Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2019 Deletion review archives February 2020 >

31 January 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Yun Chol (weightlifter) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was speedily closed but does not meet any of the speedy close criteria. Claims to meet criteria 2 but another editor had a good faith delete vote so criteria 2 does not apply. Also misinterprets NOLY: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable (emphasis added). The nominator may challenge that presumption in keeping with NSPORT (of which NOLY is a part of's) statement that "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." Closing sysop has been active on Wiki, in at least two clusters of editing, but has not responded to any of the three separate talk page messages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that why I had not formally !voted in this I had commented and think, based on the evidence I have on hand, that keep is what our guidelines suggest here so this is really about the suggestion it's borderline disruptive editing to have nominated it and the out of process close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There appears to be a contradiction between the view expressed at ANI and the standard practice at WP. ANI can not establish notability guidelines, so what was said there was not directly relevant. But there is curently a discussion at

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) that may well result in changing the current guideline. If it is changed, then there will be tens of thousands of articles to be considered for deletion, but for every one of them it would really be necessary to search if sources can be found--nobody usually did a full search when most of them were created, because it seemed unnecessary, and many of them are quite old, and sources may have become available--especially with the greater access to newspapers. At present the article remains, and the obvious thing to do is to simply continue the current status until the discussion on the guideline concludes. It's not presently listed as an RfC, but it is enough of a change in practice that it should be, so the discussion will take a while. I do not really agree with a speedy close in asituation like this, but the result was correct. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse WP:SKCRIT #2 states that speedy closure can be made if The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion. The sole 'delete' voter was not uninvolved as they were involved in the ANI thread that caused the AfD. Number 57 19:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Number 57, I'd appreciate it if you ping me in the future when discussing my contributions. Now, I have to disagree with you on both parts of your statement. I don't believe that the nomination was unquestionably for the purposes of vandalism or disruption, and I don't agree that I cross the involved threshold. I commented on the discussion with my interpretation of the relevant rules, yes, not contesting that. However, in my opinion, those comments don't make me enough of a party to the dispute to cross the involvement threshold. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (involvement disclaimer: delete !voter in the AfD): this is an out-of-process speedy keep, as mentioned above I don't believe that it was a disruptive nomination. This isn't a hill I'm going to die on, if the consensus is to keep then that's fine with me, but at least leave it running for the standard seven days. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What is the issue now? This appears to be an appeal of the speedy close or speedy keep, but it appears that the speedy close has been reverted and that the AFD is listed still or again. I think it is clear that the nomination was made in good faith but was mistaken, and that the speedy close was also done in good faith but was also mistaken. The nomination should run for seven days, and it appears to be back on, and the stub should be kept, but that isn't the issue here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as above. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The speedy close has been reverted. While it's clear this was a POINT-y and disruptive nomination and you can make a case for or against speedy close, it's all moot at this point and this discussion should be closed so we don't waste any more of people's time than we already are with the AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot. The speedy close is reverted by the speedy closer. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Clarice Phelps – The existence of this article has been a source of contention, including two prior deletion reviews and several deletion discussions, one Arbitration case and even offsite discussion including media reports, so I'll be a bit more wordy than usual.

    The discussion here is about whether there is enough coverage of Clarice Phelps to satisfy Wikipedia's general and academic-specific criteria for having dedicated biography pages on a subject. Please note, that failing to have a biography does not imply that Wikipedia cannot cover a topic or that we consider a topic unworthy of attention; it simply means that we don't consider the information available adequate to write a dedicated biography on a subject.

    In detail, the question presented here is whether the new coverage of Phelps is adequate to satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria. It appears that every source presented here has been contested for being a) not independent from Phelps or her employer e.g by being an interview, b) a primary source by e.g being a Who's Who list or c) only mention Phelps in passing e.g when they are mostly commenting on the prior deletion(s) of the article. That said, I see there is some disagreement about whether the WBIR and Physics Today sources actually establish notability, as it's not clear how independent they are from Phelps and her employers and some people consider them adequate (perhaps a bit vaguely explained) for GNG notability. It seems like 5 editors consider consider one or two of these two sources adequate and have given detailed arguments while 2 don't and have given detailed arguments.

    There is also the possibility that the controversy about the prior deletions of this article establish notability but it doesn't seem like we have a consensus on this point. There are some weak arguments on this question too, namely blank "this is now notable" arguments that don't explain why this is the case and references to WP:THREE which is an essay.

    Four other questions presented here are about whether WP:NACADEMIC would establish notability, about what the criteria for create protecting pages ("salting") are, whether there are WP:BLP concerns and about whether we are relying too much on bad subject-specific notability guidelines. On the first, it seems like there is little support for that claim in this discussion, mostly due to e.g concerns that the awards discussed are not important enough and that it might not be the correct guideline to apply in this case. On the second, it's not clear if it is in the remit of deletion review to review saltings (but see conclusion). On the third, it seems like nobody has spelled out a clear BLP concern (mentioning this for completeness). On the fourth, it's a bit outside of the remit of deletion review to complain about inconsistent application of non-GNG notability guidelines, but the discussion here does not point into a particular conclusion although it might be considered an endorsement of restoring the article on WP:IAR grounds. Finally, it looks like there were questions about whether Phelps should be discussed in other articles; I'll leave this point to editorial discretion.

    On balance, while there has been very little discussion of the previous AFD close and a number of sources have been contested, there are two where detailed discussion appears to indicate that they actually satisfy WP:SIGCOV. It's not a slam-dunk and it's only two sources so the article can still be discussed at AFD if folks feel that the sources were still not adequate, but on balance this is a restore from draft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Clarice Phelps (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since this article was deleted about a year ago, two important events transpired: Phelps was featured in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's Periodic Table of Younger Chemists and she was recognized by several sources (including the IUPAC and Physics Today) as the first African American woman to be involved in the discovery of a new element. These events generated some coverage in independent reliable sources (albeit mostly local), which push her over the threshold of WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC (criteria 1 and possibly 2). A more up-to-date version of the article can be reviewed at Draft:Clarice Phelps. Note that this version cannot currently be published since the title is salted. Kaldari (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said the last time this was at DRV: it's appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about Ms Phelps, and it's a disgrace that we deleted it. The fact that we did is an anomaly caused by overadherence to our poorly thought out SNGs. Don't follow a rule off a cliff, folks. Now that there's more evidence, the only right outcome is to put this draft in mainspace. Strong unsalt.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh boy, this again. It appears there were two new articles added to the article in the last two days - one is clearly not independent, which was the problem with the first AfD, and one is a who's who, which generally doesn't contribute to notability per our policies. I'm not great with notability on academic articles, but I'd appreciate if someone who wants to unsalt this could provide the best WP:THREE or four sources for review. SportingFlyer T·C 10:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to S Marshall Perhaps we need to formulate a better salting policy? I find that, too often, salting at administrator-level is too common, and the method to unsalt (by establishing new consensus) is too onerous, so I almost never recommend salting Draft: namespace at that level. Only do I recommend salting at that level in Main: namespace is when it's required. In most cases, though, it's not since the drafts are created by non-confirmed or, at most, autoconfirmed users. In such cases, the creation protection could've been at Extended Confirmed level so any neutral editor such as yourself, SportingFlyer, myself, et al., could've moved it back to Main: namespace when the article has demonstrated some semblance of notability. So, on that basis, without looking at the AfD, I concur with the need to unsalt here, particularly given the passage of time. If re-salting is needed, it should only be at the level necessary to prevent re-creation (that is, WP:AUTOCONFIRMED or Extended Confirmed). Doug Mehus T·C 13:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was an extremely contentious AfD which the community decided to salt (at least, according to Fram's move to draft space - haven't checked the ANI logs, but I believe it based on my memory of the drama.) Moving this particular article directly into article space without discussion would almost certainly cause more drama. SportingFlyer T·C 13:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point of order: The community did not decide to salt it. The salting was a unilateral admin action. The salting admin later confirmed it was a unilateral admin action (I can dig up the diff if needed). At the 2nd DRV, there was explicitly no consensus regarding the salting. This isn't community salt, it's individual salt :-) (The community did uphold both deletions, however.) Levivich 15:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gentlemen, we're not the salting police. Our remit is to review deletion outcomes. The community has decided to grant sysops this tool to use at their discretion, and its use isn't within the ambit of our discussions here—except when we review appeals to restore pages that have been salted following a deletion discussion (which is actually an undocumented, easter-egg feature of this venue; it has ten-years-or-more as custom and practice but is still not mentioned in DRVPURPOSE).—S Marshall T/C 15:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation – I'm not sure at this point if she's more notable for her tennessine work or for having her Wikipedia page deleted, but it doesn't matter why she's notable–notable is notable. I'm not sure which of these constitute the WP:THREE best, but I am sure that these constitute significant independent secondary coverage of the article topic:
  • I haven't followed any of the past history, so I'm just looking at the current draft and working from that. My impression is that she doesn't pass WP:SCHOLAR. She certainly doesn't meet any of the eight bullet points under WP:NACADEMIC.
As for publications, I looked at the references in the draft, and also did searches on Google Scholar and JSTOR. I can't find a single peer-reviewed publication where she is the first or last author (those two positions generally denote the most important contributors). The only citation I found where she is first author is in the draft (Phelps, C.; Delmau, L.; Boll, R.; Hindman, C. (August 2016). Investigations Using LN, LN2 and LN3 resins for Separation of Actinium from Lanthanuum. Presentation for the 252nd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Philadelphis, PA.) but I can't tell exactly what that is, and haven't been able to find it in any of my searches. "Presentation" could mean anything from an invited keynote talk to a poster.
As for the awards she's received, the only one that's of any interest at all is the IUPAC Periodic Table of Younger Chemists. They gave out 118 of those, and the program accepted self-nominations. The awards were not given out for outstanding scientific achievement, but to people who, "embody the mission and core values of IUPAC". So, no, that doesn't make you notable.
And, no, you don't become notable by having an article about you deleted because you're not notable and the popular press pick up on that.
The other side of this is really more of a commentary on some of our more our deplorable WP:SNG's. We have articles about unknown athletes who played in a single game and did nothing of note. Two-bit porn stars. Pokemon characters. Trashy TV shows. Bands that play gigs in local bars. That's all crap. But, if we're going to pretend to have notability guidelines, let's at least pretend to follow them. There's no way Phelps meets either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: And, no, you don't become notable by having an article about you deleted because you're not notable and the popular press pick up on that. What PAG, RFC, AFD precedent... anything... supports this assertion? If multiple independent reliable sources publish in-depth articles about the deletion of a Wikipedia page, why isn't that GNG notable? – Levivich 04:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That statement was, of course, my personal opinion. But, as far as I can tell, the major press coverage of this was the Undark article, which was published as an opinion piece. The core premise is certainly true; women are under-represented as both editors and subjects of articles. Beyond that, it's a piece of sensationalistic crap. For example, "As far as we know, Phelps was the first African American woman to play such a pivotal role in introducing a new chemical element to the world.". Pivotal role? She's a lab technician on a team of probably 100's of people who worked on that project. This is worthy of a short mention at Criticism of Wikipedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there was no consensus on the question of salting, then that was effectively an affirmation of the salt, since that was the status quo ante. Like SportingFlyer I would want to see the three best sources before supporting a motion to recreate. As chance would have it, I thought about Phelps earlier and did a quick check online then, and I didn't see anything too convincing. Most coverage is still media sources complaining about us deleting her, even though those same media sources have zero coverage of Phelps themselves. Look in your own backyard first, folks.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru That's reasonable, without requiring a full consensus discussion at the village pump or similar. What about, though, lowering the WP:SALT level to WP:ECP or WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, though, to allow any neutral editors, ideally involved with AfC to move the article to the Main: namespace upon reviewing the sources and ascertaining WP:GNG has been met? Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I think the 3 best sources for establishing GNG are probably [1], [2], and [3] (all of which were published after the previous deletion discussion). Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is the local Oak Ridge newspaper rehashing a press release from her employer. The second one is an announcement from IUPAC, who gave her the award. The third one is basically an interview conducted by the local TV station. I can't even tell what she did on the project: "part of a team", "Phelps and her colleagues helped confirm", "associated with the discovery". Well, gee, I'm associated with the biggest encyclopedia in the world. I'm part of the team that wrote it. My colleagues and I administer it. Does that make me notable? Hey, look, I'm all for more STEM topics in the encyclopedia. I'm all for more coverage of women. But this person doesn't meet our notability guidelines. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Are you suggesting that any of those sources somehow don't qualify as independent reliable sources or are you suggesting that the coverage isn't significant, or both? Kaldari (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More than suggesting. WP:Interviews are primary sources. Press releases, and news articles which mostly rehash such releases, are not considered to be independent. These are the types of sources that get shot down at AfD every day. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: The WBIR story isn't an interview. Less than half of it is quotation, so I would not classify it as a primary source. Even if all the quotation was removed from it, it would still be a useful source (and actually wouldn't lose much usefulness since most of what is discussed in the quotations is also mentioned in the prose). So I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. You may have a good point about The Oak Ridger story, however, as it seems to be largely based on a press release. Was there any problem with the IUPAC content counting towards GNG, in your view? Kaldari (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IUPAC gave the award. An announcement on their own website about the award they gave is pretty much the definition of WP:PRIMARY. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation. I argued against keeping the article at the previous AfD. I would argue for keeping the present version. I want to congratulate Kaldari for getting us an appropriate article. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per my comment above, I agree with RoySmith's analysis of the new presented sources - none of them convey notability, and I'm not sure any of them come close. I understand why other users want this in mainspace, but she is not yet notable per our SNGs or the newly available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: The treehouse keeps on being built without a supporting branch. What enwiki is missing is connectivity to Phelps -- and this is needed regardless of whether or not her full article lives in mainspace. It's questionable that she should be added at tennessine for weight reasons ("part of" and "involved in" are weak and weaselish grounds for establishing notability, her teammates and probably hundreds of others have the same claim there, and her genetic heritage is incidental to the discovery), but her being the first African-American female involved with the discovery of an element is noteworthy and should be included in enwiki. In the time since the first AFD, additional sources have been released regarding the discovery of tennessine, including about the berkelium team. So: spin off the tennessine#Discovery subsection into Discovery of tennessine, in which due weight is fairly applied to the role of individuals and groups in the discovery per sources, and a more humanistic lens can be applied than should be at the main article. Phelps as first AAFIWTDOAE, and honours resulting from the Discovery accrued by anyone including Phelps can and should be included. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's a very good case for unsalting this. The major claim to notability is "first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element", along with things like "involved in the discovery". This source, which gives her about a paragraph, is cited five times for these claims. However it points out that 61 people could reasonably claim to be "involved in the discovery", and that the idea of crediting the discovery to one person or a small group of people is silly. I don't think it's reasonable to use the fact that somebody was part of a very large team that collectively discovered something important as evidence of notability, and it wasn't considered to be enough last time. I'm not sure the Periodic Table of Younger Chemists qualifies as an "award" as such, they seem to have done some biographies of young chemists to serve as inspirational examples, and she was one of the ones they picked to feature. I doubt most of the people on the list are notable. To pass WP:NACADEMIC point 2 it would need to be "a highly prestigious academic award or honor", I don't see evidence of that. There is some media coverage of Wikipedia deleting her article but don't think that should be enough to confer notability. I doubt it would get more than a sentence in an article about criticism of Wikipedia. Most of these issues, and the sources provided, are very similar to the ones previously discussed at great length in other debates. Hut 8.5 13:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "61 people" are just those at Oak Ridge. ORNL's part was to produce one of the precursors, and the final synthesis was done elsewhere. So, the circle of people who could reasonably be said to be "involved in the discovery" is likely more like 100's. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: If you want to rely on original research, Phelps was one of two people who physically performed the purification of the berkelium (which took 90 days). The only other precursor was calcium-48, which is naturally occurring. As explained in the Physics Today article, "the hardest part of the whole process is obtaining the starting materials." You can say 100s of people were involved in the discovery, but Phelps was probably among the dozen people most involved. Regardless, her main claim to notability is being the first African American woman associated with the discovery of an element, not just being associated with the discovery of tennessine. Kaldari (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, then why not an article about the first Muslim woman to be associated with the discovery of an element? The first disabled person? The first gay person? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if there are sources that think that's an important achievement. Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Everybody (myself included) has been assuming WP:ACADEMIC is the correct guideline to be evaluating. As I've read more, it's become apparent it may not be. The subject has an undergraduate degree and is working as a lab technician and/or project manager. That's not what ACADEMIC is about. If somebody could suggest a different WP:SNG that might be more appropriate, I'd be willing to look at that. I still believe she doesn't meet any of WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO, but I'm open other suggestions. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate Seems like a reasonable recreate with substantial notability for her work, Sadads (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Kaldari, your opening sentence: Since this article was deleted about a year ago, two important events transpired: Phelps was featured in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's Periodic Table of Younger Chemists and she was recognized by several sources (including the IUPAC and Physics Today) as the first African American woman to be involved in the discovery of a new element. implies two new sources. Please list them. Two new events. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe: The new sources that have been added about Phelps are: WBIR, The Oak Ridger, IUPAC, Physics Today, and Oak Ridge Today. Kaldari (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You implied two. Now you toss me five, each not meeting the GNG for some reason. Non-independent promotion, or only mere mention. These do not support a biography. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @SmokeyJoe: By "Non-independent promotion" I assume you're referring to the IUPAC source since they created the award. And by "mere mention", I assume you're referring to Physics Today. What's your take on the other sources? They seem adequate to me for GNG purposes. Kaldari (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oak Ridge Today isn't independent as it's a self-published newspaper that specifically says This story includes information provided by ORNL/Abby Bower. The Oak Ridger also refers to the press release several times in the article. The WBIR article is the best but it's an interview, which isn't sufficiently secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • “Not this again” indeed! This was deleted at AfD. There are no independent biographical sources for Clarice. She is a showcased staff member at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Post AfD, the onus should be on the proponents to present a concise case: WP:THREE. Not reference bombing with weak sources (weak with respect to meeting the GNG). Some think she deserves an article. I call that WP:ADVOCACY. Why does she not get a mention at Oak Ridge National Laboratory? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @SmokeyJoe: What strikes me as WP:ADVOCACY is people here bending over backwards to dismiss perfectly good sources and holding this article to a double standard. For example, we now have two people calling the WBIR article an interview so that it can be dismissed as a primary source. The WBIR article is a boilerplate local human interest TV news story. Of course it has sound bites from Phelps, but that doesn't make it an interview or a primary source. Can we at least agree that that one source is an acceptable source or do you have a reason to dismiss that one as well? When half the articles for sportspeople on Wikipedia are solely sourced to entries in a database, one has to wonder why this article meets so much resistance. Kaldari (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • ORNL is showcasing/promoting their staff member. Combined with a "good reason" to showcase here, that spells ADVOCACY, forbidden by WP:NOTADVOCACY. I am more than happy to review a source, or three, but per WP:THREE, only three, and they have to be explicitly linked. For local newspapers writing stories that include subject quotes, it requires paragraph by paragraph analysis to distinguish a re-formatted company release from genuine independent interest. The critical question in these cases is: Who is the author of the secondary source content that addresses the subject directly and in detail. Is it the subject or the company communications officer? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be no mention of Clarice Phelps anywhere on Wikipedia, which I find surprising, as the threshold for being mentioned in a Wikipedia article is usually much lower than that for having a standalone article. Is she not notable enough for inclusion in List of African-American women in STEM fields or in List of African-American firsts or Tennessine or Oak Ridge National Laboratory? —Kusma (t·c) 22:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. A WP:Orphan biography on someone for who most of the coverage is workplace promotion looks very bad. She shouldn't be listed in List of ... articles without being notable enough for a biography, but I advise the proponents to add sourced and WP:DUE mention to Tennessine or Oak Ridge National Laboratory as pretty obvious preceding steps. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If what's preventing you from supporting unsalting is a lack of incoming links, rest assured: I've gone ahead and added her to List of African-American women in STEM fields and List of African-American firsts, and I dumped Category:Oak Ridge National Laboratory people into a "Notable people" section of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and added her redlink there, too. Levivich 05:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Failure to make a WP:THREE case, yet again, prevents unsalting. When the answer is no, WP:Reference bombing doesn't help. WP:THREE is failed if you list more than three sources to be reviewed. It takes only two. If the best three fail, no number of additional weaker sources can suffice. Potential incoming links can be demonstrated by occurrences of "Clarice Phelps" in relevant articles. You can redlink Clarice Phelps, or just include as text so it can be found by searching "Clarice Phelps". List entries don't count (inclusion in a list is justified by being notable, not vice versa). She has to be subject of direct coverage in prose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. I know it only takes two, which is why WBIR and Physics Today were the first two I listed, and Chemistry World makes three. Agree or disagree that the coverage is sufficiently in-depth, those three new sources are enough to get past WP:G4 and should be enough to unsalt the title, let the draft be moved to mainspace, and then if someone wants to, they can AfD the new article, and editors can discuss whether the sources are sufficiently in-depth in a discussion that is properly advertised (WP:DELSORTed). I still think unsalting is a no-brainer here, YMMV. Levivich 06:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • We're not talking WP:G4, we're talking WP:SALT, and we need to get consensus here at DRV that the article should be unsalted. I think based on the above and SmokeyJoe's analysis that it's a no-brainer here to keep this salted, as none of the new articles are sufficiently independent of either the subject or her place of employ, and the Chemistry World only discusses Phelps in the context of the fact we've been bickering over whether we should have an article on her and doesn't discuss her in the context necessary that would make her notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • What is non-independent about Physics Today and WBIR? (And it doesn't matter what she's notable for, if she's notable. She can be notable for having her page deleted on Wikipedia. She can be notable for having the hiccups.) By the way, for WBIR, there's not just the article I linked to, but also the video on the page, which is two and a half minute local news piece filled with independent reporting in the journalist's own voice. – Levivich 06:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainspace the draft.
Thank you Leviv, it is so much easier when someone appreciates the wisdom of three.
1. WBIR. It's a feature article, based on an interview of the subject. Does the author/interviewer (Gabrielle Hays) make any comment? "she broke a barrier"? This is very short but it is something. "While life as a scientist means the work never stops ...". While weak on independence, very weak on author-derived secondary source comment, with the information coming direct from the interviewed subject, there is enough input from the interviewer for me to say Yes, this is across the line from a reformatted interview. I judge this easier because she is not selling her own commercial product.
2. Physics Today. By Claire Jarvis. "Once technicians Clarice Phelps and Shelley Van Cleve are finished...". Is Shelley notable? "Julie Ezold, the program manager for 252Cf production, ensures ...". Is Julie notable? "That’s where Rose Boll comes in. ... Her team includes Phelps, one of many Oak Ridge scientists who came to the lab by way of the US Navy. Phelps grew up within striking distance of ORNL in Tennessee, but after earning her BS she decided the navy’s nuclear submarine program would be her best practical training ground." OK. A bit factual for a secondary source, but it is contextualizing. This information appears to not have come direct from the subject, which is the requirement. The information comes from her boss, not the subject, and the publisher is independent. This is good enough. Caption: "Clarice Phelps purified the berkelium-249 that was used to produce element 117, tennessine. She is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element. Credit: Oak Ridge National Laboratory". Good enough. The source is not mere interview content, and the publisher is not the employer. Yes.
3. Chemistry World. By Katrina Krämer. Notable for not being notable? Ironic. I don't know how to judge this one, wikipedia relying on a source for inclusion when that source refers back to Wikipedia is to take the path of navel gazing. Luckily I said yes to 1 & 2.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still have to disagree. Just because the information comes from her boss doesn't make that information independent, plus there's only three sentences in that article that are directly on Phelps. The local news source is literally just a repackaged interview. Neither of these are strong sources. We have no independent confirmation she's notable for what her employer thinks she's notable for - this comes from her employer's press release, and the phrase the secondary Physics Today source uses is "thought to be," she's not yet listed at our article on Tennessine, and she's not listed as a team member in the powerpoint. The notability claim itself is tenuous. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, yes, its a very close call. Information from the boss is not independent, but at least it is not direct from the subject. Three sentences about the subject is very little. The local news put just enough creative packaging comment to make it into a secondary source. I think it passes the GNG with paper thin clearance. I give it the benefit of the doubt because it is sciency. If it were the tiniest bit WP:CORP, if there were the briefest mention of any patent, then it would have been no. Contrary to Dmehus below, this is not a strong case on any angle, but an edge case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a WP:CORP case, but it is a WP:BLP article - and considering WP:NPF, I'd assume we'd want high quality secondary sources, not sources that are closely connected to her organisation/sources which are considered "paper thin". SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no BLP issues with the draft. As she actively participated in public outreach, was interviewed by appointment for television, WP:NPF is not a hurdle. If she were resisting, if she was a private person, that would be different. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep per the thorough source analysis of SmokeyJoe, as well as the comments of S Marshall and Levivich. If these sources existed at the time of its deletion, then we got it woefully wrong. The three sources identified by SmokeyJoe are the highest grade, reliable, and independent sources that are both in-depth and about the subject. There is no point in relisting this at AfD; both WP:GNG and SNGs have been satisfied. This is a definite strong case of overturn to keep. Doug Mehus T·C 10:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One can argue that she's notable, in part, for not being notable. But yeah, those three sources identified by Leviv are enough to meet the letter and spirit of the GNG. Yeah, each source has its problems (local, not fully independent, etc.) but just those three are pretty darn good. restore. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Simmeringer Had – Endorse It seems like we have some people who think that there was a consensus that no stand alone article should exist and several more who endorse the "no consensus" assessment of the AFD close (I am counting "I really didn't see anything too much wrong with Fenix down close other than I feel he could of written his close in more details" as an "endorse"). Some people have also raised concerns with the discussion itself, insofar as there may be German-language sources. We don't have a consensus to overturn this into a "merge", by headcount this leans towards endorsing and finely parsing the arguments does not suggest a different outcome. Finally, "no consensus on upholding the no consensus close" isn't that different from "endorse the no consensus close" as both allow for further AFDs or merge discussions Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Simmeringer Had (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

All vote!s were either Delete or Merge but it was closed as no-consensus. The Original author is blocked as a sock, albeit after this article was created  Velella  Velella Talk   03:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with the original close, but the article has been sufficiently rewritten as to make that moot. I'm still not sure this is notable, but the current version is sufficiently well written and referenced that the original AfD should no longer hold sway. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn to Merge - It is No Consensus as to whether to Delete or to Merge, but that isn't what No Consensus means. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With apologies, I need to relitigate the AFD here. This was an AFD about the stadium of a Viennese football club, and the stadium had an article on de.wiki which rather strongly suggests there's more to this than "delete". The right outcome in en.wiki terms would be a merge to 1. Simmeringer SC and it's a pity there was insufficient discussion to reach that conclusion. I won't fault the closer for closing as no consensus when the discussion stalled without making a decision, though. I'd prefer that we leave the close undisturbed and just pop a merger template on the article; if no one else does, I'll merge when I have leisure.—S Marshall T/C 09:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, blah. I've gone ahead and added the best English-language source I could find given the DRV respite and cleaned up what appears to be some sort of machine translation. The German language article is frustrating because it's functionally unsourced and not helpful for finding sources. It was the largest stadium in Austria in the 1920s with a capacity of over 40,000 and hosted seven international games as Simmeringer Sportplatz. The rest of the sources I've found are in German, which I'd struggle with, but I'm sure you'd find stories about it in contemporary newspapers if someone can find an Austrian newspaper archive online. I'm also relitigating the AfD here, but it's clearly a notable topic and this whole AfD was a mistake, and this should have been an easy keep with just a little bit of cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C
  • I've now completely overhauled the article. There's a great source at [4] but unfortunately it's a wiki, but it does cite Das große Buch der österreichischen Fußballstadien (The big book of Austrian football stadiums) which I don't have access to but should be considered a RS. I didn't include that source in the article, but there's a lot more to write here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as the closing admin, I'm happy for this to be overturned to merge. Seemed pretty clear that there was no consensus to either merge or delete, given there were, including the nomination, only two proper delete votes (GS's one clearly misunderstood the nature of the article by questioning existence) and one for merge. Not sure about the comments about no consensus being the same as keep, its obviously not, it just means there was no clear consensus, and opens up the possibility for a relisting later. My view was that after two relistings gaining no further comment, there was no clear view one way or the other. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Two votes is not enough to establish consensus, and in any case per WP:HEY the article has been improved and the concerns addressed. Call the close what you want, but the article in its present form should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - after a (tentative) merge argument, it was relisted twice without comment. At some point, you have to get on with life. A NC result here doesn't really forbid merging. Announce on the talk page you intend to, then after a week or two without comment, do it. If you think it should've been deleted, re-nominate it, as it was NC with little discussion, and make an argument addressing the point about German sources. NC leaves open everything, and the combined minimal discussion and maximal chances give no consensus by lack of interest. WilyD 05:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think for an explicit Merge close we'd need somebody else to comment in support of that position. As Govvy did a good job of rebutting the delete !votes (especially the one which argued the subject doesn't exist at all) I don't think there's a consensus for deletion either. This doesn't mean the page can't be merged, there's nothing to stop somebody starting a merge discussion on the article talk page and just doing it if nobody objects, as WilyD notes above. Hut 8.5 12:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion is off the cards. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What exactly is being endorsed? I really didn't see anything too much wrong with Fenix down close other than I feel he could of written his close in more details. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 January 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Martin Rundkvist (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Perhaps Martin Rundkvist was not notable a decade ago, when his page was deleted. But if it was "too early in his career for him to qualify for notability," as was suggested then, this is no longer the case. He has a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates—some 300 in total, approximately half of which have come in the last five years. And as a 20-year Managing Editor of Fornvännen (cite), he has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in his subject area. Times change, and it is time for the page to be undeleted. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the view that he has become more notable since the deletion in 2008 I believe it would make more sense to simply create a new article from scratch since I don’t see why need to restore the decades old article history.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I was the closer of the AfD way back in 2008, and agree with Usernameunique that things have changed a lot. Being editor of the journal means he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics), this wasn't a criterion at the time of the previous discussion [5]. A quick search of Google News turned up several appearances of his work in the media too.
(It doesn't contribute to notability, but I'll also note there's an article on Swedish Wikipedia which could help provide some content for a recreation). the wub "?!" 08:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 January 2020

[edit]
  • Climate Forecast Applications Network – Endorse but draftify. Seems like the original G11 deletion is endorsed as even the people who aren't explicitly endorsing G11 speedy deletion say that a heavy rewrite would be needed to make the article not spammy. There are a number of people who endorse draftification and I don't see a clear opposition so that's done as well but editors working on the draft should take note of the concerns about the promotional tone and notability. Yae4's and JzG's conduct are not for this forum to answer; try WP:ANI Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Climate Forecast Applications Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed. Another interested editor Jlevi discussed notability on the talk page, and asked how they could help improve the article, but did not express any concern about spam/ad/promotion. I've written several new articles recently, and this one is not significantly different in how it was written. It uses book, journal, and news sources. A small part of the content was taken from material prepared by others at Wikipedia, at Peter_J._Webster#Climate_Forecast_Applications_Network. Attempt to discuss on admin JzG talk page was summarily rejected with unhelpful response, "please don't write advertorial on Wikipedia." Yae4 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with Yae4 that the speedy delete was unjustified on the basis of WP:G11. I think the article may have been taken out of draft space too quickly and that it likely had some work to be done, but that the article was not promotional and did not justify a speedy deletion. Jlevi (talk)
Draftify Just to clarify. There are some structural problems with the article, and I was probably too indirect in my first comment here. I highlighted what I think remains a notability concern because I see it as a basic stumbling block to mainspacing the page, but this highlight doesn't mean other problems don't exist. Jlevi (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to get you a mop of your own, but in the meantime, happy to oblige. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used to wonder (with a bit of annoyance thrown in) why some admins protect pages after they tempundelete them. I guess now I know why they do that. And since I'm here, yeah, endorse the WP:G11, with no objection to moving this back into draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. We can't have that in the mainspace. It really is an advertorial like JzG says: it reads exactly as it would if it had been bought and paid for by Judith Curry -- although I do see, and accept, that the primary author's userpage says he has no associations or affiliations to declare. Yae4, please would you consider reviewing some of our good and featured articles about corporations before you put anything like that in the mainspace?—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall:, I just had company (non-profit, and for-profit) articles, Precious Plastic (Grade C) and NearlyFreeSpeech on Did You Know, and I previously helped identify promotional sock puppets being used for articles I won't mention here (but you can find from my user page). I understand there is a major problem at Wikipedia with paid editors and promotion of companies. Based on DYK reviews, I know most people who say things look "advertorial" (or similar) cannot explain why, and the changes they suggest are mostly minor. The fact is Jlevi created a red link, and I spent some hours finding some sources and giving bland (aka neutral) summaries of what they said. In the past I've asked for a couple "notability checks" (particularly from Newslinger, but I now have criteria: A book source or two, a journal article or two maybe, and several "news" articles with at least one having "significant" discussion of the article topic. Climate Forecast Applications Network meets those criteria easily. Getting a Draft to Article status will bring it attention of editors who wish to expand and improve the article, sometimes. In my opinion, in this case, speedy deletion has ONLY to do with JzG aka Guy having a very strong personal bias in the area of climate change and associated politics, and Judith Curry and Peter_J._Webster (co-founders) are on the "wrong" side, so CFAN must be suppressed. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support you not following me around the project giving the benefit of your uninformed opinions. Guy (help!) 11:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​​​​​​​​​​So what does it take to get the Draft and Draft Talk back? Also, I invite all those who said the G11 was obviously valid to give some specific suggested changes on the talk page or with edits, because, frankly, it's not at all obvious to me, or to Jlevi or PackMecEng. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the discussion expires, an uninvolved editor (usually an admin but not always) will evaluate the consensus and close the discussion, noting the outcome. —PaleoNeonate – 21:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What @PaleoNeonate: said. Typically, if restored to Draft: space, if the talkpage isn't automatically restored in tandem, you need only ask the administrator who restored the draft article to also restore the talkpage(s) as well, as @SilkTork: did for me when I requested the talkpages to a draftified article also be restored. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're serious about not understanding how to fix that: (1) Remove the company's contact details from the top of the article because we're not a directory; (2) Remove everything about the directors except a maximum of one mention of their names in one place. The company isn't its leaders. Information about them belongs in their articles if they're notable, otherwise it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. (3) Give facts and figures: turnover, profit, staff numbers. (4) After making these edits, get someone else to look at it and tell you whether it belongs in the mainspace, because you seem to be having more trouble with that than I would expect from a person who fights promotional editors.—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall:To summarize, the article does not look promotional compared with other articles I've been involved in, or read, and I was cautious to write neutrally, because I am aware of some active suppression and "gutting" of articles at Wikipedia. Thanks for your suggestions. Feedback: Honestly, those are relatively trivial edits (except maybe adding company statistics). So, if that's all, it doesn't justify speedy deletion. (1) No contact details were included; only a link to the contact page. It was going to be the source for their location in an infobox, unless an independent source was found. (2) See a contrasting example below. This suggestion is not entirely consistent with other articles I've worked on with other editors including for Did You Know, but I'm not saying you're wrong. (3) All that sounds like Original Research unless independent sources have it or their About is referenced. (4) I make it a practice not to "fight" at Wikipedia, although I encounter plenty of editors who seem to have trouble with baiting, instigating and insulting.

Here is arguably an absentee vote for Not Endorsing Speedy Deletion. If you look back in this article history, you may notice Keith D made a small helpful edit, fixing a cite date error. Diff At that time, the article was written substantially as it now stands, except it has been expanded. Diff I asked Keith D on their talk page to give an opinion here, but they chose not to. Keith D is an admin; did not tag the article with promotion or similar; did not leave a Talk note saying it was "advertorial" or suggesting changes to make it less promotional.

Compare and contrast this Speedy Deletion with Climate Feedback[6] when I was going to RSN for help.[7] And JzG aka Guy (and PaleoNeonate) were involved in discussion. Glowing (aka promotional) statements in the article: It "seeks out top climate scientists". The Guardian referred to it as "a highly respected and influential resource". "each reviewer has to hold a PhD and be published in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals." (Note: These have mostly been toned down in the current version.) The founder, Vincent, is named 5 times. Their About page is used as a source. (In my opinion, it is weak regarding significant "reliable" source coverage.) Was it Speedily Deleted by JzG aka Guy? Tagged? Criticized for promotion? Nope. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, there's nothing trivial about the edits required to that article. Lede: delete everything except the first sentence, and then provide an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies the first sentence. Background: In the first paragraph, delete everything except the first sentence because everything else isn't about the corporation. In the second paragraph, the first sentence requires in-text attribution. The second sentence is fine. I find the third sentence unintelligible. The third paragraph is not about the corporation and should be deleted. History: The first paragraph isn't about the corporation and should be deleted. The second paragraph is redundant to information that's already in the article and should therefore be deleted. The third paragraph is a long quote by a company director, entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted. The fourth paragraph isn't about the corporation and should be deleted. The fifth paragraph is very trivial and in my view including it is poor editorial judgment. The sixth paragraph is about the director and not the corporation, and should be deleted. The seventh paragraph is very trivial and in my view including it is poor editorial judgment. And the eighth paragraph is about the director and not the corporation, and should be deleted. Once you've removed all the stuff that doesn't belong, there's very little left.—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 3 Februaryry 2020 (UTC)
@S Marshall: Are you saying as a general rule when a source says person A or B from OrganizationC said UVW, and did XYZ, you do NOT interpret that as OrganizationC says UVW and did XYZ? Or is this only a rule applied to selected organizations such as CFAN, but not applied to other organizations such as Climate_Feedback? Same question applies for information taken from organizations' About pages. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of other articles are ghastly pits of promotional material. This doesn't mean that those other articles are acceptable. It means that we consider articles one at a time and we haven't got to them yet. But I'm now concerned that you're addressing a perceived double standard on Wikipedia. Do you feel that there should be an balance, whereby climate change skeptics are given more equal treatment with the mainstream scientific view?—S Marshall T/C 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: In this case, Climate_Feedback was previously, recently discussed by JzG aka Guy, the speedy deleter here, which is why it supports the case that the Admin's bias did play a part here. We're not talking about "more equal treatment" here. We're talking about Climate_Feedback being allowed to violate all the same "rules" while this article is being 100% suppressed, even though you'd have to go read Judith Curry to see she was branded with the "D" label there. Here we're talking about an organization that has been recognized in books, journals, and news, and is notable for predictions, etc. that have saved lives. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are, indeed, great wrongs that need to be righted.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More likely WP:POVFIGHTER and WP:USTHEM. Reference User:JzG/Politics (TL;DR). -- Yae4 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yae4, if you had understood any of that essay, you would realise that my problem with climate change denialists, creationists, white supremacists, MAGA hatters and the rest is that they demand we "balance" factual information with propaganda from terrible sources. I have exactly the same issue with antivaxers, anti-GMO kooks, homeopathists and other woo-mongers. Wikipedia reports facts, they prefer Truth™. But the right wing media bubble is far more dangerous than homeopathy, for reasons that any student of 20th Century Europe could readily enumerate for you. I've been here 15 years. The changes to the right wing media since around 2015 have been profound, and not in a good way. Guy (help!) 18:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. overturn deletion. Yae4, I'm both an academic and view climate change as a very real and important thing to address. That article, while not speedy eligible, is not a good article. It does feel like it was written by a PR person for the company (or by one of the founders). It's easily fixable, so not speedy eligible. Too many name drops, too many words that feel like they were pulled from the promotional part of the abstract of an academic paper ("inundated", "devastating impacts", "unheralded often with devastation" all feel like the belong in promotional material, not in an encyclopedia's voice). It's an article on a company, there isn't a need to repetitively name who did what, just that the company did it. I don't think this should go to draft space, just because I don't think we should be forcing articles that meet our inclusion requirements into draft space--that's not what it is for. But I'm a pretty horrible writer of articles and I think I could fix it in 15 minutes. But it really needs fixing. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Reggie Arnold (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer concluded, correctly I think, that there was a consensus to keep, "or likely a stronger argument that this results in no consensus", but then overrode the consensus and deleted the article, doing so on the ground that it was a biography of a living person." While the article was lightly sourced (not unsourced) when the AfD began, additional sources were brought forward at AfD, such that WP:BLP does not provide grounds for overriding consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn to NC I just don't see how WP:BLP prevents this article. There are plenty of sources, it's not like we are looking at an unsourced biography. There is a perfectly reasonable argument (which I agree with) that he doesn't meet the SNG due to a lack of meaningful national coverage. But that's not where the discussion got to. I can see a WP:NPF argument, but that doesn't require deletion. We don't just take NC outcomes and move them to deletion due to being about a BLP. A negative BLP might be a very different thing, but that's not what we have here. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC. I suspect the policy TParis was thinking of is WP:BLPDELETE, but that only applies to negative articles. I don't see anything negative in the article, unless playing for Arkansas State counts. And, may I suggest we delete the bit in WP:DELREVD where we suggest talking to the closing admin, since nobody seems to bother anway. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I can understand erring on the side of delete if there were any actual BLP-based concerns, but there weren't. The AfD was a normal debate about whether the subject meets our notability standards. There is definitely enough coverage of the subject in reliable sources to support every statement in the (very short) article, it wasn't at all negative and it did not state anything even slightly contentious. Hut 8.5 23:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wasn't a consensus to delete, but equally, those sources don't support a biographical article. We've got nothing about his life, no date or place of birth, nothing about his education or upbringing, nothing about family. They're just tables of sports results framed in prose; I mean, great for him and he's clearly sportsed very hard, but we've got nothing biographical to say about him so we shouldn't have a biography.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources brought forth at the AfD focused directly on Arnold and his accomplishments. The article in its pre-AfD condition was of poor quality (though it actually did included Arnold's date of birth). Assuming the result is overturned, I will commit to beefing it up with additional information from those sources. Also, I understood that deletion review is a process-based review, not one in which we superimpose one's preferred result. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus "Keep" arguments look slightly stronger to me; this is, possibly, closer to a "keep" but a no consensus is likely the most accurate close. Doug Mehus T·C 01:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - The closer acknowledges that there isn't a consensus to delete, and then made a supervote based on an incorrect interpretation of policy, as stated by previous editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - it's a noble instinct to want to protect individuals, but absent either anything negative or an indication the individual wants privacy or the like, it's not what's accomplished. WilyD 12:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus "However, because its a biography of a living person, I'm going to err on the side of delete until additional sources are available to support an article on a living person" is not WP policy. What is policy is that the sources need to be particularly reliable, but whether the admittedly reliable sources are sufficient is not a matter of BLP policy. In any case whether the sources are adequate in a good-faith argued instance is a matter for consensus, not admin fiat. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - When there is a consensus to keep an article, an admin is required to close that discussion as keep. This admin did not do that. Someone should post a warning or something on their talk page saying that they can't overrule a consensus. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:Queen's Park F.C. squad – Endorse but allow restoration. Clear consensus that the previous TFD was not incorrectly closed, but also that it is not necessarily a bar for restoration. There is however a bit of feeling that this discussion should not explicitly restore the template among several participants, thus "allow restoration" rather than "restore". "Allow restoration" meaning that anyone can recreate or undelete the template at WP:REFUND or elsewhere, and that after that point it ought to be handled like any other template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Queen's Park F.C. squad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Queen's Park F.C. squad template was deleted in 2015 because, at that time, Queen's Park were an amateur club and had few (if any) players who warranted a Wikipedia article. They have recently adopted professional status and have since signed several players who do have an article. I think it would now be worthwhile to recreate the template. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, nothing wrong with the original close btw! GiantSnowman 07:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy/procedural close – Maybe I misunderstand, but the 2015 deletion isn't being challenged, and the template is not protected, so there's no reason that an editor can't just recreate the template if the new version would be substantially different and address the AfD concerns (in this case, if the new version had sufficient bluelinks). I don't see why this needs consensus at DRV to be recreated, so I think this thread could be speedy or procedurally closed? Levivich 04:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich My understanding is that a procedural close cannot apply in this case. As the original TfD was not closed as a "soft delete," the applicant would likely be unsuccessful in an undeletion application at WP:REFUND. Thus, rather than having to spend a few hours to many hours, depending on their technical skill level, they are just essentially asking us to permit the draft to be restored. Note you can endorse the close as valid, as I and others have done, but allow recreation (that is, undeletion) as a draft. I see no problem with that, and am not sure why anyone would? Hope that helps. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd happily restore the template - but doing so might be seen to go against community consensus from the TFD discussion, hence why a DRV is acceptable. GiantSnowman 07:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find the TfD mob a bit weird. Why do they obsess with deleting unused templates? You need to look at the template to decide whether it is now appropriate to use it. I suggest userfying the template. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to this; I mean, I can see the point in deleting a template that only links to one or two bluelinked articles, or to using TfD to merge redundant templates, but on the other hand, navboxes are cheap and consume such little storage capacity, why bother? That reminds me of a discussion currently at TfD on whether to delete an rcat, which has spawned a separate discussion at WT:RFD on whether TfD, RfD, or CfD is the most appropriate venue for discussing the rcats. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman I get that, but TfD participation is usually extremely light, such that "consensus" typically consists of between 1 (the nom, sometimes after two relists) and 3 participants. Sometimes there's a fourth person who makes valid arguments, but gets "drowned out" by the SNOW nosecount of the other three. Doug Mehus T·C 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore I'm not enough of a template person to know the best path forward (userspace? mainspace?) but consider this an agreement that it should be made available for editing. That said, this DRV !vote isn't saying we *need* this template and can't be played as a trump card in a discussion about having the template. Rather it makes sense to give any editor the ability to have it as a starting place. But if a WP:BOLD addition of the template to articles gets reverted, this DRV (and this DRV !vote in particular) isn't taking a side on if it should be used in articles. Sorry that was so wordy. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
YouthHax (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I disagree with the CSD for YouthHax. G11 is used for blatant advertising, and the page for YouthHax was written factually and objectively. I have contacted deleting administrator user:Anthony Appleyard on his talk page, and have been ignored. Raymo111 02:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, as the nom has requested, down below. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to draftify should be made at AfD, not DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way we can use common sense and just keep this deleted? I also think it's promotional, but agree with SmokeyJoe's analysis of G11. Possibly qualifies for an A7 as well. An AfD would be a waste of time. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but Draftify This application of WP:CSD#G11 was incorrect; this may have some modest WP:NPOV issues and it likely fails WP:GNG, but it's not unduly promotional by any reasonable stretch. On a related noted, I noted this was tagged by PrussianOwl for speedy deletion on the same day they tagged Draft:Pendyrus Male Choir for G11 + G12, but was declined by Espresso Addict and which is still at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pendyrus Male Choir. I have managed to convince PrussianOwl to make more use of the "MoveToDraft" script and {{copyvio}} tagging instead, which have the same practical effect as WP:CSD and which are, notionally, less BITEy. Looks like, in this case, a different admin (incorrectly) took up PrussianOwl on the speedy deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 00:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 – This does not contain a CCS as far as I can see ("hosted a hackathon" is not a CCS). It's pretty close to a G11 too but I think what makes it seem like advertising is its total lack of CCS. Levivich 02:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Thank you all for agreeing that G11 is incorrect. Upon further review of WP:COI and WP:CSD, I would like the page to be draftified if possible. I realize that in its current state it may not notable. If and when it satisfies WP:N, I will then resubmit the draft. Raymo111 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn G11 - obviously unsuitable for that. Levivich is correct, I think, that A7 could be applied - organised event, no assertion of significance, no independent sources. So, draftifying would be the only hope to go forward. WilyD 10:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. This does not meet G11 as it is written fairly mostly neutrally, and I suppose being the only hackathon organiser in a large city of Canada is a claim of significance which exempts it from A7. However, I am hesitant to restore this straight to mainspace due to the apparent conflict of interest and lack of independent sourcing. Until it properly establishes notability, it can stay in the draft space. Glades12 (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify In mainspace its a valid A7, and possibly a G11, but in draft space A7 does not apply and G11 is interpreted more permissively in order to give articles a chance to be improved. Unfortunately, it is extremely unlike that this article will end up by being kept, but that's not a speedy criterion. For deletion, procedure is important, because otherwise it will eventually lead into admin idiosyncrasy. (not that I think the nom or the deleter to blame here--the situation is a little ambiguous) DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I respectfully decline to vote, but I do want to say that, while the article seems like it was written a little bit like an advertisement, I'm not 100% sure if it was blatant, like G11 states. Therefore, I remain neutral. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way was it at all like an advertisement? Raymo111 00:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The article in question had a very ad-like tone in my opinion. I'm not sure if anyone else saw it, but I did. I wasn't sure if it was blatant, either. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 January 2020

[edit]
  • Taylor James – As far as the original close is concerned this would be an endorse ... except for Levivich's argument which however has received virtually no attention. On restoring the article, it seems like this is moving towards a consensus that the topic meets inclusion criteria now, but there are some questions about the quality of the deleted text. My sense is that the best way to handle this is to restore to draft, allow move to mainspace at editorial discretion to address both the emerging consensus that the topic is notable, and the concerns about article quality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it seems like we already have a draft. So I'll just restore here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Taylor James (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi this page was delated as another user said Taylor James is not notable enough and that Justin Bieber stopped touring. DJ Tay James, (Taylor James) has been Justin Bieber's dj since 2009 until present. He will be the tour DJ on his new tour Changes. DJ Tay James was a guest DJ for Barack Obama's Inuguration. He can be found and featued on Billboard J-14 TeenVogue Black EnterpriseDJ City Washingtonpost Nonetheless he travels internationally to DJ on hi own. He was Christian Loubitin's DJ for their capsule collection in Dubai HERE I would like his page re-instated! As he is notable for Wikipedia. Hanapricebc (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse if this is an appeal. No error by closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Re-Creation in Draft if this is a request to create a new article based on more recent activity by the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:REFUND to draftspace. The nominator lists reasonable looking sources that would not have been in the article discussed at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with allowing a recreation of the article as long as it passes our notability standards, but I don't think we need to reissue the deleted copy. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh look, another AfD closed by me in which I was neither contacted beforehand nor notified about the DRV. Accordingly, I endorse my own closure. Consensus to delete was unanimous. At a glance, at least some of the proposed sources were already present in the deleted article, such as the "Washington Post" source. I would decline draftification because it is clear from the text of this nomination that the requesting editor is not proficient enough in the English language to write an acceptable article. Sandstein 11:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The AfD was unanimous so obviously it was closed correctly. On the other hand, it was almost two years ago, so if there's new sources, there's no fundamental reason a new article couldn't be written. As far as restoring the old version, it's no better or worse than most contemporary musical artist articles, which is to say it's mostly trash. I've tempundeleted the article so people can draw their own conclusions about whether we should draftify it or require a clean start. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest draft-ifying, from a related OTRS request it sounds like the notability of the subject may have changed but it will need review, also the requester may have a COI. — xaosflux Talk 03:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein's close from May 2018 is so obviously correct that it's trivial to endorse it. I suggest we agree not to waste any more time on that.

    Much more interesting is the question of whether that close still applies. Discussion closes on Wikipedia expire. How quickly they expire is very fact-dependent---so for example, if there had been a significant occurrance that was widely covered in reliable sources, then we could rightly overturn a discussion from last week. But in cases where that hasn't happened, they last a whole lot longer.

    From my observations of DRV, I've found that we usually say that a close more than about three years old has expired through the natural effluxion of time. We're usually happy to sustain a close less than six months old. Between those two extremes there's a discretionary zone and this falls in there.

    DRV is rightly a conservative venue, so when we're in the discretionary zone we usually look for some kind of compromise. The idea of restoring to draft space seems quite tolerable to me. The draft should be reviewed as normal before it can be moved to mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Yes it was two years ago, so I apologize it took so long to do something about it. If it temporarily undeleted? I can add all the new resources to it? Apologize if I sound amatuer to Wikipedia, it's because I am (haha). Thank you, I will update so it is a better artist page. Please let me know if I misunderstood the comments above? Thank you And no COI, just thought it was notable now to be published :)

  • Endorse close in that it was an accurate close for the evidence presented and on a strict nosecount (that is, there were no counter-arguments presented). WP:GNG is likely not established, but I concur with SmokeyJoe here in that the deletion rationale and evidence presented was very weak to non-existent. Nevertheless, I strongly request that we:
Allow Recreation to Draft: namespace Doug Mehus T·C 01:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore – On the one hand, how can you close any way other than delete when the delete !votes are unanimous? On the other hand, everyone is wrong.
    1. The AfD nom states ... no secondary references. Subject body of information largely from subjects own site with no unpaid third party sources such as newspapers etc. These statements are flatly incorrect. The references in the article at the time of the AfD include a 2010 article in The Baltimore Sun and a 2011 article in Black Enterprise. These two full-length write-ups are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. There are other secondary sources in the article such as HBCUBuzz 2014, and the interviews: 2013 J-14, 2011 Washington Post blog, and 2010 HipHopWired. "No secondary references" is simply false.
    2. The first delete !vote argued the subject doesn't meet WP:NMG, but did not address GNG or any sources in the article at all.
    3. The second delete !vote stated Self prophesized 'We Know the DJ' site, owned by none other than the subject 'Taylor James', is the main source of content for this article ... Lack of third party coverage in sources ... Also not accurate statements. In the article at the time of the AfD, The "We Know the DJ" reference is only used once, and it's to reference a sentence about We Know the DJ. The most-used reference is the Baltimore Sun article linked above. Second-most-used are the Black Enterprise, HipHopWired, and Washington Post articles linked above (along with Parle Teen, though the link to the article doesn't work for me). These are definitely "third party".
    4. The DRV filer linked to Billboard 2017 and 2013 TeenVogue interview. A WP:BEFORE search conducted during the AfD in 2018 should have found these. The Billboard 2017 article is another GNG source, even if you don't count the Teen Vogue (which is hugely mainstream coverage) interview as independent. Additionally, DRV filer linked to this 2019 DJ City podcast.
    5. TLDR: this topic's notability is evidenced by WP:SUSTAINED in-depth coverage in national and international media. The WP:THREE are Billboard 2017, Baltimore Sun 2010 and Black Enterprise 2011. Honorable mentions for the WaPo blog and Teen Vogue interviews. The AfD should have been relisted, and at this point, the article should just be restored. Levivich 04:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow restoration - really, it's not that bad (I can't see the Baltimore Sun article, being in Europe). Discussion seems to have been defective, given the source analysis (I won't repeat what Levivich has already done better). I can't fault the closing admin here, but neither can I endorse it when they've endorsed their own closure and ruined at least the perception they were acting as a neutral party. WilyD 06:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WilyD: Here's the Baltimore Sun article at archive.org in case that's accessible to you (or anyone else looking for it). – Levivich 06:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does, thanks. These kind of intergrated story/interviews usually get bad raps for not being secondary/fact checked, but of course any responsible news org reaches out to people they're writing stories about, so it requires a little finesse to read it (and, of course, your biases in what you're expecting colour how you read it). But it looks like a pretty reliable source, considering. WilyD 06:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interviews rarely fail for not being secondary sources. They fail in that they fail to meet the WP:GNG because the interview is not independent of the subject. However, an article may contain both non-independent interview in addition to independent secondary source comment. I think this is best explored in a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • WilyD, a closing admin at DRV is never a neutral party, since it is their closure that is being contested. I think that it is normal for closers to stand by their own closure if they remain convinced that they made the right decision, which they normally are, and which I am here. But I usually only state this explicitly if, contrary to instructions, I am not contacted prior to the DRV request. Sandstein 16:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure, obviously admins believe they made the right close, but that's different from wanting their closes to stick. To the best of my recollection, I've never had one of my closes overturned here, but if I mess a close, I hope it would be overturned and I'd learn from my error. Sure, if it's not completely obvious why a discussion was closed a certain way, it's beneficial if the closing admins explains themselves, but taking a position on whether a close should be overturned or not is akin to taking a position on what the close should be, and ruins the appearance of uninvolvedness (if not the actualness). WilyD 16:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Manfred Ugalde (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus was not interpreted correctly. The result was only 2-1 and both of the deleters' arguments were wrong. They said the article "fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL", but the WP:NFOOTBALL policy states that "players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded AS NOTABLE. (See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.) So according to that the subject is notable. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
AUTO1_Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi! This user account is handled by the AUTO1 Group Communications Team. We would like to restore the English version of our company wikipedia entry. Previously this entry was handled by another department that was not aware of the rules and guidelines in place on Wikipedia. This was also the reason for the previous reinstatement (and subsequent second deletion) of this page. We would like to request a Deletion Review followed by the article been put into Draft mode. We would further request guidance in how to avoid marketing and advertising-leaning content while still providing useful information about the company. We believe by cooperating fully with experienced Wikipedia members we can create knowledge for the community. In our opinion AUTO1 Group is a major player in the European automotive market with enough coverage on independent newspapers etc to warrant an article in the English-speaking Wikipedia. AUTO1GroupCommunications (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 January 2020

[edit]

26 January 2020

[edit]

25 January 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mad Ghost Productions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted, mostly because it needed more work and more details added. Since its deletion, the production studio has continued to work on movies, television, and comics. This article should be reinstated, because it is a notable production studio. If it's reinstated to a draft page, I can continue to work on it. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Probably unfortunate DisneyMetalhead did not engage with talk with Nosebagbear upon Nosebagbear's first reversion; or perhaps on the article's talk page, or perhaps even before raising the DRV. Assuming the DRV is not struck for failing to discuss with Nosebagbear (closer) before coming here. The problem with the initial article remaining in namespace was notability, and the reasoning for the article to return and remain is namespace is a demonstration of notability. @DisneyMetalhead .. please read WP:THREE and prepare your best three (and only three!) sources demonstrating notability of the subject. Present them here, or as otherwise directed. It you wish to develop the article it should be possible to copy and paste from Old revision of Mad Ghost Productions to a page in your own userspace (dont copy the categories though!) where you can continue development and when you have it ready for mainspace it can be shown to Nosebagbear for comment first and then taken to DRV if necessary and then copy/pasted back over by yourself (This is the neatest way and pretty well avoids copy attribution problems that might occur in draft space). That's my suggestion anyway. (On a procedural note I dont see a link to Xfd discussion on the talk page of the redirect).Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm happy to have this discussion out here now we've got this far, though if recreation was on the basis of new notability I'd happily have looked at it again. This isn't an incorrect decision-overturn DRV, but for what it's worth this was a NAC decision by me. Djm gives the correct approach. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Re-Creation in Draft as per Djm. There doesn't seem to be an issue with the close, but a request to be permitted to create a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly, users: @Djm-leighpark:, @Nosebagbear:, and @Robert McClenon: - I simply would like the article reinstated to a draft article, to where I can continue to work on it. It was originally deleted (from the discussion that was brought to me), for lack of sources. I would have preferred it be moved to draft, than to be deleted; but I'm asking if we can begin that process now. Thanks friends!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyMetalhead Please don't say exactly when you don't get my point. It is perfectly possible for you to followed the link to Old revision of Mad Ghost Productions; go into the editor and do a copy paste (Do not save and ideally miss the categories; and save it to a page in your userspace and work on it there. This doesnt require action from anu administrator if you have the requisite skills. The reason for keeping it in your userspace as opposed to draft is that nobody else will likely make any significant change to the article while you develop it which means you can copy/paste it back when consensus is agreed and the attribution is good. Doing this via draft is trickier as potentially would require a histmerge to move back. The page could be moved to draft but this risks the whole thing being deleted in 6 months if you give up on it. But all you have to do is simply establish notability, best with your three best WP:RS sources here per WP:THREE and it should be possible to re=instate the article as it stands. No amount of article editing will help the re-introduction to mainspaces, it is the establishment of notability which is independent of article content which is the crucial point. I am of course assuming you have no conflict of interest with the article subject, but even if you did establishment of notability is key. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Directory information about a recently made one man company. It was a premature WP:SPINOUT. Do not encourage DraftSpace, all coverage belongs in the biography until there is consensus to spin it out. It should never have gone to AfD as there is a single obvious merge and redirect target. There is no prospect for delete, so this doesn’t rise to the scope of DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose deprotection of the redirect until there is a consensus at Talk:Geoff Johns in support of a spinout. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don’t want to encourage the practice of coming to DRV for permission to start a draft (spinout or otherwise). In this case, a spinout, get consensus to draft, or just do the spinout in mainspace, on the article talk page. Content expansion discussions go on article talk pages. Before getting serious about the spinout, the spinout topic should be a solid section. Once there is a talk page consensus for the spinout, put in a request at WP:RFUP. That time is not now. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a discussion from around a year and a half ago and came to a redirect result. No DRV is required to make it back into an article if there is now satisfactory sources etc. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DMH may be asking here due to the full protection on it - when I was trying to implement the original result I ultimately had to ask @Courcelles: to check I'd closed correctly and protect to prevent it from being reopened despite the AfD. Courcelles is inactive, but either this DRV could agree to reduce the protection, or an RFPP request can be made, whatever is ultimately easier. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Djm-leighpark is spot on - make a draft that shows notability and the article can be restored. It's easier if you do this from scratch, IMO. (This is a good example of why we should embrace AfC as part of the DRV process, but I digress.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Your comment suggests a mild irritation with the DRV proces with respect to draftification and requiring AfC. Can you expand on this a bit? I personally agree with you here, and think we should allow re-creation to draft or userspace more often and, in the closing rationale, mandate that any move back to the main namespace go through AfC. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who does a fair bit of work with AfC, I see it more as a peer review than "just" a place where new users can get help with articles. If there's an article that's been salted, I don't really see any reason why we can't submit a draft to peer review and then move it to mainspace once it's ready. It's just not that onerous of an ask. The opposition seems to be that experienced editors know what they're doing, but an experienced editor should be able to ping another experienced editor and get something peer reviewed very quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer Yeah, I think of AfC that way, too. My only concern with AfC is, potentially, the turnaround time to having a submitted draft reviewed. As an experienced editor, I'd consider writing articles and having them go through AfC, but not if it was going to take three months to have it reviewed. Moreover, I suspect that AfC-submitted drafts have a much higher "keep" rate at AfD. "Peer review" is a good way of thinking of it, except it's peer review that isn't broken. Our current peer review process is inactive to bordering on defunct; I've requested peer review for an article three months ago, and it continues to sit. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above; nothing wrong with the close, per se, but the closer noted only a "rough consensus" which suggests we've not ruled out notability. Thus, allow-ing recreation as a draft, either on request at WP:REFUND or at close of this DRV, is a reasonable approach. If the editor moves the article to main namespace without going through AfC, I'd support salting the main namespace with the protection level required (i.e., confirmed, extendedconfirmed, or administrator) to prevent that. Doug Mehus T·C 16:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a combination of answers/direction. Can a new draft page be made, or do I need to work on it in my sandbox? Thanks for all the help!! --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DisneyMetalhead Not at all, the closer would move this article to draft namespace, without leaving a redirect, and you would access it at Draft:Mad Ghost Productions. It's not indexed by Google, so won't show up in web search results. As such, it doesn't have to meet our general notability guidelines, though it will to be moved back to the main namespace. When you're ready to have it reviewed, you just click submit like in your sandbox. Don't too this too often, though, without major revisions that show you're attempting to follow the feedback, or it could end up at MfD. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyMetalhead, yes ... there are a variety of options you are being presented with here. The choice is yours. Some are attempting to force down the AfC route. While may be recommended is not to be forced, and ultimately AfD/DRV is the decider not AfC, and should remain so. Ultimately AfD and DRV are not to be taken lightly and I am minded edit warring; unnecessarily bringing this to DRV without checking/meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE and failing to present 3 notable references here or to cut/paste off a version to your userspace or sandbox gives me low assessment of your probability of achieving any success. Given you likely won't have clue what I am talking about you are best advised to use the WP:TEAHOUSE or other help channels, whihc are often good though occasionally otherwise.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: also remain salted; add appropriate Template:R shell categories R with history, R printworthy, R with possibilities; and add Old XfD multi to talk. The close of the AfD was properly conducted and the closer helpfully commented about being somewhat near to proving notability. No content merge has taken place so there is no need to worry about a split and the entities are different albeit related. I'm concerned about the suggestions to more re-directs with history to the draftspace where loss and abandonment might occur. Moving to an article WP:Workpage for development would be better but nonstandard and has many its own issues. From a DRV viewpoint however the the key outcome is a straightforward endorse.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: I don't understand what your directions are, especially when you are using abbreviations I've never seen before... this is the first time I've submitted a review of a deleted article. I will attempt to follow the instructions provided by @Dmehus: however.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyMetalhead: I do not give you directions I give you options, of which there are several, though some restrict you to one. The underlying basic key for and procedure to get this article back into mainspace is to have three WP:RS sources identified which confirm WP:Notability per the excellent essay WP:THREE without which your purposes are doomed whilst having those makes the path relatively easy. Apologies for the abbreviations, if you put WP: in front of most of them and then to a search in the the search search wikipedia box it should work. The WP:DRV closer should understand most of my !vote (endorse) statement that I did omit the justification for the salting (protection against update) which essentially was because there had been conflict against the WP:AFD closer force in a newer version without respecting the WP:AFD result by one who may not have temperament or WP:COMPETENCY to do so and might become frustrated by the WP:AFC process.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – as stated above, a straightforward endorse of the close, but it doesn't even seem that the close is really being challenged here; rather (as also stated above) it's more of a request to recreate in draftspace. Levivich 01:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: Thank you for the more indepth and detailed explanation. I will attempt to follow these ideas later this weekend when I have a moment. In the meantime, #goChiefs!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Geoffrey Boot – Endorse, but allow re-creation. Endorse because everybody agrees the original close was correct. But, that was three years ago and if circumstances have changed, there's nothing to keep anybody from writing a new article. I'm going to re-delete the temp-undeleted version for now. Anybody can just go ahead and create a new article at the same title. If you want to start from the existing text, ping me or ask at WP:REFUND and we'll get you the old one to start from. Note: please, please, please, if using the old text is what you want to do, don't just copy-paste from the temp-undelted history, because that will break the attribution history; ask for the old one to be userfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Geoffrey Boot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Boot is a member of the House of Keys, which is a legislature, and passes WP:NPOL 1, but the closing admin, no longer an admin, closed as delete without comment. ミラP 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) ミラP 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Have you made any attempt to ask the closer about it? I've restored the article for review, honestly I don't think there was much of a delete consensus at that AfD, and if there's sources available I'd see no issue with recreating it. There wasn't much in the article in the version that was deleted. ~ mazca talk 16:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Miraclepine: Yeah, sure they don't currently have admin rights to restore it, but it's still often the quickest and politest way if you think they made a mistake or that the situation has changed - even if they technically can't, another admin would likely be happy to speedy restore it if everyone agreed. ~ mazca talk 17:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment who cares that the closer is no longer an administrator? They were not desysopped for improper closing of AfDs, they voluntarily handed in their tools and would be eligible to get them back at this time. This AfD was 3 years ago. Why not just write a new article and see if it sticks per WP:CCC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without the admin tools Euryalus can't see the deleted article anymore and, after three years, it's a good bet they won't remember what it was like. So contacting them, though polite, might not end up very productive. Reyk YO! 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation- I can't really fault the close since the discussion (and probably the article) focused on his status as a sportsperson. But if there's a case to be made for political notability I don't see any harm in allowing recreation. Reyk YO! 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well neither the deleted page nor the AfD mentioned a political career, so I can hardly fault the AfD participants for not discussing it, but the argument that he meets WP:POLITICIAN is definitely enough to justify revisiting it. I'd support allowing recreation and restoring the deleted version if someone thinks it would be helpful. Hut 8.5 22:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Re-Creation based on political notability. The article as deleted does not mention his membership in the legislature, which is a reason why the close should not be overturned as such. The close wasn't in error; the article was inadequate to sustain notability, and can be upgraded. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Rough consensus at AfD was fair. Re-creation is allowed if the reasons for deletion can now be overcome. Encourage use of AfC if the topic proponent is unsure. DRV is not for pre-judging notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the House of Keys an international, national, or sub-national legislative body? The Isle of Man is a bit weird. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - agree with Robert McClenon and a few others: the article as deleted three years ago was not notable but there's no reason a new one can't be made if anyone has WP:RS to support a fresh notability claim. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do we really grant automatic notability to members of a sub-national parliament representing 83,000 people? SportingFlyer T·C 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – I don't understand why this 2016 AfD is at DRV. If a deleted article can be recreated within policy, it doesn't need to go to DRV. Anyone can just recreate the article with new sourcing, etc., and the recreated article can be re-nom'd at AfD of someone thinks the topic shouldn't have a stand-alone. I'm not seeing what DRV is needed for here. Levivich 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 January 2020

[edit]

23 January 2020

[edit]

22 January 2020

[edit]
  • Methodist churches in Leicester – Overturn and allow new AFD Well, this is a messy discussion. There is a difficult-to-read DRV nomination and a fair amount of back-and-forth after it with some heated exchanges. On the merits, the key question is whether the closer correctly interpreted the consensus in the priort AFD. Headcount wise we are at about 5 endorse, 7 overturn (to no consensus, mainly), 5 relist - some relists and overturns are also considering overturn or relist respectively. Argument-wise there is some disagreement about whether the close was a supervote (the arguments that it was are a bit vague, though), whether it was too early (going by strict chronology apparently it wasn't, but the argument is not simply about strict chronology) whether the delete argument in the AFD was notably compelling and whether the article being a list or not is the case and materially affects the outcome. On balance, the arguments are all over the place and sometimes veer into re-litigating the AFD. The nosecount however also matters and suggests that a re-do is warranted - in the form of an overturn that allows a new AFD debate at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Methodist churches in Leicester (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

to facilitate discussion, I have temporarily restored the article history so the final version can be seen DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable nomination criteria

"There's a category for this, and most of these would not meet WP:NOTE. I feel it does not serve a purpose." There is no category, most do not need to meet WP:NOTE, and an opinion (without policy/guideline backing it up) is not relevant.

No consensus to delete

The majority of responses were neither keep or delete, they were alternatives for deletion & that is not consensus to delete. There have been various suggestions offered as preferred alternatives to deletion, including merging, partially merging, dratifying, etc. that are not addressed in the closer's statement. Given the myriad of suggestions which were not to delete, this closure is flawed because it interrupted the community from further discussing those alternatives.

Closer's taken position

In the closing statement, the closer makes it clear that s/he has a preference and dismisses a valid argument over the vague nomination claim & has taken a position in favor of the nominator's who says the list does not meet GNG and doesn't feel it serves a purpose. S/he acknowledges in the closing statement that (at least) one contributor says that the list does meet GNG and provided proof by adding it to the article. Neither the nominator (who provided no rebuttal) nor anyone else claimed that RS did not bring the list over the GNG. The closer has chosen an opinion of one editor over that of one who has offered verifiability.

Closure was premature & discussion should have been relisted

The history from 18:07, 17 January 2020 to 06:22, from 18 January 2020 clearly indicates that the discussion ongoing before the closure at at 06:52, 18 January 2020,

while this entry 06:52, 18 January 2020 (exactly the same time) shows that a participate wished to respond, demonstrating that the discussion had not come to a conclusion.
Complex lists require more time

While giving lip service to it, the closer has not into account the fact WP:LIST that there no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, and may take more time than others, and that discussion at this particular AfD was not complete.

Similar AfDs

The closure does not take in consideration two very similar AfDs, which are clearly noted on this AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, and which contributors to this AfD clearly believe have bearing.Djflem (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • As the (unnotified) closer, I stand by my closure of this discussion as "delete" based on the strength of the arguments being made, in the light of applicable guidelines.
This was a pure, bulleteted list of Methodist churches in Leicester, with their address and no other information (and rather few sources). WP:LISTN makes clear that there is no consensus about whether there are notability criteria for "x of y"-type lists other than the general notability criteria of substantial coverage of the list topic in reliable sources. That being the case, to be counted as valid at AfD, a "keep" argument must make a reasonable case why the inclusion of the list is a benefit to Wikipedia readers in the light of general inclusion policies such as WP:NOT. Few of the "keep" opinions in this AfD made such arguments, or indeed much of an argument at all. Djflem made a pure vote at 21:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC). Pure votes are disregarded at AfDs. Atlantic306 at 16:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) and Bookscale at 06:22, 18 January 2020 called for an expansion of the article, but made no argument for why it should be kept at all. Only Pontificalibus made something approaching a reasonable argument for keeping the article, but explicitly as a set index article, not as a list.
The closure was also not premature. The required seven days had elapsed, and sufficient people had commented in order to be able to assess consensus.
Moreover, the other AfDs about similar lists of churches, still ongoing at the time of the closure of this AfD, did not need to be taken into account. They were not part of the same deletion discussion, and it is conceivable that there are better or different sources for churches of one denomination or another in a particular city.
For these reasons, if one assesses the discussion in the light of the strength of the arguments presented, I am of the view that there is rough consensus to delete this list. Sandstein 09:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One sees from Sandstein's evalauation of the article that s/he has clearly taken a non-neutral position and is applying his interpretation of a guidline for which there is no consensus. He has not addressed that the weak nomination mentions only notability, which numerous others in the discussion believe to be fulfilled. The nominator has not satisfactory countered with reasons why the the list is not notable other than a claim and has not disproved the contributions of other editors. Sandsten has again not addressed the many alternatives to deletion, which were the majority of comments. He has taken a position favorable to the nominator making the closure flawed.Djflem (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closers always evaluate consensus by their arguments. There’s nothing wrong with that; in fact, that’s what a closer is supposed to do.
The nominator not arguing to your own liking is not relevant. The nomination itself is also not the key point for evaluation, since even an AfD with a blocked nominator can close as delete if there is consensus in the other editors' discussion. — MarkH21talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I take issue with Sandstein's accusation that my comment was a "pure vote", and, with great respect to Sandstein, it is bad faith to accuse editors of doing so when that was not their intention. The discussion in the AfD centred around whether the article met notability requirements for lists and that was what my comment addressed. Sandstein's comment in closing was that particular editors (which I can now safely assume would include me) didn't address reliable sources at all, and that was the reason that their comments were disregarded. Now he says that they were disregarded because they called for an expansion of the article and made no argument for keeping. I don't know what is supposed to be the real reason?? Bookscale (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookscale: The closer's point was that your keep !vote didn't give any reasons for why the article should be kept. You did say as AfD is not cleanup, that's not a reason to delete, but that's not an argument addressing why the article should be kept. — MarkH21talk 19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Djflem is not the nominator of the AfD Djflem (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of the DRV, not the AfD. The comment was to avoid accidentally reading the above !vote as double dipping. — MarkH21talk 22:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. My reading of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD is that we can only delete content when we've exhausted all the reasonable alternatives, and in this case I can't help feeling that there was a reasonable alternative before the closer when this decision was reached. Am I missing something?
Equally I don't feel our encyclopaedia is improved by our patchy and inconsistent coverage of religions. Where we do have something about Christianity it's often drawn from the 1913 Catholic encyclopaedia and therefore horribly in-universe. I feel we should treat religions like any other fictional topic, and I don't strongly want to overturn this close. I just don't see it as completely on all fours with our normal deletion practices. Difficult one.—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite ridiculous to call this a "fictional topic". Churches are usually solid and substantial buildings with a significant history as centres of community activity. The many places of worship in Leicester are the subject of academic study. Secular prejudice should be dismissed per WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Secular prejudice", by George! Thank you, Andrew. I have a new favourite oxymoron.—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "anti-religious prejudice" or "atheist prejudice" were the actual accusations there, rather than "secular". — MarkH21talk 19:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Err, the other two AfDs were closed after this one, and they're separate AfDs so they can have different results. — MarkH21talk 18:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominations were all tied together with explicit links. It makes no sense to close them separately with inconsistent outcomes. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but any inconsistencies arose after this close so that's an issue with the latter two AfD closes. This one was closed when its 7 days had elapsed. — MarkH21talk 18:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those two AfDs have also been un-closed by the closer due to them being controversial WP:NACs, so that's now moot. — MarkH21talk 19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The closes have been reverted because the nominator (MarkH21) badgered the closer. Fiat lux. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The closer agreed that it was WP:BADNAC#2. Don't baselessly accuse me of misconduct. — MarkH21talk 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite User:MarkH21 concurrence with the rationale of the closer here which he stated 'closed when its 7 days had elapsed', two others closed unfavorably to User:MarkH21, the original AfD nominator, needed to be open again and took it upon him/herself to do so.Djflem (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a blatant lie. The original closer re-opened the AfDs because of BADNAC here and here after a discussion with me. I did not personally re-open the AfDs. What you linked is me adding the AfD tag back to the article itself as you’re supposed to.
The re-open was procedural and independent of anything you may perceive as being unfavourable to an editor. — MarkH21talk 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: There was clear consensus for not keep, with many editors between delete, merge, and draftify. Among editors suggesting some form of not keep, only Doncram and DGG give non-keep non-delete !votes, with Doncram advocating for merge and DGG advocating for a draftify with a possible post-draftification merge.
    Unless the closer makes it clear that they did not consider alternatives to deletion (which is distinct from not explicitly mentioning alternatives in the closing statement), there is no reason to overturn. Most of the overturn arguments above (particularly the DRV nomination) seem to be AfD arguments rather than DRV arguments. This isn't AfD round 2. — MarkH21talk 18:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equally there was a clear consensus for "not delete". There were only two pure delete votes, neither of which addressed the sourcing or whether the topic was notable. A relist for further discussion or a "no consensus" close might reasonably have been supported. However, endorsing a delete close in such circumstances is somewhat generous.----Pontificalibus 19:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see six editors with delete, including the nominator. On my stance on the DRV here, I wouldn't be opposed to relist. — MarkH21talk 20:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Four of those weren't opposed to some alternative to deletion, so shouldn't be considered as part of a consensus to delete unless the alternatives are shown to be unworkable. I appreciate decisive closers, as relisting is often an easy option that doesn't always help. However a relist would help with some appropriate guidance as to what to focus the discussion on.----Pontificalibus 21:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not be confused: Not keep does not mean delete, and to suggest so is a misunderstanding of the AfD process.Djflem (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested that those two are the same. — MarkH21talk 22:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So as you've stated above you "wouldn't be opposed to relist" Djflem (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there does seem to be a general feeling in that discussion that the page wasn't suitable for Wikipedia in anything like that form. The opposition to deletion came mostly from people who wanted it merged somewhere else or completely rewritten to be an article instead of a list. If someone wants to have a go at either of those than I suggest we draftify it, but if not then these comments are in line with the view that we shouldn't have this page. The discussion was open for longer than required and had come to a consensus so I don't see a good reason to relist it. WP:LISTN does indeed say that there's no general consensus on the notability of cross-categorising lists, but that's hardly an argument that we can't come to a consensus on this list. It also says that non-notable lists can be kept for navigational reasons, but that clearly doesn't apply here because none of the list entries were bluelinks. Hut 8.5 19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that LISTN explicitly defers to the policy WP:NOTDIR#6 where there is consensus. — MarkH21talk 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(To quote MarkH21 above:"This isn't AfD round 2." So what's this?)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
Yep, like in the quote, this isn’t AfD round 2. This is about the attempt to use WP:LISTN to say that there is no consensus. — MarkH21talk 22:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made the point in the AfD that this is not a list article. The topic as per the title does not begin with "List of..." - sure, the article did contain a list, but this could have been reworked as prose focusing on the churches for which there was significant coverage. I had already begun this process, adding sources and detail to the article. It's a mystery to me why people focused on the list aspect, instead of on the topic as per the title, and on whether a decent article on that topic could have been achieved through improvement. Sandstein alluded to my keep arguments in the close but did not address them, and has mischaracterised them above as something to do with set index articles, which again is a mystery to me. Quite simply the topic is notable as demonstrated by the sources I had added to the article by the time it was closed.----Pontificalibus 19:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They focused on the list aspect because it's a list. It consisted almost entirely of a list of churches, along with a few pictures and a short piece of introductory lead. The fact that a few of the entries had a sentence or two of detail doesn't make it not a list. If you'd like to turn it into an article, with actual paragraphs of prose, about Methodism in Leicester or something similar then I'd be happy to support moving it into draft space. But it will necessitate an almost total rewrite. Hut 8.5 22:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the main role of AfD is to determine whether we should have an article on that topic, not whether the current content of an article is suitable. I’d be happy to improve the article, but only if there is a consensus that we should have an article about these churches. Draftifying only to end up here again would waste a lot of people’s time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontificalibus (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright - I'll rephrase: there was consensus that we shouldn't have this as a standalone page. However a consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone list of churches in Leicester doesn't mean that we can't have an article about Methodism in Leicester, or something else which is fundamentally a different page with a different scope and function. If someone would like to use some of the contents of this page to write that page, or to improve some other page, then I don't have a problem with it being restored to draft space for that purpose. But if nobody is interested in doing that then the contents are no use and we've decided to get rid of it. Hut 8.5 22:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there was any consensus, it was on the content of the page prior to nomination. But of course AfD is not cleanup and any objections to a plain list of churches had already begun to be addressed. The vast majority of contributors failed to address the topic under discussion, but focused on the list element. Imagine if New York City had previously been nominated for deletion because it contained only a list of buildings, even though someone had started adding referenced content about the Empire State Building and the New York Stock Exchange. The logic exhibited at this AfD would have seen it deleted, rather than improved. WP:TNT is not a policy however.--Pontificalibus 06:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically the same as what you said above, and again the page amounted to a list of churches in Leicester, whether that was the title or not. AfD participants will have commented on the page at the time, not on the pre-nomination version. Most of the changes were made on 11-12 January, which is before a good deal of the AfD participation. The changes don't amount to adding paragraphs of text or anything like that, instead they mostly consist of adding references and very brief annotations to the entries. If someone took a list of buildings in New York City and changed "Empire State Building" to "Empire State Building, a skyscraper completed in 1931 [citation]", along with a few similar changes then that doesn't magically make the page into an article about New York City. Plenty of lists have such annotations. Making the page into an article would have required writing paragraphs of actual prose, nobody was doing that. Hut 8.5 07:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it was not the state of the article that mattered, but whether the sources exist to enable improvement, which they clearly do.----Pontificalibus 07:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the AfD, I don't think the notability of the list, or that sources exist which clearly demonstrate the notability of the list, has been clearly demonstrated. While some delete voters were delete/merge or delete/draftify, there's more of a consensus to delete or to move the information elsewhere than there is to keep the article on notability grounds and improve it. A simple count of the exact votes were 3 delete, 2 merge, 1 delete first and rename second, 3 keep outright, 1 delete or draftify, 1 delete/partial merge, and 1 draftify. The two keep !votes that were not yours did not explicitly discuss the notability of the list. One of them was also fine if the list needed to be draftifyed. There's a clear consensus this page is not okay as it is, there's a rough consensus the page isn't notable and that some or all of the information should be moved somewhere else, and there's no consensus on where to redirect or merge the information, making the delete outcome proper here. Part of this comes down to the difficulty of determining the notability of lists. I think Methodist Churches in Leicester could potentially be a valid article, and I don't think the close of this discussion prohibits that. The only change I would make to the close would be to make that point clear. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Ignoring the delete !votes that fail to address the sources I added to the article during the AfD, there aren't any valid delete !votes left at all. Relist for a further seven days with the instruction to determine whether the topic "Methodist Churches in Leicester" satisfies WP:N.----Pontificalibus 19:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, or close as Non-consensus Statements that "there was consensus that it wasn't suitable in its present form" does not mean that there was consensus to delete it, considering the multiple other options. The only thing that was really clear in hte discussion was that there was no consensus. I would normally just suggest "non-consensus" but it is possible with the sources now added to the article the consensus would be keep. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or close as non-consensus per DGG. There really was no clear consensus to delete, and the sources that have been shown to be added to the article would show that the article can be kept. It would also give a chance to take into account the other AfDs. Bookscale (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse That was a difficult discussion, but I don't have any issue with the close and I think it's proper - there's not consensus on a merge target, there's not consensus on a redirect target (though postdlf does make a good suggestion), and from a reading of the discussion I think Sandstein is correct in saying only Pontificalibus makes an argument that would actually merit keeping the article. The clarification I would make is that there shouldn't be any prejudice on including this information somewhere else, but the article as it stands does not appear notable. Also, I know whoever closes this will be competent, but most of the participants in this discussion were involved at the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And why, since it was an apparently difficult call, did one need to be made, especially considering that the discussion was still very very active. Why isn't a re-list more appropriate?Djflem (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It had been open for ten days by my count, and relisting isn't proper when a discussion can be properly closed. (Also, the close wasn't difficult, the discussion was difficult. I'd be in favour of better guidelines for lists.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A review of the history shows that the discussion was still quite active. If relisting isn't proper then, closing when wasn't either. It is clear the it had not concluded and had been better left alone.Djflem (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing at WP:RELIST would suggest relisting a discussion because active participation is occurring (and to note again, discussion ran for a couple days after it should have been closed.) I know you're passionate about the subject, but there was no error on the closer's part for closing the discussion when they did, which is what we're reviewing for. SportingFlyer T·C 07:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to suggest that a AfD is required to be closed by a deadline. In a "difficult discussion" which clearly had not come to an end, giving more time - by doing nothing - may have allowed a consensus to gel & we wouldn't be here. Djflem (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatives to deletion were being discussed and no action was required or needed by a closer. Djflem (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Consensus to delete or indeed to do anything else - User:DGG argues this above better than I can. Having said that, if it does remain it needs huge work v quickly. Ingratis (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and allow someone to work on it in draft form. SportingFlyer captured my thoughts about the close. What did emerge from the discussion was there was a consensus to not keep the article. While I think there was probably generally agreement that the content should come back in some form, there was a strong sense that the current article is not notable as written. --Enos733 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Intervention by a closer who aborted an active discussion about which direction to take the material was inappropriate and disrupted the community from finding, or not finding, a consensus. Misconstruing not keep (which was far from certain) to mean delete is non-neutral position.Djflem (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion would benefit from less participation by you, Djflem.—S Marshall T/C 16:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Clear among participants that article should not be kept in its form as a mere directory of a particular type of church in a particular place, regardless of notability. Voters recognized that the topic did not need its own article rather than listing only the notable/historic churches in a page with inclusion criteria besides mere existence or previous existence of non-notable churches in limitless combinations of places and types. Reywas92Talk 10:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus to delete, maybe even a consensus to not delete the history. The combinations of “redirect” “partial merge”, “merge” and “draftify” do not fit the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - It wasn't an easy close, but deciding that there was a consensus to delete was an easy way out. The views of the community were all over the place, and that is what No Consensus is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 January 2020

[edit]

20 January 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sunshine Mall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Bad A7 speedy. While there may not have been an apparent claim of significance, there were 17 references. As noted at Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, even if there is not an in-text claim of significance, references need to be taken into account; If the references within the article discuss the subject or provide a possible claim of significance as discussed in #1 above, then too the A7, A9 and A11 tags should not be applied. There was a previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunshine Mall, but it is now 12 years old, and since this wasn't G4'd, somewhat irrelevant. The right course of action was to send it to AfD, not speedy it. I note that I am opening this after page author User:Pokemonprime mentioned on Discord that it had been deleted, and was confused. I agreed with them, and thus opened this DRV since they were unfamiliar with the process. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Send to AfD are we seriously challenging an A7 over references that amount to “It physically existed and was torn down”? Hell, the references in this case contribute to the reason A7 was appropriate: none of them remotely approach making a claim of significance at all. I also don’t buy the “physical mall that’s rented as a business vs. business” distinction, and think it’s covered by A7. Also, CaptainEek, you should have discussed this with Bbb23 first, rather than starting this without on-wiki discussion with the deleting admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyBallioni: The greater concern is that it had significant, third-party coverage going back for many years. The article had seventeen newspaper articles all of which covered some facet of the mall in depth. For this to get completely overlooked and shrugged off as "insignificant", and ignored to the point of an A7 getting dropped in mere minutes, is preposterous. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: See my comments below. This should have been a good A7, but we’re in controversial territory because we apparently have a special exception for malls. I’m all for SNGs/OUTCOMES precedent so I respect that, and would be fine with this going to AfD. At the same time, I’ll note that this has A7 written all over it, and I’d personally have deleted it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, what's happening here isn't in any way related to this being a mall, it's a failure to read the whole of A7 and understand how and why it works. No article, on any subject, should be A7'd when it has significant, reliable sources on the subject. It's not clear, of course, whether this will be kept at AfD, but determining that takes a serious analysis of the sources, to which AfD is suitable and CSD is largely not. WilyD 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that the corresponding talk page wasn't deleted. I'm not sure what our policies are with respect to timeframes of applicability for the previous AfD. I'm inclined to agree with TonyBallioni per WP:NOTBURO if the incorrect CSD tag was used, but which Sunshine Mall are we talking about? That would help in assessing whether WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are met here. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was the first mall of its kind in Clearwater. People drove for miles to visit. Not sure what sort of coverage it got outside Tampa Bay Area, but it was something at the time. (Personal recollections don't count toward notability.)-- Deepfriedokra 03:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Over turn. this did meet significance, though I doubt notability.-- Deepfriedokra 03:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC) There were many malls torn down in Pinellas County over the last forty years. I think what distinguished Sunshine Mall was its firstnesss, and the fact that it was turned into apartments., rather than being renovated and relaunched as a retail venue. Mere existence does not amount to significance., and while personally significant to me, ( I loved the place.) the local coverage amounts to little more than fluff.-- Deepfriedokra 03:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Did anyone even look at the sources? They were all newspaper articles that discussed the mall's history in depth. The "firstness" is a valid claim to notability, and WP:OUTCOMES has constantly dictated that malls are almost always notable. Why is this the one that gets thrown to the wolves three seconds after the article was created, with 17 absolutely reliable, in-depth sources shrugged off as nothingness? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question TenPoundHammer, can you restore the page for DRV so we can look at the sources? Doug Mehus T·C 03:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TenPoundHammer: I have no knowledge of other people's orbital platform deployments. It would probably be best to ask Bbb23, who AFAIK was not contacted prior to requesting here. BUt you are right. A7 did not apply. And yes, fluff. I read the sources when they first came out.-- Deepfriedokra 03:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dmehus: I am not an admin so I can't do that. However, in mere seconds on Newspapers.com, I did find at least one valid claim to notability: this article claims it was the first mall in the country to have a Christian Science Reading Room, and the first mall in the South to have more than 100 stores. This claims that the mall was at 100% occupancy before it even opened. This is a pretty sizeable article on the mall's development. @TonyBallioni:, @Bbb23:, @Deepfriedokra: I suggest that you peruse these sources, as I feel they establish notability and show significant depth in coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer: all of this screams complete and utter insignificance. Seriously, none of that is near significant, much less notable. Good A7, and I’d argue that the sourcing produced makes it an even better A7 than if no sources were provided in the article: it shows how utterly impossible it is this historical business that has shut down could be notable, as there is nothing the average reader would consider significant. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't think "first mall to have X" is in any way an assertation of notability? There is a long-standing precedent that the coverage I linked above, combined with what was already in the article, is exactly the kind of substance that makes shopping malls notable. WP:OUTCOMES states that malls are almost always considered notable, and the existence of this level of coverage in GA-class articles such as Lansing Mall, Meridian Mall, Colonial Plaza, etc. shows that this is exactly what makes a suitable shopping mall article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don’t. It appears that shopping malls are apparently like railroad stations in that almost every one should be deleted but we have a special set of rules for them because editors who like them want to write about them and they aren’t harming anything so it’s not worth the fight. The first claim to me isn’t significant: there are tons of firsts. The reading room might be significant for being the first in a mall, but I don’t think the mall is. I’d be willing to see it returned to AfD over this, but really, I think Wikipedia is better off without this article, and that if any other business had these sources, no one at all would be questioning this A7. If OUTCOMES says there’s a special rule, though, I’m fine challenging that at AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the fact that we're debating whether this mall was potentially significant means that we should at least have a new debate at AfD with respect to notability as the WP:CSD#A7 was likely incorrect. Doug Mehus T·C 04:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra Indeed. That is ironic. I guess there's a bit of an inclusionist in all of us. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 03:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra Thanks. It looks like this will probably end up at AfD. I wonder if we should temporary undelete Talk:Sunshine Mall pending the DRV and/or AfD outcome? Doug Mehus T·C 04:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I too think based on the discussion of the sources that the article did not qualify for speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is a collection of facts, backed up by a long list of what appear to be WP:RS. None of that makes any claim that this mall was significant or important. There's absolutely nothing in the article that's not totally routine for a strip mall. It was built. It had stores. It had a movie theater. It was renovated. It was torn down. Good A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I didn't look at them. A7 is about what's in the article. There was nothing in the article that indicated the mall was important or significant. Therefore, it was a good A7. The fact that you may have found sources which show the mall is notable, doesn't change the fact that it was a valid A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just not aware of it, but I don't think we've ever deleted a notable article for failing the significance test. SportingFlyer T·C 06:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Obviously unsuitable for A7, given the sources. Nobody familiar with speedy deletion acting in good faith could argue otherwise. Just terrible. Completely indefensible. WilyD 06:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think this was an abjectly poor use of an A7. I believe significance is a very low bar, and this not only vastly exceeds meets that threshold, I think it'd also pass an AfD on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 06:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Agreed. I'm looking at sources #3-4 and, possibly, source #1 as possibly enough for a weak keep if not an outright keep so I could very easily see this passing WP:GNG. We've kept articles with worse sourcing than this! --Doug Mehus T·C 06:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pontificalibus Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't sure whether it was for the building' or the building corporation that owned it. In that case, it's likely a lower test as there's no WP:CORPDEPTH element for it to pass, correct? Doug Mehus T·C 07:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes absolutely. NBUILD explicitly includes commercial developments while CORPDETH specifically applies only to companies as a legal entity and other groups of people forming organizations. This is about that big building that everyone visited, it's not about some subsidiary operating company of FUSCO Property Management Inc that no one has heard of. ----Pontificalibus 07:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 is supposed to be a lower standard than notability: any article which shows the subject is notable is exempt from A7. This means references are relevant since they can establish notability. In fact any article which suggests the subject might be notable should also not be an A7 candidate, because speedy deletion is not the main mechanism we use for determining notability and because speedy deletion should only be applied in obvious cases. I'm not sure the references cited indicate notability, but they are at least worth considering at AfD/PROD. Hut 8.5 07:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Send to AFD. A7, like other speedy criteria, is for uncontroversial deletions. User:RoySmith has given an excellent argument to Delete in a deletion discussion, but this is not a deletion discussion. Anything with multiple low-quality sources makes a credible claim of significance, and that is why A7 and AFD are different burdens of proof. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I wrote an article which said, "I exist", and provided as references, links to my Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Wikipedia pages, an article in my hometown paper covering my high school graduation, and a link to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles database showing all my parking tickets, that would be enough to be A7-proof? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but A7 is explicitly "... a lower standard than notability." So if there is a reasonable argument that a topic meets WP:N, then it is A7-proof. I don't think your example would hit that, though if that hometown paper was covering *you*, in significant detail, I'd claim that A7 would probably be unwise (arguments about sources being too "local" probably should be discussed rather than fiat-ed at CSD). If that article just listed you as a graduate, yeah, that's no where close enough to hold off an A7. Hobit (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other important thing to note is that A7 does not require you to look "outside the article" to make that determination, but sources that are included in the article at the time of the A7 nomination should be considered to be part of the article. The article "RoySmith ({date of birth}) is a {nationality} {occupation}" would be eligible for an A7 if unsourced or only sourced to LinkedIn or a high school graduation notification, but if someone has done a terrible job at writing an article but a good job of finding references, and the references demonstrate a level of notability, then A7 would be inappropriate even though the article's terrible. SportingFlyer T·C 04:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, an important point. Independent, verifiable, reliable sources that say more than "you exist," and the cited sources here do that. (Look hard enough and you will find such coverage about the real me, but I am not notable. And they got a lot wrong in that article.) The sources cited are in depth, and do indicate some significance. (There are claims to significance in the sourcing the article omitted, but I have an attachment to the place. I digress. They are already mentioned here.) When I consider an A7, I do look beyond the article to see if it can be improved. ONly if a WP:BEFORE search shows no coverage indicating a claim to significance do I delete under A7. In other words, I ignore social media controlled by the subject and very brief (routine) mentions, like "Sally Soccerplayer played in yesterday's soccer game. She made two assists and had a shot on goal." Or "Rocky Rockenmeister's band played at someone-from-his-school's bar mitzvah." Or "my garage band is the best band ever". Or "my sister is the best soccer player ever."I don't know where practice has gone over the years, but RS in an article used to require evaluation at AfD. And yes, I know the Deletionist's Guild will now revoke my membership. But "reasonable claim to significance" to me means we discount claims like "Cookie Kookersen is the King of France and Emperor of Mexico," but not claims to significance it would require effort to discount.-- Deepfriedokra 08:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and point the tagger User:Red Phoenix to WP:AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn& Restore I usually speedy delete the typical promotional or totally generic mall article, but this is one that I don't think qualifies for deletion at all. I think it shouldn't automatically be sent to afd: the people who now want to delete it might well want to read it again. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn& Restore If someone believes it deserves an AfD it can be nominated. Lightburst (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 January 2020

[edit]

18 January 2020

[edit]

17 January 2020

[edit]

16 January 2020

[edit]

15 January 2020

[edit]
  • Sushree Dibyadarshini – overturn and relist - there is a significant consensus that this was a poor choice of debate for a non-admin closure and that the consensus was anything but clear. Given valid suggestions that the close was something of a 'supervote' regardless of the user-rights of the person who closed it, and had not yet been relisted to better generate a strong consensus, the closure will be overturned and the article relisted. There are good-faith disagreements about the notability, but that's what an actual AfD consensus is to sort out. ~ mazca talk 02:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sushree Dibyadarshini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Bad non-admin closure. With three editors arguing for deletion, one for a weak keep, and one for keep, consensus was incorrectly assessed. There was no attempt at relisting, and a non-obvious closure was made against WP:BADNAC#2.
Closer seems to suggest here that the closure was due to the keep !vote coming after previous delete arguments with what the closer believes to be sources supporting GNG, and the later delete !vote didn’t explicitly address them. I don’t think the new sources count as significant coverage for GNG, and one of the editors arguing for delete said on the closer’s talk page that despite not explicitly saying so, the editor maintains that the interviews don’t count towards notability. — MarkH21talk 17:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who argued keep, I was surprised to see the AfD closed as keep. Relisiting or closing as no consensus seemed more likely to me - I don't think my argument was obviously more relevant and/or strong enough to cut through the other opinions in such a way to lead to a clear argument for closing as keep yet (there are plenty of occasions at AfD where I think a minority argument is clearly much stronger fwiw and I am unconvinced of the merit of vote counting, but there you go). Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. BADNAC. That was not a consensus to keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to relist The SNG issue wasn't really addressed at all and there were no relists yet. Hobit (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist – Divided opinions + new sources to analyze + no prior relist = relist – Levivich 00:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or Delete It was a terrible non admin closure where the consensus was assigned to keep the article despite majority of the votes going in favour of delete. On the other hand just for a reminder, 2018–19 Senior Women's Challenger Trophy is a women's List A cricket tournament which passes the WP:GNG and those who play in List A matches also count to be notable according to WP:Cricket. Sushree Dibyadarshini has also featured in such a tournament. But the subject hasn't been much covered or recognised so it is WP:TOOSOON. So I believe it was wrong to close the Afd in contrast to the votes of majority. According to my knowlege women cricketers who have played for less popular cricket teams such as Uganda, Maldives, Philippines, Indonesia, Tanzania in international level are not covered in Wikipedia. So there is no point in keeping a biography of a woman cricketer who has not even played in a domestic competition according to the Cricinfo stats. Abishe (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Abishe: I'm slightly confused by your point about List A matches. WP:NCRIC gives a list of matches that would confer notability, in which the subject has played none. I also don't see how the tournament passing GNG has to do with her passing GNG or NCRIC. But I'm also confused because you're arguing for deletion? I think I'm misunderstanding something here. — MarkH21talk 05:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkH21: Sorry for my error which I made regarding List A appearances. The tournament that I mentioned above passes notability but the subject in focus hasn't played in any of the matches according to Cricinfo which I just went through. Clearly it is WP:TOOSOON. I didn't mean that she played in the domestic competition but just wanted to say that she had featured in one of the squads and she is yet to make a mark at professional level. Hope you got it clear. Abishe (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- as well as being a textbook WP:BADNAC, endorsing this would set the precedent that drip-feeding sketchy sources into a debate to invalidate previous !votes is a tactic that works. That would not be a benefit to the encyclopedia. Reyk YO! 10:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with arguments above that this was, perhaps, not an appropriate non-admin closure but weak endorse close and support weak keep per the arguments presented by Missvain and Blue Square Thing, which were the stronger arguments that appeared to be supported by evidence. It does seem difficult to find sources on female Indian cricket players, but this one from In.com that is a partnership/joint venture with CNN likely qualifies as an in-depth biographical featurette. I did not search through all of the results, especially those omitted by Google Search. There are a number of passing mentions in published print books, so I tend to think there is a high likelihood of being only one other qualifying source to meet WP:GNG, which is the first "test" a subject must pass before the SNG(s) are assessed. On WP:NCRIC, concur with the above that the subject easily meets WP:NCRIC. --Doug Mehus T·C 10:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist. Opinion was split and the arguments for keeping aren't that strong. The fact that women's cricket gets less coverage than men's is unfortunate but we don't lower the notability standards as a result of bias in the world in general. Blue Square Thing's comment does give sources which weren't explicitly rebutted, but the analysis admits that most of them are "short" or "passing mentions", which doesn't help much for notability, and they don't look great to me. If we have to close it in that state then it would be no consensus, but I'm happy with relisting for further participation. Hut 8.5 18:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5 I'd be supportive of the overturn to "no consensus," which would also have the practical effect of keeping the article in question and also allowing the Notability tag to be retained at the top of the article, per the consensus at Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts and elsewhere. A reasonable compromise result. This, in turn, might spur those with interest in the article to look into other sources, including offline and walled garden sources, to get the article the 1 other source it needs to pass WP:GNG. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5 and others: I feel that I should explain that the specific issue I have with the notability of women's cricket, is not necessarily of media coverage - there is quite a lot of that for Dibyadarshini. It's to do with the way that NCRIC is written and its reliance on matches being first-class, List A or official T20. Women's cricket doesn't have that same level of "official" rating yet in stats websites such as CricInfo. At the same time, it's clear to me that Dibyadarshini has played in matches at a higher level than people such as Bhavya Bishnoi (see current AfD) - his single "first-class" match is realistically nowhere near first-class status whereas Dibyadarshini's matches for India A (basically the Indian national team's next eleven), for example, are way beyond that level. Essentially it's almost impossible for women to meet NCRIC without playing internationally whereas men can play in a pre-season friendly and meet it without any real media coverage whatsoever (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Balac for example). The problem is with the ways in which women's cricket is classified and the reliance of NCRIC on that.
None of that changes my surprise at the closure of the AfD as keep. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the notability standards for cricketers aren't very good, but I suspect any attempt to reform them will consist of getting rid of the automatic pass given to anyone who has ever played first-class cricket, rather than extending it to similar levels of women's cricket. Although I suspect that women's cricket is much less likely to get substantial coverage than men's at the same level. Hut 8.5 19:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect any attempt to reform them will consist of getting rid of the automatic pass given to anyone who has ever played first-class cricket- good. A huge number of these articles (particularly the one-match players) are match scorecards disguised as biographies, about people whose full names we often can't determine, and who sometimes can't be reliably distinguished from similarly named people. Reyk YO! 07:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Void close and relist. WP:BADNAC applies. There's no reason a close can't go against the nosecount, if the minority arguments are squarely grounded in policy. But, the two keep arguments here do not fit that description. The fact that women's cricket doesn't get as much coverage as men's cricket is unfortunate, but not a reason to keep per our policies. The argument that, there are some interviews with her, is clearly non-policy; interviews are generally not considered good sources. One of the arguments admits, it's not clear and obvious; well, clear and obvious is what we need for a good WP:NAC. If this had been closed as keep by an admin, it would have still been a bad close. I could see closing this as NC, or Delete, or relisting. Pretty much anything but keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we put a ban on non-administrative closures for this user? There have been many questionable NACs by this user in the past weeks. Natg 19 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Natg 19:, that's not something for WP:DRV as I understand it. There's a couple of proposals at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nnadigoodluck and WP:BADNAC, which may or may not be of interest to you. Hope that helps. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion has absolutely nothing to do with this user. SportingFlyer T·C 03:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate This discussion clearly should not have been closed by a non-administrator, and especially without discussion. I have no opinion on what ultimately should be done with this as it's a topic in a difficult grey area with good arguments on both sides (I would have relisted had I been in charge of the close), but the close itself desperately needs to be vacated. SportingFlyer T·C 03:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For those suggested closing this as no consensus, I don't see why that is preferable to relist. The AfD was never relisted and there's clearly potential for further discussion here. — MarkH21talk 05:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That close doesn't reflect my reading of the debate or my understanding of policies and guidelines in this topic area. There's an opportunity for one of our sysops to provide some support and direction to this closer, who's rather active in deletion related matters and isn't always displaying good judgment.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. Sorry I'm late due to a laptop issue. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is determined better by the merits of the votes than the counts, which I did. ミラP 16:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and allow an admin to close. Unfortunately, the closer has just made an additional argument to overturn, because the closer appears to be saying that they supervoted. This is a contentious close, and any contentious close may be a bad non-admin closure, and a contentious close that goes against a headcount may be a right !vote but is almost always a bad non-admin close. In my opinion, No Consensus or Relist would have been valid (and a Keep by the closer would have made No Consensus a more obvious close). It isn't obvious what the right close is, so Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe the special notability guidelines for cricket and association football are too low. If so, take that to the sports notability talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close appears to violate WP:BADNAC#2, as there were a couple valid outcomes of the AfD. However, while no consensus is a possible close here - a no consensus close defaults to keep. I am also not sure that a relist would significantly change the discussion - as it is not likely that there would be a consensus on the open question of whether playing in the 2019 Women's T20 Challenge is enough to meet WP:NCRIC. As it was two of the delete votes suggested a preference to have a broader discussion of WP:NSPORTS, rather than apply the current consensus of when athletes pass the SNG. Void close to allow an admin to close. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Enos733 Thanks. Is the AfD back on then? If so, I'd like to add my comments that this is the weakest of "keeps," per WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR that it's only one source shy of a WP:GNG meet. Failing that, draftify or userify seems right. Doug Mehus T·C 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Emin Boztepe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Australianblackbelt insists on reviewing this ten-year-old afd because, to quote, "Subject has only been in two articles inside two martial arts magazines never on a front cover or ever mentioned in news sources, doesn’t pass notability", and won't accept that a new afd is the place for that. So we're here, at least briefly. —Cryptic 01:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 January 2020

[edit]
  • Toks Asher Young – Relist. There's general agreement that the close wasn't wrong per-se, in that it fairly represents the discussion, but the discussion itself was deficient in that it didn't adequately analyze the sources. We're all over the place on the correct next step, but simply reopening the existing discussion doesn't seem unreasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Toks Asher Young (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the page was wrongly deleted because he passes general notability criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia. And also have received some awards and recognitions in his field. I don't understand why he is not notable, I asked the admin to explain but he said is because of the number of votes for delete but I think, the reasons which are given in the AFD discussion by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note User:Techwritar 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. When I wrote my comments, here and in the two discussions below, Techwritar's post in all three read simply "I believe the page was wrongly deleted". Don't worry about it, User:Techwritar. I see below at Blessing Williams that you now know not to change comments after they've been replied to. As you say, we're learning all the time. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse - This AFD raises two questions. The first is whether to overturn the deletion. The appellant has not raised any issue of any error in the close, and the close was correct. The second is whether to take action against the appellant for filing frivolous DRVs, but DRV is a content forum, so Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we're dealing with a new user here, I do hope that we'll be able to take this opportunity to explain what's happened in a way that would be intelligible to a non-Wikipedian. With a tempundelete, I'd be happy to try.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Cryptic for the tempundelete. And no, I'm not content to defend what we've done here. The nomination statement, supported by two editors, appears to be wrong, in that this source and this source, both of which were cited in the deleted article, both look editorially independent from the subject. Given the debate we had, I can't fault Sandstein's close, but the close relied on a debate that didn't fully examine the facts.—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to relist Yeah, the sources look just fine and he appears to meet WP:N. Given the sources appear quite reasonable and there was never a relist, I'd say relist was a much better choice°, ideally asking participants to examine the sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep as a bold close that avoids bureaucracy or, as a second choice, overturn to relist, for a fuller discussion, possibly with a link to this DRV deletion discussion diversion. I concur with S Marshall and Hobit here, respectively, in that the closer can't be faulted too much in that, based on the discussion provided, "delete" appeared correct. However, just because Techwritar was the author of the article doesn't nullify, or discount, his or her vote at AfD, as far as I'm aware. Based on my review of Google web and news searches, I'm able to provide two sources here and here, from Guardian Nigeria and News Ghana respectively, that meet our common sense definition of reliable, independent sources. Moreover, the articles themselves are both at length and in-depth; thus, an easy WP:GNG pass here. Doug Mehus T·C 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, without bias against renomination - AfDs are discussions, not votes, and we see nothing but bare assertions that he does or doesn't meet WP:N, with no discussion of the sources, but certainly sources enough that meeting WP:N is plausible (at least, the Vanguard, Guardian make it plausible). Assertions but no real arguments, either side "plausible" does not a consensus make. I don't see the point in re-opening over allowing renomination when there's essentially no existing discussion to build on. WilyD 16:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, that said, I don't really fault the closer here. I think it's a very easy and natural error to make. WilyD 17:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
King Cid (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the page was wrongly deleted because Firstly, third party sources (independent source) are sources that have no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. All the sources there are third-party sources that have editorial independence. Secondly, he passes WP:ENT because he has a large fan base, one million subscribers and about 2.2 million views on one of his videos on YouTube. I don't understand why he is not notable, I asked the admin to explain but he said is because of the number of votes for delete but I think, the reasons which are given in the AFD discussion by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note Techwritar (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not how this page works, User:Techwritar. You need to say why you think it was wrongly deleted. Wrongly in what way? Bishonen | talk 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse - This AFD raises two questions. The first is whether to overturn the deletion. The appellant has not raised any issue of any error in the close, and the close was correct. The second is whether to take action against the appellant for filing frivolous DRVs, but DRV is a content forum, so Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse sources don't appear to meet WP:N and the AfD concluded the same. A relist for discussion of WP:ENT wouldn't have been a bad idea (and I'd have endorsed that too), but I don't know that "lots of youtube subscribers" counts as "large fan base", nor do I know if we did take that as meeting WP:ENT, how many would be "large". Given [10], I'd imagine the number needed is more than a million. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the sources here are really tabloid-y. I'd normally expect if there are tabloid sources, there would be good ones, but I can't seem to find any. So I don't see any overturn option here. WilyD 08:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Blessing Williams – deletion endorsed. A strong and apparently-informed consensus was formed at the AfD without a trace of procedural issues. If the overwhelming notability issues can be solved, a new article may be created, but the article as AfDed was resoundingly found to be lacking notability per our guidelines, and this deletion review supports that. ~ mazca talk 01:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Blessing Williams (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the page was wrongly deleted. First of all Miss Bikini Nigeria International, is a notable award in Nigeria. Secondly When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both but If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. She is the winner, I don't think there is a role larger than that of this event. Thirdly, there are significant views about her published on reliable and independent sources and lastly, She has made a unique contribution and achievement to the field of entertainment as the first Nigerian model to be on a Dubai Magazine Cover. I don't understand why she is not notable, I asked the admin to explain but he said is because of the number of votes for delete but I think, the reasons which are given in the AFD discussion by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note Techwritar (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not how this page works, User:Techwritar. You need to say why you think it was wrongly deleted. Wrongly in what way? Bishonen | talk 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse - This AFD raises two questions. The first is whether to overturn the deletion. The appellant has not raised any issue of any error in the close, and the close was correct. The second is whether to take action against the appellant for filing frivolous DRVs, but DRV is a content forum, so Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Techwritar, please stop editing your comments after people have replied to them. It's confusing and rude. —Cryptic 02:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Cryptic, thanks for the correction and I hope you understand learning is a continuous process. Techwritar (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here, the sources are pretty weak sauce, and I can't find any better. I worry that the fear of anything that looks remotely spammy is pushing us towards something here that's probably more like systematic bias, but I don't see any way out of it here. WilyD 08:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious endorse With the exception of the nom (who is also the article's author), strong and unanimous consensus to delete. There's no other way the AfD could have possibly been closed. Of course, as always, there's nothing to prevent a new article from being written, provided the concerns raised at the AfD are resolved, which in this case means finding better sources. Due to the copyright violations in the article, a fresh start would be required (i.e. do not restore to user or draft space). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 January 2020

[edit]

12 January 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article had redirected as a result of the AFD outcome, however the article is making back and forth to be remove redirect, but it was protected from editing. Now a review will check the entire Now! album discography as a result and it is likely to be passed WP:NALBUMS and explain MBisanz that how the article was redirected. 2600:6C4E:580:A:3D45:956F:8F4A:D67B (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a series of albums per my searches, not a TV series. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that reassures me that my DRV !vote and rationale is correct. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 January 2020

[edit]

10 January 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Farah_Damji (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the consensus decision was made based on the voting not on the real facts, also there were only few votes in AFD discussion, should take more time, please reconsider the 'deletion review' or relist into AFD discussion. The main reason for 'deletion review' or relist is, (and, would like to add some more notes here on AFD) like, subject isn't notable now If you Google the subject, you'll see only some social profiles, her own links etc. and there are some old news links which are even too old and now the subject is low-profile individual. Moreover, if you closely look at the page, it look like some kind of news site page cause there's nothing informational on page and Wikipedia is encyclopedia. There's no reason to keep this Wikipedia page. So request you kindly re-consider the decision to 'Delete' or kindly re-list page in AFD.2409:4055:505:1D69:1520:73BA:9B54:9DD8 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)juppalsingh[reply]

  • Endorse - the two "keep" !votes provided clear evidence in the form of links, that the subject met WP:SIGCOV and that the assertion that she isn't notable, according to Wikipedia's WP:GNG, is untrue. The two delete comments simply state that the topic is "not notable" without providing any evidence or policy-based notability analysis. The "keep" !votes further noted that the issue of article quality (which was raised in the nomination statement) would be better addressed through talk page discussion, and certainly there was no consensus that a WP:TNT was required for this page. All in all I think the evidence was plentiful that this should be kept, and there was no need for it to be relisted - a further week would not have led to a different outcome.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse very clear result, the Keep comments provided sources which rebutted the nomination and which nobody tried to reply to. Notability is not temporary, it's entirely possible for someone to be notable on the basis of old sources, and the sources listed were published over a long time period. Hut 8.5 19:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close per the above and Hut 8.5. Though this AfD had few participants and I'm not speaking to the soundness of the "keep" arguments, there was no consensus to delete here (there was no support even, other than from the nominator). I note, though, that consensus can change and there may be consensus at any time in the future to to delete this article. The result of this AfD does not necessarily establish WP:Notability, but deletion review isn't the place for this as it was an accurate close at the given time. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse - Right close, wrong closer. It would have been better to Relist, but a Keep is a valid result, and the closer should learn that if two of their non-administrative closes are at DRV in a week, maybe they should learn something about contentious non-administrative closes. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in re: to Robert McClenon, this is the close I felt was valid in the ANI discussion involving Nnadigoodluck. I actually contemplated making my bolded !vote a "weak endorse," but felt it was an accurate close even if other options or a different closer might've been preferred. So, it's reassuring to know I wasn't wrong to have contemplated a "weak endorse" here. Doug Mehus T·C 01:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct result and exactly the type of close a non-admin should be able to close without having to worry about being DRV'd. SportingFlyer T·C 07:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and preferable to a relist although I would also have endorsed that. The close predated the ANI but that discussion has not put me off from supporting the close here. Thincat (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clear consensus, no BADNAC flags. WP:RENOM might be the answer. It is a near-orphan, and feels like a BLP problematic page, but, as said in the AfD, there is sustained reliable source coverage. Also, the subject has published about herself, so she is not a private person, as per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus was clear. Dream Focus 01:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • John Percy (politician) – Overturned and relisted. The applicability of SK4 is not ambiguous, and it clearly does not cover this case or the others mentioned, where "substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered". I'm sure it was done in good faith, but there is no way in policy to justify closing those discussions without assessing the merits of the legitimate comments, so with a friendly WP:TROUT to Miraclepine I am closing this now and reopening the discussions.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John Percy (politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Another case of WP:BADNAC, as WP:SK Criteria 4 isn't applicable. The nominator was blocked, but "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed". Which is what happened in the AfD. The nominator's opinion should be discounted, but closing AfD was not appropriate. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in general, so it doesn't discount cases with 1 editor only. Besides, that is not what you have practiced at another closure Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victor_Lau_(2nd_nomination), which should be speedy reverted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 January 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of REITs in Canada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closure meets WP:BADNAC as "the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial". I am not even sure that this was a no consensus case, but at minimum this should re-closed by an admin. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing after reading the comments below ...
I read a defensible consensus to delete. Rough consensus, not clear consensus. The nomination was strong and on point. User:SMcCandlish was being hypothetical and didn’t want to be there, and provides a very weak “keep (for now in the hope of a cleanup)”. User:Piotrus is on point with a simple strong “delete” !vote. User:Dream Focus gives a flawed “keep” rational reaching out to WP:CLN, but the list clearly fails CLN. Why should Wikipedia have a list of selected Canadian RIETs, a commercial directory, when they fail LISTN and the vast majority are not notable? See NOTDIR as per the nom statement. I’m not quite sure what User:Uhooep said, but he’s read the nomination and beyond and has not come up with a “keep”.
A “no consensus” is defensible, but it is not for an NAC to call.
If i were to have tried to close it, I’d have !voted instead. The closer’s WP:Supervote doesn’t even hint at a valid !voting rationale. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per DRV nominator Jovanmilic97. As nominator of this AfD, I supported its deletion and hadn't followed it through to closing. --Doug Mehus T·C 04:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think that's a reasonable close. SMcCandlish was advocating keeping the list and trying to improve it, which should be counted against deletion, so the numbers are 3 against 2. The main issue is how much value that list adds to the encyclopedia, which is mostly a judgement call. WP:LISTN does say that lists with recognised navigational value are often kept regardless of notability, so that isn't a knockdown argument. Most of the nomination is devoted to arguing that we should delete the list instead of addressing problems through editing, which contradicts WP:ATD. I don't think how often Dream Focus agrees with other people in general is relevant here. Overall I don't see a clear consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 07:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5, I think we need to avoid reading too much into SMcCandlish's position on the matter. I pinged him, in error, because of his expertise with respect lists and potential knowledge on what constitutes WP:LISTCRUFT, to which his response was more about declining to participate and questioning why he was pinged. So, we have to treat his comment as a neutral and/or procedural comment than anything else. We had three "delete" !votes with solid policy- and/or evidence-based rationales and only one "keep" !vote from Dream Focus, which seemed more of WP:VAGUEWAVE to me. To be perfectly honest, I think this is a clear cut example of a non-admin trying to good faith close an AfD log day by closing as "no consensus" since they can't close AfDs as "delete." It's frustrating to me when I can't close XfDs as "delete," but what I do then is add my !vote. In this case, it would've been more helpful for the AfD closer to have simply weighed in one way or another. If they had weighed in as a "keep," then we'd be closer to a "no consensus" close or a third relisting. If they had weighed in as "delete," we would've had near-unanimous "delete" consensus. Doug Mehus T·C 14:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish did offer an opinion on the article in addition to discussing why he was pinged, and we should take that into account. You don't need to stick a bold !vote in front of your comment to participate in an AfD. I don't agree that the delete side offered "solid policy- and/or evidence-based rationales", certainly you'd have to agree that I feel putting blue linked articles into would be sufficient. Not every category needs to have a list doesn't articulate anything like that. This seems to be a case where some people think this list is encyclopedic (possibly after a bit of cleanup) and some people don't. That sounds like a no consensus to me. Hut 8.5 18:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5 I know you don't have to bold your !votes and it's not a vote. I also took into account that SMcCandlish did offer somewhat of a soft opinion in one way, but in other deletion discussions in which I've seen him participate, he's pretty consistent about bolding his !votes where he has a strong opinion one way or another. His comment does suggest, to me, an indifference or, at minimum, not being particularly strong in favour of "keep." Regardless, even if you count him as a "keep," there were solid, grounded arguments, based largely on circumstance, non-precedent-setting evidence (which counts; deletion discussions do not need to cite a specific policy, particularly with respect to portals and lists, which are less grounded in policy). This was definitely not a "no consensus" close. Moreover, even if you wanted to weight SMcCandlish's and Dream Focus' opinions more heavily enough to consider this a borderline call, it shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin per WP:BADNAC. Doug Mehus T·C 19:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus:, Your comment above, It's frustrating to me when I can't close XfDs as "delete," but what I do then is add my !vote caught my interest. Perhaps I'm reading more into that than you intended, but it sounds like you're confusing two entirely distinct roles: AfD closer and AfD participant. The job of a closer is to be entirely dispassionate and simply distill the comments of the participants. If you've formed enough of an opinion to add a !vote to the discussion, than you're probably not dispassionate enough to be executing a close at all. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: That's a good point, but to be clear, when closing, I haven't formed an opinion or if I have an opinion, I set that aside. I'm sure many non-involved closers have had opinions on a particular discussion but simply set those opinions aside. I know there's a Wikipedia essay, which is what I was referring to, that offers suggestions to avoid certain pitfalls as a non-admin closing, and one of those is to simply give it more thought and form an opinion and weigh on. Hope that clarifies. Doug Mehus T·C 22:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dmehus - Maybe I need to read the above interchange a third time, but I find the apparent willingness either to !vote Delete or to close the XFD as Delete to be troubling, just as User:RoySmith did, and I don't think that you have addressed his concerns satisfactorily. We have just had a DRV in which it was alleged that an editor had refrained from !voting Keep so that they could "stick a fork in it" and close it as Keep. It sounds as though you are willing to close an XFD as Delete or to !vote Delete. I am not an administrator and maybe should not express an opinion, but I perceive an involvement problem. It is not enough that justice be done. It must also appear that justice is being done. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, thank you for your response. I'm not suggesting that I would close a discussion in which I've already formed a strong opinion one way or another. Per WP:BADNAC and related essays, where a deletion discussion is close or otherwise needs administrator involvement, I stay away from it, just as this non-admin closer should've done. Hope that clarifies. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, to add to what I've said above, I think in re-reading what I've written above, it's not clear what I meant. It sounded like what I meant is that if I had formed an opinion one way or another, I would either close (assuming there was clear consensus to do so) or !vote. That's not what I meant, if that's how it came across. What I meant is...in the course of reading through a deletion discussion, obviously, one has thoughts in either direction but one has not yet formally made up their mind or taken a position. I think that's fine. Where it's a close call, though, per WP:BADNAC and related guidance essays, I would personally opt to either (a) not participate or (b) formulate a position in one way or another. While I contemplated closing, since I hadn't yet taken a formal position in one direction, I don't see involvement here and, crucially, I did the right thing in leaving for an administrator to close. Moreover, I do not close TfDs as "delete" as I've been kindly asked not to do so until I've developed a better understanding on the process. Other XfDs, as far as I am aware, cannot be closed as "delete" by non-admins. So what I'm saying is, since there was a rough consensus (a good phrasing) as you say below, to "delete," the editor should've just left it or, if they had not formed a position, they could've weighed in per the established guidance essays. This is not to say the closing editor had been involved in some way or had formed a position in...I'm not suggesting that at all, I'm just saying that they shouldn't have closed because there was a rough consensus (to borrow your phrasing) to "delete" and it appears to me they were trying to be helpful in a good faith attempt to help clear AfD backlog, which only made things worse in necessitating this DRV. Doug Mehus T·C 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate close I think this is more of a delete conversation than a no consensus, but I think both are possibly valid outcomes depending on how SMcCandlish's comment is read. It's not a terrible close, but WP:BADNAC applies, and I think this should be vacated and re-closed by an administrator. SportingFlyer T·C 10:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate Close - There appeared to be a rough consensus to Delete. Since No Consensus was a contentious close, this was a case where a non-admin should have left the close alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree with the comment by User:SmokeyJoe. Inclusionists are people too and have the right to hold minority opinions both in order to influence other editors and in order to shift consensus. (Stubborn deletionists have the same right.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what this is in reference to but the closer is not an inclusionist, they’re really bad at AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Praxidicae - User:SmokeyJoe may have been discounting the Keep !vote by User:DreamFocus, and provided a table from the XFD analysis tool showing that DreamFocus frequently votes Keep on pages that are Deleted. I wasn't referring to the closer. The closer is a different issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus provided a very dubious keep rationale, 12 blue links. He failed to mention what a low proportion that is. For a list to be justified as a navigation page, WP:CLS, it needs all items to be bluelinked, with some allowance for red links. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, thank you for mentioning that. Lists, like navboxes, should be predominantly blue links (with you a few red links for potentially notable organizations or corporations) as that is their primary aid—for navigation. As this was created predominantly from a listing of the TSX's Listed Company Directory for REITs, with a few private REITs like Skyline which have no prospect of notability, there's nothing in this article worth keeping. Moreover, I did do a check for similar lists of REITs in other countries, and I think there was only one other one that was not inordinately long and which could be merged and renamed. Given the few blue links of this article, I see no reason for keeping this bulleted list, which isn't even in a table format or anything that couldn't easily be re-added to a combined list in the span of five minutes. In many respects, it reminds of the bot-created portals of years ago that I've been told about. Doug Mehus T·C 16:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate so an admin can close this as keep or no consensus. The nomination and deletes all suggest if the list is pruned down to its blue links slight copy editing could put it into a fit state; SMcCandlish and the keep voter likewise. However, I generally support the idea that the closer should accept how people boldly !voted rather than the implication of their comments so the close was controversial. Thincat (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thincat I'm not sure how an administrator could reasonably re-close that AfD as "no consensus," let alone "keep." Looking at the AfD discussion, the "deletes" had both the numbers and, crucially, the stronger argument(s). Moreover, even if this list were pruned down to the blue linked articles, some of which have questionable notability as to whether they meet WP:GNG and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, you still have to consider that we generally don't maintain country-specific lists of real estate investment trusts. It's possible we could boldly "merge" the contents of this list into a single, global list of blue-linked real estate investment trusts, but given the potential copyright violations of this list being literally a predominantly cut-and-paste listing of the TSX's Listed Company Directory for the real estate investment trusts sector, I see no reason to preserve attribution in this case. So, you're right that the close should be vacated, but I have to completely disagree with your proposed remedy. Doug Mehus T·C 16:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I just considered your AFD nomination and then used our policies and guidelines to draw a conclusion. So it's a good thing I've never closed an AFD! Thincat (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we didn't do credentialism on Wikipedia? The wisdom of Solomon isn't one of the tools that sysops get when they pass RfA. We have sysops who're children, or who admit to closing important discussions while under the influence. We also have non-sysops who consistently display all the necessary qualities for closing XfDs, and I think it's unwise and un-Wikipedian to have a chilling effect on this. This outcome should be overturned if-and-only-if it was wrongly closed. Whether the closer has passed the popularity contest at RfA is not a good basis for overturning.

    And, I don't think you can show it was wrongly closed. SMcCandlish's contribution is coherent, succinct and well-argued but does not include a pithy word in bold. It shouldn't need to. He clearly means "keep and clean up per WP:SAL".

    Dream Focus is a highly inclusionist editor who's never knowingly voted to delete anything, and he does often show poor judgment at AfD, but that doesn't mean "always ignore Dream Focus". In this case he's come up with a solid rationale based on WP:CLN.

    I would say that Uhooep's "delete" !vote is not deserving of any great weight. It's not based on any kind of policy, it's a simple statement of opinion.

    Even giving full weight to DMehus and Piotrus, I'm still unable to find a "delete" consensus in that debate. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, You may not have been directing your comment about credentialism towards me, but I think those that have called for the close to be vacated and closed by an administrator are just referencing WP:BADNAC, which advises that editors are well-advised to avoid closing borderline calls. If you consider this AfD to have been borderline no consensus/delete, then that's an accurate DRV recommendation, no? No one is suggesting that Nnadigoodluck hasn't made some positive AfD contributions and even closes, but given the parallel discussion at ANI in which Nnadigoodluck literally did the research by referencing all of his closes, most of which were questionable or incorrect, there is merit to the argument that he at least needs to be restricted from closing or relisting AfDs pending a re-reading of the closing and consensus policies. It's true that SMcCandlish or anyone else doesn't need to have a bolded !vote, but SMcCandlish also mentions deletion as a possibility, including as a last resort. Given the potential copyright violations and that this list is just a simple bulleted list that could be re-created or merged, I see no reason to need to preserve attribution in this case. But, that's all a discussion for an AfD, not the procedurally-focused DRV. I'm still having trouble figuring how you could endorse this as an accurate close. In the same way one does not need to have a bolded !vote, how can you discount Uhooep's "delete" argument simply because they've not expressed their point as clearly or cited a specific wiki policy? As far as I'm aware, deletion discussions can cite policies, but they can also cite matters of common sense or circumstance-based evidence. Even in my own nomination for deletion, not being familiar with the keep/delete criteria for lists, which was my whole reason for pinging seasoned editor SMcCandlish for his expertise on lists even though he rarely edits corporation/organization articles, I cited general criteria re: navigation, usefulness, and potential copyright violations, rather than any specific policy. Doug Mehus T·C 17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. By what possible stretch of the imagination does this discussion look like a "delete"? The nominator randomly pinged two editors into the discussion, for unknown reasons, one of whom (after questioning why they were pinged) said this is basically a valid list but should be pruned down. The other of whom said delete, but with a rationale of "no companies there appear notable" - despite the rather obvious fact that many of the entries are blue links. After that there were two more !votes, also split between delete and keep, with the last delete saying "I feel putting blue linked articles into would be sufficient", which is actually basically another "keep but prune down" !vote. To be honest you could make a case for an outright "keep" here, but certainly at the very very least it's a no-consensus. I think there is a place for arguing WP:BADNAC, if it looks like the non-admin is out of their depth or the call is genuinely a line-call, but this isn't it and I think the closing line is perfectly defensible. S Marshall also makes some very good points above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, did you see SmokeyJoe added to his original comment in this DRV with further explanation to his !vote? Dream Focus' application of WP:CLN was misapplied and flawed. Similarly, SmokeyJoe more succinctly, and in a better way, synthesizes SMcCandlish's views that it is not a strong "keep" case. The main focus of SMcCandlish's comment was questioning why he was pinged, which I neglected to answer with the Christmas holidays but it was because of his expertise with regard to lists, not because he edits regularly companies or organizations. I also think your interpretation of Uhooep's comment gives undo weight to a particular direction. It's definitely not a strong "keep". Sure participation was light, but as I said in the AfD, or at least I meant to say, we don't create lists of publicly-traded REITs anywhere on Wikipedia, which SmokeyJoe mentions in his added !vote rationale. We do have some "dynamic lists" of alphabetical listings of mostly blue-linked real estate oriented companies, such as List of real estate companies of Canada, so you could also argue this is an unnecessary content fork and a highly duplicative list. Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Doug Mehus: sure, you could argue things like that, but it wasn't argued in the discussion and that's the only thing the closer has to go on when they close the discussion. I didn't say it's strong keep, but it's clearly somewhere on the border between no-consensus and weak-keep, given the discussion that transpired. I get that as the nominator you're disappointed with the result, but honestly it was the absolute correct close based on the debate that transpired, given that it had already been through three listing periods. My suggestion would be to prune down the list, concentrate it on companies that are clearly notable, and if you still think there is a case for a deletion, then come back with fresh evidence and fresh arguments in a few months. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, did you see my post 30 minutes before yours? Is your opening question directed at me? While of course “no consensus” is defensible, and I would not have closed as “delete”, because I think it was not ready to be closed, a LISTN-failing List article is not justified by CLN due to “many” blue links. A CLN list needs to be “basically all” blue links. Like a template or a category, you don’t populate it with non-articles. And when pruned of non-bluelinks, what’s left but a company directory? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: no, I wasn't intending to speak to you in particular. I was simply wondering why this was brought to DRV when there's pretty much no way the discussion could be interpreted as a consensus to delete. And yes, people can always !vote rather than close if they feel they have something to offer, but this discussion was ripe for closing as it had run for such a long time and it doesn't bother me that a non-admin made the obvious no-consensus call rather than an admin. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, oh it wasn't intended to be canvassing. I just pinged Uhooep because they hadn't been pinged yet, as far as I'm aware, and you were already here so was meant to be a courtesy. Nevertheless, since everyone has been pinged or is already here and likely monitoring this DRV, I will not ping anyone again, and will ease up replying to everyone as you suggest. It's not my intention to bludgeon every point made. Doug Mehus T·C 23:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close I just got a ping to this. I see my name was mentioned throughout this discussion so someone should've told me. My rational was solid. There are enough blue links to articles, then the list article serves its purpose of being useful for navigation. One of the deletion votes was responding to a ping by the AFD nominator which as others have pointed out is canvasing, and the other delete vote was from someone who used an invalid argument which violates the English Wikipedia editing guideline of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates which clearly states you don't delete a list because you prefer categories, or vice versa. Dream Focus 00:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, what I intended to type didn't display properly in the original AFD as I missed out an all important semicolon ":". I meant to write:
Delete I feel putting blue linked articles into Category:Real estate investment trusts of Canada would be sufficient. Not every category needs to have a list. Uhooep (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per SmokeyJoe analysis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't see how you get anything other than NC out of this discussion. That fact that experienced editors seem to think there is a possible delete outcome surprises me, but I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to expect any given closer to see that here. It looks like as clear a NC as you could get, and if a non-admin is going to close things as NC, this seems like a darn reasonable choice. Hobit (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – I think all the !votes deserve roughly equal weight, but I see the discussion as no consensus because there was very little attention paid to the point. Everybody was talking about the state of the article; much less was said about the notability of the topic. – Levivich 21:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich My understanding, though, is that list articles aren't governed by WP:Notability like articles are. They're primarily a navigation aid to existing blue-linked articles, with a small percentage allocated to redlinks. So, that's why notability wasn't discussed. As well, as Uhooep and others have noted, both in the original AfD and clarified in this DRV, it's highly duplicative. As it stands, we now have a list of Canadian REITs (most of which don't have articles because they aren't notable), a category of Canadian REITS (which serves the same purpose as the list), and a perfectly valid alphabetical list of Canadian real estate companies (which includes the REITs). --Doug Mehus T·C 21:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: Well, not exactly. The WP:N guideline has a section about stand-alone lists, WP:NLIST aka WP:NOTESAL. This is not to be confused with our guideline about stand-alone lists, WP:SAL, and the part of SAL that would cover a list of REITs is WP:LISTCOMPANY. SAL also contains WP:LISTCRITERIA, which mentions aiding navigation as one possible purpose of a list, but not the only one. Two common LISTCRITERIA are the "complete list" (every known example is included on the list) and "notable list" (every entry is a blue link or could be). All of that is separate from yet another guideline we have (we have too many guidelines) about categories, lists, and templates, WP:CLT, which doesn't say "you shouldn't have a list if you have a category" (or vice versa), but basically says there are advantages and disadvantages to categories, lists, and nav templates, and editors will basically need to decide case-by-case which one(s) makes the most sense.
    So, one delete !voter basically said delete because of lack of notable entries – well, that's not really a reason to delete a list, since we can have lists with no notable entries. A keep !voter said to keep because it has notable entries. Again, not really in and of itself to keep a list. Another delete !voter said not every category needs to have a list – that's true, but it doesn't address whether this category should or should not have a list. Smack made basically the same point I and others have made here (he gets credit for making it first)–which is that it may be possible to create a notable, policy-compliant list of Canadian REITs (perhaps only notable ones, or perhaps all of them), and that should be explored before deleting the list altogether. Your nomination statement was aimed more at critiquing the state of the article than eliminating the possibility that any proper list can be had at this topic. I happen to agree with you about your critiques, but if the list were changed to just notable entries only, it would answer almost all of your critiques...though it would also raise new questions that were not addressed (like whether the collection of notable Canadian REITs be listed on a list or in a navigation template).
    Don't interpret "endorse close" to mean "endorse the list". It doesn't mean the list is fine as it is. It doesn't even mean the list should exist. It just means in that particular discussion no consensus was reached, and having been relisted twice, a no-consensus close was properly within a closer's discretion (even a NAC in this case, in my opinion). I would still think that the list could be–and should be–edited. Either a LISTCRITERIA discussion should be had on the talk page, and the list edited in accordance with the criteria, or perhaps even another nomination, but one that is focused on why we should not have any list about this topic (for example, if there are too many members to make it a "complete list" but not enough to justify a "notable list", or perhaps the category or a nav template would be preferable to a list for some reason). But as a no-consensus close, it can always be renominated. – Levivich 22:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, thank you for that exhaustive and thorough explanation on our many policies, some of which appear to contradict each other, on lists. I suspect Piotrus, the "delete" !voter who referenced notability policies, may have been referencing the notability policies because, like me, he had less knowledge with respect to lists. This is just my own supposition, of course, and he's most welcome to correct me, but it's certainly plausible. Nevertheless, I'm still not sure how it was a correct close, perhaps this could've been a case where an additional relist to bring in a more participants following the typically light Christmas holiday participation? I know it can be renominated, and probably should, as I really don't think it's necessary to have two lists Canadian REITs of essentially the same thing (most, if not all, are listed at the list of Canadian real estate companies. I could potentially see this list deleted and made a navbox of only notable blue-linked Canadian REITs (potentially titled Template:Canadian REITs), so regardless if this DRV decision is overturned and/or closed as delete or we have to go through a renomination, can I ping you for expertise and assistance in creating such a template? --Doug Mehus T·C 22:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the invitation but I'll have to decline; I know about the policy pages, but I don't know anything about creating nav templates. – Levivich 23:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete in line with the clear consensus at the debate. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, except there isn't one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The premise here is entirely faulty; an NAC closing as no consensus is not controversial at all when there isn't a clear consensus, and in this case there is very clearly not a clear consensus, as it were. The respondents are about evenly split (yes, my !vote did qualify on the keep side, despite attempts above to dismiss it or reinterpret it; while I forgot to boldface the word, there's nothing ambiguous about "deletion as a last resort" only after two scope-limitation ideas are tried but do not work). And the claim that just one side has good policy arguments is obviously bogus. This really comes down to a judgement call (which is why the response was so split), and I stick by my original comment in the ANI. While there is clearly a potential for spammy abuse of an article like this, deletion is the last resort when we have at least two other resorts to try: First, limit the scope to encyclopedically worthy entries (i.e., they pass WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE) including some that don't pass WP:N muster for stand-alone articles; as an example, List of cat breeds takes this approach, and includes entries for some that don't merit their own articles (e.g., are covered in more but still stubby depth as entries at List of experimental cat breeds – RS are required to provide enough depth for encyclopedically meaningful coverage and evidence of encyclopedic importance). Second, if the first approach fails, explicitly limit inclusion to blue-linked notable entries (e.g. List of horse breeds does this, specifically to thwart commercial promotionalism of alleged new "breeds"). Dream Focus's observation in the original discussion is also important: there are at least a dozen bluelinks in the list already, so the list does already serve a navigation function, even if it needs cleanup to remove unencyclopedic entries. At any rate, the question before DRV is whether the close itself was faulty, either through procedure or assessment of consensus, and it definitely was not. If you just hate that this article exists, you can re-ANI it with a better deletion rationale, though expect the same objections to be raised. If we have not tried scope limitations first, I would expect another no consensus or even an outright keep. PS: I say all this as someone leaning toward the negative and suspicious side when it comes to business-entity, product, and service coverage on Wikipedia, as frequent magnets for promotionalism. If even I think this page has potential, then I think the bar to getting it deleted is higher than some people here think it is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC); rev'd. 21:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Further observation: In more closely reviewing the original !votes in the AfD, some curious facts emerge, and which matter a lot for this DRV: At least one if not both of the delete !votes are nullified by the facts pointed out by the second keep one, and there is a clear consensus to limit the scope to blue-linked entries. The first delete !vote, by Piotrus, offers only a single rationale, that "no companies there [in the list] appear notable". The second keep (after mine), by Dream Focus, directly disproves this statement, by noting the 12 bluelinks in it. That is, Piotrus's claim cannot possibly be true unless every single bluelink in it is bogus NN trash that should be deleted, and that's obviously not the case. Dream Focus also echoed my suggestion (no. 2 of 2) to constrain the scope to bluelinks only, which would also comport with Piotrus's concerns. Next, the second and only other delete, by Uhooep, has a grammar error and other ambiguity in it, but appears to offer a conditional delete, with "putting blue linked articles into would be sufficient", which seems to mean "putting [only] blue linked articles into [the list] would be sufficient"; and closes with the observation that not every category needs a list, which seems to mean in this context that this list is not needed if it's not bluelinks, because the category doesn't need to be supplemented with questionable non-notable listing of businesses, though it's not entirely clear. So, either this second delete is provisional and is also nullified by Dream Focus's and my idea (an apparently Piotrus-compliant idea) to constrain the list scope to notable entries, or Uhooep's input is too ambiguous to make sense of. In short, if the closer could be said to have erred at all, it would be in not closing with a consensus to keep, but limit scope to blue-linked, notable entries, but such an assessment might not actually be "NAC-certain" due to the inclarity of Uhooep's !vote. And I would not fault closer Nnadigoodluck for not having walked through this exact parsing chain. Even aside from the Uhooep clarity issue, the nullfication of Piotrus's sole delete-supporting claim it tied at 2–2, counting the nominator, Dmehus, as delete and counting (rather unreasonably) Uhooep as a pure delete despite what can be made out of that post. If the current DRV closes with an affirmative endorse or a no consensus that defaults to an effective endorse, I believe there is still a solid consensus to pare the list back to notable entries only, with that as a specifically stated inclusion criterion, since it would appear to satisfy the concerns of every AfD respondent other than the nominator (or possibly nom plus Uhooep).
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @SMcCandlish: thanks, as always, for your reply both at DRV and the original AfD. I never got a chance to properly thank you for your comments on our list criteria when I pinged you. So, I appreciate that. Nevertheless, while I agree a non-admin can close as "no consensus," I disagree that this was the correct result in this case. I appreciate you clarifying that your comments were to be construed as a "keep" as opposed to just general, informational comments and helpful information on our list criteria; however, even when you factor you in your !vote, there's still no "no consensus" result. Perhaps some of the "delete" !votes were short on explanation, but they've since clarified what they meant in this DRV, so since Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and notionally has no rules, I think we can comfortably take into account their expanded commentary here—just as we're taking into account your clarifying that your !vote can be construed as a "keep." The obvious original cut & paste from the TSX' Listed Company Directory for the REITs sector suggests one or more soft copyright violations(s), which, combined with the lack of intellectual input, negates the need for history preservation. As well, as Uhooep aptly noted, and clarified in this DRV, we had an entirely redundant category which did the trick. SmokeyJoe, likewise, independent of the original AfD, concurred that lists should be most blue-linked entries. Finally, we also need to consider that the only way the non-admin closer could've gotten to a "no consensus" result was either by a WP:SUPERVOTE or by heavily discounting the "delete" arguments, for which they provided no rationale for that thinking. Thus, at minimum, the close should be vacated and reclosed, preferably by an administrator. Doug Mehus T·C 19:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't think any of that is objectively "wrong", I'm not sure I agree with all of those interpretations, or their synthesis. But that's really beside the point. The purpose of DRV isn't to relitigate the "case", but only to review whether the closer screwed up in assessing the consensus of the arguments and evidence as they were presented at the time, or screwed up procedurally in some way ("broke the rules"). Neither kind of screw-up happened, so it's a wrong to pillory the closer. If this list is innately problematic (or we're sure it more-or-less inevitably will be, despite at least two ways I outlined to mitigate the possibility), then it's perfectly fine to seek its deletion again with presentation of new/refined arguments to make that case. But that new deletion proposal isn't something that DRV does. This is just the wrong venue for such a thing. Innumerable articles go through multiple AfDs (after CSD examinations and PRODs, sometimes) before being ultimately deleted; it isn't necessary to make a reasonable closer out to be a bad guy in DRV to get at a deletion result; a no consensus or even a keep is not forever or immutable. And I'm not entirely convinced deletion is the correct result until what I suggested as scope limitations have actually been tried (despite me being more skeptical and "deletionist" than average when it comes to potential/alleged promotionalism). In short, we have other (actually appropriate) ways of getting rid of an article if we need to, without harming another editor's reputation via DRV without just cause. Misuse of DRV as a "put the page I don't like in double-jeopardy regardless of the cost to a good-faith closer" blunderbuss is the reason I virtually never close XfDs, only RfCs, RMs, and other non-deletion discussions. Misuse of DRV has a chilling effect even on (perhaps especially on) long-experienced editors who are actually in a good position to perform deletion closes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish Thanks, as always, for the further reply, but I really don't see how having an overturned AfD close would have a "chilling effect" on the closer's reputation. I don't know the statistics, but even excellent closing administrators have had their XfD closes overturned. A DRV overturn decision, or even multiple DRV overturn decisions over a multi-year timeframe, are just saying that the specific close was either improper, improperly applied the weights to certain arguments, used a WP:SUPERVOTE, or some other reason. As long as an editor or administrator maintains a very high rate of XfD closes that either don't go to DRV or are supported by "endorse" decisions, I think a rational, common sense community of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors would not unfairly tar the editor. As far as I can tell, Nnadigoodluck has a solid history of creating and substantially creating articles for notable, principally African, individuals, but I would just prefer to see him or her participate more at AfD and then, in partnership with an experienced editor or administrator, resume clerking less critical XfDs like RfD with much lower stakes. It is very easy to fix a bad RfD close; that is, one could simply avoid DRV altogether and boldly re-create the redirect. I just don't see how you can arrive at a "no consensus" result here without (a) incorrectly discounting the "delete" arguments, which have been expanded on and clarified here by those that made them, or (b) by the closer using his or her WP:SUPERVOTE, which, as I understand it, would not be correct. Doug Mehus T·C 16:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having several DRV overturns on an NAC's "record" could easily be used against them in a number of contexts, from disbarring them from closes via ANI waterboarding I mean noticeboarding (I have seen this happen, more than once; I'm pretty sure there's a still on-going ANI right now trying to get that result against an alleged excessive inclusionist), to harming their chances at RfA, etc. Assessment of NAC performance is more harsh than of admin performance, because the latter class have already been through the "we give you blanket trust" RfA gauntlet. But it doesn't matter how much harm the wrong does, doing the wrong is still not what this process is for. If the closer did not in fact screw the pooch, we shouldn't accuse (much less convict) them of pooch-screwing. Especially when it will be easy enough to get the article deleted on another pass with more-convincing arguments (if those arguments are in fact more convincing and not just rehash of course). Speaking of which, I'm not inclined to re-re-argue this any further. I've said my piece with about as much clarity as I can muster, and am not trying to dominate the discussion, which is an easy effect to give off if one isn't exactly Mr. Concise. It's okay if you and I don't agree on the all philosophic/procedural questions that can arise here. I will repeat one thing though, re 'the "delete" arguments, which have been expanded on and clarified here' – DRV (like WP:MR) is not for relitigation, which includes presenting and assessing "expanded and clarified" or all-new arguments; it is only for assessing the performance of the closer in their assessment of the discussion as it existed at the time of the close (and, as applicable, the properness of their following close procedures). I'm not sure how to make that clearer, and all the regulars here know it already (even if some pretend otherwise and try to re-litigate anyway). This is why, for example, I reiterated my two original rationales for keeping (provisionally), rather than introducing new reasons, and cited someone else's original comment about bluelinks and the navigational use of the page, rather than citing anyone's new keep argument introduced in this DRV.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, SMcCandlish has hit the nail on the head here. Doug, you say yourself below that "That's outside of this DRV with respect to the close" and that same logic applies to many of the comments that are being made here arguing for an overturn. The points you make are very interesting, and could no doubt form the basis of a future re-nomination of the AFD. But none of those points were in evidence at the time of the close, and based on the evidence and discussion which the closer would have evaluated, there was no other course of action but to declare it a no-consensus. The point about reducing the list to blue links, which looks like it's within guidelines, was made by two participants at the AFD, and no real counter-arguments were made within the 3+ weeks it was listed. As such, the correct course of action is not to slap the closer on the wrist and tarnish their reputation by accusing them of a WP:BADNAC, as this DRV seeks to do, but to endorse the close and move on, with a possible re-nomination some months down the line if you can marshall together further arguments. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish and Amakuru, I respectfully disagree that a WP:BADNAC would tarnish the editor's reputation, but rather, just remind the editor that they need to take a step from closing and, possibly, engage in a mentorship and restart clerking in a lower profile XfD (i.e., RfD mentioned above). Moreover, if DRV cannot consider the clarified arguments of either said, it is equally true that the DRV closer cannot consider SMcCandlish's clarifying remarks above that his comments can be construed as "keep." Whether the DRV closer construes his AfD comments as a "keep" does not make this "no consensus" close. Even though we notionally do not merely count !votes, without discounting the "delete" !vote arguments significantly, there was absolutely no consensus to "keep" and no consensus to a "no consensus" close. A three-to-two, or three-to-one, depending on the DRV closer interprets SMcCandlish's comments, can still be interpreted as a consensus to "delete." Without a closing rationale, the close is also problematic in that implies the closer used a WP:SUPERVOTE, and the closer has provided no justification at WP:ANI for their "no consensus" determination. This is the principal premise behind the arguments of those arguing to vacate close, which could see an experienced DRV closing editor or administrator who is non-involved re-close the AfD, potentially, the same way, but with a proper justification and rationale. Moreover, I believe WP:BADNAC also advises less experienced non-admin closers to avoid closing close results, which, I think we can all agree, this definitely was. As far as waiting two or three months, I see no reason why this list, an unnecessary content fork that is unmaintained, which was presented in my nomination, cannot be renominated immediately as a highly duplicative and unnecessary content fork (even if removed of redlinks and unlinked REITs). --Doug Mehus T·C 17:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is wading too deep into WP:Wikilawyering territory, on multiple levels. There's no such thing as no consensus for no consensus, by definition (well, not in the original discussion and assessment phase; it's possible for a subsequent discussion like this one to come to no consensus about a no consensus result in the previous discussion, of course). Just the fact that we're talking about a 3–2 headcount is pretty much proof of no consensus, since the numbers are too small to be statistically meaningful when they're not either in tight agreement or mostly in tight agreement with opposition that is simply WP:AADD bollocks. Heh. And a supervote is picking one side for personal PoV reasons, against a clear consensus in the other direction; just being not firmly convinced that either/any side has clearly trounced the arguments of the other[s] isn't a supervote, or any kind of vote, but rather the opposite. Re: 'the DRV closer cannot consider SMcCandlish's clarifying remarks above that his comments can be construed as "keep.'" – Nope; my actual !vote in the original AfD discussion said keep, though with some provisos (which makes it specific, not "weak"; if I'd meant that, I would have said weak keep or leaning keep). My "clarification" post wasn't to the closer, it was to those (including you) playing mind-reader and arguing up near the top of this page whether I meant to keep (with caveats) or was just being "hypothetical", without actually bothering to ask me. (To address a side matter of those early posts here: my wondering why I'd been pinged to the AfD has nothing to do with my rationales in the AfD. I address the merits in any such discussion. I do not make WP:POINT pseudo-!votes in them. Does anyone do that?) I think the rest of this is circular re-argumentation, so I'm content to just agree to disagree on those matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish Thanks for your clarification. As I don't want to belabour these points any further, I won't bother with a further point/counterpoint debate, but since you referenced my "no consensus for no consensus" point, that's exactly what I was potentially referring to in this discussion. The fact that there are so many editors and administrators arguing, with equally valid points, a no consensus to overturn, vacate, or endorse the original decision is very possible. Practically speaking, what does this have the effect of in terms of the difference between an overturn, vacate, or endorse result? Not much in that the article would be retained, the AfD result would stand (albeit without endorsement), and the list of REITs could be re-nominated in the future. In short, to those that even care (which, I suspect, is only a few of us) about this result, no one would be pleased but would be at least be satisificed: AfD decision stands, unendorsed; no "blemish" on the editor's record (though I don't think one overturned or vacated closing decision would do that), and the article lives, for now. Doug Mehus T·C 20:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my just-now addendum to my actual DRV !vote above; I think we're actually coming to agreement on some points (e.g. that this DRV could itself fail to come to consensus, and that if the list is kept, there is nevertheless a clear consensus to greatly reduce its content, to notable entries only).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, I would be satisficed with a "no consensus" result at DRV, but would still be opposed to reducing this list to blue links due to it originally, very likely, being a copy+paste dump of the S&P TSX Capped REIT index, and that it is literally a duplicate of the much better, and slightly broader, alphabetical list at List of real estate companies of Canada. There are some improvements we could make to that article, potentially by sub-arranging by trusts and corporations, if that distinction is needed, but that article is much more consistent with our editing and content standards for other countries' real estate owner/operators. I'd also satisfice with subsequently redirect-ing this article to the target article, but seeing the likely copy+paste dump and zero intellectual effort in creating it, I see no need to preserve attribution history here and such a redirect is a less plausible redirect term. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish To add to what I said about not needing to preserve attribution history, I noticed on the subject list creator's talkpage that the list was previously PROD'ed by MrOllie and, following that, reviewed by DGG that it was kept on the provision that the creator improve it. This suggests it was barely worth keeping 10 years ago, and still isn't, particularly since List of real estate companies of Canada accomplishes the stated goals of the bluelinks in a much better fashion, free of any likely copy+paste dumps. I noted, too, that Ggr68 last edited on Wikipedia that same year. Doug Mehus T·C 21:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good talk-page discussion after closure of this brouhaha (which is really about whether there was a BADNAC, not what to do with the content, if anything). Even AfD pretty often results in mergers, and I can see that being a reasonable approach to take here. I would want to see the REIT-related title and some similar redirects get people to a sublist or something at least, or maybe have the bigger list sortable by type, or whatever will work to get people to what they're trying to find. That said, we have various "redundant" lists that are permissible (often in embedded and summarizing versus stand-alone and detailed form, or broad in scope versus narrowly sub-topical), if it helps the reader. With sectional transcludes they can even be auto-combined in various ways. So, there are multiple options to look into.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe That's outside of this DRV with respect to the close, and while I don't have a problem with cutting back to the bluelinks, that also ignores the fact that this list would then be an entirely duplicate list of the alphabetical list at List of real estate companies of Canada, which is more extensive and better in its arrangement. Note, too, that the alphabetical list is consistent with other countries' list of real estate-oriented companies, including those in the U.S., Bangladesh, and elsewhere. It also, appropriately, includes all or nearly all bluelinks (as a list is supposed to do). This list includes both real estate corporations and real estate investment trusts, but distinguishing based on their legal corporate structure is not a particularly encyclopedic distinguishing factor. Moreover, if editors felt the need to distinguish their legal method of incorporation, Category:Real estate investment trusts, serves that purpose. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s in scope because it’s what User:SMcCandlish said in the AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 January 2020

[edit]
  • XNXX – Endorse but allow a draft. It seems like the consensus is that the previous AFD closure is OK and that nobody has been convinced that the new evidence justifies restoring the page due to e.g concerns about duplication and whether the new sources satisfy WP:GNG. Development of a draft is allowed although whoever approves such a draft should keep the concerns flagged here in mind. I see there is an additional discussion about whether deleting the history of the draft was the correct reading of the AFD consensus, but I don't think it's conclusive enough (only a few people commented on this point) to overturn the deletion. PS: I took the liberty of removing a piece of chit-chat from Talk:XNXX where someone was talking about their preferred porn(?) before closing this, hope nobody minds this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
XNXX (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Allow recreation, this is an unfortunate example of lack of research. This is website is notable, but editors here are often wary of pornography related website. If we are here to build an unbias Wikipedia we need to give equal coverage.

sources showing extensive and significant coverage of XNXX
  1. Mazières, Antoine; Trachman, Mathieu; Cointet, Jean-Philippe; Coulmont, Baptiste; Prieur, Christophe (2014-03-21). "Deep tags: toward a quantitative analysis of online pornography". Porn Studies. 1 (1–2). Routledge: 80–95. doi:10.1080/23268743.2014.888214. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

    There is a preprint of the article available at http://sexualitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PORNSTUDIES_preprint.pdfWebCite. The published article is under a paywall at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23268743.2014.888214.

    The article notes:

    According to several website popularity rankings, we identified the two most popular pornographic video hosting platforms – XNXX and XHamster. We created a dedicated computer program to carry out the navigation and data collection tasks required to gather the metadata for all available videos on both websites without downloading any videos.

    ...

    The XNXX and Xvideos domains are the oldest among the most popular porn platforms, dating from 1997. In July 2013 the websites claimed to host more than 3.5 million videos. We gathered information for 1,166,278 videos that were uploaded before March 2013. XNXX releases very little data about the videos it hosts.

    ...

    By allowing uploaders to index their videos with numerous keywords, XNXX possesses a corpus of over 70,000 tags. Among the most common pornographic platforms, XNXX is the only one to have such a corpus of descriptive keywords.

    ...

    As two of the most important pornographic platforms, XNXX and XHamster offer a representative sample for studying online pornography.

    ...

    XNXX has a bottom-up approach, letting uploaders choose their own words to index their videos, resulting in a list of more than 70,000 so-called ‘tags’. This system offers greater semantic variety to the viewers, facilitating the emergence of keywords and their combinations.

  2. Sullivan, Rebecca; McKee, Alan (2015). Pornography: Structures, Agency and Performance. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0745694845. Retrieved 2018-06-04.

    The book notes:

    Mazières et al. analysed metadata for almost two million pornographic vidoes hosted on the aggreating sites XNXX and XHamster. They found that the rule of the 'long tail' applies to pornography as it does to other forms of content on the Internet (Mazières et al. 2014, 87).

  3. Bond, John-Michael (2017-10-20). "The best free porn sites when you're on the go". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04.

    The article notes:

    If for some reason you don’t want to use a private browser option or any of the sites listed above, XNXX provides a tremendous mobile porn experience with a decidedly subtle name. This Flash-based site has free porn videos that load quickly, with easy search tags and sections in addition to all the options in its drop-down menu. XNXX: For when you want to watch porn on your mobile device, need a safe site, refuse to use a second browser or an incognito mode, and want a site with a name that doesn’t sound like porn when it autofills your address bar. That’s not a great slogan, but it works for us.

  4. "The 20 best free porn sites on the internet". The Daily Dot. 2017-02-22. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04.

    The article notes:

    3) XNXX If you are more into literature and prose, this porn site has an entire section dedicated to real-life sex stories. XNXX also has a wide range of categories and pornographic images if you just want to take a quick peek.

  5. Stecklow, Steve (2010-09-17). "On the Web, Children Face Intensive Tracking". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04.

    The article notes:

    The Journal found that many popular children's sites are run by small companies or mom-and-pops, and privacy practices vary widely. Among the sites studied, the Journal identified one, y8.com—featuring kids' games with names like "Crush the Castle 2" and "Dreamy Nails Makeover"—that has had ties to a pornography site, xnxx.com, according to Internet registration records. Y8 installed 69 tracking files on the Journal's test computer. It also asks users to provide an email address to register.

    ...

    Internet registration records from December 2006 show that y8.com and a hard-core sex site, xnxx.com, shared the same mailing address in France, plus the same email address. Later, the sites changed their contact information and no longer share the same addresses. On the website games.xnxx.com, which bills itself as offering "fun sex games," there is a prominent link at the top and bottom of the page to "non-adult" games on y8.com.

    The y8.com employee, Olivier G., didn't respond to questions about who owns the site or its apparent relationship with xnxx.com. He wrote in an email that y8.com is "strongly against the collection and use of personal information." He also said "we don't do anything" with email addresses provided by users.

  6. Grauer, Yael (2017-01-01). "Porn Sites Should Be Using This Basic Security Feature". Vice. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04.

    The article notes:

    A huge swath of internet users like to look at porn in the privacy of their own home, but many probably don't spend a lot of time thinking about potential consequences of doing so over an insecure connection (that is, HTTP rather than HTTPS). Many adult sites are not only unencrypted by default, but don't even offer the option. In fact, only three of the top 10 adult sites—based on Alexa rankings—use SSL. Those three sites are LiveJasmin, Chaturbate, and Adult Friend Finder. YouPorn (#3), XNXX (#4), Flirt4free (#5), NudeVista (#6), Cam4 (#7), Liveleak (#8), and G-e-hentai (#9) still have a ways to go.

  7. Spitznagel, Eric (2014-08-14). "Who Actually Pays for Porn Anymore? An Investigation". Men's Health. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04.

    The article notes:

    And if you go looking for it, you'll find an abundance of pro-bono smut on sites like Pornhub, Redtube, YouPorn, ApeTube, Spankwire, XNXX, KeezMovies, Xtube, et al.

  8. Strausbaugh, John (Summer 2004). "R.U.R. or R.U. Ain't My Baby". Cabinet Magazine. No. 14. Retrieved 2018-06-04.

    The article notes:

    Because of the sheer volume of content, and some admirably conscientious efforts on the part of providers to cater to the widest possible array of user fetishes and tastes, the universe of Internet porn is strictly organized into a system of discrete subsets with a regimentation any Cartesian would admire. This site is for those who want to see only teens, that one for those who have a taste for older women (MILF, or “Moms I’d Like to Fuck”), and so on. It’s all been tagged and taxonomied for ease of referral. (See xnxx.com for an example.)

  9. Jones, Maggie (2018-02-07). "What Teenagers Are Learning From Online Porn". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-04.

    The article notes:

    Imagine that you are a 14-year-old today. A friend might show you a short porn clip on his phone during the bus ride to school or after soccer practice. A pornographic GIF appears on Snapchat. Or you mistype the word “fishing” and end up with a bunch of links to “fisting” videos. Like most 14-year-olds, you haven’t had sex, but you’re curious, so maybe you start searching and land on one of the many porn sites that work much like YouTube — XVideos.com, Xnxx.com, BongaCams.com, all of them among the 100 most-frequented websites in the world, according to Alexa Top Sites.

    10. This website is among the 50 most viewed websites and is the among "oldest pornography website" and is one of "two of the most important pornographic platforms offering a representative sample for studying online pornography" these sources give this website significant and extensive coverage which pass WP:GNG, therefore I am asking for an allow recreation. Valoem talk contrib 20:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse the close as a valid close. The appeal is too long, didnt read, but I read the AFD. If the appellant wants to create a draft, let them write a concise request to create a draft, but I am not optimistic that they know the right length for a draft, or for a request for permission to have a draft reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: this isn't a request for overturning it is a request for allow recreation. Valoem talk contrib 23:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs:The reason why this should not be redirected to XVideos is that I have provided sources that show this website itself has been subject to study therefore pass our GNG and warrants a separate article. Their is more than enough information to warrant a page. When a website becomes the top 50 most viewed websites it will have notable articles giving it significant coverage. This website is far older than XVideos and has received similar levels of coverage. Valoem talk contrib 03:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore history It should have been closed as either Merge, or Redirect, not delete and redirect. The arguments in the discussion supported not having a separate article, but did not support removing the contents. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore history per DGG and allow recreation. The page has not been salted, so I do not see what is preventing the appellant from creating a significantly new version of the article. If you believe you have located enough sources to pass WP:NWEB that were not mentioned in the old version or the AfD, go right ahead. create a draft and submit to AfC. I only warn that it better be pretty good and completely different to prevent any chance of WP:G4. In fact, don't even look at the old version. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore history and redirect per DGG and Coffeeandcrumbs, though this was WP:TLDR, I trust those two editor(s)/administrator(s)' analysis and whenever WP:ATT or WP:HISTMERGE come in to play, I err on the side of retaining the history. A history restoration and redirect, with the applicable Rcat for history merges, serve that purpose. Doug Mehus T·C 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse I do not see coverage passing WP:NCORP above, though don't want to discourage a new draft at AfC (which shouldn't be controversial because the page is currently salted.) However, the AfD was properly closed. Delete and redirect was a proper reading of consensus. I would write a new draft at AfC, and then once it's good to go and accepted, request the page to be unsalted again. SportingFlyer T·C 07:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer: This is a website site, not a corporation. This website is listed as one of the top 50 websites. When such an entity receives such achievements reliable secondary sources always exist. This an this has receive significant coverage from reliable secondary sources therefore passes WP:GNG. Valoem talk contrib 13:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valoem: I personally don't see all that much difference between WP:NCORP (a strict standard) and WP:NWEB (a business that runs over the web.) But in either case, I'm not convinced WP:GNG is met with those sources, and would prefer to see a draft of the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 14:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
    The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
    Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
    This is a classic WP:BADNAC, points 1 & 2: in this case, the non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest and the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Also note WP:NACPIT #4: Never close a discussion to supervote.
    The closer made effectively what was a supervote—As the keep !voters have a slight majority and still seem to be digging up more sources, the status quo should remain so that they may work in peace without fear of disruption and even in the future the discussion indicates that deletion is quite unlikely (!!!)—on one of the most contentious AfDs we have seen in some time. (Discussion has spilt over from the AfD page to at least three talk pages—Levivich's, CaroleHenson's and mine–and a massive (and massively contentious) AN/I thread. In the course of which the role of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron was vocally (and often negatively) addressed; the closer is an emphatic member of this group. For propriety's sake, at least, someone completely unassociated with the ARS should have closed a discussion in which the behaviour of the group had become an issue. The closer also lacks the experience to close such a discussion; I note eleven XfD closures since May last year.
    Notwithstanding the fact that the discussion was still ongoing at the time of close also (yet it's time to stick a fork in it and say that it's done), if any discussion was a candidate for administrator (possibly a multiple of) close, it was this. ——SN54129 12:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC) ——SN54129 12:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: since Davidson is forcing the issue, and as other have pointed out, there was clearly no consensus to keep the article. But it is mildly worrying that a closer could see a keep close in that discussion. Also, for the record, I did, per WP:REVD, Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer; but considered that, since the discussion had aleady bled onto many other pages—and considering the number of issues involved—it would only delay the inevitable. ——SN54129 14:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Further update @ User:Robert McClenon and User:WilyD who have both mis-cited me now: I did not accuse, assert (per Wiley) or allege (per RMcC) a CoI: quoting the guideline, I noted a potential CoI based on the clear proximity of the closer to one particular side of the discussion. You're welcome. ——SN54129 19:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • vacate bad NAC- contentious closes shouldn't be done by non-admins, and certainly not by a member of a non-neutral voting bloc already involved in the discussion. Describing the merge/redirect arguments at the AfD as "disruption" reveals that the closer is nowhere near impartial here. Reyk YO! 13:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revert bad NAC (NB I !voted redirect in discussion). I have multiple problems with this: closure of a highly contentious discussion by a non-admin, closure by an arguably involved or at least closely linked editor, and using ‘keep’ as a proxy for ‘no consensus’. The two are in no way the same thing. The eventual outcome is probably going towards no consensus, but that decision should be made by an uninvolved admin. Hugsyrup 13:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - it's asserted here that the closer demonstrated a conflict of interest, but I can't find any indication of that. They haven't edited the article, they haven't commented on the AfD, I'm not finding any other basis for this. Is there any thing to that accusation? WilyD 14:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vacate If there were a textbook bad close, it is this one. ∯WBGconverse 14:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's clear what's going on here. Instead of the Squadron all turning up to vote keep, this is a new tactic where all but one of them turn up to vote keepkeepkeep and the last later closes it that way. Reyk YO! 14:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (ec) I closed this. The OP didn't discuss the close with me and it's not clear that they expect the outcome of any close to be significantly different. Instead they mainly seem to want the discussion closed by someone else for appearance's sake. But, as the close explains, the discussion has been open for plenty of time and so I suppose that others have considered closing it but found it to be too long and tiresome. I read through the discussion this morning and it seemed to show signs of turning into a battleground or train wreck – long tangents about the ethics of the matter were being written. As the topic in question is quite unimportant, it seemed sensible to encourage everyone to move on per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:LIGHTBULB. I have lots of experience of such fractious discussions and so am not surprised to find the participants rushing straight to DRV; that is quite common in such cases. But moving the discussion on to this next step seems sensible as a way of getting it resolved for now as I'm sure we all have more important things to do. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Affirm close. Andrew Davidson acted in good faith, properly and fairly and accurately evaluated the situation, the discussion and the outcome. No change is likely to happen. It is apparent that the disgruntled participants in the discussion want a do-over. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Void close. Clearly a WP:BADNAC, for multiple reasons. Close decision, editorializing in the closing statement, and arguably, WP:INVOLVED as a participant in WP:ARS. This should be backed out and left for a neutral admin to re-close. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse No evidence of COI. Could have been closed as "No consensus" but if that's all you're after, this is a waste of time. As closer noted, discussion of a possible merge can continue on the talk page, AfD is not the appropriate venue for that, and there was clearly consensus against outright deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here isn't so much the outcome, as the process. Earning a mop is not just a way to get a salary increase, it's getting buy-in from the community that they trust you to make the difficult decisions. If you want to be closing contentious AfDs, fine, we have a process for that too. But, given the editorializing in the close (keep !voters ... may work in peace without fear of disruption) I'd want to see this close voided even if it was by an admin. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's going to be a non-consensus close, it should at least be one that a) doesn't get basic facts like the length of time the AfD was open wrong, b) doesn't characterise people who didn't vote keep a "disruption", c) isn't worded in a way that biases any subsequent discussion against merging or redirecting, and d) doesn't set the precedent that the ARS can close AfDs however they like. I don't think this is too much to expect from an AfD close. It's a shame that you apparently disagree. Reyk YO! 18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • eh. Any admin could back out this close per WP:NACD. But I can't see a close that is different other than no consensus. And yeah, given the ARS complaints there (bogus or not), Andrew closing the discussion was not a good idea. Yes, it had been open for a long time (the relist came really slowly), but the relist was only 5-6 days before the close. It's not only important to be unbiased, it's also important to to have closures appear to be unbiased. I think reasonable people can feel this one didn't appear unbiased. So void NAC and let an uninvolved admin reclose. All that said, this never belonged at articles for deletion. It's a merge discussion which belongs on the article's talk page. There are no reasonable arguments for deletion here. This whole thing feels weird and as if it's a proxy battle for something else. Is there some off-site discussion somewhere about this? Hobit (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: I see Levivich's point that would have been better for an admin to close the AfD in this case, where there have been a lot of stops and starts. I think it really gets down to 1) should the article be merged into the List of lakes of Minnesota article, since it's basically statistical information in the article and perhaps any noteworthy information could be put in a note in a {{notelist}} and 2) keep the article - perhaps because of its size, protected status, or an other reason that people have found that makes the lake notable.
    Am the only one that thinks that there should be a little clearer guidance on what would make a lake notable (size, protected status, other)? In other words, if this is a "Keep" does it mean any lake, anywhere is notable as a natural feature? How can we get to a guidance of what makes a lake notable?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    minor edits are underlined (foggy brain today, it seems).–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the close, and leave for an administrator. As multiple editors have said, this has obviously been a contentious AFD, and so was a contentious close. I agree with the closer that it was time to stick a fork in it and say it was done, but the closer was the wrong editor to be sticking the fork in it, and the close was the wrong close. The obvious close was No Consensus, but we don't need to close this AFD, only to unclose it. The allegation of conflict of interest is a serious one that should not be made without evidence. It appears that the closer is known to be non-neutral, being a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, but that is not the same as a conflict of interest. User:CaroleHenson raises a question about the need to clarify the notability guidelines for lakes. When should they be the subjects of articles, and when should they only be in lists? That is a good question that should be taken to the geographic notability talk page, and the contentious nature of the AFD is evidence that the guideline needs clarifying. The issue here is the close, which should be undone. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your points regarding the closure make sense to me.
    I will open the issue of notability for lakes at the Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to User:Serial Number 54129 - Thank you for the explanation that you raised a concern. A concern about neutrality is very much in order, because the closer is not neutral, and a concern about COI was worth considering. It doesn't change the result, which is that the close should be overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vacate I have zero faith in Andrew D's closure as one of the most prolific Keep-only voters; this was posted to ARS where he is a core user. His voting history does not seem to recognize multiple possible outcomes of AFDs, reflexively voting keep even when it is clear a page could be merged without loss of content per his classic recitation of "WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE". He does not have community mandate to close AFDs, and this was certainly not a consensus to keep rather than no consensus. Reywas92Talk 19:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • These allegations and aspersions are false. For example, here's a couple of recent AfDs in which I !voted to merge the content: Super-chicken Model; Animal attacks. Note that, in both cases, the AfDs were listed on the ARS rescue list. So, while I am quite willing to accept and suggest merger when appropriate, note that Reywas92 was one of the few who !voted to delete the page in question. That position was an extremist outlier and any closer would have rejected it. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind members of the ARS closing discussions. What I do object to is this idea that our anointed sysops are the only people who have sufficient maturity and good judgment to make the close calls. A little while at DRV will tell you that sysops screw it up as much as anyone else. But there was no consensus in that debate and the closer called it a "keep". Well, historically, I might have said "so what?" There was a time when "no consensus" was very similar to "keep". We treated them as just different flavours of not-delete. I think modern-day Wikipedia is a different place, and nowadays I think "no consensus" is quite a different call from "keep". DRV does need to intervene here.

      Vacating the close and getting an admin to re-close it is fatuous, ladies and gentlemen. If you've done enough thinking to know the close needs overturning, then you've done enough thinking to know what it needs to be overturned to. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Great points.
    So far, the discussion at the WP Notability (geographic features) is that 1) because there are so many lakes in Minnesota and the world, 2) as a general notability criteria --> if information about the subject can be put into a table, then there shouldn't be a separate article. I don't know how much discussion is needed and how to get folks to weigh in on the discussion that would be new to the Bachelor Lake notability question.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could list it as a RfC?—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's possible, S Marshall. There have been some good comments to help form a good stab at a RfC, so I'd like to let it bubble a bit more and see what comes up. (The RfC for Rivers wasn't successful, but it had ideas that were better on paper than in practice I think. It used statistical river related info that isn't always available to evaluate notability). It would help to get comments from people who think Bachelor Lake should be kept and what the criteria would be for it to be a "keep", for instance. But there's some great info that I don't remember reading before.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • <ec>I do think the keeps have a pretty darn strong argument. Strong enough that a keep outcome isn't outrageous--but it certainly isn't crystal clear. And I do think that in a discussion about if there was inappropriate canvasing in a certain group, it's probably not ideal for the closer to come from that group and agree with the outcome the group would want. Hobit (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn from "The result was keep..." to "The result was keep, without prejudice to a merge or redirect...". There was vociferous support for merge and/or redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota, though not a consensus. There is a clear consensus to not "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vacate There's a bit of interesting history here (correctly closed as keep back in December by a NAC sockpuppet and then vacated and relisted by an administrator.) This hasn't been open for a full month, either, but rather two weeks of discussion over the course of a month. Reading through the discussion, I think keep is the most correct close, followed by keep, without prejudice to merge and redirect, and I don't think any other closes are valid, as there's a clear and full consensus to keep this information somewhere. The problem is, this is a crystal clear WP:BADNAC, and needs to be vacated so the participants in the discussion can respect the deletion procedure, even if there's no functional change in the outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 01:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
    • Francisco D'Agostino – Restore from draft. Well, it seems like this discussion started off as a request to allow restoration of the article but then turned into a discussion about whether the AFD close was proper. There are a few more opinions advocating "overturn"/"relist" than "endorse"; moreover it appears that research during this deletion review has brought to light evidence of notability. There is also a discussion about whether notifying the deleting administrator before deletion review is necessary or just recommended, but it doesn't seem to make a difference for the determination here. It was not so clear however if "overturn", "relist" or "allow recreation" best capture the consensus here as the arguments are quite confusing. Ultimately, given that some of the notability arguments in favour of recreation apply to the draft and they are also pretty uncontested I'll go with restore the article from the draft; if someone thinks it's still not notable they can AFD it, and the old page history can be restored if appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
    Francisco D'Agostino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

    Hi to everyone!

    I'm here to request you a review about the deletion of the page "Francisco D'Agostino"

    This is a page that i translated two times from Wikipedia France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_D%27Agostino (exists in another languages two) and was deleted. i don't understand why is not notable a translation to english from an article notable on another languages.

    I see in the nominations that was a previous problem with another person with the same name. Maybe is any confusion? Looks like was clarified in the last posts.

    Now, about this subject, Mr. D'Agostino is one of the first lawyers that talks against the abortion and the gay marriage. For we, the laws students, is a refference in countries where we are starting to approve these laws. In his published books as "Elementos para una filosofía de la familia" (Elements for a family philosophy) and "Introduzione alla biopolitica" (Introduction to biopolitics) this judgment was evident, but is not until 2007 where the thinking of professor D'Agostino was shocking whit the phrase "Gays are constitutionally sterile" when he was converted on the top of the hate of the LGBT community that fight for your rights https://www.repubblica.it/2007/02/sezioni/politica/carfagna-luxuria/carfagna-luxuria/carfagna-luxuria.html?refresh_ce

    D'Agostino is active member since 1994 of Pontifical Academy for Life, which members are designed from the Pope. http://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/it.html

    Professor D'Agostino is usually a invited professor in the New York School of Laws. Has, at least, 6 published books in spanish and italian (The wiki has the ISBN of them)

    I kindly request you the revision of this deletion. I don't understand why this subject is not notable when for us, the law community, is. Maybe are not much popular to the english speaker people, but, for us yes.

    Thanks for read this and i'll be looking your comments. Inhigo (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The AfD was from October, so it's potentially a stale issue. I don't see any problems with the way it was closed, despite the low participation. However, the sources I see in the nom, the French version, and from a quick Google search (spelled in sources as "Francisco D'Agostino" or "Francesco D'Agostino"), might support WP:NPROF (if not WP:GNG; they're all fairly brief mentions or non-independent). [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] However, I can't see the deleted version, so I don't know if these sources were all in the deleted version or not, or if there'd be consensus to keep at a new WP:AfD based on these sources. – Levivich 07:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've temp undeleted it so you (or whoever) can examine the sources. Note that two different guys have had bios there, so the history is a bit weird. WilyD 07:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Wily! Looks like there were two recent deletions (of the Italian subject with this name, not counting the Venezuelan person with the same name who is not relevant to this DRV): this version was deleted at the above-referenced AfD in October. A recreated version (recreated by the filer) with one additional reference and 3 new External links (a fourth was apparently a deadlink) was G4'd in January. Despite the new links, I think it was a proper G4. So I would endorse both the October AfD deletion and the January G4 deletion. However, of the sources I've posted here, it looks like only 3 were in the prior versions of the article, so I still think that it might be possible to recreate a version of this article that would survive a new AfD. – Levivich 16:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi Leviv! Thanks for your time. What do you mean with "it looks like only 3 were in the prior versions of the article, so I still think that it might be possible to recreate a version of this article that would survive a new AfD."? Sorry, i'm a newbie in the editors slang Inhigo (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Inhigo, no problem! Sorry for my use of slang, I forgot to link to some of the terms I was using. Here's an explanation of what I meant:
              • I don't know if it's done the same way at the French wiki, but we have a very specific way of handling deletions and deletion reviews. Our deletion review page (WP:DRV) is specifically for answering the question, "Did this deletion comply with our policies?" (Our deletion policy is at WP:DELPOL.) That's a different question than "Should we have an article about this subject?" So it's possible that a particular version of an article was properly deleted, but nevertheless a new version of the article could be written that would not be deleted. I think this is the situation here for this article.
              • We have two basic deletion methods: WP:AFD ("articles for deletion") is the main method, where editors discuss whether a page should be deleted, and the decision is made based on consensus. The article on D'Agostino was at AFD in October (link); although few editors participated in it, they looked at the article and decided it didn't meet our notability guidelines, and so there was consensus to delete it. I think this deletion was correct under our policies. The editors may not have seen all the sources (especially in Italian), and so they may have made their decision based on incomplete information, but nevertheless, the administrator who deleted the article was following the editors' consensus in the AFD, which is what an administrator is supposed to do according to our policies. So, no error in the October deletion.
              • The second deletion method is "speedy deletion" (WP:CSD), which does not require an AFD discussion or consensus; instead, a single administrator can delete a page, but only if the page meets the very specific criteria at WP:CSD. One of those criteria is WP:G4. G4 is for a page that has been deleted at an AFD, and then is recreated, and the new version is similar to the deleted version. That is what happened here in January. The page was recreated, again as a translation from the French version. It is basically the same as the version of the page that was deleted in October (because the October version was also translated from the French version). So, the January version was properly deleted under the G4 CSD criteria, because it was similar to the October version, and the October version was deleted after an AFD. So, no error in the January deletion, either.
              • My personal opinion is that the editors in the October AFD did not look at all the sources that were available. For example, most of the sources I linked to above were not discussed at the October AFD, nor were they included in the October version of the article. So, I think it may be possible for someone to create a new version of this article. The new version of the article may still be nominated for deletion at AFD, and it might still be deleted–I don't know what the consensus of editors will be. But based on the additional sources, I think there's at least a possibility that someone can create a new version, and if it was nominated for deletion, the consensus of editors might be to keep it. This new version would have to be substantially different from the prior version–meaning different from the French version; not just a translation from the French. Ideally, it would have at least two but preferably three or more sources that met our general notability criteria. We also have a notability guideline specifically for professors (WP:NPROF), and the sources might show that one or more NPROF criteria are met. This is just my opinion; other editors might disagree with me.
              • So, to summarize, I think the prior deletions were correct under policy, but I think it might be possible to make a new version that would not be deleted, if the new version had additional sources that showed that D'Agostino is notable under GNG/NPROF. I'm not sure if the sources I linked to above are enough to show D'Agostino is notable; however, someone else (especially someone who speaks Italian) might be able to find better sources than the ones I've found. Hope this helps! – Levivich 17:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hi Leviv! Thanks for your detailed explanation! So, i understand that: the last two deletions (of articles that i created) where right according the Wikipedia rules. But, you think that a new version, quoting more references (specially the italian references) maybe can be listed as NPROF. Understanding that is a risk that i take because can be deleted for the editors again. If i'm right with this, then, i can talk with my classmates that speak italian to do a better article using all the references that we can found. What do you think? Thanks for your references, BTW. In this case, do you recommend start with a new article or do as i did in the past, creating a translation (but not a exactly translation of the french wiki that not meet the criteria of the english wiki)? Thanks again!!!! Inhigo (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse if this is an appeal, but it appears to be a request to create another article about the subject. Thank you to User:Levivich for explaining the complexities to User:Inhigo. My advice to User:Inhigo would be to create the article from scratch rather than translating an article, especially since the article appears to be short. There has been a complicating factor that there have been articles about different people with the same name at different names. If the articles had existed at the same time, disambiguation would be used. Disambiguation may be necessary in the future; make a note to that effect on the talk page of the draft. As it is, I suggest that the author create a draft from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relist. Very light participation, and weakish nomination & !vote. Someone has more to say. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore and send to AfD Basically a slight variation on SmokeyJoe's opinion to create a new AfD given the fact the last one was a few months ago. If this is improper I'm fine with a relist. I can't tell if this is notable, but it deserves further discussion given the weak AfD and the potential it could be kept, and while I think creating a draft is fine I don't see any reason why we can't take a shortcut on this one. SportingFlyer T·C 00:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This gentleman is an emeritus full professor and head of department at University of Rome Tor Vergata whose achievements largely predated the internet age. The outcome of the previous AfD is self-evidently a mistake caused by the fact that the name is relatively common and the search results are clouded by other people who've attracted more recent attention. There's nothing the matter with the article in French and no reason not to use it as the basis of the new article. Please don't list this at AfD, because that would be a ridiculous waste of volunteer time. —S Marshall T/C 16:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Overturn to non-consensus as an inadequate discussion, optional relist. But I think if is improved a little, it will be kept. The itWP has the fullest version at the moment, because it discusses the controversy. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak endorse as a valid close. Participation was light, but it was relisted. There may be merit to keeping this article if it's improved, so I'd support an undeletion & draftification of the article and have it go through AfC. I'm hesitant to support a relist, but as RoySmith notes below, the actual discussion was fairly light. So, I guess, this is a weak endorse/weak relist, if that's possible and makes sense. Doug Mehus T·C 03:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: are you sure about the relist? This looks like it was open for the standard seven days. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith You're right; I think I got this confused with another DRV, though it's not immediately clear which one as the one at the top of the page wasn't it. Nevertheless, I do agree completely with your comments re: Sandstein's excellent closure record, which was actually one of the reasons why for my !vote. I've never seen any of Sandstein's closures to be even mildly problematic, though I do agree some of the opinions expressed in this AfD were weak. I also considered S Marshall's comments above in not wanting to see this end up at AfD, hence my "weak relist." --Doug Mehus T·C 18:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relist. There was almost no useful discussion. The nom simply said, fails WP:NPROF, with nothing beyond that. Not even an indication that WP:BEFORE was done. The only other comment was from an editor with limited experience who starts out by saying, my research was cursory. These are not the arguments on which an article should be deleted. I have no idea why this wasn't relisted. At most, this should have been closed as WP:SOFTDELETE, Sandstein usually does excellent work, but I'm afraid this one wasn't up to his usual high standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • RoySmith, thanks for the ping. I didn't notice that this was one of my own closures. As I was not contacted prior to this review request, I endorse my own closure. We have two "delete" opinions, of which at least one makes a substantive and reasonable argument, and no "keep" opinions. That's enough for a "delete" consensus. I have no opinion as to whether the subject is notable on the merits. If he is, any user remains free to recreate the article in a version that addresses the reasons for which it was deleted. Sandstein 07:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question for @RoySmith, Sandstein, S Marshall, and DGG: or any other experienced editor or administrator, per Sandstein's comments above, is it not a requirement that the XfD closer be notified of deletion review and, if so, can this not be procedurally closed for not notifying the closer? I'm just curious if it's a formal requirement or more of a strongly advised common courtesy because I think, first course of action should be to ask the closer to reconsider their close and/or relist before listing at DRV, as BrownHairedGirl did with me with my one and only MfD close. BHG, feel free to chime in as well as you also always have excellent insight and expertise. Doug Mehus T·C 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: it says in the instructions, Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer. So, I don't see it as a strict requirement. On the other hand, it's certainly a courtesy which shouldn't be ignored. I know I'd be annoyed if one of my closes were brought to DRV and nobody brought it to my attention. And, as a practical matter, it can often be a quicker path to resolving any problems, so it's a good idea. In my personal opinion, procedurally closing a DRV because of a failure to notify would be excessively bureaucratic. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: Thanks for clarifying. I guess I missed the consider, but you're right, it's definitely slightly more than a personal courtesy to bring a close straight to DRV without first discussing because one could've potentially avoided a DRV. By the same token, you're right in that procedurally closing a DRV because the nom didn't notify the closer would just had a second procedural diversion, to have the nominator notify and then bring it back it to DRV. Doug Mehus T·C 18:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't want the discussion closer to be the gatekeeper for a DRV.—S Marshall T/C 20:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus and S Marshall:: A discussion with the closer is never a gatekeeper, because the complainant is still entitled to go to DRV.
    I see no downside to starting with a discussion with the closer. Sometimes it leads to agreement, as in the case of my discussion with Dmehus. That's a great result: everyone happy, without all the community time needed for a DRV.
    OTOH, if the prior discussion doesn't reach agreement, it's not wasteful. At best it clarifies the point(s) of disagreement, at worst, if it descends into acrimony, it's a pointer for DRV to consider how much to AGF. So I can see no reason not to try discussion first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We want people to have recourse to deletion review, and we want to minimize the amount of delay and process they need to go through in order to get here. Also, some newer users in this situation will perceive the discussion closer as a hostile authority figure, and may be put off or even intimidated.—S Marshall T/C 15:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that mis-states the goals. What we actually want is for the issue to be resolved with the amount of delay and process. A post on the closer's talk give the possibility of resolution within a few hours, whereas DRV takes a minimum of 7 days ... so a quick attempt to resolve it directly gives the fastest resolution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we disagree, because although I think this should be an easy venue to access, I don't feel that speedy resolution is the key goal. I feel that DRV is about achieving a fair process which a user with a grievance can see is fair; analysing and improving our deletion discussions; and monitoring for abuse of the discussion closure process. In the last ten years we've never identified an abusive sysop, but if abuse was taking place we'd be one of the best places to spot it.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall and BrownHairedGirl, some wonderful WP:WIKIDIPLOMACY occurring here in this quasi-related sidebar discussion. You both make excellent arguments, and I agree with you both. For clarity, I originally thought S Marshall meant that the DRV closer is never to be a gatekeeper, which I agreed with completely. It's true that newbies might see, wrongly, a discussion closer as some sort of authority figure, and thinking WP:DRV is the only recourse (similar to a bank customer that complains to a banking regulator or consumer protection watchdog), so there are valid reasons to go straight to DRV. That being said, I do also agree wholeheartedly with BrownHairedGirl that to not first contact the closer results in needless bureaucracy. One option might be to add a guideline to the DRV policy page that suggests where a DRV participant observes that the proposer hasn't first contacted the XfD closer, to let them know they can withdraw the DRV as "speedy keep" (although, as S Marshall and RoySmith noted previously when I wished to withdraw early a DRV nomination, there was no specific policy that permitted this so they had to use common sense to handle it). --Doug Mehus T·C 17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus, my understanding is that the contacting the closer is not required, but expected. My personal practice is to oppose review requests in which the closer was not contacted beforehand; others have legitimate reasons to take a different view. Sandstein 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandstein, a reasonable practice. I've been !voting as "procedural close" as a personal practice in such respects in the past, but per RoySmith, S Marshall, and yourself, I think your approach is reasonable. Not sure if that'd be a reasonable argument on its own or if I'd need to couch such a future !vote in WP:IAR or professional courtesy or not, but I think it's a very reasonable approach to take. Doug Mehus T·C 17:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

    7 January 2020

    [edit]
    The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
    List of Games with Gold games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

    The whole process that led to the deletion of the xbox games with gold list stinks. The page provided knowledge of what had been given with gold in the past, which would tell ppl not to expect it in the future, gave trends on future games with gold, and reference games given in other regions. In the deletion discussion, ppl gave straw man reasons for removal, plus i can't help but think there was some stupid console wars mentality behind it all given the comparable playstation list is just fine. Delete it, or restore the XBOX list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:8B02:0:CF3:81F6:F0B5:885A (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I know you didn't ask, but this may shed some light on the matter... Yunshui 雲水 08:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your deletion process sucks when it came to this page. You are relying on ppl that dont even bother with video games (quote by person who deleted), and did it all for 1 week over the holidays? People that used the link regularly arent knowledgable enough in the politics of wiki compared to the handful of ppl who decided on deleting. if we were, we would have given more food for thought as opposed to "its a store front with a listing of games no longer free". Not to mention, in the talk page on it all, even more points were brought up, but yet another nazi decides to delete all of that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.242.137 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: This page was not simply a "list" nor a "catalogue". It has relevance beyond the inaccurate "store front" rationale given by the admin. For people like myself it serves not only immediate practical purposes (which, bafflingly seems to be the main black mark against it), but also insights of the industry itself. This Games with Gold service is after all the precursor to the current Netflix-style approach to game subscription services. This page (and others like it) are valuable artefacts in the evolution of digital distribution of video games, and reviewing it gives insight in to the cost, quality, publisher partnerships and sales strategy of the service. This list serves as much insight to interested readers as lists of F1 race tracks, Olympic host cities, and other such artefacts which stand as valuable supplements to more in-depth pages. The fact that - on balance - the argument AGAINST information being recorded within Wikipedia due to an admins preference (or, it seems, lack of interest in the subject matter), in such a swift and semi-obscured fashion is antithetical to what I thought this site was about. In one of my "Thank You" donation emails, it says "People tell me they donate to Wikipedia because they find it useful, and they trust it because even though it's not perfect, they know it's written for them". Clearly not; this action demonstrates it is written specifically at the exclusion of readers like myself. How has this discussion allowed the arguments of the uninterested to prevail over those that are interested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.106.20 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: As noted above, the list was not a "catalog" (having no prices or purchase links), nor does it match any other category in the "Wikipedia is NOT" policy page. The deletion discussion was hardly unanimous, and the number of people commenting both here and there shows that the claim that "the list helps no one" is incorrect. I used it mostly as a quick check (when not at my XBox) of games I might already own in that format, but it's also useful as a guide to which kinds of games (and publishers) are most likely to appear in the future, as well as a definitive list of what almost certainly won't appear again in the future. That may not seem particularly useful or relevant to non-gamers, but many pages on Wikipedia are very niche, and in fact "video gamers" as a category probably describes a potentially interested audience several orders of magnitude larger than that of the average Wikipedia page. At any rate, the list was neither obtrusively commercial nor (until its deletion) controversial, and absent a clear association with some inappropriate category per Wikipedia's agreed community standards (the closest anyone could suggest was catalog, which it was not), it's hard to see what harm would be done by leaving it in place. (The many self-declared regular visitors, including me, are indisputably harmed by its removal, as there is no other good definitive source for this info on the internet--- good luck trying to find it on Microsoft's site, for example.) I'd also note that the period of time between the initial "this page is being marked for deletion" stamp and Yunshui's deletion decision appears to have been very short (eight days), particularly for a page that so many users (including me) seem to visit repeatedly but infrequently. Many of the comments in the deletion discussion suggest an inability to imagine how the list could be useful to anyone (dissenting commenters notwitsthanding), and the discussion was largely driven by a single user (Masem). Finally, it's clear from Yunshui's response to questions about the decision that he (a) hasn't taken any interest in video games or gaming in two decades and (b) responds immaturely and with excessive profanity--- might not be the most suitable guardian of community standards. ChillThyself (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was games that were free - aka $0 price tag. That's a catalog. We aren't here to list all sales or the like for products which this effectively was. Every argument being thrown here is "its useful" but we dont' keep material if that's the only purpose. (And I very much track video games, I recognize the value of the list to players, but just not on WP. Plenty of wikispace for it.) --Masem (t) 21:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChillThyself: I've already endorsed this close as correct above, which is why we're here - making sure the deletion discussion was properly closed - but as a neutral party, I wanted to address a couple of your arguments.
    1. You make two arguments which would be completely disregarded at AfD, and one of which would actually be a very good reason to delete the article: the fact the article is WP:USEFUL has no bearing on whether it should be kept, and, more importantly, the fact you say there's no other good definitive source on the internet tells me, as someone who knows nothing about these sorts of video games, that this topic is not notable enough for the encyclopaedia. We do not host original research, nor or we a web host - so if we can't accurately source this information to secondary reliable sources, it has to be deleted. The fact this doesn't exist elsewhere on the internet, for a topic whose timeline clearly falls within the decades of heavy internet usage, means I wouldn't consider even allowing a draft of this article.
    2. The vast majority of the commenters believed this failed WP:NOTCATALOGUE. While we are not a democracy, there's clear consensus from the discussion.
    3. Deletion discussions run for no less than one week (with some exceptions not relevant here) and having the discussion open eight days generated ample debate, especially considering we sometimes close discussions with only two or three comments.
    4. Finally, we don't ask discussion closers to be familiar with the topic, and that's not a reason to overturn this discussion. In fact, being familiar with a topic has at times been a hindrance since it's best if the closer is completely uninvolved, which is the case here. I also see nothing wrong with Yunshui's decorum - "not giving a shit" is a very common idiom here, and they were called out for being xenophobic by a user with only one edit, which is completely uncalled for.
    I'm sorry the deletion has been frustrating for you, but if you find the list useful, there's a chance you may be able to email an administrator to get a draft of the last available copy and put it up on a more specific wiki with more inclusive standards. SportingFlyer T·C 23:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse This is quite literally just someone who didn't like the legitimate outcome trying to reverse it without merit. Move along, nothing to see here. The original article violated Wikipedia guidelines on indiscriminate lists.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse- consensus at the AfD was clear, and the closer didn't make any mistakes in judging it. Reyk YO! 11:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to address issues arising from a failure to follow the deletion process. It is not a general "appeal forum" or "second bite at the cherry" if you merely disagree with the arguments raised. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

    6 January 2020

    [edit]

    5 January 2020

    [edit]

    4 January 2020

    [edit]

    3 January 2020

    [edit]
    • Maito Santos – Endorse, consensus is clear that the AFD did in fact consider the new sources, found them wanting, and the participants here see nothing wrong with that assessment as e.g the the new sources are in Japanese and it's not clear that they discuss the subject of the AFD. There was some discussion of allowing draftification, some people are concerned that it would be end-running the AFD. Thus, while draftification or the writing of a new draft are not explicitly forbidden editors should probably exercise caution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
    Maito Santos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

    Two sources that were indepth of the subject that should allow him to pass GNG were brought up, but they were not commented on by the next two editors. ミラP 18:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse as the proper close. The appellant found two additional sources. The proper response to finding new sources should have been to Relist the AFD. The closer did Relist the AFD, and it was added to another deletion sorting list. The community, including the subsequently responding editors, did not find that the additional sources established notability. The Relist was correct, and the close after the second listing was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: I'll clarify that the fact that some comment on the sources would've had some effect on the AFD result. ミラP 05:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Miraclepine Are you criticizing the close, or the editors? What relief do you want? Will the right to create a Draft satisfy you? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: The close. Moving it to draft will do. ミラP 16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So now I'm envisaging some hypothetical Wikipedia-equivalent where AfD participants are required to comment on each provided source individually, in some bizarre counterpart to Brandolini's Law. I'm glad I don't edit that online encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 02:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with S Marshall that this is an absurd expectation. When listing the sources, ミラ should have provided an translation of an excerpt of the secondary source coverage from the source. Throwing up a source that doesn’t even use the same for the subject was worthy of being ignored. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. ミラP 05:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fenix down: Both of them did not comment on the sources I provided, so did not debunk whether or not they counted towards GNG. ミラP 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse it would definitely have been better if the two links provided were explicitly rebutted, but the two people who commented after the relist presumably didn't think they were enough to satisfy the GNG. While Google Translate does make a mess of them I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that they don't represent significant coverage. Hut 8.5 12:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hut 8.5: Why would they represent significant coverage? ミラP 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: The subject's name is 三渡洲舞人. ミラP 03:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maito Miwatasu? Why the name mismatch? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: GT has a lot of hiccups, and it will always have at least one every time. Something you know when you're translating jawiki articles into enwiki. That's why someone invented copywriting. ミラP 04:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually I find google translations easily good enough, and a desktop computer. It's easy enough to allow for grammar troubles. Euphemisms require care. I see that Japanese names can be troublesome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The first is an interview of the subject and his family. Not independent, does not meet the GNG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The second is not sufficient coverage of the subject, it is repeating facts (height, blood type), and the closest thing to comment ("and is eager to become the face of the world's top brands") is non-independent promotional.
    This reads very much like a soccer kid who had some media coverage, and who now wants to embark on a modelling career and is seeking promotion angling off his soccer history. No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse. Good close. The two mentioned sources were appropriately ignored, they are weak and GNG-failing. Properly deleted at AfD last week, found by a community discussion to be not notable. Discourage drafting a new attempt in the absence of new (post AfD) sources, and at least six months. AfD needs some respect of its result. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were they? Were they ignored, yes. Appropriately? I’m saying yes, because the were foreign, and the proponent presenting them made insufficient analysis and explanation on them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse but draft- clear consensus for deletion, but if Miraclepine thinks they can improve it, lets put it in draft and submit it. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse We do a terrible job with identifying significant coverage from articles that don't have a primarily English-language background. A web search brings up a decent amount on him (though my Japanese is extremely basic) and those articles probably do come close to passing WP:GNG if they don't actually pass it, but the consensus was clear and there's no other way to close that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 08:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A trout to the appellant for wasting the time of the community in saying that the closer should have supervoted in discounting the community's ignoring of the alleged added sources. As per User:SmokeyJoe, do not provide a new draft. A barnstar https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASmokeyJoe&type=revision&diff=934643249&oldid=934016867 to User:SmokeyJoe for doing the research to discredit this appeal. This almost qualifies for salt, almost. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • NB. I would call this a close to line call. On examining the two sources, it is my judgement that they do not meet the GNG, the 1st primarily because it is a very close perspective story taking its information directly from the author interviewing the subject and his family, which makes this source "non-independent" in WP:GNG terms. Other Wikipedians disagree with this line of assessment, although I think they are wrong. Reasonable others may disagree. The 2nd source reads as promotion with negligible secondary source content, which I think is a less contentious reason for rejecting it as meeting the GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as closer. No objection to refunding to draft, provided that this goes through the usual AFC review before any restoration to mainspace (if at all). I apologize for my tardiness in commenting here. I have been battling an energy-draining flu for the past several days. BD2412 T 23:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

    2 January 2020

    [edit]
    The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
    Cristian Pache (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
    • Overturn and Keep. Original deletion decision was not consistent with consensus editor comments at AfD and current policies. FYI, I had expressed my opinion in the discussion in favor of a keep. I should point out as well, that in instituting a redirect, the closer did not include the latest version of the article, thereby omitting much of the information that goes towards the notability of the subject of the article. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that there was no discussion with me about this redirect before this was listed as required by the DRV instructions so input is clearly not required. I will therefore not be participating in this discussion or taking questions. Spartaz Humbug! 09:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry. I had not read that-as you say-discussion with the closer was required by the DRV instructions. Re-reading them now, I still actually do not see that as a requirement. I do though now see it mentioned as an attempt to "consider," so the closer can if there was a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding obviate the need for a discussion. Anyway, I did notify the closer, as required, so if he chooses he can write here. Also, I did request that the closer restore the deleted page under review and replace the content with the TempUndelete template, leaving the history for review by non-admins taking part in this discussion (though my request was archived, that has yet to be done).2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No tempundelete is needed - the article was redirected, so the history's still there for anyone to see (click on the article name here, and then click on the "redirected from" at the top of the page, and then click "view history.") SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems unnecessarily klugey for non-admins. Therefore, I reiterate my request that an admin restore the deleted page temporarily. Also - I reiterate that if this were to be a redirect, an improper old version was used by closer, rather than an appropriate current version that btw reflects much of why the subject is notable, but also is appropriate to have in either an article or a redirect. There is no reason for that material's deletion, and none was given. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I participated in the AfD so ignore me when closing this, but not only was the close consistent with the majority of !voters in the discussion (which reflects the current practice of the baseball WikiProject regarding notability of prospects and source analysis for minor league players), none of the keep !voters actually assessed which articles actually qualified Pache for WP:GNG. It is likely Pache will be notable soon, but there's nothing inconsistent with either the editor comments at the AfD or current practice. SportingFlyer T·C 09:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Overturn to No Consensus - The closer has reached a conclusion that is inconsistent with the apparent result of the discussion without explaining why. I recognize that a closer should use judgment as to strength of arguments, but the closer does not explain why the consensus is Delete and Redirect. There doesn't appear to be any consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn to Keep - that the article passes WP:N was successfully argued and not refuted. It does take a moment to verify this because there are a lot of non-independent sources used in the article, but a very sloppy close. WilyD 06:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just discuss the redirect at Talk:Cristian Pache. The nominator here does not want this deleted, and nothing has been deleted. The only action that has been taken is editing the content to make it a redirect, which doesn't need administrator powers to revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. This was nominated at AfD. It has already been discussed at AfD, by a number of editors over a two week period. There is no reason for a new discussion, mirroring the two-week one that we already had. And there was a close at AfD. I think the close was incorrect. I am seeking as the nominator here to have that close reviewed. As "Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal ... disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions..." And, as also indicated in the Deletion review directions, "Deletion review may be used ... if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly..." That is exactly what I believe happened. And I am seeking to have the proper action taken - which I (and others above, so far) believe is, based on the discussion had, to overturn that close. 2604:2000:E010:1100:25F8:B237:3473:223E (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think this is yet another case where applying our current notability rules to people who play sports leads to horribly inconsistent outcomes. It seems as we don't allow articles about corporations of international importance, politicians who got half a million votes, or academics who haven't got full professorship yet -- but somehow we've got to keep an article about this 21-year-old kid whose entire lifetime achievement is to be excellent at hitting a ball with a bat. What that shows me is that NSPORTS is badly out of whack and needs fixing. I'd endorse this or any other non-keep outcome because of basic fairness and consistency with what we do elsewhere in the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn to Keep I participated in the AfD and thought this should have closed as keep. However my track record at DRV is abysmal. Glad to see someone else asked for a review. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No DRV needed. As an editorial action, a redirect can be amended by forming a consensus at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just passing by to note that this is a short-term discussion, as Pache will be in the major leagues this year, at which appoint his notability will be deemed automatic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic clearly meets WP:N with sources in the article. But SNGs are, in many cases, a compromise. Part of that compromise, in the case of sports folks, is that even with good, but common-for-the-sport coverage we don't cover people until they meet the SNG. Given the the sources and situation, I think both sides had reasonable arguments. Given the !vote count, NC was a much better close. Was this close crazy? No, but I think it is pushing things a bit. I'm torn between weak endorse and weak overturn to NC, but I think the !vote count and sources were such that closing as delete wasn't a real option. weak overturn to NC is where I end up, but it's close. Hobit (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hobit: Would you be kind enough to identify which sources you think pass WP:GNG? This entire discussion hinges on whether there are enough articles that pass WP:GNG that are independent of Pache/are non-routine in the article (in spite of 41 footnotes, I see nothing exceptional) and the AfD didn't have a source discussion (just a disagreement about whether WP:GNG was met.) Pache will likely make the majors next year and both qualify for his own article and receive coverage, so and this will almost certainly be moot soon, but to date no one has actually identified which sources pass WP:GNG. I'd quite appreciate a neutral opinion, would help my decision making going forward at AfC/NPP on baseball prospects. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The GNG? [23] is an article, in a fairly major paper, solely about him with in-depth coverage (it also includes a 1-minute video on him). [24] is a major paper with an article solely on him. That's two. There are quite a few more. Is that "exceptional" for a minor-league player? Yeah, probably a bit, but not exceptional for someone widely believed to be on-track to make the majors. But meeting the GNG? Sure. In-depth articles published by major, independent, sources? That's what the GNG is. And while those are probably the strongest, there looks to be a few more pretty good ones. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse It was a close decision and could have been closed as NC or redirect. The vote count after a relist, as I read it, was 4 delete 4 keep and 2 redirect. Both sides of the discussion put forth reasonable arguments steeped in policy (I recognize that the SNG can lead to some counter-intuitive results, such as this case). Since the decision was squarely within the closer's discretion, I must endorse. --Enos733 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the Keep-Delete vote was actually 5-4 if we are counting valid votes. Because as pointed out in the AfD discussion, the first delete vote was based on a dramatic misunderstanding (that Orlando Sentinel, Baseball America, Augusta Chronicle, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Rome News Tribune, Danville Register & Bee, The Athletic, etc. are not "independent of the subject.") Under WP:CLOSEAFD, we don't count votes that are clearly based on a mistake, and are therefore not "logical". Beyond that, the 1 or 2 redirect votes clearly didn't reflect the consensus of the 12 or so voters - as that term is understood at WP:CONS - which is what makes this close especially surprising, and WP:CLOSEAFD says that the close should reflect the consensus of the voting editors (otherwise, it's like saying the vote between Trump and Clinton was close, so we will name Bernie the President - which though it may have thrilled some voters, is not cricket). One cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn to no consensus – The Orlando Sentinel and AJC links above are, in my view, within the range where reasonable editors can disagree about whether or not it's WP:SIGCOV. It's not unreasonable to view those two as examples of non-routine coverage, for example. I don't see any grounds to discount the !votes of keep !voters who feel that the sourcing meets GNG, nor do I see grounds for discounting the !votes of delete !voters who feel the sourcing doesn't meet GNG. So while there's consensus the player doesn't meet NBASEBALL, there's no consensus over whether or not the player meets GNG, and I don't really see how a closer can find consensus in that particular discussion. I especially don't see how a closer can find consensus to redirect when only one !voter was explicitly in favor of redirecting, and everyone else was in favor of either keeping or deleting. – Levivich 07:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • With regards to your last point, the player is already well covered on the page where the redirect links to, so I would read at least my !delete vote should be read as "not a standalone page yet" as opposed to "don't include any information on this person in the encyclopaedia." I also put draftify since I didn't realise he was already on the prospects page. SportingFlyer T·C 08:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh sure, make a liar out of me :-) Thanks for the clarification, I guess I shouldn't have assumed that delete !voters were not in favor of redirecting; I've updated my comments. Cheers! – Levivich 16:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn to No Consensus I was the only editor who explicitly !voted redirect, and while a couple other editors did suggest that as a possibility without explicitly !voting for it, I'm not seeing any consensus for anything here, and several of the delete !votes seem to be based on either misunderstandings of either Independence of sources or GNG vs. SNG and should have been discounted. Smartyllama (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
    • Template:Uw-vandalism0 – Consensus is to endorse as the notification matter is not viewed as a serious procedural issue here (as the editor not notified was not the page creator). Some people think that recreation should be allowed if the template is still in use (it not being in use was a key argument for deletion), although one editor has noted that in such a case an userspace copy would work just as well if it's only one editor using it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
    Template:Uw-vandalism0 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

    I was not notified about the TfD discussion, although I had participated in the previous (2013) discussion and it was the wording which I had proposed in that discussion which was agreed and implemented. The reason given in this new TfD was that the proposer didn't "know of any user or bot who still uses this template in 2019 or 2020 and thus the template is likely to be deprecated". I still prefer the wording to that of Template:Uw-vandalism1 (for example because it suggests looking at the welcome page, rather than pointing new users at the help page before they have been given any other advice) and I have been using it regularly (most recently at User talk:86.146.213.192 yesterday before the redirect was put in place). Those who prefer Template:Uw-vandalism1 are of course welcome to use it, but I see no reason to remove this template from those of us who have been using it. David Biddulph (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Meh. One part of me wants to say, "If somebody is still using this, then the basic premise, that it's unused, is wrong, so restore it.". The other part of me wants to say, "Who cares, it's a substituted template. Just put a copy in your user space and use that." -- RoySmith (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment post-deletion, is there any way to tell how many times this template was used in the last year? I'm for restoring it, but David, if you're one of a select few using it, I'd support the user space option proposed above. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a table that keeps track of template transclusions, but as far as I can tell, there's no way to track substitutions. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

    1 January 2020

    [edit]
    • Ren (singer) – Allow recreation. There's no objection to the nom's plan of writing a new article at the existing title. To the minimal extent that it was discussed, the old AfD is endorsed, but that's pretty much a non-sequitur at this point. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
    Ren (singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

    Subject starred in Their Distance and had been one of the fixed hosts/panelists on the talk shows The Kkondae Live (source from The Dong-A Ilbo) and Hogu Chart (source from Herald Pop). He was also a finalist on Produce 101 (season 2). Previous article had been sourced by Allkpop and Soompi but I think these sources can be easily replaced (especially in regards to Soompi, who links the original articles they translate). lullabying (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If the deletion was years ago, and you think you can overcome the reasons for deletion, draft it in draftspace, use AfC and get an AfC reviewer to agree. If you are sure you can overcome the deletion reasons, then re-create directly in mainspace. In both cases, you may or may not want to start with the deleted history, available via WP:REFUND (request undeletion into userspace or draftspace). There is no role for WP:Deletion review right now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice. Will do. lullabying (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If deletion review is not the correct process to go by, I will simply recreate a new article once this discussion is closed. Thanks for everyone's assistance. lullabying (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have plenty of article writing experience. There are new sources since the AfD. DRV won’t AfD-proof a recreation. It’s better that you re-create it, work on it, and then be prepared to defend it if someone then wants to delete it. Good luck! —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_January&oldid=933276858"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy