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

The closing admin incorrectly interpreted the discussion as no consensus. The AFD was already showing a reasonable consensus to redirect based on policy and evidence. After a re-listing admin directly asked "if the page should be redirected instead" [1], the new comments all supported a redirect (with some leaning merge vs delete). There was a consensus to redirect the article, and the AFD should have been closed as redirect, not no consensus. Jontesta ( talk) 21:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Redirect, discussion was a pretty clear consensus to redirect; discussion mostly broke down to "This article meets GNG" Vs. "No it doesn't", with both sides advancing reasonable arguments for their point. As such, given the !vote was 8-4 in favour of not keeping the article, with 6 of those 8 advocating a redirect and the remaining 2 advocating deletion, it should definitely be redirected. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. It is true that there were more editors calling to delete or redirect than to keep. It is also true that !voting is not purely numeric. Closer's comment about where to redirect is noted. The appellant can make another nomination in two months. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to redirect - there was a consensus to redirect here. I would discourage Robert McClenon's suggestion that someone re-nominate this, as it's best to strive for consensus and avoid more WP:BATTLEGROUND discussions. At best, the closing admin closed it prematurely, when a consensus was forming not unlike the DRV below. Shooterwalker ( talk) 05:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: There's good arguments made on both sides, and with four keeps, six redirects and one delete, I don't see a consensus here. It should be noted that a delete is not the same as a redirect, so I wouldn't count any delete votes the same as a redirect vote. MoonJet ( talk) 05:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. AfD participants often remind each other, it is not a vote, so highlighting the perceived numerical advantage for the redirect position against the keep one without any context is irrelevant. And if further discussion on the talk page would supposedly lead to more battleground behavior among editors whom I presume are preoccupied with improving the contents of related articles, then I would seriously question the maturity of said participants and whether they should continue to participate in any and all contentious discussions on Wikipedia at all. Unless consensus about the purpose of AfD's change, the fact remains that AfD's are not supposed to be a one-stop solution for any and all issues about articles, especially those of an editorial nature. Closer's decision is valid and does not preclude another AfD to take place in a later time. Haleth ( talk) 05:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no consensus closure because there wasn't consensus. The argument was basically a "this article meets GNG" vs. "this article does not meet GNG" argument, and a numerical advantage for the redirect/delete side does not trump the relative even strength in the arguments. Frank Anchor 13:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as involved. The appellant/nominator is as incorrect in the appeal as in the original nomination. The closer correctly assessed, I presume, that the redirect !votes were policy-based but not fact-based: the article as it stands now meets GNG, and more sources were brought up in the AfD that could have additionally been used. The changes during the AfD addressed every single policy-based reasons for deletion. As the closer said, a redirect discussion can be started on the talk page. Jclemens ( talk) 16:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Closer comment I stand by my close. Not only do I not see a consensus for redirect, but I don't even see consensus on a topic to redirect it to. Star Mississippi 00:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse a classic no consensus. Good close from an experienced closer. Lightburst ( talk) 01:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Willoughby Kipling ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closer interpreted the discussion incorrectly when closing as no consensus; the AfD was relisted once, and after this relist a total of seven editors weighed in, all of whom advocated for the article to be redirected and advanced legitimate reasons for it to be redirected. Given this there was a clear consensus to redirect the article, and the AfD should have been closed as redirect, not no consensus. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 10:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Close as redirect: This is unequivocally a consensus to redirect. I can respect that it wasn't unanimous, but there was overwhelming support for a redirect, from editors, policy, and evidence. A redirect also pushes editors back towards the editing process to address the best way to cover topics without stand-alone notability. Jontesta ( talk) 21:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Close as redirect, but noting that I'm WP:INVOLVED as I voted for redirect. There are 5 votes for keep, 9 votes for redirect (plus 1 vote for delete and 1 vote for merge), making the total keep votes 5, total merge/redirect votes 10, and delete vote 1. I'm unconvinced that the keep side has a clearly better argument, as they insist these four refs are meeting GNG, some of them (Jclemens, MoonJet) are potentially convincing despite my strong disagreement, but the rest are just assertions that it passes GNG. I'm iffy on why this was closed as no consensus, as redirect seems to have a clear numerical majority, and the arguments for redirect is at the very least as strong as the ones who voted keep. VickKiang ( talk) 22:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Redirect: The AFD was relisted once, as the initial discussion was split between keeping, merging, and redirecting, and the hope was that a clearer consensus between those three options would generate. This very much happened, as every one of the seven new commenters after the relist, myself included, advocated for the Redirect option. While I appreciate that Jclemens and MoonJet did respond to one of the redirect supporters, their comments did not really present any new argument that was not already presented in the initial discussion before the relist and the wave of relist arguments appeared. Closing the AFD as a No Consensus rather than as a Redirect is basically just ignoring the very clear consensus that emerged after the relist. Rorshacma ( talk) 00:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and redirect Per Jontesta's reasoning and others. All the presented sources were pretty much shot down as trivial coverage, so I'm not sure how it would be enough to overrule numerous redirect opinions. WP:CIR and part of that is being able to distinguish a significant source (on the part of the !voters who are attempting to argue for notability). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 03:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak Overturn to Redirect - In this case, consensus was clearly moving toward a redirect. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per my previous argument, 9 redirects to 5 keeps seems like a rough consensus. Note that history should be preserved ( WP:SOFTDELETE), and that the article has not been improved (which would merit a revision of the older votes). Given no improvement, just some disputed sources presented in the AfD, abiding by the numerical rough 2:1 consensus seems the right thing to do. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and redirect - As a rule of thumb, a re-list is basically like a new discussion, and every editor agreed to re-direct. Even accounting for the few keep !votes from the earlier part of the discussion, a redirect is a consensus alternative to deletion that avoids retreading the issue in another WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker ( talk) 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (as involved) four non-trivial RS means it's notable, no matter that they may, in fact, say substantially the same thing and that they all focus on one adaptation of the character. No objection to any discussion resulting in merger or redirection, but there's no policy-based justification for it to be an AfD-mandated outcome. Jclemens ( talk) 16:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Closer comment I'm fine with this being re-closed as redirect in way fewer than seven days if consensus is clear here. I will be on and offline with the holiday weekend. I had considered closing it as redirect, but I felt that would have been erring close to to a supervote and a n/c but go finish this amongst yourselves seemed fairer read personally. For future, @ Devonian Wombat: feel free to come to my Talk to discuss a close. We don't always need seven (more) days of bureaucracy. Star Mississippi 00:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Eh, NC or redirect were reasonable closes, keep may have been too. The argument comes down to sources and I felt both sides had a reasonable viewpoint though I think the sources are enough over the bar that keep had the stronger argument. endorse as I think the closer got to the outcome that best represented the discussion. Hobit ( talk) 00:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Amar Jit Singh Sandhu ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Action not required. several edits were made to the article. Article required. Dvj1992 ( talk) 14:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. It is very significant article with relation to Indian history. The article has a significant secondary source, where a chapter was dedicated to the Person. also several sources including primary sources were mention it is appaling that the article was deleted. Several edits were made. Ten refrences were made. Article should be restored. Dvj1992 ( talk) 15:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  It's implied when you start a DRV that you think the close should be overturned. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Support closer. Clear consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Every participant except the DRV nominator supported deletion. WP:ITSIMPORTANT and arguments that should have been raised in the AfD are not convincing at DRV, where your job is to argue that the closure itself did not reflect the consensus the discussion had come to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close, but undelete draft. It is hard to read the AFD discussion as anything other than delete; there is no indication the discussion or its close were faulty. It seems the article creator(?) feels strongly the subject "deserves" an article, but the sourcing was not up to snuff. That all said, I am sensitive that EN:WP notability assessments can lead to a bias against subjects in developing economies. At the same time Indian sources not infrequently suffer from editorial independence issues that non-Indians find hard to parse as well. If the creator/appellant is passionate about this article, no harm in letting them try working further on a draft, and for sourcing to be calmly evaluated in the less under-the-gun atmosphere of draft-for-promotion rather than article-for-deletion. It seems such a draft existed, at least one AFD participant suggested not touching it, but it was nuked after the article AFD close. Martinp ( talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, discussion could not have been closed any other way. No problem restoring draft. Stifle ( talk) 08:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure as deletion of article. Closure was correct. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion of draft. The AFD did not say to delete the draft (and I said not to delete it in the AFD). Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - When both a draft and an article exist, and the article is deleted at AFD, should the draft normally be deleted, or kept for possible improvement? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Since it's not immediately obvious, and to save other admins the irritation of tracking it down, the draft was misplaced at Draft:AJS. The author's second-last revision to that page was marked "Requesting deletion" (as can be seen by nonadmins in the move log from its previous title). All that was left at Draft:Amar Jit Singh Sandhu was the redirect created from another page move. — Cryptic 04:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

    There was a objection by someone that both an article and a draft existed so I requested that the draft be deleted. Now the draft is gone and the Article has been deleted as well. All data has been lost. Dvj1992 ( talk) 06:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn restore article as the it contained information about an important personality of Indian Armed forces. The subject of article had taken part in several engagements with the enemy. An entire chapter was dedicated to him in a book recently published and he finds mention in Indian air force documentries as well. All this information was atteched and cited in the article. Several edits were made by multiple users as the objections were raised in the Talk page. All comments were replied to. Some of the editors dont seem to understand that Indian follows the british system of awards were the bar is set extremely high. only one menber of the Indian airforce has received the highest War time gallentry award till date. It is very rare to see a Indian airforce officer decorated twice in two years. Dvj1992 ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

You can't keep "voting". Your nomination statement is your vote. Feel free to comment but please stop voting "Overturn". Your opinion is very clear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Lovejoy (band) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe that there is much more information and many more sources available for Lovejoy since it was removed and changed to a redirect. A redirect to simply their discography won't explain who the band is or what they do. Per WP:BAND, Lovejoy meets criteria 2, for appearing on various counties national music charts, and criteria 10, for appearing on Crywank's complication album Here You Go, You Do It (Crywank are notable, and have their own Wikipedia page). Lovejoy has also performed concerts. All this information, and more, is available (with sources), on the Draft article I made for Lovejoy. I would like this to be reviewed, commented on (if required) and hopefully moved to the articlespace if it fits the criteria. Thanks! Strugglehouse ( talk) 12:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• I don't think that's a challenge to the original XfD closure, which I endorse, but if sufficient reliable sources have been located to merit inclusion under WP:N then I've no objection to a new article being created. Looking through the references at the draft article, I'm struggling to spot many that aren't primary or passing mentions though. The Sportskeeda articles might just about cut it.

Waggers TALK 11:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Review Draft as per my AFC comments on draft. If the reviewer finds that musical notability is satisfied, accept draft with round-robin swap. Redirect should not be deleted but should be moved if draft is accepted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation, but only via AfC. I think the AfC submission was correctly declined (note also that Sportskeeda is generally unreliable), but if you can find some higher-quality sourcing, resubmit the draft, and convince an AfC reviewer that the band is notable, I have no objections to recreation. But as it stands, I don't think the sourcing we have at present is quite sufficient for a stand-alone article, mostly for the reasons given by the AfC reviewer. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strictly speaking Cryptic is correct that the AfD did not reach a consensus to merge (though it undoubtedly would have had it run another two days), and it would be inappropriate to revert a recreation attempt citing the AfD. Still strictly speaking, this request is thus out of scope. That said, given the comments above and from the AfC reviewer, it would be unwise to un-redirect the article unilaterally (you'd probably end up right back at AfD). My advice remains the same: find some better sources and then resubmit at AfC (or, even better, get consensus for a split at Talk:Wilbur Soot). Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• DRV has no place here. There's been no deletion and no result at afd (not even a no-consensus result). The users reverting it to a redirect citing that afd need some serious trouting applied, but that's about all we can do. — Cryptic 20:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Although the !vote count was pretty even, the strength of the arguments presented were not. Oaktree b was the only keep voter to present policy-based justification for their position, and they !voted for weak keep OR draftify. I think a large problem was the lack of in-depth evaluation of sources. I do not see a consensus to keep and therefore recommend this closure be overturned. –– FormalDude talk 10:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC) (Involved) reply

• overturn per my request on Waggers talk page. This was not a keep, the close was a very clear NC at best and the close was a supervote, but it had been relisted just a day prior and should've kept open for further discussion given the weak non-policy based arguments. PICKLEDICAE🥒 10:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the third relist was not necessary and “keep” is an appropriate close here. The text in the closure did not resemble that of a super vote. While one of the sources is unquestionably GNG there is enough “gray area” in a couple other sources (see source chart near the end of the AFD) that a keep closure is reasonable. Carson Wentz ( talk) 11:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep. The nominator apparently believes that GNG is not a policy-based justification, or maybe they just missed my !vote. I really can't see this getting overturned to anything except maybe no consensus, unless you can explain why the NTA and The Nation sources wouldn't count. casualdejekyll 11:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • You did not cite GNG and you !voted draftify. –– FormalDude talk 12:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    I was hoping that by pulling out a source table, you would assume I was citing GNG, because I'm not sure in what other case a !vote would need a source table. And for the record, DRV is about whether or not the close reflects the discussion - feel free to try relisting again if you want to see more discussion about the notability of the article. casualdejekyll 12:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    A source table that shows only one source passing? That's what you thought would show GNG is met? Three is typically the standard minimum requirement. –– FormalDude talk 12:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    The policy says "multiple". NTA and The Nation is multiple. Pretty obvious stuff to me. Note that per WP:DRVPURPOSE, DRV is not for "repeat[ing] arguments already made in the deletion discussion", additionally DRV is for addressing whether the close reflects the discussion - if you disagree with the outcome, you can renominate after a reasonable wait. casualdejekyll 12:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    You explained yourself why The Nation doesn't count–it's an interview and therefore is not independent. Bottom line is that even if you had !voted keep, there still isn't a consensus to keep the article. –– FormalDude talk 12:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    bia 2804:18:3F:2946:7924:9997:95BC:8CF1 ( talk) 07:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• relist or reopen I relisted this 3 days ago asking for source analysis, which was provided and the votes afterwards were both draftify. That suggests there was still room for further discussion and this was closed too soon. It should have been allowed the full 7 days to let everyone digest the analysis and update/add comments as appropriate. This wasn't a delete by any stretch but I can't see a keep when everyone engaging after the sources are analysed has a problem with them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep close, though I also would have endorsed a NC close. Assertions were made sourcing was inadequate. Sourcing was improved, and those assertions were rebutted, even if everyone agreed it met GNG at best weakly. Given the length of time in discussion / number of relists, this could be closed at any time. Closer chose to focus on the sourcing improvements and explicit claims presented that they were sufficiently independent, etc. That is a reasonable close. Closer could also have focused on the fact that those advocating delete had not been persuaded by those arguments, to support a NC close. Martinp ( talk) 13:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'll say a few things as closing admin. First, the AfD was opened on 29 July 2022 and, having been relisted multiple times, was now on the Admin Backlog as an item requiring closure. WP:RELIST is pretty clear in this regard; prolonging the discussion further would not be helpful to the project. Second, on reflection, I think there was indeed a stronger consensus to move the article to the Draft namespace rather than keep it in mainspace. Third, the accusation that the close was in any way a supervote as opposed to a genuine attempt to reflect the outcome of the discussion is utterly groundless and I would urge User:Praxidicae to assume good faith in future. Waggers TALK 13:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I did not assume bad faith anywhere, so maybe, you know, consider WP:AGF yourself. PICKLEDICAE🥒 13:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus or draftify or relist. Bad and untimely close based on closer's whim rather than actual consensus. Clearly no consensus to keep. Avilich ( talk) 14:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse In my opinion, it was a fair closure after a very lengthy discussion, and prolonging it further after improvements were made (to the article) was not necessary. Joesmithroots ( talk) 15:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to draftify or reopen. First we have the !vote counts, which is mostly meaningless but does demonstrate that outcomes other than "keep" would have been valid: 3 deletes, 3 keeps (including one "weak keep or draftify"), 2 draftify. That gives us 5 !votes against having an article at this time, two !votes for straight keeping, and one !vote that was weakly for keeping but also supported draftifying. A draftify or NC outcome would have been a far more accurate reading of consensus. Regarding the arguments:

1. nom Praxidicae states there is no "meaningful in depth coverage".
2. delete !voter Chagropango originally only saw the Vanguard source, which they said was "the only mention" they could find in RS. After being shown more sources, they agree that NTA is in depth and reliable, but don't change their !vote because they aren't sure that that coverage is enough for GNG. I would evaluate this as a weaker delete than it was initially.
3. keep !voter Joesmithroots apparently added new sources that they consider meet GNG. However, the independence/depth of these sources has been disputed by Prax in discussions outside the AfD.
4. keep !voter Udoxfarm asserts the subject is "fairly notable" and that the article is "well-written and factual", but does not offer actual reasoning. Additionally, this user created their account well after the AfD was posted and !voted with their fifth edit, and so per WP:ATA and WP:DISCUSSAFD ought to have been given less weight or discounted entirely.
5. delete !voter FormalDude claims the subject "lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources", but does not address how any of the specific sources discussed above are not SIGCOV or RS.
6. Oaktree b !votes "weak keep or draftify", stating the subject has "some" reliable coverage, that the sport has an official website, and that it has "many mentions in non-reliable sources". They also suggest redirecting to "sport in Nigeria" and giving it a subsection there, which I personally think is a good idea.
7. casualdejekyll ultimately !votes to draftify, but acknowledges she would be okay with a weak keep as well. This is the strongest !vote, as it's the only one that really assesses all the article's coverage, and it concludes there is only one fully GNG-contributing source (NTA) and one that is partially contributory due to the amount of non-independent content in it (The Nation).
8. draftify !voter MarchOfTheGreyhounds agrees the NTA coverage is "decent" and The Nation is "a little less concrete", remarking that further coverage is "likely to emerge" in the near future.

Overall, I think this is clearly not a keep consensus, and that draftifying would have been the obvious choice as 3/8 participants explicitly supported it, the 3 deletion advocates would likely have preferred it over "keep" or "NC", and the sole unambiguously valid keep !voter was the article creator and seemed more than happy to work on finding more sourcing. The only reason I'd ask for it to be reopened is because I would argue The Nation source is much closer to being independent SIGCOV, while the NTA video contains only a very brief blurb of independent secondary commentary on the sport, with the rest of the piece being un-narrated footage of people playing it and a WP:PRIMARY interview with a player. This should not count toward GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Weak Endorse or Overturn to No Consensus, which are essentially the same. It doesn't need draftifying, and another Relist would be unlikely to change anything. It looks like No Consensus, and that is not substantially different from Keep. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• I'd have closed as no consensus, which is functionally the same as keep, so meh. Stifle ( talk) 10:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• I think NC is the "right" close. I think I'd have !voted to keep but I can't get to keep from that discussion. overturn to NC. Not that it matters much per Stifle. Hobit ( talk) 14:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I personally would have voted delete on this AFD. However, the discussion is over and DRV is not an opportunity to go over my reasons for deletion. Rather I need to assess the votes made. Keep votes matched delete when counting nomination. It is true that AFD is not a vote. I also acknowledge the keep arguments were of a weak strength. That said these contributors felt notability was met. I also believe where there is opposition to deletion, unless the opposing arguments are so weak they are able to be discarded, there is a stronger burden of evidence on a closer to conclude there is consensus to delete. Where only two delete votes are made on a nomination that receives no opposition, I think this can act as a form of “silent consensus”. Given in this instance there were genuine keep votes submitted, a consensus to delete required higher participation. Ultimately, if I were responsible for closing this discussion retrospectively, I would close it as no consensus. However this would achieve nothing, as a keep vote for now does not impact a future nomination. Waiting some months before renominating is encouraged, but not required. I have no statistics, but I feel that more AFDs are ending up at DRV lately. Closing is difficult. I feel that closings made by administrators, elected members of the community, and particularly closings for keep/NC, ought to be respected unless there is strong evidence of a misapplication of policy or a blatant error. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 11:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ MaxnaCarta, I think it's very important to also consider the two draftify !votes (which bring the number of people opposed to the article being in mainspace at this time to 5) and to take into account the fact that one "keeps" was actually "weak keep or draftify" and another "keep" was from an account that was created a week after the AfD was posted and which hasn't contributed to mainspace since the day of their !vote (I should also note that 3 of their 4 mainspace edits have been reverted). That !vote should have been discarded. I would have closed this as a clear "draftify" since that would have aligned with 3 !votes, would have been acceptable to the 3 "deletes", and likely would have been acceptable to the one valid full keep since they were the article creator. The fact that the keep arguments were weaker than the delete arguments is just further indication this should definitely not have been a keep close. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ JoelleJay Even though I agree with some of your observations, I respectfully disagree partly with your analysis. First, the two draftify !voters also acknowledged the article met GNG at best weakly and the subject only needed a "little more coverage" to "cement the article", and I think would be okay with a weak keep . Second, the keep !vote in question is technically valid as the !vote was initially discarded but later restored after due diligence.

  To my knowledge, Afd is not a poll per se but rather a forum for making policy-based arguments with a view to arriving at a rational and logical conclusion. Considering the fact that sourcing was improved after Afd nomination and few delete !votes, I think it is fair to consider nobly the keep !votes and the improvements on the article while the Afd was ongoing.

  Overall, I think this should be at least a NC or a weak keep at best. Joesmithroots ( talk) 22:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I think the second draftify !vote was saying the sources were close to meeting GNG, but that it was still insufficient. You're right that the first draftify also would've accepted a WK (which I mentioned in my analysis), but what I wanted to point out to Maxna was the fact that the draftify option would've been a very reasonable outcome by !vote number alone, and that should be taken into consideration. This is especially true given that the last two !votes, which were evaluating all the available sources, were still "draftify" rather than "keep". Also, the Udoxfarm !vote was just a bare assertion of notability, which is an argument to avoid, so even if it wasn't by a brand-new account it should've been given less weight. And the !vote was not determined to be "valid", the user was just unblocked due to CU not finding it to be a sock of you. So in my opinion, the two factors of making an WP:ATA and the account being created a week into the AfD should have nullified that !vote. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

List of heirs to the Portuguese throne ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

4 delete votes (including nom), versus 5 keep votes. The keep votes pointed to sources which could be added to the article and removing the pretenders as ways to improve the article. Looks like No consensus to me. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 17:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to No Consensus. If the closer is correct that the sourcing problems have not been addressed, that is a reason why there is no consensus. Delete is not a plausible inference from the discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This DRV is listed in a non-standard way with the AFD as the subject rather than the article as the subject. That doesn't change the result. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Fixed.— S Marshall  T/ C 21:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• That close was clear and specific: The problems with the sourcing have not been addressed conclusively in the discussion. Therefore you should present a draft of the article with good sources. If you did that, I think that we at DRV would certainly allow re-creation. Because of the concerns that the article was largely fiction, I might be a bit reluctant to restore the deleted version at this time -- I'd want a fresh start that's scrupulously sourced. Accuracy matters.— S Marshall  T/ C 21:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I don't think the delete votes made their case. And as I said above, I think any concerns were addressed by the keep votes: remove the pretenders and add the sources which were shown to exist. There was clearly no consensus for TNT here.
  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heirs to the Portuguese throne 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 21:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  That's what I'm saying. Remove the pretenders, add the sources like you said, then show us your draft that's truthful and accurate and verifiable. We won't have a problem moving such content to mainspace.— S Marshall  T/ C 14:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep Deletes were all in the beginning and mostly not based on any actual policy, then sources were posted in the AfD, then all the keeps were unopposed. Getting a "no consensus" out of this would be a stretch too far. Jclemens ( talk) 23:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Except that all the sources posted were strongly rebutted? JoelleJay ( talk) 17:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  They were? Not in any way that seemed compelling to any future participant in the AfD. I haven't looked at them and my assessment is of the discussion trajectory, not the sources themselves. Jclemens ( talk) 06:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Keep There's obviously going to be significant coverage of the heirs to the throne of any country. In this case, see 1 2. We can distinguish between the real heirs and "pretender heirs" in the lead, and emphasise that the Portuguese throne is now defunct, to address the POV concerns raised above

  DrKay's response: I'm not able to find any coverage of the Danish heirs in those sources, which are about the monarchy of Portugal not this topic. It's not just the pretenders that are a problem. The medieval sections are largely made-up by applying succession law that did not exist at the time.

  
  

  Keep, the issues raised by the nominator can be dealt with using translated content and sources from the portuguese wikipedia [1] [2]

  DrKay's response: That would be contrary to WP:G4, since it would recreate an article that has already been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Portuguese throne JoelleJay ( talk) 17:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Yes, so? DrKay got one !vote earlier, and is now disputing others who do not agree. If you misunderstood what I meant by "any future participant" excluding the previous delete !voters, my apologies. Jclemens ( talk) 19:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  You claimed "all the keeps were unopposed", I pointed out this was factually untrue. The first keep !vote after Ficaia did not bring up the sourcing at all, and did not address the major issue of The medieval sections are largely made-up by applying succession law that did not exist at the time. The next keep suggested removing the pretenders and contesting those medieval entries, but did not say how or even whether we could source the remaining content. The final keep also did not address the OR problem and suggested sources that apparently would introduce more OR. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I correctly and accurately stated "then all the keeps were unopposed." The fact that you've missed or ignored the sequencing of a chronologically sequential series of statements is unfortunate, but not my problem. I've certainly been guilty before of reacting before fully reading what I was responding to and consequently wasting people's time... but not this time. Jclemens ( talk) 21:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Just to be clear: by "then all the keeps were unopposed" you mean "after that point, no one else !voted delete", right? Because obviously DrKay did oppose the last keep !vote. JBL ( talk) 21:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  (It seems like you are somehow trying to argue that DrKay's later contributions don't count because DrKay also had earlier contributions. Since that's facially ridiculous, I'm not surprised JoelleJay is having a hard time understanding you.) JBL ( talk) 21:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Not at all ridiculous, actually. A new participant to the debate with fresh eyes is qualitatively different than someone already committed to one side in the debate. If you're unaware of the neuroscience why we tend to defend our opinions, I highly encourage you to review it. At any rate, yes, I meant what you think I meant, and no, I don't think it's ridiculous to treat haranguing of new participants by an existing participant as qualitatively different than the new-to-the-debate opinions of those participants. Jclemens ( talk) 07:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, why are you arguing with me? You used up your one !vote already (on a regrettably ridiculous argument); as I understand it, the closer is supposed to disregard everything else you say after this point. -- JBL ( talk) 17:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  What JBL said. A !vote can be opposed with something other than another !vote... JoelleJay ( talk) 23:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• I just expanded my justification at the article at the request of another user and the nom didn’t even discuss this with me. Do you guys ever wonder why this place is so broken? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Agree that that was really poor form by Ficaia. -- JBL ( talk) 20:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The sources listed in the discussion don't support any part of the article's content. No sources = non-notable original research. DrKay ( talk) 09:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep. There is a clear consensus in that discussion that the content is notable and that issues with the article could be fixed by editing. The exception was one editor who claimed that any use of sources used in other language articles would make it a G4 speedy deletion, not only is this wrong (G4 requires the the article be substantially identical to the deleted version, simply using (some of) the same sources does not meet this requirement) it was pointed out to be wrong in the discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• I didn't claim that. You've misunderstood my comment. The sources in that article do not support the content of the deleted list article. They support the content of the deleted succession article and the other language articles about the pretenders. It would create a different article to the one that is being discussed here, which has different, unsupported, topic focus. DrKay ( talk) 13:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - there's no Portuguese throne, to be heir of. GoodDay ( talk) 17:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Keep !voters needed to show a version of the article was possible that didn't suffer from substantial OR and verifiability issues, but claims that they could "just remove the pretenders" would still not address what DrKay and Celia Homeford brought up regarding the unverifiable applications of succession law used in the article. Such problems were the reason 40+ other articles, including the precursor to this one (as noted by DrKay), have been deleted recently: sourcing just doesn't exist for this content as a standalone topic outside of royalty forums and blogs. The sources on pt.wp were correctly dismissed as well, since they were the basis for the fanciful modern "successors" to the throne that tanked the first article; to use them would mean introducing that same content into the current article, which would make it substantively similar to the old one. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist. Keep !voters did not address delete !voters valid concerns, but neither did delete !voters address keep !voters concerns. I echo the closer's comment that "this is more of a TNT job then an outright rejection of the concept" - I would argue that that is not a great idea. The article (as far as I know; I can't read it!) would need work, but sourcing on such a topic could be found. I would, if I was an admin, want to give the discussion another week around before choosing to close - as Ficaia points out, the heirs to the throne of any legitimate long-lasting monarchy such as Portugal could easily be presumed to have coverage. SailingInABathtub points out that PT has a sourced article on this topic - this was not addressed in enough depth for me to justify deleting the article. AGF that the article was indeed in the state described by delete !voters, I haven't seen any true claims that the concept itself is not notable, just that the article was terrible. I can currently see a world in which WP:HEY is met if this is given another week in the circuit, and if that's the case, then I wouldn't choose to close the discussion. It's a different scenario of course if given another week, a stronger argument on the delete side is risen. casualdejekyll 02:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the decision, which was a defensible weighting of argument quality in light of core policies. -- JBL ( talk) 17:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close, which was reasonable and reasonably explained. As the closer and several users have suggested, there's nothing stopping a good faith effort utilizing all these found sources into a new draft, which may be reviewed to mainspace. The delete close makes it difficult to restore all this totally unsourced detail without speedy deletion, which seems a correct outcome to me. BusterD ( talk) 23:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Okilani Tinilau ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Supervote "keep" admittedly based on sheer number of votes (in violation of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) plus closer's own personal criteria of notability ("we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries" -- no evidence for this claim) which do not align with consensus. WP:NSPORT says content creators should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline and biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, but there was general agreement even among the keep voters that only one source contained SIGCOV and no agreement that it was reliable. Avilich ( talk) 22:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Overturn and relist (involved). The reasoning behind the close seemed to rest on an attitude/approach that did not enjoy consensus or even minority support, let alone P&G backing. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment (as closer), consensus may not be an exercise in vote-counting, but neither is it possible to ignore the 15 editors who !voted to keep, rendering a clear consensus of participants in the discussion who believe that the subject is sufficiently notable. It is not disputed that the athlete in question is among the most notable athletes in their country, which happens to be a small country. As a project, we do have to respect the fact that an article subject can have national notability in a small country with a local language. BD2412 T 23:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  It is not disputed that the athlete in question is among the most notable athletes in their country, which happens to be a small country. As a project, we do have to respect the fact that an article subject can have national notability in a small country with a local language. No one disputed that the subject was "among the most notable athletes" in his country because such status is irrelevant to GNG and NSPORT, and so didn't warrant a response. I don't see where our policies tell us we ought to ignore lack of SIGCOV just because a subject is "from a small country". Claims that the subject "must" be one of the most famous people in their country need to be backed up with evidence that this is the case, because we explicitly cannot assume SIGCOV has been attained by merely participating at the Olympics. Having a very brief profile and several passing mentions shouldn't be enough for an article on ANY sportsperson, regardless of their accomplishments; why should such coverage count more just because the subject is from a 12,000-person country? One major reason we rely on independent coverage as the basis for inclusion is precisely because gauging the "importance" of an achievement is so subjective and susceptible to inherent bias -- such as the assumption that every country has the same level of enthusiasm for, or assigns the same prestige to, the Olympics as Western and East Asian countries do.

  More importantly, your close failed to address the fact that many of the keep !votes relied on arguments that are explicitly rejected by consensus: as pointed out numerous times in the AfD, "keep per meeting NSPORT" is invalid as that guideline does not presume notability whatsoever and only suggests which topics are likely to have SIGCOV. If editors demonstrate that the presumed SIGCOV doesn't exist, the article cannot be retained on the basis of meeting some NSPORT subcriterion.

  Relisting would also give other editors a chance to assess the new Japanese sources brought up today, although I agree with wjemather that routine, passing mentions do not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • National media coverage, even if the nation is small, meets the GNG. It would be astonishing for there to be an absence of coverage in Tuvaluan media for the country's first ever Olympic flag-bearer. That coverage is expected was alluded to in the discussion. We could avoid further back-and-forth over this if someone would just find a way to contact appropriate Tuvaluan media. BD2412 T 17:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    I didn't say national coverage couldn't contribute to GNG; the issue is that there isn't sufficient significant coverage to meet GNG. Again, it doesn't matter that editors "expected" coverage based on his participating in the Olympics; that reasoning was explicitly rejected by multiple NSPORT RfCs where it was demonstrated not to be the case and so is invalid as a keep argument. And asking editors to personally get in contact with a country's media is way, way beyond what is expected of BEFORE or NEXIST. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    Whether it goes beyond BEFORE or NEXIST is beside the point. We are talking about building an encyclopedia for the world. There is no Tuvaluan Wikipedia. To the extent that the entire country and language is covered, we are basically it. So, yes, we should go above and beyond the practices that suffice for subjects for which we would expect to easily find English intenet sources. We should do that for the same reason you would hold a door for someone whose hands are full of groceries, or try and contact the rightful owner of a check mistakenly mailed to you. Because it defines us as good people. BD2412 T 02:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    Wow, that is a remarkably egregious example of what our WP:RGW policy is intended to prevent. So are the editors who oppose drastically loosening our notability criteria just "not good people", then? JoelleJay ( talk) 17:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    JoelleJay, WP:RGW is not a policy nor a guideline. —  Jacona ( talk) 17:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    Ah, sorry, I should have linked WP:SOAPBOX. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete. NONE of the keep votes cited any valid policy (the ones that did were debunked). Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• endorse as a correct reading of consensus. The continuing failure of NSPORT AfDs to reach consensus to delete demonstrates that the supposedly consensus revisions do not, in fact, have consensus. Deletion is intentionally architected, though not implemented, that deletion requires a congruence of both policy and agreement. The close is correct. Jclemens ( talk) 00:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The ratio of delete, redirect or merge vs. keep outcomes since the March RfC is 6:1 for sportspeople and 8.5:1 for footballers specifically. The problem most certainly isn't the existing consensus, it's bad closers refusing to implement it. Avilich ( talk) 02:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

And yet: the people showing up to the debates--and I'll note that I'm not one and never have been--do not believe the guideline applies. We're agreed that there's a disconnect here, but not in agreement about what it means. Jclemens ( talk) 23:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

They most certainly though it did apply -- only one or two invoked IAR. This is simply another of the just under 1/8.5 of cases when the discussion is incorrectly closed according to local consensus against global consensus. Avilich ( talk) 01:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Echoing what Avilich said, this is a textbook WP:CONLEVEL violation: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Editors who happen to be more active in a particular topic area don't get to unilaterally decide that the guideline doesn't apply; they are expected to follow the wider community consensus. – dlthewave ☎ 02:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Why are you !voting in DRVs on sportspeople if you're not familiar with the sportspeople guidelines or massive AfD precedents that the closers are supposed to be considering? JoelleJay ( talk) 18:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Because I dislike Procrusteanism as a motivation for AfDs. Jclemens ( talk) 05:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as an involved particpant. The first AfD was no consensus. The second achieved wide participation, and a wide majority of participants were in favor of keeping the article, for valid reasons, even if some of the delete voters disagreed. Throwing it back to AfD a third time and hoping for a different result is akin to putting your fingers in your ears and screaming WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Jacona ( talk) 01:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as correct reading of consensus, however that also was a supervote in the sense of editorializing vs. re-stating consensus, and I think that can get confusing so should be avoided where possible. Star Mississippi 01:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. (Involved) Good close. Correct reading of consensus. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus the closing admin is correct that there clearly is not consensus to delete, though the keep arguments are less convincing to me (uninvolved passerby) than the delete arguments. A relist is not necessary as it was already relisted once and the discussion was well attended. Carson Wentz ( talk) 01:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Changed to endorse per closer’s rationale and comments by User:Waggers. Also a “keep” result would hold up stronger than a “no consensus” result in protecting against an endless circus of re-nominations, WP:WIKILAWYERING, and WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, when the one thing that has been made clear in the two AFDs and this DRV is that there is not consensus to delete THIS article. Carson Wentz ( talk) 16:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete (involved) - Closers are expected to weigh the strength of the arguments, not just count heads, no matter how high the ratio of Keep over Delete may be. Of the 15 Keep !votes, 8 should have been thrown out immediately because they either cite SPORTS/NATH without addressing SIGCOV concerns, presume some sort of inherent notability due to his status or cite procedural concerns with the nomination. The closer should have then weighed the remaining 7 Keep !votes which assert significant coverage against the source assessment table and the 8 Delete !votes which all cite a lack of significant coverage. Instead, they based their close on the numerical majority, the prominence of the subject within their home country and the fact that non-English sources are more difficult to access, none of which are based on our policies and guidelines. At the very least, consensus should be reassessed by an editor who's able to follow our policies and guidelines instead of injecting their own opinion of what makes a topic notable. – dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. No one is disputing that the article as written factually recounts the Olympic and other world championship participation and national achievements of this athlete. How exactly would deleting this information help the Wikipedia reader, whose interest we ultimately serve? BD2412 T 06:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

If that's your opinion you should've argued it in the AfD, not the closing statement. It's either way an argument to avoid, as the same could be said for any topic that's verifiable but not notable. Avilich ( talk) 14:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I did not participate in the discussion because I have no interest in the topic; my interest is in keeping AfD moving along by closing contentious cases that other admins avoid because they don't care for the drama. Suppose for the sake of argument that I had !voted rather than closing, and a different admin had come along and closed the discussion as "keep"; would you be satisfied with that outcome? Would you still have taken it to DRV? BD2412 T 19:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. This was a poor close that reads like a !vote and is being justified by a headcount. Substantially, the keep !votes did not counter the sound PaG based arguments for delete, with several even agreeing that the required significant coverage has not been found; they also leaned heavily on common fallacies about small nations, minority groups, and non-English/offline sources (in the Internet age) – as does the close – and invalid procedural complaints. The value of (possibly) meeting NATH was also strongly countered. As such, given the relative strength of the arguments, a keep consensus cannot be the correct outcome. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Of course a keep consensus can be the correct outcome. There were differences of opinion throughout the discussion, and while you claim the differences were debunked, others disagreed. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is not an autocracy either. —  Jacona ( talk) 14:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  When it comes down to marginal weight of numbers versus strength of arguments, consensus leans toward the latter, hence why keep is not the correct close here. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 15:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I respectfully disagree, believing that both the weight of the numbers and strength of arguments lead to keep. —  Jacona ( talk) 16:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  You understood very well just how weak the keep arguments were; pleading IAR illustrated just how desperate the case was. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 16:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  In many years and hundreds of AfD's this is the only time I've used that, and I did so because it is valid. I believe it was right, just as you believe your opinion was and that WP:BLUDGEONing is the right course to assert your opinion is more important than that of a far greater number of editors. —  Jacona ( talk) 17:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This should never have been renominated so quickly. Now there was clearly consensus to keep. Now we're at DRV after multiple AfDs in less than a month. Can we please stop wasting time on this? Enough is enough. The fact that you disagree with consensus is not reason to overturn. You've made your point. People disagreed. Move on. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I agree that some of the closing statement would have been better as a !vote, but both keep and NC were, IMO, within discretion. Hobit ( talk) 18:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I agree with Hobit that the closer's statement was a supervote, but what is the point to the appeal? The supervote by the closer might be a reason to overturn the close to No Consensus. Duh. Anyway, the closer had reason to be annoyed with the tendentious renomination. A slice of trout, sauteed, to the closer, for lunch. A whole slightly decayed trout to the nominator. Anyway, Keep is a valid conclusion by the closer; it is only the argument that is unnecessary. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Robert McClenon: I was right and I'd close it again the same way without pause, perhaps with a somewhat clearer nod to the fact that the salient points noted in my close were raised in the discussion by participants. I knew as soon as I saw the AfD that no matter how it was closed it would end up being brought here. That's why it was lingering - closers don't want this headache. BD2412 T 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    No one suggested the article might be a "hoax". There was just one !vote that even mentioned anything at all about the content being "verifiable" (which is completely irrelevant when the AfD is on notability grounds): Sure, the coverage may not be what we would like to see, but there is enough there to verify his accomplishments and existence. There are sources even if they are not particularly strong. You spent half of your close rationale extrapolating an irrelevant argument from one !vote--out of almost 25--while totally neglecting to address any of the deletion concerns. That is a supervote. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I'm just going to note that I didn't say anything about a supervote. I just felt some of what was said in the closing would have been better as a !vote. Hobit ( talk) 00:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I'm also a participant in the discussion but I arrived there with the intention of closing it and found myself instead contributing to it. I believe the closer's rationale is sound and if I was closing the discussion instead of participating in it, would likely have made the same decision on the same basis. Waggers TALK 14:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Your argument in this discussion was that, because N states a subject is notable if it meets GNG or an SNG, that meeting a criterion in NSPORT confers notability. However, as explained by Wjemather, this is an incorrect interpretation of our guidelines: NSPORT does not confer or even presume notability, it merely indicates SIGCOV is likely to exist if the subject meets a sport-specific guideline (SSG) criterion; moreover, for the criteria in an SSG to apply at all, the article must include a source of SIGCOV. There was no consensus that any source in the article was SIGCOV, so claims of meeting NATH (which were themselves disputed) are rendered moot anyway, but even if valid that would not be sufficient reason to keep an article on its own if potential inaccessible sources have not been identified. And FWIW, NSPORT has always required its subjects meet GNG; it has never accorded notability directly. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  That isn't what WP:N says. In any case this is off topic - we're supposed to be discussing the closing admin's decision, not rehashing the discussion again. Waggers TALK 08:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  This isn't rehashing the discussion. Consensus in this regard was re-affirmed by the well attended WP:NSPORTS2022 RFC and subsequent review at AN. If anti-consensus !votes such as yours were given weight, that is an error that needs correcting ( WP:LOCALCON). Substantially, meeting NSPORT requires more than just meeting the one of the sport-specific criteria, and NSPORT does not override GNG. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  What isn't what N says? JoelleJay ( talk) 18:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and SNOW close The nomination was a complete violation of WP:BEFORE rule B5 and the consensus was very clear. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of this being overturned. 24.28.96.202 ( talk) 01:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  IP, your comment does not help the discussion. Rule B5 has no minimum scope, where a NC was the previous result. Beyond that, your comment doesn't address the actual basis of the DRV - which is that a conlevel violation has occurred, with Keep votes not premised on policy to make them !votes. Now they may or may not, but you need to specify how and that it is. Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment: At least three editors have commented here without declaring that they were involved. Please note that WP:DRV says, "Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic." And yes, I'm involved as well. St Anselm ( talk) 02:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I find Aridd's argument from the first AfD surprisingly persuasive, considering it's based on absolutely nothing but WP:IAR. I would add that I would not close this AfD if I was an admin, but instead !vote something to that effect. No amount of policy can account for the fact that representing a country in their first olympics and setting national records is obviously a big deal, even if the country is small and non-English. To @ Wjemather - pleading IAR does not "illustrate just how desperate the case [is]." It illustrates that the rules can be wrong sometimes! And that's okay. casualdejekyll 02:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Poor close, probably the correct end result - correct to IAR very few of the (!)votes took a clear IAR route and though there were a few actual !votes, many weren't legitimate under the current rules. The closer insufficiently considered the post NSPORTS-RfC structure in their close, as well. However. Despite being an inclusionist I have only made an IAR case myself twice in AfDs and am generally opposed to unclear IAR cases. However, that process has been made here and there, and I think a strong case for IAR can be made. IAR closes, however, should be clearly noted due to avoid incorrect precedent setting. Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and reclose by somebody else. The outcome may or may not have been correct, but the closing statement by BD2412 makes clear that they meant to cast a supervote, closing the discussion in accordance with their personal preference and their (mistaken) view that the quality of the sources necessary for an article depends on what country the subject is from. This is inappropriate conduct in an administrator and should not be protected at DRV. Sandstein 07:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sandstein: You know as well as anyone that many admins do not want to touch a discussion where the level of intransigence on contesting sides guarantees that it will wind up being taken to DRV no matter the outcome. There is no conceivable proper closure of this discussion that results in a consensus to delete, so we will merely end up wasting time. Also, as I have noted above, I have no preference with respect to this article subject at all. I do, however, have a preference that interminable discussions be closed. BD2412 T 15:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    • For what it's worth, it seems highly unlikely we'd be here without a supervote close and/or with a no consensus result. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 16:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
      • What is certain is the last 6 !votes, who viewed and evaluated the entire discussion all voted !keep. If it had remained open, this trend would likely to have continued. Jacona ( talk) 16:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
      • A no consensus result, and then what? The article would be nominated for deletion again a week later, just like it was before. BD2412 T 19:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
        • That level of persistence in re-nominating the same article would likely be viewed as disruptive, but even if it wasn't, potential re-nomination is not a consideration. We close AFDs per consensus of the discussion, not in order to prevent re-nomination within a given timeframe. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 19:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I agree that the closer appears to have made a "supervote," but I don't think it was an unreasonable reading of the consensus. I might have concluded no consensus, but I don't see a consensus to delete. Jogurney ( talk) 15:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse A "keep" close is a reasonable interpretation of the discussion, though I would have probably leaned toward "no consensus." I disagree with some of the closer's reasoning but support the end result. Frank Anchor 19:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There is a consensus to keep. Bruxton ( talk) 03:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Tami-Adrian George ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article is notable enough under WP:ENT. The page went through a former AFD several years ago (2016), and although I did no contributing to that version of the article, it was sloppily formatted, and not referenced well. I created a more respectable version of the article a couple days ago, adding sources, yet an administrator put a speedy delete on the article. Bronoton ( talk) 21:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• I've temporarily undeleted it. While I don't know whether the new version will pass AFD, I'd not endorse a G4 of this even if the old afd had been closed yesterday, not six years ago. Just look at the diff. Overturn. — Cryptic 23:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Trout Ged UK for an inappropriate G4. Jclemens ( talk) 01:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Restore and let it go through AfD if necessary. Not a G4 candidate. Star Mississippi 01:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the G4, restore the deleted article. An editor can nominate it for a second AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion. That was not even remotely close to "substantially identical", so I endorse Jclemens recommendation the deleting admin be presented with a fish. I have no opinion on whether it would survive AfD, but whether it would or not is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closer of the discussion interpreted the consensus wrongly. 4 persons supported deletion (nominator included), 3 persons supported keep. Another 1 person (Rathfelder) didn't vote but criticized the rationale for keep votes. The support for deletion was not only stronger in numbers but also stronger in arguments. The arguments were based on WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:CONTENTIOUS. Keep voters argued that Deniers of Armenian genocide category is as notable as Deniers of the Holocaust category; however, this is not related to our policies and is a WP:WHATABOUTX argument, which the closer should not have given weight to. Madame Necker ( talk) 09:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• As closer: The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_2#Category:Deniers_of_the_Armenian_genocide. The above arguments were clearly presented at CFD and yet did not persuade a strong majority of the participants, most of whom were highly experienced CFD contributors. An earlier divided discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_22#Category:Armenian_Genocide_deniers was closed by another CFD stalwart as "Easy keep", and subsequent discussions ended with "no consensus" or "rename". I did not find this consensus string enough to overthrow that history, especially as only one of the six genocide deniers categories had been nominated. For the record, the nominator did not raise this with me individually before opening this review. – Fayenatic London 09:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Can you explain why you give weight to a 14 years old ancient discussion when determining consensus in 2022 until which a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines changed? For example, MOS:WTW apparently did not exist until 2010. Madame Necker ( talk) 10:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  On its own, this discussion plainly amounted to no consensus. Consensus can change, but this discussion failed to demonstrate that in this case. Now, can you explain why you picked just one of the genocide deniers categories, rather than make a group nomination, since your rationale applies to all of them? – Fayenatic London 14:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. It would be hard to numerically read a 4:3 discussion, with both sides repeatedly raising their same (not unreasonable) points, and no one being persuaded by the other side, as anything else. No objection to a broader discussion (RFC? as recommended by one participant at the CFD) of the merits of 'Deniers' categories more generally. On the latter, my personal opinion is that '... Deniers' categories are inherently toxic, though something like 'Activists denying ....' might not be; but others' opinion may vary and my personal opinion does not trounce the fact that this CFD reached no consensus. Martinp ( talk) 22:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (!voted delete): 4/3 is no consensus, based on numbers alone (not that a closer should do that, but it's brought up above). —  Qwerfjkl talk 19:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Armenian genocide denialism is a real thing; the fact that it's contentious means that we need impeccable sources to put BLPs into the category, not that we censor Wikipedia by deleting it. There's actually a policy-based argument for overturning to keep, but endorse will suffice. Jclemens ( talk) 01:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The question here is whether No Consensus was a reasonable conclusion by the closer. It was. In my opinion, it was the best conclusion, but that is not important, because this is not a relitigation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There's no possibility that discussion could be interpreted as a delete outcome. Notwithstanding subsequent changes in policy/guidelines, perfectly acceptable for closer to consider previous, pertinent discussions. As above, per Jclemens, agree that a keep outcome could have been possible, but no consensus is the most reasonable interpretation. Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, no consensus defaults to keep. Andre 🚐 16:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

List of most-followed artists on Spotify ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closer has deleted this article without considering the guidelines correctly. The closer has cited WP:VENDOR, despite independent secondary sources being presented. They have cited WP:SINGLEVENDOR and said that this is “essentially a music chart”, despite the followers of an artist not being the same as the popularity of a piece of music. They have also said that the article is “never going to be stable” and “there is a fundamental issue with an article that's going to be permanently inaccurate” – there has been no evidence presented that an article based on the secondary sources provided would be so. The closer also states that there is a “substantive numerical tilt towards deletion” contrary to WP:VOTE with most of them being delete per nom. I propose that the result is overturned to no-consensus. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Closer here. I stand by my close, and have a few responses to the above. First, the OP's understanding of WP:VOTE is quite incorrect; strength of argument is more important, but other things being equal (i.e., when two opposing arguments have equal basis in policy) numerical support does matter. Second, the stability (and therefore accuracy) of these statistics was a concern that many users brought up; where they are sourced from isn't relevant, when it's the actual data that could be changing. Third, the OP (and several !voters at the AfD) are in my opinion looking at the letter, rather than the spirit, of WP:VENDOR and WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Finally, SailingInABathtub did not discuss this with me at all, but went straight to DRV. Oh well. I look forward to reading input from editors who've yet to take a position here: I really hope we can avoid rehashing the AfD. Vanamonde ( Talk) 13:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Vanamonde93's close was reasonable. The strenth of arguments was equal-ish so the numerical tilt came into play. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comments at this time. First, I count 7 for Keep and 9 for Delete including the nom as Delete, but would appreciate if someone else would count. That looks to me like a numerical basis consistent with either Delete or No Consensus. Second, I think that discussion with the closer should be considered purely optional. Some closers have said that they do not want to discuss AFD closures. Also, a closer should have considered the close carefully enough so that a reasoned argument by an appellant should only rarely be significant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (involved) Borderline case, I think deletion or no consensus would both have been appropriate. The delete arguments had slightly better policy-based rationales, imo, with their concerns over verifiability. Ovinus ( talk) 19:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• I'd amend the explanation to "The delete side presents stronger arguments in this case" and cut the stuff about voter numbers, but I wouldn't interfere with the delete outcome.— S Marshall  T/ C 22:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse at this time, pending an alternate count or a real argument why the closer was wrong. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse A well-considered close, articulating why there existed a fundamental problem with the list. We may have "best selling albums" lists, but that doesn't break down by store selling the physical album. The argument that this should extend to the online world is sound, and really should be changed by RfC if the community disagrees. Jclemens ( talk) 17:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, reasonable reading of the debate. Stifle ( talk) 11:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment I just wanted to acknowledge that this was a difficult AFD discussion to close, which is probably why it was relisted twice, and I think the closer left a well-reasoned explanation along with their decision to delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Harriet Hageman ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Was a former Republican National Committeewoman for Wyoming before running for Congress. Representing your state on a party's national committee easily passes the notability guideline for politicians. HangingCurve ^{Swing for the fence} 23:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Endorse I disagree. The RNC has 159 voting members who are not elected by the public. I do not accept that being a member of that committee indicates a pass of WP:NPOL. She is almost certain to win the November election and the article can be recreated at that time. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Endorse for the same reason as Cullen. Also I have to have a laugh at the idea that she "won" a primary for a single occupancy seat by coming in third place. That's not how elections work. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Actually, Praxidicae, she got over 66% of the vote in a three person field. That is a decisive primary victory. Cullen328 ( talk) 01:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Her article said "came in third place" so... PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Third place for the 2018 governor primary. She won the 2022 house primary, and in Wyoming with an R next to her name, that means she's won the house seat. — Cryptic 01:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The appellant's argument about the RNC is so far out of what political notability says as to be silly. However, what is the more important reason to Endorse is simply that the close was consistent with policy and with the input. The appellant isn't even saying that she is now the party nominee. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Whether to accept articles for candidates for state office has long been controversial, and the test to be applied to candidates, even to candidates for safe seats, is whether they meet general notability. A reasonable argument can be made that, following the 16 August primary, a draft should be considered for review based on whether she met general notability other than via her campaign for Congress. When a reasonable request is made for review of a draft, we should allow review of the draft. This has not been that request. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Protect - In the meantime, based on the history of edit-warring in the past 24 hours, the redirect should be ECP-protected to control the edit-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  ECP isn't gonna do anything considering the creator has 38k edits (and several ampol topic bans in the last 3 years.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Comment - Request for full protection has been made at RFPP. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the redirect close of the AFD in June, it really couldn’t have gone any other way. But explicitly allow recreation as she has since received significant national coverage for her primary win and for un-seating longtime representative Chaney, thus clearly passing WP:NPOL. I do not think DRV is the right forum for restoring this page since there is no argument as to whether the consensus was interpreted correctly (as evidenced by all votes being for redirect or delete). I personally think the best course of action is to just WP:BOLDly un-redirect it, which has already been done and undone several times, and allow someone to start a second AFD if inclined to do so, since the circumstances of the subject are very different than they were two months ago). Carson Wentz ( talk) 03:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC) [minor edits for clarification Carson Wentz ( talk) 14:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)] reply
  • When multiple people are reverting to a redirect citing an afd rather than on the merits, then DRV is very much the right forum. Even though the most it's likely to do is send it back for another afd as you advocate, closing this procedurally is going to result in the page staying a redirect, not an article. — Cryptic 04:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Hence my !vote to procedurally endorse the closure of the AFD while explicitly allowing recreation. Carson Wentz ( talk) 14:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Significant post-primary sources cited in the article and draft: ABC, LA Times, Business Insider, NYT, NPR. The ABC and LA Times pieces look like the least routine at a skim. The most influential !vote at the afd was the "redirect" from Curbon7, who said to reconsider after the primary, and most of the other redirects per-ed him. Especially considering Wyoming hasn't elected a non-Republican rep since I think 1976 and so winning the primary basically makes the general election a formality, I'm weakly at send it back for another afd at this point. — Cryptic 04:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• un-redirect Whatever the coverage was in June, she's got plenty more. Doesn't mean the previous decision was wrong, just that the world has changed in a couple of months. Jclemens ( talk) 04:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (revert the redirect). Something big has happened, and there is a rush of coverage of the subject in the last 48 hours. The landscape is changed since the AfD. Discourage renomination for deletion (or redirection) for two weeks, to see how the news settles. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Hageman easily passes the WP:GNG. Eg

  1. https://pcrecordtimes.com/article/hageman-looking-to-serve-wyoming-people A serious introductory article from 2018

  2. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/harriet-hageman-trump-cheney.html Deep coverage from a leading national newspaper.

  3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/who-is-harriet-hageman-liz-cheney-wyoming-trump Deep coverage from an international publication.

  The GNG-meeting coverage of Hageman trumps WP:NPOL, as is even explicitly written at NPOL.

  - SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close, allow recreation Coverage and notability have changed since the discussion and close. Defeating an incumbent member of congress in a primary is unusual and noteworthy. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment It seems like there should be a way to allow recreation of an article without overturning a legitimate AFD closure from two months ago. I see a desire to have an article on this subject now that she has won the primary but no valid grounds for why this closure should be overturned. "Redirect" was the correct assessment of the AFD discussion that happened in June. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • And this entire discussion is moot as the Harriet Hageman redirect has already been reverted by El C before this deletion review was closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Nobody's disagreeing with the afd close, just for how long and under what circumstances it's applicable. — Cryptic 20:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Liz A redirect discussion isn't particularly normative--one additional piece of content added makes it moot. Jclemens ( talk) 21:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Proper procedure to contest an old AfD redirect decision is to establish a consensus to do so on the talk page of the redirect target, to re-WP:Spinout the subtopic. That page, Talk:2022 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming shows some activity in that vein. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  That's possible, but not necessary. An AfD doesn't mean "keep deleted" or "keep redirected" until something changes; that's why CSD G4 is as narrow as it is. Jclemens ( talk) 04:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  If consensus was to redirect, and someone overwrites the redirect, contrary to consensus, they are guilt of disruption.

  G4 doesn’t come into it. Redirect was not delete. You can’t use G4 to enforce a redirect.

  A consensus “to redirect” does mean “keep redirected until something changes”. Here, something changed. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• endorse redirect, allow article things have changed (this is the status quo). Also, please tell me we have a better (free) picture of her than the one in the article. Hobit ( talk) 04:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but Allow recreation Surely we can just use WP:COMMONSENSE and recognize that circumstances have changed rather than edit war and waste everyone's time with this discussion? Smartyllama ( talk) 17:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AfD outcome but allow recreation: She does not pass subject-specific WP:NPOL is perhaps true. But she appears to pass WP:GNG now, given excessive coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. She, who defeated Cheney by more than a 2:1 margin in the primary, being a Republican in a hyper-red state, is a shoe-in for the job. I think we can use some common sense and invoke WP:NOTBURO and allow recreation. If a miracle happens, she loses, fine, we can delete the article then. — CX Zoom[he/him] ^{( let's talk • { C• X})} 18:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AfD and do not allow recreation - until she is elected, the proper place for information about her is on the specific election page, as she is not yet otherwise notable. We can probably recreate once she has consistent nationwide campaign coverage that makes clear she'll be remembered if she loses but we're not quite there yet. SportingFlyer T· C 22:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Please let us know which policy or guideline requires a politician must win a general election to be considered notable. It certainly is not WP:NPOL, which considers “Major political figures who have received significant press coverage” to be notable. The subject has received SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL coverage (as evidenced by a simple Google search). Likewise, it’s not WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple sources, which the subject clearly has. Carson Wentz ( talk) 01:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the clear outcome of the recent AfD and do not allow recreation/protect this redirect. There was wide consensus just this summer (when her potential candidacy was known) that this is to be a redirect for now. If she were to win an election to become a member of a national parliament, then she would merit her own article. We don't even have an article on the candidate from the opposing major party (that happens to be the governing party of her country) Lynnette Grey Bull, who is a redirect to the election article, just like Hageman. We don't have articles on Dutch or Polish or even Russian candidates for parliamentary seats either. -- Tataral ( talk) 11:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Please let us know which policy or guideline requires a politician must win a general election to be considered notable. The subject passes WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as she has received SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL coverage (as evidenced by a simple Google search). Saying it’s too soon because the AFD happened just this summer is absurd. Two months is a very long time in American politics and a lot can and has changed. Carson Wentz ( talk) 11:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • No, nothing has changed since the AfD. She is a candidate in an election, not a member of a national parliament. She had already received roughly the same level of attention at the time of the AfD, nothing new here either. The wide consensus was that a redirect to the election article is appropriate, just like the candidate of the country's governing party is also just a redirect. The media coverage has also focused on Liz Cheney, not her personally. She's an obscure figure, a secondary figure in Liz Cheney's story (which is a story because of Cheney's national profile and role, which Hageman doesn't have); in such a case a redirect is normal. No need to relitigate why a candidate isn't notable, this was already decided by the AfD by a large consensus. -- Tataral ( talk) 13:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    Two of the sources I listed are new since the AfD. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Also, pointing out another candidate does not have an article is not a valid argument. The level of coverage between the two, particularly on a national level, isn’t even close. Carson Wentz ( talk) 11:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (involved) as the correct assessment was done at the AfD, but without prejudice of recreating the article if more coverage that isn't run of the mill for a political candidate is found ( WP:GNG) and/or if they win the election later in the year ( WP:NPOL). - Kj cheetham ( talk) 14:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Retain the article and protect it against edit-warring. Every single major news outlet covered Hageman after the primaries and therefore after the AfD discussion, which is therefore pretty irrelevant at this point. The titles were of the sort "Who is Harriet Hageman who defeated Liz Cheney, etc." After such extensive coverage, most people know who she is by now. Since everybody seems to agree that she is a shoo-in for the House of Representatives on 8.11.2022, obstinate attempts to delete this page seem like irrelevant bureaucracy at this point. 2.53.189.124 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• I'd note that the AfD close on 24th June was redirect, and User:Deepfriedokra has fully protected it as an article rather than a redirect. This kind of thing usually leads to some wit linking our hilarious essay on the wrong version. But actually the outcome is an end-run around consensus that I don't think Deepfriedokra would have intended, because we don't want to start doing end-runs around consensus in articles about US politics. I do think it should be fully protected as a redirect until a new consensus is reached.— S Marshall  T/ C 18:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I'm sure my colleague knows well that when an admin protects a page, it is only to stop the disruption of an edit war, so that a discussion can take place that results in a WP:CONSENSUS as to what version should be. It is not an opinion on which should be the preferred version. Such is the case here. It should not be inferred that I have any opinion or another over this page. Certainly, as in all cases, once a consensus is reached, the page can be unprotected and the consensus implemented. Best -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 19:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Some recent sources (post-AfD) to substantiate Hageman's notability:

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/who-is-harriet-hageman-liz-cheney-wyoming-trump

The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/harriet-hageman-trump-cheney.html National Public Radio: https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/17/1117820139/harriet-hageman-liz-cheney-wyoming-house

USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/08/16/who-is-harriet-hageman-wyoming-primary/10335906002/

Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/17/cheney-releases-concession-call-audio-to-refute-primary-opponents-claims-00052593 2.53.189.124 ( talk) 19:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Matalena Daniells ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Overturn to delete. All but one keep vote is non-policy reasons to keep an article. IdiotSavant's rationale was debunked as not meeting GNG and evidenced by later Delete votes. There is clear consensus here to delete. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse no consensus closure. This was reasonable based on several users' policy-based analysis of the sources posted in the article/AFD. Further, it is just your opinion that User:IdiotSavant's keep rationale was "debunked." Carson Wentz ( talk) 17:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Start a new AfD as I recommend in the close. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  What would that achieve, though? The editors who !voted in the last one would just make the exact same arguments in the new one... It's not like being shown particular sources fail independence or are routine mentions would discourage them from insisting those sources do meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse disagreements about sourcing is not a reason to delete something with this level of participation. Jclemens ( talk) 19:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Endorse. It seems like there was no consensus, which is how it was closed. CT55555 ( talk) 20:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The appellant is saying that the closer should have supervoted. Overturning a closer that matched user input because the closer should have supervoted should only be done in extraordinary circumstances (and these are not extraordinary circumstances). Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - But the appellant is in the wrong forum. The closer said another AFD was in order. There might be different editors in the new AFD. In any case, DRV is not the place to relitigate the debate unless there was closer error, which there was not. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• The closer did not say another AFD is “in order.” The closer said “no prejudice against renominating,” which is true of any no consensus closure whether stated or not. And I disagree with a renomination within a couple months with the same rationale because it will likely result in the same persons making the same valid arguments on both sides and another NC result. Carson Wentz ( talk) 10:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the finding of lack of consensus. The AFD nominator seems to accept there is one reasonable source but goes on to say ... but one source falls well short of both GNG and SIGCOV. That is a matter of opinion (and may be a reasonable one) but in fact our notability guidelines say "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Regarding "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" it seems to me that the subject is the main topic of the source material in question but the level of coverage is such that different people may reasonably have different views as to its significance. So, using the common sense allowed in considering our guidelines and allowing for occasional exceptions, different people may have different opinions that should be respected and taken into account in assessing AFD discussions. Thincat ( talk) 09:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The evidence presented of the subject meeting GNG was not the strongest, but wasn't so poor that an otherwise 50-50 discussion could be closed as anything but "no consensus". Vanamonde ( Talk) 13:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Reasonable close. The fact that you disagree with the keep !voters does not equal grounds to delete. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. There is some additional info needed to contextualize the claims of GNG that I think warrants a delete or at least reopen of the same AfD. A single source is only acceptable in the rare circumstances that it provides comprehensive and neutral coverage of the subject. Only one editor alleged that there was a source of independent SIGCOV, while three editors agreed that that source was not SIGCOV (and to be clear, the claim that the article contained "10 paragraphs" is completely misleading, since it's actually 11 double-spaced sentences) as it had only three sentences that were independent and on her:

  A FORMER Innisfail United player will get her first taste of senior international football next month.
  Moreton Bay United Jets defender Matalena Daniells has been named in the Samoan team for the Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) Women's Nations Cup.
  Daniells, a former Innisfail State College student, made 21 NPLW appearances for the Jets last season and played for Samoa Under 20s in the OFC championship in 2015.

  NSPORT AfD precedent strongly considers such announcements routine and ineligible for GNG. Furthermore, an unbylined article, from a newspaper serving a town with just 7,000 people, reporting on someone who used to play for their local team is certainly not going to be sufficiently independent for GNG regardless of length. Two other keep !votes were apparently based on believing the earlier sources were sufficient for GNG, but since those were shown to be non-independent (prohibited by GNG) or routine trivial mentions (in violation of SPORTBASIC) (findings that were not rebutted), those !votes should have been discounted as relying on inaccurate information. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep/delete arguments more or less in balance, no consensus the clear outcome. Claims that sources lacked independence might have been given greater weight to the delete side had they not been assertions (eg an institution doesn't lack independence per se because of giving an award...otherwise the Nobel committee lacks independence!). Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Yes, the Nobel Committee does lack independence (in the WP source sense) from its awardees...a notice of the award released from the Committee would not contribute to GNG due to being primary and non-independent (but would be sufficient for demonstrating a subject meets ANYBIO). JoelleJay ( talk) 21:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  If a member of one of the prize committees was the awardee, a claim of lacking independence might be credible. In other circumstances, and that applies to this AfD, there's a burden of proof required for an assertion that an announcement by a body for the reasons why they will make an award is *per se* lacking independence. It cannot be asserted, it must be demonstrated. FWIW, there is broad community consensus that forms of recognition given to members of professional associations are legitimate measures of notability; not necessarily all, but, again, this was not raised in the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 00:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting. An awarding org is considered per se "affiliated" with its awardees. An announcement by the org discussing its recipients does not represent coverage by a disinterested party because the org is by definition "interested" in how the org itself is represented, and this cannot be separated from the coverage of recipient. Not to mention the clear financial relationship with the topic. The reason we require independence is not just to prevent a subject from directly influencing their own coverage; it is also meant to limit the potential for non-neutral POV and to ensure attention toward the subject is actually reflective of their real-life importance. It would be impossible to write an NPOV biography based solely on award announcements because it would include only the most positive aspects of the subject and would additionally promote the profile of the awarders (who are obviously incentivized to inflate the impact of both the award and the merits of the recipient). This is the same reason we don't count published statements from a university regarding their students or employees, press releases, or college newspapers covering college-related news toward GNG.

  The community consensus you refer to is with regards to awards satisfying ANYBIO or NPROF; none of the awards Daniells received would apply here, which is why that wasn't raised in the AfD. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  DRV is based on arguments made. The closer has indicated no opposition to sending this to AfD again; that would be the best location for relitigating the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 04:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse No consensus was the correct outcome here, though I sort of sympathise with the delete !voters as they had a slightly stronger argument, but closing as a delete would have been a supervote. SportingFlyer T· C 23:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• This is a biography of a living person and its content has been challenged, so per two kinds of content policy, it should contain inline citations to reliable, independent sources that directly support the contentions it makes. It doesn't. We should endorse the close and carry out the speedy renomination that's both explicitly permitted by the close and highly appropriate in the circumstances.— S Marshall  T/ C 18:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment There should be a tag on the AFD, indicating that this Deletion Review is occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer_Wankhede (last year), and has been deleted again because "you copied and pasted 90% of the article from the deleted version", [2] as per DanCherek the deleting admin. But it would not make any sense to create an article without restoring the earlier content which was meaningful and largely written during the AfD itself and I was a significant contributor to it.

As for the subject itself, most of the participants of the AfD that voted for "Delete" had wrongly predicted that the subject won't get any coverage after the controversy that was going on at the time. This has been proven wrong and the subject is still getting significant coverage. [3] [4] [5] Subject undoubtedly meets WP:GNG.

I request restoration of the article version as of 15 August. Thanks -- Yoonadue ( talk) 14:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for starting this discussion here. Just to expand a little on my reasoning for fulfilling the CSD G4 request, WP:RUD says: "If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted). Deleted articles may not be recovered and reused from Wikipedia mirrors, Google cache, or the view-deleted administrator right." Given the significant copying, I felt that the article should first be discussed at DRV before an administrator unilaterally restores the entire history for attribution purposes, so I'm glad to see that this has been initiated. DanCherek ( talk) 14:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ DanCherek: I am not disputing deletion since your response. This discussion can run for weeks but will be resolved ASAP if you close it yourself by agreeing that you are willing to restore the version I had created. Thanks -- Yoonadue ( talk) 15:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but the point I was trying to make is that given the previous AfD, I think it would be better for this DRV discussion to first establish a consensus for restoring the article as well as the old revisions. This is the perfect place to discuss whether those new sources are enough for re-creation. DanCherek ( talk) 16:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Endorse nothing substantial has happened recently that merits an article creation. The concerns raised on the AfD about the notability still hold true. The OP is using new updates of the same old case as different coverage. They are part of the same event. The deletion is appropriate and I thank the admin for their good decision. Venkat TL ( talk) 15:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply

That makes no sense. I cited:

• From August 8, 2022 about him getting clean chit in caste certificate controversy.
• From August 15, 2022 about him filing a complaint against Nawab Malik.
• From June 10, 2022, a biographical article about him.

Before these sources:

• From 2015, an article about his investigation into a criminal case.
• From 2020, a biographical article about him.
• From 2013, another biographical article about him.

Clearly you haven't even checked the sources, because none of them have anything to do with any of the "same event" you are talking about. -- Yoonadue ( talk) 16:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Yoonadue, these sources were already discussed in the AfD and you are attempting to re-litigate the same by reposting them here. My comment is not making any sense to you because you need to understand that tabloid type sensational coverage that you are quoting are not used on Wikipedia. Please read WP:BLPRS and WP:RS. Venkat TL ( talk) 10:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Restore The subject satisfied WP:N when it was created in 2021 and the case is even more obvious now per the sources provided by the nom. There is no issue with restoring. desmay ( talk) 17:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• At the last DRV, I made a thorough and comprehensive case for why we should allow this article in the mainspace, and which in my view torpedoes every argument thus far made for deleting it. I hope it is not necessary for me to paste all that text here before the closer can take it into account; but if, for some ghastly bureaucratic reason, it is, please let me know and I will do it.— S Marshall  T/ C 01:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ S Marshall, could you link to it? Sandstein 09:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Certainly. On why BLP1E doesn't apply; more on why BLP1E doesn't apply; on why NOTNEWS won't stretch that far.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G4 Regardless of merits of keeping the article, 90% the same != substantially identical to the deleted copy. Any significant amount of changing earns a new AfD discussion... and possibly a user conduct sanction if it's clear the editor is gaming the system. Jclemens ( talk) 15:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• overturn G4 while I think the original AfD reached the wrong result, the closer closed within discretion (and gets high marks for the explanation). But we have new sources and I don't see how BLP1E can be said to obviously cover them. So G4 doesn't apply and a new AfD is needed (if desired). Hobit ( talk) 04:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 and send it back to AfD. I do not blame DanCherek here - the policy is vague on what's "sufficiently identical". But anything that brings new sources is NOT sufficiently identical, at least as I understand it. The community should have another look. casualdejekyll 02:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply

UP Halcyon ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A non-admin closed a week-old AfD for UP Halcyon. I think the AfD should have been continued, reposted, for at least another week on this basis: The discussion was shut down far too soon after major improvements were made, thus allowing insufficient time for voters to re-assess.

The original article, while well-written and non-promotional was lacking citations. When it was suddenly PRODed I objected, desirous of fixing it. The proposer then placed it in an AfD vote. In that single week I cleaned up the page and added two references. Another editor added six more references, all of them correctly cited.

During the brief vote period, several editors voiced an early, short opinion, "Delete, no sources" or something like that, and most dialog occurred prior to substantive improvements to the article. I believe we have fixed the page, addressed the original (valid) concern about a lack of sources, and have established validity (~the group exists) and that it is notable, as an important part of its community. Therefore I'd like to give time for cooler heads to reassess. Note, the non-admin who closed the discussion created it as a REDIRECT. I do not believe this to be a helpful resolution. My opinion remains that the UP Halcyon article should be Kept, but I hoped the voters would come to that conclusion after seeing our improvements. The last six references were added only a day or so prior to deletion - maybe 30 hours had passed (I cannot see the page history to check). Voters didn't have much of a chance to see these improvements. I asked the user to re-list, but he/she declined. Jax MN ( talk) 20:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Relist - The fact that it was a non-admin close is not the issue. But two of the first Delete !votes said that it had no sources, which was true, and has been rectified by adding nine sources as well as other material. I do not know whether I would !vote to Keep or Delete in its current form. However, when No Sources are cited, the addition of sources is a reason to Relist, and to ping the editors who !voted to see if they change their !votes. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist would decide what needs to be done and allow further analysis of the sources. >>>  Extorc. talk 15:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Great. Thank you for those comments. Who then effects (~does) the relist? The current article is still a REDIRECT, and the article itself is suppressed. Jax MN ( talk) 16:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  DRV is a consensus process, so other may comment yet. A DRV is nominally 7 days, this normally means it'll be open for at least 7 days after which an admin will close it. In extreme cases it can be quite a bit longer. There are circumstances where it can be closed earlier (withdrawn, initial closer undoes their close etc.) but normally it is going to be at least 7 days. -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 17:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Relist Although this was just about within the discretion of a NAC so its not like Astig did anything wrong, the discussion was still active and mildly contentious over whether the references meet NORG guidelines. More discussion wouldn't hurt. That said, based on the last comment by Rublamb I agree that more sources are needed to prove notability (and Rublamb !voted Keep) and the analysis of the sources and the argument for Keeping, I think we're simply delaying the inevitable and this will end up being a redirect anyway. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist when sources get added to the article at the last minute, a relist so they can be evaluated is proper, regardless of the previous "no sources" objections, which immediately are deprived of any weight by AGFing the new sourcing addresses the source issue. Jclemens ( talk) 00:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The nominator’s reason for deletion was overcome by the addition of sources. Allow immediate renomination (after the close of this DRV). This is different to “relist” in that there will be a fresh nomination statement, which is needed because the old one no longer applies. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep this was a WP:BADNAC as the outcome was at least somewhat controversial, as shown by valid "keep" and "redirect" votes, and what were at the time valid "delete" (though later addressed by the addition of valid sourcing). No prejudice against re-nomination if someone wishes to go that route. Per User:SmokeyJoe, this would allow better rationale for deletion since the AFD's rationale no longer applies. Carson Wentz ( talk) 12:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per SmokeyJoe. Note that User:Jax MN's DRV nomination statement seems to suggest that they think the developed version of the article is not available to them to be seen, but isn't that this version just before the redirect implemented. An AFD outcome of "redirect" does usually (as here) leave behind edit history. -- Doncram ( talk) 13:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Really nothing wrong with the closure. The delete/redirect !votes do have more weight than the keep !votes. As one of the delete/redirect !voters, our arguments aren't just the WP:METOO arguments. The sources added were heavily rebutted by HighKing, in which I'm convinced with the user's arguments. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I agree in general but one of the (IMO) valid arguments made above was that the additional sources had only been added ~30 hours before closing and the discussion was ongoing. A relist would allow the discussion to continue and allow other editors to comment. Overturning to Keep would be inappropriate. The nom said that it was a "non-notable organization" and additionally pointed out that there were no refs. Some refs have been added (and under discussion) but we haven't reached a consensus on the first part of the nomination, whether the org in notable or not. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    Even with the sources added, I still don't think it meets WP:NORG. You even analyzed them one by one and concluded that it still fails NORG. SBKSPP ( talk) 09:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Relist Clear BADNAC and a difficult discussion, needs to be re-closed. No comment on what the new outcome should be. SportingFlyer T· C 23:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of JG 26 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

In context of the bulk nomination (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 2#Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the Fallschirmjäger), the template {{ Knight's Cross recipients of JG 26}} was deleted. Since 2017, all of the referenced entries in that template have been fully expanded, attaining at least minimum B-class rating with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. The layout of the template follows similar templates such as {{ WWII women snipers}}, {{ Female HSU Partisans}}, {{ Women fighter pilots WWII}}, {{ Heroes of the Soviet Union 37th GRD}} or {{ Heroes of the Soviet Union 46th GNBR}}, just to list a few. At the time, the template received two votes for keep and two votes for delete. In consequence, I would like to re-discuss the deletion. The closing editor @ Plastikspork: has retired. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 07:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ K.e.coffman, Iazyges, AlfaRocket, and Cavalryman: Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Restore template (uninvolved). I've read through the brief discussion, and I honestly cannot say that a rough consensus was achieved to delete the templates. Even when discounting the !vote that is simply expresses a desire for keeping the template without motivation, nobody really addressed anybody else's arguments in the discussion and the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy were basically even. Given that the claim that the template would help with navigation appears to be reasonable, and the deletion discussion really doesn't appear to have achieved a consensus anyway, it makes sense to restore the old template and to allow MisterBee1966 cut it down to include only notable entries. I have no clue whether the other templates are worth potentially restoring nor if they would serve a reasonable navigational purpose, but undeleting this specific one seems reasonable as a time-saving measure if a navigational template for this group would be created anyway.— Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Restore Template - This is not presented as an appeal, but, on reading the TFD, my inclination would be to Overturn to No Consensus. That isn't be asked, and may be too late, but, in view of both the appellant's statement and the uncertainty of the closure, the request should be granted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Robert McClenon: yes, this posting was meant as a request for appeal. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 06:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to No Consensus, as per Redtailed hawk, and so restore the deleted template. I have no opinion at this time on whether to restore the other templates. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

John West (cricketer, born 1861) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Cheraldine Oudolf ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Akash Ambani ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

11 participants wanted the article to be deleted/redirected while only 6 participants wanted to keep it.

The reasons provided to oppose the article creation include WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:PAGEDECIDE/ WP:NOPAGE and WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. None of these were refuted because it is beyond obvious that the coverage is being provided to the subject merely for being the son of Mukesh Ambani.

Overall, the AfD produced no new argument in favor of keeping than what was already rejected in the earlier AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akash Ambani).

Closing user Sandstein appear to be claiming that this was still not enough to "convince sufficient people to establish consensus", [6] which contradicts the reality.

The AfD should be re-closed as redirect. >>>  Extorc. talk 04:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Sandstein has correctly read the consensus and it comes within the closer's discretion.

AFD is not a headcount hence 11 vs 6 is not a factor and closures are not done based on it. Akash Ambani became the chairman of Reliance JIO India's largest telecom company and one of the most important corporate positions in India with 340 million subscribers after this the subject received a lot of coverage .The entire Indian media covered him after his appointment The Economic Times . NDTV, Financial Times , South China Morning Post , India Today , The Hindu Business Line, Business Standard , The Times of India , The Hindu etc and all television channels amongst others and with the coverage after his appointment as the Chairman of Jio and is not due to his father and hence meet WP:GNG. WP:INHERITED is not about literal inheritance or his inheriting money from his father.

Mukesh Ambani has 2 other children Isha and Anant they did not get any coverage only Akash got it as he was appointed as Chairman of Jio. Now how he became the chairman is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned. Coverage is a prima facie indication of notability. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG based on the coverage he is getting after he became the chairman. He is involved in the launch of 5G in India which Jio purchased for 11 Billion dollars. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

See WP:ILIKEIT. This is not AfD. Nobody is asking here if Akash Ambani is notable or not. You don't have to throw a strawman like " WP:INHERITED is not about literal inheritance or his inheriting money from his father" just because you still don't understand what WP:NOTINHERITED is. >>>  Extorc. talk 06:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME can be ignored totally, it's a page documenting what is perceived by the author to be common outcomes of such discussions. i.e. if it is properly representative it follows xFD outcomes rather than xFD outcomes following it. WP:NOTINHERITED is not a content policy it's an argument to avoid, I don't think anyone was arguing his dad is notable, so therefore he is. Taking the one step removed, he got the coverage through his personal relationships, as it's not a content policy becomes rather irrelevant, he may have got his position "unfairly" and that may have lead to coverage etc. but that's going to all end up being pretty subjective and if we aren't careful lead to a thinking that anyone who could be insinuated got their notability by their connection to some other notable person/thing shouldn't be here. (e.g Coleen_Rooney I doubt if it weren't for her husband we'd know of her, but countless articles etc. have been written about her (in the British press anyway) and I would easily imagine many people know of her while knowing little or nothing of her husband). In the end I don't think there was a good consensus either way and I doubt one would have formed with further time. -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 06:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME cannot be ignored because it details the established community standards for business profiles, and this subject fails it. You seem to have read only first 2 sentences about WP:NOTINHERITED instead of reading the entire section about it. Azuredivay ( talk) 06:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

No it's in an essay outcomnes and declares itself as such indeed on the page "Citing this page in AFD" - "This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones." etc. If the examples of stuff typically kept lead to requirements for all future stuff, the notability guidelines would get updated to reflect those requirements. And yes I've read NOTINHERITED many times, that it's not a content policy is kind of important to an argument which says commenters have to refute it (Not that it's really possible since it gives both argument and counter argument so unless it's refuting both side of that...)-- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 21:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (involved) to redirect. Most users agreed that this needs to be a redirect. There was no evidence to the contrary and not a single point of the nom was refuted. While headcount does not matter much, the closure's rationale is clearly depending on miscalculation of consensus as this response show. This is looking like a supervote. Azuredivay ( talk) 06:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - No Consensus is a valid conclusion. AFD is not a vote count, at least not always. No Consensus is a valid close whenever opinions are scattered all over. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• This AFD is a headache and a half. Being associated with a particular company, no matter how important, is the very definition of inherited notability; on the other hand, if we discounted coverage simply because of its proximity to activities media take note of we would have to delete... well, pretty much everything. There are perhaps very real concerns about the quality of sources ( quantity is not a substitute) or whether a standalone article is appropriate, but delete and redirect !voters need to state them. In actual words. Liz and Sandstien were very nice about it, but I count two, maybe three or 3.5 !votes correctly applying PAG, and a 2-1 either way is generally not considered indicative of consensus of anything (I guess that makes this an endorse). If this is renominated in a couple of months, please for the love of everything encyclopedic try and keep things focused. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to redirect. I had made it clear on AfD that even if arguments of Keep voters were correct (not that they were), still there wouldn't be enough content to justify the page per WP:NOPAGE. The claim that the consensus wasn't formed is beyond misleading. ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 15:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• I went over some of the sources listed. Most appeared to be paid bits: E.g.: [7]. [8] feels far too similar to the PR bits to believe it isn't more of the same but it does have a real byline at least. I think delete *redirect* may be a better reading--it just isn't clear there are real articles here, but NC is reasonable. weak endorse. Hobit ( talk) 19:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment This is kind of weird - Sandstein closed with I can't assign either side's arguments more weight. If that was really the case, then redirect, not no-consensus, should be the close given the balance of (!)votes. Personally, I do believe the strength of arguments can be distinguished - several of those claiming NOTINHERITED to !vote redirect/delete did so under distinctly dubious interpretations of it. We also have various attempts to cite businesspersonoutcomes, which if the only thing cited can be ignored (although that was only sometimes the case). Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The closing note ("I can't assign either side's arguments more weight") reads more like "I am not ready to close AfD but I will do it anyway". The sources were of poor quality and couldn't address the concerns raised by the nomination, hence delete or redirect would be the appropriate outcome. desmay ( talk) 15:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (involved) Consensus was fairly clear; it favored redirection. Every relative of Mukesh Ambani is known to be getting massive coverage in media, that's why it made no sense to ignore the concerns about WP:NOTINHERITED. CharlesWain ( talk) 16:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep while I'm tempted to endorse Sandstein's close--and his closes have become far more nuanced of late--the fact is that if a person is notable, a ton of other people showing up to disagree with that fact and aggressively misunderstanding NOTINHERETED doesn't change the outcome. "If he wasn't related to X, he wouldn't be famous" isn't on point. Rather, it says "He doesn't get an article just because he's related to X". Sandstein correctly noted that those arguments weren't compelling, and no consensus was a good way to try and split the difference... but I don't think he took it far enough in this case. Jclemens ( talk) 21:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (involved) - There was strength in the keep arguments. However there was not a clear consensus for any outcome. Closing as no consensus was the correct choice in this matter. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 23:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse there was clearly no consensus to redirect. Further, the closing admin argued he "Can't give either side more weight" which I interpret to mean he determined the TOTAL weight of each side (i.e. combining quantity with substance) to be roughly even. Brad Hat ( talk) 13:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no consensus, though my rationale differs somewhat (uninvolved). It is extremely clear that the article subject satisfies WP:GNG/ WP:NBASIC, which was established from the extremely strong arguments given by keep !voters in the discussion. There are many deletion arguments that boil down to "this individual didn't achieve anything significant", which is to say that the individual fails WP:ANYBIO. But failing WP:ANYBIO and passing WP:NBASIC satisfies the requirement #1 of WP:N, so the arguments for keeping are significantly stronger than this sort of argument for deletion (i.e. no argument given reasonably showed support WP:DEL-REASON#8 inasmuch as an individual can pass WP:NBIO without passing WP:ANYBIO). That being said, there's still the consideration of WP:NOPAGE, which at least one in favor of redirecting the page explicitly brought up, so it is not as if there were no policy-based reasons for alternatives to keep. WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is not a notability guideline nor a policy (nor does it plausibly provide a set of policy-based arguments like an essay might), so it makes sense to reduce weight to !votes made solely on that basis. As such, there is no rough consensus as to whether to delete/ blank-and-redirect the article or to keep it. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 20:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Red-tailed hawk: It does not meet GNG. You need to verify the sources properly. WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is like WP:NACTOR and should be satisfied. It cannot be overlooked. One user cited WP:PAGEDECIDE which is same as WP:NOPAGE. CharlesWain ( talk) 17:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The coverage presented in that AfD includes significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including the South China Morning Post ( WP:GREL), Financial Express (sister to WP:GREL The Indian Express), and Business-Standard. This would be like a U.K. person getting significant coverage in the Washington Post, the Financial Times, and The Economist. Unless you believe that these sources are all paid for (which would require quite a bit of evidence given the reputation of the publications). I agree that we need to verify the sources properly (and for that reason labeled press releases like the alleged Economic Times source should be totally ignored), but I really do see a clear GNG pass here.

With respect to the argument that WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is like WP:NACTOR and should be satisfied, there are two fundamental and fatal problems. The first is that WP:OUTCOMES, broadly construed, is not a policy nor guideline and does not carry the weight of community consensus. In other words, it does not provide a basis for satisfying WP:N in and of itself, but it likewise does not provide any sort of support for claiming WP:DEL-REASON#8. The second is that, even if the two were to be treated as guidelines, your assertion ignores the fact that actors can still be notable even if they do not satisfy WP:NACTOR. This is because WP:N states that (assuming an article isn't excluded under WP:NOT), a subject is presumed to merit an article if it satisfies either (a) the general notability guideline (GNG) or (b) the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline. There is one notable explicit exception to this ( for-profit corporations and businesses can't solely satisfy GNG), but no such exception applies for businesspeople.

I explicitly noted in my comment that at least one in favor of redirecting the page explicitly brought up WP:NOPAGE. I'm unsure what your comment means w.r.t. NOPAGE, but I agree that this cannot be wholly dismissed out-of-hand, which is why I think there was no consensus. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• OK folks, maybe I'm missing something, but as always this hinges on sourcing. And I'm struggling to find sources that aren't A) a press release B) an article that is clearly just a paid thing or C) something that probably isn't paid for but reads almost exactly like either A or B. Are there three decent sources here somewhere? I didn't look at all the sources, but you'd think someone would at least question the wisdom of this guy's appointment to his current job. I mean maybe he's qualified, but any reasonable independent coverage would at least raise the "is he really qualified for this job?" question. This feels like a wall of paid coverage. As I said, I'm okay with an NC outcome here, but I'm not sure why a lot of people think this clearly meets WP:N. What am I missing? Hobit ( talk) 05:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't think any of the sources satisfied GNG or WP:N contrary to the claims by some. Since this was closed as "no consensus", I think the discussion on talk page would ultimately decide whether this should be kept or be redirected/merged. CharlesWain ( talk) 17:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sure, but claims of "WP:N is met" when that is very much less-than-clear means the closer should have significantly discounted those !votes. I'd rather see a relist so the sources can be addressed in a broader venue. (yes, I !voted for endorsing the close since I think it was within discretion, but wow, the sourcing is bad.) Hobit ( talk) 20:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse outcome. No other conclusion could have resulted from the discussion given. -- MuZemike 00:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, largely per Nosebagbear. Sandstein's phrasing was poor; there are more delete/redirect opinions than "keep" opinions, but the former rely on an interpretation of NOTINHERITED that's quite disingenuous. NOTINHERITED refers to coverage in reliable sources that is solely discussing the relationship of the subject to a different, notable, subject. It does not refer to coverage the subject has gotten for their own activities, even if those activities were enabled by family ties. This man is the chairperson of India's largest telecom company, and coverage he has received in that role cannot be dismissed simply because his father was its founder. Vanamonde ( Talk) 13:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• There are numerous relatives of popular figures who get coverage for their own activities but when they don't meet the guideline or policies of Wiki then they shouldn't be having a separate article. Being a "chairperson of India's largest telecom company" does not ensure notability. Not to mention the sources were of poor quality. CharlesWain ( talk) 16:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. A strong Keep argument was presented (based directly on GNG) and not refuted. An delete argument based on "he's only notable because of whose son he is" was advanced by admittedly more participants, but was logically weaker (there may be a number of purported reasons for notability, and the existence of one which in itself would not be sufficient to keep an article fails to negate any others), and in many cases referred to WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, which is an empirical summary not policy. A no consensus result is a reasonable read of such a discussion. Adding: it is possible that a more detailed examination of sources would refute their sufficiency for notability. But that argument was not made in the AFD. Martinp ( talk) 20:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse simply no consensus on applicability of NOTINHERITED (or its interpretation). Agree, closer might have chosen their phrasing slightly less ambiguously, but intent was clear. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 12:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Some users think the sources meet GNG, others don't (even in this DRV), many arguments aren't quite on topic, a clear no consensus in my mind. Another AfD focusing only on the quality of sourcing/whether it meets GNG may be useful in the near future. SportingFlyer T· C 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (involved) It was a broad discussion that didn't end up coming to any sort of agreement. I believe the keep argument was refuted, although there was limited discussion of sources. No action can be taken from this AfD, so no consensus is the right call. –– FormalDude talk 15:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Law and Chaos ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closer failed to adequately consider AfDs, and here suggests that "there was no agreement as to what alternative should be used" prevented a merge or redirection outcome. That logic gives perverse incentive to editors who want something to be deleted to argue "merge or delete" and then pick a novel target for merger (or redirection, whichever). Closer misreads the directive in WP:DGFA to "when in doubt, don't delete" upending it to mean "if we're agreed that there's no standalone article needed here, but can't agree on what should be merged where, then just delete it." Moreover while six editors had opined for deletion (two weakly), six (including three overlapping editors) argued for some variety of keep, cleanup, merge, or redirect: clearly not a consensus for deletion even if we were just nose counting. Jclemens ( talk) 19:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Even the people advocating for keeping were advocating for starting a new article at the same title from scratch at the same title. Nobody made the claim that the exsistant article, Law and Chaos in Michael Moorcock's work, was notable. Alterntives to deletion were discussed, but there was no consenus as to what alternative to use and where to redirect/merge. I can't supervote or pick from a hat where to merge. Therefore, my close is a reasonable one. If Jclemens would like to write a general article about how law and chaos are used in lit, they are more than welcome to do so. Redirects do not require a consensus and are cheap. I don't think Law and Chaos is a reasonable redirect term for Michael Moorcock, but Jclemens could do that right now if they wanted to. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

If you had redirected the text, we wouldn't be here. Instead, you chose to eliminate it from view of me and all other non-admin editors. Instead, you make false statements ("Nobody made the claim that the exsistant article, Law and Chaos in Michael Moorcock's work, was notable.") which take more time to type than it takes to amend your close from delete to "redirect somewhere tbd", which is all that I ask and all that policy expects. Jclemens ( talk) 22:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to No Consensus with opinions scattered all over. No Consensus permits a redirect by normal editing, and subsequent discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. An editor supporting retention wrote (I added bolding for emphasis):

  I do think the plot summary content should be trimmed, but not removed entirely. clearly violates WP:V would mean that the missing references could neither be found in secondary nor primary sources. That could be decided only by a person who knows the relevant primary sources quite well, or has done the thorough attempts to find reliable sources which is the phrasing in the policy. And what would remain if one would remove all un-referenced content? The referenced content! I've allowed myself the fun to roughly count, and get to ca. 350 words of referenced content, which is more than one common threshold for being considered a stub already.

  An editor who weakly supported deletion wrote (I added bolding for emphasis):

  As stated multiple times above, this is a philosophical concept that goes far beyond the works of a single author, and having this current article be a massive fan-wiki style essay on that one author's work just gives a completely unbalanced view of the subject, and is a case of WP:TNT being the far preferable solution to leaving it as it is. I would probably be fine with keeping it if nearly all of the current material was removed, leaving just the bit of sourced material in the lead on Moorcock's work and the sourced material in the "Cultural influences" as a stub. But, the current article should definitely not be kept in its current form.

  Another editor who supported deletion or a selective merge wrote, "The section about influences on other works is better placed in the writer's article, if it is to be retained."

  I agree with Robert McClenon's conclusion about "opinions scattered all over" so I support overturning to no consensus. I conclude from editors' opinions that there is sourced content in the article that is useful to readers. Whether this material should be retained in a standalone article or merged elsewhere can be left for editorial discretion. As Robert McClenon noted, a no consensus result will allow normal editing to decide what should happen.

  Cunard ( talk) 07:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, although it would have been preferable for the closer to expand on the outcome reasoning. NC would also have been valid, but deletion is still legitimate given there was so little appetite for the content already in the article (there was some text users alleged was referenced, but other editors seemed to have concerns that even that was OR and couldn't be verified), and instead a lot of discussion on what could be in a potential article (on either the same topic, or one with wider scope). If little to none of the original content would appear in the "ideal" treatment of this material, and if it would take substantial effort to determine what original material didn't violate policies, then it makes sense to TNT without preserving history. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Do you have a policy-based justification for your rationale? WP:ATD is policy, WP:TNT is an essay. Jclemens ( talk) 15:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  ATD-E: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Does not apply. No argument was advanced that the content wasn't verifiable to primary sources, just that it was not notable because those sources were not independent, reliable, or secondary. Jclemens ( talk) 01:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Emphasis mine:

  • In good faith, the author tried their best, but the resulting piece is likely WP:OR that clearly violates WP:V.
  • Notability requires verifiable evidence,
  • I agree with Necrothesp that the concept of law and chaos as a whole, and its representation in fiction, definitely is an article that should be quite possible. However, this article just isn't it - its almost entirely just overly detailed, unsourced, in-universe plot summaries of the works of Michael Moorcock specifically. As stated multiple times above, this is a philosophical concept that goes far beyond the works of a single author, and having this current article be a massive fan-wiki style essay on that one author's work just gives a completely unbalanced view of the subject, and is a case of WP:TNT being the far preferable solution to leaving it as it is.
  • it drifts into other fiction that deals with chaos (which is a lot of fiction), making WP:SYNTH connections that aren't implied by the sources
  • The in-universe content is OR and WP:NOTPLOT.
  • Even if the core topic may be notable, there is no point in keeping OR indefinitely until someone decides to work on it.

  All of these are arguments that the content is not verifiable, and therefore not worth preserving. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as correct. There was a consensus to delete. Even the arguments in favor of keeping the topic were in favor of a different article being written, with no verified content to WP:PRESERVE from the old article. Jontesta ( talk) 18:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  And from whence should the better article be generated? Oh, that would be from the redirect of the content... which can't be done if the content is deleted. If only we had a policy that preferred redirection to deletion. Oh wait, we do. Jclemens ( talk) 02:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, the close is a very reasonable interpretation of the discussion's consensus. Of course, if anyone else would like to start a more general article on the subject rather than one particular book on it, nothing would stop them from doing so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  What would stop the creation of a new article is the unnecessary deletion of content when other options exist. This DRV does not ask for the retention of a separate article, but rather the content to exist under a redirect, per ATD. Jclemens ( talk) 02:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. There is consensus that the content is not suitable for mainspace. I don't believe a no consensus closure is more appropriate in this case, but if the appropriateness of an ATD is to be determined, a relist note to refocus the discussion may occur (it is not, for example, unheard of to relist in order to determine an appropriate redirect destination). If nom wants the content, REFUND can be done at any individual admin's discretion to an appropriate destination. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 09:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. (Haven’t seen the deleted article) I read a consensus that it was WP:OR, debatable whether “entirely”, but it sounds “substantially” so. That makes it not appropriate content and not suitable for WP:ATD. It sounds like WP:TNT. Where OR is the issue, the author could have it userfied, but all editors should understand that the content is not suitable for re-use. This fits with someone’s call for “selective merge”. I recommend stripping out the references and listing them here. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  User:Guerillero’s closing statement was an inadequate explanation and should be improved. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Weak Endorse This is was a close discussion, but from my reading the strength of delete arguments that the content is overwhelmingly OR, when combined with the general acknowledgement of the more ambivalent votes (weak deletes and keeps) of extensive OR, shifts the balance from no consensus to delete. My endorsement is weak on the basis that given the closeness of the discussion an expansive closing statement would have been more helpful. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sruthy Sithara ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Hi,I would like to request the undeletion of the page Sruthy Sithara deleted under CSD WP:A7. She is an International model and beauty pageant who is the title winner of Miss Trans Global. As per WP:NBEAUTY, she passes the notability criteria. I do believe that the sources I provided proves her notability. Please restore the page so that I can edit more. Imperfect Boy ( talk) 03:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Go back to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Sruthy Sithara and request userfication or draftification. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Why is Sruthy Sithara not even mentioned at Miss Trans Global?

You should improve existing content before trying to write new articles. Can you improve Miss Trans Global? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Well, since it was speedied after the second time Imperfect Boy moved it into mainspace, undeleting to draft just means we'll probably be back here again in a few days. — Cryptic 04:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Imperfect Boy had come to Requests for undeletion first, and I had declined it there asking him to take it to DRV. Please do not ask users to go to RfU for A7 or other CSD deleted articles specifically mentioned at the lead of RfU. Jay 💬 04:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I see plausible notability for the subject. I recommend draftification. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sruthy Sithara has been mentioned at Miss Trans Global since Dec 1, 2021. Jay 💬 04:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe, Sruthi Sithara is mentioned in Miss Trans Global, see titleholders. And she becomes first Indian to win Miss Trans Global title. Imperfect Boy ( talk) 05:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, send to AfD Being the winner of the Miss Trans Global is a credible claim of significance. This should have been sent to AfD instead. Jumpytoo Talk 07:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Unfortunately Imperfect Boy speaks poor English and has ignored all advice to work on articles in draft, but simply moves them back to article space. I believe there is a COI here too. I vote to delete as I see no evidence that Miss Trans Global is notable - it's only been held twice, and virtually, and most of the article on that subject is promotionally worded. Deb ( talk) 07:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• I do agree with Deb, that my English may be poor. But the article which I wrote is in good English. You can have a look. And see, The Week, Femina, Indian express, News 18, Exonomic Times and lot more arricles are there to prove the notability of Sruthy Sithara. Those articles are from National Newspapers and Magazines of India. See the article on Manorama, kerala's number one newspaper. And as you said, the Miss Trans Global held virtually because of the Covid Pandamic. I don't have any COI here, I swear to God. - Imperfect Boy ( talk) 07:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Restore, I don't think deletion under A7 was justified, unless Deb provides a rationale other than that provided here. Miss Trans Global has been an article from Oct 2021, and edited by several editors. Notability of the pageant is a separate discussion. Jay 💬 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Restore and draftity, ECP create-protect, and submit for review via WP:AFC. An extended-confirmed reviewer can then move the article from draft space to article space upon approval. @ Imperfect Boy: as a new editor, you should gain more experience before deciding whether something you wrote is suitable for article space. Work on it in draft space and let an experienced reviewer look at it after you submit it for review. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Restore and Draftify as per Anachronist with ECP protection. Clearly a contentious BLP, so not a clean A7, but also not a clean accept; needs to go through AFC (or AFD). Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment Jay, See Draft:Sruthy Sithara, someone created new draft. Imperfect Boy ( talk) 07:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I'm going to have a try of finding sources. Google News has over 200 results, so maybe I could bring it up to standard? — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 08:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Anachronist @ Imperfect Boy @ Jay @ Deb @ SmokeyJoe I've been working on Draft:Sruthy Sithara. Not paying attention to the (barely written) content, do you consider the sourcing adequate enough if it was published to mainspace? — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 11:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Well done, but personally I'm not convinced, because all the references appear to be about this one event - one edition of a contest whose inherent notability is far from proven. But clearly I'm in a minority. Deb ( talk) 12:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Two events (one of which doesn't have a page), which doesn't help my point, but yeah. — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 12:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I would !vote "keep" at AfD on the basis of two WP:RSPSS "generally reliable" sources more than six months apart, both describing discussing Sruthy directly. This is despite it being a WP:BIO1E case.

If not kept, it should be merged and redirected to Miss Trans Global#Titleholders per BIO1E, and I would urge you to find sources that compare and contrast the different winners and runners-up. Surely, if the award is notable, there is comment on the candidates and winners? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

To help your chances, I advise you to reduce the WP:Reference bombing. More sources are not better if multiple sources are sourcing the same information. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Remove sources that are mostly just subject interview. This read as promotion/advocacy, which is a reason for deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I cut down the advocacy section. Is this fine for you? — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 13:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

For me yes. Let’s see what others think. It definitely overcomes A7. I don’t know about the version of 15:09, 7 August 2022. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't have access to that version, so... — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 01:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Am I able to withdraw this review discussion? Vortex created a better version now. - Imperfect Boy ( talk) 02:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Just for the record, overturn speedy is now well over the A7 bar. I can't see the deleted article, but this doesn't look close to an A7 as it stands. It sounds like the claim of winning an international competition was in the original article and that's pretty clearly enough to overcome A7... Hobit ( talk) 14:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Pro-abortion violence ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Since the situation in the United States changed as of May 2022, I request userfication of this article content, for the purposes of recovering verifiable material and sources in order to build a policy-compliant article. Elizium23 ( talk) 15:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Since you are not requesting the overturning of the previous discussion, you should see WP:Userfication and WP:RFU. -- JBL ( talk) 18:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Allow Userfication Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Not in scope The world has changed since 2015, and no one is arguing that that seven year old discussion should be normative. I see the title is not create-protected. I have no objection to userification or simply starting on a new draft, realizing that the 2015 article is going to be a pretty poor starting point. Jclemens ( talk) 22:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Allow userfication. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• What Jclemens said, and I can confirm that the old article is unlikely to help. As of the last revision, it was, hm, nine sentences long; cited eleven sources, of which six were tagged unreliable; and half of the article and all but one of the untagged sources was split between very brief summaries of Jim Pouillon and Theodore Shulman. — Cryptic 04:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• While I agree that the article is unlikely to be helpful and I'm skeptical that there's potential for a viable article here, as the deleting admin I'm perfectly happy with userfication. Sam Walton ( talk) 07:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Goth Angel Sinner ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe the closing admin has errored by going along with vote counting instead reading the rational offered. In both cases, editors in favour of keeping the article said so on the basis of sources existing that satisfy WP:GNG. I provided some appraisal of the sources and pointed out that music articles primary must meet the relevant music-related criteria. In this case, its WP:NSONGS, which clearly says coverage should be independent of press releases and label coverage. Several of the sources provided are reprints of the same material. Furthermore the guideline says notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article - there isn't in this case. Futhermore, WP:GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I believe that on the base of the sources discussed, this article meets neither guideline. The closing admin doesn't seem to have acknowledged this. The second editor who wished to keep the article, did so on the basis of what the first said without any meaningful discussion or commentary. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 23:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close - absolutely terrible DRV case. It was all keep !votes and over 5 dedicated, reliables sources were presented and referenced in the keep stances. The nomination failed BEFORE and this is even worse. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Okay @ Sergecross73 - I think its time to point out assuming good faith here, its entirely subjective that the DRV case is terrible. Its been brought in good faith to ascertain whether guidelines were correctly understood and applied. Whether or not its appropriate for you to endorse the close I dispute considering you were the main editor disputing the article's deletion/direct. It's disingenuous to say all votes were "keep" therefore the article should kept. AFD has never been a simple vote count. You provided a keep vote with some rational, another editor provided a keep vote with a comment endorsing what you said. Discussion was just beginning about the merit of the sources - their reliability or appropriateness was never disputed. However, as often happens, people count the number of sources and instead ignore the parts of the guideline where it says about there being significant coverage beyond trivial or passing mentions, or the reproduction of the same material by different sources. That said, as an administrator (and someone of experience), I would expect you to have remained neutral allowing a third party opinion to endorse or not endorse the outcome. That's the whole point of DRV is to ask for a third opinion other than the closing administrator. It's clear you support the decision to close the AFD, at the very least the conversations should have continued about the level of significant coverage provided that would pass Nalbums or Nsongs rather than closing prematurely. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I have no doubt you did it in good faith, but it still doesn't make it any less of a bad decision to make. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The AFD ran a week, was unanimously policy based keep !votes, and you took it to DRV. Not a great move. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  DRV is there for disagreeing with the decision to close it based on what I believe to be a flawed assessment of the discussion. It was basically 1 vs 1 on whether the sources provided enough coverage to warrant a page - I am discounting the second vote as the editor didn't provide any specific rationale, simply agreeing with you. The closing admin closed the discussion just as it was beginning. An album, EP or single with little information beyond a track listing is not notable for its own page regardless of how many sources are provided that are reliable. Several sources re-hash the same content, obviously taken from a press release or something similar. SIGCOV was lacking. Closing an AFD as a discussion was starting or happening and the merits were being discussed is not a good move IMO. If this DRV leads to clarification its certainly not a bad thing. Either way, the DRV isn't a bad move at all when I believe the admin has erred in the result and/or the close. I wouldn't expect you to agree given your involvement in the AFD hence the request for a third party neutral opinion. Anyway, we'll see what others say regarding this but just because it's clear cut for you doesn't mean it is terrible. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - A reasonable call by the closer. I have not considered whether No Consensus would also have been reasonable (and it wouldn't matter). Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse DRV is not a place to relitigate the AfD. It was a 3-1 towards saying the sources are sufficient, and that is enough to close it as Keep. Jumpytoo Talk 19:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The AfD nomination was weak. “Keep” was the correct close. Read the advice at WP:RENOM. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: All the voters agreed that the sources indicated in the discussion are sufficient enough for the EP to pass WP:NALBUM. It seems that the nominator refused to drop the stick and accept the consensus, which is a clear "keep". ASTIG️🙃 _{( ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse (uninvolved). All participants in the discussion seem to have been able to evaluate the sources and, while there was an editor that initially agreed with the nom, they changed their mind after another editor produced sources. A relist would also have potentially worked here (the discussion was quite small), but I can't see an argument made for any outcome but a keep. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 20:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (uninvolved) Not a great deal of participation, but in the end every !vote was to keep (except the nom), including one who even changed their !vote from redirect after additional sources were presented. The closure was on the same day as one of the !votes (which is fine), and had been open for the 7 days required. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment As the discussion closer, basically, I accepted Sergecross73's fair recommendation of the sources that they found and the other Keeps affirmed that these were decent, if not exceptional, sources that establish GNG. It wasn't simply a vote count, Lil-unique1, you disputed Sergecross73's evaluation of the sources but I found his argument more persuasive and his opinion had the support of other editors. I didn't see the other Keeps as simply "Me, toos" that should be dismissed but as indicating agreement with Sergecross73's evidence. I don't think every participant in an AFD discussion has to put forward their own, original assessment if they read over other editors' evaluations and find it convincing.

I think you need to accept that editors acting in good faith can disagree with each other about Wikipedia's standards of notability and how these standards are applied. And also accept that not all of your deletion nominations are going to be closed in your favor. Also, good faith extends to AFD closers, too, whether or not you agree with the closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Really nothing wrong with the closure. As one of the keep !voters, it was done in good faith. The nom's reason is pure IDONTLIKEIT. SBKSPP ( talk) 22:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

User:Poomagal G ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

G1 does not apply to pages in the User namespace. FAdesdae378 ( talk · contribs) 18:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion. Yes, G1 does not apply, but this content so clearly fails WP:NOT that it has no chance of being kept in a MfD. Particularly because this user has done nothing on Wikipedia but create this user page containing gibberish. This DRV is ill-judged and a waste of community time.

For those who are not administrators, the deleted user page read, machine-translated into English:

Sandstein 19:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Since the user in question has no other edits and these writings are plainly unrelated to Wikipedia's goals, this is also a valid U5. Endorse. — Cryptic 19:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as U5. For what it's worth, deletions using criteria that don't apply to the namespace given are much more common than one would think. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as U5. The machine-translation is chemical terminology, but it makes no sense as chemistry (or as anything else). Question for appellant: Why are you appealing? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I appealed because G1 does not apply to pages in the User namespace. FAdesdae378 ( talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  You might want to take a look at WP:NOTBURO, if someone tagged the wrong thing when deleting (or even tagged what they meant to mistakenly believing it did apply), if there is another sensible reason to delete it's rather bureaucratic to worry about undeleting so it could just be deleted straight away for a different reason -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 20:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  If nothing else, this DRV highlights a contradiction between speedy deletion criteria that genuinely merits reconsideration. We carved out specific exceptions to allow patent nonsense and other testing in userspace so as not to discourage experimentation by new users. A decade or so later, we started to speedy pages specifically in userspace, created by new users, that's not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. The latter includes all patent nonsense and most tests. So we're only allowing newbie tests by non-newbies. Swell. — Cryptic 20:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and send to MfD. U5 is a stretch too far, when I think "web host" I'm never thinking about collections of gibberish, I'm thinking of someone using Wikipedia in lieu of something else they'd have to pay for. Still very deletable, just not speedy. Jclemens ( talk) 22:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment as deleting admin. Sorry, this is a result of me not reading the text of CSD G1 closely enough. If I had realised that G1 does not apply to user pages, then I would likely have sent the page to MfD instead of using speedy deletion. I have no issue with this being overturned. Having said that, I can also see the case for this being a borderline CSD U5. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The machine-translation is probably as good as any translation could be, because it is my opinion that the original text was probably produced by a jabberwock-bot that produced chemical nonsense in Tamil. It looks a little like the output of other jabberwock-bots. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Objecting to the deletion of this nonsense because it didn't comply with a criterion for speedy deletion is almost as silly as the content. The appellant seems to be causing a waste of human time just because of a silly rule. Maybe a trout wrapped in South Asian leafy greens and flavored with South Asian herbs is in order, accompanied by an incomprehensible note. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I'm not inclined to disagree. While I take a very dim view of expansive readings of CSD, my impression here is "Why on earth would anyone contest that?" Jclemens ( talk) 01:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and re-delete per WP:U5. Advise User:Mr._Stradivarius that it’s better to use the right codes. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Advice taken. I will be more careful when reading the CSD text next time. When I read WP:G1 before I performed the deletion, I remember focusing on the part that says the criterion does not cover "coherent non-English material", but I somehow missed the part that says it does not apply to "user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• IAR Endorse While technically an invalid speedy, this has no chance of surviving MfD and this whole DRV is a complete waste of our time. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, possibly the wrong criterion but the content has no realistic chance of passing MFD. Stifle ( talk) 13:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• It is neither U5 (or at least I don't see how this is being used as a web host) or G1. I'm not even sure it would get deleted at MfD (you are allowed a lot of room in your userspace and sandbox). So overturn speedy. Hobit ( talk) 15:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy deletion criteria are not defined by their header. Usually with U5 the web-host "summary" is much, much broader than the criterion, which is why a majority of U5 deletions are of userspace drafts despite them being explicitly excluded by the criterion. This is a rare example of a page which meets the criterion but not the summary. — Cryptic 19:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    • You are correct. endorse as U5 small trout to the deleting admin and myself for acting/!voting without enough care. Hobit ( talk) 00:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Lemusa Alatasi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There were exactly five keep votes in this AFD. The very first one cited WP:NFOOTY as a reason to keep, which is now a criteria that has been phased out and is therefore invalid. All other votes just said "notable person, without citing why" or "needs work", all invalid reasons to keep an article. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse "There is no grandfather policy" is just as devoid of substantive meaning, and comes across as somewhat antagonistic. There's simply not consensus there; I think either keep or delete would have been wrong conclusions, and relisting about the only acceptable option to no consensus. Jclemens ( talk) 02:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 06:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. The arguments in favour of deletion were the only ones solidly based in policies and guidelines. The keep arguments were 3 rejections of the recent NSPORT RFC (and subsequent consensus changes to NSPORT) and 2 unsupported bare assertions of notability – best summarised as "I don't like that" (SNG changes) and "is notable" – such arguments should not be given much (if any) weight in the face of the delete arguments which clearly cited notability guidelines and demonstrated why these were not met, and were not countered. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the keep votes correctly point out that with a recently changed policy, tagging the article is a more appropriate option than deleting the article, while the delete votes correctly point out that there is not currently the SIGCOV needed for GNG passage. So no consensus is the way to go. As the AFD was well attended, a realist wouldn’t establish consensus. Carson Wentz ( talk) 17:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  the keep votes correctly point out that with a recently changed policy, tagging the article is a more appropriate option than deleting the article, -- except that, as multiple editors pointed out, there is no grandfather clause for old articles and the editor alleging that there was refused to provide evidence. JoelleJay ( talk) 05:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete Clear source-based evidence from the delete voters that the topic isn't notable, no evidence from the keep side showing otherwise. Avilich ( talk) 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The fact that you disagree with the keep !votes does not mean there was consensus to delete here. I'd probably have !voted to delete but this is a reasonable close based on the discussion that took place. DRV does not exist to relitigate the same arguments that took place at AfD and any attempts to do that here should be disregarded. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  No-one here has tried to relitigate the AFD. It is the weighting (and validity) of the arguments that is being disputed. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 08:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• weak Endorse A) I think that we should have a process for dealing with articles that did meet our inclusion guidelines and now do not. B) there was no consensus. However, unless better sources can be found it appears we have consensus our current guidelines are not met in the article as it stands. The only question is what process to follow for those articles. So I'd urge both sides to agree on a process that deals with this and, I'd hope, allows us to get all articles in question to either be improved or deleted in the next (say) 12 months. Hobit ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  There is only "no consensus" if you completely ignore ROUGHCONSENSUS... Where did any of the keep !votes make an argument based on P&Gs or logic or really anything that isn't literally an ATA? Grandfather clauses were rejected by !voters at the main RfC and the followups, just because a small cohort of editors deliberately ignores one of the most global and decisive consensuses we've had doesn't mean they get to exert an invalid LOCALCON at every AfD. JoelleJay ( talk) 05:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Endorse. There are valid arguments on both sides to keep and delete. I sense that the delete side feels like guidance is on their side, and I think it is, but it's also OK for people to make logical arguments that don't align with guidance as per WP:5P5. In that context, there was valid arguments on both side, and no consensus. CT55555 ( talk) 00:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

By this reasoning, literally every argument is valid and there is no reason whatsoever to have guidelines or a deletion policy or even a concept of "consensus" at all. I'd really like to see what you think an illogical argument would be if not one that relies on reasons explicitly rejected by enormous consensus for being illogical. JoelleJay ( talk) 05:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete. There were exactly zero policy-based arguments provided for keeping the page, while there were several arguments for deleting the page that had firm basis in WP:DEL-REASON. That the closer saw that there were 5 !votes one way and 4 !votes the other way is not a valid basis for closing it as no consensus per se; consensus is not ascertained by bean counting but instead by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, I will remind folks that NFOOTY was eliminated by community consensus and a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. There were no valid arguments from the keep side, like it is actually remarkable how devoid of any P&G-based reasoning those !votes were... The single thoughtful attempt at expanding on keep reasoning still failed to even acknowledge the NSPORT requirement for SIGCOV to be sourced in the article, and did not offer any evidence to support their assertion that newspapers could be expected to contain SIGCOV. This was a very clear delete and quite a good example of the type of protracted disruptive AfD participation that the ArbCom RfC will hopefully address. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. As explained by the DRV nominator and above, the "keep" opinions in this AfD were unfounded in applicable inclusion guidelines, and should therefore have been discounted by the closer. Sandstein 09:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete as a re-read of the AFD shows no policy-based arguments for keeping, focusing on procedural pleas that aren't how Wikipedia works. Jontesta ( talk) 19:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete <involved> essentially per JoelleJay and Red-tailed hawk. Most of the keep !votes are at odds with the global-consensus sigcov requirement, so the closer should have discounted them and closed as delete. This is a pretty clear example of a case where the numbers are evenly split but the strength of argument points decisively in one direction, in my view. As an aside, if there's no consensus to overturn, I'd support a relist to attract additional policy-and-guideline-based participation. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete - closer has every right to give more weight to arguments that are supported by policy and/or guidelines. It's quite clear from the discussion that those in favour of keep were offering, at best, 'procedural keep' arguments whereas those in favour of deletion were pointing out that the nominator's assertion that the subject fails GNG was not appropriately countered at any point. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete - there was no substantial refutation of the failure to satisfy SIGCOV or the GNG. Unlike, for example, cricket in South Asia, where a claim to non-English/English pre-internet offline sources would have greater plausibility, a single claim here to offline internet-era sources is weak and not enough to counter-balance the weight of lack of SIGCOV/GNG statements. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete - A lot (maybe even all) of Keep votes failed to formulate a valid enough argument (the closest being Savant's vote, if not for the fact the article had already existed for more than a year). Closing AFDs is not a vote count, but measuring up which arguments were stronger. Here, it is clear that Keep voters failed to counter the main nominator's angle: the failure of meeting WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 11:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Draft:Sphere Matchers ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Draft:Bobik Platz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Draft was speedly deleted under G3 criteria, when G3: Blatant hoax didn't apply because the company and the supposed video game in development is real. Unfortunately though, the IGN links on the references on both draft articles are dead links and I couldn't find anything beside the FANDOM page about both company and the game they developed. Also, the first page hasn't been submitted yet and full create-protection is unnecessary for the latter case. 36.74.42.66 ( talk) 14:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

See also: WP:DRV#Bobik Platz, Sphere Matchers and SM Billiards on Simple English Wikipedia

• Just need some source to show it meets WP:V. My sense is that it is a hoax, but if you can provide a RS, I'd agree with a restoration. Hobit ( talk) 15:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, no, V is a much higher bar than not-G3-able, especially in draft space. I don't really think we need anything to overcome G3 other than a good-faith assertion that it's real. Jclemens ( talk) 16:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    @ Hobit Here's the reliable source [9], besides IGN which articles about the aforementioned subject are noindexed from Google or just dead links. 36.74.42.66 ( talk) 19:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    That link goes to an unrelated article. Is that the link you meant to go to?

    @ Jclemens: As mentioned below, I'm fairly sure I've run into this before and it was concluded this was likely a hoax. I can't find the discussion and it's not impossible I'm confusing it with something else. I'd rather we have some meaningful evidence it exists before we restore. @ Bbb23: I don't think you were notified of this DRV so thought I'd loop you in as the deleting admin. Hobit ( talk) 12:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

    @ Hobit: Well, this page I got so far is the best I can find on Google besides FANDOM wiki about the aforementioned company and links to deleted pages on Simple English Wikipedia. 36.74.40.153 ( talk) 19:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and Restore Draft:Sphere Matchers. The Fandom page is sufficient to establish that it is not a hoaxan obvious hoax. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I looked at this a while ago. I think it's just part of the same hoax. Hobit ( talk) 12:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Robert McClenon I responded to @ Slywriter's G3 report I would agree with the deleting editors view that Draft:Sphere Matchers appeared to be an 'obvious hoax' because the draft article used this ridiculous graphic as the main image, and both sources were 404 dead links. I will look into the other article and comment in due course. Nick Moyes ( talk) 16:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Ok so it's the fanon wiki on fandom which titles itself "Welcome to the Fanon Wiki, the official encyclopedia dedicated to everything fiction, including fan-fiction, roleplay, and stories!". If the draft was talking about it as some notable fan fiction (I don't see it is) then not a hoax, if it's presenting it as a real product then I guess it's arguable if it's a hoax or not, but the draft would certainly be misleading. -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 20:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Need more information on Bobik Platz. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Draft:Bobik Platz was deleted and salted by Nick Moyes. WP:G5 was involved but no master was specified (the speedy tag was unorthodox). Nick also salted Bobik Platz.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - If they created a Fandom link as part of a hoax, that is an elaborate hoax extending beyond Wikipedia, and does not seem to be what G3 was meant to deal with. At this point, it looks like Send to XFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I G3'ed after seeing an AN report and my own investigation showed the sources were faked on Wikipedia. If said sources ever existed, surely someone caring about this article could show through archive.org that the IGN articles are real, but I won't be holding my breath. (90% sure I checked at the time, but need an admin to provide the links) Simple also deleted it as a hoax. There is no indication anywhere on the net that EA is planning to distribute. That fandom has zero standards should not legitimize a hoax. Slywriter ( talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive344#Draft:Sphere_Matchers was the AN. Also interesting that IP knows what links were in a deleted article and despite responding here has not addressed the complete BS link they gave above. Slywriter ( talk) 19:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  From what I understand, the IPs that edited in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angelmunoz50/Archive were from Spain, whereas the IPs involved here are from Indonesia.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I disagree with @ Slywriter: salting the page about the company who created Sphere Matchers, in the case of any information about the aforementioned company appears in the foreseeable future and I also @ Trade: to assess the accusations of me being a sockpuppet of User:LiliaMiller2002 LTA. 36.74.40.153 ( talk) 19:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - A different article on Simple wiki was deleted (QD A4, the same as our CSD A7), and the game was claimed to be by the same game author [10] Google shows "SM Billiards is an upcoming cue sports simulation video game and a spin-off to Sphere Matchers, developed by Bobik Platz and published by EA Sports." but I'm not an admin on Simple, so can't see who wrote it. This could be a larger troll. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Also this: [11] RFD (AFD) for Bobik Platz by User:180.252.25.15, which geolocates to EXACTLY the same place as our friend 36.74.42.66 above. Make of it what you will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Archive.org shows that both supposed references in the deleted draft were 404 on exactly the access-date listed in the deleted draft. I think that's strong evidence that they were never valid and that it's a hoax. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per oddities and David Eppstein. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion it appears on a FANDOM wiki for fan fiction, has some non existent links to IGN, for a game supposedly being published by EA next year, and no one else on the internet is talking about it. What am I missing? 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 20:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Literal hoax, which is a big L for me for putting into Wikipedia and Wikidata because doing so is WP:POINTy and my IQ level is like a MOAB Glue. 36.74.40.153 ( talk) 22:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've now looked back at my actions on salting Draft:Bobby Platz. I appear to have responded on the 'note to admins' on the CSD template notice about repeated recreation, rather than confirming a history of repeat deletions myself. That was wrong of me. I also preemptively salted Bobby Platz based on that note, and appreciate that both were done without proper cause. My apologies. That said, I am unconvinced there is anything genuine whatsoever about either article, and found the three IP addresses in this matter - both here and on Simple Wikipedia - all geolocating to the exact same spot in Indonesia. I am OK with unsalting both pages (which I have just done). However, I feel deletion was justified, and feel close monitoring will be essential to ensure WP:V is met, using sources that are WP:RS. I think we need to see some genuine sources presented here (that actually work) before restoring any of this content back into Draftspace. That includes the purported website of Bobik Platz, as linked from the draft page. For a company alleged to have 152 employees, the website link does not work, nor are there any Google results available for this so-called company, other than a mention on a user-generated site. I shall keep both pages permanently on my Watchlist. Nick Moyes ( talk) 20:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I would be amazed if the website link ever worked, since .platz isn't a valid TLD -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 21:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Two different people, including me, have tagged the OP IP as a proxy, in a nest of proxies, plus some others, with likely LTA connections, so while salting might be a little out of process, I would endorse keeping them salted. This will be more evident shortly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

As stated above, I had just unsalted them for my failure of due process. But we can see how it pans out. Nick Moyes ( talk) 21:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Just noting that I believe this is a confession of its a hoax - Special:Diff/1102591053. Regardless, I'll double-check deletion logs before requesting salt in the future. Though perhaps a discussion warranted there about Admin discretion for Hoaxes, cross-wiki abuse or otherwise purely disruptive. Slywriter ( talk) 21:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• They can be salted so that only autoconfirmed editors can create the draft, which is less problematic but would solve the current issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Princess Princep Shah of Nepal ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Was closed (very reasonably and agreeably) with not much discussion, no arguments to keep, I think everyone missed that she passes WP:ANYBIO on the basis of her Nansen Refugee Award I'd like to work on the article CT55555 ( talk) 14:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment Please note that the closer is agreeable to this request. Link. CT55555 ( talk) 14:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Restore I interpret the close as a WP:SOFTDELETE (except with a redirect rather than a deletion), which means that the deletion can be WP:REFUNDed upon any good-faith request, and we've had such a request here. The original close wasn't wrong (thus this is not an "overturn"), but is no longer relevant. -- ais523 15:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  Thanks. I see it the same way. I think the policy forces me to ask here, but it seems non-controversial, I'd be surprised if anyone finds this disagreeable. CT55555 ( talk) 15:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Restore per ais523. Hobit ( talk) 15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Restore as per discussion, with the understanding that the requester will update the article by adding the award that establishes notability both to the text of the article and as a reference. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I commit to doing that quickly, that is my exact plan. I assume someone will move to draft and once there I will update. Or if this results in it moving to the main space, I will quickly update. CT55555 ( talk) 21:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Restore - Not sure if I really need to comment here given my blessing on my tp but nonetheless as the AFD closer I have no objections to this being restored given the award notability etc. Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Muslim Mojahedin ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Article was speedy deleted under A10 criteria, when A10 criteria did not apply. Article was not that recent - 8 weeks, not 3-6 weeks - it did expand upon information within any existing article and the title was a plausible redirect. It had also been contested on the talk page (by me, though it wasn't my article). Ample scholarly sources establish the subject as a term in its own right. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Deletion was clearly not uncontroversial and the title is not an implausible search term for the target ( People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran), and per the hatnotes, other targets too. I haven't looked in enough detail to determine whether or not it does expand on the target article - whether a separate article is needed and/or there is anything to merge is something that requires discussion after this DRV. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Restore as per Thryduulf. I haven't seen the deleted article, but it evidently is a contentious deletion, and so is "not uncontroversial". If necessary, it can go to AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as not A10 appropriate--it is clearly a plausible redirect--and send to AfD if desired. Jclemens ( talk) 08:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply