Bharat(India) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I think J947 brought up a valid point, especially given that the the acronym being thrown around as if it were policy is really just an essay. Rosguill relisted the discussion, but it was closed as delete the next day by Ivanvector, without any participation since the relist. As deletion discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, I think the relist was perfectly valid, to stimulate more discussion, and the closure should be repealed. Numbers don't mean everything, especially all the "delete" !votes are basically just "per nom" or "per that essay". Edward-Woodrow ( talk) 01:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Neutral. (RFD nominator) Honestly, I thought it was a bit odd that this discussion was relisted at all, making me believe that undue, almost WP:SUPERVOTE weight was placed on that "keep" vote, considering the numerous delete votes after it. (By the way Edward-Woodrow, I didn't see an attempt to contact the closer to get their take on their close, but eh, it is technically just an option per the DRV instructions.) Steel1943 ( talk) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  ...But yeah, that was kind of a quick turnaround. No time for the relist to even breathe. I'll "neutral". Steel1943 ( talk) 01:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  For full transparency, the timestamps landed on different days because of my time zone, but the total time between relist and close was a little over four hours. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 17:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• I suspect Rosguill did not see CycloneYoris' late delete vote, otherwise it would have been closed as delete (6–1 with four deletes after my one keep being relisted would be a new extreme). In that light both Rosguill's relist and Ivanvector's close make a lot more sense. J 947 ‡ ^edits 02:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was a clear consensus to delete and this should never have been relisted in the first place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The decision to relist was clearly wrong and Ivanvector acted correctly in closing as delete. Stifle ( talk) 09:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Deleting admin comment - J947 might be right about CycloneYoris' late comment (it came three minutes before the relist) but I don't see how the result would have changed had that vote not been considered. J947's lone keep vote might have made a good point about the deviation in Indian English leading to increased utility, but it was left on the first day of the discussion; participants had seven days to consider the argument and of the four who commented subsequently, none were swayed by it. This was a clear delete result, approaching WP:SNOW. No reason was given for relisting the discussion and there was no reasonable justification I could come up with, nor was there any reason to expect that the result would change given seven more days of discussion, so I closed it. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 14:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There was plenty of time to engage with the lone keep !vote, and there were several delete !votes after it signifying that subsequent commenters were not swayed by it. There's clear consensus to delete. That it was relisted makes no difference. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is a disagreement between the relister and the closer. An outcome shouldn't be overturned just because there was this disagreement. Instead, a review process can determine what the right action was, or, if neither was simply wrong--which was the better action. Closing was at the very least the better action. I understand the reason for the relist, but closing was more reasonable. One participant recommended that the relevant guideline be ignored. Editors could have agreed but they didn't. There was a consensus to delete.— Alalch E. 17:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Alalch E.: But it's not a guideline, as I stated multiple times. It's an essay ( WP:COSTLY) Edward-Woodrow ( talk) 21:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, I missed that honestly, I was on the move when reading and writing that comment and wasn't careful. I'll strike that part. There was still a consensus to delete. — Alalch E. 22:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Clear consensus to delete, shouldn't've (yes I know that's not a real word) been relisted, WP:ONLYESSAY. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 22:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• I'm not sure there's anything to do here, but I do think J947's argument, which I might agree with, was largely ignored by the other participants. On one hand, that's a consensus - on the other hand, it's not clear anyone actually interacted with the counter-argument to deletion. SportingFlyer T· C 18:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Consensus to delete was clear. Relisting would have been, like this DRV, a poor use of time and thought. Move on to other things. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Category:D.I.C.E. Award winners ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I would like to provide to some information that was not part of the deletion discussion. I have to point that there are category pages for the British Academy Game Awards winners at Category:BAFTA winners (video games). In my opinion, the D.I.C.E. Awards are more defining than the British Academy Game Awards. There are also categories for Category:Game Developers Choice Award winners, Category:Golden Joystick Award winners, and even Category:New York Game Award winners. There also category GOTY winner categories for the Game Developers Choice Awards and Golden Joystick Awards. I feel that at the very least the Category:D.I.C.E. Award for Game of the Year winners MR.RockGamer17 ( talk) 16:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I concur with MR.RockGamer17. The D.I.C.E. Awards (originally called the Interactive Achievement Awards before 2013) is a highly prestigious peer-based awards ceremony that has been going strong for close to 27 years, with no cessation in sight. Many of the top video game companies from around the world (Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, Bethesda, etc.) are sponsors of the D.I.C.E. Awards, so it has tremendous financial support. Many of the games that has won throughout its history are amongst the best games of all time, and the winners of those awards were voted on by nearly 30,000 worldwide video game industry professionals (publishers, developers, designers, artists, programmers, etc.). The D.I.C.E. Awards' voting methodology is very similar to the peer-based voting methodologies from other art and sciences "academies" (AMPAS for Oscars, the Recording Academy for Grammys, ATAS for Emmys, etc.). An award won from the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences is at least on par with The Game Awards, the BAFTAS and the GDC in terms of industry prestige, if not more so because of the aforementioned voting methodology. The awards ceremony also occurred in one of the biggest networking conventions amongst the video game industry, the D.I.C.E. Summit (hence the name the D.I.C.E. Awards). If the Game Developers Choice Award, the Golden Joystick Award, and the New York Game Award are allowed to have their specified Category Wiki pages, it would stand to reason that the D.I.C.E. Awards should have those Category Wiki pages as well. Tommybone32 ( talk) 18:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse this is a regurgitation of your comments on the CfD itself, not a valid premise for a DRV. DRV is not CfD round two. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Then what would be a valid premise? MR.RockGamer17 ( talk) 13:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Claiming that the closure in some way failed to respect the consensus the participants came to. But that's just not possible when every participant other than you supported deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  And who are these participants that supported the deletion, if I may ask? Tommybone32 ( talk) 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Can you really not see that for yourself? Have you even read the discussion you are requesting be overturned? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I won't endorse my own close (before I was renamed), but: (a) no attempt was made to contact me before DRV, (b) there was clear consensus to delete, and (c) WP:OCAWARD prohibits these categories most of the time. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse if this is an appeal to overturn the deletion. (If it is something else, what is this?) Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - An editor asks And who are these participants that supported the deletion, if I may ask? There is a link to the XFD at the top of most DRV entries including this one. That was an unnecessary question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (as participant) WP:OCAWARD was rewritten by consensus a few years ago and is worth a read as probably the toughest subsection of WP:OC. While MR.RockGamer17 is 100% correct that there are a lot of other non-defining award categories out there that should also be nominated, that's not a deficiency with how this nomination was closed. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The DRV argument seems to be an argument that other categories should also be deleted under the same guideline, not an argument for restoring deleted categories after a very clear consensus. SportingFlyer T· C 18:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were three extant pages: (1) Gilbert Affleck, (2) the baronets which are listed at Affleck baronets, and (3) the "Lt-Col of the Risbridge Battalion", which is discussed at Suffolk Militia. UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. Furthermore, this was at AfD at the time of deletion, and multiple editors opined to keep the page. This would make deletion controversial, in violation of the advice at WP:CSD that administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages except in the most obvious cases. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: I came to DRV to add this and the next entry, then found it had already been done. This was a valid and useful dab page, was nominated for AfD, and the AfD was then closed as G14 (within 8 hours) despite "keep" votes, although WP:CSD says Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Clearly this was not an obvious candidate for G14 or any other speedy deletion. I asked the deleting editor to reverse the close of the AfD, but they have not done so. Pam D 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Overturn G14 and reopen AFD largely per PamD. It disambiguates to multiple extant targets, thereby making it an invalid G14. UtherSRG also deleted this page within hours of being pinged in the discussion as an admin who G14 deleted another page, suggesting this out-of-process deletion was the result of (likely unintentional) WP:CANVASSing. Frank Anchor 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn per nom. An understandable, but wrong, reading of G14.— Alalch E. 17:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Jclemens ( talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn and list at XfD . Most speedies, if contested by an editor in good standing, should be undeleted and sent to XfD. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Speedy deleting something currently being discussed at AfD and which has good-faith recommendations for anything other than "delete" is going to be controversial in almost all cases. Speedy deletion is explicitly not to be used in cases that are (or are likely to be) controversial. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Speedy Delete and Relist - Speedy deletion should be objective and uncontestable. A closer should not close an XFD with a speedy deletion if at least one editor has !voted to Keep in a way that disagrees with the speedy deletion. For instance, if an article is nominated for deletion because of questions about notability, any Keep votes are inconsistent with A1, A3, or A7. There had been at least one Keep, which was a statement that it was a valid endorsement. Restore the AFD and the article and relist the AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were five extant pages: (1) Thomas Ainsworth, (2) the baronet(s) listed at Ainsworth baronets, (3) a fictional reverend discussed at Gentleman Jack (TV series), (4) a fictional character played by Ron Silver, and (5) a fictional dishonest mayor in The Raiders (1952 film). UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. Furthermore, this was at AfD at the time of deletion, and multiple editors opined to keep the page. This would make deletion controversial, in violation of the advice at WP:CSD that administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages except in the most obvious cases. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: I came to DRV to add this and the previous entry, then found it had already been done. This was a valid and useful dab page, was nominated for AfD, and the AfD was then closed as G14 (within 8 hours) despite "keep" votes, although WP:CSD says Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Clearly this was not an obvious candidate for G14 or any other speedy deletion. I asked the deleting editor to reverse the close of the AfD, but they have not done so. Pam D 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Overturn G14 and reopen AFD largely per PamD. It disambiguates to multiple extant targets, thereby making it an invalid G14. UtherSRG also G14 deleted this page within hours of being pinged in the discussion as an admin who G14 deleted another page, suggesting this out-of-process deletion was the result of (likely unintentional) WP:CANVASSing. Frank Anchor 01:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn per nom. An understandable, but wrong, reading of G14.— Alalch E. 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • In what way is this an understandble reading of G14? It clearly doesn't meet the letter or spirit of either the specific criterion or the general requirements for speedy deletion? Thryduulf ( talk) 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Jclemens ( talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Speedy deleting something currently being discussed at AfD and which has good-faith recommendations for anything other than "delete" is going to be controversial in almost all cases. Speedy deletion is explicitly not to be used in cases that are (or are likely to be) controversial. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Speedy Delete and Relist - Speedy deletion should be objective and uncontestable. A closer should not close an XFD with a speedy deletion if at least one editor has !voted to Keep in a way that disagrees with the speedy deletion. For instance, if an article is nominated for deletion because of questions about notability, any Keep votes are inconsistent with A1, A3, or A7. There had been at least one Keep, which was a statement that it was a valid endorsement. Restore the AFD and the article and relist the AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Longwan (disambiguation) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were three extant pages: (1) Longwan, Wenzhou, (2) a town administered by Qianjiang, Hubei, (3) a township administered by Xiong County. UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• The actual entries linked on the disambiguation page were Longwan District, Longwan, Qianjiang, Hubei and Longwan Township, Xiong County, and only one of those exists. The latter two entries did have links to pages which do exist, but those should not have been there per MOS:DABONE, and in any case since the settlements concerned are just included as list entries. Hut 8.5 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  The only thing WP:G14 concerns is whether the pages being disambiguated are extant. Longwan, Wenzhou; Qianjiang, Hubei; and Xiong County are extant. Other arguments on the validity of the entries can and should be made at the AfD. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 20:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  The pages being disambiguated were the first links - Longwan, Qianjiang, Hubei and Longwan Township, Xiong County. Hut 8.5 20:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  The pages being disambiguated are the bluelinks, because they guide readers to where we have information on the topic. That there are also redlinks is irrelevant for G14 purposes, it's simply a formatting choice described at WP:DABRL. If the bluelinks didn't exist, then there wouldn't be anywhere to navigate to and then there would not be an extant page. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Precedent (which I'm too lazy to go dig out, but I can if it turns out to be truly necessary) is that WP:DABMENTION is enough to stave off a G14. This was initially surprising to me too. — Cryptic 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  May I ask why you found that surprising? If WP:DABMENTION was not enough to stave off a G14, then valid disambiguation pages would be eligible to be speedy deleted. Surely that would not be the intent? -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Because, as someone who hardly ever works with dabs, and hadn't followed any deletion discussions for dabs at the time what eventually became G14 was first added to G6, my initial reading of G14 was the same as Hut 8.5's: "but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page" and similar wording seems to say that there has to be a bluelink to a page that could've been at the dab's title if not for the title's other meanings. Xiong County, for example, has never been in any danger of being moved to Longwan. — Cryptic 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • And, just saw who tagged it. I previously had to revert a series of edits of theirs that automatically and silently tagged dabs with two entries as speedies; related talk page convo. Clearly that didn't take. Not to mention that they had prodded it and Boleyn, an experienced and good-faith user who hadn't previously been involved with the page, declined, so this is clearly not uncontroversial. Speedy overturn. — Cryptic 01:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn. There were multiple entries, and two of the three entries being DABMENTIONs doesn't matter. Red links especially don't matter, and in some circumstances it's even possible for a dabmention entry to also contain the red link, per WP:PRIMARYRED, and MOS:DABONE does not conflict with that, as DABONE is about navigable links. Invalid G14.— Alalch E. 15:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Also noting that nothing in the MOS is relevant in a deletion discussion: MOS determines how we normally present information, not what we keep or delete. Jclemens ( talk) 18:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per all above. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Insta (disambiguation) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were five extant pages: (1) Instagram, (2) cooking equipment described at History of Burger King, (3) a former name of the band Alison's Halo, (4) a song for Armenia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2018, (5) a 2019 single by Bizzey. UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. Furthermore, this was at AfD at the time of deletion, and multiple editors opined to keep the page. This would make deletion controversial, in violation of the advice at WP:CSD that administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages except in the most obvious cases. Finally, UtherSRG opined to delete at the AfD, making them WP:INVOLVED in the matter. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• As with the other dabs listed today, this didn't qualify for speedy deletion. We should probably make that clear in the text of WP:G14 so admins who don't often work with dabs don't get misled like this. — Cryptic 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Overturn G14 and reopen AFD It disambiguates to multiple extant targets, thereby making it an invalid G14. Frank Anchor 01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• I agree with Cryptic that changes to the wording of G14 would be really helpful. MOS:DABMENTION entries do link to different extant pages, but those pages aren't necessarily standalone articles on the topic, just articles where you can find some information on the eprson/thing you are looking for. I've worked on disambiguation for years, but I appreciate that it's niche and that not many people will be totally familiar with the guidelines. Boleyn ( talk) 07:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• I don't think it really needs clarification in WP:G14. The red link in the entry of MOS:DABMENTION could generally be created as a redirect to the blue link (the related topic), which suffices one extant Wikipedia page although it's a redirect rather than an article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 11:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn per nom. An understandable, but wrong, reading of G14.— Alalch E. 17:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Jclemens ( talk) 18:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Speedy deleting something currently being discussed at AfD and which has good-faith recommendations for anything other than "delete" is going to be controversial in almost all cases. Speedy deletion is explicitly not to be used in cases that are (or are likely to be) controversial. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Speedy Delete and Relist - Speedy deletion should be objective and uncontestable. A closer should not close an XFD with a speedy deletion if at least one editor has !voted to Keep in a way that disagrees with the speedy deletion. For instance, if an article is nominated for deletion because of questions about notability, any Keep votes are inconsistent with A1, A3, or A7. There had been at least one Keep, which was a statement that it was a valid endorsement. Restore the AFD and the article and relist the AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Karate Do Association of Bengal ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

As stated on User talk:Doczilla, I personally find the deletion close to be a somewhat incorrect interpretation of the consensus in the AFD discussion. The discussion was closed as no-consensus, however, from my (definitely biased POV) the Keep voters were fairly new accounts that failed to actually show any reliable significant sourcing that would lead the page to be kept and instead reffered to various policies (sometimes completely errenously) without actually pointing out how the page actually satisfied the said policies. Sohom ( talk) 18:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• I hate saying "per nom", but yeah, overturn per nom. I'd have entirely discounted all three of vote/ contribs, vote/ contribs, and vote/ contribs (up to that vote, more follow), which are indistinguishable from sleeper socks. — Cryptic 02:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close of No Consensus.
  • • I would have !voted to Delete, but this is not AFD round 2.
    • A close of Delete based on downgrading of the Keep !votes would have been reasonable. A closer has to Be Bold when closing an AFD with a roughly equal number of Keeps and Deletes, because it will likely be taken to DRV no matter how it is closed. A close of Delete is likely to be appealed, stating that there was not a consensus to delete. A close of No Consensus is likely to be appealed, stating that the closer should have discounted the Keep !votes. Divided XFDs are thankless closes.
    • DRV is not AFD round 2, and DRV is not a second and third and fourth close. We are reviewing the close, not closing the AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Who needs sources or policies when you have extra accounts? — Cryptic 06:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Have any of the "extra accounts" been blocked as socks? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Like Robert, I would have !voted to Delete, but I cannot find error in the close (as both no consensus or delete were valid options of the closer). So, what I can see is a close !vote in the discussion and disagreement among participants whether the sources in the article meet GNG (2 of 3 keep voters suggested the sourcing was adequate). Also, after the last relist, the only new participant was to keep the article. To me, this adds up to a no-consensus close, unless the closer decided to discount the keep comments. -- Enos733 ( talk) 06:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I will retract my thought here if there are confirmed socks. - Enos733 ( talk) 06:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I agree that sockpuppetry invalidates things. Have any sockpuppets been identified and blocked? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete. The closer should have looked beyond the numbers to see the clear strength-of-argument disparity: the keep !voters do not rebut the delete !voters' source analysis or provide any evidence/sources in support of their claims. The dubious provenance of the keep-!voting accounts doesn't help matters, although I think the outcome should have been delete either way. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete - weak keep votes were from WP:DUCK. starship .paint ( RUN) 09:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. Supporters of keeping did not engage with the stated reasons to delete. Their comments were of the WP:ITSNOTABLE type and WP:THREE was cited without actually identifying any sources contributing to notability. The delete side made concrete and relevant observations.— Alalch E. 12:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. The closer failed to follow deletion policy in that he did not properly down-weight the contributions of editors which appear to be socks or otherwise limited in contribution. Stifle ( talk) 17:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse one "weak keep" in the final relist precludes a delete outcome: if it wasn't "no consensus" before the final relist, then the final relist was in error. I don't dispute the "meh" quality of the keep arguments, but a delete outcome is not consistent with the discussion when the relists are considered. Jclemens ( talk) 17:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  That comment after the last relist is discountable, and the last relist should not have been done. The discussion should have been closed as 'delete' then instead. Relisting is a close action and DRV can take a stance on the correctness of a relist too. — Alalch E. 18:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - While the delete side had a slightly stronger case, there was not clear consensus to delete and a NC close was within the closing admin's discretion. If the alleged sleeper socks are confirmed as such, I will consider changing my vote to overturn to delete at no fault of the closer. Frank Anchor 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. This should have been closed as delete on November 7. There were two well-reasoned, policy-based rationales offered for deletion, and one WP:ASSERTN keep from the page's author. It was relisted. There was one "meh" delete, another WP:ASSERTN keep vote, and a third well-reasoned delete !vote. Two meritless keep votes – one of which was from the page's author – against four well-reasoned argument for deletion should be closed as delete, but it was relisted.
  Then a third user argues for keeping the article (a self-described "weak keep"):

  Weak Keep: I found numerous news articles from reliable website which passes WP:BASIC. On the basis of WP:THREE.
  —  User:Katy Williamson 11:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Unlike the other keep !votes, this one cited a guideline. However, I fail to see how a (unspecified) reliable website can meet WP:BASIC – the "basic" notability guideline for biographies. In fact, I fail to understand how WP:BASIC is relevant to an article about an organization. And even though it is "just an essay", let's look at WP:THREE for a minute. The {{ nutshell}} of the essay states:

  If you were sent here from a link in a WP:AfD, WP:AfC, or similar discussion, please consider it a request to post two or three, but no more, of what you consider to be the best sources for the page under discussion.
  —  WP:THREE

  Noticeably absent were those "two or three" sources, despite multiple requests ( 1, 2).
  The delete !votes have policy-based reasoning. The keep !votes did not. And if we look at the numbers, we have four in favor of deletion against three opposed (one of whom is the original author and another who was a self-described weak keep). Both numbers as well as strength of arguments tilt in favor of deletion, so "no consensus" is an inappropriate close. House Blaster ^talk 01:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. All of the three keep votes are bare assertions on notability, from new accounts with <100 edits, whereas "delete" votes actually analysed the sourcing in detail. I would argue that based on the strength of the arguments, delete is far more preferable than no consensus. VickKiang (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:SanFranBan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Adding on to the above, I would argue that three out of four deletion !votes are based on incorrect premises:

1. Any possible retarget e.g. to California Air Resources Board would be WP:CNR – this is not a mainspace redirect; there are plenty of interwiki soft redirects.
2. Only visible on forums and self-published content – not relevant to a projectspace shortcut
3. Especially since that's unrelated to a global ban – it is objectively related to a global ban

And even if thought it is not an established principle, it is certainly how I (as a newbie) figured out what people meant in discussions. House Blaster ^talk 15:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There are some irrelevant remarks in the discussion but the core argumentation supporting deletion is okay. — Alalch E. 22:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Respectfully, what would that core argument be? I presume you are referring to the nomination, which says Useless redirect. Unlikely to be searched. That is textbook WP:ITSUSELESS. I would additionally point to WP:RFD#K5: I would find it useful, and the original creator found it useful. Both of us did, quite literally, search for this. House Blaster ^talk 00:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Endorse close and decline refund. Nothing has changed since the 2015 close. Every bit of jargon does not need to have a WP:[jargon term] page. There is no such general principle. — Alalch E. 11:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Regarding nothing has changed since the 2015 close: WP:FRAMBAN has happened, giving renewed use of phrase. Restore. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Allow Restoration and a new discussion. Over the last seven years this may have become an established piece of wiki-jargon that justifies a redirect. Worth discussing again. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse although I would have !voted to Keep. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow Recreation subject to RFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore (or allow recreation) exactly per Tavix: this phrase seems to have become more common in the wake of the Fram incident, and that's reason enough to let RfD discuss it anew. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow Re-creation which didn't need to come here in the first place. Jclemens ( talk) 17:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Nikolai Ogolobyak ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

More reliable sources have covered Ogolobyak [1] [2]. CJ-Moki ( talk) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Refund to draftspace. Not much to add here.— Alalch E. 10:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation in either draft or mainspace. Needs to cite the new sources to demonstrate sustained coverage. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation and restore history to either draftspace or mainspace. This probably doesn't need DRV approval considering the AFD was deleted over 13 years ago and new sources are present. Frank Anchor 13:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Restoring to mainspace could theoretically be fine, but the BLP content will be outdated, and judging by the AfD comments it wasn't particularly good content in the first place in terms of overall policy compliance. — Alalch E. 17:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• That afd could just as easily apply to the article today, even with the new sources. And, all told, we're talking about an article that was never more than four sentences long when it was deleted. You'd be better off rewriting from scratch in draftspace, but don't be surprised if the article's never accepted, nor if it's afd'd and deleted again should you move it to mainspace anyway. — Cryptic 01:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow Recreation, either as draft, or as article subject to AFD. Title was not salted and should not be salted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow userification or draftification which didn't need to come here for approval. Jclemens ( talk) 17:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Not a valid R3, as - while inaccurate - this title isn't implausible, which WP:R3 requires. Early reports described this as a car bomb ( example) and it was initially treated as a possible terrorism attack ( example). As Thryduulf said at the aborted RFD, the way to combat sloppy reporting is education, not to pretend it didn't happen. — Cryptic 11:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Endorse removal, this was a car accident, a spectacular car accident but not a bombing. The accuracy of the project is an important factor in article naming, and purposely falsely calling something a bombing has no place on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, but was it called a bombing? We don't delete redirects because they're wrong, that's the whole point of a neutral and accurate destination. Jclemens ( talk) 17:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Endorse removal. While doubtless this was briefly called many things in the immediate aftermath, but the situation has clarified. While I respect that a plausible search term may be appropriate even if not quite accurate, Randy's argument is important as well. While there are doubtless situations (eg. very slow internet) where autocomplete doesn't happen, if someone starts searching for "2034 Rainbow"... then "....explosion" will quickly come up, so I don't think Thryduulf's argument, while not invalid, is of low importance in this instance. Martinp ( talk) 17:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Restore. Not a valid R3. I think that the case for keeping or deleting the redirect is quite close and requires a full discussion at RfD. Eluchil404 ( talk) 03:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• The term "bomb" was removed from the article body by the fourth edit, 14 minutes after the article was created, and removed from the article title about 30 minutes later. Readers will not be "educated" about the alleged bombing because there is no mention of it in the article. To keep this redirect, but without mentioning anything about the bombing in the article body, is to pretend that if did happen. – wbm1058 ( talk) 04:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Strong overturn and trout the deleting admin. This was not a valid speedy deletion because there was at least one good faith recommendation to do something other than delete. This means deletion is not uncontroversial. There are no copyvio or other bright line concerns and no reason not to let the RfD continue. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn – of a type of redirect that tends to produce mixed results at RfD; clearly controversial (although deletion here is probably preferable IMO). J 947 ‡ ^edits 10:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• So what the overturn-and-restore voters are saying is that we need to have a hatnote on the article:
  "2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing" redirects here. The Rainbow Bridge was not bombed.
  for a week while we discuss the redirect? wbm1058 ( talk) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  No. There is no need for a hatnote regardless of what happens with the redirect unless there is some other event with which the search term is ambiguous. No hatnote is required for almost every other redirect in category:Redirects from incorrect names, and this is no different. The readers using the search term will be educated by reading the article prose, something they will probably be unable to do if the redirect is deleted. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Speedy overturn and reopen the RFD. R3 (or any CSD) should not have applied due to stated good faith opposition already in the RFD. I do not support this redirect, largely per Wbm1058’s argument, and would vote delete in an RFD. However, the speedy delete process was not correctly followed here and should be reversed. Frank Anchor 13:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore and let the RfD run, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_23#2023_Rainbow_Bridge_bombing had been opened. While consensus may ultimately be to delete this, it's not implausible. Star Mississippi 13:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• The instructions state that Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. Two souls have endorsed my decision, so the "speedy close" option is no longer available to me. Sorry, I guess this needs to run a full week, and by then most of the potential short-term damage will have been mitigated, so I guess I don't have a strong objection to reopening the original discussion after a week has passed. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Damage? Thryduulf ( talk) 16:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  An early close can still be possible based on WP:NOTBURO, WP:SNOW, and even WP:IAR. Personally (as an involved voter), I see zero prospect of consensus to endorse the speedy delete, which is required for the speedy to remain in force. There is really no need to run this discussion for a week before reopening the RFD for a week outside of process for the sake of process. Frank Anchor 17:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  As one of the two "souls", I continue to feel we don't need this redirect, and continue to substantively endorse the original deletion decision. However, we are not a bureaucracy, I hope, and so if my endorsement here is preventing from moving discussion elsewhere (i.e. reopening the RFD), please anyone go ahead and strike my comment above and move it to the reopened RFD. Not trying to be difficult, but travelling extensively this week with limited access so can't follow the discussion, but don't want to procedurally stand in the way of anything sensible people want even if I would disagree with it. Martinp ( talk) 09:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Randy Kryn: Are you OK with ending this discussion early? I think enough new information has come out as to make this redirect sufficiently benign as to be safe to restore, albeit temporarily to let the discussion run. I don't see any snow falling, so checking with you. We have a new theory anyway, which is actually plausible and credible. That Flying Spur indeed went flying. – wbm1058 ( talk) 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Sure. Might as well move the discussion forward to a logical and encyclopedically accurate conclusion. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Blood Red Throne ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Insufficient conversation took place about the possibility of redirecting the article with history to a band member. The discussion was relisted thrice. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Erlend Caspersen

Bernt Moen

1. Y Approve, as the best sourced page. Thoughts? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Tchort

• Endorse. Little green checkmarks and explicit voting outlines aren't discussion, bleating out an ATD isn't a veto when there's consensus that that isn't an improvement, and any such redirect would be deleted at RFD. — Cryptic 14:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment A redirect was created on 9 November and incorrectly speedy deleted via WP:G4 by OwenX, the same admin who closed the AFD as delete, on 15 November. G4 does not apply because a redirect is not substantially identical to an article. Frank Anchor 14:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Concur - I concur, that G4 does not apply in this case. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with the statement and reasoning for why G4 does not apply to the creation of the redirect. Cunard ( talk) 11:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. We should never G4 a redirect from a deleted article. R2, G6, G8, and even G10 might apply, but in order for a G4 to apply to a redirect, it would have needed a prior RfD discussion closing in deletion; an AfD on an article is not an RfD on a subsequent redirect of the same title. Jclemens ( talk) 17:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Completely agree. G4 does not apply to redirects created after an AfD as the redirects are not substantially identical to the content that was deleted. Hey man im josh ( talk) 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse AFD result and explicitly allow recreation as a redirect to Bernt Moen standalone article. The fact the AfD ended in delete does not prevent a redirect from being created. There was no general objection to a redirect in the AFD, only concern regarding specific redirect targets. Any redirect can go to RFD if a user wants to take it that way. Also, one user’s belief that any such redirect would be deleted at RFD is not a valid argument against creating a redirect. I believe the band name is a reasonable search term and would argue that point in an RFD. I would assume the history is insignificant for this page and adds little value to a redirect, though an admin can correct me if I am wrong. Frank Anchor 14:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Modified in light of new sources posted below, there is enough SIGCOV to recreate an article. However, I maintain the G4 speedy was grossly out of process. Frank Anchor 15:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

After seeing the temp-undeleted version, the history is more in-depth that I would have thought. A restored redirect with or without the history is fine. Frank Anchor 23:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Concur - I also support keeping the history in such a redirect. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Restore as a standalone article per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Excluding the AllMusic biography and the Omnibus Press book, these sources were not discussed at the AfD:
  1. Selzer, Jonathan (2020-07-30). "Go inside the chaos and carnage of Blood Red Throne's upcoming new album". Loudersound. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The article notes: "the band that have become the native standard bearers for groove-laden brutality for over two decades: Kristiansand’s Blood Red Throne. ... From palpitating d-beats to full-on blasts, troll-on-a-rampage growls to flesh-ripping, having-a-moment-here screams, Blood Red Throne are damage incorporated, and the most fun you can have while watching your insides at the mercy of someone not exactly given to introspection. Having toured, Europe, Mexico and the US in recent years, with visual documentation to boot, the band have been focusing on writing album number 10. However if their new mini-documentary – detailing the band in the process of putting their new album together, and having more fun than might be strictly legal – is anything to go by, ‘focus’ should be used in the broadest possible sense of the word."

  2. McIver, Joel (2005). Extreme Metal II. London: Omnibus Press. ISBN  1-84449-097-1 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "The new project of sometime Emperor bassist Tchort, Blood Red Throne was formed in 1998 and includes guitarist Død, singer Mr. Hustler, drummer Espen 'Beist' Antonsen and bassist Erlend Caspersen. Honing an act by rehearsing Deicide, Death and Obituary songs and recording the Deathmix demo, BRT scored a deal with Hammerheart and a debut album, Monument Of Death, was recorded. A limited edition 'Suicide Kit' version of the CD was accompanied by a razorblade and a poster, as well as being hand-numbered in the band's own blood. A cover of a Massacre song was recorded for the A Taste For Blood EP in 2002 and a second album, Affiliated With The Suffering, was released in 2002. A new deal with Earache followed a year later."

  3. Lawson, Dom (2013-07-23). "Blood Red Throne: Blood Red Throne. Norway's groove-laden, deathly diehards bring the violence again". Metal Hammer. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The review notes: "Blood Red Throne may feel that their exhilarating redefining of old-school values has been unfairly overlooked in recent times. As with 2011’s Brutalitarian Regime, this self-titled onslaught of precision bombing and hellish filth is as concise and devastating as anything produced by more high profile extremists."

  4. Lawson, Dom (2015-08-04). "Blood Red Throne show their Patriotic Hatred. Watch the new video from Blood Red Throne". Metal Hammer. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The article notes: "A reliable source of death metal purity since the late ‘90s, Norway’s Blood Red Throne have consistently pulled off that neat trick of honouring old school values while embracing the precise crunch of contemporary extremism."

  5. Lawson, Dom (2016-06-19). "Blood Red Throne – Union Of Flesh And Machine album review. Norway's diehards Blood Red Throne keep the hellfires burning with new album". Metal Hammer. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The review notes: "A consistent and reliable force for death metal authenticity since 1998, Blood Red Throne have never quite received the attention they deserve. Union Of Flesh And Machine may not make a massive difference, but the Norwegians’ eighth album is plainly one of their strongest efforts to date and a very welcome reminder that the basic death metal template still has the capacity to thrill and terrify."

  6. Torreano, Bradley. "Blood Red Throne Biography by Bradley Torreano". AllMusic. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The biography notes: "Blood Red Throne started in 2000, when bassist Tchort decided to start a project on his own after playing in some of the most popular Norwegian death metal bands of the '90s (including Emperor and In the Woods...)."

  7. Muhlestein, Nick (2005). "Blood Red Throne: "Altered Genesis"". Modern Fix. Vol. 5, no. 1 #49. p. 92. ISSN  1555-8770. Retrieved 2023-11-23 – via Internet Archive.

     The review notes: "At a time when so may bands of the lauded Scandinavian scenes are moving in unusual, often questionable directions, Norway's Blood Red Throne are staunch traditionalists. With the album "Altered Genesis", Blood Red Throne eschew synths, clean vocals and poppish leanings to create 50 minutes of pure, unadulterated death metal, albeit with some thrashy flavoring in the riffs."

  8. Wharton, Bryer (June 2009). "Blood Red Throne: Souls of Damnation". SLUG Magazine. Vol. 20, no. 246. p. 69. Retrieved 2023-11-23 – via Internet Archive.

     The review notes: "Norway’s Blood Red Throne have been kicking for over a decade. It is my  understanding that the band is more  of a side project effort than a full-time band—the group has had a revolving door of notable musicians. Probably the best part about BRT is guitarist Tchort, who has the biggest credits to his name..."

  9. Dyer, Liam (December 2010 – January 2011). "Dimmu Borgir/Enslaved/Dawn of Ashes/Blood Red Throne". Absolute Underground. Vol. 7, no. 1 #37. p. 36. Retrieved 2023-11-23 – via Internet Archive.

     The review notes: "Blood Red Throne played pommeling neo-death metal to fairly unresponsive onlookers, which is always uncomfortable to see. Dawn of Ashes looked like the love-child (hate-child?) of Lordi, Gwarand Slipknot. Their ultra-theatric appearance made taking their blackened-death approach seriously a far shot, but I was entertained by the comment of "Take a look at the person standing next to you," now imagine slitting their throat.""

  10. Doran, John (October 2007). "Blood Red Throne: Come Death (Earache)". Plan B. No. 26. p. 76. Retrieved 2023-11-23 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "Blood Red Throne produce an almighty and groovy death metal that would probably sound more at home in theTampa Bay environs of Florida with its churning, down tuned riffage and larynx shredding growls. On Come Death, they eschew the technical advances which have made this once proud genre into a bit of a toothless beast. No triggered drums and no Pro Tools tomfoolery mean the visceral edge of their sound is  bloody and intact."

  11. John, Darnielle (2002-01-23). "Blood Red Throne: Document of Death (Hammerheart/Martyr Music Group)". Riverfront Times. ProQuest  367971922. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "The latest entry in the harder-than-you sweepstakes is Blood Red Throne, a group who incorporate some really wonderful riffage into their spraying-howitzer squalls. Document of Death starts off rather slowly but suddenly locks into the extreme-metal equivalent of an honest-to-God groove, a triggered kickdrum rolling like thunder under some of the most prime headbanging guitar real estate you'll hear mapped. The vocals are incomprehensible troll-under-the-bridge-isms, but that's what lyric sheets are for. What, then, of the lyrics? Well, they're simply horrifying and genuinely offensive: They're wholly misanthropic first-person murder/torture fantasies. You'd sooner hire Eminem to babysit your kids for the entire weekend than let them spend five minutes glancing over this record's lyric sheet."

  12. Torreano, Bradley. "Monument of Death Review by Bradley Torreano". AllMusic. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "After spending years toiling around in various death and black metal bands, Norwegian madman Tchort has started Blood Red Throne. Combining the lightning-fast chugging of vintage Slayer with the audio assault of Emperor, Blood Red Throne writes brutal, memorable metal that never loses its focus as it plows through nine vicious cuts."

  13. Rivadavia, Eduardo. "Come Death Review by Eduardo Rivadavia". AllMusic. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "BRT is arguably the most unique of all Tchort's endeavors, but only because it involves death instead of black metal, his regular domain. In all other respects, 2007's Come Death is, like all BRT releases before it, a straight-up genre exercise, well-intentioned and well-executed but lacking the thrill of innovation so much as the comfort of familiarity."

  14. Mudrian, Albert (2019-06-20). "Track Premiere: Blood Red Throne – 'Skyggemannen'". Decibel. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The article notes: "Norwegian vets Blood Red Throne have come a long way from the days when they were simply known as “that death metal band with the dude who played on In the Nightside Eclipse.” In truth, they developed into a death metal killing machine ages ago, long before Tchort left the band in 2010. They’ve recorded four full-lengths since then, including their latest, Fit to Kill, which will be be their debut for Danish powerhouse Mighty Music."

  15. "Blood Red Throne: Come Death". Blabbermouth.net. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "Norway's Blood Red Throne has always done a fine job of playing a decidedly American (Floridian in particular) style of death metal, but stopped just short of breaking into the upper echelon of the genre. Consider "Come Death" the breakthrough for which we've been waiting. Tchort ... and company took their time and did it right. In so praising the album, I am not saying that it raises the death metal bar, only that is a damn strong release that fans will thoroughly enjoy."

  16. Atkinson, Peter (2021-10-11). "Blood Red Throne Imperial Congregation". KNAC. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "Blood Red Throne has been cranking out what I guess you could call “true Norwegian death metal” for almost 25 years. Formed, oddly enough, by veterans of Norway’s then-notorious black metal scene – Satyricon touring guitarists Daniel “Død” Olaisen and Terje Vik “Tchort” Schei, who also played with Emperor and Carpathian Forest – the quintet has been productive and fairly dependable for its entire run, despite a dozen or so lineup changes, and several vocalists, along the way."

  17. Divita, Joe (2016-07-29). "Rumblings From the Underground: Ghoul, Profanatica, Blood Red Throne (Interview) + More". Loudwire. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "It's hard to believe it's been 15 years since Blood Red Throne's debut. With a handful of lineup changes since, the Norwegian stalwarts have delivered Union of Flesh and Machine, their eighth album. These dudes have always had a white-knuckle grip on groove when they choose to employ it, but here it's the sticking point."

  18. Blum, Jordan (2023-07-14). "The 12 Most Beautiful Breakdowns in Metal". Loudwire. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "This is a band from Norway that more people should know about. Their whole discography has bangers so it’s hard to recommend just one record, but my favorites are Union of Flesh and Machine and Come Death."

  19. Slessor, Dan (2016). "Blood Red Throne". Outburn. No. 85. p. 55. EBSCOhost  116924029.

      The EBSCO Information Services entry does not have the text of the article. The entry notes that this article is a music review of the Blood Red Throne album Union of Flesh and Machine.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Blood Red Throne to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 11:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Reply - I am also open to restoring Blood Red Throne as a full article. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: If Blood Red Throne is restored, Altered Genesis should be restored also. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altered Genesis was closed as "merge to Blood Red Throne". Cunard ( talk) 11:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Reply - I am not opposed to restoring Altered Genesis as a full article, nor am I opposed to restoring it as a redirect to Blood Red Throne, or one of its band members. I would suggest phrasing the conversation as a split proposal from a relevant article. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• The scope of this discussion needs to be limited to Blood Red Throne only. A separate discussion at DRV or a request for undeletion can be made for Altered Genesis, citing the additional references. Frank Anchor 16:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• I created a WP:REFUND request for restoring Altered Genesis's history under the redirect. Cunard ( talk) 06:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Vacate AfD in light of Cunard's sourcing. We don't have a procedure for this, and maybe we should, but when the sourcing brought up in a DRV demonstrates that an AfD was so sourcing-deficient that a reasonable editor could not have been expected to understand the actual notability and thus the closer not review a reasonable, policy-based discussion, maybe we should just pretend it never happened. Obviously, we don't want the same people relitigating an AfD at DRV, but when an outside party demonstrates so conclusively how bad the discussion was, that's not the same thing. If you want simpler binary responses... Overturn Jclemens ( talk) 17:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I see a couple of participants here who believe the consensus of an AfD can be vetoed by anyone who wishes to revive the article as a redirect, because, according to them, CSD:G4 doesn't apply to redirects. I'm sure the authors of the CSD:G4 policy would be surprised to learn of this interpretation. If you believe an AfD was closed improperly, say so. But if you believe you are above policy and consensus because you !voted "Redirect" on that AfD, I'm afraid that's not how this project works. Owen× ☎ 19:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

G4 specifically excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. A redirect is not in any way, shape, or form, substantially identical to the version of the article (which was not a redirect). I don’t see any way a person could interpret G4 to cover a redirect when the deleted version was not a redirect. Frank Anchor 00:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with Frank Anchor's interpretation of the policy. Cunard ( talk) 06:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

OwenX, Yeah, you're very wrong on the G4 policy here; see my note above in the discussion. Unless a redirect was itself G10 able, the main question about a post-AfD redirect is whether or not it should have the contents of the deleted article in history. If you delete a G11-eligible article about a CEO but he's mentioned at his company's article, that might be a good reason to leave history deleted with a redirect. For most deletions on the basis of non-notability with a good redirect target (fiction and popular culture, for instance), leaving the history intact is preferred because it allows non-admins to review the history for improvement and possible un-redirection if and when it demonstrate notability. Jclemens ( talk) 07:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Let me get this straight: if the AfD consensus was against turning the page into a redirect, e.g. because the proposed target was inappropriate, any editor can ignore the AfD result and recreate the page as a redirect, just because the history was wiped? Then why bother with consensus at all? Instead of !voting "Redirect", just say, "Decide whatever you wish, I'll still recreate the page as a redirect, because G4 doesn't apply to redirects". Sorry, you can't just circumvent G4 and an AfD consensus against a redir because you intentionally misread CSD:G4. The new redirect is substantially identical to the one discussed in the AfD, and decided against. Don't try to lawyer your way around consensus. Owen× ☎ 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

First of all, there was not consensus against redirect. There was disagreement about a redirect target but not opposition to a merge/redirect in general. Second, even if that was not the case, G4 does not cover redirects when the previous version was an article. G4 says the article must be substantially identical to the deleted version, not substantially identical to the one discussed in the AfD. Quoting a policy is not “lawyering.” I also did not intentionally misread G4, nor did several other voters in this DRV. Please strike those false claims from your statement. Frank Anchor 13:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

OwenX, please confirm that you now understand that G4'ing a redirect as you did in this case is not covered by the speedy deletion policy. I realize that the discussion you closed was of quite poor quality, but the AfD deletion of an article without a redirect doesn't entitle anyone to G4 a redirect of the same name. That's what MfD is for. Jclemens ( talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

It's disheartening to see an experienced editor like you jump on the "substantially identical" loophole bandwagon. We can debate whether or not that AfD ended in a consensus. But if we accept that a consensus was reached, that consensus was clearly against turning the page into a redirect. You can't show up the next day and decide, unilaterally, to enforce your !vote and turn it to a redir anyway. That's not WP:BOLD, it's going against consensus, which is exactly what G4 is meant to address. If what you suggest were true, there would be no point in !voting "Redirect" on any AfD, as you could always show up after the fact and turn the deleted page into a redir, regardless of any consensus against such an action. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirects are not substantially identical to the articles being deleted, that much seems straight forward. Hey man im josh ( talk) 22:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 and treat Cunard's comment as the actual challenge to the AfD, despite it not being him starting the process (it doesn't matter). Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. No fault of the closer.— Alalch E. 22:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment re the CSD:G4 red herring: in the AfD, Jax 0677 proposed the page be turned into a redirect to one of the band members. They even started a straw-poll, right in the AfD, which didn't garner much support, and rightly so: redirecting a band name to one of its members is not something we normally do here.

Consensus ended up marginally in favour of deleting the page, and I closed it as such. Jax 0677 wasn't happy with the result, and rather than taking it to DRV, they recreated the page the following day as a redirect, going against the AfD outcome. Using CSD:G4 for its intended purpose, I deleted the out-of-process recreation, and advised Jax 0677 to discuss things on DRV, which is why we're here.

Some here are now WP:LAWYERING about some hidden meaning of "substantially identical" in CSD:G4. To be clear: the redirect created by Jax 0677 is identical to the one they proposed--and got rejected--in the AfD. A "#redirect Ronny Thorsen" isn't the substantially different content CSD:G4 talks about in recreating a deleted article. Anyone claiming differently is being disingenuous.

The purpose of G4 is to ensure AfD consensus is followed. If you believe that anyone who isn't happy with the outcome of an AfD is free to recreate the deleted article as a redirect, by all means, let's start an RFC about G4 and the entire AfD process, as this would be a major departure from how things have been done for the past 20 years. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Again, my interpretation, and the interpretation of several others here, is the actual text of the policy is what is to be used. G4 makes no mention of ensur[ing] AfD consensus is followed, it only makes reference to recreation of sufficiently identical page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. My interpretation, and the interpretation of several other users, is that a redirect is not substantially identical to the deleted version, an article. I will reiterate, G4 does not cover redirects when the previous version was an article. G4 says the article must be substantially identical to the deleted version, not substantially identical to the one discussed in the AfD. There is no hidden meaning of substantially identical. A reddirect is vastly different from an article. However, Owenx decided to ignore my previous response and continued to WP:BLUDGEON their own point of view and accuse those of enforcing the actual words of a policy of WP:LAWYERING even though that essay states simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer. Again, I am requesting Owenx strike those obviously false accusations of intentionally misread[ing] G4 and of lawyering, or I will consider taking this to ANI. Frank Anchor 20:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Good idea! Please take this to ANI. We could use the added participation. I also opened a policy RfC on this subject. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Someone's recommendation in an AfD to redirect the page as an alternative to deletion that, subsequently, does not correspond to the AfD outcome has nothing to do with the possibility of creating a redirect at the name of a deleted page. When the AfD outcome is 'delete', it's fine to create whatever redirect at that name afterwards. If the redirect is a bad redirect, editors may form a consensus to delete it in an RfD. G4 doesn't apply to a redirect created at the name of a deleted article. The reasons to delete an article and to delete a redirect are different. G4 only applies to pages for which the same type of consensus applies. See the its most recent deletion discussion. It needed to be the page's deletion discussion. An AfD is not a redirect's deletion discussion. An RfD would have been the redirect's deletion discussion, but there was no RfD. There was no deletion discussion. G4 did not apply. The only thing that's the same in this situation is the name, and G4 is not about the name. You can see that by reading WP:G4 (having any title). It is about whether a page is a sufficiently identical copy. A redirect is never a sufficiently identical copy of an article. Your G4 was incorrect, you did wrong, and Jax 0677 did okay to pursue his idea, and maybe the redirect was a bad redirect, but that's for RfD to settle, not for you individually.

Ultimately, the G4 angle is inconsequential, because what should happen is the AfD deletion being overturned because of DRVPURPOSE#3, per my above comment. — Alalch E. 22:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Progressive utilization theory ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page is a extremely obscure set of economic theories which isn't terribly useful to have as a separate article. The article should be deleted or merged and redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's page. The issue with the earlier review is that it is inconclusive due to the idea that this theory was being used or implemented, however this is not the case. It's a obscure theory from over 50 years ago with and hasn't been used since. Perhaps, at most it's a social movement started by Sarkar, all the more reason to have it be on his page. Similar to social credit, but as far as I can tell unlike social credit no government aligned with this movement has been in power which brings into question it's notability. This is a theory that isn't used either in economics or in any polity. This article isn't notable enough to have its own page and needs to be reviewed. Imitationsasquatch ( talk) 10:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close as wrong venue. Appears the nom is requesting deletion, rather than challenging the result of an AFD. Article was previously nominated in 2007 (NC) and in 2018 (withdrawn). With over five years since the last AFD, it is not unreasonable to start another AFD discussion to assess the article. Frank Anchor 14:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Arshad Khan (Chaiwala) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Improper close. It should be No Consensus close unless the closing admin cast a super vote. Tetrainn ( talk) 07:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• That discussion turns on the sources so we need either a list of them or a temp-undelete (admin's discretion which). Were there really 13 primary sources?— S Marshall  T/ C 08:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Done. History of the afd is of some interest too. — Cryptic 10:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• "Captivated the internet". "Entrepreneurial journey". "A prosperous and luxurious life seemed distant". "Remarkable appearance, characterized by his captivating blue eyes and a compelling, serious demeanor". "His primary drive behind this venture was to generate employment opportunities for individuals, enabling them to sustain their households." And of course he's selling something. How did this even get to afd? Endorse as G11, besides the afd. — Cryptic 10:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as G11 as per Cryptic. Hughesdarren ( talk) 10:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. The arguments for deletion are stronger policy-wise than the arguments to keep, and the close is a fair outcome. Like Cryptic above me, I'm surprised this even made it far enough to reach an AfD closure without being tagged for G11 first, so endorse as G11 too. Giraffer ^{( talk· contribs)} 10:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the properly closed AfD. On reading the deleted article, Endorse G11. Irredeemably tabloid promotion. Perhaps at best consider it WP:TNT, read WP:THREE, and try creating a fresh draft in no less than six months. If the source focuses on his striking eyes, it is not significant coverage. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as within discretion (although a very wide range of closes would also be OK by me, including no consensus). Cryptic above has played a trump card (and a pretty high trump at that) so I presume that will win the trick. However, everyone at AFD (including the closer) was playing in no trumps, hence the difficulty. People are not well advised to !vote "delete WP:1E" but it would be cruel to discount their good-faith !votes. 1E is not a rationale for deletion – it discusses whether the article should be about the person or the event (or both) – and it is a high point for inclusion. However, I would not fault anyone who does not have a comprehensive understanding of our guidelines (I certainly do not) so I would read all such votes as "delete in full accordance with WP guidelines". Thincat ( talk) 11:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Thincat If 1E isn't valid rationale for deletion then what is in this scenario? My interpretation and reason for citing 1E in the discussion was thinking along the lines of "this AfD is for a biography and said biography should not exist according to what's written at WP:1E; whether the event itself should have an article is a different story." Have there been BLPs converted to being about events in 1E situations? My uninformed instinct would be to delete the BLP and create a new, separate article for the event.

  On the subject of the event itself, is it notable? One keep voting user argued that instances of virality are notable and two others argued there was WP:SIGCOV. There's a lot of sources, but it doesn't seem like there's a lot of substance there besides "this photo of this attractive guy went viral and here's a little about who he is and what he's doing now." I suppose this may be a rare case of there being a plethora of sources from (mostly?) reliable publications but there still being no significant coverage? Uhai ( talk) 20:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  WP:BLP1E is a criterion for deletion so maybe that is meant. However, I don't think it applies to this person because he is no longer "low profile" (even if he is not wikinotable). In this case I'm not sure what the event is supposed to be but I really have only assessed the AFD discussion and I have no interest in the article's topic. I think most people at AFD take a view of an article and then !vote giving a rationale they think might be persuasive (which for experienced editors will be of the form "... WP:ABCDE ..."). I think articles are not repurposed too often at AFD (most commonly when a "biography" of a murdered person is moved to become an article about the killing). Usually the closer closes keep and then makes the move themselves or suggests others do it. Thincat ( talk) 11:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• I would rather than people not write in initialisms, too; and Thincat has hit the nail on the head with what the one-event concept was about. That said, reading it as people mis-using the initialism and talking about a person whose entire publicly documented life is within a single news cycle and retrospectives on the same, there is a point about not enough coverage for a biography. The addition of the fact that this is most definitely not how one writes articles at Wikipedia, biographies or otherwise, serves to make this a two pronged endorsement: this was argued as an unacceptable subject and there are policy reasons that this is unacceptable content. Farah Gogi was just as bad. We don't write articles this way, neither based upon tabloid reports that have weasel-words coming out of their ears nor putting egregious puffery into Wikipedia's voice. Uncle G ( talk) 15:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close and when re-deleting note that G11 applies to this page which is needed to make it non- WP:REFUNDable.— Alalch E. 16:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Those are not thirteen primary sources, but I'd agree with the G11.— S Marshall  T/ C 20:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse with explanations:
  • • Closers have to be bold when closing any AFD that has approximately equal Keeps and Deletes. The closer can close it as No Consensus, and someone may come here to DRV saying that the closer should have recognized that one set of arguments were much stronger than the other. The close is then almost always endorsed as at least a valid conclusion by the closer, but I think that no closer likes to have their close taken to DRV. On the other hand, the closer can, after assessing the strength of arguments, close the AFD as Keep or Delete. A close of Delete in particular is then likely to be brought here to DRV. So any close may be appealed.
    • This is an unusual case because the strongest argument for deletion was not raised by the nominator or by the Delete !voters or by the closer. The strongest argument for deletion, as mentioned by the editors here at DRV, is that the article is promotional, and either should have been blown up, or should have been tagged for G11.
    • The editing of the AFD by followers of Genseric is interesting, but does not affect either the result or this DRV.
    • So this is an Ignore All Rules endorsement, because the AFD had the wrong rationale for the right action.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as G11 and a reasonable read of the AfD discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 06:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a G11 delete only and neutral on AFD result (I believe delete was an okay interpretation of consensus, but NC would have been the better close). No prejudice against recreation if the sources exist to make this article in a non- promotional tone. Frank Anchor 14:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as G11 and as reading of the AfD. The closure is reasonable, and the article has so many blatantly promotional parts (i.e., [h]is striking looks and piercing blue eyes captivated the internet, leading to a modeling career and the launch of his own café brand in Islamabad, young and attractive, Arshad Khan's remarkable appearance, characterized by his captivating blue eyes and a compelling, serious demeanor, propelled him to instant fame, [h]is primary drive behind this venture was to generate employment opportunities for individuals, enabling them to sustain their household). This promotion is so clear that a G11 IAR is entirely reasonable. VickKiang (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• I struggle to find even a single sentence that isn't promotionally worded and wouldn't need a rewrite. Even checking previous versions, there is nothing. Given that WP:CSD#G11 says "would need to be fundamentally rewritten", it's safe to say that G11 applies. Now the question in the AfD was not G11 or spam but notability. Folks presented sources, others disagreed and said that these sources only refer to one event, Ameen Akbar's keep is probably the only one that rebuts this argument in full. I'd probably close this as no consensus rather than delete as I don't see a super clear consensus that the sources don't establish notability and "in doubt, no consensus", but in light of G11, keep deleted as G11 Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Alex Zhavoronkov ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was properly deleted on 12 December 2017, based on a consensus that the subject was "marginally notable" at the time and, pivotally, based on the subject having requested deletion of the article himself. While this outcome was clearly correct at the time, circumstances have changed substantially in the intervening 5+ years. I therefore request restoration of so that I can move it to draftspace to develop the article in light of substantial post-deletion sources. As a procedural note, I previously undeleted this article to draft and then restored it to mainspace, but re-deleted it upon request pursuant to an objection based on circumstances outlined below. I formally proposed undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and was directed here.

Subject's increased notability

• In the 2017 deletion discussion, our late friend User:DGG noted in a comment (and User:Widefox referenced in their !vote) that of the subject's articles, "only one are articles with citation over 100". As of 2023, however, the subject's Google Scholar profile and Researchgate profile demonstrate (per the charts at the top right of each) that the subject has since increased in academic impact by orders of magnitude, going from fewer than 1,800 total citations prior to 2018 to over 10,000 citations today, over 2,000 citations in each of the past three years, and with 32 articles having over 100 citations, including several articles each having multiple hundreds of citations.
• At the same time, from 2018 to 2023, there have been dozens of news articles and other sources discussing the subject to some degree. In addition to their substantially increased academic impact, the subject has recently published an additional book in their field, and has received additional media coverage for their business and other non-academic activities, including:
  • Robbins, Tony; Diamandis, Peter H.; Hariri, Robert (2022). Life Force. p. 556-57. ISBN  978-1982121709.
  • Chace, Calum (November 9, 2022). "How Insilico Medicine Uses AI To Accelerate Drug Development". Forbes Magazine. Archived from the original on April 8, 2023. (while Forbes may be questionable as a source, author Calum Chace is a published expert in the field, invoking WP:SELFPUB)
  • Smith, Wesley J. (February 8, 2023). "Harvesting Clones to Live Forever Would Be Monstrous". National Review. (criticizing Zhavoronkov's endorsement of cloning human bodies for parts)
  • Field, Hayden (June 29, 2023). "The first fully A.I.-generated drug enters clinical trials in human patients". CNBC.
  • Matsuyama, Kanoko (November 14, 2023). "Race for first drug discovered by AI nears key milestone". The Japan Times.

Subject's opposition to having an article

• The subject has stated a desire not to have a Wikipedia page (which was the objection raised to restoration of this article without discussion). This is not an automatic determiner, as this also hinges on the level of notability of the subject—and I would suggest on the subject's own reasoning for this. We have recently had several rather high-profile discussions on subjects who have requested deletion of their articles ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bell (British Army officer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indira Raman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego García-Borreguero, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranti Bam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole W. Troxler), of which all but one ended up with the article being retained despite the subject's wishes. This illustrate the limited parameters of our observance of such requests.
• In the case of this subject, their comments in the discussion suggest that they did not really have privacy concerns or the like, but merely object to not being able to control the content of the article, and would prefer to have a resume. I am all for protecting the privacy of marginally notable figures, but not for safeguarding their PR directives. It is apparent from the subject's own public activities ( granting interviews, taking controversial positions on hot-button issues, and the like), that they are not so concerned with remaining a private person.

In conclusion, I believe the combination of developments illustrated by continuing citation to the subject's academic work, and continuing nonacademic coverage, is at least sufficient to support having a draft on the subject in draftspace, to be submitted for consideration through the usual WP:AFC process, irrespective of the subject's own preferences. BD2412 T 22:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Refund to draftspace. Doesn't seem like any reason not to could apply.— Alalch E. 23:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restoring a deleted page in such a way that it wouldn't be immediately speedy-deleteable (such as by moving it to draft, so that WP:G4 doesn't apply) usually is entirely uncontroversial - especially when the afd is as old as this, such that DRV in most cases wouldn't endorse a G4 even in articlespace. On the other hand, I can't fault WP:REFUND in general and Spartaz in particular for kicking it back here for more examination for a blp, particularly under circumstances like this. Were you planning on working on this and bringing it to AFC yourself? (Other admins: the recent edits were history-split to Special:Undelete/Draft:Alex Zhavoronkov.) If so, I'd suggest that the least controversial way forward would be to work on it offline until you're ready to submit it; you can paste it back in to preview (but not save) to check formatting. You don't need DRV's, or anyone else's, permission to do that. — Cryptic 00:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I do intend to work on this, but would consider working on it "offline" to run counter to the transparency that Wikipedia seeks to foster. I am concerned that this will become a catch-22; that no matter how notable the subject becomes, it will never be possible to have an article on them because of the absence of express permission to create the draft from which to document notability. I would also prefer not to create a draft that violates the GFDL by omitting the deleted prior edit history. BD2412 T 03:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • GFDL specifically isn't an issue, since all revisions date to well after the CC-BY-SA migration. We tell our reusers all they have to do to provide credit for that is link back to Wikipedia, even if the article's been deleted; and author information is still made available, if not exactly easily-so. (Crucially, edit summaries are not, which is part of why trying to give authorship credit in summaries has always struck me as a worst practice.)
      If someone deletes your draft, bring it back here - you don't even need to say everything you did above, just something to the effect of "Nearly half of the text of WP:G4 says you can't do that to recreations in draftspace that are being improved", and the proper piscine punishment will be applied in short order. You don't need DRV's permission to redraft a deleted mainspace article; we tell even very new editors that. — Cryptic 07:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

      • @ Cryptic: This is an unusual case. The argument made in the WP:RFU objection was basically that because the subject had requested deletion, there needed to be a community consensus to have anything about the subject in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 14:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

    prefer not to create a draft that violates the GFDL by omitting the deleted prior edit history. That is an excellent and admirable position to hold. It fits a simple reading of the GFDL, and even if there’s a controlled argument that proceeding without the deleted versions is ok, Wikipedia should demonstrate best practice for copyright compliance. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Refund to draftspace, obviously, is noncontroversial. The AfD is old. Things have changed. The case for recreation is best demonstrated by a draft, with the old history intact. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• I think that the close paraphrasing/copyright problems in the early edits to Alex Zhavoronkov are a good reason to keep that edit history deleted. It all depends from how untainted by that the Draft:Alex Zhavoronkov edit history is. Uncle G ( talk) 15:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Uncle G: I frankly do not know how much of an issue that is. The article was deleted and then restored days later by the deleting admin ( User:Malik Shabazz) on the basis that the paraphrasing wasn't enough of an issue to warrant deletion. It was not thereafter raised as an issue. Unfortunately, the article creator ( User:The Librarian at Terminus) and the primary early contributor ( User:T3dkjn89q00vl02Cxp1kqs3x7) are long gone, as is that admin. The version of the article as of the end of 2014 seems to have substantially different wording than the version at the time of the copyvio assertion. BD2412 T 16:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Looking at Draft:Alex Zhavoronkov it does seem that you've made a case, by writing, that there's new sourcing and new things to consider over the last half decade. So yes, I'm with SmokeyJoe on having this back as a draft. How much edit history to merge back in is a secondary issue. If there's another AFD discussion, I hope that it focusses less on wholly irrelevant things (like laboratory benches!) and more on whether a properly sourced biography of a person's life/works is writable. That wasn't a particularly good first AFD discussion. The article subject said "It would be great to have the page taken down.", and although I can sympathize with that, as many people have said it before and since, I think that it's worth evaluating "It would be great" against an updated article after 5 years. Uncle G ( talk) 16:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Refund to draftspace as noncontroversial considering the early copyright concern seems overcome. Widefox; talk 17:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Refund to draftspace. I tend to be very sympathetic to deleting marginally notable BLP's on the subject's request, but a credible claim is being made here that in the 6 years since this argument was applied, notability has gone well beyond marginal. That is a discussion worth having with an updated draft to consider, and a refund of the previous text as a starting point is a reasonable request. It seems the copyright concerns are moot. Some of the backstory why this request ended up here is at this archived undeletion request and this userpage discussion, where the substance of the discussion seems reasonable but the level of snark by the deleting admin seems unnecessary. But there may be additional context for that, and is neither here nor there for resolving it here. Martinp ( talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Lane Bess ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This Afd was closed as non-consensus this morning when it should have either been a redirect or a delete. The editor who created this, creates high promotional articles and more than 60% have been deleted with several still at Afd, a new one sent to draft this morning. The editor was taken to WP:COI, an independent review of the articles was completed, and as an uninvolved editor I sent the ones which were dodgy to Afd. I conducted a source analysis review which found no secondary soruces. They were all PR, press-release and interviews. The editor did a Heymann, and those sources were checked and were equally as bad. Another uninvolved editor found equally as bad. Another drive-by editor stated it was a keep without offering any evidence it was notable. Another keep was attempted with several references, but these were found to be interviews and more PR with same images found in the articles. The closing admin has asserted that I stated the Miami Herald is clickbait, which is patently false. The admin also seem to be positing that primary sources are ok to establish notability and many primary sources are somehow ok. It should have been a redirect. The reference are terrible for mainstream BLP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closer. I will grant that the nominator did not call the Miami Herald articles clickbait. He did say of the sources as a whole: "These references are the exact same low-quality PR, clickbait and interviews along with social media driven articles", and I mistakenly took that he meant all the articles were all the epithets. With that said, it is a reasonable position from the "keep" side to accept interviews in independent and reputable newspapers such as the Miami Herald as evidence of notability, and as sufficient sourcing to meet WP:V and WP:NOR requirements, and with several participants advocating for that view, I could not call a consensus for deletion based on notability guidelines, nor did I see a sufficient "deal breaker" to delete based on the core content policies. Comments on the editor who created the article are irrelevant to the discussion of the merits of this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Further comment An explanation of why I mentioned WP:V and WP:NOR is in order. While those core policies were not mentioned explicitly, there was an extensive discussion of the reliability and quality of the sources. These issues relate directly to those two policies, WP:SOURCE is a section of WP:V, while WP:FOLLOWSOURCE, along with a policy on primary, secondary and tertiary sources, is a section of WP:NOR. In a contentious AFD, I always weigh the provided sources against those policies. In the instances where I called a "delete" in spite of an apparent numerical consensus against deletion, by far the most common reason has been a concern related to WP:V or WP:NOR that the keep side failed to adequately address. But in this case, I didn't find the arguments related to the sourcing to be decisive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the Delete arguments were somewhat stronger but I don't see a consensus either way. This isn't really a BLP issue, as the central question was whether the sourcing covers the subject in enough depth to pass the GNG. Hut 8.5 18:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse there was a relatively even split between the delete/ATD voters and the keep voters and both sides made valid points regarding the sourcing. I don't see any consensus in number or strength of the argument tfor a delete result. Frank Anchor 20:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I find it a bit strange mentioning OR and V in the close, especially when the article didn't even touch on them, but I agree that no consensus is a fair summary of the discussion. @ Scope creep: I suggest pruning non-RS in the first instance and considering a re-nomination in the future. SmartSE ( talk) 22:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I plan to do it. A substantial amount of the references are non-rs. I plan to renominate 2-3 months in the future. I was suprised at the mention WP:V and WP:NOR which was never discussed in the Afd. WP:V was never in doubt, with at least 6-8 interviews and didn't see any kind original research on the article. It wasn't tagged as OR and wasn't as promotional as some of the others in the series. It wasn't on my mind. scope_creep ^Talk 22:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Weak Endorse the close of No Consensus. This AFD had 2 Keep !votes and 2 Delete !vptes including the nomination. When there is numerically no consensus, a close of No Consensus is usually reasonable. Sometimes another close in such a situation may also be reasonable, but No Consensus is usually reasonable when there is no numerical consensus. The appellant seems to be arguing that the close of No Consensus was clearly wrong, not even a valid choice; I disagree. It appears that the appellant is complaining that the closer did not supervote. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The author has been indeffed as an undisclosed paid editor. Therefore, as an Ignore All Rules action:
• Relist to consider that the article may be undisclosed paid editing. G5 does not apply, but the community should consider that the author may not have been editing in good faith. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I don't really see any options but no-consensus or relist for the AfD as it was closed, but it had already been marked with a "final relist". The DRV nominator had strongly held and strongly expressed policy-based positions, but there were opposing opinions that were also based in policy; we should not discount these merely because the people who expressed them did not likewise filibuster the AfD. The number of participants was small and balanced on both sides, hence no consensus. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'd also be ok with a relist or renomination specifically to take into account the new evidence of undisclosed paid editing, but this should not be taken as criticism of a close made before this information came to light. (There are some vague accusations of paid editing in the AfD but no evidence.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Responding to evaluate new sources when another discussion participant puts them forward is not "filibustering". It is discussing and evidence of an open mind ready to evaluate new information not previously addressed when it is presented. Although I don't envy closing administrators who have to wade through long lists of bare URLs just to see who has addressed and evaluated what. Uncle G ( talk) 17:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. While I'm not necessarily happy with the result of the AfD, the closing admin did a thorough, unbiased job of reviewing the opinions and the evidence presented, and the closing conclusion was well justified and properly explained. Owen× ☎ 13:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaseline ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Should not have been G5’d because (1) the talk page had administrators reply and he can’t delete his comments because he didn’t like the subject, (2) he was WP:INVOLVED and (3) that block was made on little evidence as it was. 69.118.232.58 ( talk) 21:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment I'm afraid that filing this complaint will just result in this being seen as more block evasion and end up with this IP being blocked as well. If you keep making a big fuss on the same minor issue with different IP addresses, it's hard not to judge that they are all connected to each other especially when you are all from the same general location. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Deleting admin comment: this incident stems from a malformed sockpuppet investigations report which inadvertently implicated a user who was not involved at all, and as there was no finding related to that user I renamed the case. An IP user 72.68.134.26 then began demanding that the original case name be restored, for reasons which they have articulated poorly and which I have found unconvincing. They created the page in question for the sole purpose of continuing these demands after being told to stop. When they tried to initiate an admin action review against me, a different administrator determined they were evading a block on 72.68.134.254 and also are a suspected sock of Andrew5. On seeing that I deleted the page as it was created by a banned user and served no purpose other than harassment. Those 72.68.134.0/24 IPs geolocate to New York City and almost exclusively edit tropical storm articles, just as the IP creating this report geolocates to New York City and almost exclusively edits tropical storm articles. Do with that information what you will; I have no further comment. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 02:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Semi-involved watcher comment - The IP-user proposing this deletion review is actually under an SPI right now for a completely different reason (I was the SPI reporter 2 weeks ago), but it seems there is two separate, more or less weather-related issues involving the deletion review requesting user. Complete side-note, but WikiProject Weather has been dealing with 3 different sock-masters who keep getting confirmed as a SOCK. The IP-user proposing the deletion review was previously blocked for a year in September 2022 for ban-evading, but the block-log didn't mention which sock-master it was, so I am unsure if it is one of those 3 weather-related sock masters. I won't be commenting further as I'm not fully aware of the Chaseline debate, however, if an admin wanted to become Sherlock Holmes, those 3 sock-masters (one being Andrew5) could keep your hands full, with Andrew5 alone having probably close to 100 confirmed sock accounts in the last few years. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Palak Tiwari ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Most Respected Sir Namaskar Palak Tiwari is a famous Indian actress, you can know about her at your level. She is the daughter of Bollywood film actress Shweta Tiwari. Apart from this, she is active in Indian films. I feel that her page should not be removed. If you feel that there is a need to improve the page, then you will be greatly appreciated if you help me in improving it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaftCinematic ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• No case to answer. Speedy close, WP:DRVPURPOSE not#1. — Cryptic 19:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, properly deleted. If you want to recontest after a consensus to delete, use WP:AfC and follow the advice at WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse if the close is being challenged, but the appellant appears to want to add new material. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow Submission and Review of Draft - The title has not been salted. A new draft can be submitted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: endorse, if nom finds new SIGCOV sources and wishes to rework the article, they can submit a draft to AFC.  //  Timothy ::  talk  21:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: Let it be in the draft space, hopefully the nom finds more sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• It's a very weak discussion all around. Only 1 person addressed the sourcing, and none of the others explained how the article doesn't meet the initialism salads that they wrote. No-one above seems to be picking up on the fact that WaftCinematic ( talk · contribs) isn't challenging the original AFD discussion, but the subsequent speedy deletion of the attempt to re-do this with sources and more material that xe already did. It isn't the same article, although it shares a lot of the same tabloid-level sources and is similar in many parts. Uncle G ( talk) 16:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • WaftCinematic's (who I now note has been blocked indef for undisclosed paid editing) version hadn't been deleted when they made this review request. Still no case to answer. — Cryptic 02:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Draft:Ira Vouk ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I've been experiencing some level of subjectivity in the decisions by reviewers, which makes it hard to pinpoint what exactly prevents this article from meeting Wikipedia standards. Kindly requesting undeletion to be able to rewrite it.

• first draft was deemed promotional, rewritten and restructured with the help of this user: Jimfbleak, resubmitted.
• second reviewer WikiOriginal-9 didn't find the article promotional but asked for more relevant secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject, those were added
• this resulted in a speedy deletion

I believe I'm able to completely rewrite it in a neutral tone and meet Wikipedia standards if given an opportunity to continue working on the article. This person meets the notability requirements, based on the existence of media coverage of her life and work that is independent of the subject. Faminalizblr ( talk) 17:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Pinging User:Jimfbleak?— S Marshall  T/ C 18:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• As the most recent deleter, there's some discussion about this on my talk page at §Request to reinstate a draft. — Cryptic 19:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose restoring the draft. The appellant made at least two mistakes. The first was writing a promotional draft. The second was not keeping a copy of the draft. Now the submitter is apparently asking us to provide them with a copy of the deleted draft. They were able to develop a draft once, except that the tone was non-neutral. They can write a neutral draft from the original sources again. I am not sympathetic with editors who want to use an article that had to be deleted as the basis of a rewrite. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Thanks for ping, S Marshall ( talk · contribs) I provided guidance to the editor concerned, I have nothing further that I wish to add here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• In order to help me review this, would someone be able to post a list of the sources that the draft used, please?— S Marshall  T/ C 09:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] — Cryptic 09:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you, Cryptic. That suggests that maybe the draft we're considering resembles the EverybodyWiki version which I can't link because of the spam blacklist? If so, it's hopelessly promotional and bears very little resemblance to an encyclopaedia article. Interestingly I can't see any reliable sources about Ms Vouk, although there are reliable sources by her.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      • It doesn't just resemble, it's largely identical, except that our deleted version had fast approaching a citation per word in the first paragraph. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 17:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
      • As it says there, it was taken from the October 24 version of the draft; the only non-tagging edit after was to add more citations, without changing the prose. (They appear in the list above; the edit had the adding-deprecated-sources tag, though I'm not sure at a glance which ones they were, and I didn't look at them because the citations weren't why I deleted this.) — Cryptic 18:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Thank you. Thank you all for your feedback. I'll take these into account when composing future articles. I need to practice writing in a more neutral tone. I'm also still not 100% confident I clearly understand the difference between reliable and unreliable sources. I read all the FAQs but looks like I'm not yet on point with those. Will dig into this more. Thanks again. -- Faminalizblr ( talk) 17:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G11 and keep deleted. The deleted promotional draft is not something that can plausibly become an article.— Alalch E. 19:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Advise User:Faminalizblr that to establish notability, only two or three good sources are needed. If the best two or three aren’t good enough, more won’t help. WP:Reference bombing will not help, and will hurt. Follow advice at WP:THREE. Consider the old draft to be been WP:TNTed. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Understood and appreciated. Thank you. Faminalizblr ( talk) 21:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Saydulla Madaminov ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

As a student of International Relations researching the Uzbek NATO relations, I was surprised and disappointed to find that the Wikipedia article I visited recently about Saydulla Abdukuddusovich Madaminov had been deleted. I was even more surprised to read the discussion of deletion, in which Madaminov was said to be "insignificant."

The article on Saydulla Abdukuddusovich Madaminov, a retired Uzbek colonel and former Commander of the Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces, was recently deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that it is not notable. However, I believe that this article is indeed notable and should be restored. Here are some of the reasons why:

• Madaminov was a high-ranking military officer who served in a sensitive position for several years. He was responsible for overseeing the entire Uzbek Air Force and Air Defence Forces, which is a significant military force in Central Asia and the 43rd largest in the world.
• Madaminov has a distinguished military record. He flew over 120 sorties in the Tajikistani Civil War and participated in military operations against the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. He was awarded the "Pilot Sniper" badge for his bravery and skill in combat.
• Madaminov continued to serve in the Uzbek military after his retirement, working as a senior military advisor and inspector for the Ministry of Defense. He also transitioned to civil aviation, working as a pilot for Tulpar Air.
• Madaminov was appointed Deputy Head of Federal Service for Supervision of Transport for the North Caucasian Federal District in 2014. This is a significant position in the Russian government, responsible for overseeing transportation safety in a key region.

In addition to these facts, the article on Madaminov is also well-written and informative. It provides a comprehensive overview of his life and career, and it includes citations to reliable sources.

I urge the Wikipedia community to restore the article on Saydulla Abdukuddusovich Madaminov. He is a notable figure who has made significant contributions to the Uzbek military and to civil aviation. His story is worth sharing with the world. PetrovMD ( talk) 18:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• I recommend that you add a complete list of the sources you intend to use to compose an article about this gentleman. Your appeal won't succeed without independent, reliable sources.— S Marshall  T/ C 18:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Nobody in the deletion discussion called this person "insignificant". What they said, in a couple variations, was that his notability is questionable. "Notability" is very specific jargon on Wikipedia, and doesn't have its usual meaning; it's our primary set of inclusion criteria, explained here, and based on the extent and quality of a subject's coverage in reliable sources. The reason we call it "notability" is mostly a historical accident. — Cryptic 19:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment I could probably have relisted this discussion. I was very influenced by TimothyBlue's comments about the need for strong sources on BLPs and the source review done on existing ones found them either weak or irrelevant. I wouldn't have closed this as No consensus after only a week but I could have let the discussion run a little longer. However, I think participation in AFDs, in general, has been declining and I don't know if we would get more editors to weigh in on this article subject. Plus there were suspicions of paid editing which isn't unheard of for articles on government officials and personalities from Central Asia. If PetrovMD has some superior, relevant sources to provide evidence of notability, I would support relisting this discussion but I don't think a straight-out overturn to Keep is warranted. I have restored the article for the duration of this discussion so editors can compare the sources with the source review presented by F.Alexsandr in the AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close as a valid close of the discussion, especially for an article with a history of paid editing. However, also:
• Allow Recreation de novo subject to another AFD. (That is, waive any required waiting time.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• restore-I appreciate the opportunity to present additional information and sources regarding the notability of Saydulla Madaminov, the former Commander of Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces. Firstly, it's important to address the misconception about the scale of the force he commanded. The Uzbekistan Air and Air Defense Forces is a significant military branch, comprising approximately 15,000 personnel and 200 aircraft, not a small division as previously perceived.

1. Addressing Notability with Limited Sources: The Central Asian region, particularly in the field of journalism, is less developed regarding online resources. This scarcity impacts the availability of online sources, a crucial aspect of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hence, while the available sources may be fewer than typically expected, they are significant within the regional context and should be weighed accordingly.

2. Enhanced Source List: To address the previous concerns regarding the quality of sources, Here is a list of sources that demonstrate the subject's notable contributions and roles. [43] [44] [45] [46]

3. Addressing Paid Editing Concerns: While there were suspicions of paid editing, I assure you that my contributions are in good faith, aimed at enriching Wikipedia's content with factual and notable information. My interest in this article is purely based on the historical and military significance of the subject.

I urge the community members to restore this article, at least in the form of an AfC. Thank you for reconsidering this matter. PetrovMD ( talk) 16:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion and refund to draft/userspace to allow PetrovMD or other interested users to incorporate additional sources and improve the article before returning it to mainspace. Frank Anchor 17:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Those are not reliable sources.— S Marshall  T/ C 17:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close and deletion and a refund to draft/user if desired. The close was fine based on the arguments provided. Had an editor suggested draftifying, that would have been an acceptable close. While subject is likely notable, the article would have required reduction to substub. — siro χ o 01:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Draftify Thank you all for your input and guidance. I am committed to further researching reliable sources for the article. In the interim, it would be beneficial to permit a draft version, which I can initially develop as a stub, expanding it as more sources become available. Additionally, it's noteworthy that the article on Saydullah's predecessor Abdulla Xolmuhamedov on Wikipedia seems to be based on similar sources, suggesting a precedent for the type of sources being considered. PetrovMD ( talk) 16:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thank you for bringing that to our attention. I've proposed it for deletion. As you are the nominator in this DRV, you have already asked for the content to be restored, so I'm afraid you don't get to add another word in bold.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Lauren Boobert ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

that editor is from Mississippi and is therefore biased in his delete. I need more time to make the case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.104.139.34 ( talk) 23:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• I'm not from Mississippi, or the South, and I hate her politics, but I'd have G10'd that too. To the point where I was awfully tempted to just close this (besides WP:DRVPURPOSE #8) instead of replying to it. — Cryptic 00:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the G10, so we don't have to address the close or the early close of the RFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• This was a fairly straightforward application of Project:Biographies of living persons#Attack pages and Project:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects and Project:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10 by Star Mississippi. It wasn't really even ignoring the rules; because there they are. So, reviewing a speedy deletion: A quick look around indicates that no-one is legitimately going to be looking this up, and it serves no purpose to undelete. And yes, it's fairly clear that this is a time-wasting nomination. Uncle G ( talk) 03:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse my close. I'm not sure how needing more time translates into a two week delay/DRV filing, but that's neither here nor there, nor are whatever you assume to be my politics, IP 185. Thanks Uncle G for clarifying that it wasn't exactly IAR, but even if it were I'd still have made the same close. There is no justification for that redirect. Just because political discourse has gone into the toilet, it doesn't mean we need to do so here. Star Mississippi 13:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

EFS Facilities Services ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Please can you restore the page that was speedily deleted as this was a new page with new sources . It was speedily deleted without a discussion 86.98.142.14 ( talk) 05:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• The content was substantially the same as the page deleted at afd, even if the press releases used to support it were different. Endorse the G4, and, given the obvious terms of use violations here, I'd have been tempted to G11 it even without the afd. As an aside, I can't remember the last time I've seen so many crossed-out usernames in a row as I have while looking at the various incarnations of this page. — Cryptic 05:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and salt, clear campaign to advertise on our site. Stifle ( talk) 09:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closure of the AFD as Delete, regardless of whether that is what is being appealed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse of the G4, based on the statement by Cryptic that the article was substantially the same as the deleted article and that it also qualified for G11. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It would have been a poor G11, and I don't think I'd have deleted it - but, as I said, I'd've been tempted. — Cryptic 20:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Maybe this is a prejudice on my part, but I am more interested in DRV requests filed by registered users. It is a prejudice in the etymological sense that is is a prejudgement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• ECP SALT, and consider title blacklisting. This is a rare case where gaming of titles is being done by paid editors rather than by ultras. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and Salt would be the ideal choice. scope_creep ^Talk 14:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There appears to be misunderstandings regarding this DRV leading to claims this is outside DRV scope. For clarity in simple terms; this is about the closing admins understanding of the discussion outcome and their rationale for closing. These flaws must be demonstrated. This is not an AfD do over. This fall squarely in point 1 of the DRV criteria.

Jill Ovens ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There's been 23 more references added, a number of which are considered reliable sources. Based on the depth of coverage in the sources, and the number and quality of sources present, there's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG.

A large number of the sources are self-published, either by the subject of the article themself, a political they are or were a member of or a trade union she was an official in. A large number are passing quotes where her name is mentioned in passing or she is quoted in passing. Some are lists of candidates at an election and a list of her political party amongst many others.

Additionally, as a large number of sources are offline sources they cannot be checked by the average reader While this is not disqualifying this issue is addressed by by User:Alpha3031 here.

Chris, I've taken a look at some of the sources you've added (e.g. way we were, tech subjects at risk) but there were a fair number of them. Are you able to clarify which ones you intend to be considered towards BASIC/GNG? Not being the main topic is fine, but WP:SIGCOV still says directly and in detail in the sentence before that. More importantly, is there anything that isn't composed of quotes for the subject, "she said X, she said Y, she said Z," etc? That kind of coverage is perfectly fine for filling an article out, subject to WP:PRIMARY, but it isn't the type of thing that would support a claim for BASIC. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 04:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This was not replied to in the discussion meaning that it has to be taken without further explanation from the person adding them as they are behind a complex registration wall as such they cannot be assessed or counted for or against the coverage of the article subject.

I will now go through the sources in turn and why they do not meet SIGCOV or pass GNG. This is as of this revision of the article (the version as at the time of filing this review and the same as at time of closure of the AfD).

• References 1, 4, 23, 24 27, and 28 - Self-published by political parties article subject was or is a member of
• References 2, 13 - Quoted in the articles and not the subject of the article
• References 3, 5, 6 - 12, 15 - 18 and 21, are covered by the section above and relate to the comments from Alpha3031
• Reference 14 - A blog written by the subject of the article
• Reference 19 - Reliable source where article subject is the subject of the article
• References 20 and 22 - Mention in passing simply for holding a party post and giving a quote, not the subject of the article
• References 25, 28 and 29 - purely lists of candidates at elections
• Reference 26 - interview for a blog.
• Reference 30 - A submission to a public consultation, which anyone could have responded to published by the Parliament of New Zealand as part of the routine publication of all individual responses to a public consultation
• Reference 31 - Reliable source where the article subject is the subject of the article on a local issue.
• Reference 32 - A blog
• References 33 and 34 are the same article and only mentioned in passing as someone's wife.

As such references 19 and 31 pass reliable independent and about the article's subject, the rest though do not pass or cannot be assessed for if they pass or not. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 03:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse If you're admitting there's already two suitable sources, then what's the point? This is purely an AfD-style argument not within the jurisdiction of DRV. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  What an odd thing to say, surely you need more than two sources one of which is a complaint over a dog park a genuinely minor issue and one on switching party which I’ll grant is a reliable source of significance

  come on though this feels like the bar is so low the people commenting here could trip over it.

  the justification from the closer was ‘23 new sources’ which has been shown to be absurd when the sources are drilled into as they claim those ‘23 new sources’ push the article into significant coverage and into general notability

  I am feeling like I’m talking to brick walls here with the reasons and comments from people contributing here and at the original AfD. How can this cross the thresholds in anyway of being notable enough for Wikipedia.

  On a personal note the lack of information understanding here is frustrating as it seems that anything, like as little as one thing can get someone over no matter how minor it is. Even when the overwhelming rest are just passing mentions, self publication and also mentions.

  I also have no idea what you mean by “ This is purely an AfD-style argument not within the jurisdiction of DRV.” Please explain as that comes across as dismissive when the review statement focuses on the reason given by the closing admin which is erroneous (in my opinion). PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 05:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• #26 was left out of your source assessment above, if you care. (So was #21, but that's another page of the same source as #16 and #17.) — Cryptic 05:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I will correct this oversight. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 05:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Omissions corrected PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 05:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. DRV is a place to handle failures to follow the deletion process, not a place to re-argue the AFD because you lost. Stifle ( talk) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Stifle ( talk) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This is in no way anything like your characterisation of ‘not a place to re-argue the AFD because you lost’

This is a good faith DRV (not a sour grapes thing as claimed) as the closing admin has (in my opinion) not followed the discussion and is fundamentally flawed in their closure outcome rationale.

This issue seems to be getting ignored as there is a hang up on a non-issue, which is a Distraction from the core issue. PicturePerfect666 ( talk)

09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse and WP:TROUT the nominator for attempting to relitigate the AFD, which is not the purpose of deletion reviews. The closing admin weighed the keep and delete votes properly, though closing as no consensus would have been a viable option (and possibly a better option) since solid arguments were made on both sides. Frank Anchor 14:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The closing admin fundamentally did not follow process by building their closure rationale on faulty grounds: this being their claims that ‘23 new sources’ have pushed the article into passing GNG. This had to be demonstrated as faulty and not backed by the discussion or there is nothing to review. Simply dismissing as outside DRR feels like a misunderstanding of the issue at hand here. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 14:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

WP:BLUDGEONing the process will not help your cause. You made your point, consensus disagrees. It’s time to move on. Frank Anchor 16:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This is not bludgeoning, please do not make bad faith assumptions...this is purely explanation. I am feeling like i am not being taken seriously here and that I am being held in bad faith...when the exact opposite if true. Please engage with the actual substance as opposed to pondering the motives of the contributor. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 18:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This is not a bad faith assumption, it is blatantly obvious bludgeoning, defined as when a user replies to many "!votes" or comments, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart many comments from others with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word and may ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. This seems to be exactly what PicturePerfect666 is doing. Further, this person is assuming bad faith by accusing me of WP:BITING. I don't consider a user with several hundred edits and and a very well put together (though in my opinion incorrect) DRV nomination to be a "newcomer." Frank Anchor 20:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Are you suggesting being a newcomer therefore means you can't be competent or string an argument or sentence together? It is more about understanding the culture and how things work, not being intelligent or competent at drafting an argument. You have no way of knowing my real-world occupation. Simply having something well put together and well written does not negate if a new user is a new user. Also a 'few hundred edits' compared to thousands and thousands by others such as yourself who has nearly 23,000. Pales into dust when it comes to understanding the culture and how processes work. Coming in and stating how dare you respond and accusing of bludgeoning and not understanding how things work (when this falls in criteria 1) is not a helpful way for a new user to learn. If you think I have done wrong, be helpful not a hindrance. Provide constructive feedback, not carte blacnhe dismissal.

I also find you pushing this bludgeoning schtick as something which getting beyond bad faith now as it feels in my opinion you are effectively saying 'shut up and get lost, how dare you reply to things more than I or other would like', with no consideration whatsoever give to the content. Also, save the line of 'well there you go you must have the last word', please engage with me on the substance instead of being dismissive.

I have not seen any arguments which counter what I have posted it is simply 'the original admin was right' without explanation, other than the erroneous 'relitigating the AfD', which I have shown and demonstrated to be false. Also, the users stating that have not given reasons why this is so-called 'relitigating the AfD'.

I also note the actual substance here is still being wholly ignored as this issue goes to the heart of the closing rationale and understanding of the closing admin applied to the discussion.

Please I beg of all of you to engage on the substance here of the issue at hand instead of focusing your efforts in dismissing me for some reason. No wonder I feel like this is bite the newcomer. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 22:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I could say something about how engaging in process properly is required for one to be effectively heard, but I feel as though it would again be dismissed as personal preference. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 01:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Surely, given your experience, you can recognize that there's a distinct difference between badgering and engaging in process @ Alpha3031. Hey man im josh ( talk) 01:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, and if you look at their talk page I tried to discuss it with them, Hey man im josh. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 01:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

No worries @ Alpha3031, I understand your comment differently now after a reread and your response. Hey man im josh ( talk) 01:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ PicturePerfect666: @ Frank Anchor said that they did not consider you a newcomer and that you competently put together this DRV. However, you seemed to have missed that. Replying to every single comment in a discussion and making bad faith accusations (as you have against me, Frank, and Drmies on your own talk page) is not productive. Telling everybody who disagrees with you that they don't understand policy is not productive. You've refused to accept that some people disagree with you on the weight of the sources and the bar that must be met for GNG. It's fine to disagree, but you've, in affect, implied that no one but you or Alpha are competent and that everybody else is wrong. I don't care if you think you aren't bludgeoning the discussion, you have been by every definition. So I urge you to consider dropping the stick. Disagree with others if you wish, but allow discussions to take place without every comment who disagrees with you being told they're wrong. Hey man im josh ( talk) 01:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I am not sure I should be reply to this as I might just get told i am one of the colourfull descriptors for 'shut up you are replying too much'.

To begin with please see this contribution here. Which shows I have replied to Frank..so please withdraw that part of your above comments.

Please withdraw this line that you have pushed over and over which is false. "Replying to every single comment in a discussion" Also this is patently false "and making bad faith accusations (as you have against me, Frank, and Drmies on your own talk page) is not productive. I am making no bad faith assumptions against anyone, I just think you are wrong and I want to know how you came to your outcome. I do not think you are a bad person or acting in bad faith, I just think you are wrong. I in no way think you are 'acting in bad faith'. I am also not going to have a third party discussion regarding the mens rea of myself when talking about a third party or the mens rea of a third party.

This line is also false "Telling everybody who disagrees with you that they don't understand policy is not productive." I have not told anyone they do not understand policy here. I am simply stating that they have failed to see this falls within the scope of DRV. There was also no explanation byy anyone who has said this is "relitiigating the AfD" how it is. It is just an assertion repeated without explanation.

I am making no claims of competence or lack there of. All I am saying is it seems that there is by a lot of the replies here (except Alpha) with no response to the substance at issue. It now seems Alpha has got you on the substance as opposed to me the contributor. Which is nice to see.

This line "You've refused to accept that some people disagree with you on the weight of the sources and the bar that must be met for GNG". This is nothing to do with me 'refusing to accept others disagree with me'. I know for a fact people do disagree with me. By you saying that you are basically saying I am not allowed to reply to others too much or beyond what you or others consider a certain quota.

This sources being something which pushes into SIGCOV or GNG is also not something you have addressed when questioned about it. You are simply not engaging with how you think the sources meet the threshold. You have simply gone 'they do.' Which you are not explaining. You are simply saying I think it does therefore it does. Please go in to more dept than that.

You surely must see the frustration when you are asked about how these sources you claims (The 23 new sources) push this into SIGCOV and GNG. This could have been avoided if you had explained that and explained why you closed as keep on the deletion closing. More than one user has said that a no consensus would have been more appropriate than keep.

I urge you to answer the substance of the discussion as opposed to focusing your colourful descriptors of 'you talk and reply to too much' at me. When is too much replying too much in your opinion? and what is the reply quota? PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 02:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I am feeling a lot of this all round from the people replying here; biting the newcomer. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 18:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Those who do not agree with you are not are not, by default, being WP:BITEY. You have felt the need to "explain" to every single reply on this review and at AfD, which is completely unnecessary and pretty in line with the definition of badgering. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your assessment. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 19:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Hey man im josh, I don't believe the 23 added sources were substantively reviewed in the AFD. Was it your own assessment that they met GNG? Alpha3031 ( t • c) 00:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  There is, in total, 34 source, but that 23 I mentioned was just the additional sources added by @ Kiwichris. Most of the keep votes actually came in before those were added and some of the existing sources also contribute to the claim to notability, so let's not fixate on that specific number that keeps being brought up. Hey man im josh ( talk) 01:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  My question was not intended to be about the number, rather whether your assessment was based on what was substantively discussed at AFD, or the improvements made to the article. Given that, on a reread (I thought the close was on the 9th) there were comments a few hours before and even, in one case, two hours after the close, I believe that is also a factor that should have been considered. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 01:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Hey man im joshare you going to answer this?... this goes to the heart of the frustration I have here. You have seemingly been quick to answer me on other points but not on this fundamental point of the reason you used to close the AfD. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 17:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I would urge PicturePerfect666 to be considerably more succinct and avoid the temptation to respond to every single argument. It is quality not quantity of argument that carries the day here and prolix walls of text will not receive a high weight from the closer. Stifle ( talk) 09:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I can't see that this could have been closed as consensus to delete. Possibly no consensus, but re-closing a keep decision as no consensus changes nothing material about the outcome and is just process for process' sake. Even in their opening statement for this review, the nominator accepts that the article contains two reliable sources with significant coverage, which is at least a reasonable case for notability, and would make the close a reasonable one on its face; arguments to the contrary are re-litigating the AfD rather than reviewing the close. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closure as Keep. The Keep arguments were both more numerous than the Delete arguments and more detailed and guideline-based. A closure of No Consensus would have been valid, although in my opinion Keep was better; but a close of No Consensus would not have been materially different in its effect. Maybe the appellant mistakes length of argument for strength of argument. Does the appellant actually think that arguing with every post will actually change enough !votes to change the outcome of either an AFD or a DRV? (It didn't work in the AFD, and it isn't working in the DRV.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - A caution to the appellant advising them against vexatious litigation may be in order. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Without having done more than skim the article, and barely more for the afd, I think this might have gone over better if it had been a new afd and argued a bit differently (and more succintly!) - perhaps along the lines of "We just kept this, partly on the basis of a late rewrite that wasn't adequately examined. [source assessment from above] There's good coverage in exactly one reliable source among those, and an extremely local matter raised in another. Given the unsuitability of all the other references, we can't accept the offline sources as being enough, at least unless someone else is able to look at them and verify their quality." — Cryptic 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment to User:Cryptic - Yes, but.... If they had filed a new AFD, someone would have argued that the existing AFD should be respected for 90 days. They could have submitted a differently worded DRV, asking for a Relisting of the AFD for the reasons you have listed. But that would be using precision tools rather than a bludgeon. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  That sounds like an excellent way forwards which i was not aware could be done I thought you could only overturn these things not re-open them. Re-opening it to examine the sources is like a perfect way forwards PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 22:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment - My Endorse of the close is unchanged, but we should, as an Ignore All Rules action, either:
  • Allow a new AFD for the analysis of sources,
  • Relist to allow the analysis of sources.
  • That is, it doesn't matter whether we call it a new AFD or more of the same AFD.
  • However, the appellant should be topic-banned to be limited to discussion of source reliability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I am happy to agree to this PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 16:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Personally, I think I would have closed this discussion as "No consensus" but it would have resulted in the same outcome as a "Keep" which is the article would not have been deleted. I respect that well-intentioned and experienced closers can have different opinions after reviewing the same discussion. PicturePerfect666, I have read this DRV request, the AFD and your talk page and what you interpret as editors asking you to "shut up" is actually advice from experienced editors saying that you will have more success here if you are less confrontational. It's not that politeness is more important than policy just that part of your job in discussions is persuasion of other editors to see your point of view and hostility and accusations (hypothetically) can cause other editors to tune out the points you are trying to make. We are all human beings after all and even should you have policy on your side, you still need to effectively interact with your fellow editors which requires some diplomacy rather than insisting you are right. Just my 2 cents. Oh, and the more you participate in AFDs, the more you will see that sometimes consensus goes against you and sometimes it doesn't. Articles I thought were garbage have been kept and others I thought were promising have been deleted. It's not fair but that's the system we work within. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse both "keep" and "no consensus" would have been reasonable interpretations of that discussion, although in the latter case relisting for further examination of the sources would have been reasonable too. I also strongly endorse the comments regarding PicturePerfect666's bludgeoning of this discussion and note that sanctions are possible if it continues. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Give over and leave off the pile on will you please. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 21:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Because several editors are making the same observation about your behavior, it is not a "pile on". If you could step away for a moment from arguing for what you want to happen, you might consider that they may have an accurate view of the situation. No one is infallible, not me, not you, and sometimes people who disagree with us actually have a clearer view about what is going on than we do, especially something as complex as Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you can't accept that sometimes you are wrong, then collaborative editing may not be for you. I've been editing for over 10 years and I still get criticism. Sometimes it's wrong, sometimes it's right. You just try to keep becoming a better editor. That's Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't need any more people telling me the same...this it getting to the point of enough already...the irony of your blocks of text on the same issue when I have been sworn off doing that. This is genuine flogging a dead horse territory. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

If the supposedly dead horse continues to bray, they may be a different species of equid and still alive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This is very true, and you will notice how little I contribute in the bocks I used to. I appear to think that I may come out of this better. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 21:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Keep, and no, a no consensus would not have been a reasonable close based on the discussion. To the extent that anyone thought NC would have been reasonable, I think that they were likely paying too much attention to repeated challenges by the nominator... without noting that those did not generally cause change in bolded !votes. Jclemens ( talk) 08:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Please could you restore the page as it was a soft delete and new Arabic resources have emerged establishing notability. 2406:8800:9014:FA42:A02A:300A:7CE6:23B0 ( talk) 05:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• It was in no manner a soft delete. Previous drvs on 2022 December 19 and 2023 July 4. — Cryptic 06:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy endorse due to bad-faith suggestion that it was a "soft delete", an allegation also improperly made at the previous DRV, and the fact that this appears to be a third fire-and-forget DRV filing by an IP; we should not waste any more editor time on this. Stifle ( talk) 09:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy endorse and close as disruptive. Disclosure, closer. Thanks, Cryptic, for the heads up. There was also this REFUND request. Yubabaogino, please log in and work in draft space. That is the only manner in which an article might be accepted. Star Mississippi 13:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Kidnapping of Shani Louk ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is essentially WP:BLP1E article. The Afd focused on using the same kind of kind of references that were repeating information from affliate news as a quantity over quality argument but no actual substance beyond the initial event. Lastly, some reason it was decided a non-admin should close which I found odd scope_creep ^Talk 12:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• There were two AFD discussions, both non-admin closed.
  • Project:Articles for deletion/Shani Louk was closed (after a full week) with a move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk, which was done. Looking at that and the talkpage discussion that the closer pointed to, that consensus seemed clear. The closer also said that this could be re-nominated as that subject, which could then focus on how the event of the kidnapping (or death, per a now outstanding new move discussion) may or may not merit an article. This seems like a good close, and I think that we should endorse it.
  • Project:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Shani Louk was that very re-nomination, 10 days later. No-one opined delete. I won't fault the closure on that. But it ran for just a few hours overnight in the timezones of many editors who might be able to comment in this subject area. I think that it should have been left for the full 24-hour cycle. If there were opposing points to be made by people who aren't awake from 22UTC to 4UTC, they were excluded. Project:Non-admin closure#Articles for deletion as well as Project:Snowball clause warn against this sort of thing for good reason.
• Uncle G ( talk) 14:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The second afd ran from 22UTC on October 30 to 4UTC on November 4. That's still an early closure, but it's a great deal longer than a few hours. — Cryptic 14:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Gah! I misread the timestamp. In which case, I do not fault the closure at all, and since the rationale here is about sources for 1 event, and the article is about 1 event, the only use of administrator tools in the future that I foresee is moving over redirects in the inevitable arguments about whether this is "killing", "kidnapping", "murder", or "death", given the page moves already and the outstanding requested move discussion. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. As I noted in the most recent AfD discussion, and will repeat now, this is not a WP:BLP1E because it is not a biography. After all, for people covered in the context of one event, our guidelines are explicit that [t]he general rule is to cover the event. This article does just that. Arguments in the discussion were not solely focused on affiliate news, as the review requestor incorrectly claims; in fact, people (including me) had made explicit reference to detailed and in-depth follow-up coverage in international papers of record, such as The Times. That’s a far cry from no actual substance beyond the initial event. Perhaps ideally this would have been left for seven days, but the outcome would not have changed—the arguments in support of keeping were so much stronger than those in favor of deletion (and so much more convincing to the participants—not a single participant was persuaded by the nominator’s argument for deletion) that I don’t think that we should reopen this for the sake of bureaucracy. In other words, the close accurately reflected the strong and clear consensus that was ascertained in that discussion, and I don’t see that as possibly changing upon review or reopening, so I endorse the close and see no need to re-open it. — Red-tailed sock  _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  The article has been moved since then. scope_creep ^Talk 15:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Are you referring to the move from Kidnapping of Shani Louk to Killing of Shani Louk, which occurred after the closure of the second AfD? — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 22:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Red-tailed hawk: He could not have been referring to that move, which happened on November 7, after he made the above observation, which then, I surmise, refers to the move from "Shani Louk" to "Kidnapping of Shani Louk" (which was the outcome of the fist AfD / first RM combo). Scope creep, respectfully, I think your comment in this thread and your linking of the prior AfD in the DRV header, is proof that you started this process to challenge the first of the two AfDs specifically. But doing that was an incorrect use of process on your part because the first AfD is immune from challenge, since any challenge is mooted by the second AfD. Basically, the first AfD could have been an absolute disaster and a farce of an AfD, and DRV still could not do anything about it. Any issue with that, now historic, however recent, AfD simply isn't actionable anymore. (I also read what you wrote below about the newswire carrying the same stuff in multiple languages, and how Several editors tried to bring that to folks attention, it might have well been invisible, but none of that happened in the 2nd AfD; it appears you are referring to the 1st AfD there as well.)— Alalch E. 22:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I've been responding as if this was about the second AfD. I'd be a bit confused as to why one would challenge the first AfD close if there was a subsequent discussion. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 22:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  It's some kind of mix up. This DRV is a mess. — Alalch E. 22:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I mean, to the extent that it's possible to trainwreck a deletion review, this would be it. — Alalch E. 22:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• As the closer of the first discussion... no, this doesn't qualify for BLP1E. There are tons of articles about killings of non-notable people, and that's exactly how we are supposed to cover them: as articles on the event, not on the person. Elli ( talk | contribs) 16:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• I made the nomination in the earlier AfD. At that time I think it was a quintessential BLP1E, but I agree with Scope Creep that there has been some, uh, scope creep in terms of what exemptions we're willing to make to that policy. In that earlier AfD, the arguments for upmerging, including the WP:PAGEDECIDE argument independent of the BLP1E one, were solidly grounded in guidance, whereas the keep arguments (many from newcomers) largely boiled down to either WP:ILIKEIT or to "meets GNG" (reflecting a misunderstanding that GNG is the only applicable standard at AfD). It could have been closed differently, but it's water under the bridge at this point.
  Which brings us to the more recent AfD. Even with the additional coverage after her death was confirmed (which really adds basically one sentence if we're writing in proper summary style), I think there is an intelligent WP:PAGEDECIDE argument to be made for upmerging, and I'm not fully convinced the encyclopedia is better off with the article. But no one made the upmerging argument, so from a deletion review perspective, I endorse the close. My advice to those who continue to find the article unsuitable would be to make a merge nomination instead. As broken as the merge process is, it'd at least reduce some of the GNG misunderstanding and focus the discussion around WP:PAGEDECIDE. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 16:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment There is 270+ folk killed there and for some reason we have decided to keep this one person, even though the news coverage is no different from any other person who was killed there. There was no examination of the quality of the references, in recognition of the affiliate nature of news. The amount of duplicate news moving from agency to agency is the whole argument. The duplication of references from those affiliate (wires) news only took place because she was a European, German, a women and a pretty one at that. It is classic WP:BIAS. It was classic pile-on with no consideration of form. I remember duding Operation Cast Lead in 2008, when the exactly the same process occurred. There is blonde girl who was killed about 14 along with her friend who was Palestinian, who was a similar age and young lady got all the news, where the Palestinain was invisible. This is one issue. The second issue, is the source weren't even looked it. It just assumption that were as there was quantity of them, therefore it must quality, it must be good, like its 2008. The examination of the aflliiate wired news didn't take place. The same kind of reported information, was repeated multiple times in multiple countries, meaning lots of duplication. Several editors tried to bring that to folks attention, it might have well been invisible. scope_creep ^Talk 16:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Well the question is twofold, then:
    • Is this remediable through the administrator deletion tool? Or through ordinary editors with all of the editing tools that ordinary editors have? All of the ordinary editors opining redirection in the first discussion should surely be expected to put their editing tool usages where their mouths are, to mangle a metaphor.
    • Why wasn't any Look, the sources are actually all the same, copying each other? argument raised at Project:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Shani Louk? Or even at Project:Articles for deletion/Shani Louk?

      A proper source analysis showing how they were related could have been a great benefit to the discussion. But it wasn't done in two AFD discussions. Not even you made did a detailed source analysis to prove that point at Special:Diff/1180517064/1180541464.

  • Uncle G ( talk) 17:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I was nominator on the more recent AfD, but the consensus there is crystal clear and was quite obviously not going to change by waiting to let an admin close it after seven days. @ Scope creep: the purpose of deletion review is to look at the closure, not rehash the AfD itself. VQuakr ( talk) 18:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per the simple fact that this isn't a biography. There also isn't consensus to delete in either AfD. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 01:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• (involved, primary author) Comment. The first AfD can't be challenged anymore (mootness), only the second one can.— Alalch E. 01:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - no notable "Death of X" article can ever possibly be a WP:BLP1E because Requirement #3 of BLP1E is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. If the event is notable, it's significant, and an individual obviously has a "substantial role" in their own death. There is no problem with NACs of AFDs by experienced editors. As for "some reason we have decided to keep this one person," she's not the only one we have an article about: Noa Argamani, Vivian Silver, and though she was not kidnapped, a similar article is Inbal Rabin-Lieberman. It's not just this time around, either, there are other notable kidnapping victims, such as Gilad Shalit. But in any event, there's a really obvious reason why Shani Louk has received more RS coverage than other kidnapping victims (the news coverage is definitely quite different from other victims), and that's because her half-naked body was paraded around in the back of a pick up truck in Gaza City, videos of which went viral. "For some reason"? I think we all know the reason. Levivich ( talk) 02:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • No "death of X" article can ever possibly be a WP:BLP1E because of the L. Stifle ( talk) 09:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Very know murder case. The article is not about Shani herself, but about the crime, and the fact what she was filmed paraded dead, clip that broadcasted as some pride video. Corvus ( talk) 10:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment Would appreciate if @ Scope creep: had bothered to reach out to me first before coming here, which I might be persuaded to vacate my closure back then. Segmenting out the discussion here, I however stand by my closure for the second AfD. And in case anyone's wondering, I apologise for making this kind of nac closure at AfD. It most likely will not be repeated, and I will leave it to an admin to close a snowy AfD. – robertsky ( talk) 15:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Your SNOW close was the right thing to do. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Robertsky: Your snow close was the correct decision. There couldn't be any other decision based on the !voting coverage. I shouldn't have mentioned it above. The reason I never left a message was the whole afd was wrong. In the past I've often been horsed by non-admin bad nacs and its left a bad taste. I apologise for not discussing it with you before hand and resolving it. scope_creep ^Talk 10:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  No worries from me. Cheers! :) – robertsky ( talk) 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  The reason you never left a message to robertsky was that you never saw that second afd, which is the AfD that robertsky closed. To be able to to reach out to robertsky about their close of an AfD you would have needed to know that the AfD existed, and you did not know; you only knew about the previous AfD, for which you started this DRV, and it was not closed by robertsky. It was closed by Elli.— Alalch E. 15:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thankfully other folk are providing clarity here as its certainly not me. I'm right out of focus at the moment. scope_creep ^Talk 17:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and be mildly annoyed that the nom called out the non-admin closure. The (second) discussion could only have been closed as a keep given that discussion and @ Robertsky: did a fine job closing it. My only advice is that when dealing with a continuous area, snow closing a bit early probably isn't ideal, admin or not. It can look like you were racing to close it and it saves very little. But I think that's a minority opinion. As a note, I'm not sure I'd have !voted to keep, but I certainly endorse the closure. *Wanders off mumbling about discouraging non-admins from closing.*. Hobit ( talk) 15:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thank you. It wasn't a race, if anything. I was pondering at the RM discussion, and had wanted to close it as the news had broken of her bodily remains and it made no sense to retain the article title as it was then, but it was a bit more contentious (evaluating on the arguments between 'Death of' or 'Killing of') than here (which looked like an outright keep here). And so, I closed here, with the intention to follow up with the RM soon after. I got busy IRL and and thereafter distracted. – robertsky ( talk) 16:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as moot, but considering subsequent information, Redirect to Re'im music festival massacre. There was no kidnap. Every AfD !vote advocating redirect to “…kidnap…” should be discounted. Most of the content is about wrong information. Per BIO1E, and the close of the AfD, it is not appropriate to spin out a full biography. There is insufficient material on her killing, as distinct from the massacre, to justify an article under that title. Fixing things due to new information (that she died in the massacre) does not require correcting an AfD completed with the limited information at the time. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  During the second AfD which was approximately contemporaneous with the RM to change the name to either "Death of Shani Louk" or "Killing of Shani Louk" the article did not say that she was kidnapped ( this is what it looked like when it was nominated, note how it doesn't say in wikivoice that she was kidnapped). The only claim that she was kidnapped made in own voice was the title of the article. During the AfD, the article described an event involving Louk's death, not saying she was kidnapped, and participants still !voted keep. For more clarification: The second AfD was started after death was confirmed.

  This is what the article looked like an hour and half after the second AfD had been started: special:permalink/1182713393. It's all there already. Prominent RM notice. Recent death notice. Lead correctly saying suggesting she had already died on 7 October. Not a kidnapping. Most AfD participants were presented with sufficiently up-to-date information.

  On further thought, you are probably unaware that there's been another AfD after the one which you've referenced. This has been mentioned in this DRV, prior to your comment, but it's understandable to skip on reading others' comments in discussions like these from time to time. I'm not certain about what "moot" in your comment refers to, but it may be a reference to the article's subject being reformulated from an event to a biography, not a reference to there being a whole snow-keep-closed AfD after the AfD which this DRV procedurally unsoundly challenges.— Alalch E. 01:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I was unaware of AfD2. I never imagined that anyone would seek a review of an AfD that was not the last. I almost always review the AfD and the article without reading others’ comments. If you read others comments first, your review is not independent and is this less valuable. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  In AfD2, I agree with the nominator, except for the extraordinary distaste of putting an AfD tag on the article on the day that it was revealed that she was killed in the massacre three weeks earlier. There is no valid reason to delete, later, and certainly not on that day, or week. The article will be merged and redirected, I’m sure, unless future sources develop new content.

  AfD2 must be endorsed, could not have been closed any other way, WP:SLAP the nominator for their bad judgement. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and redirect per SmokeyJoe. Stifle ( talk) 09:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment I never saw that second afd either. I'm thankful that SmokeyJoe has provided some clarity here. I knew the thing was a crock. scope_creep ^Talk 10:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse both closures, not being sure what is being appealed. The closer of the second AFD should have waited, but no harm, no foul, and relisting it because of the non-admin close would be stupid. However, in view of the change in the circumstances of her death, this DRV seems to have been Overtaken by Events. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Nathan Hale Arts Magnet School ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closer neglected to look at & analyse any oth the sources from "The New London Day", there are many articles about this school in "The Day", and should have been analsised. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 22:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• (Closer comment) Firstly, very disappointing that the editor who filed this DRV failed to follow the instructions clearly listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions and a) discuss with me (recommended, but not required) or b) notify me of filing this (mandatory). Secondly, the applicant seems to have a total misunderstanding of the role of someone closing an AfD - it is not my job as the "closer" to "look at & analyse the sources", that is the job of the people who participated. My job is to analyse consensus of those who participate, within the framework of our P&G's. The applicant had multiple attempts at finding sources (along with the source assessment table) and in each case, according to the consensus of editors in the discussion, failed to produce sources which were independent and cover the subject in-depth. The applicant's last submission to the discussion was on 1 November, and there was further contribution to the discussion after this point which dismissed the sources as routine or not independent. There was no other way this debate could have been closed. Daniel ( talk) 22:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Daniel. No other way this could have been closed. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Daniel, not the closer's job to analyze sources. And... it was correctly pointed out in the discussion that WP:NCORP applies, so if The Day articles had been "analyzed", the only conclusion would have been that WP:AUD applies.— Alalch E. 00:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The delete side has a substantial numerical majority, and each vote is equally strong compared to the OP's perspective. Given this, there is need to override the numerical count given the OP's reasoning is not substantially stronger, and the closer correctly closed as delete. VickKiang (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comments: The Day is a very good local newspaper. Its coverage should count as a reliable source. Too bad it's paywalled.

(As a side note, The Day has the best submarine coverage of any news site in the US, so it gets online readers from all over, not just Connecticut.)

Source evaluation is not the closer's job -- it's the job of the participants. The situation is analogous to that of a judge and jury. Daniel had no choice but to close it the way he did.

-- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 02:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Endorse deletion per my recent comments.

-- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 02:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The close reflected the consensus of editors, and their opinions did refer to the guidelines. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Zakir Hossain Raju (professor) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Note: User:Parbon attempted to create this DRV but messed up the syntax. I have fixed it; I was also the deleting admin so I do not need to be notified. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The article was created by me in 2023 and was proposed for deletion within weeks on the ground that the article fails the WP:PROF or WP:GNG. It was deleted after discussion. I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the undeletion of the Wikipedia article titled "Zakir Hossain Raju (professor)" which was recently deleted. I believe the article has the potential to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:PROF and WP:GNG) with the right improvements. I have carefully reviewed the article and made necessary changes to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines. I have added additional reliable sources and citations to establish the notability of Zakir Hossain Raju, addressing the concerns that led to the deletion. I kindly request that you review the updated draft and consider its reinstatement. The article now conforms to Wikipedia's standards and provides valuable information about an accomplished individual in academia and filmmaking. If there are any specific guidelines or criteria that I should address further, please let me know, and I will make the necessary revisions promptly. Thank you for your time and consideration. User:Parbon. — Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comment There was a majority for deletion here (7-4 if I'm counting correctly) but more importantly (a) the Delete comments were in the main far closer to policy regarding whether the subjects passes our notability policies and (b) some of the Keep votes were unconvincing. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Given the complaint/challenge, adding more explanation to the close would be a good idea.

  Would you advise using draftspace to present a better draft (not using IMDb etc?)

  Parbon appears to be mentioning an improved version in draft. Do you know what he is talking about? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I looked, but couldn't find anything remotely similar in draftspace, deleted or existing, nor in Parbon's contribs. Unless they mean the edits they made to the article between the afd listing and deletion; its size was increased from about 9.5k to 14k bytes. — Cryptic 00:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse decision. Closer's decision related to policy. (I was a participant in the AfD). Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC). reply
• Endorse deletion, as supported both by numbers and by guideline-based arguments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow Recreation as draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – can't find any fault with Black Kite's reasoning here. Of course there's nothing preventing recreation (in mainspace or in draftspace) if better sourcing is available, but since there's no actual evidence that that's the case (despite the claim above, which I hope wasn't written with artificial intelligence), I don't think recreation would be a good idea. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Annamalai Kuppusamy ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article was created by somebody in 2020 and was proposed for deletion within weeks on the ground that the article fails the WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E criteria and was deleted after discussion.

It seems not very unfair to delete the page at that point since he was just another IPS officer leaving service and joining a political party. Though it is very much evident that, he is more notable and not like every other hundreds of IPS officers as he was different and was famous. He recieves unusual media coverage atleast locally. But that doesn’t qualify enough to pass the WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E criterias. Also the article presented then was more in a promotion tone. There was also a title conflict since there is another person with the name K.Annamalai. The nominator of the AFD himself “suggest to delete the article for now and wait till anything develops reason being wikipedia is not a soapbox and biographical host for every person” Consensus reached to delete the article ‘atleast temporarily’.

BUT, things had changed substatially over time. He was appointed as the state vice-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party and was promoted as the State President a year later. From day 1 in his office until now, he is been in the headlines of leading, reputed Tamil and English, newspapers and electronic media in Tamil Nadu 24x7x365. He even reaches national headlines frequently. It could be verified online here [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

Tamil, Malayalam, hindi and Kannada Wikipedias already has artilce on him and the traffic for the page in Tamil wikipedia gets 5 to 7 times the views on an average when compared to the article on the previous president L. Murugan, even though he is a union minister.

I am elobrating all these things just to reflect upon his increased notability over time. Now the WP:NPOL criteria is met and he does not fit into the WP:BLP1E category.

Even though the name space Annamalai.K is been already created for a former ‘1-time-MLA’ who was elected in 2001 and was very little notable comparably. Yet he was argued to be an elected representative. Apart from that he was nowhere near to ‘Annamalai Kuppusamy’ (whom we are discussing about) in the notability scale. (This is another discussion)

For the argument that the tone of the then article is promotional, I have a different version which shall be uploaded (again it shall be discussed).

For the citations – There are already tens of hundreds of news articles available on him. We will be able to add fare references from reputed sources readily.

So it is very much unfair not to have a page in English Wikipedia on him now. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 06:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• I would suggest the deleted content be restored to draft so that the new/additional information the nominator has mentioned can be added and the article transferred back to mainspace. Stifle ( talk) 09:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Based on the excellent submissions of Cryptic I now suggest keep deleted and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle ( talk) 12:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  A DEEPER listing isn't warranted, I don't think; it hasn't been to DRV before so far as I recall. And we actually might want to unsalt someday, despite the best efforts of this person's promoters, if someone presents evidence from reliable sources that don't accept payment in exchange for coverage. — Cryptic 12:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I have been noticing for some time that the namespace Annamalai is being created/drafted by somebody and was deleted by others. These issues was going on again and again and I wondered then that why such a personality like him does not deserves a page here. Anyway I moved on as I’ve witnessed similar arguments multiple times in the past on different spaces. I thought those things would be settled in a week or month by the people who are involved since an article on a personality like Annamalai is inevitable with every standards of Wikipedia. I am not involved with the topic any time earlier; BUT 3 years later, a page was still not available on such a notable personality! Mr.Annamalai is one among the key people around whom the politics of Tamilnadu revolves around continiously for the last couple of years. As a resident/native of Tamil Nadu I personally experience this. That’s why I am here now.

  The vigor with which the page was created again and again seems discourteous. But I assume, that was made by different people at different points of time. Most of the Ids which was attempting the creation of this particular page appears inexperienced, and was not familiar to Wikipedia. They are pretty unfamiliar with the regulations and norms of Wikipedia which literally goes into hundreds of pages. But see how rudely the issue was handled on the other side; by people Who has years of experience in Wikipedia. They keep on deleting on the other end without paying little or no attention to understand the crucz of the issue. Also, citing the behavior of some beginners does not warrant an indefinite denial of an article on a person with such notability.

  User:Cryptic opinioned that "especially on such flimsy evidence as google searches, other Wikipedias, and the Times of India."

  I repeat,once again

  He was the state vice-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party, (one among the largest political party in India) and was promoted as the State President, (of a state with a population of over 80 million) a year later.From day 1 in his office until now, he is been in the headlines of leading, reputed Tamil and English, newspapers and electronic media in Tamil Nadu 24x7x365. He even reaches national headlines frequently. It could be verified online here [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. Tamil, Malayalam, hindi and Kannada Wikipedias already has artilce on him and the traffic for the page in Tamil wikipedia gets 5 to 7 times the views on an average when compared to the article on the previous president L. Murugan, even though he is a union minister.

  This is not about citing a random news from a random newspaper. They are news articles from leading reputed newspapers, The Times of India, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, The New Indian Express etc. I had ran searches focusing only on English dailies. There are a dozen regional language news articles also. Those above newspapers carries not one or two articles on Annamalai; But hundreds of articles each in the last 1 year alone. Again these are not some random newspapers. For example, 'Times of India' is the largest circulated English daily in the world. 'The Hindu' is the second most circulated English-language newspaper in India. These are all flimsy...!? Additionally, he also has more than half a million social media followers. If such a person does not qualify notability I would like to ask humbly to User:Cryptic, who has 15+ years experience in Wikipedia to " Define Notability"

  I would like to suggest experienced users here to act responsibly. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 14:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Also afd'd independently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamalai k, and the draft was mfd'd more recently at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Annamalai Kuppusamy. There's an existing draft at Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician), which I'm sorely tempted to G4 based on the mfd. Deleted at least 27 times in mainspace and 43 in draft. Do not unsalt or restore even to draft, especially on such flimsy evidence as google searches, other Wikipedias, and the Times of India.
  Note that there's a different K. Annamalai ( AfD discussion) who is notable, and whose page was hijacked for this person so frequently it had to be indefinitely ec-protected. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KM. Annamalai is also apparently about someone else. — Cryptic 12:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Times of India is the largest circulated English daily in the world. The Hindu is the second most circulated English-language newspaper in India. These news dailies has literally hundreds of articles which reports/covers Annamalai. These are all flimsy...!? If such a person does not qualify notability I would like to ask humbly to User:Cryptic, who has 15+ years experience in Wikipedia to " Define Notability" and define “Reliable resource”.

  What do you mean by "evidence from reliable sources that don't accept payment in exchange for coverage." Please act responsibly- Vaikunda Raja :talk: 14:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Cryptic does not need to define it; they are already both well-defined at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Stifle ( talk) 17:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Then you can link some of them instead of vaguely waving at google searches. Counting google hits is not research. And the Times of India is worth zero for a subject like this. You're the one who wants this restored; the onus is on you. — Cryptic 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I would encourage Vaikunda Raja to be as succinct as possible with their posts and consider carefully whether they need to respond to every point made. Repeatedly saying "please act responsibly" implies you are accusing people of being irresponsible, and will not go down well. Stifle ( talk) 17:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• This has been deleted several times and is currently protected against recreation. By the time an article gets to that point it's usually expected that you demonstrate that the reasons for deletion no longer apply and show a draft version which can be moved to mainspace before the title is unprotected. Here the reasons for deletion were notability, which usually means source coverage, so you'd need to produce sources which show the subject's notability. The above doesn't do this, the links given go to search results and other considerations like view counts in other Wikipedias aren't relevant for establishing notability. I suggest the OP try and write a good draft and come up with a handful of the best sources which show the subject passes the general notability guideline. A small number of high quality sources will be a lot more convincing than a large pile of low quality ones. Hut 8.5 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse whichever deletion is being appealed. The real issue is what to do about the tendentious submissions, but DRV is a content forum. Has the appellant been given notice of the contentious topic of India? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation subject to a new AfD. The Hindu and The Indian Express are both well-respected sources that are rated generally reliable at WP:RSNP, and while I'm not going to take a position on notability, the fact that they've each published dozens of stories about this person in just the past year is a very good sign that a 2021 AfD shouldn't be the end of the discussion. (From a "substantially identical" perspective, a number of the G4s have just been bad speedies, pure and simple.) We shouldn't let understandable frustration with other people's conduct keep us from recognizing that Vaikunda Raja has a valid point here. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  User:Extraordinary Writ, I request you to take a look into the draft version, Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 13:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Allow Recreation and Review of Draft by downgrading protection in mainspace to ECP so that a reviewer can accept it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This is probably the worst case of the gaming of titles. But since the subject may be notable, the gaming of titles should be dealt with by sanctioning the editors, and not by means of WP:DEEPER. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Also created at KuppusamyAnnamalai and thence deleted at Draft:KuppsamyAnnamalai.
  I'd still want to see a reasonable draft before just declaring the afds unenforceable. Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician) ain't it. There's a lot of fully-justified G11 deletions here besides the G4s - this is how I first stumbled on the subject - and at least some of the bad G4s could have been G11s too. — Cryptic 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I am working on the text for the Article; BUT before the name of the article is another matter of concern.
  • Everybody Please go through patiently...
  • K.Annamalai (AIADMK) or K.Annamalai (BJP)
  • Right now the name of the article as in the draft is K.Annamalai (BJP Politician). The name of him as per his election affidavit is K. Annamalai. His social media accounts in Twitter and Facebook were with the same names. Majority of the newspaper reports mention his name as 'Annamalai' or 'K.Annamalai'. Here in wikipedia the name space 'K.Annamalai' is assigned to another person who was a Member of Legislative Assembly (one among the 234 members) who was elected only once in 2001 to Tamil Nadu state assembly for AIADMK.

  So if there are two people with one name the namespace should be allocated based on notability. The other person K.Annamalai of AIADMK is a former MLA. So his notability is to be weighed upon. He was elected only once as a MLA for the political party AIADMK, a party which is known for bringing in new unfamilier faces for every elections and swap them with another in the next elections. K.Annamalai of AIADMK is not only not elected more than once but also that he was not active since then. Because he was an MLA 20 years back he was not found in any newspaper reports either. If you ran a google search 90% of the hits (it be web, news or images) goes to the BJP President Annamalai. If you ran the search by the term 'K.Annamalai Tenkasi' again more than 80% will leads to BJP President Annamalai and another 20% will lead to some other Annamalais.

  • On the other hand the other one is an Ex IPS officer serving currently as the State President of a National Party. He was an outstanding IPS officer and a good Orator whose speeches goes occationally viral in millions as the one in this TED speech. He is a vibrant politician who has a combined social media followers of over a million in Facebook and twitter alone. More than from the political space as a state president of BJP he has been in the front pages of Newspapers. Not in regional language ones but in the national ones which are credible, reputable and reliable. The news reports here The Hindu Indian Express Times of India India Today Deccan Herald Hindustan Times The Statesman reports the appointment of him as the state president. I mentioned not the regional language Tamil newspapers (which are popular among the masses of over 80 million in Tamil Nadu) which ran atleast 100+ articles on him in the last 7 days alone. Here is the links for the same newspapers' recent newsstories on him The Hindu Indian Express Times of India India Today Deccan Herald Hindustan Times The Statesman. Almost all of them are within 5 days or so. Iam not going into the electronic media which has hundreds of videos which attracts millions of views.
  • Another important thing is: the current article with the name space K.Annamalai is misleading to public. Every time somebody search the google using the keyword 'Annamalai' or 'K.Annamalai', (as he was popularly known) they mean the BJP State president and reaches Wikipedia (which almost come within the first 5 hits on a google search) to know that they are in the wrong article. This shall be verified by peeping into the page views of the article. Though the page in the namespace K Annamalai is created in 2015 the page gets an average daily view of below 10. The page began to get increasing views when ever the other person, Annamalai IPS (when then as a police officer) get popular in newspapers and the page reaches an all time peak on 25-Aug-2020 with 24000+ single day page view when the former IPS officer joined politics and joined BJP. One year later on 08-July-2021 the page again gets a single day view of 6800+ and afterwards the page gets an average daily view of 700+. While, the person for whom the namespace K.Annamalai is allocated now has nothing to do with the associated dates and the relevant views. These things shall be again verified by comparing the page views for the article of the BJP President in Tamil wikipedia hereHence more than 700 people who are searching for the BJP president is has been misled to the page of the former One time AIADMK MLA of 2001 K.Annamalai. The person for whom the page was now allocated was so inactive that he was not even contesting for the last 15 years. This person is not even found in google hits or in the newspapers. So I request every body to pay little attention towards the wide ranging implications of the issue and act accordingly.
  • So the name spaces 'K.Annamalai (AIADMK)' for the former MLA and 'K.Annamalai (BJP)' for the BJP President is possible. This could be done if both personalities are more or less equally notable. But going through the page views and other things it is quiet evident that the BJP President K. Annamalai is far far notable than the former 2001 MLA. So I request everybody to assign the namespace 'K.Annamalai' for the relevant figure; and the other person be moved to 'K.Annamalai (AIADMK)' or so. Weighing between these two personalities is essential before assigning the namespace to either of them. Vaikunda Raja :talk: 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - User:Vaikunda Raja - Your posts are too long. Some editors ignore overly long posts, and other editors conclude that the poster has very little to say, and therefore is using too many words to mask a lack of substance. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • User:Robert McClenon, I understand the frustration as a reader to go through long posts.I tried hard to cut-short further but failed since too many things are involved with this topic now. May be another thing is I am not proficient In English and so I need more words to express little perhaps, Sorry. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 16:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Well you could have cut all but one of those 7 bullet points. Everything except the 5th is totally irrelevant. Uncle G ( talk) 18:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

      User:Uncle G It seems that by way of neglecting the other points you doubt his notability. The Basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) reads that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." If the criteria is so, Annamalai is been reported in multiple, independent reliable sources (The Hindu, Indian Express etc) more or less 50+ distinct articles in the last one month. For example The Hindu alone had published 4 different articles 1 2 3 4 on him in the last 48 hours alone! Leave aside the regional language newspapers which wrote 100s of articles.If not, I request you to make your point clear. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 13:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Also I request you to go through the draft of the article as I had worked on it. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 16:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  User:Vaikunda Raja - Please notice that I have requested that the title in article space be partially unsalted (protection downgraded to ECP) so that a reviewer who reviews the draft can accept it if it is ready for article space. I do not review drafts in detail if the title is protected in article space, because I will not be able to accept them. So please wait five more days until this DRV is closed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  User: Robert McClenon I value the insights and guidance you provide very much. Thank you. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 13:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• I read this with intention to close it, but found no consensus to do anything. Having decided I wasn't going to close the discussion, I then changed mindset to 'dicussion contributor' rather than 'decider of consensus'. I agree with Cryptic that the draft is poor and not up to Mainspace standard. Considering the history of the titles and their repeated deletions, I am not of the opinion that AGF applies here (ie. allow a move to mainspace and AfD), and I also don't think allowing a single reviewer to approve and move to mainspace (by lowering the title protection) is appropriate given the long history of articles being deleted for G11 and AfD reasons. My !vote is keep deleted with prejudice given the circumstances, and the only way forward for any person trying to recreate this is to come to DRV with a fully-complete draft and ask "is this worthy of mainspace?". I know this might be a departure from norms, but quite simply, the history of this article at its various titles is extraordinary. Daniel ( talk) 23:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Three main issues with this article/namespace are 1. Alleged Illegitimate creations and repeated deletions; 2. Notability; 3 Quality of the content.

  1. Repeated creations and repeated deletions: Beginners often shall not be aware of the detailed regulations here in Wikipedia. They began writing what they consider worthy. Assuming good faith, those who are experienced in Wikipedia should/shall verify the notability and credibility of the subject and the relevant sources before deciding how to act. The article/draft should be approved if the subject is notable. If the behaviors of the concerned users are not satisfactory, consider sanctioning them after proper notifications/warnings. As noted by User:Robert McClenon and User:Extraordinary Writ it is thoroughly unfair to decide upon the fate of the article based on the behavior of some beginners as in this case. So is he notable worthy of a standalone article?
  2. Notability: Though he may not be notable when the article was first created what User:Cryptic perhaps failed to notice are the later developments; especially when the person's notability gains substantially over the last couple of years. His notability increased so much so that Indian media covered him 24x7x365. Reputed, reliable and credible sources publish news articles on him almost on a daily basis. Iam a native of Tamil Nadu and I stand testimony (personal testimonies do not matter and this detail is just for clarity) to the fact that the current politics of Tamil Nadu revolves around a few people and Annamalai is among the top 5, unquestionably and that's what reflects in the scope of the media coverage. As suggested by User:Hut 8.5 the details in the current draft fulfill the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline as the subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Apart from the draft, in the last 30 days there shall be at least 100+ news articles published on him from reliable, I repeat 'credible English sources' alone!. There shall be an additional 500+ ones in atleast 5 another regional languages published during the same period. One among the most reliable English print daily ( Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) in India 'The Hindu' had published 3 different articles [57] [58] [59] on him on 3 different matters in the last 72 hours! But it may be argued that the draft is not up to the mark.
  3. Quality of the draft content: For the argument that the quality of the draft is not upto the mark, the template {Tone|date=November 2023} is already in place and the page shall be improved collaboratively. Considering the Namespace's history, future edit wars/reverts shall be prevented by keeping the page under ECP. But citing this as a reason to not promote the article to main space is unfair. For those who consider that the current draft is in a admiring tone I would suggest to get into the details of the cited sources. I just reflected the information there to my best. And, most of the sources cited including for personal details are among the highly reliable ones. Also, I am careful enough that I did not editorialize.

  Most Importantly and interestingly this shall perhaps be one among the rare cases in the history of English Wikipedia that the notability of a person is not only subdued but was also diverted to another person! With denying the general namespace 'Annamalai.K' for the notable person (Annamalai Kuppusamy) and allocating it for another one who is disproportionately less notable, hundreds of English Wikipedia readers are diverted to a wrong page every single day! This could be verified from the unusual traffic jump of the current page k.Annamalai on August 25 2021, the exact date when the former IPS officer Annamalai.K (who was still reduced to a draft page now) joined politics and also from the subsequent daily traffic of the page of 700+ daily views. Apart from the election result page no news articles are found on him either online or offline and no google hits either! I wonder how this former One-time-MLA of Tenkasi K.Annamalai's notability is weighed against the multi-disciplinarian Annamalai Kuppusamy in the notability scale! The other page should be disambiguated appropriately WP:DPT

  User: Daniel asked for "fully-complete draft"! Out of the 6 million+ articles in English Wikipedia, how many of them are fully complete?! Wikipedia is not where the contents are written by experts and are closed for another 5 years until the nex review. Is it legitimate to require "fully-complete" text on any subject in a collaborative project like Wikipedia where edits are made almost on a daily basis?

  IMHO the draft is ready to be upgraded to the main space. Additional copy-edits, rephrasing etc be made and that shall be done even after moving to main space either. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 10:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Clearly the advice from numerous experienced editors to keep posts and responses to shorter lengths has not been taken on board by the applicant, with another near-800 words to process above. Quite frankly, I don't care enough to go through it all. I disagree with the assertion in the final paragraph that the draft is ready for articlespace, and have little faith it can be brought up to the required standard. On that basis I don't believe it should be moved to articlespace, and will only reconsider my view should a "good" draft be presented (rather than the current "poor" one, to use Cryptic's word of choice). Daniel ( talk) 10:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  (Do I really call things "poor" enough to be remembered for it? I haven't in this drv, and it's more diplomatic than a lot of the words I think before they make it through to my fingers. — Cryptic 10:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)) reply

  (The editor has now contributed 3,037 words to this DRV, which is one of the more spectacular examples of bludgeoning the process that I've seen at DRV in recent years. When you consider that submitting Arbitration evidence is limited to 1000 words, including rebuttals, this number is just unwieldy. Daniel ( talk) 10:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• If we end up with an article here, it will be despite, not because of, the filibustering and repeated attempts at recreation. See User:JzG/And the band played on.... — Cryptic 10:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Miles Routledge ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A previous deletion review recommended allowing recreation; however, I'm requesting restoration of the original article. There is a draft pending at Draft:Miles Routledge, and I'd like to have the original article back with its old edit history so that the draft at AfC can be combined into it. Dan Leonard ( talk) 01:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Close - It appears that the draft was accepted, and it appears that that is what the appellant was requesting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• The request is to undelete the old history, right? If so, I don't think that should be too controversial given that there's now a new version in mainspace. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply