Farid Alizade ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I'm pleased to make this nomination on behalf of User:90AA123, who has approached me on my talk page asking for my help with the formatting. He assures me that he is unconnected with User:Elshadiman and of course I fully accept that assurance. 90AA123 supplies a detailed rationale with many sources which I will add in a separate comment immediately below this nomination. Because I'm making this nomination on behalf of someone else, I personally am neutral.— S Marshall  T/ C 17:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse A very difficult discussion for a number of reasons that was correctly closed. Keep !voters presented enough sources that likely show WP:GNG for the sport of alpagut, which does not have an article and is likely eligible for one, but this person associated with the sport was not significantly covered as far as I can tell. DRV is not AfD, but I checked the presented sources along with spot-checked what appeared to be the best sources in the AfD just in case we were making a mistake, and the best coverage on this person is clearly from a press release and does not contribute to WP:GNG. I know this assessment isn't what the !keep voters were hoping for, but hopefully we'll get a new Alpagut (sport) article out of this at least. SportingFlyer T· C 09:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ SportingFlyer, There are many sources that prove the ​ significance of Farid Alizade. Associated Press , guetsel, karabakhnews, AZERTAC cooperates with other notable news agencies, Turkish news and current affairs television channel, ​ A high-circulation Turkish newspaper, Azerbaijan Information Agency, Factor analysis, Azerbaijani news agency which focuses on current affairs in the Caucasus region and Central Asia., very popular Azerbaijani news portal established in 2003, Daily socio-political newspaper. Musavat, Turkish Newspaper /agazete/ Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 13:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I do not want to have another deletion discussion. I've reviewed those sources as well and only one of them looks like it might confer notability, which is not enough. He receives lots of interviews because he is the president of an organisation, but he himself does not appear independently notable of the orgnaisation. Sorry. SportingFlyer T· C 14:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  RESTORE @ SportingFlyer, CNN Turk is not considered a reliable source? That is, in response to the above considerations - CNN Turk 2nd main source. Newsbreak can be considered as the 3rd main source. The 1st primary source is included in the above sources, according to another commentator. OKey? 5.191.117.2 ( talk) 11:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Which source was the CNN Turk source? Newsbreak does not instantly appear reliable to me, sorry. SportingFlyer T· C 13:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  CNN Turk - Alpagut news 5.191.126.4 ( talk) 14:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Alizade is not mentioned anywhere in that article. SportingFlyer T· C 15:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Hmmm. Alizade is the founder and developer of the World Alpagut Federation, in short, the leader. Here, it is written from Alpagut in Turkey, that is, this news is the news of a structure of WAF(World Alpagut Federation). Okey? 5.191.114.4 ( talk) 19:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  That would be an argument for creating an article about the World Alpagut Federation (and then, maybe, if it survives, recreating Farid Alizade as a redirect to it). What we need for a separate biography on its founder is reliable secondary source material that discusses him directly and in detail. Endorse. — Cryptic 23:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Cryptic, İn the current case, it can be transferred to the draft page so that when an article about the World Alpagut Federation is created, we can integrate it as the main page. Okey? 85.132.29.163 ( talk) 05:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment – This is a difficult case for various reasons. First, as the closer noted, this was a case where the more numerous side presented empty arguments, and such cases are always difficult, and anyone who thinks that such cases are not difficult has missed a point. Second, the closer is absolutely correct in expressing concern about bludgeoning. The appellant is continuing the bludgeoning with a URL Dump. Third, it is not clear whether the appellant is saying that the closer should have kept the article because they should have read the URL dump, or because they should time-travel back to closing with the URL dump, or whether the appellant wants to relitigate the AFD, or whether the appellant wants to incorporate the references into a new draft or article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Request – Can the article be temporarily undeleted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. I would have preferred a No Consensus, rather than an override of the more numerous empty arguments, but the appellant is making as bad a case here as they did at AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow Recreation, subject to new AFD, because the title was never salted, or
• Allow Review of Draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  It is possible that 99.99% of the creators of martial arts lived in the 1900s. Among them, 99.98% might have passed away without giving interviews, yet they still have Wikipedia pages dedicated to them. There is only one person who founded a sports club in Los Angeles and has a Wikipedia page. I believe these statements will reinforce your thoughts. This individual is the leading figure and creator of Alpagut, responsible for its development. If you accept Alpagut, you should also accept this person. I can see that you are not against restoring the article, and if you think it is advisable to move it to a draft, then you know best 5.191.111.225 ( talk) 11:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of figures in nationalism ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Unclear criterias

Absolutely unclear arbitrary list of politicians (mainly dictators) and philosophers. Neither the understanding of the term nationalism is explained, nor the criteria according to which the people are selected. In theory, almost any 19th-century politician could be listed here. KastusK ( talk) 15:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Fondazione Child ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Close appears to be a WP:BADNAC, with one keep !vote for the nominator not explicitly stating that they have conducted a BEFORE, and another weak keep !vote not providing an explanation for why the article is notable. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 18:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I'm not a fan at all of the closer not using the NAC template when closing this AfD, but the close was completely obvious. SportingFlyer T· C 18:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Meh arguably this should have been nc given the poor standard of the keep arguments and was a factually incorrect close as someone had objected to the article. There was no way this was closing as delete so it doesn’t really matter either way. Renom in 6m if it doesn´t get better Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  IMO this afd could have been relisted or closed as no consensus. If relisted there could have been more policy based arguments on either side and there would have been a better discussion to interpret consensus for. If it was closed as no consensus someone could have renominated this for afd by now. I guess for procedural sake this delrev wouldn't make any difference, and I could have just renominated (ignoring the 6m recommended period) and provide a rationale for why the fate of the article should be reconsidered. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 19:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  It had already been double relisted at this point without any clear appetite for discussion. Just renominate in a few months. SportingFlyer T· C 19:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yeah. I'd like to withdraw this. Can someone with knowledge on how this is closed close this as speedy endorse? Thanks. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 19:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

not a notable personality Thegodfathero ( talk) 10:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

This location is notable, and is frequently referenced by locals, news sources, and even the local government in official documents as the "Starburst Intersection", and not by the roads that feed into it. While the article could be improved, it should not have been deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EVeracite ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Speedy endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow the deletion process. It is not a place to raise, or re-raise, arguments that could have been made at the AFD. Stifle ( talk) 08:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy endorse. We are not debating how we should name the article about this intersection. The article does not exist because it was deleted, and it was deleted because the subject is not notable, as identified in the AfD. Being able to say that people call this intersection "Starburst Intersection" does nothing. Moreover, when looking at the linked document, it does not even come as true that this intersection has the proper name of "Starburst Intersection". It talks about a particular intersection by referring to the intersecting roads ("the starburst intersection of 15th and H Street with Benning, Bladensburg, Maryland, and Florida Roads") and only describes its shape as "starburst". The document then mostly refers to the intersection as "the startburst intersection at [end of road X or similar]". In maybe two places, it then uses the phrase "starburst intersection", in particular contexts, without naming the roads, when it's clear that it refers to the previously mentioned starburst-shape intersection, but the words are not capitalized. At the same time, at least one source mentioned in the AfD actually gave the intersection the kind-of-proper-name of "Starburst intersection" (first word capitalized), and there was still consensus to delete. — Alalch E. 09:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was nothing wrong with the close of the deletion discussion. I would like to add the caveat that there's no reason this article can't be re-created if better sourcing can be found. It's just not quite there at the moment. SportingFlyer T· C 13:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Incorrect deletion under G8, under the exception of plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets of two redirects: MathematicsAndStatistics and Mathematics and Statistics. Propose to undelete these two pages. Note the discussion with the RfD closer where the redirects not being deleted if the dab page was deleted at AfD was specified as the action that should be taken, due to the lack of consensus between keep and delete at the RfD. Deleting admin declined to undelete, request at WP:UNDELETE was let to archive, but no actual reason has yet been given as to why these redirects shouldn't be undeleted? J947 † ^edits 23:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Restore, probably start new RfD In May, these redirects were re-targeted to a brand new page created specifically for the retargeting which was then sent to AfD and deleted, and then were G8'd as redirects to a deleted page. The closer noted no consensus for keeping or deleting after the retarget, even though specific mention of G8 was made in the discussion. These were long-standing redirects before the re-target and the re-targeting was done for a brand new page, so I think restoring to where things were in say April and then starting a new discussion makes the most sense, even though I'm fine keeping them deleted. SportingFlyer T· C 23:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - MathematicsAndStatistics was retargeted to Mathematics and Statistics in June. Then Mathematics and Statistics was deleted as per AFD, so that deleting MathematicsAndStatistics was a valid G8 (as well as being a silly search phrase). I see no reason to undelete anything. Maybe something hasn't been explained, or maybe somebody is goofing around. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - who is going to be searching for MathematicsAndStatistics? Anyone who starts typing either Mathematics or Statistics is going to be offered a range of relevant pages. Secondly, as discussed at the recent AfD, Statistics is clearly a separate field of study from Mathematics albeit obviously related. So what would the target be? JMWt ( talk) 07:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Not to relitigate the discussion, but these redirects are special in that they have history from February 2001. I'm not a great fan of the broad range of {{ R with old history}}s, but generally any history from at least 2002 or beforehand is kept automatically and within that cohort Feb 2001 is in the top 1% at least, I imagine. J947 † ^edits 08:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    I don't understand the relevance of your reply. Are you telling me we need to keep a redirect because it is old? JMWt ( talk) 08:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    Yes ( K4). Doesn't matter much, agreed. But I'm surprised an extremely straightforward case (follow the consensus of the RfD) has been met with so much resistance. J947 † ^edits 09:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    User:J947 - Yes, we are straightforwardly following the consensus of the RFD, which was to redirect it to Mathematics And Statistics. So we should straightforwardly also follow the consensus of the AFD, and the policy that redirects to deleted pages are deleted. Yes, all straightforward. Restoring it is not straightforward. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    There was no consensus between keeping and deleting at the RfD. This was too controversial to be G8ed, under the condition Plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets [should not be G8ed]. J947 † ^edits 21:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    Well because the target has been deleted as non-notable and it is just a redirect. There is no consensus or rational for a redirect anywhere. So what's the point in keeping it? JMWt ( talk) 09:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    The target was only created as a result of that RfD and had been around only a couple weeks before being deleted. We've deleted a 20-year-old redirect because someone thought creating a page specifically for the redirect was a good idea, and it quickly became apparent it wasn't. I'm not sure I'm in favour of keeping the redirect around, but I don't see any harm in undoing things to the way they were in April, with whatever this was targeted at, and then having another RfD, considering there was no consensus to keep or delete the redirect (in part because the new now deleted page was created half-way through the discussion.)

    Of course, we could also just agree here that the redirect is pointless, but it's an odd situation. SportingFlyer T· C 11:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    its bizarre to me that you appear prepared to agree that it is pointless and that there is no sensible target but seem to be swayed by the age of the redirect. JMWt ( talk) 11:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    There would have been a "sensible" target for 20 years. I don't know what that target is myself, but it's enough to discuss again. SportingFlyer T· C 16:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    I also don't feel like anyone is engaging with how odd this situation was? SportingFlyer T· C 10:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. No failure to follow deletion process has been identified. Neither MathematicsAndStatistics nor Mathematics and Statistics are plausible search terms. Stifle ( talk) 09:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Stifle.— Alalch E. 22:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Well participated AfD that was correctly closed. —- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse this was only kept in the RfD because of the existence of the Mathematics and statistics disambiguation page (note: I was one of the people who supported that outcome). Now that disambiguation page has been deleted it doesn't make sense to keep the redirect any more. It is fine to delete a redirect under G8 which has survived an RfD, see the CSD policy. Hut 8.5 11:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  this was only kept in the RfD because of the existence of the Mathematics and statistics disambiguation page – that's factually incorrect. Even if the disambiguation page didn't exist, there was no consensus to delete. J947 † ^edits 22:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Quite a few RfD participants (including me) supported keeping purely because the disambiguation page existed and whether it should exist was beyond the scope of the discussion. That rationale is clearly no longer valid, and I strongly suspect several of the Retarget comments would have supported deletion if the disambiguation page had not existed. I certainly would have. Hut 8.5 20:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Sounds like you have an issue not with this procedural request, but the consensus found when the RfD was closed. J947 † ^edits 20:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Er, no? The RfD was closed with the outcome I supported. Hut 8.5 07:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Are you being purposely obtuse? To the question Are you implying that "defaults to keep" should be interpreted as "reverts to previous target in the event of deletion"?, the closer's answer was yes. How much clearer can it get? J947 † ^edits 10:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Restore both, as Mathematical statistics is a reasonable target, and as others have stated above, MathematicsAndStatistics has history from the era of WP:CAMEL, so it would be preferable to restore and target them somewhere rather than recreating them. Red Panda 25 21:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Mathematical statistics would be the least unreasonable target of these redirects which are not reasonable search terms, given that such redirects exists, and as such, maybe it cold be called a "reasonable target", but that doesn't solve the prior problem that the redirects should not exist, because, irrespective of exact target, they are, as said, not plausible search terms. Indeed, some redirects which are not plausible search terms but have other reasons to exist, have reasonable targets. But these redirects do not have a reason to exist. It appears that you allude to a historical reason with respect to MathematicsAndStatistics, so as to preserve an instance of camel style, but that is not something that needs to be preserved in this manner.— Alalch E. 13:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• endorse and allow recreation Policy and guidelines were followed. It's not clear to me that the redirect will see any use (certainly not enough to justify all the editor time used here), but per WP:CHEAP I think having a redirect here is reasonable if not needed. Hobit ( talk) 21:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore. As the RfD closer, I'm suprised I was never informed of this DRV, but WP:CSD § Pages that have survived deletion discussions states, These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion. The messy RfD and this DRV certainly constitute controversy. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore 1) as ineligible for CSD per the above, and 2) per our 'reasonable editor' standard: If a speedy is reasonably contested by multiple editors in good standing, our default expectation is to restore and send to the appropriate XfD process. Jclemens ( talk) 03:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• IAR-ish endorse. My eyes are glazing over with the word salad of CSD categories, exceptions, etc being invoked above. So I am ignoring it in IAR fashion and merely asking - is this a plausibly useful redirect to have? I agree with people above that it is not. I paused a bit at the rationale (I hope I have this right) that it's an old CamelCase redirect and we shouldn't delete those in case there are external links from 20+ years ago that use it that would break - but I've done a cursory google search for any such links and failed to find any. I also understand and accept Jclemens' and others' 'multiple reasonable editors are objecting so let's discuss rather than speedy' argument, so I wouldn't object to a ```Discuss at RFD``` close, but I'd love for that to be in response to objections that go beyond process. Personally, happy to endorse and just move on. Martinp ( talk) 11:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per why would we advocate wasting more time on this? If I'm following this correctly, the RfD ended with no consensus for keeping or deleting these redirects in isolation, but during the RfD a setindex/DAB was created for them to point to and there was consensus to retarget them there. Before the redirect target was made there was the nom, a delete !vote, a weak delete !vote that also supported keeping and setindexifying, and a handful of comments supporting retargeting. After the retarget was made, we had 5 !votes to retarget, 2 to delete, and then a question that suggested support of G14'ing the DAB without commenting on the redirects. Of the retarget !votes, 3 appeared dependent on the existence of the target (and 1 !vote is confirmed as such).

The DAB was then deleted, putting us back to the no consensus for deletion or keeping as redirects to mathematics. But the redirects don't point there anymore, they now point to nothing, so would need to be retargeted again to reach the same no-consensus outcome. My opinion is that the CAMEL redirect especially was a useless redirect at the time it was created and remains useless now, with the added disutility of being in a format no reader is ever going to use, and apparently doesn't even have any external links married to it that would break, so why would we intentionally recreate the same pointless situation when we could instead just wash our hands of it and leave it deleted? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note the redirect is historical as it was the 7th page created on Wikipedia see Wikipedia:First 100 pages coming shortly after PhilosophyAndLogic and PopularMusic all created on the first day of Wikipedia editing. Also I declined to WP:REFUND see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 387#MathematicsAndStatistics, but there is no different arguments there. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 12:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Wow. Keeping that history deleted without consensus to delete it in the first place is pretty awful. J947 † ^edits 06:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse seems in line with normal practice, the deletion of the subject of a redirect gets deleted and the redirect is therefore removable as housekeeping - contrary to assertions about being without consensus it seems to me there is long term consensus about such as a valid course of action. I see nothing in policy or practice which says old stuff must be kept or that some obiter from the closer of a different debate is somehow binding. Of course there were other possible outcomes and there is nothing to stop someone recreating if there is something viable to put there. -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 08:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore and move to projectspace. This is, I think, the only solution that keeps around the history of the 7th-oldest page on Wikipedia (which has nostalgic value, if nothing else) without requiring us to keep a useless redirect lingering indefinitely in mainspace. Just restore the page, move it to Wikipedia:MathematicsAndStatistics without leaving a redirect, and add an explanation similar to the one at Wikipedia:UuU. This would satisfy everyone, right? Alternatively, restore and send to RfD, substantially per Jclemens's argument that speedy deletion isn't for cases where reasonable editors can disagree. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore I guess, since the original closure(s) we would be endorsing clearly did not contemplate this situation and DRV is effectively analyzing it in the first instance, which it generally shouldn't do. I would probably !vote delete on the merits, and oppose Extraordinary Writ's proposal above, but I really can't see this as a valid speedy deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Above I've agreed that Mathematical statistics is a "reasonable" (the least unreasonable) target, but now I believe that there is a much better, quite valid, target: Formal science. So maybe the best thing would be to have this as a redirect to that. In the mainspace... Seeing how Template:R from CamelCase exists. I like this more than restoring to projectspace.— Alalch E. 19:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Lewis (baseball) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I don't believe that a consensus to merge the article was reached in the last deletion discussion. Considering the result of the first deletion discussion was keep, I believe there should be an unambiguous consensus to merge if this is to remain merged. Willbb234 23:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse First off, reviewing an October 2021 decision in July 2023 is unlikely to go anywhere. Second off, there are numerically 8 keeps to 11 merges, which is pretty close to a consensus. Of those keeps, one provides no argument at all, three just amount to "it's a featured article" (established precedent from at least 2016 is that GAs and FAs are not immune to AfD), one's an explicit plea to ignore all rules, one says "meets NBASEBALL" (established consensus is that sports SNGs are a presumption of notability not an absolute entitlement, and can be refuted in extreme cases like this one), and only one or two actually makes a somewhat convincing argument about the applicability of sources. The merge arguments, on the other hand, present a coherent claim about lack of significant-coverage-providing sources. So strength of argument also favors merge, or at least is nowhere near the point needed to overcome the numerical advantage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

What expected benefit is there from splitting the content back out of 1890 Buffalo Bisons season? It seems like we'd be trading one nicely comprehensive article for two worse ones just for the sake of process. Folly Mox ( talk) 01:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. It was pointed out in the discussion that the SNG's presumption of notability is pierced by the fact that the featured article is so well researched, but with no in-depth coverage being located, that it's much more certain than usual that such coverage truly does not exist. A keep response to this was that being able to write about a topic at some length makes for a notable topic, by definition. However, a rebuttal of that was how the content is padded by contextual information and that very little is specifically about the subject. When some irrelevant keep !vote that needed to be discounted were discounted, it became pretty clear that there was a rough consensus around the merge case.— Alalch E. 01:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The keeps were based on the quality of the article and a no longer applicable SNG (NBASEBALL which basically allowed any player that played in a single MLB game to have an article), which aren't valid reasons to keep an article. The coverage of the topic at 1890 Buffalo Bisons season is ample and appropriate, as there isn't enough independent coverage to warrant a separate article for a guy whose full name isn't even known. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 03:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for two reasons. First, the close was good. Second, it appears that the appellant is asking to have the article unmerged, or restored to article space, because it satisfies baseball notability, but that SNG has been deleted, as have most of the sports SNGs. Have I missed something, or has the appellant missed the fact that they are referring to a rescinded rule? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Robert McClenon, and also, the correct channel for discussion (de)mergers is the article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• I won't endorse as I closed the AfD, but Pppery has pretty much made all my arguments for me, so thanks for that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse First, an AfD ten years prior doesn't really matter - consensus can change. Second, the AfD was correctly decided. Third, if you were to re-run this AfD now with the way the NSPORT thing went down, it would really be an option between delete or merge, not keep, as I believe the petitioner is hoping for. (NSPORT actually did something strange for baseball: it's now really hard to delete articles on current minor league players, but historical players who appeared in MLB would get deleted. It really should be the other way round.) SportingFlyer T· C 11:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse With 11 merge votes and 8 keep votes, a close of either merge or no consensus would have been reasonable. The keep votes cited NBASEBALL (which was valid at the time of the AFD), while the merge votes cited lack of notability. I have no prejudice against restoration if more sources become available to meet WP:GNG (which I see as being unlikely), as WP:NSPORT2022 requires GNG being met for articles on baseball players, rather than the prior "presumed notability" of having played in MLB. Frank Anchor 16:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Taking a quick look for sources, there's a pretty in-depth article focusing on Lewis here, although I'm unsure of the reliability of the website. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Medium is self-published, so it's a no-go. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Deletion was not remotely on the cards, and AfD should not be used to force a merge, use the talk pages. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment See User:Hobit#There is a beach with children building sandcastles for what is "wrong" (or maybe right) with this AfD and this DRV. The article had sources enough from the time period and I imagine there are modern sources. Maybe it should be under another name, but Lewis (baseball) is probably the best. That said, I agree that merge is a reasonable (if sad) reading of consensus. But I don't feel this is a sandcastle that needed to be knocked over. Hobit ( talk) 21:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Draft:Atul Jaiprakash Goel ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Speedily deleted by me as WP:G11. Posting on behalf of creator, @ Johnmatt1: because the instructions are somewhat daunting. He asserts not promotional. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 10:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Deepfriedokra can we have a temp undelete in history under the template please? Alpha3031 ( t • c) 10:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Never did that before. Hope I don't mess it up -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 13:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I just resoted it. let me know if I did it wrong. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 13:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Nothing wrong, but it's good to replace the content with Template:Temporarily undeleted— Alalch E. 14:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

And fully protect the page ( WP:PPDRV). CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah...— Alalch E. 21:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Dear Isabelle Belato,

Can i get the page back, i will re-work on the content in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone.

Thank you. Johnmatt1 ( talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Johnmatt1: I think it's best to let this discussion reach a conclusion to see what the community thinks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. G11 aplies to this exclusively promotional unsourced biography.— Alalch E. 14:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• As an preliminary comment, the revision immediately prior to it being tagged is definitely much worse than the one before that one. There is a list of words at. WP:PEACOCK. I highly suggest if the draft is restored at any revision, that the author Johnmatt1 read that list and consider it very carefully before using any of those words, synonyms of those words, and anything that may have the same tone, as they will generally make it more likely that the draft will be deleted again. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I also offer helpful information in the deletion notice I place on user talks -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 15:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Since the author of the article has now reverted to the pre-G11 version, I'd say the draft as it currently stands is OK to leave as long as it's in draft space. The revisions in May should be kept deleted (the copyvios were from the previous iteration of the draft afaict and that was G12ed in whole, which is why there are no RD1s). Alpha3031 ( t • c) 07:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the G11. As User:Alpha3031 says, the last revision by the author before the tagging made it worse by adding more buzz words. The previous version, before the author loaded it, would only have been declined. I also note that a previous reviewer said that there was copyvio in at least one version, and the log does not show any redaction of the copyvio. So if the draft were to be retained, it would need to be redacted. So delete it again. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse "Goel has over four decades of experience in the real estate sector and have won prestigious Real Estate Professional of the Year Award. He joined his family's business in 1996 and established the groundwork for his future career by working on sites as a part-time engineer and trainee." is textbook G11. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Will rewrite the content if you allow me to do so, will make sure not to use WP:PEACOCK words in this. Johnmatt1 ( talk) 07:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• endorse Textbook G11 indeed. Hobit ( talk) 21:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

800_Pizza ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

requesting page to be restored as it was speedy deleted without merit and without any discussion or consensus 217.165.166.65 ( talk) 05:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle ( talk) 08:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Discussion or consensus is not required for a speedy deletion, which is what happened to this article. The article did not make any claim of why the restaurant was notable, and was also potentially an advertisement. You are welcome to create a new article if you can overcome this. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thanks, @ Stifle, I don’t have anything to add about the content of the page, but for context overall, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123#Disruptive paid editing by User:Kuruvillac is the ANI that I saw this page off. Courcelles ( talk) 12:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Deleting admin cited WP:A7 and WP:G11. This appears to be a clear case of A7 as a Google search of "800 pizza" does not show any claim to notability. It merely lists websites and social media pages of restaurants with similar names. As a non-admin, I will not comment on G11 since I can not view deleted pages. Frank Anchor 12:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse A7. I don't think text rises up to the level of your usual G11 without the behavioural side of things, but article doesn't have a snowball's chance of surviving AFD, so I'm disinclined to encourage it. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 13:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse A7, based on the negative result of the Google search. It doesn't matter whether it was G11. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse A7 based on content, no assertion in the article or references as to how the topic meets WP:CORP. Borderline G11. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 17:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. According to those participants in this deletion review who are able to see the deleted article, it did not provide an indication of importance, and there is no reason for me to believe otherwise.— Alalch E. 20:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse A7. A Google search returns nothing useful to show a WP:CCoS.  No comment on G11. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I nominated this article for deletion in December 2022. At the time of nominating, it had just 6 sources and barely any information. However, since its draftification it has had loads of improvements, with new sources and information added. I believe that the article has long been ready for mainspace, yet it has been getting declined every time by AfC reviewers on the basis of there being insufficient independent reliable sources. I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion if you look at the sources that are in the article right now:

• 4 references to the organisers's websites (not independent);
• 27 references to (news departments of) national broadcasters (I'm not sure if that would count as independent);
• 7 references to 5 different independent sources that I'm not sure if they're reliable ( Komsomolskaya Pravda, Sputnik, Eurofestivales, ESCUnited, ESCXTRA).
• 36 references to 23 different independent reliable sources ( Banbury Guardian, Euronews, All About Music, ESCplus España, nostal.ge, The Avondhu, Nova Makedonija, Fokus, Radio Eska, That Eurovision Site, Portuguese American Journal, Europa Press, Las Provincias, Formula TV, Diez Minutos, Інформатор UA, TV Zone UK, Викна, El Periódico, Eurovoix, 12xal, Newtimes.kz, Press.kz, Eurofestival News).

There was also a complaint about WP:TWITTER sources, and I agree that there were three of those (which I have removed), but just because something was published on Twitter doens't mean it's per se unreliable (reliable news organisations also sometimes put things on Twitter and it's still reliable because it came from that news organisation). And even then, keeping the entire article (with at least 36 reliable sources) hostage just because there were 3 unreliable ones is not fair. I know that WP:OSE is not a valid argument, but I have seen articles be accepted with far fewer sources and I don't understand why this article in particular is getting such high scrutiny. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 10:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment I fully support everything that was stated above. Now that the Twitter sources are removed I don't see any reason to decline the submission. Andthereitis ( talk) 13:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

 Comment: The article still being in the draftspace in its current state is insane. Social media sources are reliable if they fulfill the conditions laid out on WP:SOCIALMEDIA, which they do ImStevan ( talk) 15:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment I went to accept this at AfC as the rule is "likely to survive an AfD" and I think this draft passes (although - I must say as an AfC reviewer, there are too many sources and it is not entirely obvious which sources demonstrate notability.) However, the reason this is at DRV isn't because there's a problem with the deletion discussion, but because the page is write-protected for some reason, which I discovered when I went to accept the draft! I would boldly un-write protect it and accept the draft as this isn't really what DRV is supposed to be used for (it's not controversial to accept it), but I don't have the ability to do the first part. SportingFlyer T· C 18:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Oh okay, I'm not really familiar with deletion review. I did think that this is a controversial move though, given that multiple different reviewers have declined it. I wasn't sure where else I could hold a discussion that would get the attention of admins. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 21:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Speedily unprotect and then speedily close this DRV. I think this is uncontroversial.— S Marshall  T/ C 22:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Downgrade protection of the title, as per User:S Marshall. The reason why we are here is partly because of two errors. The first was disruptive editors who recreated the article after the AFD, so that it had to be deleted again. The second was a common good-faith overreaction by an administrator, in this case, User:Liz, who dealt with the recreation by fully protecting the title rather than ECP-protecting it. Many AFC reviewers don't want to review a draft if the title is locked, because they won't be able to accept the draft even if they want to, and they cannot be sure of whether a simple request will unprotect the title. So my message to admins is, when locking a title, use ECP-protect rather than full protect unless there is a reason why ECP-protect is insufficient. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Unprotect if an AfD deleted something under WP:TOOSOON, then indefinite full protection is very likely to be harmful because when it's not too soon it won't be possible for anyone else to write an article. If people want this to stay out of mainspace it needs a new AfD. Hut 8.5 07:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Downgrade to ECP. Stifle ( talk) 08:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• I have unprotected the target. In the absence of a working DRV closing script maybe someone who still remembers how to do it can close this as recreation permitted. Further AFD required if doubts remain ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abdul Monem Limited ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This article was deleted, I am not asking to overturn to keep but please restore a copy to draft space. I believe the subject is notable enough and would like to continue working on the page. Thank you. - Indefensible ( talk) 19:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The nom tagged me at REFUND asking for a draft but then raised this DRV before I had a chance to consider their request. I have no opinion on the request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I thought you looked there already. Did not know you had not reviewed it yet. - Indefensible ( talk) 15:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Refund the deleted article, but note that it was deleted, and will need to be improved before being submitted for AFC review or moved to mainspace. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the deletion. A comprehensive review was done as a WP:BEFORE. There is no coverage that satisfies WP:NCORP for such an old company. This is time-wasting and predatory at best. scope_creep ^Talk 10:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted (decline refund). In the AfD, there was a claim that the article is promotional, and it went uncontested; in fact keeps seemed to agree that the article was bad (for example: The state of the article is not great). Doesn't seem like something that an editor who knows what makes for a notable subject in this area, possesses good sources, and is capable of writing a reasonable article would need to start from.— Alalch E. 13:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Also, instead of trying to get a standalone page published, it's better to direct efforts to expanding Abdul Monem (entrepreneur)#Career, where Abdul Monem Limited is already covered. I am 99.999% sure that this should never be a separate article.— Alalch E. 16:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    Would still need the material restored to draft for improving or merging into that article. But I disagree, the company seemed large and notable enough to go beyond just the founder. A single person cannot be responsible and take credit for the work of the entire company beyond a certain point. - Indefensible ( talk) 08:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, refund to draft space Good-faith attempts for recreation should allowed and the necessary tools (i.e. article history) should be provided as requested. Any new article would, of course, be subject to another AFD. The claim that it [d]oesn't seem like something that an editor who knows what makes for a notable subject in this area, possesses good sources, and is capable of writing a reasonable article would need to start from is dubious, as starting with the basis/formatting of an article that is not great is better than starting from nothing at all. Frank Anchor 14:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Draftify I don't see any reason to decline what should be a completely uncontroversial request. Yes the article sounded a bit promotional in places but it wasn't nearly bad enough for G11 (and certainly not in draft space). Nor does the state of the article matter - it's fine to have a bad article in draft space if someone wants to work on it. Hut 8.5 16:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thank you. I am not asking for an overturn or refund to article space, although I (and others) think it could have stayed, I just want the existing draft so that I can keep working. If there are enough improvements then I will submit the draft to AfC review in the future. - Indefensible ( talk) 03:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Indefensible: are you actually asking for Draft:Abdul Monem Limited to be restored? That version was extremely promotional and shouldn't be restored, and I strongly suspect it was copied from the company's marketing materials. I'm happy for the version deleted at AfD to be moved to draft space though. Hut 8.5 07:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Was there another draft? I was not aware of it, just meant the AfD copy. - Indefensible ( talk) 07:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Indefensible: The content at Draft:Abdul Monem Limited is a copyvio of [1] and cannot be restored. Stifle ( talk) 08:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Ok, good to know. I want the AFD copy, not that draft. - Indefensible ( talk) 19:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion as consensus at AfD was clearly to Delete. No objection to Draftifying. HighKing ⁺⁺ 10:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Refund The AfD was marginal, especially when removing a now-indeffed delete !vote, and a compliant version seems like it could be possible. Would recommend AfC to the applicant, even with the backlog. SportingFlyer T· C 21:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• I would support draftifying the deleted history at Abdul Monem Limited, which is now a redirect to Abdul Monem (entrepreneur), if someone is undertaking to work on it, but I have my doubts that the company is independently notable. The one deleted edit currently at Draft:Abdul Monem Limited is a copyvio and can't be restored. Stifle ( talk) 08:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• (Weak) Refund the AfD copy (but disallow restoration of content at Draft:Abdul Monem Limited per Stifle for the record). The article might be somewhat promotional, but few participants in the AfD or admins above who can see the delete versions (which I'm relying on as I'm a non-admin, hence my vote being weak) noted it had major problems (i.e., bordering G11 promotion, copyvios, or BLP vios) that would render it being better to keep deleted and completely start from scratch. That said, obviously 2-3+ SIRS sources are needed to move this out of draftspace, or this will be imminently deleted again, and overall I doubt this subject is notable. VickKiang (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Personally I think it should meet on notability, we are talking about a company which seems to be among the largest in Bangladesh doing large-scale economic activities like building major infrastructure projects and employing thousands of people. Any such company like that should be included on an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, in my opinion the only reason why it does not have support is because of the lack of sourcing coverage from being in a developing, non-English country that probably does not have as much published journalism yet to begin with. - Indefensible ( talk) 19:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• If there is a copyright problem, just email it to the OP. Otherwise restore to their user space once it's clear they understand why it's promotional and what the other issues are with it. Hobit ( talk) 21:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Emailing a copyvio to someone is also not a thing we can do, but I have already linked above the website it was copied from. Stifle ( talk) 08:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC The standard for notability is that CORP or GNG are met. Assuming that only the NCORP SNG applies to corporations is a misreading of N and resulted in an improper assessment of consensus. Jclemens ( talk) 03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  This isn't true at all - NCORP requires more than the GNG per WP:ORGCRIT. SportingFlyer T· C 15:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  An article is notable if it meets the GNG or any SNG. WP:ORGCRIT is part of an SNG, so it modifies the relevant SNG, NCORP, not the GNG which is independent of any SNG. I continue to be puzzled that people don't see that this is inherent in the way that the lead of N is written. Jclemens ( talk) 05:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. The topic can be adequately covered at the owner's page, it doesn't need its own standalone to be included on Wikipedia. If draftified, it should go through AfC to ensure the sourcing is actually sufficient for NCORP. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  This is technically incorrect, the former owner is dead therefore currently the company is owned by his heirs who do not have their own articles on Wikipedia. - Indefensible ( talk) 00:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Gege Gatt ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

was closed by NYC Guru as keep citing Forbes, but the forbes source [2] is unreliable since WP:FORBESCON. This was brought up on the closer's talk page and the response was Consensus doesn't mean "majority rules". You could have a discussion where there are 2 keeps citing sources and policy and one delete stating why the editor doesn't like the article and three other "Delete per" comments. Except all four !votes that were delete were all based on policy. The sources seem to have been discussed at length at Talk:Gege Gatt. I also noticed that the Times of Malta source brought up in the AfD is written by "Press Release", which doesn't seem to be brought up on the talk page or the AfD. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 03:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Delete or No Consensus. I also had issues with the close, and raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Overdue AfDs prior to the opening of this DRV. Firstly, this is a close or controversial call that IMO makes a NAC close (which NYC Guru did not even clearly mark as a non-admin one, contrary to the instructions at NACD) likely inappropriate per WP:NACD.

Moreover, the closer was right about WP:NOTAVOTE, but IMO their weighting of the arguments was incorrect. All four delete votes (or five including the nom) were policy-based, some were briefer, but others went into detail discussing failures of relevant notability guidelines and analysing sources, i.e., 1, 2. By contrast, of the two votes in the keep side, one of them reasonably provided a plethora of sources and examined these suitably, however, the delete votes reasonably rebutted these, resulting in a good-faith disagreement over the sources. However, the keep voter repeatedly casted double bolded keep votes, 1st double vote, 2nd double vote, 3rd double vote, which is contrary to AfD conduct guidelines. Still, this keep vote still is reasonably policy-based but should not be weighted significantly higher. By contrast, the other keep vote was weak, merely stating Keep Refine but not delete. More sources would be desirable, and more detail on his studies and thesis (plural) without citing any P&Gs. Therefore, overall the keep side is not stronger than the delete side. Given that the delete side had a significant numerical advantage and that the strength of the argument is similar, in addition to this being a WP:BADNAC, an overturn to NC or delete, depending on whether the keep side is slightly discounted for repeated double votes, is appropriate in my opinion. VickKiang (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Speedy overturn as a WP:BADNAC, to be closed by a competent administrator. SportingFlyer T· C 08:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I'd also WP:TROUT the closer. A non-admin should not be closing that discussion. SportingFlyer T· C 08:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Relist (preferred) or overturn to no consensus. This is a WP:BADNAC as the keep and delete votes were not weighted properly. There were credible arguments presented on both sides, though the delete side put together a slightly better case IMO to show sources presented by the keep side were not to standards. That said, there clearly is not consensus to delete at this point. If this is resisted, I strongly recommend the participants read WP:TLDR as some comments and responses were several paragraphs long and went into excessive detail, distracting from the argument they were attempting to make. Frank Anchor 15:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn . Also suggest NYC Guru consider whether it is possible to be too BOLD. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 16:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as a WP:BADNAC and WP:FORBESCON, which I brought up on the closer's talk page. Prior involvement: I participated in the discussion at Talk:Gege Gatt, and nominated the article for deletion. ARandomName123 ( talk) 16:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse to Keep While concerns raised are noted, I maintain that the consensus was correctly interpreted by User:NYC Guru

The arguments to keep the article were well-supported by a variety of reliable sources which were examined in detail during the discussion. The delete votes, while policy-based, did not definitively demonstrate that the subject failed to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There was a genuine, good-faith disagreement over the sources, and while the keep votes might have been repeated, they were still grounded in policy and backed by sources.

Regarding the argument that the article was closed by a non-administrator (NAC), I note that non-administrators are indeed allowed to close AfD discussions when the result is not controversial per WP:NACD. While this was an interesting discussion, the non-admin closure does not in itself invalidate the result.

Finally, consensus is not a simple headcount of votes; it involves considering the quality of the arguments, the policies and guidelines, and the reliable sourcing. The result does not necessarily follow the numerical majority.

Our goal here should be to improve the encyclopedia and ensure that all content meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability and notability. If there are concerns about the article's quality or the validity of its sources, the appropriate step would be to improve the article, rather than delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalArchiver2020 ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

This comment gives me LLM vibes (or maybe its just an unusual writing style for discussions around here, but still unusual).

There wasn't a "disagreement" over the sources. The sources have been evaluated over at the article's talk page where they mostly fail to provide significant coverage for this person. It would be inappropriate to characterize that and the subsequent inability to provide sources from those who !voted keep (and inability to show whether offline sources are more than just passing mentions) 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 13:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete or Relist There is clearly a majority to delete (5-3 including the nom, User:DigitalArchiver2020 has !voted Keep more than once), the Keep rationales are unconvincing, and WP:FORBESCON has not been taken into account by the closer. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Relist - When there is no obvious consensus after one week, it is often better to Relist than for the closer to weigh strength of arguments, and is a bad non-admin close for a non-admin. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• This article is only user review because I mistook a reference link. NYC Guru ( talk) 05:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete, as there was a rough consensus to delete, and the non-admin closer, who should not have been closing this AfD, failed to properly recognize this.— Alalch E. 13:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• I note Stifle & Black Kite (talk) that the WP:FORBESCON issue has been addressed and the link/source is not present in the article which remains well-referenced, neutral and aligned to guidelines. With this matter being resolved I believe the dynamic of this discussion should change. Thanks DigitalArchiver2020 — Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  the forbes source is not the only issue. Just removing that source does not automatically make the subject notable. Having references does not automatically make the subject article. The burden of proof remains on the keep !voters to show whether there is significant coverage of the subject in multiple sources. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 13:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Just a reminder this is not a continuation of the deletion discussion, but rather a discussion of whether the deletion discussion was closed properly. It's clearly closed improperly, for reasons that have nothing to do with the discussion, and I'm surprised a competent admin hasn't just un-done the BADNAC close yet. SportingFlyer T· C 20:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Australia–Soviet Union relations ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Deleted under G5 but appears to be a decent article on a notable subject. No discussion was held and no users were notified before deletion e.g. at WP:AUS. Deleting admin has refused to restore and request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion was refused by User:UtherSRG. ITBF ( talk) 23:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Refund the deleted article to the appellant, because a good-faith editor is allowed to recreate an article that was deleted only because of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • That's explicitly the opposite of what WP:BANPOL says, but if you feel that policy should be changed, feel free to gather a consensus to that effect in an appropriate venue. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per WP:BMB. Stifle ( talk) 07:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore per Robert McClenon. In every situation we should prioritise what is best for readers, and that is retaining a quality article on a notable subject, regardless of who created it. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - we do not award blocked actors. Contents of the article were provided to the requestor so that they can create the article anew. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  This sets a path direct to an attribution failure and copyright failure. If an editor of the future article has even read the past article, they cannot deny influence from the past article, and thus attribution to the deleted article is needed. If you’ve shown the deleted article to a future writer, you should undelete the deleted article, and chide yourself for a bad decision. In future, only provide the references. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I did not. A link to the archived contents were provided by another user. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Good. Can you point me to where this happened. Also, to the blocked user and why they were blocked? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  You can see who the blocked user is from the logs: User:Te Reo Ahitereiria.— S Marshall  T/ C 00:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  He hasn’t edited for two years, and barely anything on his talk page since then. Why did User:Explicit decide, last week, to invoke G5 speedy deletion now? And where was what discussion? At WP:REFUND, seems implied, but I don’t find it.

  The information required for this review is painful to dig up. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ SmokeyJoe: This article was created by Thiscouldbeauser, who was identified as a sockpuppet of Te Reo Ahitereiria just under three weeks ago. The master is a prolific sockpuppeteer with nearly 30 confirmed sockpuppetsThe sock account created hundreds of pages—mostly redirects, if I remember correctly—so it was not possible to go through them all at the drop of a hat. They needed to be reviewed carefully and individually.

  This article specifically squarely fell into WP:CSD#G5 territory. Thiscouldbeauser originally created it as a redirect. Hey man im josh changed {{R cat shell| to {{Redirect category shell|. The sock then wrote an article in its place. Then the edits made by other users were the addition of a {{ clarify}} tag, disambiguating a link, a bot dating a maintenance tag, another link disambiguated, the addition of {{ DEFAULTSORT}}, and Anti-Russian sentiment getting linked. There were no major edits performed by anyone other than the sock. ✗ plicit 02:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Understood. Reasonable G5, but if an editor in good standing wants to take responsibility for the content, it should be undeleted. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse with the understanding that any user in good-standing should be provided the tools requested to recreate the article. The article was only deleted based on who created it, not the content of the article itself. Frank Anchor 12:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Undelete due to the contents now being reviewed by someone who will rewrite the article. Attribution compliance is more important than not rewarding block evasion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  Endorse and keep deleted per User:Graeme_Bartlett far below. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Undelete. We must provide true attribution for the content that has been incrementally worked upon; there is a continuous thread of contributions. /edit: endorse per Graeme Bartlett below/ — Alalch E. 16:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• We don't strictly have to undelete in this case; there are other ways to preserve attribution that wouldn't amount to an end run around BMB.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I would support one of these options, if identified. SportingFlyer T· C 18:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  See WP:PATT for the usual methods. In this case, for an example of a workaround that would do both, see Special:Diff/1142986708 and Talk:Rail transport in Great Britain/Attribution.— S Marshall  T/ C 19:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  These aren’t better ways. The content was there for a long time, 6 months? Were there no other authors? Why is deletion now so important? What long game is the blocked user playing? I always thought G5 was a speedy thing, not something to be used so far back looking. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Well, there's an incompatibility in this debate between the people who want to preserve attribution and the people who want to delete banned users' contributions, and I was just pointing out that we can have both. I think of G5 as quite a difficult thing for DRV to deal with because DRV is usually so content-focused. A G5 is a way to manage disruptive behaviour, and I do think sysops should have latitude to manage disruptive behaviour. And this title isn't salted and a historical G5 won't be any kind of obstacle to the nominator starting a fresh article now --- so why should we restore an article by a rather prolific and very disruptive sockpuppetteer?— S Marshall  T/ C 00:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Don’t be so quick with “incompatible”. How about “need for balancing”? Absolutely agree that G5 is a simple powerful tool for dealing with disruptive behaviour, which I strongly support, but, here, the disruptive behaviour of block evasion was so long before the deletion that it can’t be called a timely or effective response to disruptive behaviour. Is there current disruption needing the response? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  The last edit was five months ago by User:Jarble. After five months of no edits, I don’t see justification for deletion a lot of reasonable looking content in the name of prevention of disruption. On G5, I also understood to be confined to pages where all of the non-gnome edits were by the blocked user. Was this the case? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I would say it's because the sockpuppet investigation took so long. SPI is understaffed and this was a prolific bugger. The puppet was identified as a sock about three weeks ago.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Understood. Nevertheless, here we are. It was a stable article for months, with lots of prose, prose for which the attribution best practice is to retain the edit history.

  Im guessing that it is the nominator, User:ITBF, who wants the banned socking user’s content? So, these are the options:

  (a). Deny undeletion, supply the list of references, and ask ITBF to make no use of the deleted article prose, and start again; or

  (b). Undelete, do best practice attribution, accept that the sock tricked us into using their contributions; or

  (c). Use an alternative method of attribution, which names the banned user, but doesn’t keep accessible any of the actual edits.

  I really don’t like (c) because downstream use of Wikipedia content will very likely fail to record the attribution, violating the copyright. (a) is my preference, if ITBF can forever maintain an assertion that they have not used the banned user’s writing, even from the google cache, even for vague background contextualisation.

  If we do (b), is it really so bad? Simple honest question.

  I would like to show respect both to SPI and to anyone who wants to make mainspace content better. But, Australia-Soviet relations? That’s pre 1992? Not current-controversial or anything? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I think you've got the right idea with showing respect to SPI. That's a difficult and tedious job done by volunteers and it's pretty important that we at DRV don't make their lives any harder.

  I think that when a sockpuppeteer gets over a certain level of disruption, it's reasonable just to G5 everything they've written and move on. If we expect the poor SPI people to make a careful, detailed inspection of the sockmaster's content before deleting it, then the already-bad backlogs are going to get worse and worse. I think we need to be seen to back them up. So, we're in this ghastly place where an "endorse" outcome isn't really fair on the nominator but an "overturn" outcome isn't fair on SPI, implying criticism of them as it does. And that's why I still prefer C.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I certainly “Endorse” the G5. We are her considering the undeletion request, referred from REFUND. I suspect that the undeletion request would have been better discussed off-wiki. I here have give some comment, but I think it best that the undeletion request to be considered to be at the discretion of the deleting admin. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could this just be restored under the redirect please? Alpha3031 ( t • c) 12:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse,' proper G5. Content written in violation of a ban or block should normally not be restored. In this case, it is bette to write the article anew because we cannot discuss the sources or any deficiencies with the blocked editor. Sandstein 06:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• User:Sandstein as per Graeme Bartlett's comment below, the content deleted was not written by a banned editor, but by a third party. ITBF ( talk) 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. In my personal opinion, G5 is stupid and we shouldn't be deleting the good work of socks, but policy is policy and it's best to start anew. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

User:ClydeFranklin as per Graeme Bartlett's comment below, the content deleted was not written by a banned editor, but by a third party. ITBF ( talk) 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note for re-creation In this case the content of the article was not even written by the sock, but copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Australia%E2%80%93Russia_relations&oldid=1123085455 . So I would suggest that @ ITBF: use the USSR sections of that article to restart. Australia–Soviet Union relations failed to attribute the copy, so it could also be deleted as a copyright infringement. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thank you User:Graeme Bartlett, this certainly simplifies the picture. Endorse, and look to Australia–Russia relations to re-create, do not undelete because it was unattributed copied content. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  If you want to change your vote, you had better strike your old vote, and bold your new vote. Generally I would like to allow a good standing editor to request G5 content, if there is not problem. When checking if the content was elsewhere on the internet, I found that it was, and that page did give correct attribution. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  If you would like to change policy so as "to allow a good standing editor to request G5 content", then feel free to gather a consensus to change WP:BANPOL accordingly, but for now, that's the policy and we need to follow it. Stifle ( talk) 08:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  User:Graeme Bartlett thanks for this - I wasn't aware that the content was written by a third party, which makes the deleting admin's decision to (a) delete the content and (b) be deliberately uncooperative in restoring it even more bizarre. Even if the original creator appears to no longer edit Wikipedia, it's quite sad that what looks like hours of work has just vanished because an admin was too lazy to check perform basic checks before deleting the article. ITBF ( talk) 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Al Mashhad News ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page /info/en/?search=Al_Mashhad_News was deleted without a consensus. It was a soft delete. The page was deleted without a consensus /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Mashhad_News . Additionally the page has more credible sources now and is a prominent news station in the Middle East for credible independent news> 116.68.105.121 ( talk) 07:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• I initially speedy-closed this as undeleting a soft-delete based on the nomination; however, it has been pointed out to me that there was a second AFD which closed as a full delete. As such, I am reverting this action and reopening this DRV. Stifle ( talk) 13:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the full delete at the 2nd nomination, as the only argument given for retaining it, either there or here, is a form of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES - if you want to have any hope of overturning this discussion you need to cite the sources you claim exist now for us to review them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse With no prejudice against recreation good faith attempts to recreate via WP:AFC. Appellant claims the page has more credible sources now. If this is true, then a “new” article would pass AFC. Typically, I would support resisting a discussion with such limited participation, but I don’t think it is practical to bring back a discussion that was closed almost seven months ago. Frank Anchor 16:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - seems like the simple solution is for interested editors to work on Draft:Al Mashhad Channel until it is in a state that it can be reviewed. If it is notable, there will be non-English sources which can be used to ensure it passes review. JMWt ( talk) 17:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• There was also at least one DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 19 which resulted in the SALTing. Endorse my own close, and agree with working on the draft, and ideally with one account although I'm not sure if it's sock or meat or just a lot of interested editors. @ UtherSRG: had pinged me to a recent REFUND request, but I'm unable to find it now unfortunately. Star Mississippi 19:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Here is one, although I thought there was another. Star Mississippi 19:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the deletion and suggest the IP user look to working on some other website other than en-wiki. I also wonder if the IP is evading a block as Draft:Al Mashhad Channel was created by and last edited by users who are currently indef blocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the deletion. Downgrade the protection to ECP to allow review of a draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Unfortunately there's nothing to review right now. I've been suggesting AfC throughout but they don't seem to understand draft space. Star Mississippi 13:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I will repeat my statement from the previous DRV to stop acting like a paid editor. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as hard deletion, since there is enough participation and clarity in both AfD's, seen together, to be able to find a consensus.— Alalch E. 10:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Mashhad News (2nd_nomination) and do nothing, noting the disingenuous nomination and failure to supply the new sources for review. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Neither AfD was great, but since this was temp-undeleted I did make sure to check that they weren't incorrectly decided due to low participation and cannot say that they were. It's not impossible this is notable, but the sourcing needs to be clearly better before we can have an article on it. SportingFlyer T· C 18:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The closer seems to have gone into an overdetailed response to lots of moot points but missed the most important one. The closing admin didn't consider that the new refs added during the AFD hadn't been discussed at length - this would/could have negated many of the delete votes. A third relist with a note asking for input on the new refs would have been appropriate. That aside there was a numerical advantage to keep, to overcome this there'd need to be a very strong case for delete which i can't see. Desertarun ( talk) 09:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse looks like a very reasonable close. If new sources were added to the article, at no time were those identified during the discussion (a request for the WP:THREE best sources was even ignored on the grounds that "it's an essay") and most of the late !voters went for delete as well, so they would have had the ability to review any new sourcing. Excellent close against the numbers. SportingFlyer T· C 09:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The AFD started with 8 refs and finished with 20. The original nominator only looked at 6 of those refs. Without it explicitly being stated the new refs need examining it gives the impression that the article hadn't been recently improved. Desertarun ( talk) 10:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but those additional sources were discussed in the later stages of the discussion, without any sources demonstrably passing AfD. The mere fact sources were added doesn't invalidate the close - they have to demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T· C 11:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The new sources were discussed by me and one other. In an AFD with 20 separate contributors, that's too few. Desertarun ( talk) 14:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note that I'd already accepted a request to restore the article in userspace in order for it to be used as the basis for an article on Nazara Technologies; said draft can be found at User:Lethweimaster/Sportskeeda-Nazara Technologies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse with no prejudice against recreation either as it’s own article or part of a larger article. Content has already been restored on userspace so no further action needed. Carson Wentz ( talk) 17:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• The article has now been extensively edited in userspace. At the end of the AfD it was like this. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply