List of mass shootings in Australia ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page was deleted due to it being created by a sockpuppet account even though it contained adequate and relevant citations. In addition it also had other contributors to the article besides the sockpuppet. Two articles created by the sockpuppet are allowed to stay up and were not removed, so why was this one? The two articles in question: /info/en/?search=List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_Kingdom & /info/en/?search=List_of_mass_shootings_in_Switzerland. Abatementyogin ( talk) 23:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The United Kingdom article has had non-trivial edits made by editors in good standing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse aside from the creator the only edits were by an IP who may well be another sockpuppet, and in any case all that IP did was add a few categories. (Plus the person who tagged it for deletion under G5, but that hardly counts.) G5 only applies if there were no substantial edits by others, which I suspect is why the other two pages haven't been deleted. The banning policy makes clear that bans apply to all editing, good or bad. If someone has been banned then we've decided that the downsides of having them here outweigh the benefits of their edits. Hut 8.5 08:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Please read WP:REVERTBAN: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor... changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand. Abatementyogin (and I) find this page useful. Why? I Ask ( talk) 16:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  Hut 8.5, about your reference to WP:BMB and the bit that bans apply to all editing, good or bad. With a quick reminder to casual readers that bans are different from blocks, was this article a violation of a ban? I haven't looked at all the sockpuppets, but as far as I can see from the original account's talk page, they were topic banned from topics to do with US politics, and the list of Australian shootings doesn't fall under the scope of that. Is there anything I'm missing? – Uanfala ( talk) 01:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  If nothing else the user is clearly banned under WP:THREESTRIKES, given the enormous number of confirmed sockpuppets. Hut 8.5 08:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion as deletion process has been followed correctly. Stifle ( talk) 10:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse correct application of G5. No prejudice against recreation by any user in good standing. Frank Anchor 16:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per what I learned about this deletion from Hut 8.5. Seems like a normal G5. — Alalch E. 19:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: I urge editors to use some WP:COMMONSENSE when looking at edits by blocked users. Assuming that the page was well sourced and had no other problems, it should be allowed to stay. The rationalization that edits should be removed even if they were good is unhelpful to building a better encyclopedia. (Why waste editor time building it up to the exact same page?) You could say that it prevents users from risking sockpuppetry knowing that their revisions will be reverted and deleted, but we have other outlets to punish them. The topic is notable and was (presumably) sourced. If a user outside of the sock opposes G5, it should almost always stay before an actual AfD. Also, the ban policy only refers that people that are banned should not edit (whether good or bad). It doesn't say that their edits, if found useful, should still be automatically overturned. Why? I Ask ( talk) 16:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  The ban policy does cover enforcement including what can be done with edits: Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 19:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  No, the policy explicitly says that you can keep good edits. This is (from what I know) a good edit. Why? I Ask ( talk) 19:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  And I haven't suggested that it does state they must, regardless my comment was in response to your claim "Also, the ban policy only refers that people that are banned should not edit (whether good or bad)", when clearly it does cover removing edits done in contravention of that. -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 22:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  You can remove those edits. It doesn't say you have to remove those edits (and edits include page creation). This is what I said in my comment in the next sentence; there is no provision to automatically overturn their edits. It seems everyone here agrees that this is a suitable topic and there is no prejudice against recreation. Why add a middle man and not just restore the article? There is no policy reason not to, which some editors think there is. Why? I Ask ( talk) 22:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• For the record, all the substantive content was added by the now-blocked sockpuppet. Other than the creation and the G5 tagging, the only other edits were an IP editor adding categories. If anyone wants to re-create this independently, they should do so. I'll happily send the sources to anyone who asks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  If one (a good-standing editor) was to get a copy of the deleted page and recreate it using that, that would be totally allowed, right? If so, I'd do it. It just seems absolutely silly to do that rather than just saying we should still keep it and restore it that way. Why? I Ask ( talk) 22:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  No, that would be a copyright violation. And proxying. And generally a bad idea. But if you took the sources from this article and did your own research and produced a new article not tainted by sockpuppetry, that would be allowed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  If copyright is an issue, then just restore the article for the article history. There's nothing that says that sockpuppet edits have to be removed. Also how much copyright is there in this case? There's also little prose, so aside from the lede and descriptions, I should be able to still copy-paste the actual list (since numbers/dates and tables are not copyrightable). Also, it is absolutely not proxying. Please learn what that actually is. Why? I Ask ( talk) 22:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I am personally opposed to removing constructive work of sock puppets, however the consensus-supported policy of G5 says delete any sock puppet work should be deleted. {{ping| ClydeFranklin}} ( t/ c) 23:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  No, I have already demonstrated above that consensus-supported policy actually says the opposite. Why? I Ask ( talk) 23:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  What that policy says is that no human is obligated to blindly revert all edits of a sockpuppet, not that if some human decides doing so is worth their time that their action can be challenged. It's a trivial result of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, not a counter to the way G5 works. Endorse * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Pppery: The text states changes that are obviously helpful... are allowed to stay. A decently sourced article is helpful. Your reading of it referring to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is a completely made up interpretation. Why? I Ask ( talk) 00:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  It actually says that changes that are obviously helpful [...] can be allowed to stand. There's no must there, and it was entirely consistent with policy for Liz and whoever CSD tagged this to decide, without further reason, that this article should not be allowed to stand, even if they thought it was obviously helpful. It would also have been entirely consistent with policy for her to rely on that clause to decline to action the CSD, but that's not the choice she made, and DRV has no jurisdiction to force her to make a different one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  I am not opposing that G5 was applied correctly. I'm saying that because an uninvolved editor wants it back, it should be restored because we all agree it is a suitable page. And I never said it must stand. Where'd you get that? I said it is allowed to stand if there is consensus that it is a helpful edit (which I am not seeing any detractors in that case). Deletion review is here to decide if there are policy-based reasons to overturn a page deletion, and there is a reason simply by me wanting it back per WP:PROXYING. Why? I Ask ( talk) 01:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse in regards to it being a proper use of G5, but if an editor in good standing requests the undeletion of an article per G5, it should be done, as they are vouching and taking responsibility for the content. This is already allowed in the first place. Meaning this Deletion Review is unnecessary. Silver seren ^C 00:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The G5 deletion of this page was perfectly appropriate, but what was not appropriate was the deleting admin's refusal to restore the article once a good faith editor had requested it. The policy has already been quoted above, but the ensuing !votes suggest this needs to be repeated: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor [..,] but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. Guys, it can't get any more explicit than that. I find it bizarre that several experienced editors and admins could get something like that wrong. If an editor restores a sock edit and vouches for it, you let that be: it would be silly to edit-war to re-revert it. It's similarly strange to stop people from having the page restored. There can be two situations where it would make sense to have such reservations: either if the creator was known for misrepresentation of sources, or if they were so pernicious to the community that we would be willing to sacrifice content just so that they'd be as disincetivised to come back as possible. After a quick glance at the sockmaster's talk page and at the SPI archive, I don't see indications that either of these apply. If there are any concerns about their content at all, then the article can be restored as a draft and moved to mainspace only after review. – Uanfala ( talk) 01:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G5 is G5 for a reason. While I appreciate the enthusiasm of those who want to keep "good" edits by bad users, all the experienced users commenting here have scars to prove that there is no such thing. Jclemens ( talk) 01:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• I have had plenty of G5 deleted articles restored with no problems resulting from that. Do I not count as an experienced user? Silver seren ^C 01:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  You have experience dealing with sockpuppeteers? Or just in cleaning up their articles? I was referring to the former; sorry, I can see how that wasn't ideally clear. Jclemens ( talk) 09:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Nice opposition citing policy! Oh wait... Sorry, but the "scars" of "experienced users" is not a policy. (And heavy shame on you for trying to argue that several members here are unexperienced. Also, weren't you the one that tried to argue against me that I wasn't following policy to the letter in a few earlier discussions? How ironic...) Why? I Ask ( talk) 01:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Look, if you want to discuss policy, 1) Learn the difference between a statement and an argument, as well as the logical fallacy that would have been a better target for your retort, and 2) Policy need not be wikilinked to be present implicitly, and 3) conflating discussions will fall somewhere between WP:WAX and WP:NPA, and I don't recall ever seeing such an argument be effective.

Sorry, but your endorsement is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to discredit those that disagree with you. (And wrong too, as I've dealt with reporting and sniffing out socks before.) What policy is implicitly implied? The policy I've cited for you pretty explicitly states that there are good edits by bad users. Why? I Ask ( talk) 09:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as s clear-cut G5 deletion. It would be helpful if Why? I Ask would refrain for bludgeoning the discussion; it would also be helpful if they didn't try to do an end run around the DRV by asking an admin to restore the article while this discussion is underway. -- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 22:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  I am allowed to ask an administrator for a WP:REFUND, and they told me elsewhere they are often willing when given a reason. The correct application of G5 does not matter in that case. Was G5 applied correctly to the page? Absolutely! Does G5 mean that the page is refused restoration on request? Nope, not at all. Two other editors have already pointed that out. However, some administrators are willing to and some administrators are not (purely due to a belief in punishing and preventing socks). Thus, it is currently up to the whim of the administrator's personal philosophy to restore it. That is not fair to editors with different beliefs (especially if the content is fine). Why? I Ask ( talk) 22:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Perfectly valid G5. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Question - Is this an appeal to overturn the G5, or a request to refund the deleted article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse if this is an appeal to overturn the G5, based on the comments of the administrators who have seen the history and concur that this was a valid G5. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow restoration of the deleted article to a good-standing user so that they can recreate it as an article with a good-standing history. That doesn't require overturning a G5. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment This is a useful discussion to read over because I semi-regularly get editors coming to my talk page asking for restoration of an article that is the result of a CSD G5 criteria deletion. I've been told that restoration is "possible" (not mandatory but possible), if the editor making the request agrees to "take responsibility for the article". But what does "taking responsibility for an article created by a sockpuppet" mean in terms of how admins handle these requests? I don't think this "taking responsibility" exception can be found anywhere on policy pages but has just emerged from admin practice of handling requests like this.

The only thing I'm sure about here is that there is no agreement on this question among admins and except for admins who adhere to a strict "No, never, ever" policy, I think whether a request is granted can depend on what the article is (is it just a redirect, for example?) and who is making the request (experienced article writer vs. new editor). I considered offering the OP the references to this article but it was a list article and each item on the list had a separate citation so it was not possible to provide a few references and recreate this article...each event listed had its own citation. It's generous that HJ Mitchell has agreed to go through the deleted article and supply all this.

I see two things being discussed here though and that is a) whether my CSD G5 deletion was valid and b) whether articles deleted by CSD G5 can ever be restored. The second question is a worth-while conversation to have but I think it is better to have it take place on WT:CSD than deletion review. I know I'd participate in that discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Liz: See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should WP:REFUND allow for articles deleted through the CSD criteria of A7, A9, A11, G5 to be userfied or restored as drafts? and the earlier discussions. There are a lot of editors advocating that G5 pages should stay deleted, always. However, this seems to conflict with what WP:BANREVERT. Either all edits by banned users need to be reverted or editors are allowed to advocate for banned users edits (including deleted pages). It seems strange to deny this page while two others created by the sock with the same scope are allowed up. The User already has had their edits kept (even one at an AfD). It seems weird not to allow this one too. Why? I Ask ( talk) 23:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Priyanka Choudhary ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Please review the deletion of Priyanka Choudhary. It was deleted back in 2021 and later protected with a note saying to ask here to recreate the page. Draft:Priyanka Choudhary has been created. It seems like a WP:BURDEN of proof has fallen disproportiontely on some of the editors who want to keep an article to find and demonstrate that there are reliable sources that prove notability while those seeking rejection can simply say that a subject isn't notable or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed). All the issues which lead to deletion of the article of Priyanka Choudhary back in 2021 has been addressed. Also, Choudhary meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. She's played lead roles in a television show and several films and declared the second runner-up in the biggest reality show of the whole country Big Boss. The draft has good sources that support these significant roles as well as the other roles she's played and some basic details about her personal life. Please review the draft as it's ready to be moved to the main article. 202.41.10.107 ( talk) 14:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The page exists as a redirect, which isn't protected, but which has been reverted recently from an attempted expansion. I don't see anything for DRV to do here--you need to use the AfC or talk page process. As a TOOSOON deletion, the expectation is that you will provide newer reliable sources which were either not known/discussed or (more likely) not yet written at the time of the AfD. Jclemens ( talk) 16:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the two AFDs. I have marked the draft as under review (by me), which I intend to do within 24 hours. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Robert McClenon, something that may help is the appearance in an apparent film Burhan which (of course) isn't mentioned in the main body but only in the list of films. [1] suggests she has a major role in the film. I would think that this is something the interested editors would expand in the article and be helpful towards showing notability. It was an OTT release, but if there are reviews from a notable reviewer that has coverage, it would be very helpful. Still a lot of the same concerns from the prior AFD's. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per previous AfDs. The title was salted after the second AfD, but the article ended up making it back to mainspace anyway--a separate draft was created as Draft:Priyanka Chahar, quickly moved to mainspace by the creator, then an admin moved that article to Priyanka Choudhary over the protection without being aware of the past history. Note that Draft:Priyanka Chahar Choudhary also exists. Also noting that the continuing saga of this article includes at least three different SPIs ( 1, 2, 3). Subject may yet achieve Wiki-notability at some point, but the current situation is...tiresome. -- Finngall ^talk 21:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I will add to what User:Finngall has commented. The subject may or may not be notable, but her chances of having a Wikipedia article are being eroded by the actions of her ultras. As long as her fan club tries to sneak or power an article into the encyclopedia by gaming the system, such as changing the spelling of her name, it will be necessary to prevent gaming the system by techniques such as salting of titles and the title blacklist. Her fan club is her worst enemy. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle ( talk) 10:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the outcome of multiple AfDs, rejected drafts, etc. List at DEEPER and salt every possible variation of the name. And when someone finds a title that isn't salted, delete that per G4 and salt it. Wikipedia documents people who have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and if or when this person meets those criteria, the article can be re-created but no amount of bludgeoning every process will generate that coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Tuliram Ronghang ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article fails WP:NPOL but passes WP:NSUBPOL. He is Chief Executive Member and Member of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council and WP:NSUBPOL says that in India, "Members of the Autonomous District Councils may have presumed notability." ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ ^{Let's Talk !} 06:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin comment: This review request cites an explanatory essay that 1) did not exist at the time of the AfD in question because the essay was started less than a year ago, 2) has not been shown to have consensus support, 3) goes beyond the guideline it is supposedly explaining to address a level of government that is not even mentioned in the guideline, and 4) even then only says politicians at that level "may" be notable. I fail to see how that would be the basis for overturning a unanimous consensus in the AfD. -- RL0919 ( talk) 07:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:NSUBPOL is an essay and not a guideline. WP:NPOL says that politicians who have held "state/province–wide office" are presumed to be notable, but Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council isn't a state, province or equivalent (it's part of Assam, which is a state), so the subject fails NPOL as pointed out in the AfD. As such I highly doubt that argument would have made any difference if it had been raised. Hut 8.5 08:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  WP:NSUBPOL is the explanation of WP:NPOL and WP:NPOL is a guideline which means WP:NSUBPOL is an explanation of notability guideline. We keep articles about members of sub national parliaments because they are federal and I think this should be undeleted because he served as member of a parliament which is federal or have similar systems of government. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ ^{Let's Talk !} 09:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  NSUBPOL does not have guideline status, a fact the essay makes clear. We keep members of state/province level parliaments because politicians at that level are likely to have enough coverage in newspapers and other sources to be notable, but that's not the case for lower level politicians. The Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council does not rise to state or province level, it's part of the state of Assam. Hut 8.5 12:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Hi @ Hut 8.5, just to clarify, I agree with the endorse, but these statements about the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council are not correct. For example, the Council is not subject to the Gauhati High Court (which has jurisdiction over Assam), but rather the Supreme Court (ie national apex court). Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 01:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Which court it's subject to isn't relevant, all that counts for NPOL is whether it's "state/province–wide office", which in the case of India is state level. Hut 8.5 08:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. WP:NSUBPOL is an essay. Stifle ( talk) 09:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This essay being created in the meantime is not the kind of new information that would justify recreating the deleted page. Were one to start an AfD now, that AfD would also possibly result in a consensus to delete. — Alalch E. 09:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse While consensus can change, an essay that the community finds compelling is typically descriptive of change, rather than prescriptive. Jclemens ( talk) 15:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Even if WP:NSUBPOL were a guideline rather than an essay, it would not call for overturning the close, because the essay says that district-level polititicans may have presumed notability, and the AFD concluded that the subject did not. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - A district in India is analogous to a county in the United States. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  That is true for most districts, but not for an autonomous district, of which the nearest US equivalent is probably an Indian reservation. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (Disclosure: primary author of NSUBPOL.) Correct closure on the basis of the information available and consensus at that time. However, consensus can change. Autonomous District Councils are not analogous to district level government; since this deletion, we've had a subsequent discussion which accepted the ADCs as subnational parliaments. Allow draftification. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 00:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. WP:NSUBPOL is an interesting essay that clarifies and expands upon some of the areas of WP:NPOL. However, it is an explanatory essay that does not reflect wide community consensus, which is made apparent from the disclaimer, contrary to what the OP might be contending, While consensus might change, and in one of the similar recent AfDs the NSUBPOL stance was generally agreed upon, a rough consensus in one isolated AfD supporting the essay IMO is clearly insufficient to overturn the result of an unanimous AfD conducted before the creation of the WP:NSUBPOL essay (which also only states that autonomous district councils emmbers may have presumed notability anyway). VickKiang (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Allow recreation. The close was correct at the time with the community's understanding of WP:NPOL. While consensus can change, it should not be the role of Deletion Review to revisit old closes based on new consensus. -- Enos733 ( talk) 08:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Alalch E.@ Enos733@ Goldsztajn@ Hut 8.5@ Jclemens@ Phil Bridger@ RL0919@ Robert McClenon I have recreated the article. If someone want to reopen the deletion discussion, they can open as consensus has been changed. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ ^{Let's Talk !} 06:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I have opened a new deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuliram Ronghang (2nd nomination) . Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Maryann Thompson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This person is an FAIA, a prestigious fellowship that only a few architects may obtain. This person is also a winner of Women in Design Award of Excellence, 2005. ref I consider this to meet the criteria #1 of WP:ARCHITECT, that she is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". CC @ Loriannbrown -- 痛 ( talk) 17:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse but allow recreation. While the fellowship was mentioned, the AfD was five years ago. It's possible consensus has changed, but there was no other way to close that AfD. (Courtesy ping still active participants: @ Euryalus, Curb Safe Charmer, and TonyBallioni:. You're welcome to create the article with quality sourcing and sufficiently different that its not a G4.

Star Mississippi 22:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Allow Recreation and the FAIA, when documented, should establish biographical notability under point 1 of any biography. I have not seen the deleted article, but no one mentioned the FAIA in the AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Can confirm, FAIA in the version that was AfDed. Sourcing could have been better, but it did suitably verify the fellowship Star Mississippi 23:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Then the previous close was an error by the community. A main purpose of DRV is to identify and reverse errors by the closer. I don't see a provision for reversing errors by the community, because DRV is not AFD round 2. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the close, but that shouldn't be the issue. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation largely per Star Mississippi. Since page is not salted, the DRV request is not necessary. I agree that your analysis is sufficient for NBIO if properly sourced. Frank Anchor 22:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation. Deleted version was mostly a lengthy, and rather puffy, profile of the firm with few independent sources. It's been five years so hopefully there will be more and better coverage now. Go ahead and write a new, better version. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Boys Planet (TV show) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Duplicate of Draft:Boys Planet but with less reference entries Galaxymous ( talk) 09:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Close as Wrong Venue - If the subject is notable, the draft content should be merged into the article. If the subject is not notable, the article should be deleted so that the draft can be improved. The nominator appears to be in good faith mistaken as to what DRV is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Draft:List of Boys Planet contestants ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ([[ Draft:Boys Planet|article]]| restore)

Duplicate of List of Boys Planet contestants but with less reference entries Galaxymous ( talk) 09:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Close as Wrong Venue - This appears to be a request to delete the draft, which should be made at MFD, but the result at MFD will be Speedy Redirect from the draft to the article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

O'Mega Red ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Would like to submit new evidence of notoriety that I was unable to gather during the initial discussion

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]}

Shaintoth ( talk) 22:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. It can not be said, when viewing the above links, that significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. Had such a list been posted in the AfD it wouldn't have affected anything. The Boston.com article is an interview. — Alalch E. 10:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The close was correct, as no editor argued to keep the article. As the title has not been salted, an article could be created going through the Articles for Creation process. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  If that is done then I would suggest that the creator doesn't offer Youtube, Soundcloud and IMDB as sources. Maybe there are independent reliable sources among the others offered here, but if so they are drowned out by the obviously unreliable or non-independent ones. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - the close seemed reasonable and reflected consensus Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation but Phil Bridger's advice is sound and should be followed. And by "should be followed" I don't mean "it would be nice to" I mean, "Needs to, but we're being polite about it." Jclemens ( talk) 20:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. To restate what Phil Bridger and Jclemens have said, the submission of a draft using unreliable sources will waste the time of the submitter and the community. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Reasonable close that reflected unanimous consensus. I agree with the above that the sources presented to justify WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 are mostly unconvincing (non- reliable ones, interview and short announcements, etc...). VickKiang (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of United States tornadoes in May 2008 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

No matter the outcome, the discussion was irrevocably tainted by canvassing. There needs to be a new discussion, without any pings whatsoever. 134.6.245.131 ( talk) 18:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Article was not deleted, so a deletion review is not needed. Elijahandskip ( talk) 18:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Actually, a DRV is necessary because it still pertains to an AFD discussion needing to be reopened/restarted. A similar case exists at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 February 14, for the Fatih Mehmet Gul article. 134.6.245.131 ( talk) 18:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Elijahandskip: My apologies for this situation by the way. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 09:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and follow WP:RENOM in two months if desired. Closing as no consensus is entirely in line with WP:DGFA. Jclemens ( talk) 03:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse considering the outcome was no consensus then there is very little point in starting a new AfD, even if the OP is right. It is usually acceptable to renominate an article where the previous discussion was closed as no consensus once a few months have elapsed, and if the discussion was "irrevocably tainted" then no consensus is the right close anyway. However given that we have lots of similar tornado lists then it would make far more sense to have a discussion about the general approach of creating them rather than debating them one at a time. Hut 8.5 08:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• It's usual to discuss an AFD closure with the closer before coming here. Why wasn't this done? Stifle ( talk) 09:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse by default due to the nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle ( talk) 09:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as there was no consensus (with or without possible canvassing) and it appeared unlikely to form. No prejudice against future AFD's ( WP:RENOM recommends waiting at least two months after a no consensus close, though there is no specific requirement). Frank Anchor 14:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• I agree with the nominator that that discussion was irretrievably tainted by canvassing. It's not possible to subtract the canvassed votes from the discussion and get a clean outcome. I don't feel that having yet another discussion about this obscure topic is particularly desirable, though, and I don't want one to be opened. Let them have their list of tornadoes; it's best to focus our limited resources of time and attention on BLPs.— S Marshall  T/ C 17:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per S Marshall. There absolutely was canvassing and a lot of inappropriate shenanigans going on during that AFD, but I don't think a second one would be productive. I do think there needs to be a larger RFC about the wider issue, and the one required by Arbcom is going nowhere so the community may need to take it into our own hands. An AFD on this one article isn't the place for it and would just be a distraction. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Follow advice at WP:RENOM. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - If the AFD was tainted by canvassing, what result does the appellant want it overturned to? The appellant is in good faith wasting the time of DRV. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  (Same IP as nom) I want a new, fresh AFD immediately. WP:RENOM requires a two month wait and I don’t think is fair to let the article remain for 2 months after they canvassed the discussion. The AFD should be nullified and a new one opened in its place. 71.125.62.208 ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Nullified? An AfD “no consensus” has no value. The two months wait is for everyone to take a breath, and especially for the nominator of the next AfD to compose a better nomination. My criticism of the AfD nomination is that it makes a series of statements that are not deletion reasons. Regardless of the topic or the facts, a series of leading non-deletion reasons invites knee jerk “keep” responses. A better AfD is needed, an immediate relist would probably continue the same mess, follow the advice of RENOM. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  IPs cannot create AFDs on their own. A lot of times, the blank AFD template is posted and a request to complete the nomination gets declined or never gets answered. If an IP were to post the nomination on the AFD talk page, it would surely get deleted per WP:G6. I’m not sure how you expect the IP to even be able to create the deletion nomination, when the two months passes. 144.178.5.26 ( talk) 18:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  IP 71 is a sock of Andrew5, so please ignore him. I don't know about the other one though. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 15:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

List of country subdivisions by population ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I would like to request the undeletion of this page, which was deleted under WP:LISTN. The person who deleted it after a minor 5-5 vote cited "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" and they said the article met this criterion, but they deleted it anyway because "coverage for the topic as a whole, not for the individual data points is needed."...that's the entire point of the article, to provide coverage for the topic as a whole. Felix Croc ( talk) 19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Weak Endorse - A valid conclusion by the closer. The vote was not 5-5 but 7-5 including one Leaning Delete and the nomination, and the closer explained their reasoning. No Consensus would also have been a valid conclusion, but DRV looks at whether the close was a valid conclusion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• The nominator here says: "That's the entire point of the article, to provide coverage for the topic as a whole." We can see that's what you've done, Felix Croc, and that's in many ways the key objection that editors have. We don't want you to cover a topic that published, reliable sources haven't covered first. In this case you have published reliable sources for each part of your list, but you don't have published reliable sources for the whole list. Because of that, you've needed to compare and contrast figures from different studies, and we don't think the sources you provided used the same methodology, and we don't think they covered comparable time periods. It falls foul of several rules, not just NLIST. Hog Farm mentioned WP:NLIST. He didn't mention, but doubtless did take into account, WP:SYNTH, which is a core content policy.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Firstly, I'm not sure what "you" is referring to, I didn't write the article.

  Second, this would effectively be a combination of already existing articles in [ category]. I don't think it fails WP:SYNTH since it's a list of numbers. It's not making any conclusions besides "X is bigger than Y" which is just basic mathematics. It's not really an 'argument' as WP:SYNTH says.

  The sources are from different years, yes, because that's the best we have. Any list of populations will be like that because not all places do censuses at the same time, and the population of a place is always changing.

  I fail to see how this page is different in any way from List of countries and dependencies by population, which no one has any problem with. Felix Croc ( talk) 04:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Oh, sorry. "You" is in the plural, the faction that researched and wishes to retain the article.— S Marshall  T/ C 08:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse: Nominator makes an impressive point in their "rebuttal" comment, which largely lines up with S Marshall's analysis above, and which goes unrefuted inside the AfD. Closure as delete (as opposed to no consensus) makes sense because the trendline after the rebuttal goes entirely one way. Closer's statement clearly identifies the relative weakness of keep assertions provided. Nothing unreasonable or invalid about this close, IMHO. BusterD ( talk) 01:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment User:Hog Farm has been on wikibreak for a few days, although I see he has made small number of edits since posting his talkpage notice. The OP here has properly notified the closer, but don't see any attempt to contact him prior to instituting this review, which is the polite thing to do. BusterD ( talk) 15:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the ping, BusterD. I noticed a talk page message, but hadn't followed up on this due to being busy with other things. While I don't remember this closure (it's from about a year and a half ago), from a quick scan I still stand by my closing rationale - the policy basis (NLIST, SYNTH, etc.) is much stronger for the deletion arguments than for the keep arguments. Hog Farm _Talk 16:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closed within clear P&G rationale of NLIST and strength of arguments, keep side fails to address substantively the lack of RS on the class (ie the core element of NLIST) or the synthetic aspects ("every item is individually sourced" is not a valid rebuttal). Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  I have literally zero idea what any of this jargon means Felix Croc ( talk) 18:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Hi @ Felix Croc - I'm not sure if this applies just to my contribution or everything here, but happy to elaborare mine. First, I'm acknowledging that the discussion was validly closed on the basis of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (P&G), specifically the notability guideline, which includes details of the required elements for lists: WP:NLIST. Second, NLIST indicates that sourcing for a list must discuss the subject of the list as a set (I use the word "class"). Third, I'm agreeing with the closer that the keep side was weaker, because the delete arguments focused on the fact that there was no sourcing presented which discussed the list topic as a whole, whereas the keep side presented arguments that only justified separate items (each item was individually sourced). Finally, I'm noting that the list contained problems of synthesis, part of a Wikipedia policy ( no original research), as it combined discrete (albeit sourced) elements into something new. Given all this, I have agreed that the closer made the correct procedural decision to delete. You may find reading this previous AfD discussion to be of use: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2020 United States presidential electors. The discussion hinges on issues similar to those here, but as the result was different (keep) it illustrates why that list was compliant and the one discussed here was not. I hope this helps. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 20:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

I believe the deletion of this redirect was a procedural error. As this redirect is part of the MediaWiki interface, it should never be deleted as it makes the software less functional. I was debating between here and WP:VPT, but I'm hoping DRV is all that is necessary to get this restored. For an example of this in the wild, see the Metadata of c:File:Maya-Le-Tissier.jpg. Click on "show extended details", and note the "Software used" row. Uses such as this do not show up in WhatLinksHere. I believe the previous redirect to Microsoft Photos is the best target for now. — Locke Cole • t • c 00:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment as the closer of the deletion discussion--the metadata concerns raised by Locke Cole were raised in the discussion itself (if in less detail) but did not sway the participants at the time, with participants essentially arguing that even if this phrase is autogenerated in metadata, the link is not helpful as the software in question is not discussed at Microsoft Photos. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment. One of these redirects is /opt/imagemagick-7.0.5/share/doc/ImageMagick-7//index.html. ... Yes, it has "imagemagick" and "ImageMagick" in it, but still, is anyone even going to try to read that before clicking? Normally, Microsoft Photos would need to mention a Windows Photo Editor (whatever it is, some internal name, maybe a left-behind "working title") so that when someone searches for (the non-existent) Windows Photo Editor and lands at Microsoft Photos, they get what they looked for, and aren't disappointed or confused. If someone clicks on a barely human-readable small font metadata string to see where it will take them, it doesn't matter so much that the term is included in the article. Once they are taken to Microsoft Photos, they will understand that it is the answer to the question of what the "Software used" was. Finally, "Microsoft Photos" and "Windows Photo Editor" sound pretty similar. — Alalch E. 01:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The real issue here for me is can we actually be sure that it's Microsoft Photos? Do we have evidence that it can't also be something else in Windows that outputs this? — Alalch E. 02:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I just confirmed it quite easily. Running Windows 10, I opened up the "Photos" app included as part of the OS, edited an image I had previously edited in Adobe Photoshop and saved a copy. The EXIF data was updated with "Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384" as the CreatorTool (<xmp:CreatorTool>Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384</xmp:CreatorTool>). If anything, Microsoft Photos may be at the wrong name (perhaps a better name would be Photos (Microsoft) or Windows Photos; a discussion for another place, but worth mentioning). — Locke Cole • t • c 03:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, thanks for bringing that {{ R metadata}} cat to my attention (from that long imagemagick string), I added it to FC3582 (which you can see in the metadata of an image I uploaded here: File:Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (180° panorama looking north; 2023-02-16).jpg). At least for that one a Google search for "FC3582" and EXIF turns up the camera information quickly. Searching for "Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384" brings up a ton of seemingly useless results (because of image info being tagged with it). — Locke Cole • t • c 03:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with your reasoning overall, but I'll just state that Microsoft Photos is not at the wrong name. While there is absolutely no doubt that using Microsoft Photos writes this to the EXIF data, I am not 100% sure that some other action in Windows, that does not include the user consciously powering up Microsoft Photos can also not do the same. — Alalch E. 13:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The Snipping Tool doesn't write anything apparently, for whatever that's worth. Not sure if there's parts of Explorer or the OS in general that give in-place editing functionality (like rotation) that might write this in the "Software used". — Locke Cole • t • c 20:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, I tried several such things and none write anything of the sort. This leads me to the conclusion that the redirect should be restored. — Alalch E. 23:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Restore per this thread. The first deletion advocate said "EXIF aside" simply brushing aside the keep argument, but the argument is well-founded in established practice of keeping such special redirects that have a distinct purpuse, which differs from how we normally understand redirects; this is evidenced in the fact that we have Category:Redirects from file metadata links and Template:R from file metadata link; later deletion advocates did not even seem to notice that the nominated redirect is unusual. Now that a significantly new degree of clarity has been obtained since the deletion, such that it justifies recreating the deleted page, we can correct the non-advantageous RfD outcome in this DRV. — Alalch E. 23:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Alalch E.: if you quote me, it's proper etiquette to ping me so I have a chance to respond. Luckily I found this thread anyways, but that's not always the case. The "EXIF aside" comment was poor phrasing, but it wasn't simply brushing aside the EXIF keep argument. It was more of "I recognize the EXIF argument, but the target is still wrong—it should be Windows Photo Editor." I was unable to confirm that they were the same application at the time, but we now seem to have that confirmation. If this is restored, Windows Photo Editor should also be created as a redirect to prevent such confusion moving forward. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 14:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Tavix: I just wanted to refer to your comment specifically as the first in line, and then didn't identify it by your username and therefore forgot to ping you. Sorry about that. — Alalch E. 14:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Additional context Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive334#Request_to_create_redirect_page_at_Matplotlib_version3.3.3,_https://matplotlib.org/ and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive933#Creating_blacklisted_title for some previous discussion around these types of redirects. As @ Wugapodes: notes in the first link: ... based on subsequent discussion it seems that there is a de facto consensus that these redirects are appropriate and may be created by administrators on request. While that consensus may or may not be wise, AN is a poor place to make editorial decisions like this. Interested editors may want to start an RfD nomination for the bunch or an RfC at WT:Redirect for wider consensus on these redirects as a group. I suppose the most important thing is making sure they're tagged correctly (unsure if this Windows Photo Editor one was), as putting it through an RFC and formalizing a rule seems like unnecessary instruction creep for something we should be protecting as part of the site interface. I would genuinely hope that we'd all want MediaWiki to be functioning for readers. — Locke Cole • t • c 04:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore if nothing else Locke Cole's comments above have shown that this is used as a synonym for the target of the redirect by the Mediawiki software, which directly refutes the reasons given for deletion. The Delete comments focused on how unlikely it is that someone would type this into the search box, which isn't relevant to this at all. The creation of these redirects is reasonably common practice and shouldn't have to be justified. Hut 8.5 10:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore as far as I can tell, no one addressed the keep argument. Given that it appears to be valid, that's a problem. Hobit ( talk) 22:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore While we don't normally want to see new arguments in DRV, the fact is that the original argument wasn't apparently made compellingly enough for the other !voters or the closer to understand why such an obscure redirect was, in fact, useful and valid. Jclemens ( talk) 05:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore A little WP:IAR + WP:UCS = WP:CCC. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

List of largest towns in England without a railway station ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I don't believe this deletion discussion was handled correctly --- Tbf69 P • T 10:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The closer was correct to discount keep !votes that ignored WP:NLIST as the controlling norm. When doing so it emerged that there was at least a rough consensus to delete, which means that everything was handled correctly. — Alalch E. 10:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. Well-argued points on both sides of the discussion, neither prevails. Stifle ( talk) 11:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse. There were solid arguments for keeping and deleting, though I think the prevailing argument was the delete voters citing WP:NLIST and the topics in the list not having significant coverage as a group, which the keep voters did not refute. I think relisting would have been most appropriate at the time, but I do not see the value of relisting a discussion seven months later. Frank Anchor 15:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I also support S Marshall's below proposal to move to userspace for a selective content merge. Frank Anchor 17:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closing admin - No attempt was made to discuss this closure with me prior to the DRV, but that's ok because it's very unlikely I would have changed my mind. The delete voters brought up valid issues about how this list article potentially violates notability guidelines like WP:LISTN. Virtually all of the keep voters made an WP:ITSNOTABLE vote, with no attempt to provide a source that establishes the notability of the topic. This was not a difficult closure. If there is a desire to overturn this closure and/or restore this article, my advice would be to produce a source or two that discuss the topic of large English towns without railway stations in a significant way. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Well argued but ultimately the delete voters outnumbered the keep voters and (more importantly) their arguments had a stronger basis in policy/guideline. Lots of sources were brought up and thoroughly evaluated but none discussed the list of largest towns without a station as a group or in depth. The keep voters also failed to address the concerns about novel synthesis. I commend Scottywong for his detailed closing statement, though, which makes clear the policy basis for the decision and that he wasn't just counting heads or supervoting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment In the case where notability was disputed and some sources had been offered, I would have suggested that the debate be relisted precisely because the relative strength of arguments depends on the relative strength of sources. I'm not further opining at this time. Jclemens ( talk) 19:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus I'm not sure how it can be stated by the closing admin: "no attempt to provide a source that establishes the notability of the topic." The last third of the discussion is specifically a discussion of The Daily Telegraph source and the table that illustrates the specific class of the list. There is no consensus in the discussion on that source and whether it constitutes a passing mention or not. Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 21:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment without (yet) opining on the merits of the AfD, since the deletion three people have independently complained to me/in discussions I've been part of (all off-wiki, none of them are Wikipedian editors to my knowledge) about the deletion of this page which they regarded as a very useful resource. I've not experienced this about any other page in the 18 years I've been here. In an AfD this would (almost certainly) be summarily disregarded as an WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT !vote, and it certainly doesn't fit nicely into the accepted scope of DRV, but we write the encyclopaedia for our readers and we should not dismiss their feedback without actually considering it. This is clearly a list that people expect to find on Wikipedia, and if our policies are preventing us from having that, we should at least take a look to see why the mismatch in expectations is occurring and whether we need to adjust the policies to reconcile that. It *may* be that the policies are actually fine and they have been interpreted correctly, but we need to ask the question with an open mind before we can say whether that is the case or not. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

This argument doesn't really hold water though. There are essentially an infinite number of negative lists which might be useful to someone. Are you really going to tell me that you'd support the inclusion of List of cities in China that don't have an IKEA or List of municipalities in India where the majority language is not Telegu if a researcher interested in IKEA stores in China or the spread of Telegu in India told you it would be useful? JMWt ( talk) 10:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I know nothing about those topics, so I can't say whether there is any relevant notable discussion about the lack of IKEAs in any given city in China etc but given the extremely different significance of having an IKEA (stores opening or closing are things that can happen basically at the whim of a single company) and having a railway station (which, at least in the UK, requires regional or national level planning, funding, political discussion, sometimes even enabling legislation, etc) I don't think that's a relevant comparator. Trying to suggest that minority languages in municipalities is at all relevant is difficult to construe as good faith - regardless of whether we should or should not have such a list. I do know about rail transport in Great Britain and combined with the sources discussed in the article, I know that having or not having a railway station is a significant topic of discussion - look at all the reliable and unreliable sources discussing the largest town without one and small settlements with one to demonstrate this. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

This is the slippery slope that WP:N was so carefully crafted to avoid. We don't need to know anything about IKEA or Telugu or British train stations to determine if an article on those topics is appropriate. We also don't need to argue about our subjective judgments of whether the opening of an IKEA is more significant or relevant than the opening of a train station. All we need to do is examine whether reliable, independent sources have discussed the topic in a significant way. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The AfD discussion considered the question of coverage of this topic and did not achieve consensus on the subject, and it has subsequently become clear that readers regard it as a notable subject. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

"Readers regard it as a notable subject", "This is clearly a list that people expect to find on Wikipedia", "I know that having or not having a railway station is a significant topic of discussion"... Statements like these have zero relevance when it comes to Wikipedia. Once again, if someone wants to write an article on this subject, all they have to do is produce reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in a significant way. That's literally all that matters. It's quite possible that the content of this article is verifiable and even interesting to many people, and perhaps it belongs in a different article, but until WP:SIGCOV is satisfied, it simply can't be covered in a standalone WP article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Despite your continued insistence otherwise, there was no consensus either way regarding WP:SIGCOV in the discussion, despite examination of multiple sources, so the status quo ante (article exists) should have been maintained. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

There were not "multiple sources" discussed as SIGCOV of the topic in the AfD, there was just the one, and since that is not enough for GNG the delete !votes must be given greater weight. Not to mention the source in question didn't have anything close to consensus that it even covered the same topic as the list, let alone was SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Weak overturn to no consensus. I can definitely see where the closer is coming from, and I think the Delete comments were stronger than the Keep ones, but I don't think the difference is quite enough to justify a Delete closure. The closer's claim above that there was no attempt to provide a source that establishes the notability of the topic isn't correct - several people did provide sources, and the debate was more about whether those sources were sufficient. Hut 8.5 19:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse in that it was a valid exercise of judgment by the closer. Any of Delete, No Consensus, or Relist would have been plausible. I count 5 Delete votes including the nom and 4 Keep votes, and the closer could reasonably conclude that the Delete case was stronger. Just as DRV is not AFD round 2, DRV is not the second round of close. We may disagree with the close and still endorse the close as valid. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I agree the comment of User:Thryduulf that we should discuss the mismatch between the guidelines and the expectations, maybe at Village Pump. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Or just make an exception to the guidelines. Hut 8.5 10:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• I can see a consensus to delete there, so I'd have to endorse, but I also think the outcome's left a hole in our coverage. Railways gaps in Britain have been intensely controversial and political since the Beeching cuts and I'm not surprised that there's a great deal of ongoing interest in the subject. We do still have a list with vaguely similar intent in Connecting Communities but it's not really similar enough to justify a redirect. In the circumstances I would tend to suggest a fudge compromise: would the DRV closer please userfy the list to me personally as a previously uninvolved user. I'll begin a discussion on Talk:Rail transport in Great Britain proposing a selective merge of the disputed content to Rail transport in Great Britain#Proposed line re-openings, which would likely involve creating a new heading. If the merge is agreed to, then I'll carry it out using one of our standard attribution-preserving methods, and create a redirect de novo from List of largest towns in England without a railway station.— S Marshall  T/ C 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  I also endorsed the close, but I also think that userfication in order to explore merger options is a good idea, and wanted to propose it myself. — Alalch E. 15:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. There's no other way to interpret this discussion: most keep !voters had totally discountable ILIKEIT arguments, although a couple later claimed one source was sufficient to demonstrate the topic meets LISTN; delete !voters then pointed out the source is a passing mention with rather different inclusion criteria and thus does not establish notability. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak Overturn there was no consensus in the discussion about the sources. The closer does get to evaluate strength of argument, and to some extent that involves looking at the source(s) to see if they pass the smell test. I don't think this source is so bad that any reasonable closer would agree with the source not meeting the requirements of LISTN. That said, the proposal by S Marshall is a reasonable way forward. Hobit ( talk) 22:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  There was only one source alleged to be SIGCOV of the grouping, thus the topic failed GNG/LISTN regardless of whether that source was actually acceptable. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  That's true. Hobit himself refers to "the source" (i.e. the one source). But how about userfying in order to explore merger options? — Alalch E. 00:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Sure, but can't S Marshall just do that through REFUND? Userfying/merging didn't have any consensus in the AfD so doing so isn't really applicable at DRV. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Could but A) WP:BUREAU (and indirectly WP:IAR) always applies and B) compromises are good. Hobit ( talk) 04:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yes, I could use REFUND, but to me, doing that after the DRV would feel a bit like trying an end-run around a community consensus to delete. I would always want to be transparent and open, and it feels more transparent and open to do it this way where the "delete" and "endorse" faction have more opportunity to object and/or scrutinise what I'm doing.— S Marshall  T/ C 08:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yeah I understand your hangup, I'm just of the opinion that overturning an AfD close to match a new outcome proposed in the DRV is also an end run around the AfD. I think the best option here would be for a closer to endorse the AfD close and explicitly recognize a consensus here for userfication/merging. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  I concur, and that's why I endorsed the close.— S Marshall  T/ C 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  That's how I understood it too. — Alalch E. 20:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. As Hobit notes, there were multiple sources presented in the discussion and there was no consensus about whether they demonstrated notability of the set as a whole, which combined with there being a clear consensus that it is a notable fact about the entries in it, that multiple reliable sources refer to the list as the basis of coverage, point to there being no consensus about whether NLIST is met. I'm happy for a userfication first if that is a compromise, but that's less ideal than putting it back in mainspace to work on. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Just out of curiosity, have you taken a look at any of the sources that were presented as evidence of notability for this list? Do you believe that they satisfactorily establish the notability of the list? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  DRV is not AfD round 2, it doesn't matter what I think of the sources it matters what the people in the discussion thought of the sources, and there was no consensus among them. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and userfy per S.Marshall. Delete or a no consensus close could be plausible outcomes (the discussion was well attended, so a relist makes less sense), so there is no clear error by the closer. -- Enos733 ( talk) 04:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I cannot see how this could be overturned to NC when so many of the keep !votes were invalid. Here is a breakdown of the top-level !votes/comments:

1. (comment): concerned that there aren't sources discussing the topic as a whole. [Leans keep but acknowledges NLIST issues]
2. (comment): lists some links to articles discussing individual instances as well as the one source later argued to be SIGCOV, but notes he's not sure the list meets NLIST. [Maybe leans keep but acknowledges NLIST issues]
3. (comment): List is well formatted, could use more notations/citations, not a bad start. [Discounted]
4. Keep As mentioned above, this topic comes up a fair bit in England, and the list is fully sourced. [Does not address NLIST issues, should be discounted]
5. Keep For the same reasons as given by [#4]. [Does not address NLIST issues, should be discounted]
6. Keep - The topic is notable. I dont think its true WP:SYNTH, its just a list of towns that a reliable source said didnt have a station. Its not a by population list and doesnt explicitly say X is the largest town without a station or anything particularly SYNTHy. Not sure we need a source that talks about them all as a set. [Does not address NLIST issues, should be discounted]
7. (comment/delete): Seems like a rather myopic un-encyclopedic topic. My first inclination is to say Delete - I do not see why the topic is notable. [Does not give a strong DELREASON, should be discounted]
8. Keep. Notable topic about which plenty has been written over the years. [Vaguewave that does not address NLIST issues, should be discounted]
9. Delete. No evidence that the list has been written about as a list, so no pass on WP:NLIST. Not a content fork, so no pass on WP:CFORK. The keep votes to date are merely asserted notability and should not be considered in closing the discussion. [Policy-based]
10. Delete While there are sources that discuss that describe individual towns that don't have railway stations, there isn't anything per say that specifically lists towns without railways station. The information would be better covered in the individual settlement pages. [Policy-based]
11. Delete. No evidence has been found/presented to demonstrate this intersection is notable and warrants a list article. Sources are predominantly about individual towns, with others discussing a subset of this whole (e.g. towns that used to have a station). [Policy-based]

Based just on these top-level arguments, the outcome is clearly delete due to the total weakness of the keep !votes and the strength of three delete !votes + nom. If we look at all the comments together, we get at best maybe 2 composite keep !votes that attempt to argue from the P&Gs, although one of them never formally !votes. However, no one actually claimed the article met NLIST; in fact, the keep side weren't able to convince others that any of the sources could even count towards notability. The single source alleged to be SIGCOV of the topic was linked on July 10 and discussed directly from July 13-18 among 4-5 users, only one of whom really asserts it has merit, while at least two users rebut it with the assessment that it doesn't address the same subject as the page and isn't SIGCOV. But even if that source had been deemed acceptable by everyone, the topic still would not meet our notability criteria. Therefore, deletion is the only possible outcome for this AfD. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per JoelleJay's analysis. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 16:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Question from a potential closer of the DRV @ S Marshall: how do you propose to merge the content while respecting attribution if the exisiting article history stays deleted and instead a new redirect is created? From my read of this discussion, several of the endorse positions are conditional on this plan being executed. So if it can't be done that would change how I would close this discussion compared to how I'd close it if your plan can't be attempted. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

R N Mauzo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

It is not a direct copy of the claimed source. I don't believe this article should had been SD but could be worked upon or remove any copyrighted statements, not the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejoy2003 ( talk • contribs)

• Rejoy2003, ask the WP:G12 speedy deleting admin, User:Moneytrees, about how you might be able to try again without it looking like a copyright infringement. “Direct copy” is not the measure of a copyright infringement, so ask, and read the answer carefully, and read up on copyrights. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  User:Rejoy2003, you’re not blocked from asking on his talk page, or from your talk page by pinging him. However, you already have a few messages on your usertalk page. Have you read the carefully, and have you read every link included? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe it would had been easier if I weren't blocked. Looks like I'll need to get past that first. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact)

SmokeyJoe I had left a message on his talk page. I had once such problem regarding the copyvio, but it was resolved with another admin. This time it looks like I'm totally blocked. I don't think they will reason out or come to any consensus unless I plead a "proper unblock request". Also what links are you talking about? ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact)

• Endorse it wasn't a "direct copy", no, but it was a close paraphrase of the link given. Making superficial changes to the source isn't enough to make something not a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 12:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The article was deleted for a said reason of "Unambiguous Copyright Violation" and there's no mention of "close paraphrasing". I'll request the other admins to have a look back at the article than at the blocked reason. Also a thing I don't understand that as per WP:CLOP, if we can use {Close paraphrasing} template, why was this speedy deleted? I'm sure this article wasn't 100% unambiguous copyright violation or closely paraphrased. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 13:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Close paraphrasing is a form of copyright violation. The existence of {{ Close paraphrasing}} does not mean it's okay to do close paraphrasing and then fix it after the fact. -- Whpq ( talk) 13:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not implying "close paraphrasing" should be encouraged. If this is the case all of my articles should be speedy deleted since I worked on them the same way I did on this article. The decision of Speedy Deletion was wrong, this is the only thing I'm trying to focus on. Not encourage copyvio in any form. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 13:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

If that continues to be your belief, I suspect you will remain blocked. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

How is my block relevant to this discussion on an article? If my views are different it should be respected, hence I believe this space is created. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 15:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Rejoy2003 You can see some of the overlap between the source and the article here; click on "iThenticate report". Even if you swap out some words here and there, it's still a copyright issue. For the intent of speedy deletion, this was an "unambiguous" violation; the source you copied from was cited, and there was significant overlap. It would be "ambiguous" if the copyright status of the copied source was unclear, or if it was unclear if you actually copied from the source. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Well iThenticate report said there was about 75% copyvio issue (65 words) to be appropriate and only one paragraph was marked, that's all I can see. At this point Wiki tools are helpless and out of question since I had checked this article for any copyvio issues Earwig's which showed none, even tried duplicate detector but it was none. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 05:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Rejoy2003 Unfortunately Earwig is not perfect, it cannot scan certain sources of text such as issuu web pages. The iThenticate scanned the individual edit, not the entire article; comparing the issuu source manually led me to the deletion. 10:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 10:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Template:Close paraphrasing is "intended to mark close paraphrasing within articles that does not or may not rise to the level of copyright infringement". This one did rise to the level of copyright infringement. It was an unambigous copyright violation, as it was clearly a close paraphrase of the level which rises to a copyright violation. While the deleting admin could have listed it at WP:CP for a week instead, it was within admin discretion to delete it under G12. Hut 8.5 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Did you even look back at the article or just gave out your opinion based on the admin's judgement? ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 05:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, of course I looked at it, I went through the whole thing line by line and compared it to the source. Hut 8.5 08:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Speaking hypothetically, like you said this article could be listed for a week at WP:CP and could be reworked or improved. Would you had done the same thing or take extreme steps like the deleting admin has done? Like partially blocking me and the speedy deletion without any room for discussion? ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 10:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes I think I would have speedily deleted it as well. WP:CP is meant for ambiguous or complex cases, e.g. where investigation is required, the copyright status of the source material isn't clear, where it's not clear what the source of the material was, etc. This by contrast is fairly straightforward. WP:CP also wouldn't really allow for reworking of the text, only for a complete rewrite - you'd be expected to start from scratch instead of putting the copyrighted material back into the article and adding more paraphrasing. If you hadn't been blocked then you would still be able to do a complete rewrite now despite the deletion. A block for copyright violations wouldn't be done for a single offence, it would have to be for a pattern of copyright violations. Hut 8.5 19:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as deleted in line with copyright policy. -- Whpq ( talk) 13:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. You need to rewrite copyrighted source material in your own words. Before you press "publish changes". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Ngl, I do the same exact thing. But some editors will always find me being a bad guy disrupting on Wikipedia. Appreciate the valuable response. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 10:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Rejoy2003: I'm not sure what "Ngl" is supposed to mean, but if you want to avoid being the "bad guy" then just don't copy, or closely paraphrase, content from elsewhere. You will know for yourself when you have written content in your own words, so tools are irrelevant. It's very simple, so I can't understand why you don't get the concept. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  It's an abbreviation for "not gonna lie". Stifle-alt, an alternate account of Stifle ( talk) 14:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I don't normally offer an opinion at DRV on appeals of G12 speedy deletion for copyvio, both because I trust the deleting administrator, and because I haven't seen the deleted material. In this case, however, it seems that the appellant doesn't understand Wikipedia's policy on copyright, which is that we have zero tolerance for copyright violation including close paraphrasing. If User:Rejoy2003 is editing from a computer, rather than from a phone, then they have local storage on their hard disk (or solid-state disk), which is where the rewriting of copyrighted material in the editor's own words should be done. Draft space, user space, and article space are not work areas for the purpose of putting source content in one's own words. Draft space and user space are work areas for many purposes, but not for revising copyrighted sourced content. Write it in your own words before you copy it to any Wikipedia page or as you write it to any Wikipedia page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Cookie's Bustle ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

New information has become available that increases the notability. This game has been the focus of a recent conspiracy to attempt to remove information about it from the internet. ^[1] Furthermore, this ongoing incident seems to be an example of the Streisand effect, as it seems an increasing number of people are being made aware of this game and talking about it online. In light of recent events, I believe this article should be reinstated for the foreseeable to allow for this new information to be added, as well as any new information that may arise. NinCollin ( talk) 07:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply

If reliable sources showing notability already exist then there should be nothing to stop you recreating the article with citations to them. If such sources do not exist yet then wait until they do. Either way this doesn't need to be at WP:DRV. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Speedy restore. With only the nominator !voting to delete at the AFD, the closure should be treated as a WP:SOFTDELETE and therefore reversed on demand. Stifle ( talk) 09:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I am now aware that the deletion was CSD:G7 so I withdraw this. Stifle ( talk) 15:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• (Deleting admin here) To be clear, this was a G7-type "on request" deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• For a start this article was two sentences long and cited two sources, the article linked above and a Tweet (which isn't a reliable source). The page was deleted because the sole author asked for it to be deleted, and I don't see any reason not to honour their wishes. There isn't anything stopping you from writing a new article about it but you should include more evidence the subject meets the notability guidelines. That one link isn't likely to be considered enough. Hut 8.5 18:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• G7 should be uncontroversial so I've restored it. @ NinCollin: if you have new sources, I suggest you add them promptly. There doesn't seem to be much for us to do at DRV but unless the new sources are convincing someone is likely to re-AfD the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Support speedy restore, as already done. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Fatih Mehmet Gul ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Pursuant to this AN discussion where Superastig was topic-banned from making closures, I think that this deletion discussion needs to be reevaluated. Per my analysis in the AN discussion, the no-consensus closure was already dubious at the time the discussion was closed, but is even more obviously in error now that the principle advocates for keep have been blocked as confirmed sockpuppets. I think that this discussion should be overturned to delete, or at least reopened. I did not request Superastig's input prior to bringing to DRV because the age of the discussion would make it awkward for them to simply undo their closure. I will notify them now that I've opened this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support reopening Afd - even if they were/are not socks, the !keep voters kept on asserting things about the sources without evidence when challenged. !Delete voters had issues with the sources and there was never a satisfactory reply. At very least, it should have been relisted until there was some kind of consensus on which sources were the best and whether they actually met the GNG. JMWt ( talk) 18:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Support reopening, although I'd have no objection with a decision to close it as delete. Would suggest, if relisted, semi'ng to prevent more laundry disruption. Star Mississippi 18:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Support reopening renominating to allow an admin to close. NAC's should not be used if The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. and a "no consensus" close (particularly on an AFD that was relisted twice) is the exact definition of a close call. To me, this lies somewhere between NC and delete, since the delete voters have a stronger, more policy-based argument. The topic-ban on Superastig closing AFDs has no effect on my vote since this closure was made several weeks before the topic ban went into effect. Frank Anchor 19:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I support the below proposal by Enos733 and SmokeyJoe to start a fresh AFD rather than reopen the current AFD in order to have a new discussion on the merits of the article rather than drama related to socks. Frank Anchor 15:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete or reopen. Clearly an erroneous close, especially considering not a single one of the keep !votes was valid even before the socking was found. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete because when the sock !votes are discounted it emerges that there was a reasonably strong, not even rough, consensus to delete. I could go on about how this was also a bad non-admin close, but this is already overturnable to a concrete outcome for a more prosaic reason. — Alalch E. 21:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete It's a BLP, socks involved in the AfD, and it had already been relisted as many times as reasonable. Also, the only remaining Keep !vote was the article's initial author... So, delete. Jclemens ( talk) 21:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Delete - A relist would be in order, except that it has already been relisted twice, so we might as well dispose of it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Question - Is Reopen the same as Relist, or is there a difference? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  My understanding is that they mean the same thing in this context. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Mine is the same. In my case I thought reopen was clearer since it has been closed for a month, so it's more than just a relisting. That's probably more semantics than substance. You can read my comment to mean either, and I'm happy to edit it if it's confusing @ Robert McClenon Star Mississippi 00:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete even without considering the fact that two of the keep comments came from sockpuppets, they are considerably weaker than the Delete comments in that they focus on the mere existence of RS coverage (which doesn't in itself make someone notable) and inclusion on a list which doesn't confer notability. The AfD has already been relisted twice and got enough participation for a close so I don't see any point in reopening it. Hut 8.5 08:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. Keep arguments were vague waves and the close looks like it was based on a headcount. The only source of any possible merit was the Forbes piece, and that was discussed and rejected in the AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close as old. The close preceded the closer’s topic ban from closing. Allow immediate renomination at AfD. Do not overturn to “delete”, it was not sufficiently obvious, and it is much better for a fresh AfD to have a closer who can explain their close. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  I suggest a fresh AfD over a reopening because the old AfD is old, tainted, and a mess. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Not sufficiently obvious? Most good closers would have closed it as delete, but “no consensus” might be defended noting low participation.

  The two sockpuppets weren’t blocked until after the close. I think it is bad practice to summarily overturn old AfDs based on hindsight that the “keep” !voters would be blocked as sockpuppets. Better to run a clean new AfD for a week. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Maybe I'm only speaking for myself, but when I said reopen I meant start a new AfD discussion as if this one hadn't happened. Apologies if that wasn't obvious. JMWt ( talk) 08:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  That might be better expressed as "relist" but you've now made yourself clear. Stifle ( talk) 09:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ SmokeyJoe, those two !votes should have been discounted regardless of being identified as socks because their arguments were invalid and had been strongly rebutted as such. I mean, at the very least any closer should have discounted Google hit shows multiple reliable source from different independent reliable sources which clearly illustrates that the article has pass WP:ANYBIO. from an account with <50 edits. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Agreed. Still, I recommend a fresh AfD. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  But I don't think it is, or should be, expected or desired, that a closer looks at the contribution record of anyone who participates in an AFD. Similarly, a closer should not independently evaluate the sources provided in the article or in the discussion. - Enos733 ( talk) 22:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Strong disagree with the first sentiment, to do so throws away our primary defense against sockpuppetry and brigading. Borderline agree with the second statement, although in certain situations it is necessary for a closer to make a basic investigation of the material if there is disagreement in the discussion over what the content of a source is, in distinction from whether the content is significant/independent/etc. (e.g. if one editor says a source contains only a trivial mention and the other says it contains a full paragraph of coverage, the closer should verify which of the two is telling the truth). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  You don't need to look at the sources to know that an argument that does not assert a P&G-based reason for keeping is invalid. The !votes weren't claiming the sources contained SIGCOV, they were 1) (presumably?) saying the subject met ANYBIO through being on a Forbes Middle East list, and 2) saying the existence of multiple independent RS qualifies for ANYBIO. The first is on its face absurd, the second is a vaguewave that doesn't even claim any of those sources are SIGCOV. Both easily discountable. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist from scratch so that a proper sock-free discussion may be had. Stifle ( talk) 09:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Open clean AFD I agree with SmokeyJoe above. If the socks were not known at the time of closing, the keep comments were weak but not overly so. The underlying article has multiple references and while we hope that comments address the quality of the sourcing, (again, without knowing that socks were involved), a closer would read the discussion as a back and forth about the sourcing and rightly err with a no consensus close. That all said, and as the closer has subsequently been topic banned, this is also a bad NAC. But, because of all of these problems (found after the close), we should immediately encourage a new AFD. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Renominate Per arguments of JMWt and SmokeyJoe. The AfD was closed way before the socks were blocked. So reopening/relisting the AfD is pointless IMV since it was closed a month ago. Nominating the article again would be a better option in favor of fresh arguments. SBKSPP ( talk) 06:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete There was only one keep vote by a non-sock account, and it doesn't make sense, so there are no grounds to keep the article either via a keep outcome or a no consensus outcome. Avilich ( talk) 20:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• New AfD Too much tainted with this one to count as a fair discussion. Let's try again. Hobit ( talk) 22:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• As a sock management technique, please could the new AfD be semi-protected.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Ashley Dalton ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Article was subsequently recreated after subject's election win. PiaLily ( talk) 02:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment Deletion review is typically used to review XFD closures or CSD deletions to see if the deletion decision was appropriate. In this case, it looks like you are not questioning the AFD closure from October, I'm guessing you are asking that the new article created 4 days ago not be deleted through speedy deletion CSD G4. In that case, I think the deletion review might be premature as the new version of Ashley Dalton hasn't been deleted or tagged for deletion. Since her situation has changed a lot over the past few months, I don't think the AFD needs to be overturned in order to keep this article as it is unlikely that it is substantially identical to the deleted version from four months ago. It would have been nice for the article creator to run it through AFC but that's just suggested, not mandatory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I due evasi di Sing Sing ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I find the subject of the page to be notable (1st installment of 3 by the same important director, notable soundtrack, for instance) (Note The Afd discussion showed one merge and one delete comments only, FWIW) MY OH MY 21:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. Disregarding your thoughts on the notability of the article (we are not here to re-argue that) do you have an opinion about how the discussion was closed? You imply you do, but I'd welcome clarity on that. CT55555( talk) 01:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I’m sorry I can’t say clearly I do: the page should have been kept considering the notability of the film, in my humble opinion, that’s all, and I did not mean to imply anything on the way the discussion had been closed, I was just observing that participants to the discussion had been 4 with only 2 expressing explicitly what they thought should be done with the page and not exactly of the same opinion. So, where would be the place for re-arguing that the subject of the page is notable then, if not here? Thank you. — MY OH MY! 08:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Mushy Yank: Usually at WP:DRV we only discuss whether the close was procedurally correct. I offer no opinion on that point. The most effective way to re-argue notability would be for you to create an article in user space or draft space with references showing notability and to submit it to WP:AFC. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you! @ Phil Bridger — MY OH MY! 11:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak endorse because the discussion above does not include complaint about the close. Weak because I am not sure I support the close due to lack of participation and I see so many getting more time and more input and I don't know why that wasn't done (but also don't know enough to say if that was in error or not). CT55555( talk) 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Question - is it normal to have a nom and two comments on the same day followed by closure of the discussion with no relists within a week (if I'm counting the days correctly)? It seems pretty extreme to me to delete with two !votes and no relists. JMWt ( talk) 17:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Answer: I think the general principle the majority of closers apply is three participants minimum to not relist, but this is intentionally not firm. Stifle ( talk) 09:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Little-trafficked discussion but shouldn't have been controversial. The article was two-sentence introduction and a very long plot summary and cited no reliable sources nor explained why it was important. If the sources exist, it shouldn't be difficult to create a new draft. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the AfD was closed correctly, it's reasonable to close as Delete if three people support deletion and nobody objects. It wasn't a well-attended discussion and the bar to revisiting it should be low, but I don't see any evidence here which would make a difference if the issue was reopened, such as sources to show the subject passes the WP:GNG. Creating a draft version which does show that the subject is notable would be a good next step, there wasn't much in the deleted version apart from a plot summary and cast list. Hut 8.5 18:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Éndorse would not be unreasonable to argue this skirts the borders of a soft delete, however, no reason to change the close since outcome is the same. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Relist - The appellant doesn't identify an error by the closer, but with only two responses, only one being a plain Delete, a relisting for another week would have been a good idea, and consisting with practice that AFDs with minimal participation are usually relisted for at least one week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No failure to follow the deletion process has been identified. Stifle ( talk) 09:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Gajesh Naik ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

AFD never reached consensus. I had many queries and questions which were unanswered by some editors. Also would love to see the AFD relisted if necessary. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 11:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse delete due to clear and strong consensus. CT55555( talk) 14:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. That could not have been closed any other way - the nominator here was the only person advocating for a different outcome and their arguments were explicitly rejected by other contributors. Rejoy2003, I strongly advise reading WP:BLUDGEON and dropping the stick. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse correct reading of overwhelming consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 17:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a clear reading of consensus to delete. Appellant evidently has a good-faith misreading of our procedures and of what constitutes consensus. The appellant may in good faith think that he has a right to have all of his questions about notability of the subject answered to his satisfaction, but the other editors are satisfied that the questions were answered. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, obviously. Consensus was very clear. Nobody except the creator favoured "keep" and every argument against deletion was refuted in line with policies and guidelines. Extensive coverage in one publication (especially one of dubious reliability) is not enough to satisfy notability requirements. Breadth is as important as depth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no possible outcome other than delete. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Strong endorse. If this isn't consensus I don't know what is. Stifle ( talk) 14:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Per comments at an ongoing AN/I, it was requested a new discussion be held ( refer to this ongoing RfC) as it was possibly canvassed. Requesting overturn to deleted but contested. Elijahandskip ( talk) 19:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close - There is an RFC in progress which is functioning as a deletion or inclusion discussion. Deletion review should not be held when there is a de novo deletion discussion in progress, whether by a new AFD or by an RFC. Let the RFC run. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• I think a recital of the history here is in order.
  1. 26 Jan: User:Oddballslover created Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023
  2. 26 Jan: Within an hour of creation, User:United States Man nominated it for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023
  3. 26 Jan: Less than two hours later, User:Elijahandskip created the similar-looking Tornado outbreak of January 24–25, 2023 (an en dash rather than hyphen being the only difference) but redirected it to Tornadoes of 2023#January 24–25
  4. 26-28 Jan: Various people contributed to the AFD predominantly contribution delete !votes; you can see what they wrote so I won't reproduce here.
  5. 2 Feb: User:Liz closed the AFD as delete, and deleted Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023 (hyphen version) as well.
  6. 2 Feb: User:AnomieBOT recreated Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023 (hyphen version) under its en dash redirect creator task. As Tornado outbreak of January 24–25, 2023 (en dash version) was a redirect itself, the bot quite reasonably created the hyphen version as a redirect to Tornadoes of 2023#January 24–25 instead.
  7. 8 Feb: Elijahandskip created an RFC at Talk:Tornadoes of 2023, User:Ponyo created the above-linked ANI posting, and Elijahandskip very shortly afterwards created this DRV. It is not quite clear what they are asking us to do, but I've chosen to interpret it as a suggestion that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornado outbreak of January 24-25, 2023 was improperly closed, but they have said "requesting overturn to deleted but contested", which I cannot parse.

Where does that leave us? I don't think there can be any reasonable suggestion that the AFD was closed improperly. The redirects are uncontroversial, albeit I would say from rather unlikely search terms. The talk page RFC is tending towards leaving the matter as-is, that is to say, covering the offending tornadoes in Tornadoes of 2023. I cannot foresee what this discussion will conclude, but my recommendation is that we endorse Liz's closure of the AFD and refer Elijahandskip to WP:STICK. I am minded to nominate the two above-mentioned redirects for deletion as implausible search terms with no merge history, but I will leave that particular task for a week or two until everything has calmed down. Stifle ( talk) 09:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• @ Stifle: One important detail was left out. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing at an AfD, which is an ongoing AN/I. It started on a seperate page, but this AfD was mentioned in the article and was requested to basically be “redone” over canvassing concerns. The (no longer RfC) is doing that. Basically, the AfD is invalid and void. The procedural close makes sense as we should wait for the outcome of the discussion. Either way, a formality deletion review will have to chance the outcome over canvassing concerns. Elijahandskip ( talk) 14:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for the missing detail. I disagree with the conclusion that "the AFD is invalid and void" and maintain my previous recommendation. Stifle ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse this request seems rather exaggerated. The linked ANI discussion is about another AfD which it was claimed was canvassed. This AfD was only referenced in passing in one comment which said that people who contributed to the other AfD also contributed to this one. There was no actual accusation of canvassing, much less any evidence. The AfD couldn't have been closed as anything other than Delete or Redirect as nobody supported any other outcome, and it doesn't look like anybody else has since. Hut 8.5 17:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Procedural close because the nominator does not materially challenge the delete outcome, considering that the situation of "deleted but contested" translates to nothing other than 'delete'. If there was canvassing but the proper outcome would still have been to delete, according to the nominator, there's nothing to discuss in this DRV. — Alalch E. 18:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment I don't think I understand the purpose of this review if Elijahandskip initiated this deletion review. You voted "Delete" in the AFD and the AFD was closed as a consensus to "Delete". What are your objections to a close that was in line with the opinions you expressed in the discussion? Are you saying that you've changed your mind and now want a different result? That doesn't nullify the consensus that came out of this particular discussion. I don't see how you can say the close was improper. I am usually not defensive about AFD closures I've made and am very open to relisting or reviewing decisions I've made. But I don't understand the basis for your objection here.

I will say that I've read about half of the comments on that ANI thread but I'm not sure of how that discussion relates to the closure of this particular AFD discussion. Usually reviews lead to reverts if there was an error in assessing consensus but I don't think that is in question here even if you are now no longer happy with the results of this AFD or you now disagree with the reason that an article was nominated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Valid disambiguation page, both entries are still relevant. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 19:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Moot this was deleted eleven years ago. Just recreate it. Star Mississippi 01:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Procedural closure. This is not a matter which needs discussion at DRV. The dab page was deleted per G6 (uncontroversial maintenance), by an ex-admin on request of the now inactive Haruth. The G6 deletion means anybody can recreate it. The deleted content was: "Prescheme may refer to: PreScheme, Scheme (mathematics)". I have no idea whether this makes sense as a dab, but this can be contested at AfD if needed. Sandstein 07:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Saeed Khan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hi, This page was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2023 and the nominator argued that there was nothing beyond the subject's solemnizing Imran Khan's marriage. I tried and found some Urdu sources that I indicated in the AfD including the subject being discussed on several pages in Al-Bayyinat, a journal published by Jamia Uloom-ul-Islamia (the author and publisher appear to be independent from the subject and the journal is seen reliable on subject matter as far as I know). Similarly, I found a source from BBC Urdu discussing subject's association in 1995 Pakistani coup d'état attempt. The nominator wrongly commented that BBC 4 lines paragraph is nothing more than discussion about his participation in former PM's marriage ceremony, and passing mentions in reliable sources doesn't count towards notability. I am seriously not sure whether the BBC Urdu paragraph is a passing mention or is it the coverage in Al-Bayyinaat? I believe the AfD should get more time to sort out these issues, and I'm really not sure if the last participant who voted delete had been through Urdu sources or not. There is definitely no consensus currently in my opinion and the discussion should be given a relist and allowed for another week. I tried raising this issue with the closer but they declined any help. Best ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The subject's participation outside solemnizing PM's marriage is explicitly noted in this reliable source from 2017 that, In fact, Mufti Saeed, a cleric arrested from Rawalpindi at the time, had not only been a regular at some of the garrison dars sessions but was also encouraged by the then commander of the 10-Corps Lieutenant General Malik and this is what Google translate gives for the BBC paragraph It is said that Brigadier Mustansarbullah gave some of his papers to a man named Mufti Saeed and instructed them to be burnt and destroyed. Later, the military authorities recovered a copy of the speech from Mufti Saeed, which was to be delivered by Major General Zaheerul Islam Abbasi after taking over the power of the country. Mufti Saeed was the only person with these military officers who was aware of every issue. This is clear according to these sources that the subject played an important role in 1995 Operation Khilafah in Pakistan, if not the most important role. Unfortunately, these resources did not receive any discussion in the AfD, and I was, in such a case, hoping for a relist, but I don't know what made the closer delete it. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment would an admin make the article temporarily available for reivew, please. Thank you, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Done. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• But where?? ( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 03:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)) reply

@ Edwin of Northumbria the article is available via the history tab. This is the last version before deletion. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 04:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Apologies, appears you have found it now. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 04:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Hi The Aafī (talk). You have several problems here. The first is that it is difficult for people without local knowledge to determine how independent some of the sources are that you cite, hence the easy option is to disregard them. The second is that there is a difference between what is important, and what is (in a Wikipedia sense) notable. In an ideal world, one would hope to find a Wikipedia article on all important subjects, but alas the world is not ideal. I would certainly agree that the person in question appears to have played a significant role in the coup attempt, although it would have been better if this was more clearly stated. If Al-Bayyinat is truly an independent source, then five pages devoted to this cleric would count as being significant enough as far as I'm concerned, even if the content is largely descriptive. The website devoted to them seems to promotional and therefore useful only as a possible guide to their publications, if details of these can be found elsewhere. Whilst it is difficult to comment further without seeing the original article (see my previous comment), it is not clear to me that this person is definitely non-notable. However, this very much depends on the independence of the Al-Bayyinat source, so it may be useful if you could give some information about the publication. ( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 03:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)) reply
• P.S. The Google translation of the BBC article could be better. As it stands "every issue" could mean all details of the plot, or just those religious matters related to it. Is it clearer in the original language what is meant? ( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 03:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)) reply
• I should have said that there is no doubt that nominator misrepresented the BBC article, as you stated. ( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 04:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)) reply

  Hi @ Edwin of Northumbria, The article uses the sentence مفتی سعید ان فوجی افسران کے ساتھ وہ واحد شخص تھے جو ہر معاملے سے آگاہ تھے۔ which indeed means every issue and it should refer to all details of the plot. The source does not say "religious matters", for example, as the Herald says, had not only been a regular at some of the garrison dars sessions and in that, it appears that he was among the religious leads of the coup attempt, but was concerned about everything since he is also the person who has been reported to have prepared the speech that Gen Abbasi was supposed to deliver after taking over. I'd say three things about the Al-Bayyinaat article: 1: It is not self-published (but it has a publisher). 2: The author and the publisher do not appear to be closely connected to the subject. 3: The source is not a primary one. Given this, I am not sure what "independence" of this source is required? ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Wasn't sure we have Bayyināt. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• That's pretty much a definition of independence, but just to be clear, is the source of a similar religious faction to the cleric?

Also could just the Urdu word for "issue" be translated as "detail" here? (i.e. Can it be translated into different English words in different contexts?). I say this only because the English sentence doesn't sound quite right, and my experience of translation tells that some degree of understanding may have been lost in the process here.

( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 05:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)) reply

@ Edwin of Northumbria: I'm not exactly sure if the cleric follows the Deobandi faction or not. However, the promotional source that you noted about his publications, does say that he studied with some of the Deobandi scholars. Following his thoughts on the Darul Uloom Deoband seminary's establishment, he received considerable criticism. Bayyinaat is published by Jamia Uloom-ul-Islamia, a Deobandi Islamic seminary. But there is definitely a thing, the cleric and the source, do come from something within Sunni Islam and bias would not allow other factions cover them. I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Rekhta dictionary gives some alternatives of the word in English. We could of course translate the sentence indicating that the cleric was aware of all of the details of the operation. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Did the cleric criticise the seminary?

( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 06:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)) reply

@ Edwin of Northumbria: The Bayyinat article analyses cleric's statements about the establishment of Deoband seminary in which he has been reported to claim that the seminary had received favors from British Indian government. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• relist I understand the close and it's not unreasonable. But given the foreign-language sources and the issues raised, neither is a relist. This is not a clear-cut situation (as evidenced by the discussion above) and it seems like relisting is probably the best way to move forward. That said, my guess is we are likely to end up back at delete--but who knows. Hobit ( talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Relist or have a fresh AfD and undelete and re-nominate. More discussion of the Urdu sources and whether they're sufficiently detailed and independent is needed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Relist To my reading the closer somewhat elided the discussion. I reach that conclusion because of the exchange on the closer's talk page where they frame their close on the basis of the analysis that rejected the sources and subsequent concurrence with that original rejection. However, that original rejection contained misrepresentation of the sources (never counter-refuted), so subsequent endorsement, is only endorsement of mistaken analysis. I'd agree with those above, further discussion of the sources is necessary to obtain consensus, as there appears none to me at the point this was closed. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The interpretation of the sources in the discussion wasn't perfect, but in my view, when the nominator brings up certain sources at this DRV, while it does clarify a few things, it doesn't quite amount to: "significant new information [that] has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The subject is not an unimportant figure and was mentioned in the context of important events, but the added clarifications on top of what was said in the AfD do not convert into compelling evidence that a different outcome would have been produced if everything was taken into account. — Alalch E. 13:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Well, I do not believe this. As you admit that the interpretation of the sources wasn't perfect, so is the outcome not perfect. Given what has already been produced, a detailed five-pages [at the least] from Bayyinat (that's quite significant) and then the clerics role in the coup demonstrated by several reliable sources such as Herald Dawn, BBC Urdu, put together with this from Telegraph, explicitly help the subject meet WP:NBASIC#1. Even if that's not acceptable to others, and a consensus is not achieved, that's once again a "no-consensus" and not a "delete" outcome if I were to evaluate such a discussion and analysis. I'll just apply common sense and ignore all rules that prevent the improvement of this encyclopedia because this article seriously does benefit the encyclopedia. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 05:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Turkey, Baku ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe the consensus here is delete not redirect. If a redirect is preferred this can happen after deletion of the page's history. See my discussion with closing admin User_talk:Patar_knight#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Embassy_of_Turkey,_Baku. LibStar ( talk) 23:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Relist there was no mention of a redirect prior to the close, so the closer should have voted to redirect rather than close that way if that was their opinion. Relisting would allow for the close to be converted to a vote and allow other users to respond to redirecting as an ATD. Frank Anchor 23:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Changed to weak endorse based on closer's explanation below. Frank Anchor 15:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Relist. The ATD was not mentioned before, making this a supervote. However, it should be considered. ^Clyde! _Franklin! 01:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (as closer). In addition to the points I made at my talk page about WP:ATDR and WP:POFR, I'll note that this AfD had low participation despite two relistings, which is the general limit per WP:RELIST. My own review indicated that "keep" was unlikely to be the outcome. In cases such as these where the consensus is that an article should not exist, the AFD did not deal with the redirect issue, and the title clearly has a suitable redirect target, it is preferable to create that redirect to discourage article recreation (see WP:REDLINK, WP:R#D10). There's no compelling reason here (e.g. copyvio, BLP, etc.) why the page history has to be deleted, which would be the only practical difference between my close and the common practice of editors creating redirects after AFD discussions.---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 08:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This outcome issues from the consensus to delete; within discretion. — Alalch E. 08:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• (involved) Meh I voted !detete. I was a little surprised by the close, not unreasonable to argue this was a supervote, but then also not unreasonable to argue within discretion. However, in this particular case, either option essentially produces the same result. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per closer's comments above and common sense. Hobit ( talk) 14:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Redirects are cheap, and specifying one in place of a hard delete is not a supervote, but just common sense. If the appellant really thinks that there is a reason to delete the redirect, Redirects for discussion is thataway. Appealing the redirect is silly. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and noting that reasonable and appropriate ATD's initiated by closing admins are not supervotes. Jclemens ( talk) 05:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  They are. The closer's job is to analyse and interpret the consensus arrived at during the discussion. If the closer believes the discussion has not considered something, they should !vote instead. Stifle ( talk) 09:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  No, the closer's job is to apply policy. The policy-based consensus in a discussion with 100% delete input where an undiscussed/unrebutted, reasonable redirect exists... is redirect. Jclemens ( talk) 21:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  The application of policy to each individual case is determined by consensus at that case. Policy does not say that an individual admin can unilaterally ignore consensus to implement their preferred closure, even if that closure is a redirect. Stifle ( talk) 09:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Although it's not appropriate for a closer to substitute their own opinion for the consensus of the debate, and the consensus of this debate was clearly delete, redirects are cheap, deleting the history is pointless, and overturning to delete would just be followed by someone creating the redirect, which would be process wonkery. I cannot endorse the abject failure of the closer here to close in accordance with the consensus, but for the reasons given, I would take no action. Stifle ( talk) 09:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Two points possibly worth mentioning: (i) One apparently reliable source discusses the role of the embassy in intelligence gathering, whilst two others comment on its possible involvement in the attempted coup of 1995; (ii) The redirect now points to an article which does not strike me as terribly neutral (e.g. it is highly debatable whether relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey have always been as strong as the opening sentence suggests). ( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 01:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)) reply

• I don't see an easy way of including the information from the first source in the article to which the redirect points, nor does the proposer mention the above sources in the deletion discussion, hence relist. ( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 01:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)) reply

  Do you have a link to the source? If there's not too much coverage, Azerbaijan–Turkey_relations#Embassies could be expanded, and the redirect retargeted there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 05:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• First source here. Other two sources here and here. Note content of latter in relation to opening sentence of redirect article!! ( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 11:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)) reply

• Whilst this material could be included elsewhere, people who contributed to the deletion debate appear to have been unaware of it, so in my view the matter should be reconsidered as a point of procedure. Also, having a separate article on the embassy would draw attention to the (alleged) activities described by the sources, which personally I would recommend if one considers the neutrality of Wikipedia as a whole. Especially as the first source states that the embassy is effectively used as a weapon against opponents of the Erdoğan regime, burying the information in other articles does not, perhaps, give it the prominence it deserves. ( Edwin of Northumbria ( talk) 11:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)) reply
• No action along the same lines as Stifle. I'm not fond of closing in favor of a totally undiscussed ATD since if there was a potential policy-based reason not to redirect (as there sometimes is), !voters wouldn't have had an opportunity to point it out. Far better to !vote and give others a chance to object. That said, since no such policy-based reason has been presented here (only procedural objections), a relist would likely just be an exercise in bureaucracy. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Ferrari Challenge ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Overturn to keep - An attempt to discuss with the closer, Daniel (and another editor, 78.26 who posted first to endorse the close) was met with Drmies using profanity towards me before the closer could respond, so he simply referred me to here. I will paste my original comment from the closer's talk page:

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Obviously, I'm INVOLVED, but I don't see how it can be closed as anything other than keep. None of the delete/redirect !voters did much of anything to explain how the links posted by 5225C and Jovanmilic97 didn't meet GNG; Drmies attempted, but using phrases like The second, the Italian source, it's better (while also misrepresenting the scope of the article, which he later doubled down on when corrected by HumanBodyPiloter5) and The fourth, from Racer, that's OK doesn't come off to me as very dismissive of them.

It has nothing to do with wanting vindication of the article in the state it is in. But AfD is not cleanup and GNG is not concerned with whether the sources are present in the article, but whether they exist (please correct me if I'm wrong here). - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( work / talk)} 04:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• (Invloved) Overturn to keep - This was one of the most bizarre deletion discussions I've been involved in (admittedly not that many). Firstly you have the repeated BLARing (by an admin) rather than simply following the recommendations of WP:BLAR (which thankfully the nom did do). Then the very strange rationales/comments given which at times didn't relate to this article (eg "The article's subject is not a car, it's a race.") ignoring of WP:NOTCLEANUP, and a failure to refute that the sources presented met GNG. Some users cited WP:TNT, but that states "Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up" and thus doesn't really apply in this instance. And finally the close which looks nothing like someone interpreting consensus, but everything like someone giving their own view on the state of the article (and I don't see how this close is valid anyway, what "procedure" was an issue here?). I !voted to keep this article, and I really can't see how someone can honestly say they did not see a consensus to keep. A7V2 ( talk) 09:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• (Involved) Overturn to keep - While I do agree to a significant degree with the concerns that this article is poorly structured and unclear in scope, WP:NOTCLEANUP applies and WP:GNG has been clearly demonstrated just through a quick search of recent sources that are easily accessible online, let alone the thirty-odd years of less-easily accessible coverage the subject has in print sources. I have no idea why this would be closed as anything other than keep, or at least an WP:ATD like draftifying that would keep the edit history. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 11:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 11:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep - as an uninvolved editor, I don't believe the closer has reflected consensus nor policy in unilaterally deciding what will happen at a following AfD. I accept that many of the sources are not independent, however it is hard to see how they could be anything other than they are given that the information about races and drivers comes from a database held by the organisers. Where else is this information to come from? That's not an indication of clean-up to me. There are sufficient sources to show notability. I can't see that there is any problem here that requires solving. JMWt ( talk) 17:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep the procedural close result reads to me like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Ther e was clear consensus to keep and that WP:GNG had been met. Frank Anchor 18:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Keep which was the clear consensus of the editors responding. The closer can tag the article as needing cleanup, and there can be a discussion on the talk page about the tagging, but there has been a Keep consensus. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• (Involved) Overturn to keep – The conduct of this AfD, from the initial BLARing of the article, and the reason given for the BLARing, to the nomination and the nominator's admission that they actually hadn't read the article, to comments by editors !voting to delete, and the closer's comments, have been downright weird. There was a variety of sources given to support the subject passing the GNG, and a clear consensus that the subject did pass the GNG was formed. Comments that criticised the sources did not seem to demonstrate any familiarity with the outlets, and at points it appeared that delete !voters did not really understand the scope of the article. Both keep and delete !voters agreed that the article was not and is not in good shape, but both sides appeared to misunderstand cleanup-related policies, and at no point did the overall consensus stray from keep. I do not understand why it was closed as anything else. On a procedural level I am also confused: what procedure was being used to close this AfD, and what mechanism allows for an AfD to be closed in this way? 5225_C ( talk •  contributions) 04:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• So... Why are we here? I read the close as "keep but clean up" which appears to be respecting both the numerical consensus and the content concerns raised in the discussion. Would it not just be easier to implement some of the suggestions advocated in that discussion, than to argue a clear "keep" needed to be recorded? Jclemens ( talk) 05:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• I also don't get why we are here, except to waste our time on some bureaucracy. The nominator of this discussion does not want the article deleted, and it was not deleted. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Keep, which was the consensus of the discussion. A Keep closure doesn't imply a vindication of the current state of the article. I don't actually think that the case for deletion was made very well, certainly not for something like WP:TNT which is quite a high bar to meet. A lot of the Delete comments focused on edit warring and other behavioural issues on the article, which is frankly irrelevant. The nomination doesn't really advocate deletion at all and reads like something purely procedural. There were some arguments on the basis of the GNG, but sources were provided and there wasn't much of an attempt to refute them, and arguments based on WP:NOTWEBHOST weren't really spelled out. If there is going to be another discussion about this I'd suggest making the case for deletion more clearly and focusing on the article rather than editors' behaviour. Hut 8.5 09:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Close as unnecessary. The original deletion was procedurally closed which resulted in keeping the article. There is nothing to do here but argue. The article is not deleted, therefore this DRV serves no purpose. Spend time improving the article instead. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 17:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE because there were "issues with the deletion nomination". According to the nominator, he made a procedural nomination in order to stop the edit war. It was meant to facilitate dispute resolution surrounding Drmies's bold redirections, which he based on an argument that there is not a bit of properly verified information here to suggest this is a notable topic, and not a hobbyist's page full of BLP and MOS violations. NOTWEBHOST ( diff). The nominator didn't assert that the subject isn't notable, and didn't adequately quote or transmit Drmies's original rationale, so a serious deletion argument was not included in the nomination; it was buried somewhere in the middle of the discussion. Drmies, who only appeared after the fact, and was induced to make a wide range of rebuttals (assigning to himself a querulous and unappealing persona in the dispute, which would portend that he would not get outside support), was opposed by multiple editors preselected from the existing dispute amplified by motorsport-interested editors, who were able to frontload the keep case. His concerns were not seriously responded to. The thread below his comments ended with how the subject of the article titled "Ferrari Challenge" is primarily various cars (I mean... maybe, but, something is obviously deeply off there).
  In these circumstances, uninvolved potential participats were not presented with a clear deletion case, so such a nomination was predestined not to lead to a consensus to delete/redirect. AfD is not cleanup but also AfD is not a mechanism to conciliate parties who are edit warring. What I read as the closer seeing the true nature of this discussion as a botched AfD that is unable to sufficiently explore relevant outcomes, due to the flawed nomination, and the surrounding circumstances, he closed procedurally refusing to recognize the outcome as a real, well-formed, consensus to keep. The implications of a discussion defaulting to keep due to no consensus or a procedural close, and it being kept per a finding of consensus are maybe not ultra-important but they're real enough to warrant a distinction; a "keep" outcome does provide some level of protection against AfD renomination and a vindication of the article in the state it is in. That's at least how interpret this close, maybe I'm inserting too much. — Alalch E. 18:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think there is validity to what you are saying about there being issues with the nomination (I don't agree with there being an issue with nominating an article at AFD after a BLAR edit war, that is what is recommended at WP:BLAR) but note that the closing statement doesn't mention any issues with the nomination. A7V2 ( talk) 19:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • BLAR isn't "an AfD must be started urgently by the first person to notice there's a disagreement". Under BLAR, Drmies could have nominated with his fully laid out case, which would have been more like a normal AfD dynamic. Maybe he would't have started an AfD at all, and tried discussing or doing whatever other than redirecting again, including giving up. All of that is BLAR. We could have had a normal AfD (great), or no AfD (great), but what we got is a botched AfD that was fated to create an aberration in the record of decision making (not great). A procedural nomination is when the issue is kind of undefined, there is no great force behind a particular proposal, so the venue can be essentially repurposed to attract participation and explore possibilities. Here, the issue was defined, and there was a lot of force on both sides. This "procedural nomination" was "Drmies is a respected admin and is probably right so I will take his case to AfD, while making a really opaque and weak nomination, and in doing so I will open the forum that will attract all of his numerically superior opponents, and then some, so that as many people as possible can formalize their opposition to his idea". Still, you're right that the closer doesn't mention issues with the nomination. Should it turn out that I'm overreaching, I will strike certain parts of my comment; my thought process is that it's possible to reconcile this outcome with the deletion process guideline. — Alalch E. 20:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      • I feel like if you (or anyone else) had closed it as a "procedural close" giving a justification similar to what you've said above, then this deletion review would not have been started. The existing close is most problematic to me since it reads as a WP:SUPERVOTE and a complaint about the article, rather than an interpretation of the discussion. The only real comment made about the discussion (apart from "there is clearly no consensus below to delete") is "the commentary around this article needing to be just about blown up and started again have not been sufficiently disproven", and I don't really see how this could be satisfied: there are no copyright, advocacy etc issues with the article (or at least none were raised), and some edits were made improving the article (not enough, but a start), so what more can be done to "disprove" the claim that this needs to be blown up? Ultimately such a close has just left a sour taste in the mouth as the whole thing feels like two admins effectively discounting the views of several "regular" editors. A7V2 ( talk) 23:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Both your opening and closing sentences hit the nail on the head, A7V2. The closer dismissing my concerns after I was cursed at by Drmies (who, for full disclosure, has blocked me in the past) has also left an incredibly sour taste in my mouth. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( work / talk)} 03:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply
          • Look, GhostOfDanGurney, I let the first time slide, but you're mischaracterizing What Drmies said here--and that's the only thing I see that looks relevant to your statements above and in the original DRV appeal. Both scatalogical references are directed to the sources, not towards yourself. Trying to inappropriately paint yourself as an aggrieved party here is not a good look. Jclemens ( talk) 04:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

            Factually, Jclemens, he used profanity in a message towards me. I'm not at all concerned by whether he called the sources shit or myself shit. The overall tone of the message was not at all needed and is an extension of his behaviour throughout this ordeal and has been referenced to by several editors both in the AfD and here at DRV. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( work / talk)} 04:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

            Factually, GhostOfDanGurney, he did not use profanity towards you, so your opening statement was a lie. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

            GhostOfDanGurney, those sources are shit and you know it. A couple of websites, a few enthusiasts, and a shitload of little hobbyists' factoids...

            Are you really arguing semantics here? And using that to call me a liar? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( work / talk)} 14:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

            Of course I'm arguing semantics. Sentences have a meaning, which is what semantics is about, and those mean that he was calling the sources "shit". Nothing towards you at all. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Why are we still discussing whether the result of a deletion discussion about an article that was kept should be overturned to "keep"? Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE - invalid nomination, and then a discussion mostly involving people talking past each other. When sources were challenged, the discussion became personal instead of discussing the merits of the sources. For what it's worth I think the sources show GNG. The discussion seems to be bent on being "right" rather than the improvement of the encyclopedia. This discussion is a waste of volunteer time, the result was keep, the rationale for the uncommon close is solid, and fair to all parties. The discussion about the excremental language is a red herring, it took place after the close. It was also directed at the sources, not the editor. That said, I can't think of an instance where using profanity in a contentious discussion de-escalates. But it was certainly not a personal attack, and this is the wrong forum if it were. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 15:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep. The question is whether it was “keep” or “speedy keep” due to no valid deletion reason being advanced by the AfD nominator. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, keep. This AFD, DRV, and the article in general is a mess and I don't think we should've opened this DRV as a procedural close ≈ a keep, but since we're here, a keep close does seem to better represent consensus. ^Clyde! _Franklin! 14:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Nominator comment Well, well, I sure would've appreciated a ping or a talkback that I was being discussed here, rather than having to stumble upon this negativity myself. If there is consensus that my action in this case was not appropriate, fair enough, though I must ask what the appropriate action would be in the future in similar situations? Naturally when I see an edit war I would either report to ANEW (if it's one person) or request page protection (if it's multiple people). However, since one of the involved parties in this case was an admin, neither of those options would have actually accomplished much, and since the edit war was related to whether the article should exist at all and not just about specific content within the article, I felt that sending it to AFD to establish a clear consensus was the best course of action. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 02:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

747 Uppingham–Leicester ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Firstly the rationale Non-notable bus route with no significant history to make it worth retaining. is flawed as it asserts the route is not notable but doesn't explain why. Worth retaining is a strange comment as there's no size limit to Wikipedia. We don't have to pick and choose what to "retain".

I put forward a source assessment table that demonstrates that the article passed WP:GNG.

The delete voters largely use terms like "run-of-the-mill" and "routine" but fail to cite any policies or guidelines. Some mistakenly cite WP:ROUTINE which is inappropriate as it refers to events. Then there is the mistake that "local" coverage is not valid, it absolutely is. GNG does not exclude local coverage.

Terms like "non-enclyclopedic" and "interesting" were used which are just opinions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While WP:IAR exists, one must put forward an argument for how deleting content improves Wikipedia, and nobody did.

Overturn to keep or no consensus. Garuda3 ( talk) 19:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to merge to Uppingham#Buses (or any other target suggested, I think this was the best one presented in the AFD). Or relist to see if consensus on a merge target can be achieved. The keep and merge votes demonstrated there is some notability, even if not enough for a standalone article. None of the delete votes stated an opposition to merging. Frank Anchor 21:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Frank Anchor, like I said in the closing statement, I've got absolutely no objection to facilitating a merge, if some consensus can be developed on whether such a merge could happen and where it ought to go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Your closing statement was a very good assessment of the discussion. However, it is far more likely that such a continued discussion to gain consensus on a potential merge target would occur if there is a venue for the discussion, such as a relisted AFD, the article's talk page, or the talk page of the merge target (and restored history would make it easier to facilitate this discussion). Frank Anchor 13:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. As per the AfD outcome. GNG was deemed to have not been met by a number of contributors (except the article creator themselves), even when closely analysing the sources' reliability and depth of coverage. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  Where do people say that, and how do they back their comments up? You can't just claim "the coverage is too local" without actually pointing to the bit in GNG that excludes local coverage (which as far as I know, doesn't exist) Garuda3 ( talk) 12:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Case closed. This isn't the first time you've come here when a AfD hasn't gone your way. Ajf773 ( talk) 23:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Most participants did not agree that the four near-identical items of news coverage of how the local government decided to keep funding the bus service for another year, which is coverage of an event, presents significant coverage of the subject, and so deletion gained significantly more support; merger ideas did not provide clarity on how the target article would benefit from the added content. Later !votes were exclusively to delete which means that the closer was reasonable to believe that further relisting would not produce more clarity regarding merging. — Alalch E. 15:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse it's entirely reasonable for the participants to decide that a few fairly short pieces in UK local newspapers (which are of dubious reliability) covering the same funding announcement bu the local council isn't strong evidence of notability. I'm sure it can be restored if there is a concrete merge proposal, but the people supporting a merge either didn't suggest a target at all or suggested adding a list of bus routes in the article about the settlement, which would be an odd thing to do. Hut 8.5 18:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a reasonable conclusion by the closer. DRV is not a re-argument of the AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (involved). Your arguments lost, Garuda3. DRV is not an appeals court, and it has been repeatedly explained to you why this article did not meet GNG (and it is being explained again here). This is just a generic statement of extreme inclusionist beliefs without any real attempt to prove the close was in error. You don't have to agree, but you do have to respect consensus. You can't just claim 4 local publications posting essentially the exact same story counts as a GNG pass and expect everyone to accept it. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I respectfully disagree with User:Trainsandotherthings as to the analogy, and agree as to the result. DRV is an appeals court. An appeal is an argument that the judge made a reversible error, not a request for a new trial. The closer did not make a reversible error. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

    I stand by my comments. An appeals court involves a rehashing/retrial of the issue. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 04:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 15:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply