the entries. Keep voters arguments amounted to Nobel Prize's are notable or have coverage, so any article on them was justified as notable. The closing admin used their discretion to enforce basic article standards and deserves praise for their courage, not complaints at DR. Newshunter12 ( talk) 04:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  There were multiple !votes in the style of "NLIST because similar list exists in X (book, website, etc.)". This is not, like you say, "Nobel prize is notable", but "this list topic is notable". — Alalch Emis ( talk) 06:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Restore page as a draft. I feel the topic might be notable and my vote was somewhat brusque from having to slog through many similar list AfDs that clearly weren’t notable (like “Victoria Crosses by School”) but keeping the page off the mainspace until it is proven to be notable and brought up to Wikipedia standards is the right thing to do in the spirit of WP:TNT. Dronebogus ( talk) 06:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  In my opinion, I think keeping this as draft probably would encourage the OR that led to this situation. The list obviously needs to be paired down greatly and I don't think these two pages being there as a base will assist with this (remember that before it was split in two this was the longest WP article). Sources with lists of Nobel laureates are easy to find and a new non-OR page would not be hard to construct. I feel that this would better support a TNT. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 06:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - for two reasons: 1) it is a useful comparative Wikipedia page, it is of equal utility as such pages that show 'Nobel laureates by country of origin', 2) there would have to be very cogent and compelling reasons for the overturning of a very definite majority view, and going against Wikipedia policy on consensus, and this was not evident to me. Urselius ( talk) 07:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Urselius ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ( title=User_talk%3AUrselius&type=revision&diff=1051135371&oldid=1048109965) diff) NOTE I was alerted that a deletion discussion had come and gone without my knowledge, when the 'executive deletor' started flagging its removal on pages that I was actively curating. I then looked at the closed discussion and wrote on the 'deletor's' talk page to complain. I was then informed of this present discussion by an editor. I do not usually involve myself in wikipolitics, so without the editor's kind flagging, I would have been unaware. I think that I had shown sufficient involvement and interest in this topic, before I was informed of this pertinent discussion, that the accusation of having been canvassed has no merit or substance, and is an expression of mere partizanship. Urselius ( talk) 08:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC) On reflection, I also think that the editor who added the above accusation is not abiding by Wikipedia norms of behaviour by not signing it, I would class this as underhanded. Urselius ( talk) 08:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There seems to be an impasse between two legitimate consensuses: that the article in its original state was too hampered by persistent WP:OR issues to maintain, and that the article should have been kept as notable. But I agree that the consensus seemed more in favor of “keep”, without obvious “keep: nooo don’t delete it’s WP:INTERESTING” brigading like you normally see in these controversial discussions, and was surprised by the closer’s decision. AfD isn’t cleanup, even for the most severe issues— in such cases it would be better to relocate a page to draftspace or simply gut the article and start from the salvageable bits. Dronebogus ( talk) 08:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep. On first reading I agreed with Sandstein, but on second, I believe that he erred on this occasion.
  OR is about sources, and SYNTH is very specifically about sources. To make the case for SYNTH, you say: "There are no sources that discuss this subject as a topic in its own right." Such a statement can only be overcome by producing the sources that do discuss it as a topic in its own right.
  In my view, it is possible to completely refute a !vote by producing evidence that proves that it is in error. When user A says, "There are no sources", and users B C and D agree with A, and user E says "There are sources and here are links to them", it is my position that the !votes of users A, B, C and D are refuted. The closer can, and should, give such !votes zero weight. This is what we mean when we say that AfD is not a vote. And when that has been done, it is not necessary for subsequent !voters to address the now-refuted argument. Weighing the !votes in the light of these principles, I get to a result diametrically opposite to Sandstein's.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  S Marshall See [9]. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ S Marshall, this view presupposes that the OR arguments were in fact conclusively refuted by the "keep" side, and that I as closer should have recognized that and acted on it. In my view, that would have been supervoting: the OR discussion (among the few users that did engage in it) devolved into very long walls of text, and it would have been arbitrary to assign "victory" in this debate to one side or the other. Reasonable editors can disagree on what OR is. But among those who did engage in the OR discussion, rough consensus was that the article was in fact OR, and that's what I acted on.

  Besides, if the OR argument is (as I understand it) that the content is not in fact supported by the cited sources, or that the cited sources are used in an inadmissibly synthetic manner, then that is not the kind of argument that can be refuted by "There are sources and here are links to them". It's not in dispute that sources exist; what's in dispute is how they are used. Sandstein 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  The reason why I differ from RandomCanadian is because he has pointed out one instance where sources were used inappropriately. This is fixable. It provides grounds to edit the article, but I'm not able to connect that with a need to delete it.

  The reason why I differ from Sandstein is because the sources cited during the debate show that an acceptable article with this title could exist. Other editors did object during the debate that while the sources exist, they weren't used appropriately anywhere in the article; I understand this as a WP:TNT argument. My view would be that TNT requires a supporting consensus, and I can't see it there.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  TNT definitely requires supporting consensus, but also, TNT is not the only way to resolve intractable systematic problems in an article. There's BRD, DR, RFC, etc... — Alalch Emis ( talk) 18:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ Sandstein: You've stated "that the article is supposedly OR". But at no point do you identify in what way the article is OR. And those arguing for delete seem to be all over the place in *what* OR there is, but my sense is that "completely original listing criteria at the start of the article" is probably where many of the !votes for deletion because of OR are at. Is that the WP:OR argument you felt wasn't refuted here? Hobit ( talk) 12:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  It's not my job as closer to make one or the other side's argument for them, such as by identifying how the article is allegedly OR. My job is to determine whether there are prima facie credible policy-based arguments for and against deletion, and weigh them accordingly. So as not to cast a supervote, I have to exhibit some restraint in this regard: whether the article is in fact OR or not is for AfD participants to determine, not for me as the closer. But what I can do, and did do here, is throwing out all opinions that do not even attempt to engage with the argument for deletion and are therefore functionally equivalent to pure votes. That also applies to opinions that have a basis in another policy or guideline, such as notability: whether a topic is notable or not has nothing to do with whether or not this article is OR. Sandstein 15:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Except many of the "Keep" voters feel there is no valid WP:OR argument at all, and didn't engage with it. If you can't even identify the argument, how can you discount those editors' opinions? You appear to be saying that you had to close this way because the vote of people with the magic word "NOR" favored deletion, which is an embarassingly bad argument; if you have some other reason you will need to explain it better. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  If those expressing "keep" opinions (there are no "voters", AfD is not a vote) had been of the view that there is no valid WP:OR argument at all, they should have said so, and said why. I'm not a mind reader. Sandstein 15:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  The !voters are not mind-readers either. The nomination started "Textbook example of a trivial cross-categorisation of two entirely unrelated characteristics...". There is no mention of OR in this while the reference to OR at the very end comes across as just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. So, how are the editors in the discussion supposed to know what single issue the closer is going to seize on to the exclusion of everything else? Andrew🐉( talk) 16:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Since you're persistently attempting to misread my mind, and since I've quite clearly stated it already, I consider both NOT and NOR to be equally valid reasons, and I might as well point you to the fact there's a long quote which explains how this is indeed OR, a quote which you seem to be blind to. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  I am going to continue to play confused. If you're not closing based on the vote, and you're not assessing the strength of arguments, and you aren't casting a SUPERVOTE ... how did you decide to close this discussion? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Serves little purpose and as a block of information can be created faster and better offsite. scope_creep ^Talk 12:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The AFD was difficult to review and close because there was too much back-and-forth discussion. This DRV is now becoming comparably difficult to participate in because there is too much back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, a good and courageous closure giving appropriate weight to recommendations rather than mere head-counting. Stifle ( talk) 15:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment in addition to all the other concerns, the closing statement's suggestion that only two keep voters (Minimumbias and Ber31) addressed NOR concerns is factually wrong. At least three other editors (@ Andrew Davidson, Mysterymanblue, and Tiredmeliorist:) explicitly addressed NOR in their comments and voted keep after considering those arguments. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Still more canvassing? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  I encourage you to strike that remark, and have responded (and will continue to respond) on yourmy talk page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Stop the "canvassing" talk. When people try to identify specific arguments for the purposes of such a review by referring to usernames using the customary 'ping'/'u' templates, this is not good evidence of canvassing. This is simply ordinary behavior. This is how people are used to type. Actus reus vs mens rea. Canvassing requires the latter. Don't accuse without evidence of the latter. It degrades this venue which is supposed to be highly authoritative and even if there was some puny attempt at canvassing it wouldn't affect the outcome. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 18:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The stated reason for deletion by the closing admin was that the article "failed WP:NOR". Well, this is clearly not the case simply because the direct connection between the specific Nobel Prize winners and educational institutions they attended were made in many dozens RS cited on the page, not by Wikipedians. According to AfD requester, this is an "example of a trivial cross-categorisation of two entirely unrelated characteristics". Of course one could argue if the education plays a role in receiving the Nobel Prize (I am sure it does), but merely a fact that a specific cross-categorisation appears in a large number of RS (and they assume this is something significant) makes it worthy a list. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

In the discussion above, some participants say this is a case of WP:NOT. Of course one could argue about that (a WP:SOAP? An indiscriminate collection? - hardly), but it was not the reason for deletion by the closing admin, hence irrelevant. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• • "the direct connection between the specific Nobel Prize winners and educational institutions they attended were made in many dozens RS cited on the page" - actually, that's quite the issue. Look up the Barack Obama example I gave earlier. The source used to support Obama's affiliation with 3 different universities does not even mention the word "Nobel" once... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • No, almost all RS make such connection. The official biography of every Nobel Prize winner by the Nobel Committee and other RS [10] always describe her or his Alma mater. Sure, if someone was a graduate from three Universities, then all of them appear in his biography. Does not mean "causation"? This is disputable, but irrelevant in WP context as long as multiple RS make such connection. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • "Always"? No. Obama has no mention, because clearly, it is not a relevant aspect here. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • If no such connection was made in RS with regard to person X, then such person should not be included to the list. This is very simple and apply to all lists. No judgement specificlly about Obama, but Nobel Peace Prize may be different because it is given not for scientific or art achievements. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Uncontested facts.-- 14Jenna7Caesura ( talk) 18:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • 0/2. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn 5 participants and the nominator argued for deletion - 15 argued for keeping. So is illogical that Sandstein would cast a Supervote again. The majority of participants do not agree with Sandstein's opinion about OR. Lightburst ( talk) 21:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for illustrating the kind of utterly worthless comment (with NPA violation to boot) that any good closer will discard out of hand. -- JBL ( talk) 21:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I must admit that the last two comments are really doing their best /better than I could I was to try my best/ to make the overturn case look fabulously irrelevant :) — Alalch Emis ( talk) 21:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • There appears to be a lot of frustration, inter alia, being expressed from *all* many participants, irrespective of view. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Appallingly condescending and egregiously offensive comment by JBL Urselius ( talk) 10:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • It is. I think the issue is real--he has a lot of closes against numeric consensus, almost always to delete, and frankly I find many of them way out of bounds. Obviously not everyone does. But the right place for raising the issue probably isn't here. And it can certainly be phrased much more politely than Lightburst did (or than JBL did frankly). Hobit ( talk) 14:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• weak Endorse. The answer is to make a more comprehensive form of List of Nobel laureates#List of laureates and to make it sortable by university affiliation among the many other things. The answer is not to fork to many separate list articles. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • You're arguing the AfD question rather than the close, but to quickly respond, that's not really practical (that FL doesn't have room), and even if it was, many of the top universities have dozens of laureates, and sorting wouldn't be sufficient to convey the counts for them at a glance. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 01:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • A single comprehensive list can be spun out, not many forks for every sort query.
    • I appreciate that Nobel prize winners and their affiliation is a notable cross-section, eg [11] and appreciate the frustration for proponents of making this information accessible on Wikipedia. I also appreciate that there are a lot of List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Massachusetts Institute of Technology style lists, and that content forking is a concern. Although I note this was not a concern of the AfD nominator. So it’s difficult, but I think the closer made a good difficult close.
    • I really think that another approach is needed. A comprehensive table, sortable? A parent article for Nobel prizes by institution? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC). I guess it’s a weak endorse. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Sorry for being late to the scene. I see plenty of good arguments that demonstrate why the AfD decision was wrong, but it seems a simple vote in favor of an argument doesn't count for much here. For me, the charge of WP:OR, which the AfD closer supported, was consistently shown to be an extreme interpretation during the discussion -- one that would put all of WP on trial. As others have pointed out here, there were ample sources backing each item on the list. Perhaps one or two sources did not pass WP:V (?) or the numbers on the page were wrong (?) -- but rather than do the hard work to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, they decided to take the easy route and WP:TNT. The closer should have recognized that. I feel they took the easy route, too, and didn't read the keep arguments.
  As an aside, in most (?) western systems of law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecuting attorney, not the defendant. The prosecution must make their case and convince either a judge and/or jury to convict. If, as the closer appears to agree, there was no strong consensus to delete in this AfD, then there was no warrant for deletion. WP:AFD/AI states if there is a lack of consensus, the article should at least be relisted or kept (depending how many times it's been listed)-- not deleted outright. - Tiredmeliorist ( talk) 14:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • In many ways I think this is the best-phrased argument at this DRV. Well said. Hobit ( talk) 15:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • "one or two sources did not pass WP:V"; "the numbers on the page were wrong" - actually, most of them, because they were based on OR. You don't expect people to go fact check every single entry on the page, do you? In any case, I've already given a convincing example with Obama, who is one amongst many such problematic entries. "FIXTHEPROBLEM" - if the whole page wasn't OR, that would be a valid reason, but it is not, and this was not really mentioned by the AfD participants anyway; while TNT, if obliquely, was. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The phrase "original research" is used on this website to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. On List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, at least one reliable source was there for every entry. User:RandomCanadian, you completely missed something: The only "criteria" used on that list was the universally accepted definitions of "academic affiliation". Academic affiliation with a university is a universally defined term in academia: students, long-term academic staff, and short-term academic staff or visitors. The definition is elementary. It is like an axiom. RandomCanadian is basically having the same confusion that TompaDompa has. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, there is a long discussion between TompaDompa, and Minimumbias and me. Please study that discussion carefully. User:RandomCanadian should read this comment by User:My very best wishes. Ber31 ( talk) 17:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • If it is universally accepted, why don't the numbers match the sources? Clearly, because it is not universally accepted... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • RC: Here is the answer to your question.
      • User:Tiredmeliorist you took the long way home, and came to the same conclusion, albeit tactfully: WP:SUPERVOTE Lightburst ( talk) 18:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Your argument still rests on this supposedly being "universally accepted". If this is "universally accepted", it should be trivial for you to find reliable sources which explicitly define the criteria, and which list Nobel prize recipients according to it. Given that no such source has been provided, that what sources have been provided list recipients according to different criteria, given that this leads to often entirely different totals, given that the talk page of the article and the text of the article itself (including the meta-reasoning about which criteria are used and the "fig-leaf" [to quote from somebody else] about how this supposedly does not breach NPOV and NOR) are obvious enough signs of the original research (literally: looking into questionable primary sources like self-published CVs...); it is clear that these criteria are not "universally accepted", and because this is the cornerstone on which your whole argument rests, I'm left with little more to do than simply sign the death certificate here. Feel free to disagree (if you can bring good evidence, such as the "significant new information" that is usually required to overturn an AfD); but don't ping me here again, as I'm tired of going around in circles and having the kind of argument that should be had at AfD, not at DRV. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Right, I agree we've descended back into the AfD discussion rather than whether the admin's decision to delete should be overturned. As my initial comment stated, there was WP:NOCONSENSUS and thus, "a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." The length of discussion here is also testament to the lack of consensus.- Tiredmeliorist ( talk) 22:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The question of where the burden of proof lies is an interesting and slightly complicated one. On the one hand, Tiredmeliorist is correct in their observation that a "no consensus" close is functionally identical to a "keep" close, and that's by design. On the other hand, it is codified in our content policies that the "burden of proof" (so to speak) is on those who think content should be included, see e.g. WP:BURDEN which says All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. (emphasis in original) and WP:ONUS which says While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So the standards are not the same for articles and the content found within them. However, the issue at this deletion review is not what should be done when there is no consensus but rather whether the closer interpreted the consensus or lack thereof correctly.
    I think the only reasonable interpretation of our WP:Deletion policy is that where the burden of proof lies in deletion discussions depends on the WP:Reason for deletion. For WP:DELREASON#2 ( Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria) the burden of proof must necessarily be on those arguing for deletion, because proving that something wasn't copied from elsewhere is impossible whereas proving that it was is straightforwardly done by showing where it was copied from. For similar reasons, when the discussion revolves around WP:DELREASON#6 (Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes), the burden of proof must necessarily be on those arguing for keeping—it is impossible to prove that something cannot be attributed to WP:Reliable sources, whereas proving that it can is accomplished simply by providing those sources.
    Viewed from that perspective, I think this was closed correctly. But then I would, seeing as I wasn't convinced by the arguments that this is WP:NOR-compliant. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I totally agree that it is now WP:NOR-compliant. Liusine ( talk) 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• You're supposed to comment on the arguments and the close, not on the article. Avilich ( talk) 13:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. There's not much point in having WP:NOTAVOTE and consensus-through-the-lens-of-policy if we're just going to toss it aside when a result comes along that we don't like. The closer explained how they had viewed the !votes cast and that the OR points had not been successfully countered by those wishing to keep. Note too that this was explicitly not a salting deletion, but simply a TNT of the original noncompliant page with an open invitation to any editor to recreate a similar list which did not suffer from the same OR issues.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 00:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • That completely misconstrues the overturn arguments; it's precisely the contradiction between the closer asserting NOTAVOTE, but then relying on a vote count to determine an outcome that has been raised by numerous contributors (myself included). It's entirely possible to see this as a failed closure without any reference to the fact that many of the keep contributors did not discount the OR argument, rather, they did not feel it needed *explicit* engagement because there was already so much discussion on that issue to indicate this was obviously a content dispute. On the basis of the closer's own statements, there remains no explanation how evidence was weighed to draw the conclusion that the article was irredeemable....other than by a (reconfigured) count. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 09:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • And that is the core of the problem. AFAICT, the closer just discounted all the !votes that didn't include a WP:NOR link or mention. Given that the issue itself was well addressed and the closer hasn't indicated exactly what NOR wasn't countered in the discussion, we have a huge problem. Hobit ( talk) 13:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Why allow any editors to weigh in on an AfD? We claim to be consensus based - but this AfD result exists to demonstrate that we are not. In Amukuru's example an admin should just go to each AfD and choose to apply one of the myriad of guidelines, policies and essays based on their own interpretation. I did not have hope for an overturn here because in my experience Admins are loathe to question each other, and a no-consensus is basically any ivote that is not snow. Lightburst ( talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Right, i mean, WP:NOTAVOTE is there so to ensure "polling is not a substitute for discussion" -- was there not enough discussion on the AfD page (and here now)??? lol, there was WP:NOCONSENSUS. Oh yeah, and the majority did happen to vote Keep, as well, but for some reason it was still deleted. That is indeed a WP:SUPERVOTE. (But I mean that respectfully -- we all make bad calls and this just happens to be one). - Tiredmeliorist ( talk) 00:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Once a competent closer disregards votes which are far off in left field (like the last ten keeps, arguing that this is notable without addressing any of the reasons for deletion), this isn't so much a "no consensus" as you claim. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
            • Ok, so if you disregard the opposition (or narrowly define who is "legitmate" opposition), then you have concensus? Cool. - Tiredmeliorist ( talk) 00:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This AfD and its closure is a poster child for WP:NOTAVOTE. There was a bunch of "keep" arguments, but very few addressed the core flaw of the list: WP:SYNTH. And I do not see it proparly addressed in this DRV either (except by hand-waving). The entire structure of the list lied on an original set of criteria (and even if we grant that the "affiliation" criterion was not "original", strictly speaking, it has never been applied to Nobel laureates in this form). Thus, it was correctly assessed unsalvageable as a whole, and the closer correctly weighed the votes and thoroughly explained their reasoning. There was some useful content that could be reused to build a compliant list some time in the future, but, as someone said, "it would be an entirely different list", and until it is built somewhere in the draftspace, we're better off without this one. No such user ( talk) 07:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The problem of WP:SYNTH can be solved by removing the ranking table and putting the schools in the alphabetical order. Ber31 ( talk) 13:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • And not having blatant editorialising about what constitutes academic affiliation and what is not. But that would require rewriting the artice... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • So... that would be a problem tht could be overcome by regular editing, then? Jclemens ( talk) 18:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I mean, the argument is that we would need to remove everything on the page and replace it with entirely new content, keeping none of the original content. "The construction of the article is so fundamentally flawed that we need to do it all over from scratch, turning it not into a different version of the current article but an entirely different article altogether" and "this can be overcome by regular editing" are fairly dissimilar positions. The closing comment even explicitly said that it can be recreated if this can be done in a non-OR manner. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • No, the immediately prior suggestion is that removing the ranking table, placing things in alphabetical order, and removing editorializing abiout what constitutes academic affiliation would be sufficient. Arguments that the entire article needed a fundamental rewrite are undermined by the original nominator agreeing that far less than a rewrite would have been sufficient. Jclemens ( talk) 22:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
            • Well then I'm being misinterpreted, once more. As I have said multiple times, the article is so fundamentally flawed that it would need to be rewritten from the ground-up to address the issues (because the existing criteria for academic affiliation are based on blatant editorialising and not on sources, and the whole of the content of the article is based upon said criteria)... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closes are always based on quality of arguments, not on votes. Unfortunately, too many votes at AfD are based on poor quality arguments, and so therefore a raw vote count, even if strongly skewed, should never be an argument to overturn. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The topic is clearly notable, and the Nobel association itself has a list, so NLIST is satisfied. The disagreement seems to me to turn on what qualifies as "affiliation". That is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  A true work of art. -- JBL ( talk) 12:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per SDKB and several others. Sandstein again! Tsk, tsk. Johnbod ( talk) 02:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I think the closer applied thier own opinion over the consensus. You cant just unilaterally decide what is right or not on Wikipedia, it takes collaboration. I do think the OR can simply be fixed rather than deleting the whole article. Cleanup rather than delete. Wikiman5676 ( talk) 02:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I also think the arguemnt that the article is mostly Synthesis is not that great. Synthesis is about putting sources together as a form of analysis or to reach non-explicitly stated conclusions. I dont think that article was making a conclusion about much, just stating information. Wikiman5676 ( talk) 02:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I'd also like to point out that the only WP:DELETE criteria for deleting a page on WP:SYNTHESIS is if the page "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources". But this isnt that case. The closer even said that the page could be made again without Synthesis. So just fix the page where it does violate Synthesis rather than delete the whole thing. Wikiman5676 ( talk) 03:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • WP:DEL#REASON no. 6 (notwithstanding a literal reading which misses the spirit of the thing) was certainly a valid reason... (especially if the whole of the article is based on an OR methodology) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I still dont think that was the spirit either. the reason it was written that way was so that pages with synthesis can simply be improved rather than deleted. and again, as pointed out in my prior comments, i really dont think the whole page was OR. Maybe some of it was, but that should simply be fixed. Wikiman5676 ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • If the criteria the list is based on are WP:OR (and the argument was that they were), that would make the entire list WP:OR, no? I think the WP:SYNTH referred to is the modus operandi on the page of citing a person's curriculum vitae (or similar) and combining that with citing them as a Nobel laureate, then applying the aforementioned WP:OR criteria for what counts as "affiliation" to reach the non-explicitly stated conclusion "person X is a Nobel laureate affiliated with university Y" by way of analysis. TompaDompa ( talk) 06:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
            • First of all, deleting an article because it "...cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources..." when every single fact is sourced seems, at best, strange. Secondly, that view didn't have consensus in the AfD. Heck the closer can't even state how WP:OR was violated and thus caused the article to need to be deleted. I fully understand the view you are expressing. And not only do I disagree with it, I don't see how anyone can read the discussion and find that view has consensus. Most of the people !voting to endorse here are ignoring the discussion and liking the result... Hobit ( talk) 10:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
              • deleting an article because it "...cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources..." when every single fact is sourced seems, at best, strange Perhaps an example would help illustrate that there isn't necessarily anything strange about it and why? Last year, we deleted no fewer than 40 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40) "Line of succession to the former throne of X" articles. One could perhaps say that every single fact was sourced there if the succession law was sourced and the genealogy was too, but the lines of succession themselves were still impossible to attribute to reliable sources because they were the result of Wikipedia editors applying the criteria (succession law) to the facts (the genealogy) improperly. To my eye, that's not entirely dissimilar to what happened here. TompaDompa ( talk) 11:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                • Fair argument, I like it. I don't agree with it, but it does make sense. Here however we have a single criteria to cover the whole thing. One decision that *is* backed by reliable sources (though other reliable sources make other decisions). We often have to deal with different sources using different definitions of terms and our job is to find the most commonly accepted and go from there. This is true in engineering articles (what do we call a master/slave flip-flip for example, the terminology is changing rapidly) and we don't *not* discuss it just because we don't have a clear answer to the question. If those contributing to the AfD had found consensus on the issue then I'd likely endorse the outcome. But I don't see any reasonable reading of that AfD that can conclude consensus was reached that accepts deletion was needed for that reason. Quite the opposite actually, as I read it, consensus was that this wasn't reason to delete the article. The idea was widely rejected by those attending the AfD. Hobit ( talk) 12:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                  • "What should we call a thing that everyone agrees exists and is well defined" is a very different kind of problem from the problem here. -- JBL ( talk) 12:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                    • My reading was somewhat different. My reading of the discussion about the criteria is that it was basically:
                      "These criteria are WP:OR and that propagates to the rest of the content making the entire article WP:OR."
                      "They're not WP:OR, this is the universally accepted definition of affiliation."
                      "You're going to have to back that up with sources."
                      "No I don't, it's common sense."
                      I found the argument that it isn't WP:OR rather unconvincing, but then I would since I was making the opposite argument. Nowhere did I see anyone actually backing up the rather elaborate criteria with sources. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                      • A number of sources were cited. [12] was one that uses the same definition we do. I suppose we could separate this information into different lists (where they were educated, where they were when they won, all places they worked). Those all have plenty of sources, yes? But I don't think breaking it out like that would serve our readers, do you? Hobit ( talk) 14:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                        • The assertion that that source uses the same definition we do was made during the AfD, and I remain unconvinced. If it does, it's lying or mistaken when it says that Affiliates of University of Cambridge have received more Nobel Prizes than those of any other institution. since our list attributed 44 more to Harvard than to Cambridge. Our set of criteria did not come from the sources, but from the editors themselves (see below).
                          I think what would serve our readers best would be not having a list that is constructed by editors hunting down laureates' CVs and applying a set of criteria that they came up with through talk page discussion about how it should be done (as a couple of editors arguing in favour of keeping the list repeatedly pointed out was the way this set of criteria were arrived at, though their framing was largely that the the criteria reflected editor consensus, seen for instance here: It is the duty of every editor to respect Wikipedia:Consensus. In the end, the criteria for the list emerged out of many careful discussions between different editors over the years.) to decide whether someone should count as affiliated with a particular university or not. Whether that is accomplished by not having a list at all or by having a list that is properly based on the sources (e.g. the official Nobel Prize website's list) is a different question, and the close specifically allowed for the latter option to be taken. From that perspective, this deletion review mostly serves as a roadblock standing in the way of recreating this list in a WP:NOR-compliant way from e.g. the official Nobel Prize website's list. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                          • TompaDompa: You are arguing as if the list is WP:OR unless it's entirely referenced on one source: Nobel Laureates and research affiliations at NobelPrize.org. That is your subjective interpretation, and that would violate WP:NPV! That source only shows the universities, research institutions or companies Nobel prize winners were affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement, and it only shows prize winners in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Economics; it doesn't show the prize winners in Literature or Peace. That source doesn't show the alma maters of prize winners. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation was much more comprehensive. Ber31 ( talk) 14:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                            • No, that's not what I said (what do you think "e.g." means?). Your references to subjectivity and WP:NPV are baffling to me. Only counting affiliations at the time of the announcement is neither more nor less subjective than also including affiliations before and after the announcement. Excluding the Literature and Peace Prizes is neither more nor less subjective than including them. Excluding alma maters is neither more nor less subjective than excluding them. For that matter, including honorary degrees, posthumous degrees, summer attendees, exchange students and auditing students (which would have made the list more comprehensive, which you seem to think is important) would have been neither more nor less subjective than excluding them (which is what our list did). Those are all judgment calls that have to be made, and we as Wikipedia editors are not supposed to be making them, we're supposed to leave those judgment calls to reliable sources. For all your invocation of WP:Neutral point of view, you seem to have forgotten that it's the positions found in the sources that determines what's WP:NPOV-compliant, not what you or I or the majority of editors or even the general public thinks. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                              • I said List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation was much more comprehensive than the Nobel source. Ber31 ( talk) 15:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                              • User:TompaDompa: In many cases, the positions found in the sources can be tricky. By the way, TD, we are having endless discussions... Can we find a common ground and work together? Ber31 ( talk) 15:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
                                • Right, my point is that it would have been even more comprehensive if we had included additional types of affiliations. And that would not necessarily have been an improvement. So I don't think that "more comprehensive" is better. I think "more in line with how the sources do it" is better. Doing it the way the official Nobel Prize website does it would be more in line with the sources than the way it was done on our list.
                                  I'm sure we can find some kind of common ground and work together. Like I said in the AfD, I'm not opposed to having a list that looks at the intersection of Nobel laureates and universities. But we would need to strictly adhere to the sources in how the list is constructed and how the laureates are counted. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per SDKB. Uhooep ( talk) 07:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I agree with the delete !voters that the page was a wall of synth, and it should probably be TNTed. But that wasn't the consensus. The keep !voters advanced a perfectly reasonable, policy-based response to the deletion argument. NLIST is a response to NOR, because if the cross-categorization is covered in reliable sources, the OR problems should theoretically be fixable. Keep !voters made this case, citing reliable sources (most notably [13]), and subsequent participants agreed. That's a consensus to keep. Danstronger ( talk) 13:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• NLIST isn't a policy, and mere citing of sources does not prove that the issues outlined by the nomination have been surmounted, however 'theoretically' possible (a possibility not very evident from the discussion). Avilich ( talk) 13:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Some of those keep votes, especially the flurry at the end, were worth very little ("A very well referenced and important list"; "List of basic facts"; "A notable list is a notable list"; "There's an absurdly long discussion above that I haven't read, but fundamentally this passes WP:LISTN"). A large number indeed did not address the supposed policy violations addressed in the nomination, and the closer made the correct choice when considering the policy-based arguments only and removing policy-noncompliant content from the mainspace. If notability is the problem, then a refund can be requested and the article worked on the draftspace until it becomes ready for mainspace again, as the closer explicitly allowed. Avilich ( talk) 13:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, the arguments by Andrew Davison and Clarityfiend that used sources to show the page does not violate WP:NOR convinced all of the subsequent voters, showing a clear consensus. People disagreeing with such a consensus should vote, not close. — Kusma ( talk) 14:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment The related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation has been closed as a delete. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment After User:Danstronger suggested to put the schools in the alphabetical order at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation, I re-arranged List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation in the alphabetical order. [14] After removing the ranking and the re-arrangement of the list in the alphabetical order, the list no longer violates WP:SYNTHESIS. We can do the same thing to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Ber31 ( talk) 16:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  As if the issue was solely that... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  It's a commendable effort. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  At best, that removes an ancillary concern, not the fundamental one. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Many of the arguments in favor of keeping the page tried to argue that those calling for deletion did not "understand" the article. The editors had developed their own criteria for what constitutes a university affiliation: one that was so broad that the page claimed higher numbers for each university than the braggart universities themselves claimed. There was even a notation under each university on the Wikipedia article stating the number counted on the Wikipedia article and the (lower) number actually claimed by the university. They were contradicting the sources themselves, thereby falling under WP:SYNTH. Similarly, the Wikipedia article actually contradicted the affiliations that the Nobel Foundation itself has at https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/lists/affiliations.php. They did not address those concerns, so the closer rightly determined that the page ought to be deleted. For the record, I voted delete in the original discussion. OCNative ( talk) 00:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • OCNative:Similarly, the Wikipedia article actually contradicted the affiliations that the Nobel Foundation itself has at https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/lists/affiliations.php. They did not address those concerns, so the closer rightly determined that the page ought to be deleted. That's simply incorrect. Here was my argument: TompaDompa: We are not trying to prove that one university is better than some another university. We are only stating facts. You are using your own subjective criteria. You are only making a personal judgement. Every editor has to respect Wikipedia:Consensus. Nobel Laureates and research affiliations at NobelPrize.org only shows the universities, research institutions or companies Nobel prize winners were affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement, and it only shows prize winners in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Economics; it doesn't show the prize winners in Literature or Peace. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is much more comprehensive. Ber31 (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC) That argument was refuted by me. Ber31 ( talk) 14:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • An argument that boils down to "we have chosen to take an approach not adopted by the sources because we have decided that this is the approach we think the sources ought to have adopted" doesn't exactly help your case here. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I have never said the sources ought to have adopted this approach or that approach. Ber31 ( talk) 15:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • No, you're right. That was an unwarranted inference by me. It would be more accurate to say that your argument boils down to "we have chosen to take an approach not adopted by the sources because we have decided that this is the approach we think should be adopted even if the sources don't". TompaDompa ( talk) 16:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse In essence, per David Eppstein and Mackensen. Ultimately, the proponents advanced a reasonable policy based argument, and most editors voting keep failed to engage with that argument at all. Most did not really even present much of an argument. I guess there is consensus that the idea of a "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation" is notable, but there wasn't consensus that this particular iteration of that idea (or any similar iteration) is actually in compliance with policy. Indeed, the consensus seemed to be that it is not. It's a bolder close than I would've made, but maybe "!vote" should actually mean something. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Wikipedia policy is arrived at largely by consensus, and such policies are sometimes wildly inappropriate for some cases; perhaps the interpretation and application of policies should be similarly consensus driven? Urselius ( talk) 14:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  By the way, in 50/50 cases, IMO at least more than one admin should make the final decision. Ber31 ( talk) 15:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Abby McDeere ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The discussion and subsequent decision was controversial, but the outcome was redirect and merge useful content. However, this is not even remotely what happened. The article was 10,669‎ bytes (on my screen that's 3 pages) and the redirect points to a listing, where the character is described in 2 lines in the most cursory way imaginable, with no sources. No attempt has been made to move any content from the deleted article. This is not what was decided on. 91.64.59.134 ( talk) 17:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Well no, the outcome of the discussion was Redirect, with a note saying that anybody who wants to can merge content. So far nobody has, but that doesn't stop you from doing so. However the outcome of the discussion was that having this level of detail on this character was excessive, so the coverage of her in other articles isn't going to approach this kind of depth. Hut 8.5 18:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Any editor, including 91.64.59.134, is welcome to merge any referenced and encyclopedic content from the preserved history. It's not the closing admin's responsibility. pburka ( talk) 18:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - having contributed to the AFD, and having highlighted the woefulness of the nomination, I was nonetheless part of the numeric minority. The arguments for redirection weren't great, and the statements in support of deletion were vapid and childish. But they were what was supported by consensus. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 05:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• The decision was right, it just hasn't been carried out. If you'd like to correct that, you are welcome to carry it out.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - close is reasonable and left merging up to editorial discretion; as the page history is preserved, the OP can use their editorial discretion to merge if desired. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Thanks everyone. -- 91.64.59.134 ( talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Good call. The more we get rid character pages the better. They're true trash. scope_creep ^Talk 13:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Jessica Hammond ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe the closer of the discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. There were both delete and keep arguments that mainly judged the depth of coverage in reliable sources. I don't think there was a clear consensus to keep based on what was put forth and no rationale was given on the NAC. For transparency, I originally started the AfD after reviewing the article as part of a WP:Cleanup request, and came here after reviewing the closer's contributions with greater scrutiny after a recent block. Aranya  (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I think "keep" was a plausible outcome for the AfD, but it's not clear-cut and it was inappropriate for a non-admin to close this one. pburka ( talk) 16:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Relist while I think the content is probably going to be kept at this stage, I think it's closer to a no consensus than a keep which could change tenor of future renoms, should they happen. It's also not an appropriate NAC as there is valid discussion about both sides, and at least needs a closing statement. Star Mississippi 16:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Relist - This was not so much a bad non-admin closure as a sock closure. The closer has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Ugh, thanks for flagging. I'm not active enough in DRV to do an early relist, but I think that's exactly what's needed. This was not a valid close. Star Mississippi 18:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Fuck Joe Biden ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast where some editors have raised potential new information that has some to light since Fuck Joe Biden was closed as a SNOW delete. There have been sources brought up that have resulted in some editors motioning to created an article titled Let's go Brandon (a page which currently redirects to Kelli Stavast), believing that the phrase "Let's go Brandon" has become a minced oath for "Fuck Joe Biden". I am bringing this here as sources clearly indicate that the two phrases are related and thus any potential "Let's go Brandon" article would look very similar to a "Fuck Joe Biden" article. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 06:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment See also Draft:Let's Go Brandon!, its MfD, RfD's on the redirects... This is just a mess, as most partisan things are in the heat of the moment. There's probably enough RS coverage for some sort of an article, or a paragraph in Public image of Joe Biden, but when we close AfDs on current, controversial topics in 40 hours, you know they're going to get revisited sometime soon... Jclemens ( talk) 07:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• I don't think there's much for DRV to do here, the deleted version was very short and was only discussing a college football chant, so any article along the lines of what the OP's suggesting would have to be a complete rewrite anyway. You might as well just write a new article. Hut 8.5 11:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The closer acted in accordance with procedures in snow closing this, but, in retrospect, would have better off to wait 7 days. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, I don't disagree at all. The closer was right per our processes, but ultimately, the snap decision of the crowd looks to have aged poorly. Jclemens ( talk) 19:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Allow Re-Creation Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This is likely to wind up either back at DRV or at Arbitration Enforcement, as the last stop for content, or the conduct forum for American politics. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse LGB =/= FJB, even if they are the same under the duck test. In any case this likely isn’t a big enough subject for an entire article and could just be covered at either one or both of the above mentioned articles. At most maybe recreate as a redirect to “let’s go brandon”. Dronebogus ( talk) 10:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The deletion process is not for creating new articles, and outside the change of phrasing to something more 'work appropriate', no new WP:N overall has been picked up since last month (I do agree the nom should've went the full seven days though despite the then-SNOW consensus). Nate • ( chatter) 21:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Closer comment: Hi all, happy to take the constructive feedback around potentially letting this run for the full 7 days considering the content matter. At the same time, I made a judgement call on the content matter, and thought it was best for the encyclopedia to activate the snowball clause considering the overwhelming consensus, and the very poor content of the article. I still believe the close as delete was the correct decision and hence endorse deletion (as closer), as I don't believe any (perceived or real) procedural imperfections have impacted the outcome. No strong opinion on what should happen in terms of recreation etc. Daniel ( talk) 23:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment It was a tough call, honestly, and though I would have preferred the seven days, the signal/noise ratio where nonsense was being added (and protection required) trying to derail it probably worked out in the end. I did not expect this to linger on in new forms after a month at the same time. Nate • ( chatter) 23:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• I agree with the above. Just because SNOW closing an AfD turned out to not resolve the matter doesn't imply that letting it run for a full 7 days WOULD have resolved anything more conclusively. Our processes are not optimized for politically contentious topics. Jclemens ( talk) 00:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Wikipedia is not the news and Wikipedia is not America. If this was about the leader of most any other country in the world, we would never have had the article, the AFD, nor this discussion. Stifle ( talk) 16:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I can't see how any editor could look at the close, and suggest that it should be anything different. If this isn't WP:SNOW I don't know what is. Nothing to say it can't be mentioned in another article about someone saying this. Though even a redirect would be WP:ONEEVENT. Nfitz ( talk) 23:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The page was deleted without any discussion, even though it was about a clearly notable subject. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article and I really cannot understand how anyone can claim there are no sources about a thing like public holidays, especially in the native languages. I sincerely doubt the person who deleted this articled did WP:BEFORE. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 07:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

As an expired prod this can be restored automatically without a discussion here. This is usually done by asking the deleting admin ( User:GB fan in this case) or via request at WP:REFUND. Phil Bridger ( talk) 07:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I did not know that, I am not an expert on this things, I just saw the article was deleted. So now that I opened this request, do I leave it so or do I use another procedure? Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 07:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The article is restored. ~ GB fan 09:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

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

This is to remove the redirect to .tk and allow restoring/rewriting the article. The rationale is twofold. Firstly, Freenom is a domain registry operator for five different ccTLDs (country-code top level internet domains): .tk, .ml, .ga, .cf and .gq. Making the article redirect to a random one of them – as it is the case now – is factually incorrect and thus misleading to the readers. This can be seen from the number of attempts to remove the redirect over the last 3 years.

Two, even if Freenom do not receive much media coverage as an enterprise, they are part of critical internet infrastructure for those five countries as the operator of their national internet domains. They are infinitely more important than, say, local pageant winner from 1996.

Overall, I see absolutely no reason to keep redirecting this Dutch company to an article on Tokelau's internet domain and propose to restore the article. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 10:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation - the AfD is not worth overturning, but nor is it a strong enough consensus (of 1.5 people) on which to base 6-7 reverts to stop the creation of a new article since 2018. Essentially, more people have tried to create an article since 2018 than participated in the AFD. And many more have tried than there were people supporting a redirect. The nominator ended up supporting keep or merge and the one person who supported deletion was a suspected sock-puppet. I'm not sure it will necessarily survive an AFD on the above argument but I'm sufficiently convinced an editor in good standing should have the opportunity to try. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 11:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation essentially per the above. Does no one ever read WP:CCC anymore? Jclemens ( talk) 07:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• I have to disagree with the above, restoring the article is not a good idea. This is what it looked like. Of the six citations two are to press releases by the subject, two are to obviously unreliable sources (a user-edited wiki and a tabloid newspaper), and the other two don't mention the ostensible subject of the article at all. It's also not correct to say that there have been "6-7 reverts to stop the creation of a new article since 2018". There has been one attempt to create an article since 2018, it was completely unsourced. The other changes were attempts to remove the redirect by blanking it or to the proposed deletion process, which were correctly reverted. There shouldn't be anything to stop someone from writing a better sourced article which demonstrates the notability of the subject, but that hasn't happened so far. If someone wants the redirect to be removed in the meantime then WP:RFD is the right venue. Hut 8.5 09:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Sure, and I don't think anyone is suggesting any of those previous versions (substantive or not) should be restored. Any new version of the article would need better sources, better writing, etc. But it would need to be new. And if those things aren't resolved, we can expect it to head back to AFD. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The OP said they would like the article to be restored. It doesn't look like anybody has tried to write an improved version and they don't need DRV's permission to do so. Hut 8.5 11:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Sure, yeah, was focused on the "/rewriting". Clarification, then, that it should probably be developed in draft-space first. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 11:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Allow Re-Creation - The appellant came here rather than to RFD, and there is no need to send them to RFD, which might reasonably tell them that they should come here. The redirect is not helpful at this time, and a draft can be reviewed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply

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

Notable Mechachleopteryx I don't know if I did that right, the page I am trying to reference is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Standard_Galactic_Alphabet. ( talk) 01:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse No valid argument for overturning provided, DRV is not AfD round 2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Arguement doesnt make sense. NW1223( ^{Howl at me}/ _{My hunts}) 02:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• You've already converted the redirect into an article (the AfD to the contrary notwithstanding), so I'm not sure why you've brought it to us. You're good to go unless someone either reverts you or files another AfD, and giving you our imprimatur doesn't prevent either of those things. I'd recommend a speedy close since there's nothing for us to do here. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

List of longest-living state leaders ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page is not some permastub on a non-notable supercentenarian. It is the list of the oldest state leaders ever. The hundred oldest ever. And it was deleted. It is not like the "list of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War." It is nearly as important as List of the verified oldest people, as List of American, Belgian, British, etc. supercentenarians, as List of centenarians. These people are the oldest-ever state leaders. 🐔  Chicdat   ^{Bawk to me!} 10:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- The consensus at the AfD was clearly judged correctly. Reyk _YO! 10:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Aye, this seems like a clearly correct reading of consensus. Even if we ignored the headcount completely - and we don't - the keep arguments were pretty handwavey ["it's important" is not generally viewed as an adequate argument in and of itself]. I see that the nominator didn't discuss with the closer first, but I am inclined to think that that's no big issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – you would need a killer of an argument to overcome a clear numerical consensus like that, and "it's important; it's useful" do not suffice. The delete !votes raised serious policy-based arguments (e.g. WP:NOT; WP:OR), and the keep !votes did not adequately rebut them, opting instead for classic WP:AADD arguments. Since deletion clearly has consensus from both a numerical and a strength-of-argument perspective, the close was correct. I also note for the appellant that DRV is not AfD round 2; the statement above reads more like an attempt to relitigate the discussion than an actual challenge to the close. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 15:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close because what the DRV nom says does not mean that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and it is not pertinent to any of the other four WP:DRVPURPOSE reasons. Therefore the nomination does not align with the purpose of this forum, so there is no prospect of success. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 15:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment While it seems unfortunate to those who have been maintaining them, the consensus across many AfDs is that "List of [oldest|youngest] X" are being roundly deleted as NOT something Wikipedia is going to consider appropriate for covering. I'm sorry, but that isn't something in DRV's purview to overturn, even though I feel your pain. Jclemens ( talk) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, except that the appellant doesn't state an error by the closer, just disagreement, so maybe Alalch Emis is right that this may be a Speedy Close. The appellant has a right to disagree, and a right to appeal, but not a right to have their appeal considered when they don't say why they are appealing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and speedy close. DRV addresses failures to follow the deletion process. Arguments or re-arguments that could have been, or were, raised at the original deletion discussion are out of scope. Pithily, "DRV is not AFD round 2". Stifle ( talk) 08:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the nominator doesn’t provide an actual reason why the consensus is incorrect and is just stating that it’s WP:IMPORTANT over and over. Clearly just a last-ditch attempt at saving an article someone liked. Dronebogus ( talk) 00:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clear policy-based consensus in the discussion. As the nominator just seems to want to rehash the AfD discussion I would suggest a speedy close of this. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 02:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Matthew Tye ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

As discussed on previous admin AfD talk page this individual has become more prominent since 2018 - /info/en/?search=User_talk:Shritwod#Matthew_Tye Infograbber19 ( talk) 05:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and keep salted - for clarity, it wasn't Shritwod who deleted the article; he nominated it for deletion. Sandstein was the deleting admin. And despite reasonably clear instructions to discuss it with the admin who deleted it, not one but three accounts managed to (incorrectly) find their way to the wrong editor's talk page to have that discussion. My ears are ringing it's that loud, but that discussion on Shritwod's page demonstrates fairly comprehensively that not much has changed since the last time (the third AFD!) this was deleted. I think we need a lot more before removing creation protection. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 08:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Oh my notifications have gone a bit mad. I haven't been paying it much attention. To be honest, I'm a deleter and I don't think either Tye or Sterzel pass the notability threshold. But then there are thousands of other biographies of far less notable people. Shritwod ( talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and keep salted- nothing's changed, and the off-site canvassing means that continued protection is required. Reyk _YO! 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and keep salted. I very much doubt that these new sources would persuade anyone at AfD, and the canvassing certainly doesn't incline me to lift the protection. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 15:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation – I believe a lot has changed since 2018, and the subject has had more coverage in reliable secondary sources (see the aforementioned discussion). In my opinion he passes WP:GNG and the guideline for creative professionals (points 1 and 3). Demetrios1993 ( talk) 15:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Allow recreation – There are similar articles in Wikipedia for others like Matthew Tye - I also believe that the BIO passes creative professionals (points 1 and 3). Infograbber19 ( talk) 02:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

It's assumed you support recreation given your nomination. No need to also !vote. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 06:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I have tried to find independent reliable sources and fail to find any that includes a critical assessment of Tye's activities or positions. These would be needed to write a decent article. I do see mentions, usually in dubious media, in relation to Youtube activism. The only two sources I found that seemed decent were blogs, so also not really usable. I found a few by-association mentions, i.e. in a somewhat decent source mentioning Winston with some activism context (mentions are not coverage)... Then I see online forum comments with conspiracy theories about Wikipedia and China, not usable for an article. — Paleo Neonate – 01:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply

How about the following ones PaleoNeonate? What's your opinion?

• Video of Chinese Portrayed as 'Language Rapists' Goes Viral – 7 January 2017
• The Trail Leading Back to the Wuhan Labs – 3 April 2020
• US-China friction turns into YouTube fame (and laughs) for online influencers – 29 October 2020
• YouTuber clears up China propagandist's confusion over Taiwan independence – 19 November 2020
• The WHO’s Probe into Wuhan Needs a Dose of Common Sense – 16 February 2021
• “在中国，自由都是表面的”：一位逃离墙国的美国网红 – 29 July 2021

By the way, is there a set minimum requirement of how many independent reliable sources are needed to create an article? I have read from other users, as few as two. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 13:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply

"Multiple", so more than one. WP:THREE isn't a policy, but it can be a good guide. But the vast majority of the above are about other things (like COVID-19 or Taiwan) and include comments by the subject. They aren't coverage of the subject, which is what we require for someone to be considered notable (per WP:GNG). He might be considered notable; that is, it could be argued that he is notable, but its not clear-cut. An argument that a subject could be notable is generally not enough to overturn existing consensus, where that consensus is that they definitively are not. The off-wiki nonsense and conspiracy theories about why the article was deleted in the first place don't help. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 05:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks for the honest answer. When you put it like that, indeed, most of the sources above don't meet the necessary criteria. But at least, in my opinion, these following two do. I am not saying this is enough, but at least it is a start.

• US-China friction turns into YouTube fame (and laughs) for online influencers – 29 October 2020 (the article was republished here, where you can read it without a paywall)
• “在中国，自由都是表面的”：一位逃离墙国的美国网红 – 29 July 2021 (it does include quotations, but also independent coverage)

User:WhisperToMe had also mentioned an article by The Beijinger, whose author was the "Deputy Managing Editor" of the company, and according to him this doesn't count as a WP:USERGENERATED source. If i understand correctly, he viewed it as a WP:NEWSBLOG; or might have meant something else.

• Watch Two Crazy Vloggers Drive 5,000km Across Southern China on Handmade Motorcycles – 20 August 2016

What's your opinion? Demetrios1993 ( talk) 02:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The South China Morning Post (as I said above) includes some coverage of Tye. But it's 2.5 sentences about him, and 2.5 sentences about his opinion of China. And parts of both are about his video that is embedded in the article (which also falls into the "by him, not about him" category). I'm not sure whether Voice of America is considered a reliable source but the site includes no biographical information about the author and most of the text seems to be quotes from Tye himself, covering the situation in China. To the extent that it is coverage of him, it is mostly his own words about his own situation. The Beijinger is a blog. Sometimes they might be considered acceptable, if they have the sort of editorial independence that a regular news outlet might have. In this instance, the media provided for the article (images and video content) were provided by Tye, suggesting the article (on which that media was based) might not have been as independent as we would like. Again, not terrible, but not great either. And probably not enough to overturn consensus. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 03:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Regarding the SCMP article, i assume we agree that it does count for something. Again, i know it isn't enough by its own, but even the 2.5 sentences about the subject, do meet the "Significant coverage" criterion of WP:GNG. Right? Also, we have to consider that the subject is mainly notable for his YouTube work, thus it is reasonable to expect such relevant coverage (the additional 2.5 sentences). Now that i think about it, this means that some of the other aforementioned sources might have some merit as well; excluding the quotes of the subject of course. I mean, they do provide coverage on his work, which is why he is notable (debatably) after all.

Regarding the Voice of America article, if you question its reliability based on what the respective Wikipedia lede states (While some foreign audiences have a positive view of VOA, others consider it to be a form of propaganda.), then i don't think it would affect its reliability; per WP:BIASEDSOURCES and Wikipedia:Propaganda#Scope. Furthemore, it does include biographical information about the subject; here is an auto-translation (Google Translate) of all the relevant points:

Again, i know more will have to be presented; but, surely the above must count for something. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 03:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

It's not nothing, but most people wouldn't consider 2.5 sentences to be "significant coverage". It's really just what is necessary to introduce the person the author is about to quote (to give significant coverage to another topic). Significant coverage by him isn't the same as significant coverage of him. And again, while that translated article might include biographical information, it doesn't look like a particularly reliable source. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 14:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks for all your answers Stalwart111. I will take note of everything you wrote in case of a re-evaluation in the future. By the way, i think there is a case for the reliability of the Voice of America article, but this can be brought up again in a future DRV, since it appears we have reached consensus at this point. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 00:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Template:flaglist+link ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This particular use of {{ flagg}} parameters is expensive and can only be used on a few hundred links per article. ( H:TABLE)

it has a WP:PEIS that is too large for a template intended to be used hundreds of times per article. ^[1]

• Endorse This is utterly bogus reasoning, as {{ flaglist+link}} was just as expensive as its replacement, and there's no reason to think that the participants at the TfD didn't know that, or would have supported keeping it if they had known. And there was a remaining unaddressed objection, that that consecutive links to a more general article and then a specific article is inferior to linking solely to the specific article, and that the use of generic link text like "more" is inadequate (from Bsherr's comment). The replacement with {{ flagg}} that I performed does in fact address that objection, and the sole remaining objection is that I engaged in a long time wasting exercise of replacing one template with another. Well, it's not your responsibility to tell me how to spend my time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  I also note that you've made no effort to discuss this with the closing admin (and in fact didn't even notify them of this DRV). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Per Pppery. Guarapiranga has said nothing here that wasn't already said at the TFD. The new method using {{ flagg}} is better: Help:Table#Adding links to specialized country, state, or territory articles. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 05:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Closer's comment. I don't find this rationale compelling to overturn a near-unanimous (apart from the nominator) consensus. czar 04:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Round World version of the Silmarillion ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Incorrect interpretation of consensus. The AfD was closed as redirect to a target in which there is no discussion of the topic. Inevitably, a subsequent RfD deleted the page because of that. Of the twelve editors who responded to the AfD, only two called for redirect. One of those called for redirect to an entirely different target (which actually does have a section discussing the topic at Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium#Spherical-earth cosmology both now and at the time of the AfD) and the other did not give a target at all. It is true that several participants called for merge to the closer's chosen target, but if that was the intention of the closer, using {{ Afd-merge to}} and {{ Afd-merge from}} templates would have been a better option rather than an immediate redirect per the adminstrator instructions. Spinning Spark 09:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

In practice, a redirect is the same thing as a merge except that during a merge you also copy stuff over. If memory serves, I didn't get a clear impression whether folks were sure that there was mergeable material and only closed as redirect because of the aforementioned equivalence. Anyhow, I think this should have been a close to merge, if we are OK with treating the headcount as more important than the sourcing issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

They are "the same thing...except that during a merge you also copy stuff over". From an editorial point of view that makes them radically different imo. From an administrative close point of view they are also different because, as I already pointed out, the administrator instructions call for them to be treated differently. Either way, the page has ended up deleted when that was not the result of the AfD. I'm not arguing for headcount over sourcing, my argument in the AfD was that the article was actually sourced from the Chrisptopher Tolkein source, which position I can defend more robustly and directly now than I did then. Spinning Spark 10:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The subsequent RfD rejects the notion of “redirect”, and so the AfD needs to be re-run, to decide between “keep” and “delete”. AfD is not Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers and it cannot force a merge. Chide User:Piotrus for “Can anyone rescue this?”; AfD is not for cleanup. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  While it can reasonably be argued that the RfD was defective, I think it is better to send this back to AfD. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse-ish (but cleanup of this mess is needed). It's not AfD's fault nobody bothered to add a sentence mentioning this to the target article. If you want to chide anyone, "chide" RfDs participants and/or the admin who deleted this before a single sentence was merged. What we should do is to restore this as a redirect and merge a sentence. Also, I'll chide Joe for not supporting desire to rescue articles. There is nothing wrong with occasional cleanup, and I think you misunderstood both the intention of what I asked and what WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP is about. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Hi Piotr. I read you nomination as seeking deletion, not seeking to rescue, and ending with a challenge to someone else to rescue it this week or see it deleted. I thought article rescue was reviewing AfD for poor articles being deleted for looking poor and improving them to the point of being AfD-proof.

  AfD often closes with a consensus to redirect with an open option to merge, but in this case the redirect was a compromise, was not a strong consensus, and I think the RfD pushes back on the call of "redirect" enough to overturn it.

  I consider all the "merge" !votes to be fully valid "do not delete" !votes. Reading the "redirect" !votes as "delete", I think it leans to "delete", but a renomination with "merge" off the table will simplify the discussion. If someone wants to merge, can they do it quicker than someone else does the renomination? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  IMHO rescue is always on the table and seeked out in all and any deletion discussions. After all, it is the alternative to deletion, and is just as valid of an outcome as the deletion itself. In either case, I stand by my view that the AfD was closed correctly (with the decision to softdelete - redirect - and merge) but the problem lies with the RfD which killed the history before anything, apparently, was merged. This should have been temporarily kept with this 'consensus to merge, please do it' template you occasionally see. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  So, Draftify is an acceptable solution? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Piotrus, DRV is not the place to discuss how much should be merged, but since you raise it, and to knock it on the head right away, "...add a sentence mentioning this to the target article" is an entirely inadequate action. Tolkein wrote "Old Flat World Version" and "Round World Version" on title page of the manuscripts he gave to Katherine Farrer for review. This shows that Tolkein himself considers this the defining feature of the major revision in the evolution of his work and this viewpoint is supported by other sources discussing that evolution. Spinning Spark 11:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• I someone actually interested in merging the content? If so I'm sure we can restore the article somewhere so it can be merged, with appropriate attribution (which doesn't have to involve a redirect). If not then I don't think there's much to discuss, the consensus in the AfD was definitely that it shouldn't have a standalone article. Hut 8.5 11:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• I don't think the issue was with the original AfD, but the MfD, which failed to consider retargeting as an WP:ATD. Thus, overturn the MfD of the redirect, redirect it appropriately, and merge as desired. This concerns me; redirects with history shouldn't be deleted as easily as redirects without any underlying edit history, but I'm not sure how to make that happen in such an under-appreciated venue. Jclemens ( talk) 15:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Redirect to The Silmarillion without merging is not the same as merge to The Silmarillion. Nobody in the AFD called for the former so how can there be nothing wrong with the close? The only redirect target offered was a different article where a redirect actually makes sense. Spinning Spark 16:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  I am not suggesting the original AfD be sustained, merely that the RfD was clearly and unequivocally beneath what we would expect. I generally don't split hairs between merge and redirect, as long as the history is maintained under the redirect so that existing material can be merged. I do not oppose overturning the AfD, just don't see a clear deletion policy goof like we have with the RfD. I'm also not opposed to article recreation under standard content expectations, either. Jclemens ( talk) 16:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn:

D
D
D
D
D/M (legendarium)
K
M
M (legendarium / canon)
M (silmarillion)
M (silmarillion)
R (legendarium, cosmology of)
R

Closer said There is some disagreement between editors on a merge or redirect ... Neither discussion strand seems to have gotten to a clear consensus. Thus, this will be a redirect to the most commonly cited merg target. "Thus, this will be a redirect" is kind of non sequitur. The most commonly cited target was a legendarium-type target, and two merge !votes (one tentative) identifying it as an obviously more accurate target also has bearing here. Consensus was interpreted incorrectly when a consensus to redirect straight to Silmarillion was found. Generally, I agree with the DRV nom. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 17:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Without opinion on the AFD, the RFD is plainly defective for not having considered retargeting to Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium#Spherical-earth cosmology. This isn't even WP:ATD territory; rfd always retargets in preference to deletion if there's an appropriate target. — Cryptic 17:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The end result here, in which the title doesn't go anywhere, is wrong. There has been a wrong deletion, and Deletion Review is in order. The RFD should clearly be overturned. This was not filed as an appeal from the RFD, but we certainly should treat this as one, because we are the appeal board for both AFD and RFD. The AFD isn't clearly wrong, but it led to a sub-optimal result that became pessimal when the RFD deleted the title. So I think that we should start over. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn both the RFD and the AFD, and Relist at AFD, with a multiple-choice list of targets so as to make it more likely that the community and the closer can reach a rough consensus on a reasonable solution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the RFA and AFD with a relist at AFD, making it clear that the AFD outcome, if redirect, will bind RFD also. Stifle ( talk) 12:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Jörg Schilling ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Notability can be established. He was chairman and council member of Fraunhofer FOKUS, maintainer of BerliOS, OpenSolaris, author of a book, host at Linux Tag, ccc.de and creator of cdrtools. All of these before 2016.

The nomination in 2016 had turned into a fight. And SCSS is not a lie. I request permission for undelete and translate from german or spanish Wikipedia. GM83 ( talk) 00:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Go to WP:REFUND and ask for undeletion into draftspace or your userspace. Read advice at WP:THREE. It has been deleted before, and your sources are not what’s required. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The obituaries are good new sources. Coming to DRV was a mistake, REFUND is for easy requests like this. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Sure? as I read some times "this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion". Well, this article has two nominations. No problem for me if this article is restored as draft. -- GM83 ( talk) 04:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Restore to Draft There is this reference (they look reliable, but WP:RSP is sadly lacking in foreign language sources) in the German article, as well as this German-language obituary and this old OpenSolaris article, which looks to be enough references for him to pass the WP:THREE test of notability. There’s probably other stuff too, mainly in German, so we will need a native German speaker to find and cite stuff as needed. Samboy ( talk) 19:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Some "lost" references can be found in 2010, and a paper published by NASA - Harvard about astronomy and optical media.-- GM83 ( talk) 05:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• A problem with the archived topic was that it was largely based on primary sources, using information for which no reliable secondary source was given. The second paragraph contains several statements which are flawed in this fashion. Regarding the paper published by Astronomical Society of the Pacific, its contribution toward notability would have to be factored into whether it is topical (e.g.,. if the claim of notability is "published a lot of papers", then citation counts or number of papers is where the discussion would go). TEDickey ( talk) 22:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Restore the Draft - The closer said that consensus can change, and it appears to be changing. There continues to be agreement that better sources are needed. If they are available, that is what is needed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• wait for sources The content as such is available on the [ Internet Archive] and could be converted to a draft without any review, but was found wanting for the purpose of establishing notability. The SCCS presentation mentioned above appears to have been self-published, not subjected to any formal review process (and was self-promotional) TEDickey ( talk) 19:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  It’s the German-language sources -- and Joerg got a lot of coverage in German -- which establish his notability. WP:NONENG clearly establishes that the sources do not have to be in English, and that we need to take in to account reliable sources available in any language. Samboy ( talk) 06:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  sure - Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and frequently sources are sliced/diced to present an editor's opinions rather than constructively using the reliable sources. For instance, the quote from von Leitner in the German topic is selected (a partial quote) to make the topic state something different from the blog. In this instance, either the full quote should be given, or none at all TEDickey ( talk) 21:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  keep in mind that the German wikipedia gets less attention than the English, and is certainly no more reliable. I happened to notice a blatant error relating to my work there, which has apparently been unchallenged for about ten years. Whatever sources are provided, they will require scrutiny TEDickey ( talk) 15:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Morteza Kazemian ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The subject was a renowned columnist in Iran during the late 1990s/early 2000s. Undeletion of the article in the draftspace will suffice for me to establish notability. Pahlevun ( talk) 17:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Participation in the AfD was minimal and the request is only for draftification so this should be a no-brainer. I'm sure that if you had asked the closer of the discussion this could have been done without a formal duscussion here. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:REFUND to draftspace. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Refund - agree, a no-brainer. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 03:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Go to WP:REFUND and request undeletion into draftspace. Read WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Restore Draft - A minimally participated AFD. Treat as soft delete. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Ali Darabi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I think the subject passes notability because many sources are found in Persian language. He has been recently appointed as a deputy minister in Iran and previously held several offices. Undeletion of the article in the draftspace will suffice for me to establish notability. Pahlevun ( talk) 17:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse WP:REFUND to draftspace. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Refund - as much a no-brainer as above. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 03:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Go to WP:REFUND and request undeletion into draftspace. I recommend working on the native language Wikipedia article first. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Restore the Draft - This was a moderately well-participated AFD, but they were reviewing based on the sources that they had, and the requester wants to add Persian sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Andrew Lauderdale ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Since his page has been deleted in March 2020, Lauderdale has earned the starting offensive lineman position for the Saskatchewan Roughriders of the Canadian Football League (CFL), meaning he now meets WP:NGRIDIRON. As of week 10, he has appeared in 6 games ( https://www.riderville.com/players/andrew-lauderdale/163315/). Therefore I believe recreation of this page should be allowed. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ BeanieFan11: the page isn't salted, you should be able to start the article without going through deletion review. Elli ( talk | contribs) 18:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Oh, Ok. I was just going here because I didn't want someone to tag it for speedy deletion when I created it. Thanks. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Go for it - classic case of WP:TOOSOON; wasn't previously notable, now is. I like the abundance of caution in bringing it here, but Elli is right. Happy editing. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 01:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• DRV is not for pre-emptive permission to re-create when you think the reasons for deletion are overcome. If it is over six months ago, you may boldly recreate, and anyone may AfD it. If you are not sure, use WP:AfC and read advice at WP:THREE. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• I've restored the edit history of the deleted version here - because the new version is based on the deleted version the edit history is needed for attribution purposes. Hut 8.5 08:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Articles for deletion ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While this page has been deleted 15 times(!!!), I am only challenging this one RfD, as I agree with the other XfD decisions—namely that it should not be an article and that it should not redirect to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. The 2012 RfD's close may well have been correct by 2012 standards, but I don't think it's in keeping with how we do things now. While projectspace XNRs are rarely tolerated, the case where they are tolerated is when they are terms that non-editors or brand-new editors may have heard. (See my recent point at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 30 § Autoconfirmed.) I think this is just such a page, much like Autoconfirmed or Administrators' noticeboard. We link to AfD from mainspace anytime an article is tagged for AfD, and people could easily hear the phrase while knowing little enough about behind-the-scenes Wikipedia stuff that they don't know how namespace prefixes work. I am requesting that this be unsalted and recreated as a redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I have no objection to it being immediately full-protected thereafter. (I also note that my argument here is particular to AfD, by far our most visible XfD venue. I don't think that, say, Redirects for discussion should exist as an XNR.) -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 09:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt and allow recreation (i.e. G4-exempt), subject to a new RfD if appropriate. The 2012 RfD closure is tenuous at best (it reads like a supervote: the participants were more-or-less evenly split, and there was no clear policy reason for the closer to prefer one position over the other), but more importantly enough time has passed that consensus may have changed, as the recent RfD linked above shows. A decade-old RfD, especially one where the consensus was ambiguous, should not have the power to foreclose good-faith arguments so long afterwards. It's thus appropriate to unsalt for a new RfD, where all these arguments can be debated again. (If a future RfD is closed as delete, resalting may be appropriate.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and maintain the result of the 2012 RfD. At best, this could redirect to an article on some aspect of Wikipedia that includes external links to thinks like WP:AFD. Redirecting to Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia would be better than any CNR mainspace to projectspace. Mainspace should be kept clean of holes into the backrooms. Are readers coming straight to this page? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Based on sources like this and this, you could make an arguable case that AfD is real-world notable nowadays and it should in fact have its own article, with the CNR as a hatnote. In any case the 2012 decision has lost its force through lapse of time and shouldn't be an obstacle to a further discussion now.— S Marshall  T/ C 08:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  I think the CNR you mention would belong in the External Links section, not a hatnote. Jimbo #6 was and remains a good principle. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  {{ selfref}} hatnotes are common enough on pages where someone genuinely might be looking for the internal page, like " Citation needed" and " Reliability of Wikipedia". Although, very much in the spirit of Jimbo #6, I make a point of removing such hatnotes when they're used more as "Hey, did you know Wikipedia has an internal page about this too?", such as here. In general, I'd say if something would be a viable XNR, it's a viable selfref hatnote if there is an article, and vice versa. (Indeed, "Citation needed" was an XNR for a time.) -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 04:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  A lot of gnomes don't seem to realise that as Wikipedia Gnomes, they have a different perspective to readers. This is especially a criticism of hatnotes. A hatnote might be useful to someone, but for most it is an intrusion on the most valuable realestate of the article. And if it was important, why is it OK that mobile view doesn't show it? (because it is unimportant clutter that Wikipedians are insensitive to).

  If somebody needs help to something else, they know to look for it, and this is why improbably help notes belong at the bottom.

  Citation needed ^{citation needed} is an important alert to a reader, as well as invitation for a reader to become an editor. {{ cn}} remains a mainspace --> projectspace link, justified by this.

  The article Citation needed, should have all the Wikipedia editor tools, which are not reader recruitment tools, moved to the bottom as external links. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Wrong Venue for the intended result. If we're wanting to revisit cross-namespace redirects, then the big deal isn't that this one is deleted, but that a thoroughly advertised, neutrally-worded RfC would need to be held to make sure that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here at DRV isn't at odds with the greater editing community. I have no strong personal feeling on the suggested outcome, could support it either way. Jclemens ( talk) 15:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  There's never been a global consensus against XNRs to projectspace. They're decided case-by-case at RfD. This regex search should (I think) match every RfD this year for a redirect to projectspace that didn't have a colon in its title (done that way partly to exclude pseudo-namespaces, partly because of limitations in regex searching). Ctrl+f → Wikipedia: on any given page in the list to find the RfD in question. You'll see that most get deleted, but some (e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24 § Complete list of encyclopedia topics) are not. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 15:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  My recollection differs, but if no one else remembers it or raises a ruckus, then consensus has apparently changed. (shrug) again, no dog in this fight, but just would recommend proactively avoiding possible drama... but I get that that can seem overly bureaucratic, and I confess my hesitancy comes from when I've thought something was completely non-controversial and been wrong. Jclemens ( talk) 03:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Heh, I appreciate that. I definitely know the feeling of doing something you thought would be obvious and instead finding out it's a third rail. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 04:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt, concurring with appellant User:Tamzin, and allowing another RFD (if it is a redirect that is created, as it should be). Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• I support cross-namespace redirect; the redirect should probably be full-protected as a separate discussion should occur before converting the title to an article. I am neutral regarding Jclemens' concerns regarding whether this the correct forum for this discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Here's a better idea. I have created Draft:Deletion of articles on Wikipedia. I propose that there are sufficient third-party reliable sources discussing the mechanics of deletion on Wikipedia from an external perspective for the topic to meet the WP:GNG, which would provide a natural article-space target to which this title can redirect. BD2412 T 15:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Much better! SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  Pretty cool. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 13:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ BD2412: If that's the avenue we're going to take, might it make more sense to broaden Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia into that title, and add a "deletion process" section at the top containing a more succinct version of what the draft currently says? Looking at the draft, I don't know I'm convinced there's an article's worth of material here. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 20:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  It will develop in time. The philosophies of deletionism and inclusionism are a matter distinct from the mechanisms for deletion. BD2412 T 01:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply