Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< September 2020 Deletion review archives November 2020 >

31 October 2020

edit
  • Sérgio Trindade – restore article, with the option for any interested editor to nominate it for AfD again if desired. The G4 speedy deletion is best described in this discussion as 'possibly technically defensible, but definitely not ideal', and there is a mixture of opinions as to the merits of the original AfD despite its clear consensus on the face of it. New sources were introduced, and if there are continuing concerns over notability, they are best discussed at a fresh AfD, rather than getting too hung up on the specifics of the process here. ~ mazca talk 14:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sérgio Trindade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created this page, which had been previously deleted following a deletion discussion in April as "Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or other notability criteria; references are to death". I would object that this is rather questionable; besides being part of the panel that was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Trindade held various positions of importance within UN commissions and there are several references to him before his death, such as instance https://polarconnection.org/profiles-advisory-bo/sergio-c-trindade/ or http://webtv.un.org/watch/world-chronicle-253-sergio-trindade-centre-for-science-and-technology-for-development/5762415228001/?term= or https://www.unmultimedia.org/avlibrary/asset/2121/2121041/ or https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-45670-1_2 or https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1326570 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9RsPPGD69I.. I do not know how was the old, deleted page (not made by me) and if it was less detailed than the one I created; however, the new page I created was deleted in a few hours through speedy deletion, without a new discussion. Pesqara (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we get a temporary undelete? The sources above aren't great, but the question is if G4 applies. And on top of that, I've got to say if this guy isn't notable, something is probably wrong with our notability guidelines. PhD from MIT, served on the IPCC (which won a Nobel while he was on it I think), and a member of Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment I think. I'm struggling to find sources that would meet our guidelines for a biography, ... Hobit (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the G4. I haven't seen the deleted article, only the temporarily undeleted one, but the temporarily undeleted one should at least be restored unless there is another AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse After looking at both versions, the articles are substantially identical enough that WP:G4 is the correct result. The biggest difference is the newer version does have more sources, but the AfD was pretty clear in its result. SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a completely ridiculous outcome. We're keeping articles about people who played twenty minutes in a professional sports match, but we're deleting articles about Nobel Prize winners who're on the board of the IPCC? That's insane. Overturn and restore because, in the context of the other decisions we make, that AfD reached an utterly unreasonable result.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'm hoping for a WP:IAR keep if a listed as an AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)typos fixed that made this impossible to read. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Well, technically, from 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, s incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: 'X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.'" This is an English-language blurb - looks like he was the coordinating author on a chapter of a report from 2000. Not trying to minimise anything, but almost all of hits were his obituary and the rest of the hits didn't appear independent. This would explain why he didn't have anyone try to start an article until he unfortunately passed away. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • He would be a co-ordinating author within the meaning of that article, and not just a contributor or scientist who was involved with the report.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • With all respect, I just want to make sure you read that correctly - the full blurb says IPCC as an organisation won the Nobel, not any of the associated individuals. Your response to me makes it seem like you are adding an additional category "above" scientist, which does not appear to be the case. If this is restored, we need to make absolutely clear he did not win the Nobel prize. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The award was for "efforts to build up and disseminate... knowledge about man-made climate change." The IPCC is an organization, so it's made of pieces of paper and polite legal fictions. It didn't build up and disseminate knowledge. People did that. It only remains to identify which people.
            The IPCC has a lot of authors: there are literally thousands. It's clearly disingenuous to describe each of them as a Nobel Prize laureate. The most senior level of author is "lead author" or "co-ordinating author". I accept that there are more than 400 such people. But if it's not them who won half the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for the IPCC, then nobody did.—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak overturn speedy probably won't make it at AfD, but enough new sources (and new text ) to make it worth discussing and to not be a G4. Hobit (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Deleted on notability grounds, and new article presented additional, significant sources, so a G4 speedy deletion is obviously indefensible. Really, a complete no brainer. WilyD 19:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy deletion, which may be technically defensible procedurally, but has led to a problematic result. Someone could start a new AfD if desired, though I'd frankly prefer that they wouldn't: applying my own simple metric for deletion, the encyclopedia is of better quality with the inclusion of this article than without it. Note that if there's an "endorse" result here, then the formally proper procedure would be to DRV the orginal AfD with a view to relisting it. That would take weeks of bureaucracy to get us to the same place, so it shouldn't be required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not necessary. The G4 isn't procedureally defensible, and was already well on it's way to be overturned here on it's on merits; so there's no need to overturn the original AfD (whether it was correctly decided or not, it's no longer relevant). WilyD 13:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy and agree with NYB that this is an article whose content belongs on the encyclopedia. At AfD it would probably be a weak keep, but have to imagine there are enough sources to get there. StarM 23:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to overturning, sorry I caused a kerfuffle with the G4 nomination. I doubt it will pass at AfD, but clearly there is enough contention here that it warrants discussion. I agree with NYB that closing this --> DRV would bureaucracy for the sake for bureaucracy. VQuakr (talk) 00:33, 2 November 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 October 2020

edit

29 October 2020

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
No personal attacks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe this page was unfairly speedily deleted per G4. The deletion reason was "recreation of a deleted page" but the page that I "recreated" (listed in the deletion summary) was a hard redirect to Ad hominem (deleted by this discussion), whereas my page was a soft redirect to WP:NPA by use of this template. JJP...MASTER!...MASTER!!! master of puppets, i'm pulling your strings (0-3-5)'[talk about or to] JJP... master? master? where's the dreams that i've been after (0-3-6-5) 21:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak overturn and list at RfD Hard call because that exact redirect target was discussed. But it isn't a G4 per se, and I think it's reasonable to ask for a new discussion on that target. That said, I don't know that we have words like that redirecting to Wikipedia space anywhere, so I think it will get deleted at RfD. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hobit, this feels like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, but I think sometimes bureaucracy needs to be followed. I deleted it without checking closely to see if it literally was a re-creation of an exact prior page that had been deleted. It didn't look like a useful page so I thought it deserved deletion. I have no objection if someone wants to restore it so it can be deleted by different process. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's where I'm at. Seems silly to list, but I'd prefer we do so. I (and most of the DRV regulars) tend to be of the opinion that following CSD literally is important (due to it often being by just one person). But this one is borderline even for me... Hobit (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and list at RfD With Hobit on this one. It's been four years, I don't have anything wrong with the speedy but it is contested, and I don't see any harm in a new discussion. I'm not sure we're not just creating bureaucracy, but I think we should allow for a discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and list at RFD, CSD not correctly applied as the content was different. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and list at RfD, per everyone else. Mr. Heart (talk) 06:16, 2 November 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 October 2020

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

I would like to recreate the page in a neutral tone because more notable content is now available on the subject. WonkaCrist (talk) 12:35, 28 October 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 October 2020

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

I request to the deletion review board to Please review the page and consider it for repost the page Md Perwez Siddiqui on wikipedia as the page contains all the sources like newspaper and books. Mr Siddiqui is a notable person as he is the Indian Ploitician and also working for the Muslim Reservation in Bihar. So, requesting you to please consider and repost it on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrez123 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed nomination fixed.—S Marshall T/C 14:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


S Marshall You can search by typing only Md Perwez Siddiqui as in Bihar, India we use short form of Mohammad as "Md" in the name. It is not a prfix you can call it first name Md Perwez and last name as Siddiqui.Here is the link of him Md Perwez Siddiqui where you find hime easily. I request you to please guide me if I there is a problem in the article so that I can correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrez123 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Due to repeated recreation the article has been deleted and WP:SALTed. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right. Tabrez123, welcome to Wikipedia! We hope you like the place and decide to stay. I'm sorry if your introduction to the site hasn't worked out how you want.
    We have a lot of rules about articles. One of them is that you shouldn't make an article about someone you're closely connected to, such as, for example, an immediate relative or family member. This rule is set out at WP:COI. Another one is that articles about living people need really excellent sources. This rule is set out at WP:BLP. I think that the article about Mr Siddiqui might break both of those rules.
    Now, here at Wikipedia we meet a lot of people who want to use our site to promote someone or something. Wikipedia's very attractive to people who want to do that, because we score highly in search engine rankings and anyone can edit it. So lots of people try. We want to stop our encyclopaedia from drowning in promotional content, so we've become very quick and efficient at removing content that's promotional and poorly-sourced. I'm afraid that the article about Mr Siddiqui was very promptly and decisively removed for exactly this reason.
    May I suggest that you try writing about something else? We could maybe talk about whether Mr Siddiqui's reached our threshold for a biographical article after you've been here a bit longer and have come to understand the place a bit better?—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks User talk:S Marshall for your information about article. But the link I quoted here is from the leading newspaper like Times of India, Indian Express and The Hindu which is well recognised all over the world. So, Wikipedia Team should also consider this sources that I quoted here. Need your support to guide me in writing article of living as well as non living things in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrez123 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, so we Wikipedians have views about Indian sources. We've talked a lot about them, and our very most favourite Indian news source is The Hindu (see WP:HINDU for the summary, there are links to all the discussions from there). We also like the Indian Express (see WP:INDIANEXP) but we don't like The Times of India so much (see WP:TOI).
    In the article, you cited this link to the Indian Express. It's a good source, but unfortunately, it isn't about Mr Siddiqui. You also cited this link to the Indian Express, which also isn't about Mr Siddiqui, although this one does mention his name, once, in the final paragraph. And you also mentioned this link to The Hindu, but it isn't about Mr Siddiqui either.
    It's necessary to cite sources that are actually about Mr Siddiqui, you see. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 October 2020

edit

25 October 2020

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

No strong consensus to delete without maintaining the page history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Deleting was a valid conclusion by the closer, and it appears that the appellant is stating a policy that is not in place that restricts deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- the delete !votes cited the lack of sourcing, which is a legitimate concern the keep side did not address. There was a suggestion to redirect but, without being identify which target would be most suitable, it's not very useful. And a redirect can be made without restoring the page history anyway. I think consensus to delete was a reasonable finding. Reyk YO! 09:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse for now Appears to meet WP:BAND, but that's probably not enough if there really are no sources. Once the band does something that gets at least a bit of coverage, get it undeleted, add those sources and we'll talk. But for now the outcome is reasonable even if the !vote was close. If there *are* decent sources, contra the claims of the delete side, they should have been supplied (and even here, given the !vote was 2 to 1 including the nom, even just decent sources would be enough for a relist given it meets an SNG). Hobit (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion as that was the consensus at the discussion. I am not sure what would be accomplished by "maintaining the page history" whilst still following the delete consensus, even if that were something that we had the capacity to do. If someone wants to cite the sources (over and above just asserting they exist) then that would be grounds for reconsideration. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The AfD itself had run its course after 2 relists and the consensus is clear to delete since there were no sources presented to establish that the band is really notable. —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely sure I understand this nomination. Was Stifle meant to restore the page history after deleting the article, and if so, how?—S Marshall T/C 14:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, the OP meant that the closer should have closed as redirect while preserving the page history. —Nnadigoodluck███ 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was recreated as a redirect a few hours ago, and I've listed it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 27. —Cryptic 18:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse technically speaking given the limited participation and the fact that the subject meets WP:BAND ("Ensemble has 3 notable band members") this should probably have been no consensus, but given that the band hasn't produced any music other than a few demos and there weren't any sources other than this I don't see much of a case for keeping the article. There is no value in keeping the page history, the deleted version didn't do anything other than name the members of the band. If someone is able to come up with any different sources at all though then I suggest a new AfD. Hut 8.5 19:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus The nominator was blocked as a sock a couple of days ago, making this one person for keeping, one person for deleting. I strongly agree with the outcome, and there was nothing wrong with the close, but the AfD is now improper in the first place, and a no consensus with the ability to renominate I think makes the most sense here. Even though it's a bit of bureaucracy, socks shouldn't be the determining factor for article deletion, if properly discovered, and I feel just strongly enough about that to not endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus per SportingFlyer. If we discount the nomination, which we now have to given that it's by a checkuser-blocked account, we don't have a consensus for deletion. Sandstein 06:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that we have new information stating the nominator was ineligible to raise the AFD, I would suggest endorse but relist. My closure was correct given the information available at the time, and should be endorsed, but to ensure the correct outcome given the demonstrated socking, the article should be listed again. I would suggest this be a fresh listing rather than adding further to the existing one. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 3 November 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 October 2020

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

WP:BIO states under Additional Criteria: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." WP:NPOL then follows below this, so is subject to that limiting language. Similarly even WP:POLOUTCOMES has limiting wording "are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level", so passing WP:NPOL is not an automatic pass on notability as WP:NPOL is not a guideline. The closer was in error in stating that "the argument that the subject meets WP:NPOL has not been rebutted" as NPOL is not a guideline. Similarly the closer's statement that "nor has the existence of verifiable information (which may nonetheless fall short of GNG standards)" is incorrect as only one reference has been provided. Beattie lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS and so fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The result was a reasonable one. The argument above seems incoherent – is there some confusion between WP:POL & WP:NPOL? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the nominator has edited his original comments to make them more coherent. Andrew Davidson's comment was correct when it was made. It is best practice when changing something that has been replied to to strike, using this markup, the original rather than delete it, so that later participants can make sense of a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one secondary source for the biographical facts and a lot of primary sourcing used. There's some borderline original research going on. But I understand that debate as a "keep" consensus, I see no egregious or problematic content, and most of the article's content appears verifiable. I've never known or cared what the SNGs say as most of them need to be deprecated. I weakly endorse that decision.—S Marshall T/C 11:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the consensus clearly was that the subjects NPOL pass was sufficient for establishing notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Firstly WP:NPOL is part of WP:BIO, which very clearly is a guideline per the top of the page that says "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline". And secondly if Wikipedia is to be turned into a topsy-turvy world where "presumed notable" means "presumed non-notable" we will have to stop referring to any of the notability guidelines, including WP:GNG, which uses the very same "presume" word that some people seem to be misunderstanding. The discussion simply reached the conclusion that the subject is notable, by a unanimous conclusion of everybody except the DRV nominator who commented after potential notability as a politician had been mentioned. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Phil Bridger Where is it explicitly stated that WP:NPOL is a guideline? If you look at Military personnel​ under WP:BIO it eventually takes you to WP:SOLDIER, which is not a guideline, it is an essay, how is WP:NPOL any different? Please explain how does one rebut "presumed notable"? As I have repeatedly pointed out the page gives one reference, how can he still be presumed to be notable with so little coverage? Mztourist (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have already told you where it is explicitly said that WP:NPOL is a guideline. The difference between it and WP:SOLDIER is that it is part of a guideline, rather than a link from one. One rebuts "presumed notable" by persuading others in a discussion that a topic should not be regarded as notable. This didn't happen in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, there are numerous threads under WP:BIO, some may be guidelines, while some, like WP:SOLDIER are not. The problem is that its not clear whether or not NPOL is a guideline, but many people clearly think it is, someone seems to fall within it and they vote accordingly and wrongly, this happens frequently at WP:SOLDIER. It all ignores the fact that if someone truly was notable, even 100 years ago, you would expect to find significant coverage of them in contemporary sources, but that is not the case for Beattie. If someone is only recorded in one or two sources they clearly aren't notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If you pass an SNG, you can still be shown to be non-notable: we use this in sports all the time, but you are presumed notable - therefore people seeking to delete have to rebut the presumption, which wasn't done. Beattie's name does appear in 19th century Michigan newspapers, so I reckon this was the correct result in spite of his general ordinariness. SportingFlyer T·C 18:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Everyone should understand that the bar for inclusion is lower for historic figures who died over 100 yeas ago. An encyclopaedia is an historiographical document. The challenge is keeping out recentism and promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The close accurately reflected both the deletion discussion and policy. (I personally think that SNGs should stand alone, without being tied to GNG, but that is only my opinion, and doesn't matter at this time anyway.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - Everyone should understand that, but it needs to be restated frequently because not everyone does understand it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close accurately reflected both the deletion discussion and policy. No other close would be proper. --Enos733 (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good close in the spirit of consensus that was achieved after a relist. I don't know which other close the OP was expecting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 01:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 October 2020

edit
  • The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent – Draftification undone. Long story short, since the film has now started production as noted by Newyorkbrad, the reason for both the AfD and its puzzling premature closure as "draftify" no longer applies. This moots much of this discussion, and a relist for form's sake seems pointless. The content is moved back to main space, from where anybody can AfD it again if they want to. Sandstein 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was only listed for deletion discussion for a couple of hours with only one editor participating. That's really not a fair consensus in my opinion. The ruling should either be overturned, or the discussion should be reopened. Rusted AutoParts 22:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that's fair. Moving it to draft space was done to correct an administrative error that occurred during the history merge, but you're right to say that the discussion was, technically, closed too early. We should correct that by listing for a full 7-day discussion. MfD the draft.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This title redirected to Nicolas Cage (the same way The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent currently does) before the undraftification and subsequent history merge, and it has a (single, lonely) sentence there. Whatever else happens, we shouldn't leave it a redlink. —Cryptic 13:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that in Special:Diff/963571836, $uperFan32 had overwritten the article about the "Untitled Brian Fee Project" with one about an entirely different film. This causes confusion, so I recommend putting the deleted history of "Untitled Brian Fee Project" and the edits currently at "Draft:The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent" from 15:06, 20 June 2020 and earlier together into a separate draft at Draft:Untitled Brian Fee Project, as requested at WP:RFHM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was moved from draft space to mainspace, the mover was trouted, moved it back to draftspace, and closed the AfD. I think that's the process working, since the article has a limited chance of being kept at the present time, and it can continue to incubate in draft space. Redlink needs to be fixed, though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a quick fix to preceding errors. WP:NFF is a rock solid good guideline. Do not move to mainspace before verification of the commencement of principle photography. Leave in draft until then. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:S Marshall - No. The draft should NOT be MFD'd. The draft is an entirely valid draft. I nominated the article for deletion because it should be in draft space until the movie is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as to whether to Endorse or Overturn to Relist. There was a rare administrative error by User:Anthony Appleyard. The error was that the draft and the article required a history merge, and the administrator mistakenly put the result in article space rather than draft space. I then nominated the article for deletion to move it back to draft space. At this point the issue seems to be that the appellant wants the page kept in article space. The premature close of the AFD was an Ignore All Rules closure by the administrator who had made the original error, and who closed the AFD as Draftify in order to get to where it should have been. However, the appellant is asking to follow normal procedures after the fact and restart the AFD. At this point I am neutral as to whether to endorse, which leaves the closure at draftify, or whether to overturn to relist. If it is relisted, I was the nominator. Is that crystal clear (that is, like heavy glass containing lead)? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The discussion was not given the required seven days. As the movie is actually in production now, the bickering about draftification is shown to be pettifogging. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but note updated information. Cutting through the procedural morass, the AfD closure was possibly defensible given the information known at the time. However, given that the film is now in actual production (per Andrew Davidson's link above), this is a change of circumstances and any editor may now publish the draft to mainspace in his or her discretion, if he or she believes that notability is now achieved. If people disagree at that point, a new AfD could be started, although I don't see that there would be any reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:SmokeyJoe and Newyorkbrad - I think that I respectfully disagree with both of you as to film notability. There is a common misunderstanding that films are notable when they start production. It is true that paragraph 1 of the future film guidelines says that films that have not begun production are not notable. But paragraph 3 then says that films that are in production are only notable if production itself has been notable, which does not just mean that production has been reported by reliable sources. That is the reason why I and some other editors will start another AFD if it is moved into article space. Just because the film is in production does not mean that production itself has been notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's OK, you appear new to the concept of SNGs. Generally, SNGs predict whether a topic will meet the WP:GNG, which is a very good predictor (all areas excepting WP:PROF) of whether the topic will be kept at WP:AfD. WP:NFF is different in that it is a highly reliable objective predictor, if the future film has not started principle photography, then even if there are GNG-meeting sources, they are supplying speculative material on a speculative topic, and it is not appropriate for a topic under a simple title for the future movie. It may be appropriate for a NOR-dangerous topic such as "Anticipation of a future movie to be titled "The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent", but speculation is not information on the topic-proper. Here, we have the WP:NFF check recently met, and an abundance of GNG-meeting sources, and so it is an easy "mainspace" decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't think Robert McClenon is new to SNGs. I don't see why SNGs should trump the GNG, and I'm distinctly unpersuaded by the idea, but I also presume that he's followed and understood the arguments and somehow reached the conclusion that SNGs are in some sense better.—S Marshall T/C 18:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Trump" is not really a good word. WP:NFF provides an objective reason to not closely examine putative GNG-meeting sources. On a thorough, hard-work, examination, where NFF fails (principle photography has not started), sources may superficially pass but on examination fail to directly address the subject as they speak to speculation, not the topic-proper. This is not to trump, but is a very reliable rule of thumb, WP:NFF is unusually strong in this. My examination of the topic is that there are enough sources to demonstrate interest, close enough to notability, and NFF is recently met. The draft could use some editing to improve, but I believe that if AfD-ed now, it will be kept. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • As everyone here knows, the relationship between the various SNGs and the GNG is complex. And different people view them differently, which makes it even more exciting. Some SNGs are generally *more* inclusive than the GNG. WP:PROF is the standard example and WP:SCHOOL generally falls into that same category. Some are used as exclusionary guidelines. That is, they set a higher bar than the GNG. WP:CORP is a good example of an SNG that is generally treated that way. And some are a bit of both. WP:ATHLETE sets a bar and says that generally anyone above it is probably notable and anyone below it is probably not. So we generally keep any article on someone that played in a fully-professional league as long as we can meet WP:V and have more than a sentence to two, and the bar for someone who has not is generally way beyond the GNG's requirements. We even have SNGs that large groups of people *treat* as exclusionary or inclusionary without any real hint in the wording that they should be (WP:NPOL would be a nice example he says with a hint of sarcasm). The problem is that each person then treats the SNG/GNG relationship differently for different SNGs. So yeah, it's a mess. But we mostly end up in reasonable places, so from where I'm sitting it mostly works (somehow...). Hobit (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm going off on a tangent here: closer need not read this. WP:V requires at least one reliable source, and the GNG requires at least two. And that's the basic problem with SNGs that are more inclusionist than the GNG. If there's only one reliable source, then the only way to write an article is to take everything in it from that one source. And that's plagiarism. These SNGs that allow single-source articles are making parts of Wikipedia into a scraper site. I have ethical objections to them. And the SNGs that place the bar higher than the GNG also seem wrong to me, because if it is possible to write a neutral article based on two reliable sources then we should encourage that, because hosting reliably-sourced articles is what Wikipedia is for.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • And that's plagiarism, or WP:OR. My view of SNGs is that they serve as a good decision point for whether to look for GNG sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • The GNG requires independent sources. For things like WP:PROF we take non-independent sources (say their school bio). We can still write fine articles. Hobit (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't really think WP:PROF is so highly problematic. I'm really referring to NSPORTS etc.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So you're advocating for more expansive sports coverage? Because a lot of sports SNGs tend to (correctly) decrease the number of articles we write on sportspersons, as perverse as that may seem. Also, NPROF is only a problem in the sense that it's a complete black box for people outside academia. My suggestion to include the sources used to identify academics as notable as additional criteria to GNG and then making NPROF subjected to GNG doesn't have a lot of support, but it would really help users like myself understand which academic sources count towards notability. I'm dragging this further into the weeds here, though, and I apologise. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • ... a lot of sports SNGs tend to (correctly) decrease the number of articles we write on sportspersons ... If all sportsperson articles were required to meet GNG, there would be a further decrease, not an increase, in the article count. Lev!vich 18:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist meets the relevant SNG and the GNG. Speedy Draftifying seems to be both out of process and to generate the wrong outcome. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Note: I hugely updated this !vote because I utterly forgot what the discussion was as I wrote the above rant. Updated soon after. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Deletion process was not properly followed in that the listing was not left open for the requisite time. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but ... along the lines of NYB. Without Anthony commenting here, it's hard to say what was going on in his head, but it seems to me that the quick close of the AFD as draftify was essentially Anthony self-reverting his move of the article from draftspace to mainspace. I endorse that under IAR/NOTBURO; I think it was a good decision for Anthony to basically say, "OK if two editors object, I'll undo the move", although I think a bit more explanation on his part in the closing statement would have helped avoid this DRV. Something like, "IAR speedy close as draftify to self-revert my publishing of the draft; another editor can publish it if they feel it's the appropriate thing to do, and no prejudice to a new AFD of the re-published article." I agree that at this point, anyone can publish the draft, and if that happens, anyone can take it to AFD if they think the topic is not notable. Lev!vich 18:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 October 2020

edit

21 October 2020

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

I'd like the keep over turned to no consensus and to be able to relist the article. As I've had problems with the closer in the past and the close was clearly due to our prior issues with each and not anything else. Otherwise, he would have just relisted it. Not that it should matter to the AfD process, but just an FYI the "personal attack" he referenced in the close that I supposedly made was me responding to @Phil Bridger: who has accused me multiple times, including in the AfD and after it, of being a racist simply for editing articles related to African subjects. Which for some strange reason @Ritchie333: didn't account for when closing the AfD and generally doesn't seem to have a problem with. I should be able to respond to someone who has repeatedly insinuated I'm a racist, including in the AfD, without having to worry that my AfDs are going to be closed for doing so. Especially if it's one where the person is making the insinuations. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse It's not full of bolded votes, but four users participated, and only the nom wanted to delete. (I'm also going to do something I'm not supposed to and make an AfD argument: The school also seems well-covered in Portuguese sources, so if this is relisted, I would not endorse a deletion.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A no consensus close would have been very odd considering no one except the nominator advocated for deletion. It had already been re-listed once with no further participation. And I don't see any evidence that the close was clearly due to our prior issues. Assume good faith. P-K3 (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is that he said he had already warned me about personal attacks. I don't see how you can say him specifically mentioning our past issues in the close doesn't show that it had anything to do with them. Otherwise, he would have just left that part out. Plus, Bridger said some clearly rude things that he never called out when he called my behavior out. So, he clearly wasn't being impartial about things and was targeting me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and frankly in a reasonable world the nominator should have been blocked for making comments urging people to commit suicide [1]. But as for the discussion itself nobody except the nominator supported deletion and they had reasonable arguments, so I don't think a close other than Keep is supportable. Hut 8.5 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. Your being massively hyperbolic. No one is going to die from walking of a pier. The term just means to go away. Which I had every right to tell him to do since he kept insinuating I was a racist. Seriously. Someone calling me a racist is fine, but me telling them to go away is some how some big slight. What the hell ever. Adamant1 (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Aww c'mon, Hut, the common idiom "take a long walk off a short pier" is not "urging people to commit suicide". Lev!vich 17:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I closed the debate as "keep" for the reasons given above by those endorsing; as SportingFlyer says, although editors didn't boldface !vote, there were clear opinions from them that the article should be kept and improved. I have indeed called out Adamant1 for making personal attacks at AfDs and turning them into a shouting match, which is not helpful. I did notice that Phil Bridger's patience was being stretched, but he explicitly said he was still trying to assume good faith on your part. The admonishment on Adamant1 was primarily on this comment: "Also, your criticism that I'm ignoring "run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries" is obviously just more bullshit." and "Otherwise, piss off and go take a long walk off a short pier" and was more a note to everyone else in the debate that I had already noted this behaviour and hence no further action or reporting was required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, whatever he said about how he was trying to assume good faith, he had already made a couple of totally unprovoked comments along theline of "I hope this isn't racism" in other AfDs and when he removed a few of my PRODs. So, if anything my patience was being stretched by then. He said it again after that to. If you felt my use of "bullshit" or whatever wasn't cool, fine. It's your prerogative, but at the same time it wasn't cool to single me out and ignore his side of it in the AfD, or not factor in the fact that he had already done it a few times by then. Sorry, but there's absolutely zero amount of someone insinuating/calling other users racists that should be acceptable or tolerated, and it's not something I take lightly. Nor should I. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- It was probably the correct close. But I share Adamant1's frustration about the personal attacks here. If someone insinuated I was a racist and a nasty piece of work based on the AfDs I participate in, I'd tell them to piss off too. But, as usual, you can say what you like about other people provided you preface it with the word "keep". WP:NPA only applies to those schmucks who !vote delete. Reyk YO! 11:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have invited Phil to this discussion, but I cannot see anywhere where he called anyone a racist. At worst he implied that somebody was exhibiting systemic bias by trying to treat topics in different part of the world with an equal level of expected sourcing. If Adam thought Phil was implying he was a racist, then I can understand why he might have got cross, but pretty much the first action you should take in a civility dispute is to check you haven't just misunderstood the other person - very often, it turns out to be the case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In this diff on October 19th where he removed one of my PRODs, which was after the AfD, he said "I hope it's not racism" at the end of his changeset comment. Counting the AfD, that's at least twice. Unfortunately I cleaned out a lot of my watchlist a week ago so that's all I could find, but there is other instances of him saying things. Including before the AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: I'd say right here: You are nominating the top schools in Africa for deletion, but ignoring the many run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries that have articles. I'm trying to stretch the assumption of good faith here, but I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here. "unsavoury agenda" means racism. Lev!vich 17:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for telling me about this discussion, User:Ritchie333. I will not make any comment about the substantive issue here, to avoid any suspicion of canvassing, but must point out that behavioral issues belong elsewhere, so let's all just talk here about whether the AfD outcome was correct. If anyone wants to raise my behaviour at an appropriate place then I will happily discuss it. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there was a keep consensus, but I certainly do not endorse the use of an AfD close as a platform to talk about a user's behaviour. This is problematic because AfD closes aren't supposed to be edited, and the effect of that is to deny the target the right of reply. I don't believe I've ever seen anything of the kind before, and I've had DRV on my watchlist for a dozen years now.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - First, about the article itself because that's what the AfD is supposed to be about: It needs more sources included but a quick search does turn up hits and they get significant coverage. I tend to lean inclusionist. I won't apologize for that. Something that is important in my area of the world may mean nothing to someone in South Africa. It doesn't mean it is or isn't notable. Ultimately the consensus was to keep and would be that again if relisted.
Secondly, an AfD is not a place to discuss anyone's behavior but can be used to point out a history of issues, not on the AfD, but elsewhere. I don't know, Adamant, so to say or insinuate they are racist is a big deal. I can see where they would be upset if it was perceived that way. As a side note: A person can use biased and even racist language without being a racist themselves. Not saying Phil did that or Adamant is that. If anyone feels like the inflammatory language used by a specific editor goes too far, like possibly over multiple discussions they have with others, then that should be brought up on an admin discussion board. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I used "seem" in the nomination to maybe help combat the near endless attacks by the "inclusionist" crowd when they found a source that the nominator didn't do a BEFORE. I would think you'd have a less petty reason to endorse a close. Last time I checked there are no rules about what words someone can use in a nomination. There's nothing wrong with someone saying "from what I can tell there are no sources" and it's an extremely banal to act like there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 (talk · contribs), have you read WP:RENOM? The use of “seems” makes you sound uncommitted to your own opinion. I endorse the close as an obvious endorse, the nomination didn’t persuade anyone. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed something wrong with saying "from what I can tell there are no sources". That statement is empty rhetoric. To give it substance, say what you did to look for sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that. There should be an assumption of good faith that the nominator did their due diligence looking for sources if they say they did without them having to list every search term they used, database they looked through, key one their keyboard they pressed, etc. etc. It's not a "empty rhetoric" for someone to say they looked for sources. If they did, then its just statement of fact and claiming otherwise is just nitpicking as a way to dismiss for no reason another persons work offhand as not valid. Even if nominators list exactly what they did people will just find another petty reason to dismiss their nomination anyway. So, personally, I'm not going to waste my time on it. Nor do I have to. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. On wording advice, I would say: change “ This school doesn't seem notable.” to “This school is not notable, because there are no non-primary sources”, and keep the rest. Admittedly this is small wording, but I notice that it affects the flow of the discussion. After that, more importantly, is User:AleatoryPonderings’ (06:15, 7 September 2020) eight sources. It’s tedious, but it requires a source by source analysis. Minimally, examine the first WP:THREE, and if all 3 fail, he is rebutted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is then I'd saying it's an absolute and that I'm authority on what's notable. Neither of which would be the case. WP:AFD explicitly says "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." If anyone could 100% say for certain that something is notable or not, then there would be no need for a discussion about it. Notability isn't a black and white thing anyway and obviously anyone who takes an position one way or another is just giving their opinion. If you want to talk about "empty rhetoric", saying you know for sure something isn't notable is the epitome of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I get what your saying. Wikipedia-notability is confusing. I point to the WP:GNG being a set of objective criteria. Go through each source. It is reliable and reputable published (eg not a blog, not youtube). Does it make comment about the topic, minimum about two running sentences for a maybe. Is the publication, and it’s author(s), independent of the topic? When someone lists a bunch of putative notability attesting sources, you have to start by explaining why they don’t. In this AfD, that analysis didn’t happen, and the discussion derailed, and so “delete” was not a possible close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I got into the habit of writing "seems" and "appears" in my AFD noms after repeatedly being accused of lying for saying, e.g. something didn't meet GNG or that searching Google news didn't bring up any GNG-satisfying sources. Lev!vich 02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“accused of lying” is incivilly strong, but otherwise thats unsurprising. Be specific and measured, and reproducible, eg “the top ten google news hits include no GNG-meeting sources”, and even then, it’s better to point to the specific aspect of failure, non reliable, non independent, none providing direct comment on the topic. I think it is fair that the onus for the most work lies with the nominator, otherwise use the article talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean do a source analysis pointing to specific aspects of failure, like this? What's the response? From Phil: The fact that the nominator says that it "appears to be a paid death notice" when the very link that he provided shows that it is in fact an obituary casts severe doubt on whether we can believe all his other statements above. There's Phil, finding one mistake, and saying I cannot be believed because of it. Mmm. Here is one without a source analysis, in which I'm accused of ignoring BEFORE. Meanwhile, here are some where there is no source analysis at all, and it's just straight delete. [2] [3] [4]. With those ones, nobody attacked me because nobody disagreed with the nom. The point is: it's not the nomination statement that makes a difference, Joe, it's the participants. Some participants routinely attack nominators no matter what. And it'd be great if AFD closers and DRV participants would pay attention and help improve the toxicity of AFDs. (Rather than blame the victim.) Lev!vich 14:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Levivich, you have my sympathy for sure. But sorry. “Does not appear” is not a good nom lede, and it invites criticism of the nominator. Unfairly perhaps. On that article, it is WP:PROF. Few seem to appreciate ... WP:PROF *predates* and enjoys independent consensus to “Wikipedia-notability”, and it specifically is the sole SNG with consensus for keeping topics that fail the WP:GNG as written, black letter literalistic reading. Seventy year old academics with over 100 publications will have their biography kept even if no one ever has written about them. Why do people attack? I think people go on the attack when the ground rules are so unclear. My answer: Do not talk GNG on PROF articles. I have put a lot of effort on Wikipedia into understand Wikipedia-notability including WP:PROF and including lengthy discussions with the two David’s, and it’s hard to explain, but they are right. I suggest staying away from academics if you are not connected to academics. Feel free to AfD fake academics, such as recent graduates with an h index under ten or twenty, and who do not have a university staff page and lab page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: see my response to SmokeyJoe. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Or don't see the bludgeoning of the DRV process by User:Adamant1. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was easier to do a second AfD eventually if an article is closed as no consensus. Which is the only reason I did the DvR. If that's the case, then my bad. If so though,then it does matter which flavor of close there is. Adamant1 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an article was correctly deleted is decided on the basis of the AfD discussion, not the wish of the nominator to nominate once again an article on a school in Africa. Can you please explain why you consider schools in Africa to be less notable than those in Western Anglophone countries, because I still cant see a valid reason for your campaign against them. And, no, my reference to "Western Anglophone countries" is not racist at all, despite your comment in the AfD that it is "semi-racist" and something that has no "meaning or usefulness outside of Klan rally". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not racism, then what did "I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here" refer to? What was the unsavory agenda you couldn't help feeling? Lev!vich 19:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate issue. My comment above was, very clearly if you read it, a rebuttal of the nominator's explicit claim that referring to "Western Anglophone countries" is racist. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so you insinuated racism, just in a different quote. Lev!vich 19:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is outside the remit of DRV. If you think there are behavioural problems which need to be addressed, you know where ANI is (though I personally find nothing wrong with what Phil's actions.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reported him to ANI. Hopefully that will deal with things. Since he seems completely unwilling at this point to give up the smear campaign on his own. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentObviously. I never said it should be decided by the desire of the nominator. Obviously there's a difference between a keep and a no consensus close or everything that's not delete would be closed as keep. Also, I don't see me nominator a few African schools is a campaign against them or "Africa." Nowhere in my AfDs or anywhere else did I say that the nominations have anything to do with "Africa." Your the only one's that framing it that way and your the one who brought up race, or what continent/culture or whatever your arguement is that the articles are based on, multiple times and for a while now. So I don't get what your point is. Except that you clearly don't articles being deleted and you have no better arguement to keep it from happening. As a side thing, I by my KKK comment. I'm pretty sure I said in the AfD (or maybe somewhere else) that it's completely ridiculous and racely/culturally ignorant to treat people from places like the Congo and Egypt as the same thing ethnically just because both are located in Africa. The only place where doing so is a KKK rally where other ignorant "Western Anglophones" are going to nodes their heads and agree because everyone from the continent (even South African whites) are just black to them. Again though, your the one that brought it up and made it about that in the first place. I could ultimately give a shit where the schools I'm nominating are located or what ethnicity the pupils of the schools are. Not that I should have to defend myself to every race bating person that comes along in the first place though. Its actually a pretty common, trite line of attack on here and I find it rather borish, because its so damn played out and meaningless at this point. Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close was quite reasonable. The nominator should not given any encouragement to make further nominations as this would be contrary to our deletion policy, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I would have waited the obligatory six months. I'll still probably renominate it anyway. Last time I checked, I can do that. People re-nominate articles all the time. I just thought no-consensus was a "truer" outcome because the only keep vote was a "weak keep." I could ultimately care less either way though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um... what? A policy that says it can be disruptive... should not be interpreted to mean that a re-nomination is always disruptive in every possible circumstance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus without prejudice to speedy renom - Normally I wouldn't fuss about overturning a keep to NC, but Andrew Davidson's comment above reminded me of why the difference is a real one. This AFD was poisoned right here with this comment. At that point, nobody had yet made a formal vote, and after someone suggests that "there is an unsavoury agenda here", no one is going to want to join in, especially not to !vote delete. After that point, with the exception of one weak keep, every comment was about the racism accusation. That's a poisoned discussion, and that's why the relist (and a relist at this point) won't make a difference: no one wants to join a discussion where someone on one side is accusing someone on the other side of an unsavory agenda. It should have been closed as no consensus, and if someone still thinks the topic is not notable (taking into account the new sources), they can re-nom it and have a new discussion. I realize this is a futile !vote, but a discussion like this shouldn't be endorsed. Lev!vich 02:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Discussions are not "poisoned" by a single sentence that someone posts. If that was the case, it would be quite easy to "poison" any discussion, making any particular outcome invalid. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I've been of the opinion for a while now that one of the main reasons keep voters (including you) spew vitriol everywhere is because it turns off delete voters, who clearly don't appreciate it or want it pointed toward them, from participating. Really, I can't say I blame or anyone else who does it. Since it's clearly effective and realistically 99% of the time spewing vitriol to turn off anyone from voting delete is the only way the articles you do it in are kept. Plus, it's not like there's ever any consequences for it. So..... --Adamant1 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine what you mean, or why it would be relevant here. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can. It was relevant as a response to your comment that AfDs discussions can't be "poisoned." Their poisoned all the time by the almost endless personal attacks and other disparaging messages you and other keep voters write. I'm sure you and the other people wouldn't make the comments in the first place if they had zero effect on things. It wasn't just a single sentence in this case either. Phil Bridger wrote multiple disparaging comments. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're complaining about being warned for making personal attacks. You are now launching personal attacks at me, with no evidence. How does this prove that you are a victim in this case? — Toughpigs (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm complaining that an AfD with only a single weak keep vote was closed as keep. When IMO it should be closed as no consensus. Which I've been extremely clear about. As far as if my comment is "making personal attacks", it's just a fact, supported by clear evidence, that almost every other comment made by you and other keep voters in AfDs are either direct personal attacks or some other kind of slight. In no is that a personal attack any more then me saying Phil Bridger insinuated I'm a racist is, it's just reality. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you have clear evidence. Can you show me any evidence that "almost every other comment" made by me in AfD discussions is a direct personal attack on you? — Toughpigs (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I didn't say the comments were just directed toward me. You do seem to have a habit of Strawmaning though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to retract your statement above that I "spew vitriol everywhere"? — Toughpigs (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to not make back handed comments in your votes like "I apologize if anyone finds this comment mentally taxing" anymore? Until that happens, no I wouldn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse while I am disturbed by some of the statements made during the course of the discussion, the close itself was a reasonable evaluation of the consensus. However, this outcome does not rule out another AfD in six months. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:05, 24 October 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.
Calamba Medical Center (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed as "delete". There were only 2 votes: 1 delete and 1 keep (voted by yours truly). The rationale of the other who voted to delete it isn't strong enough to establish a consensus for deletion. He stated that references in the article are missing when, in fact, anyone can find sources about it. It was relisted once, but no one participated aside from the nominator who responded to my vote. IMV, the discussion should've been overturned as no consensus or, better yet, relisted for the second time. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 08:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia's declining editor numbers mean that some discussions attract low participation nowadays and we can't just keep relisting multiple times, because that sucks attention away from other discussions which will themselves need to be relisted, creating a snowballing problem of lack of AfD participation. It's a problem that can only be resolved, over the long term, by sysop willingness to close low-participation discussions.
    I agree that the sources listed by the only editor who opposed deletion were of unusually poor quality. But with all that said, I don't perceive a "delete" consensus in that debate.—S Marshall T/C 09:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer: Astig's argument for keep was convincingly rebutted by the nominator and since there was no follow-up discussion after 3 days, I assumed that was uncontested. That left two policy-based !votes for delete and one for keep that was deweighted. In my view that was both sufficient participation and a consensus for deletion. It's also worth noting that this was part of a batch of nominations of articles about hospitals in the Philippines [5][6][7][8], several of which had higher participation, and all were either deleted or redirected. Had I seen those before this one, I might have closed as a redirect to List of hospitals in the Philippines per WP:ATD, which could also be a good outcome here. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question presented is whether delete is a reasonable outcome. With a 2-1 result and the sources provided in favour of keeping being thoroughly discussed, I think the outcome from the perspective of the closer was indeed reasonable. However, I think the source analysis was wrong - I think they are secondary and pass WP:GNG. I know this isn't the place to relitigate an AfD, but perhaps a relist would be worthwhile, since I'm not sure this gets us to a correct result. SportingFlyer T·C 13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC I've said above this was a 2-1 vote, but looking at this again I don't agree with one of the delete !votes now that sources were provided (that advocated deletion on the basis the article was unreferenced, but lacking references in the article is not a notability problem - as an example we wouldn't delete Nicola Sturgeon if her article lacked references), so I think no consensus is the correct result here if you correctly downweight that vote. SportingFlyer T·C 21:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC no objection to an additional relist. The one !vote for deletion addressed the state of the article, not the topic. The keep !vote provided sources, the nom argued why they aren't great. We don't have a consensus for anything. Hobit (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist relisting a debate with minimal participation a second time is perfectly reasonable. Hut 8.5 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The close of Delete is a valid conclusion from the discussion. Not adding anything to that statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - sources were presented that realistically meet at least more or less WP:N, and we rebutted but not successfully by the nominator asserting that they're "interviews", which is largely untrue (they have a couple comments from probably requests for comment or public statements, as you'd expect any responsible report to do, but they're not interviews). No perponderence of the headcount, no preponderance of the arguments, no consensus. No consensus would allow a fairly quick renomination, if desired, which is probably wiser than a re-open, but that last bit is, of course, just a guess. WilyD 07:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Either no consensus or delete would have been acceptable, so the closing administrator didn't get this wrong. Overturning or reopening because you think people should have voted keep isn't really in DRV's jurisdiction. Reyk YO! 08:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reyk, I NEVER said or think that people should have voted to keep the article. It just needs a little more time to get a fair and clear consensus, just like the similar AfD. And I NEVER meddle with anyone who voted to keep or delete or redirect it. Ain't nobody got time for arguing with them. Don't be judgmental with what I think. 🙂 ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 01:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nominator is presumed to support deletion as well, and two-thirds in favour is a rough consensus to delete. The strength of arguments was not materially different on either side. Relisting debates incessantly is discouraged. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC or relist. One delete !vote failed to address the question of notability, leaving us with one editor on each side. While the delete argument is probably stronger, one person does not a consensus make. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer provided no explanation and appears not to have read the nomination which stated clearly that the issue was "...to decide a redirect is appropriate or not". Redirects are not created by deletion and so the closer appears to have not considered alternatives. Such action is contrary to WP:DGFA, which emphatically states that "When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The "keep" argument was rebutted, as the sources provided were challenged. Now, a quick glance tells me I'm not necessarily in agreement with how those sources were characterized by the nominator, but no one rebutted the rebuttal, and several days passed before closure, enough for interested parties to examine the sources and discuss them, which the "keep" participant did not further do. Therefore I assume the closer took the argument at face value, and there's no reason to do otherwise. A relist, or a no-consensus, or a delete closure would have been reasonable. As one of the reasonable actions took place, I endorse the closure. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 October 2020

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

The closing comment was "consensus to keep". I see no evidence of that in the AfD, which contains two keep !votes (one with very minimal source support), two delete !votes, and two redirect !votes (one of which was my own). It was relisted four times so a further relisting seems counterproductive, but I see no consensus here. Given that as it would have likely been closed as no consensus anyway, perhaps this is a moot point, but I think some more eyes on this would be helpful. Oh, and as it turns out the closer, Ravenzing, is an indeffed sock! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs a speedy overturn. Socks don't have standing to close AfDs, and you had to be a sysop to close that one because of the need to revdel the copyright-violating edits identified in the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the discussion, it looks like Overturn to redirect; man alive, I don't want to see a four times relisted AfD re-opened. I'm surprised a Kenny Loggins album doesn't have the sources for an article, but of course could be recreated later when someone digs 'em up. WilyD 09:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed this needs a speedy overturn. It doesn't need to be relisted, it needs to be annulled and re-closed by an experienced administrator as a crystal clear burn the house down WP:BADNAC. SportingFlyer T·C 11:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn. Firstly, socks don't have standing to close AfDs. Secondly, even if the closer wasn't a sock it's still a crystal clear BADNAC. Thirdly, even if this had been closed by an admin in good standing it should still be overturned because the consensus was clearly to not retain this article. Reyk YO! 12:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as No Consensus: As one of the two who voted to keep the article, neither do I see a clear consensus in the AfD. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as No Consensus WP:BADNAC The only logical close IMO. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 20 October 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.
Thomas A. Russo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

He is a notable businessman, as cited in Who's Who in America, 100 Most Influential Lawyers, and the Futures Hall of Fame, as well as many notable business accomplishments. Mdr90 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 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 October 2020

edit
  • Society of Cinematographers – I don't see a consensus to overturn the "delete" close. There's no need for me to determine whether a consensus to endorse exists, since the original close stands either way. T. Canens (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:American Society of Cinematographers members (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Category:Members of the British Society of Cinematographers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Inappropriate deletion that was dependent on ignorant claims that the Societies violate WP:OCAWARD combined with limited involvement. ASC and BSC are societies not and just awards-dispensing infrastructures, so those who sought deletion downplayed the nature of these organizations. For example, ASC's own website says, "Neither a labor union nor a guild, the ASC is an education, cultural, and professional organization. Membership is by invitation only, extended to directors of photography who have demonstrated outstanding ability with distinguished credits in the industry and good personal character." Furthermore, these organizations do give out awards, and WP:OCAWARD would apply in forbidding categories of awards recipients, and membership is distinct from receiving awards and is more involved. There are also numerous societies that have membership-based categories as seen here. What differentiates these from ASC and BSC? Should these categories be deleted too? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Learned society" is the differentiator, I think. ASC and BSC aren't scientific or academic societies. We don't, for example, have a category for members of the Academy, even though that is also by invitation only. Lev!vich 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand that these societies aren't "learned". What is the guideline that disqualifies the cinematography organizations, though? Being a member seems to be a defining characteristic. From what I can tell, membership is selective like a learned society would be. Roger Deakins indicates on his own website, "CBE, ASC, BSC". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the consensus in the discussion was that being a member was not a defining characteristic. In other words, being a member of a selective organization is not, in and of itself, a defining characteristic, just because the organization is selective. (Neither is putting letters after a name; registered nurse (RN) isn't a defining characteristic.) American Cinema Editors is a parallel example: we don't have a category for members of ACE, we just categorize some people under ACE. "Defining" doesn't mean "important", it means "differentiating". For example, Oscar-winners are perceived to be "the best" among actors. Being an actor is defining for a person, but being an Oscar-winner is defining for an actor: it separates an actor from other actors. People will say, "An Oscar-winning actor" when they talk about an actor who has won an Academy Award. Membership in ASC and ACE is not like that. People don't say, "He's not just some cinematographer, he's an ASC cinematographer!" And that's because pretty much every professional American cinematographer belongs to ASC. Even though membership is selective, it's really a professional designation, like registered nurse, and the selectivity is about marking someone's education and experience, that is, marking that someone is a bona-fide professional, but not so much marking their accomplishments within the profession. Fellowship in the society is what does that. Now that I've re-argued the AFD :-) my point is that I don't see grounds to discount the !votes based on the argument that the category is not defining, so I'm not seeing a reason to overturn the close. Lev!vich 20:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator didn't actually want to delete, and with that in mind I don't see a clear "delete" consensus in that discussion. I'm not confident that "delete" was the correct close.—S Marshall T/C 09:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are really two consensuses in this discussion, a slight consensus to rename and a slight consensus to delete. I think the fairest result would be to overturn the deletion and rename the American category to "Members of the American..." per Oculi in that discussion, and then Relist these categories in a new discussion specifically on deletion so that WP:OCAWARD can be discussed (I believe it applies and would vote to delete these, but there needs to be a separate discussion.) That being said, I don't think it's fair to delete something when the discussion was explicitly predicated on renaming, even if they should ultimately be deleted. (Also note I'm really not all that far off from just saying endorse, this was a correct reading of consensus.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How does WP:OCAWARD apply? While the ASC gives out awards like American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Theatrical Releases, no one here is arguing for categories for these awards recipients. This is about membership, and WP:OCAWARD only talks about award winners, honorary citizens, and people with honorary degrees. These are either one-off or otherwise uninvolved recognitions. Society membership is not one-off, nor is it uninvolved. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, it looks as if there may have been some confusion as to whether the membership is an award or a membership, so it looks as if a straight-up endorse might not be on the table here. But I do think there is a reasonable question as to whether these are defining categories, and would still recommend a relist, or at least not prejudice a further, targeted deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 15:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Given the arguments presented (note: there were 4 editors arguing to delete and 1 to keep) of the options the closer had (keep/nc,  delete, leave/relist again) delete was a reasonable call. Relist again would also have been a reasonable call (but IMO would probably have resulted in the same consensus).
The OPs main/only argument appears to be that "membership is distinct from receiving awards" (and hence that OCAWARD doesn't apply and hence presumably that the closer should have discounted arguments referring to it), but there's a large overlap (e.g. we say things like "she was awarded membership in ... society"). DexDor (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Participants didn't misunderstand the category to be a category of award winners, but they expressed the view that membership of a professional body is a similar case of overcategorization because it is normally non-defining. That view had clear consensus and it is not at odds with applicable policies and guidelines. Sandstein 08:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Dex and Sandstein and my earlier comments. Lev!vich 05:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 October 2020

edit

17 October 2020

edit
  • Sack Trick – endorsed, both by a rough consensus here and then further developments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Dale (2nd nomination). The possible redirect target has now been deleted (then redirected afterwards) based on a significantly better-attended second AfD, and nobody's seriously arguing for redirecting one of Chris Dale's bands to a different one. The dispute regarding this AfD, therefore, is both moot as well as being broadly supported by the participants here, several of whom were already predicting the outcome of Chris Dale's second AfD. ~ mazca talk 20:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sack Trick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The arguments on both sides for redirect and delete were about equal, and there is no good reason why the band and albums should not redirect to Chris Dale so long as the musician article exists. The AFD was relisted a third time without justification. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's really no time limit for AfDs which were closed as non-consensus, though renominating a contentious non-consensus isn't a good idea. This was not contentious, it was as poorly attended as an AfD can be. SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment Normally I am all about redirecting as an alternative to deletion. It's policy for a good reason. However, in this case we have a redirect target that was (appropriately) closed as no consensus owing to a lack of participation and which multiple !voters in this discussion expressed concern about on notability grounds. This is further complicated because that target also has, if I understand the arguments correctly, a potential redirect target itself (the notable band). Redirecting about Sack Trick and their album to a member of the band might give a reader useful information but a whole different band would not be an appropriate redirect target and so in the spirit of NOTBURO I closed this as a delete rather than redirect consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the arguments on both sides were not equal. The five "delete" !votes were based on the article not meeting WP:N or WP:V due to lack of sourcing; a policy-based rationale. The two redirect !votes were not policy based, and did not even have any reasoning. "Redirect to band member Chris Dale" and "Redirect to Chris Dale until that article is deleted" do provide any reasoning whatsoever. The rest of the discussion was procedural. This couldn't have been closed in any other way IMO than "delete all". Lev!vich 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect because until the redirect target gets deleted (which it will unless someone finds a lot of sources) there is no good reason not to have it (and no one has provided anything that seems like a relevant argument). Folks WP:CHEAP. We redirect whenever there is a single obvious target and it might be useful. I really really wish AfD would stop getting into RfD's stuff. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect. I read that discussion expecting to see the "compelling reason" why the title shouldn't be redirected, but all I can see is the fact that an AfD on the target article was closed as no consensus, which doesn't mean anything. AfDs are supposed to achieve an active consensus to delete something and even most of the people supporting deletion weren't opposed to a redirect. Hut 8.5 19:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/moot. The closer correctly interpreted consensus. There was no equal argument for redirection—aside for Dale's AfD closing as "no quorum", there was and is clarity that Dale's article would be redirected or deleted, as is about to happen in its second AfD, making this point moot. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 October 2020

edit

15 October 2020

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

The current page was created in 2018 but re-uses the title of a page that was deleted in 2008. Perhaps the current article at Garbage ball should be merged into Ball (association football), but it contains information not contained elsewhere and deserves to be evaluated on its own merit, not the result of the review of a different article with the same name. IGTaylor (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Garbage_ball RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is there a request for administrative action that is within the scope of this forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Would it be best to put this to AfD so that we can establish consensus? My personal opinion is that there isn't enough notability to satisfy WP:GNG but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Spiderone 07:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand what the nominator actually wants to occur? They have already reverted the decision to redirect the title to another article, so what is the purpose of this DRV......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close DRV, send to AfD there was a discussion on a project talk page about redirecting this, but the redirect was undone by the page's creator. DRV is not the right venue for this discussion at this time, there needs to be another AfD discussion since the redirect was boldly reverted. The AfD needn't be set up by the DRV closer, either. SportingFlyer T·C 12:47, 16 October 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.
Chiratae Ventures (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A couple of days ago, an editor went in and marked the article for a speedy deletion and another editor went ahead and speedy deleted this article. The reasoning given, G12, was that this was violative of copyrights. However, the site that is being mentioned seems to have mirrored content from Wikipedia. Also, the mirror site was created around September 22, 2020, [9] while this article has been active much before that. I believe this simple check might have been missed before marking this as a copyvio. Furthermore, there is a mention of G11, unambiguous promotion, which was already discussed on the AfD which was closed a few weeks ago. In summary, I do not believe that this article qualified to be deleted 'speedily' and would want this group's assistance in restoring this page. Ktin (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy undelete Just looks like an error. It's not eligible for a G11 [10] and the G12 just looks like a (limited) Wikipedia mirror. Hobit (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a request was made to the deleting admin who has not been online for a day; I would expect the need for a seven-day DRV listing could have been avoided by being a little more patient and a little less quick on the draw to list here, but we are where we are. The link mentioned above is clearly a Wikipedia mirror so a G12 cannot stand, and the article has been kept at AFD so is ineligible for G11. It follows that deletion process has not been correctly followed on this occasion and therefore the deletion should be overturned and the article restored. I see no need for a new AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above, but give Liz a little more time to deal with this herself if she cares to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad -- did you mean to tag Moneytrees instead of Liz? If the former, I think they have not logged in (based on their last edit) for ~4-5 days now. Please ignore my note if Liz has the ball on this one. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ktin, This was an erroneous deletion on my part as I didn't see it was a mirror.... I thought I removed the bit about G11, which it wasn't. I'll restore. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 15:36, 19 October 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.
Rajeev Jha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page Rajeev Jha should not be deleted and it should be restored either he will be not safe from the government of Nepal because in past Nepal government have killed several people belong to Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha. Rajeev Jha and his team already had peace talk with Nepal government and they are in the main stream politic rather gun politic like Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha.

At the moment Rajeev Jha page is redirected to Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha page and it clearly give threat to Rajeev Jha life from different arm struggling group in Nepal and India also from Nepal government.

Rajeev Jha was general secretary of Rastriya Janata Party Nepal but in 2020, Rastriya Janata Party Nepal merged with another political party Samajbadi Party, Nepal and become People's Socialist Party, Nepal.

At the moment, Rajeev Jha hold the central member of the newly formed party and it can be verified from the recent press release from the People's Socialist Party, Nepal Sujit 01:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • This is a bit of an odd request - here at DRV we look to see if the deletion discussion was proper, and it seems to me that it was, though it was lightly attended. If you are saying that the article should be restored, I'd be happy to support writing a draft which clearly passes WP:GNG, which is our notability guideline. If you need the redirect to point somewhere else, then that new page must be updated with verifiable information and we can make that happen very easily. What outcome are you looking for? SportingFlyer T·C 11:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Deletion review is a venue for raising issues where the deletion process has not been correctly followed. It is not for making or repeating arguments from the AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 16 October 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 October 2020

edit
  • Pretty Nose – closure endorsed. This was a review of an unusual deletion discussion. It raised many interesting questions about the exact nature of notability and how it overlaps with the verifiability policy, and ultimately ended up providing a fairly compelling and rare example of where exceptions to the written notability guidelines do lie, while remaining within the requirements of verifiability. The discussion itself was clearly numerically in favour of keep and, ultimately, was closed as such, and most participants here have agreed with Barkeep49's justification of it. The DRV consensus is clear that this was a good read of the discussion, despite the irregularities regarding who was closing it, and potentially some ongoing disputes around the lead section and content. ~ mazca talk 20:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pretty Nose (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer’s rationale was: “For a discussion that by headcount is overwhelmingly keep this discussion brings up rather complex and thoughtfully advanced questions about notability. Those who feel this topic should be deleted rely on our standard measures ways of interpreting notability including the General Notability Guideline and argue, sometimes with a great deal of lament, that this subject simply does not meet our standards. For those feel this is a topic that should be kept the argument is not so straightforward but essentially suggests when looking at the totality of the information that notability has been established.

In cases like these the first question to ask is whether there is verifiable information about this topic, as notability requires evidence. While sources were presented which do not have information about this topic, and some general discussion about what place oral histories have in verifiability, there is a consensus that the information in the article is verifiable. The crux of the discussion therefore is not whether verifiable information exists, but whether enough such information exists and whether what exists adds up to enough that a standalone article is appropriate coverage of the topic. Ultimately the consensus of editors weigh in is that the answer to both those questions is yes and as such we have a consensus to keep the article.”

The closer was incorrect in concluding that: (i) the information in the article is verifiable; and (ii) that sufficient verifiable information exists to establish notability. The subject lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to meet WP:GNG and we lack even the most basic biographical detail such as date of birth, date of death and other major claims about her, these include: (a) which tribe she belonged to; (b) whether or not she was a War Chief, an assertion only made by one of her relatives; and (c) her claimed involvement in the Battle of Little Bighorn, when she isn’t mentioned in 14 books on the subject. The discussion was also characterized by actual or implied charges of racism by some of the Keep voters.

The closing review was started by User:DGG, who due to personal reasons was unable to complete the review before it was taken over by the closer. On the talk page: [[11]] DGG stated that they would have moved the page to draft for repurposing as "Photograph of Pretty Nose" while another proposal was that the page should be a redirect to Laton Alton Huffman, the photographer who took her photo with any relevant detail included there, either of those would be an acceptable outcome. Instead the page has been kept and the dubious claims regarding Pretty Nose as a War Chief have been moved into the lede. Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 
"This is a featured picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia, adding significantly to its accompanying article"
.
  • Endorse The close was a reasonable summary of the discussion. The only procedural irregularity was DGG's close that didn't happen. That was quite odd; I can't remember ever seeing anything like that before at AfD. They were given over a week in which to get it done and the delay was becoming disruptive as it was generating a discussion within the discussion. Kudos to Barkeep49 for their courage in stepping up to resolve the matter. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse'I urged Mztourist not to bring this DRV. Though I was rather annoyed at Barkeep for impatience, it's more my fault than his. Anyway, though I would have closed differently, but the close was not unreasonable. What uis unreasonable is some of the claims made int he article, particularly in the lede sentence. The designation of her as a :war chief is based on what her grandson remembers from seing whart she was wearing when he visited her whenshe was 102 years old. If we needed an example to ilustrate the critical approach needed to take account of oral tradition, this would be a prime example--and it applies not just to the use of oral sources but to the proper use of primary sources generally. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse what I thought was a an excellent closing rationale. If there is no (or no substantial) verifiable information on the topic of an article then the article should be deleted. But nobody at AFD argued that case (not even the DRV nominator here) so the AFD-closer was right rule out lack of verifiability as a reason for deletion. The arguments for deletion were entirely based on notability and those are guidelines intended to help us assess carefully whether it is appropriate to have an article on the topic in question. WP:GNG are not rules to be enforced against editors' thoughtful opinion. We quite often do not have specific details of a person's date of birth or death, etc, and these are also not reasons for deletion. Of course there can now be talk page discussion about a change of title, rewording the contents regarding fact or opinion, redirecting and so on. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - It’s been nominated for deletion twice and improved/clarified enough this last time that it’s so much improved that neither the intended closer nor the actual closer (tell me this is a weird circumstance, folks!) would have deleted it. Pretty Nose is the subject of that photograph and that combined with biographical info we know from the Al Jazeera article has her meeting WP:GNG. If Mztourist is talking about me, I’d like to clarify something and have them edit their deletion review rationale to be correct. I’m the one who suggested a possible merge to the photographer (as a supplement to my keep/alternative to deletion and only a few hours after seeing the Black Coyote article deleted in spite of improvements and a majority of keep votes); I never said Pretty Nose should be a redirect. See 1. I believe preserving a better option than deletion or a draft that’ll languish where no one can read about it, especially when it is such a common photograph and people should be able to learn it. I would be fine with renaming the article for the photograph as DGG said as that is arguably what Pretty Nose will be forever known for, but that wasn’t brought up in the discussion. In short, there is enough here that it should not be deleted or a draft but an article of whatever kind. Regarding reasons why folks want the article deleted, the provenance of “war chief” and the Little Bighorn information is being scrutinized. It’s neither rightfully or wrongfully so. That can be (and possibly currently is) covered in the article with “she was, according to her descendant…” Regarding the subject not being in 14 of the books about the Little Big Horn: I don’t know whether she will or won’t be in the plethora of other books or countless other articles about it, but I do believe that with Mark Soldier Wolf coming forward with their family story, she is likely to be in subsequent books about these topics. Not saying to keep based on this, but let’s recognize the study of history as being organic and not stagnant. Note that the result was not delete with the three people who were to or did close in over two times it was nominated for deletion. It should not be deleted now. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The Keep arguments are based in guideline, there are many reliable sources. The closer had to make a tough choice, they made it, there is nothing wrong with it. SIGCOV is and always has been highly subjective (what is "significant" other than significant enough to be notable, a circular definition intentionally). Mztourist's requirement for "basic biographical details" is not based in policy or guideline, there are many people from ancient history of which we know almost nothing except for their writings. Post-close discussions by DGG are interesting "What if" but the nom fails to mention DGG's strong encouragement to Mztourist not to open this DRV because it would have almost no chance of success. -- GreenC 13:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I also just added "reportedly" because that is exactly what the article says. I opened a talk page discussion days ago and nobody responded. I look forward to working with you on the article. -- GreenC 00:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I see three questions that are being raised here:
        • Is the close a valid conclusion based on the editor inputs and on Wikipedia policies and guidelines?
        • Was the procedure involved in the closing of the AFD one that serves the interest of the Wikipedia community with regard to content?
        • Does any editor who either did or did not take part in the AFD agree with the close?
    • The answer to the first is an unequivocal Yes, and in fact the closer has done far more than was required. The closer, User:Barkeep49, should be thanked again for writing an extremely detailed and well-reasoned close in a contentious discussion. Only the first question is being decided here, so that is an Endorse.
    • The answer to the second question is one that can be addressed to a policy forum. Should there be a procedure for designating particular administrators to close particular AFDs? There isn't such a procedure that I know of. Should there be a procedure for an administrator to start to close an AFD that precludes other closers? At AFC, a reviewer can mark a draft as under review, but that tag indicates that they should be contacted if they have started a review and haven't finished. Should we have such a procedure? If so, how long should an AFD be Pending Close before another closer can start? I think that these questions should be addressed somewhere, probably at Village Pump. But DRV is a content forum, not a policy forum.
    • The third question doesn't matter. The close can be endorsed.
    • There is a fourth question, not raised in this appeal. That is what User:Mztourist wants to do. Find another closer? Overturn to Delete? Overturn to No Consensus? That also doesn't matter, because the close is good.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse the !vote was one sided enough for WP:IAR to apply. If this were a BLP, it would be a very different story. But it isn't. On top of that the arguments for keeping aren't horrible. A bit of a stretch, but not horrible. Hobit (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to be clear, WP:V is met. There is plenty for us to say here based on the sources. It's just that we aren't sure what the underlying reality is. We can make that clear. And frankly, that's not all that different than a lot of history. Hobit (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was a reasonable read of the discussion. It's a shame the discussion veered off the rails somewhat. Reasonable people might have held different opinions, which the discussion might have benefited from at the time had they contributed, but that is neither here nor there now. Congratulations are due to DGG on their growing family, and thanks due to the closer Barkeep who stepped in appropriately to make a well-explained close. A "No consensus" close would have been defensible as well, but since they're pretty close in implications, and the "Keep" close made is sensible, it's hardly worth debating. Martinp (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I based my support above on the hope that it would be possible to write a verifiable article, and I assume that Barkeep made a similar assumption, that a verifiable article was possible. This has even in these few days proven not to be the case. The key statement is justified by trivial comment, not reliable oral evidence. Those who support the use of oral evidence ought to make sure they at least do have respectably strong oral evidence--the acceptance of this content will be used as an argument by those who would reject all such sourcing. What is being now excused as IAR was actually false and disruptive claims of prejudice. I am not prepared to ignore the basic foundational principle of WP:V., and that's really the issue here. The argument that the subject, though not in any previous book or other serious work on the subject, will be in future books is unfortunately correct--other sources will copy Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It now says "reportedly". I opened a talk page discussion days ago, no one chose to participate. I look forward to working with you through any wording concerns. -- GreenC 01:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete or draftify. I disagree with the closer that "there is a consensus that the information in the article is verifiable". Instead, looking at the discussion, one sees that the "keep" side's arguments mostly amount to "she's notable as a war chief", but they generally do not engage in any detail with the "delete" side's well-substantiated arguments establishing that it is not verifiable through reliable sources that she was in fact a war chief or even participated in the Battle of Little Bighorn. Instead, even "keep" opinions admit that "biographical details are scarce" (Pamzeis), "coverage can expected to be scarce for cultural and historic reasons" (BD2412), "sourcing is going to be difficult" (Ser Amantio di Nicolao) or "biographic details are scarce" (Brandmeister). While notability is a matter of judgment and therefore mostly up to local consensus, verifiability, as a core policy, is not. Not even a local consensus of editors may choose to disregard it. The closer should therefore have discounted most "keep" opinions and found a policy-based consensus to delete the article. This does not exclude covering Pretty Nose under an angle that is supported by sources - possibly an article or a section in another article about her photographs or the oral traditions about her might be viable, if there are sources about that. But an article that asserts in Wikipedia's voice that she took part in the battle and/or was a war chief is, based on the evidence presented in the AfD, incompatible with WP:V. Sandstein 08:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck my comment above: Looking at the article more closely, there are in fact sources that assert her status as a war chief, such as VoA. The whole story still lacks proper scholarly sources rather than just media or incidental sourcing, but I can't call it entirely unverifiable. As such this seems in fact more like a question of (dubious) notability, which is a matter of editorial judgment. Sandstein 19:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were, I think, 14 biographical articles on American Indians that were nominated for deletion over 2 days. Those of us who could do decent research work and a churn out perfectly written vote with 2-3 topics in one week can't stand a chance of doing that with 14. By the time I'd done enough research to perhaps edit my vote, we'd been told to make no further comments by an uninvolved admin who seems to be a stickler for relisting rules. The hands of anyone who is going to spend more than an hour per American Indian deletion are tied with that kind of culture at AfD. Writing "according to her descendant" and leaving the "war chief" claim out of the lead is the best move, but overturning because we disagree on how the article is phrased should be addressed on the talk page, not in deletion review. isn't it only a wait of 6 months or a year to try to get it deleted again? Just wait on it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein You will not find scholarly sources on the overwhelming majority of American Indian topics from that time and before. Most topics were purposefully suppressed and even more were discounted because of who the subject was about. It takes a lot longer to find any sources on these subjects than their European or American counterparts. The question then turns to whether Wikipedia decides to acknowledge this and find a way to incorporate these subjects or to stay rigid in the face of it and potentially perpetuate the bias shown against these cultures. You could nominate more than half the articles here on American Indian cultures, figures and subjects but should you? That is the ultimate question. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tsistunagiska, I am aware that due to systemic bias many topics are not as well sourced as we would like them to be. But WP:V, as a core policy, is not negotiable and we have no authority to deviate from it either individually or by local consensus. Our reliance on reliable sources is what gives Wikipedia, as a whole, its value. Sandstein 16:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein I would argue that the very thing you say adds value to Wikipedia serves to cheapen its value and disenfranchise a large swath of people who find the exclusion of these articles, and others, to be distasteful and a continuation of the systemic bias. In its attempt to stay above the fray it has made itself a champion and rally point for systemic bias because of its denial and refusal to use common sense while trying to maintain its integrity and whitewashed appearance. Most of us are trying to create an encyclopedia in good faith, I have to assume that and I believe that, even in the case of those whom I disagree with. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that a claim is dubious or even counterfactual doesn't mean we should delete. That's why we have articles on Bigfoot and Pizzagate and the moon landing conspiracy theories. We can and should explain why some sources call her a war chief, and give the contrary view as well.—S Marshall T/C 08:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What bothers me about DGG's and Sandstein's principled opinions above is that at neither of the two AFDs did anyone claim the article should be deleted on grounds of lack of verifiability. Perhaps they could or should have done so but they did not – the argument was lack of notability. So closer's statement "there is a consensus that the information in the article is verifiable" seems factually correct and I don't think the closer was simply making an assumption of verifiability within the article. When verifiability was not being explicitly challenged no rebuttal could be expected or required. A close of delete could, I think, only be on WP:IAR grounds. For draftify it all hangs out. Thincat (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you have repeated this comment from your Endorse above I will respond to it. My deletion comment was "not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. One well-used picture isn't enough". The lack of multiple RS means WP:V wasn't satisfied. As noted in my review request, there are multiple key issues that are not verified: her tribe, her status as a war chief and her participation in the Battle of Little Big Horn.Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The discussion was clearly in favour of keeping. While the closer could have framed the question as: should keep !voters be overruled when WP:GNG is not met? and deleted the article, this would have been incorrect, as even though many of the keep !voters didn't discuss source anaysis, they did look at the subject holistically and conclude that notability was met. Given the context, this is a perfectly fair and reasonable position to take, so the keep !votes can't be discounted. Good close. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's true that the sourcing for the article is poor, I don't see this close as a bad call, per their closing statement. Huge applause goes to Barkeep49 for stepping up in this difficult time. —Nnadigoodluck███ 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Barkeep49’s closing rationale was thoughtful, and interpreted the consensus and !votes correctly. No procedural errors occurred. The article was improved during the deletion discussion, and there are several editors who are committed to further research to continue to improve it. Netherzone (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion process was properly followed. Could not have reasonably been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse we have not arrived at a point where we choose closers - thankfully. In regard to the Pretty Nose AfD, Barkeep49 closed this AfD after careful consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in response to several remarks above, I do not work on articles where I am encountering this sort of conflict or editing by reverts. Many editors enjoy it, and I know its our standard editing practice. but I think it's unconstructive. I work on articles where there is some possibility I can make a stable improvement. I have a list of a dozen or so articles I have had some involvement with at afd that I think absolutely unjustified for an encyclopedia and that I know will be impossible to remove. This will be added to it. The list serves me as a reminder to avoid the temptation of getting involved again. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I explained the change on the talk page, but if you don't want to be involved, that is fine too. If you ever change your mind, I look forward to working with you again in the future. Regards. -- GreenC 21:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-The article was written and presented with legitimate and easily verifiable sources and did not make suppositions or conclusions not found in those sources. The article has been updated beyond what was even decided after the first nomination. Oral tradition is very important to American Indian history. One can not discount this when reviewing articles about these cultures and especially those about subjects prior to the 1970s when information on American Indians was considered "less important" than those of Euro-American topics. It is prudent to mention, however, that articles should not contain information not found in the sources used to create an article, especially in regards to those on American Indian topics. In my opinion, bringing this up for review only serves to deepen the wounds of the past and cause further division. The deletion of this article would have defied common sense and served to disenfranchise many from the American Indian community that would otherwise be good contributors to this encyclopedia. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the above editors opinion and does not reflect the reality of the discussion. The consensus determined that the totality of the sources provided and the historical significance of the article deemed it worthy of inclusion as the closer noted. It isn't a matter of just "liking the article" as many of the same ones who voted to keep this article, myself included, also voted to delete and merge others due to a lack of sources. If it was based simply on liking an article or a specific POV those same editors would have voted to keep all of them. So the supposition above is unfounded in the reality of the vote across the entire 14 AfD's to delete historically relevant articles on Oglala Sioux American Indians who are notable to them, some well sourced and some not so much. It is equal to us saying that those who voted to delete did so just because they didn't like it which is equal to assuming bad faith on the part of those partaking in the discussion. This tone is quite inflammatory and offensive. It also could be seen as a personal attack on those who voted to keep. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rather rich to accuse me of making a personal attack and assuming "bad faith" when you questioned Mztoutrist's delete !vote with Doesn't belong here? Why? Because it's not European enough? As for the discussion itself, one keep vote read Keep this notable war chief. which is basically "notable person meets notability criteria because they are notable". Also much of the discussion revolved around great misunderstandings on what it meant to be an Arapho war chief or what she did in the battle (a notable historic figure as a war chief; she was a war chief. If I understand correctly, this is akin to being like a four- or five-star general leading a major battle.; etc.) despite no sources actually affirming what that title even meant (I looked and found nothing). So I think its fair to characterize a lot of these little supported support votes as I have above. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have acknowledged, well enough, that I went too far with some of my arguments. Bringing up others responses doesn't relieve you of your attacks and mischaracterizations of others. You can look at the history of other American Indian nations around the Arapaho, like the Sioux, Cherokee, Choctaw, Cheyenne, Apache and Navajo and find clear examples of what a war chief is. Most had peace chiefs and war chiefs. As to whether she was a war chief or not, our opinion one way or another doesn't matter. It's what the sources say. Nothing in the article assumes things not represented in the sources. You argued that the sources did not equal up to pass WP:GNG. That was your opinion. Others had a different opinion and expressed it. The consensus resulted in a keep. A review was requested. Nothing has been brought forward in this review except more of the same opinions along with additional inflammatory language by those who opposed the result of the AfD. She was notable as an Arapaho. She was notable as an American Indian. That was the result of the consensus when applying common sense to policy. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:47, 21 October 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 October 2020

edit
  • Obada Adnan – Speedily closed. The request fails WP:DRVPURPOSE and has no prospect of success, as it does not indicate what exactly the requesting editor wants (e.g., undeleting the article, allowing recreation from draft) and why we should do so (e.g., because there was a procedural error in deleting the article, or because there are new reliable sources about the subject). Sandstein 16:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Obada Adnan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi, I know it’s been only 2 months since the last deletion review request, but I would like to request again for the last time (before the protection ends) Before I start, I’m sorry for every administrator I was rude/disrespectful with.

I will mention the websites that wrote about him, but before that, do you want the websites that fully talk about him in detail and the websites that wrote only about him(not in detail(filmography)), or with the websites that only mentioned him?

By the way, he will be a star in an upcoming Jordanian series as he mentioned on his Instagram page.

Again, I’m sorry to every administrator I was disrespectful with. Alex1981march (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 October 2020

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

:Fiction set in the 21st century (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article was written like a now-past fiction, which means a subject of time which is normally set in the 21st century between 2001 through 2100, which means a little of WP:FANCRUFT. The Houndsworth (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*I am not entirely sure what you are asking here, The Houndsworth, but as far as I can see the closer interpreted the consensus of the deletion discussion correctly and there are no procedural errors so I have to endorse the closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::What about some science fiction works like 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is initially set in the year 2001, which looked like a past year in science fiction, so overturn. --The Houndsworth (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not relevant to this discussion. Please see WP:DRVPURPOSE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Overturn it has no consensus between real or fantasy through the far future, for example, Harry Potter, Star Wars and Star Trek had different years in a same time. --The Houndsworth (talk) 04:20, 12 October 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 October 2020

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

While the numeric vote leans towards keep, the strength of arguments does not. Many of the Keep votes incorrectly claim that WP:NTENNIS is met, or that anyone who participates in any international sports competition is automatically notable. No sources that demonstrate GNG being met were presented. No rationale given on the NAC, and the closer hasn't responded in several days on their talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was a non-administrative closing and they may have simply counted !votes. It does not come close to meeting WP:NTENNIS, so those arguments are wrong. It does not meet WikiProject Tennis Guidelines either. As I said in the original discussion, it could be that she meets GNG but no rational was given by the closer on that potential. She is not notable for anything she has done in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of several NACs discussed at the closer's UTP and it's concerning that they've continued to edit without responding. Lev!vich 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An experienced closer should review. I can see that some might see a rough consensus to delete, but in cases like this where late !votes are entirely contrary to the early trend, some effort should be made to avoid the appearance of super-Wikipedians summarily overruling the less experienced.
Looking at https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Pamzeis&max=500&startdate=&altname=, unless I am looking at some wrong thing in error, this closer Pamzeis (talk · contribs) is woefully unqualified to be closing AfDs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. I relisted this AfD a week ago with a request for some sources that would prove that this subject meets either the GNG or NTENNIS. Since then, no sources were presented, and the only arguments made were that she did not meet those notability criteria. Accordingly, I would have closed this as delete. I can understand why this mistake was made, as a simple count of the bolded words would lead one to believe the keeps have it, but the comments that are actually based in policy and precedent carry significantly more weight. – bradv🍁 21:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete The keep !votes based their entire claim on the subject meeting either NTENNIS or more generally NSPORT. However, these claims were either erroneous or offered no specific evidence. None attempted to offer any evidence that GNG was met. Textbook example of a BADNAC. CThomas3 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete- on the grounds that no amount of factually inaccurate votes should be able to outweigh any amount of correct ones. Reyk YO! 08:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't have a preference as to whether this is overturned to a specific outcome, but the BADNAC definitely needs to be overturned. There are at least a couple votes which claim NTENNIS is met, though GNG may not be, so needs to be rebalanced by a new closer, or relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 10:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 October 2020

edit
  • InnerSloth – No consensus. I count 9 "overturn" to 17 "endorse" opinions, and that proportion is not significantly different if one discounts the opinions that are trying to re-litigate the AfD on the merits. With respect to the arguments made, the "overturn" side thinks that the closer improperly disregarded that the "delete" side's sourcing concerns had been addressed, while the "endorse" side thinks that the closer correctly recognized that the sources are not about the company at issue, but about its game. It's not for me to decide who's right in this matter, which is why the "redirect" closure remains in force for lack of consensus to overturn it. Sandstein 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
InnerSloth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was substantively expanded during the deletion discussion (please compare nominated version to expanded version of the article after research) -- and at worst case should have been closed instead as "no consensus", or even a "relist" for a while. It could even have been closed as "no consensus", graciously allow some more time for researchers to continue to improve the page in good faith, and reassess perhaps a few weeks later and take to deletion discussion again if truly necessary. Right cite (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Extreme bias from closer. clearly Spartaz was the wrong closer to close this contentious AfD. Openly discriminating against participants - labeling participants with terms clearly meant to diminish their involvement - and taking pride in doing so. Spartaz was openly angry, frustrated and then refused any discussion about what is clearly a biased close ... Perhaps the closer should take a break from closing? I would have started this !vote with "all due respect" but usually an insult follows that goofy statement - so I skipped it. For my own !vote rationale - I found this AfD in my normal AfD activity, and my rationale is legitimate. I would like an unbiased closer to consider my !vote and redo this close. As far as content is concerned a redirect is no different than a delete - and this article should not be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I did not participate in the AFD discussion. But the article's before and after examples are telling. The disregard for the 70 cited sources is bizarre. When deleted the article had been vastly improved. Not what it was when proposed for deletion. WP:HEY. I would have voted Keep for those reasons. I chose not to participate, as the proper outcome was clear and it was going to be kept.
The raw !vote tally was 15 Keep, 9 Delete and 6 Redirect. N.b. There are 3 duplicate votes by the same voters for alternative outcomes: 2 for delete and redirect (they voted in the alternative) and 1 for keep and redirect. Hypothetically, if those 3 were not considered, the tally would be 14 KEEP, 7 DELETE, and 3 REDIRECT. There was a clear consensus to Keep. Alternatively, if this is somehow interpreted as a push, AFDs ought to default to keep under these circumstances. Redirect was not in the running. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect (I voted in the AfD. If me voting on this is problem ignore it). Mainly because whatever the vote numbers were, most of the reasons given for the keep votes were extremely weak or completely irrelevant. A few examples were saying the article should be kept because the subject of article is important, they make a popular game in China, that it would be a waste of time to delete the article now since the company will be notable in a month, the developers deserve a page, they have made two popular games, Etc. Etc. So whatever the raw vote numbers are, a good portion of the keep votes were garbage because they didn't involve a discussion of the guidelines, sourcing, or anything approaching a good keep rational. Only one keep vote (I might have missed one), out of the fifteen total, actually made a thought out, guideline based keep argument. So, turning the article into a redirect was clearly the right thing to do.
Also, Right cite edited the article 172 times during the AfD. Which was more then enough to "improve" it. Instead, they just turned it into an advertish semi-content of Among Us. Whatever new sources that got added by it were of the same low quality as the already existing ones and a lot of the delete voters were either keeping track of (and evaluating) the new sources as they were being added to the article or they voted after the sources were added and therefore reviewed them before voting. So, it's not really relevant that the article has changed since the start of the AfD. It wasn't like everyone voted on the first day and then never at the AfD or article again. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have not AGF in the AfD just as the closer has not AGF. and fyi: you have made 26 separate posts on the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And your point? Do you have an actual argument or is that it? Anyway, like I said in the AfD, my comment about Rite cite getting ARS involved at the last minute had nothing to with AGF and there's no limit on how many times someone can comment either. Nor is either of them (or anything else along those lines) things you or other ARS people care about out side of using them to make vapid, disingenuous arguements with. And those the only kind of arguements you people ever seem to make. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - DRV rationale has to do with the state of the article, which had nothing to do with the reason for deletion/redirection. Nobody demonstrated that this is a notable subject apart from its notable game to the extent that it overcomes both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOPAGE, and the closing statement reflects that. Surprising number of keeps with 100-400 total edits, including SPAs for this game/company. Based on the success of the game, it's likely there will be cause to recreate it at some point in the future, and perhaps a copy could be moved to Right cite's userpage to reassess sometime down the road, but that's a separate issue from this DRV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2) I am the nom of the AfD, so I won't !vote here (although it's pretty clear what my opinion is). The closer accounted for !voter source review towards GNG and the primary argument of NOTINHERITED. Could they have worded the closure better? Very much so. But I see nothing wrong with the closer's conclusion if one ignores their comments about the participants. I can sympathize with the closer because the AfD saw a massive heated back and forth with lots of uncivil attitude. That's no reason to make personal remarks as a closer. But the closer also never claimed to base their main decision off the participant behaviour: "What I get from this discussion [..]". They did single our ARS participants, but the closer also stated their conclusions was based on their arguments being similar to those previous in the discussion. Personally, I might have closed this as a merge due to lack of content but sufficient sourcing to keep the material, but given the difficulty of such an AfD, I would see anything from "delete/redirect" to "no consensus" as a valid closer's conclusion. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to keep I participated in the discussion. The sources are, as I noted in the discussion, not amazing wrt to the company, but there is plenty about the company in those articles to A) meet WP:N and B) write a good article. The 2nd shouldn't be hugely debatable--we have a good article. The first *is* debatable, but numeric consensus was clear and the claim is reasonable. [12], mentioned in the AfD is, IMO, more about the company than the product. [13] is an interview, but mostly about the company and their processes. [14] has a fair bit about the company. It is by no means open-and-shut. If the !vote had gone toward delete, that would have been a reasonable way to close it. But it didn't and the case against notability isn't so strong as to override the numeric consensus. I probably would have weakly endorsed a NC reading, but keep is the better reading. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "numeric consensus" — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cute, I like it. That said, yes, there are two parts to considering a close. One is which argument is most grounded in policy (and guidelines). The other is how the !vote falls in terms of numbers. Some !votes can be tossed, but per IAR, a large number of non-policy-based !votes can override a small number of policy-based ones in most cases (BLP being one area where we are much more strict). In this case, the numbers were on one side and that side had a reasonable policy-based viewpoint. Honestly, part of the problem is that our standard outcomes are just different for companies than for games. The corp people want coverage well in excess of the GNG. The game folks are generally happy with coverage that reaches the GNG, even if just barely. Here those two cultures are intersecting and their expectations aren't the same given the same facts. I'd claim that "scrapes by" is, in fact, sufficient. Pretty much by definition. And we are there. There are multiple independent and reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the company. Open-and-shut IMO as this meets the letter of the GNG. But recently we've been deleting articles about people who are in the headlines of the NYT and have coverage spanning many months. So who knows? We seem to be leaving the era of the GNG and moving to area-specific requirements, something I think is unwise. Hobit (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, simply counting the number of people who wrote keep in bold letters will not get the page undeleted. AfDs are not just simply a poll or vote count, they are an opportunity to discuss and provide arguments using policies or guidelines to delete the page. The number of people saying keep is not a determiner of whether the article will be kept. This is one of the first rules of AfD and the reason for stuff like Template:Not a vote (which, in retrospect, I probably should have added to the AfD page). Also, whether or not the article was "improved" does not change whether or not the subject passes general notability guideline. The consensus was that despite the creation of Among Us, Innersloth has not shown significant coverage through reliable independent sources and is not notable. Therefore, the page was redirected to Among Us. Simply saying that there is a lot of work on the page is not a substitute for passing GNG and comes off as WP:PLEASEDONT. While this AfD was certainly very heated, I think that it was closed properly (the outcome was to redirect for a while) and do not see any reason to overturn it. Naleksuh (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument is there is consensus for deletion even though there was numeric consensus for keeping because? I don't think you added anything to this discussion other than saying "I like the outcome". It's utterly clear that Innersloth has penty of reliable independent sources. Heck, just counting the reliable, independent, sources that mention Innersloth in the title of the article gets us well past "multiple". So your claim seems bogus on the face of it. There *are* good arguments for deletion (sources don't cover IS in enough depth, they cover the game instead). But sources not existing is clearly just wrong. And at the least [15] seems to be a darn fine source on IS. The rest are borderline and I understand how people may feel they aren't enough. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While I voted to redirect, I think that the discussion should have kept going. There has been much development in the Keep argument, (ironically of which has been partly developed by me) that has yet to be properly discussed, and my arguments that showed progression to keep has yet to recieve any feedback, possibily because the delete/redirect side simply wanted the debate to close without listening to the other side. We should take ALL arguments into consideration, and not simply ignore the arguments we don't want to hear. However, the quantity of votes for keep and redirect/delete should not be as heavily considered due to the viralness of the game. People like Right Cite are clearly biased to keeping the game due to their liking of the game, and in turn want to keep the company article from being deleted. Similarly, I found that people like Adamant stuck with their opinion and was completely unwilling to even consider the opposing side as legitamate. If this discussion doesn't reopen, it should at least be reconsidered by a closer that isn't as emotionally biased as the current closer clearly was. Additionally, Adamant (the most avid Delete/Redirect voter) has clearly attacked Keep arguments throughout most of the discussion, but the second I argue in favor of Keep, he decides to not respond to the new arguments. Over the last couple of days, it seems that the delete/redirect arguments have grown weaker. I strongly suggest that the discussion open back up for consideration of the new arguments brought up by me and Newimpartial, as the earlier weak arguments to keep the article have mistakingly been overemphasized. While there is a significant chance that InnerSloth will still be deemed unnotable, I think that the discussion has morphed in a way that makes it necessary to still seriously consider and discuss the notability of InnerSloth. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based solely on policy arguments, clearly the correct decision.Onel5969 TT me 19:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A) we don't do things solely on policy arguments (and A1, there are NO policy arguments here, only how guidelines apply, but I assume that's what you meant) and B) we do count noses as part of finding consensus. That's what IAR *is*. I don't think we need to reach out to IAR, this clearly meets the GNG. But yeah, numbers do matter especially in matters of opinion. And if coverage is "trivial" or not is exactly that, an opinion. Hobit (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist, Clearly there has been a substantial shift as the discussion progressed in favour of Keep, and I reckon another relist is probably necessary to determine a consensus, or perhaps to determine that there is not one. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep (or No Consensus) Yes, I participated in the AfD, as did other editors who have !voted above for every possible resolution. To me it looked like one of the sloppiest and most inappropriately motivated closes I have seen, and I have trouble understanding why the closer bothered of they hated reading the AfD so much. I believe that This is officially the worst AFD discussion I have closed in years. There are some participants here who should hang their head in shame was targeted in part at me, because of I have had my quota of green coloured text for the week at the end of the close, but how are we supposed to resolve policy questions as they apply to an AfD without quoting policy? And if all they got from the discussion apart from a headache is that company notability is not inherited from a product - which is true enough, but wasn't really under debate - then they seemed to have ignored all of the interpretive questions regarding WP:NORG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:INHERITORG that were actually at stake in the AfD. Without taking the policy questions seriously, no closer could have evaluated the sourcing appropriately, and what we were left with was a peevish and lackadaisical close. Btw, given how poor this discussion was, don't discuss this with me if you disagree - I mean, why bother? Newimpartial (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I mostly agree with you. Plus, I semi-agree with the TheGEICOgecko that there could have been more discussion. The problem was that me, you, and TheGEICOgecko were the only ones having any kind of meaningful discussion about it. Which isn't really a balanced way to do an AfD. Realistically most votes, keep or delete, should be thought out and based on policy. Given that it wasn't how things happened though and that things were devolving into personal attacks by ToughPigs, Lightburst, Et al. I see zero reason to relist this for more discussion. Since it probably just be more of the same. Personally I might have reconsidered things myself, but then you didn't answer the TheGEICOgecko's question about how adding the name of the company to a sentences changes the nature of what its about and you didn't answer mine about DEPTH/detail. Plus, I started having people like ToughPigs doing running commentary on how many messages I was writing. So, I'm pretty mah on the whole relisting thing. I don't feel like anything was compelling enough to warrant it and it's going to be done fairly. Except for maybe the one in-depth source you had, but there needed to be another one. I don't think an AfD is generally the best place to hash out the nuances of policies though and it felt like the discussion was going more in that direction then anything. Also, "relisting it for more discussion about the nuance of the guidelines" isn't why Rite cite opened this anyway. IMO they should have read through the AfD and waited a few days to have a better DRV argument then they do. Or Rite cite should have just left it alone and allowed someone else to do the DRV, because it was clearly going to happen anyway, but the reasons for the DRV are especially weak and it was totally premature. Really, you, me, and TheGEICOgecko could have just hashed out the whole thing on our own and then done it once we have a solid basis for it. If it turned out there was one. I'm not convinced there is though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this was my answer to both your question and TheGeicoGecko's. To me, the 400-word/explains company decisions examples in CORPDEPTH are quite obviously met by at least three articles, so I wasn't seeing anything to hash out. But, naturally, perspectives differ... Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So just to retiereate your position then, you think any discussion of the creation of a product or anything about one is inharently also about the company that created it, qualifies as COREDEPTH, and is detailed. No matter what the actual content or subject of the article is and even if the company isn't mentioned anywhere in the article? Because that's what it sounds like your position is. Essentially that the details of the sources don't matter and that any company is notable if it creates a product that is, because everything about a product is also inharently about the company. Feel free to correct me if I'm miss-understanding things though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial you failed to go into depth as to how the other two articles qualified as significant coverage. It didn't seem to address either mine or Adamant's concerns. If this discussion continues, it would be best for us to try to more actively acknoledge each other's arguments. There was a lot of arguments from both sides that failed to be properly addressed. To be honest, I only recently within the past 6 months started significantly editing Wikipedia, and this is my first major contribution to an AfD, so I may not be familiar enough with the process to say this, but I feel that the discussion should continue to give a second chance to these improperly addressed arguments, especially considering the recent shift to the Keep side. There is hope to keep the article, and I think we should decide once all reasonable arguments are properly addressed. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to bog down the DRV, but to each of you: "my position" is that neither of the two articles in question would retain their meaning if references to InnerSloth were removed, which is the test you, Geico Gecko proposed. And Adamant1: no, I do not think "anything about the product" is "inherently about the company", I think that when a source describes the decisions developers made concerning a product, and discusses their experience making it, that source text is also about the company. In this case, that principle gives us three sources meeting CORPDEPTH and therefore a clear NORG pass. Newimpartial (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just look at WP:CORPDEPTH to the exclusion of WP:ORGIND. The reference posted by TheGEICOgecko above, for me, does not contain "Independent Content", that is, opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The writer makes it clear that he interviewed Forest Willard, a co-founder of the company, for most of the content the article and the last paragraph is a follow-up but is based on a company announcement. WP:NCORP was updated in early 2019 to be very strict on what references can be used to establish notability. HighKing++ 12:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- yuck, what a mess. But ignoring the reams of off-topic commentary, canvassing, trolling, personal attacks on both sides there's one crucial thread running through that discussion- many participants felt that the coverage that exists is about the game and not the developer, and this criticism was not addressed. So I think covering the developer in the context of the article on the game is a reasonable outcome. Kudos to the closing administrator for not buying into the notion that consensus can't be established in the presence of a lot of off-topic yelling. Reyk YO! 11:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per Reyk. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Having read the discussion, the closing argument from Spartaz was spot on. There's currently another article where the company can can be covered, so there's no harm in the result, and the majority of the policy-based votes favoured redirection or deletion. I would protect the redirect, though. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Article was WP:REFBOMBed to give the appearance of notability. Most of the utilized references were about Among Us, not the studio itself, which only has one notable work and has not yet satisfied WP:NCORP requirements. Frustrating that a valid close from an admin would then have an attempted overturn when the close was right on the money, we should not fall for this sore loser-ism.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) - per the closer's closing statement, Reyk, SF and Zxc. I agree with what they said and have nothing to add. Lev!vich 20:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my reading, closes within discretion would be "no consensus", "redirect", and "merge" -- in that order of preference. Although I think we've probably got to endorse this close, I also suspect the discussion isn't over.—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The discussion did not show enough sourcing to warrant a dedicated article about the developer independent from the game. Echoing the kudos to the closing admin for making a tough call. czar 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Not much more to be said about the discussion, but the close is not obviously in error and within the discretion of the closer. --Enos733 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Once the ARS cabal get involved, any discussion at AfD rapidly spirals downwards into personal attacks and accusation with zero attempt to rationally discuss whether references meet NCORP guidelines. Usually ending with claims that a majority !vote defines the consensus regardless of any arguments based on policy/guidelines. The closing admin closed this correctly. HighKing++ 12:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks seem to be coming from yourself ...as usual. Well done with the b-slap Highking! Lightburst (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I did not participate in the original debate after seeing the arguments had already been made and was convinced it would be a no-consensus keep. The company article can contain company details which would be unsuited to the article on their creation. For companies that have produced notable creative work, I believe we can ascribe to the principles at WP:AUTH too, as well as the standard corporate notability standards. - hahnchen 13:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought about something along the lines of AUTH also. The problem is though that most (or all) of the coverage on Among Us is in the last month or so and the article on it had almost zero visit until extremely recently. So it is clearly a fad and therefore not a "significant" piece of work yet in the way I think AUTH intends something to be. There's also zero evidence that it will be anything beyond a fad. Likely it wouldn't even be one if it wasn't for COVID either. So, I don't think AUTH applies. Adamant1 (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I briefly participated in the original debate, and I still stand by my opinion. There isn't much for me to say here, but most of the sources in the page talk about the game with a mention or two on InnerSloth. Among Us is notable, but InnerSloth is not. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 15:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beagle (talk • contribs) 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The article had two sentences and some links when it was sent to AFD [16]. It was then expanded massively [17] Plenty of valid referenced information to fill the article. The closer had no right to dismiss some of the keep votes because he dislikes the Wikiproject two of them came from. Most KEEPS came before the Article Rescue Squadron was contacted. In fact, only Lightburst and me showed up afterwards and both of us gave valid reasons to keep it. Only one other person said keep after the ARS notice, and they had already voted previously so it didn't matter. Dream Focus 22:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Quality over quantity. I'm amazed at the refbombing. Do you really need three sources to state it's a LLC?! Even if the article is redirected, it can always be created in the future when notability is present. – The Grid (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the discussion certainly had a large quantity of refbombing, I think it's necessary to focus on the last part of the discussion where we were starting to progress. The quantity of refbombing should not cover the fact that the end of the discussion was becoming productive. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing rational seems to be a good summary of the deletion debate and the bulk of the arguments. This is especially clear when you notice that most of the back-and-forth discussion is a single editor replying to almost everyone who didn't !vote "keep".
A couple of people are bristling[18] because ARS was mentioned by name ... but what was said about them? That to be taken seriously they need to do more than post just-a-vote? Sounds fair. ApLundell (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: emailing people from the company to get them involved is pretty mediocre IMO. If that doesn't qualify as WP:CANVASing, I don't know what would. If not though, it at least shows a lack of respect for the process. Along with a weird level of saltiness over what was said about them and an odd level of desperation to get what they want. Or at least an inability to reflect on what's problematic about their actions and to correct things. Especially since the company will probably be notable in a few months anyway and it's totally fine to mention them in the Among Us article in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emailing to ask if they had been interviewed about their company or their company reviewed is not canvassing. They didn't participate in this AFD. They should know if an article about their company is being discussed here of course. My email to them was: Have you had any reviewers or interviewers give significant coverage about you or your company, not just the most popular game? So no, no canvassing, no desperation, no saltiness, or "lack of respect for the process" whatever the hell that means. I sought out information, evidence of notability. Dream Focus 05:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with you emailing them to ask about sources, but it is a problem IMO that you said it was in relation to Wikipedia and told them about the article. In your ARS comment you said "I mentioned the Wikipedia article to them" and your being intentionally miss-leading by leaving that part of the email out of your quote. Plus, you have no way of knowing if they participated in this or the AfD. It's exteremly likely they have. Although, WP:CANVAS isn't contingent on how successful you are at doing it. You wouldn't have emailed them if you thought it wouldn't have an effect though and it's completely ridiculous to claim as much. Especially since you specifically mentioned the article in your email. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
InnerSloth should not have been notified of the AfD, and the email should've been as vague as possible when asking for information in terms of what the motive was. But when did we have information that someone emailed the company? I can't find any information in the discussion about contacting the company. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no problem emailing a company and asking for sources, and even motivating them to provide those sources by contextualizing the deletion discussion. I've done this a few times. You just also want to explain the whole "don't jump in or tell people to sign up to try to keep it because you'll do yourself more harm than good" thing (in so many words). I don't think I could be mistaken for a great cheerleader of ARS, but efforts like this to find sources are exactly what ARS should be doing IMO. (I'm still in the endorse camp here btw -- just wanted to jump in to defend this practice). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEATPUPPET, which is mentioned in WP:CANVAS, "Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." Along with "This section in a nutshell: Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people." There is also "Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example)" and "Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages" in WP:CANVAS. Taken as whole, the guidelines are pretty explicit that emailing people off Wiki for "assistance" is a no no and so is recruiting new editors. There's no other way to interpret "including enlisting assistance off-Wiki" and "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited" other then those are things that we shouldn't be doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for sources isn't "enlisting assistance" or "recruiting new editors". I don't know what DF's email said. It's possible there was canvassing. Only DF knows. But asking the company for sources is not a problem in itself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has it occurred to no one that, given the popularity of their flagship game, the question of 'does this article have enough sourcing currently?' is relatively moot, when the answer to 'will this corporation have enough sourcing in six months?' is unquestionably affirmative. Google News has a topic for it already, even if what it contains at the moment is mostly about the game rather than its publisher. All the back-and-forth here is almost certainly moot because someone can just update the article in a couple of months using yet-to-be-published sources, and this whole exercise will have been just another futile tempest in a teapot. Overturn now, allow recreation later... whatever. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • X will be notable in Y [months/years] isn't usually a great reason for keeping an article around. Crystal ball and whatnot. Yes, it's likely, and your point isn't lost that this discussion will probably be moot down the road, but that's not a reason to keep it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a guideline or policy-based reason, but it is a reason. WP:IAR and all that. I understand what you were trying to say here, but I think it's important to note that IAR is a pillar here. But he's not arguing to keep it. Instead, he's arguing we are wasting time. And looking in the mirror, I'm adding to that.  :-) Hobit (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lorenz, Taylor (14 October 2020), "With Nowhere to Go, Teens Flock to Among Us - YouTubers, influencers and streamers popularized the multiplayer game. Then their fans started playing too.", The New York Times, retrieved 14 October 2020, When an indie game company created Among Us in 2018, it was greeted with little fanfare. The multiplayer game remained under the radar as many games do — until the summer of the pandemic. Eager to keep viewers entertained during quarantine, Chance Morris, known online as Sodapoppin, began streaming the game, created by InnerSloth, to his 2.8 million followers on Twitch in July. By mid-September, Among Us caught on like wildfire. Suddenly major YouTube stars, TikTok influencers and streamers were playing it. PewDiePie, James Charles and Dr. Lupo have all played the game for millions.
  • (There was already significant coverage in more than enough reliable sources before. I'm not sure if InnerSloth has ever been mentioned before in The New York Times, but if this is the first time, it is likely not to be the last.) It will look quite silly for Wikipedia not to have an article on this topic. Right cite (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also source, CNBC:
    • Rodriguez, Salvador (14 October 2020), "How Amazon's Twitch turned an obscure game called Among Us into a pandemic mega-hit", CNBC, retrieved 14 October 2020, Developed by InnerSloth, a small studio in Redmond, Washington, Among Us was download nearly 42 million times on Steam in the first half of September, according to Safebettingsites.com, and it was downloaded nearly 84 million times on iOS and Android that month, according to SensorTower. The game hasn't left the top five on Apple's U.S. App Store since Sept. 1, and it has seen more than 158 million installs worldwide across the App Store and Google Play to date, SensorTower says.
  • This source, CNBC has validated the comment above about The New York Times, it appears more mainstream news media is focusing attention on both Among Us and InnerSloth. Right cite (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter, WP:CRYSTAL clearly says we don't predict the future. Also, we're not re-litigating the AfD here, we're looking to see if there was a mistake made in closing the discussion, but I do want to point out neither of those sources are significant coverage of the company, but rather of the game. SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The continuing coverage is relevant to the extent that it should affect how the closer interprets the evidence presented. In cases that could go either way, it makes sense to avoid creating irrelevant barriers to the recreation of the article as the sourcing improves, in cases where this is already happening. Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with Newimpartial, especially where there are avenues to foster positive collaboration in the community to further improve the encyclopedia and continue to contribute quality content. Right cite (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do admit that I am entirely new to AfD, and somewhat new to Wikipedia in general, so correct me if I'm wrong, but to me, it doesn't seem like it's a good idea to base our discussion off of what will be notable in the future. While I think we should overturn, it shouldn't be because of plausible future notability, but rather plausible current notability that the AfD closer missed. We also shouldn't base our decision off of it looking "silly" that there isn't an article on InnerSloth. We should decide solely based off of the guidelines currently set in place, and based off of the discussion that took place. The subject may or may not become clearly notable in the future, but as of the moment, we should focus on the present tense. Additionally, this is not really the place to discuss notability, but rather the decision that was made. This current discussion is in an effort to overturn the ruling, and is not a second chance to prove notability. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the best way forward would be to endorse the redirect for now. Then someone like Rite cite or whoever that thinks new sources are good enough to recreate it should create an article in their user space and submit it AfC when it's up to par and different enough sourcing wise from the current article. There's no telling when that will be though and there's zero reason there should be a rush to recreate it. As someone said in the ARS discussion about it, there's no reason the company can't be briefly discussed in the Among Us article until things are good enough to warrant a separate article. Especially since all the sourcing that talks about the company is in relation to the game. This isn't a black and white thing with only one "best" option or way for people to find out information about the company. IMO talking about the company in the Among Us article for now and doing an AfC on a new article eventually is a perfectly fine option that should satisfy everyone. Otherwise, people are just being stubborn and not good faithed about this. I know certain people think that the only thing we should do is "contribute quality content" to articles (whatever that means), but doing so isn't always the best way to improve Wikipedia, or even the article that is having "quality content" (again, whatever that means) added to it. There's more to this then just throwing everything that exists at an article and calling it "good quality" because "content." --Adamant1 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that both news articles do not mention Among Us, only InnerSloth itself. Right cite (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that as you've been told a few times the purpose of this is to determine if the close was defective. Not to relitigate the AfD. By you doing that and not taking the advice you have been given about the best way to deal with this, it's pretty likely that your just working against yourself and making it that much harder to recrate the article when it becomes appropriate to do so. I'm pretty most people wouldn't have a problem with you drafting the article and sending it through an RfC when it's appropriate to do so. You should accept it as an option, instead of trying to push recreation in the way your doing. Or, just let this work itself out and recreate the article in a month. Both are perfectly fine options. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you should drop the WP:BLUDGEON, please. Right cite (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm given you solid advice about the best way to deal with this and I support you drafting it. The way your acting about me supporting the article being drafted just goes to show how unreasonable your being about this. That said, it's not WP:BLUDGEONing for me to say what I think the best options are or to point out that your writing messages that aren't constructive to this. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors other than myself brought up the behavior of User:Adamant1 as disruptive and WP:BLUDGEON in the AFD itself. User:Adamant1 appears to not have taken any of their constructive feedback to heart to attempt to improve his behavior patterns, instead choosing to ignore their feedback and continue the WP:BLUDGEON disturbing behavior patterns. Right cite (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was really only two people who I have repeated problems with. Whereas, way more people said the exact same thing to you, both in the AfD and here. So, maybe you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses. Anyway, why are so unwilling to draft the article, improve it, and then eventually put it through an AfC? I might be willing to change my vote if you are and I'm sure other people would to. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether Adamant is bludgeoning, that doesn't mean you can shift the blame. This is clearly not the place to further argue notability. Please do not speak of the notability of InnerSloth on here, as that is not the purpose of this discussion. If you feel that the closed discussion should be reconsidered, please argue why the decision was unfair without progressing the discussion on InnerSloth's notability. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valid, thanks. Right cite (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what "change my vote" means in this context, but procedurally what would be needed in this forum would be for a bunch of us to change our !votes to "Overturn to relist" and then potentially to vote to Draftify at the relisted AfC. Just looking at this in terms of process. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought one of the possible outcomes of DRVs was that the article could be drafted. It has to be drafted somewhere though and it's kind of a moot point if Right cite is unwilling to accept it as an option. Unless it can be drafted to someone else's user space, but Right cite seems like the main (or only) person interested in the article and retaining it at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although, now that I think about it drafting it with a redirect would be exactly the same as just a redirect. Which would pretty much be indorsing the outcome of the AfD. So....Then I say to Right cite, accept the redirect for now and just draft it, I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a policy-compliant outcome as well, so long as the draft is submitted to AfC in a reasonable time (say six months from now) - too soon and people might get feisty about the AfD result being too recent, too late and an overzealous soul might consider it a "stale draft" and delete. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm thinking. It likely won't be recreated on a whim between now and then anyway. If it is, then who recreates it is just risking the article going back to AfD and being a permanent redirect or salted. So, drafting it is really the best option. Also, having it prewritten before the time runs out and peer reviewed also saves time later and helps insures it won't just go back to AfD again or something. At least that's my thinking. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial:, of course I'd be happy to work on a draft to further improve the article if given the opportunity to do so. It's just sad for the efforts put in so far to date, to not be utilized for a while, because it's already a notable topic today. Right cite (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus. The only question is whether the close was a valid conclusion by an unbiased closer based on the editor inputs and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, the closer apparently had a bias and should not have closed the discussion. I concur with User:Lightburst. Perhaps the closer should have criticized the statements of the editors whom he said should hang their heads in shame, as a participant in the discussion rather than as the closer. The AFD had multiple viewpoints expressed that address policies and guidelines so that, in the absence of significantly stronger arguments for one viewpoint than others, this is what is meant by No Consensus. A Relist would be acceptable also, or finding another closer, but the discussion went on long enough that it can be closed, and not with an expression of anger. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few ARS people voted, it was extremely late in the AfD, and whatever was said about them doesn't negate the fact that the keep voters arguments (including theirs) were extremely weak. There's also zero evidence that the closer decided to go with redirecting the article purely because of two people from ARS participating it. Nowhere in the closing comment was such an assertion made. "this AfD sucks" doesn't automatically equate to "I'm closing this a redirect because I distain ARS people." Ultimately, closers should be able to express whatever opinions they feel like expressing in the closing comments and action shouldn't be taken based on what closer says. Unless it's 100% clear based on their comments that they are acting in a bias manor. Which simply isn't the case here. It would be extremely unfair to everyone who participates in AfDs (including Lightburst and the ARS people) if their outcomes can be reversed simply by someone (in this case Lightburst) taking offensive to something that was said. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 has said, Ultimately, closers should be able to express whatever opinions they feel like expressing in the closing comments and action shouldn't be taken based on what closer says. Unless it's 100% clear based on their comments that they are acting in a bias manor (sic.). I don't think this is correct per policy, and sets far too low a bar for the closer. An AfD close is supposed to reflect the policy-based and sources-based arguments made in the AfD discussion, and because the closer didn't like the discussion (as is clear from the language of the close), it seems that they set aside all of the policy-based arguments and looked briefly at the sources, based only on their own preconceptions about policy. We are supposed to do better than this at AfD, and none of the ILIKEIT endorse !votes can change that reality. Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Adamant may be trying to get at something, and either terribly conveyed his point, or isn't thinking about it too carefully. We should consider that we may be biased to overturn in part based off of the closer's harsh and emotionally driven critique. It would be best to look past the weaknesses and trivial opinions of the closer's reasoning, and focus on the strengths. That's what matters. While I personally still think that the closer was clearly biased, this aspect is certainly something to consider. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I wasn't thinking about it to carefully. Although, I think you conveyed what I was trying to get at. Thanks for doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 17 October 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 October 2020

edit
  • 2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season – deletion endorsed for now, but further work encouraged. The overall consensus here is that the closure of the AfD did reflect the consensus, but there is definitely some unfinished business regarding season articles that may need to be resolved elsewhere. Per the request at the bottom I see no issue with userfying the contents for potential reworking or merging (as, per some of the discussion below, season articles are essentially content forks of the club's article anyway) and will do so to User:Tsistunagiska/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season. For the avoidance of doubt in future discussions, the AfD consensus was broadly clear, but multiple users point out that the discussion was poor, the relevant guidelines somewhat vague and disputed, and the closure was possibly suboptimal. If the article can be reworked, this DRV should not be taken as a ringing endorsement of this article being permanently disallowed. ~ mazca talk 19:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

@Spiderone: has recently embarked on a heroic 'purge' of women's soccer articles. It would be wrong of me speculate here on his possible motives (!) However @Fenix down:, who has apparently been working in tandem with Spiderone on this dubious project, closed this particular debate after rather less than the allotted seven days. As others have noted, the rationale was faulty because there was no clear consensus, WP:NEASONS was met and none of the claims to WP:GNG were refuted (or even challenged) during the truncated discussion. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please can the article be temporarily undeleted so a fair assessment of the WP:GNG arguments (and lack thereof) can be made? Many thanks Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: At this related AfD Spiderone seems to have rowed back on his position. Bizarrely he sent that article to AfD for failing WP:GNG then !voted keep in his own AfD, citing WP:GNG was met. To me this raises a few red flags: clearly WP:Before is not being carried out. More fundamentally, we might well be entitled to ask if this is a guy who has an adequate understanding of WP:N? Is this editor a suitable candidate to be rushing around trying to delete dozens if not hundreds of stable and longstanding articles? A look through some of his edit history shows malformed/unsigned AfDs, PRODing of previously-dePRODed articles and evidence that he doesn't understand the difference between a guideline and an essay. Individually I might be willing to overlook these relatively minor quibbles, if not for the fact that - in conjunction with the others - they paint quite an alarming picture. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I won't get into reasons for why this article was brought up for deletion in the first place. I can't pretend to know the personal reasons why someone does something. I will fall back on policy and guidelines as they are literally stated.
    • WP:GNG which is Wikipedia's chief notability policy states that the subject of an article must be significantly covered in verifiable independent sources. This particular season of the Belles meets that criteria if no other does. It also needs to be accessible to a large contingent of people because an inaccessible source can't be verified. It also passes this criteria. The team, the league and the season, as well as some of the players pass Wikipedia's stringent notability policy as it is literally stated. Conjecture, personal bias and opinion does not supersede policy.
    • WP:NSEASONS is an essay or guideline that is to be taken slightly more relevant than an OP-ED piece in a local newspaper. You can use it as a guide or reference but it should not be used wholesale as a defining argument for or against the inclusion of any article. It can be used as a sub to a policy. As the essay is largely opinion and subjective it causes issues when trying to pass it off as policy. Take this statement about individual seasons into consideration: "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." The operative word here is "top". It has been subjectively replaced with "fully". But that's not what the essay says. It says "top". The Belles played in a "top" league even if that league was "semi-professional" meaning some players were paid while others were not. It has nothing to do with talent levels, quality of play or even quantity of play. The fact that female sports has mostly been relegated to "semi-professional" status out of fear of it gaining any ground on men's sports isn't even taken into account when the word "top" is replaced with "fully". This will always favor men's sports going back any further than say three or four years ago. Understanding and taking the word "top" at face value is crucial in the decision of this and other articles about women's athletics. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree NSEASONS was met because the Belles (or simply 'Belles' as they are known) played in the "top professional league" available at that time. Was it the top league in the country? Yes. Was it professional? Yes. I don't think any of that is in dispute. Likewise if there is any sensible or coherent argument against the article meeting GNG I am yet to read it. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Doncaster Belles turned semi-pro in 2002 and only started taking on players full-time in Feb 2016 with Natasha Dowie, Kasia Lipka et al all turning pro. This AfD therefore related to a league that was not fully pro at the time, which I'm sure no one will dispute. This therefore fails WP:NSEASONS so there is no automatic free pass that the article gets. It needs to meet WP:GNG. Whilst there was some good sourcing in one of the articles about their demotion, this is also adequately summarised in the main article here. I suggested an alternative to deletion of merging relevant content from the 2013 article into the Doncaster Belles article but consensus in that AfD centred around outright deletion. To be fair, there was nothing worth keeping in the other two season articles in that AfD. Spiderone 18:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of WP:NSEASONS, as many have used, in stating that only "fully-professional" teams, leagues and players can be included in this encyclopedia will leave us with a male dominated encyclopedia and is taking the essay and perverting it to fit your subjective opinion. The league they played in at the time was and still is the top professional league of women's football in England. Anyone looking at the article can see that 5-3-1 (that's technically giving you two votes) is not a consensus of anything.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to ignore NSEASONS (and NFOOTY when it comes to players) when it comes to women's football. The reason I mentioned it was just to state that this article does not get an automatic pass and so needs to meet GNG. This goes the same for any female footballer playing in the league before it was fully professional. Spiderone 18:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spiderone: I can respect the merge discussion and I think it should be had at a relist of the article once overturned. I am currently embroiled in the same discussion about an article in which the decision was a keep and I was in favor of the keep. In that instance there was no review initiated and, instead, a motion was made to redirect or merge the article less than 24 hours after the conclusion of the AfD. Wikipedia has an order of process. In this case, the decision was made to delete, however in error as I may think it was, principle demands that the process be followed so that the consensus decision and that of the closer is not disenfranchised in any way, even by this review. I believe the article should be reinstated, relisted and then a discussion made for merging the article into the main. I may even support that move if the case for it is convincing. I am passionate about these articles. I am a warrior for the inclusion of women and our topics as well as indigenous peoples when there is justification for it. I have stated that I won't apologize for that, and I won't, but I do not blindly argue points without the application of common sense nor am I incapable of changing my opinions or views when additional understanding is brought forward. I see that in your decision, even at the AfD, and I appreciate it.
    As a note, the argument made about Fenix_down closing the AfD five minutes early needs to go away. It doesn't help any side in this matter or add anything of construct to the debate. I believe "procedural errors" should be taken in consideration if it is egregious. I don't see that being the case here. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit that the shorter version about their demotion in the main Belles article is not adequate. I definitely think we need to WP:PRESERVE what is in the season article, one way or another. That definitely needs to be discussed. As someone not familiar with the incident, I found the summary in the season article much more useful and informative than the diet version in the main article. Spiderone 17:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also a polite reminder to please remain WP:CIVIL as there is a real lack of that in the first post. Thanks Spiderone 18:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm very sorry if you felt impugned, although the fact is you have embarked on a large-scale campaign to delete women's football articles despite being profoundly ignorant about women's football! You have faced pushback from multiple editors and responded with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hold no power when it comes to deleting articles. All I do is merely propose that we delete an article and start an appropriate discussion about it with the rest of the community and everyone is welcome to contribute to that discussion. All the articles that I put up for AfD are all ones that do not have evidence of passing GNG. Spiderone 18:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or overturn The consensus is that it should be deleted, but the entire discussion, including the discussion above by involved editors, is just flat out awful. WP:NSEASON is not an exclusionary SNG. This needs to either be relisted so that arguments specific to GNG can be made, though I do note that GNG would likely be met since the 2013 Doncaster season is relatively famous in women's football due to their auto-relegation, so I imagine there could be an article on that event alone, and a season article would be a better way to present that. I am less certain about the other two seasons and cannot view the articles myself. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion was based on GNG failure. All bar one of the delete votes in the AfD mentions GNG as the reason for the delete. Spiderone 19:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the votes made a vague wave to GNG with one exeption - Bring back Daz Simpson - who brought WP:THREE articles to the discussion. None of the voters discussed these apart from BBDS. This is one of the reasons why this discussion is defective. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see that I changed my vote to merge immediately after it was brought forward Spiderone 21:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was before any sources were specifically brought forward. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. The sources were added by BBDS on 21 Sep and I changed my stance to merge in favour of deletion on 22 Sep. Last time I checked, 22 Sep is after 21 Sep. Spiderone 10:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. They were added to the article on 21 September, but to the AfD discussion on 24 September. SportingFlyer T·C 13:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closing admin. Ignoring the appallingly unfounded bad faith accusations in the DRV nomination, I closed this AfD 56 minutes before the alloted 7 days. I'm not sure what that extra hour would have brought but nonetheless there was a clear majority of editors who felt the article was not notable and none of the keep voters indicated GNG to any extent that it gained significant support. Fenix down (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, per Tsistunagiska's excellent arguments. Also agree with SportingFlyer that the Deletion discussion was awful. Demokra (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, as explained by Tsistunagiska. The season in question was particularly notable due to the ensuing controversy and national outcry at Doncaster's relegation. Hjk1106 20:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've temp undeleted for the discussion WilyD 07:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and merge wow there is a lot to unpack here. For starters, the inexcusable lack of good faith in users Fenix down and Spiderone; describing nominations as a purge, suggesting ulterior motives, and suggesting the users are working in concert are all unfounded. I agree that the closing admin should have given some kind of justification for the closure, but the aspersions being cast are ridiculous. That being said, if we are looking at the notability of the subject, it seems like the demotion is more subject to notability here than the season itself. That content could easily be merged into Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. where there are currently only two paragraphs, so I don't see a compelling reason to overturn the deletion, but instead to merge the relevant information into the team's article. Even just changing the title to something like 2013 relegation of Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. would emphasize the notability of the subject, which is highly significant on its own. The fact that the team, the league, and some of the players pass GNG does not imply that notability is inherited for the team season. And Wikipedia is absolutely not the place to right great wrongs. If it is notable, the article should and will be kept. Jay eyem (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- both delete and no consensus would have been acceptable outcomes from the closing administrator. I don't care that much about the discussion being closed slightly too early. The point about this league not being fully professional at the time seems reasonable. I do not like the not-so-veiled accusations of sexism from the DRV nominator. Reyk YO! 08:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Responding to the claims that NSEASONS is met, consensus from past AfDs is that NSEASONS is not met in football terms when a league is not fully-professional. I think Jay eyem is spot on with the point about some editors seeing their role on Wikipedia being to right great wrongs. and the repeated WP:ASPERSIONS cast by the DRV filer are getting extremely tiresome and it might be time for this behaviour to be reviewed at ANI again. Number 57 12:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Curiously a couple of weeks ago when you voted to keep a season article for tenth-tier local amateur footballers (male) you seemed to set the notability bar rather lower! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seasons for leagues are treated a bit differently than seasons for individual teams, as coverage of a league is different than coverage of a team. However, the consensus from past AfDs around NSEASONS completely ignores GNG, which is one of the reasons why the mess of the AfD has spilled over to the DRV, as many of the users active at the AfD are trying to uphold the result, even though there have been a number of sources presented without any source analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 13:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right but there is also a very clear double standard in how this works in practice. It's very telling to see certain favoured articles at AfD being given a "common sense" WP:IAR lassitude even if they massively fail WP:GNG and NSEASONS. Of course the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at WP:FOOTBALL is wildly out of kilter with WP:GNG, but they don't want to confront that, so in cases like this we get WP:FOOTBALL lads dogmatically asserting NSEASONS but trying to ignore that it passes WP:GNG. I saw this curious phenomenon being neatly encapsulated recently here by an editor called @Johnbod:. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) As you full well know, that debate was on a league season article whereas this debate was on a club season article. I've been consistent in voting to delete club season articles for clubs in non-fully professional leagues whether male or female. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Why can you not seem to get through a debate without resorting to making misleading statements or intellectual dishonesty? Do you have that little faith in the strength of your case that you have to rely on misrepresentation to try and win the argument? Number 57 13:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice try, but I'm not buying that and I don't think others will either. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen or overturn to no consensus. Discussion was only open for a week, and discussion shifted significantly after the article was substantially improved. It's a little tough to parse exactly where it was moving because it was still moving. Technically closed early, and closing admin is openly not neutral, needs to be closed by someone who can act appropriately. If you favour a particular outcome, the appropriate thing to do is make an argument, not supervote (especially early, even if only technically a little - it gives a bad aura to such a blatant supervote). WilyD 14:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: The AfD appears to have been closed while discussions on the page were still active. I think this season meets WP:GNG, it was a highly controversial season that gained significant national media coverage in the general media, sports media, and specialist press, as well as generating a fair bit of television and radio coverage at the time. It was also a season played at the top level in a leading nation in the sport (England were world cup quarter-finalists in 2011 and semi-finalists in 2015). The references to the WSL not being a fully professional league (FPL) both here and in the AfD are a bit of a red herring really. FPL is a useful rule of thumb as a cut-off for modern-day men's leagues in Western Europe, but doesn't transfer well to women's football or to other time periods or parts of the world. — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 14:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the close was good, the consensus was cleat, GNG was/is not met. GiantSnowman 20:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) - there was policy-based consensus to delete in the AFD discussion. The DRV nom doesn't raise any valid grounds for overturning the close. Any of the season articles could always be recreated if they address the concerns in the AFD (e.g. better sourcing). Lev!vich 20:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the rationales for deletion look reasonable to me. As several people pointed out this was really an article about the demotion, essentially all the prose and essentially all the sources were about the demotion. Strip away that and you would end up with a bare table of results. This means the article was effectively acting as a coatrack. An article explicitly about 2013 demotion of the Doncaster Rovers Belles would probably be deleted under WP:NOTNEWS with a suggestion that it would be better covered as a section of Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C.. I don't agree that NSEASONS was met either, it might be the top level of the sport at the time but sports vary in significance. The top level of, say, Extreme ironing is not notable. Hut 8.5 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hut 8.5: Wikipedia policy is that, in essence, if you were notable at any point, that notability can not be undone just because what you were notable for became less significant at some time in the future. Once notable, always notable per WP:NTEMP. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia does delete articles about events with only short-term significance (see WP:NOTNEWS). An article specifically about the demotion would very likely be deleted for this reason. Without the demotion content it's pretty clear the article about the season doesn't pass the GNG. Hut 8.5 06:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hut 8.5: Sorry but I have a hard time taking any argument about "one time events" serious when Lawnchair Larry is an article on Wikipedia. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- delete was the correct assessment of the consensus. Lightburst (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will throw this out there because it needs to be said. Anyone giving precedence to NSEASONS or stating that as the basis for deletion of this article or any other is doing so disingenuously. NSEASONS is an ESSAY that means about as much as me getting a group together and us agreeing the moon is made of cheese. It can be used as a reference but is wholly the opinions of other editors and is to be taken with a grain of salt, not passed as anything close to policy. The "fully" professional argument being made is, again, an editors, or group of editors, subjective interpretation of an essay, not even what it says, which holds about as much water as the rusted tin bucket I use for buckshot target practice. Let's get real here and stop with this nonsense. I can at least respect those who realize that this team and this particular season of this team are notable enough to warrant a merge with the main article. The pure deletionist sticking to their guns and bravado like Custer at Little Big Horn get no such respect or the benefit of anything "good faith" from me. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth also pointing out that using WP:NSEASONS to remove articles related to women's football clubs requires an extremely selective view of the guideline. It also states that "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose", which the vast majority of men's team season articles absolutely do not, so if you're going to treat NSEASONS as gospel then those should be deleted too. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting that those articles should be deleted, I'm merely pointing out that if you're going to turn a blind eye to part of NSEASONS you shouldn't be using another part of it to beat a part of Wikipedia that is already underrepresented into submission and making the WP:BIAS problem even worse than it already is. — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 09:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tsistunagiska and Gasheadsteve: just to clarify, NSEASONS is a notability guideline and not an essay. That is an important distinction that you need to get right. GiantSnowman 17:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Just as a note, a guideline is not a policy and therefore has no more credence than a well written essay of opinion and it shouldn't be the foundation of a decision nor should it be given precedence over policy and used as the sole source reason for exclusion while only giving a cursory "waving of the hand" to the actual notability policy. It also isn't a substitute for common sense. I think I have my priorities in order, thank you. ;-) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This argument is addressed in WP:ESSAYDEL and WP:ONLYESSAY. In the context of deletion discussions, arguing that something or other is a guideline or essay isn't very convincing, because WP:N itself is "only a guideline" and not a policy. The entire concept of notability is a guideline, and so are WP:GNG and all the WP:SNGs. WP:NFOOTY and WP:NSEASONS are part of the same guideline: WP:NSPORTS. No deletion arguments concerning "notability" are based on any policy. Deletion arguments based on WP:V and WP:BLP are based on policy; deletion arguments that something should be kept/deleted because it is/is not notable (for any reason) are always based on guidelines and not policies. Still, while they're not policies, guidelines carry weight, because they document global consensus (approximately). As the notice says, guidelines like WP:NSEASONS are "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Lev!vich 18:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I wouldn't disagree with the close in any way, there was a minor technical error in the deletion process in that the debate was closed before the full allotted time has elapsed. DRV's core role is to correct errors in the deletion process. I can't see a way to avoid relisting this.—S Marshall T/C 11:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The decision was the proper reading of consensus. Also per Levivich reopening because it was .006 early seem the height of bureaucracy. Most of the overturns seem to be based on rearguing the AFD based on personal beliefs and not of PAGs.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse After reviewing it's a clear and precise decision. I feel the sources are okay, however the main article is Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. and technically season pages are a content-fork. There must be some examination to see how notable a subject is to be independent of its primary article. I feel there is some good level of structure, but in the end it statistics and prose that can in variably be in the club article. Govvy (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case, then there are major issues with almost every season article on Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 19:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some might say not just the season articles... :-) Lev!vich 19:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could say that with a lot of season pages, NSeasons, is still an SNG. But it's been trumped both ways over GNG which seems insane to me. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will never enjoy football the same way again after discussions here (tongue in cheek). I will forever be thinking whether that team or person passes Wikipedia policy/guideline/essay/opinion on notability. I want to go back to my pre-NSeasons days of ignorant bliss where "common sense" ruled (liking a team for their colors). The endorsements are overwhelming and that should be honored. It was a lively debate. I appreciate participation by everyone. I have Cherokee settlements to research. Anyone want to help me with that I will be your wiki-friend for life. Good show! :-) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist There are a number of problems here, but closing something early opens the closer up to accusations of rushing to close something they care about. And at a quick look, there is some overlap between the AfD nom and the AfD closer having similar noms and closes. Doesn't matter if there *is* a rush to close, but yeah, it might be best for Fenix Down to not close Spiderone's nominations for a while just to make sure we aren't creating reasons for people to suspect there is an issue. And we should relist this for that same reason. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would be in support of a relist if it meant being able to discuss alternatives to deletion such as merging, renaming or even keeping the article if it means that the info regarding their demotion (which is backed by reliable sources) isn't deleted. Spiderone 19:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Spiderone above. I would request to be able to move the article into userspace and potentially merge the information regarding their demotion into the clubs main article, if there is a consensus to do so. This DRV needs to get closed so we can move on. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We need to move forward. Spiderone 00:21, 24 October 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 October 2020

edit

7 October 2020

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

hello. I asked help from two admin (even Giantsnowman), leaded me to here. I've created this on 29 September (a mistake in capital of name in first then i corrected it) (without any history) but The deleting admin, GiantSnowman, misapplied WP:G4. The new article is substantially different from the deleted version (I don't know what was contain of article before), and the reason for the prior deletion no longer applies. I created that in my own edition and that was like my other works : Mostafa Aghajani & Kamal Nikkhoui and so.. my article is notable according to WP:NFOOTY that clearly says, only one match play in professional league becomes footballer notable and there is no difference between persons for same job (Area) : 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. ″Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo″ has played in both Azerbaijan Premier League (Azerbaijan) and Persian Gulf Pro League (Iran) and even he scored on 21 August 2020. These leagues are existed in WP:FPL as a professional's league. The reason of Afd (on 24 September) was for something else (creation of banned user not for notability of the article), i didn't know the history of that issues before. i think user:GiantSnowman deletion of my article (G4) might not be correct because the pages wasn't similar. i was working on Sabail FK and created template, category, and one player for that club (look at my edits on that day).″Giant″ said that was wp:salt ! but not true at all! A solution for wp:salt is : if an article create in a correct edition (by confirmed user) and it be survive, we can get rid of repeatedly creation by banned users (they created it with wrong in spelling too). that's important point. now the article has Require administrator access that's another problem (too high for this). I know the policies and wp:N, so I don't have any deleted article in my 80 creations. The situation has changed and the subject meets notability. Best regards. Mojtaba2361 (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created this for first time (see log) and my edition of article having no problem. I don't know what others done before. I said the other name was wrong and when it create in correct way, other banned users can't do the same vandalism again. I don't know why you insist on your cm about this article and what's your problem with this. user:Eddie891 (another admin) said that ″I do think that GiantSnowman's G4 deletion of your article might not be correct as G4 only applies when the pages are substantially identical, which doesn't seem to have been the case here. I'd be interested in their thoughts on the matter″. wp:SNG says: Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and at the AFD it was agreed that that presumption was not met. GiantSnowman 16:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that was your cm in Afd, not WP:CON ! only 3 comments for that Afd. the main point for that Afd was :Article was created by an LTA that is indef blocked (GTVM92). That wasn't relate to my edition of article. i explained enough for new creation and having no information about previous issues.(I found out after deleting you)--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I would say that 4 people (3 if you exclude the AfD nominator) voting in favour of delete with nobody opposing is fairly clear consensus and the admin was correct to close. Spiderone 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
please read all of my above explanations. you voted on that Afd too! the nominator just suggested that for creation of banned user. The recommender (user:Huji) is admin of FAwiki and if the article had a problem of notability he first deleted it in Fawiki , that's existed now --Mojtaba2361 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. I never voted in that AfD. The nom clearly also says "Subject is non-notable" and the article was deleted on the grounds of it comprehensively failing WP:GNG. I don't see anything controversial here. Spiderone 18:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i saw your name there but didn't see a sign before your name. user:huji thought that he's not notable and not sure. so why he didn't delete w:fa:پیمان کشاورزی نظرلو as an admin in Fawiki ?if the article had a problem? did you saw my version of creation?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse playing in a fully professional football match does not guarantee that someone is notable. From WP:NSPORT: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline... If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article... 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. So it only indicates that he is likely to be notable through passing the GNG. Given this it was reasonable for the AfD participants to decide that he isn't notable because he doesn't in fact meet the GNG. To overturn this I would expect to see some evidence that he does in fact pass the GNG. There is a growing feeling that NSPORT is rather too generous in suggesting that everyone who's played in a professional match in various sports is likely to be notable. Hut 8.5 18:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised by what you said about wp:SNG and WP:NFOOTY ! they are guidelines for notability and every one should respect to them and don't get personal impressions.they are clear enough. the article covers wp:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I don't know what you exactly mean please say and describe GNG for example for Rubén Anguiano or Pedri and so i tell you Gng for this article! I think some cms are in contrast with policies and guidelines and for Diverting the discussion. the problem of article is wp:SALT by banned users. i'm not banned user ! every thing that make Billy Gilmour (footballer) notable can be similar for above article. User:John B123 whom reviewed this article and many of my articles can confirm that.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you even not reading the wp:NFOOTY carefully! you said:″There is a growing feeling that NSPORT is rather too generous in suggesting that everyone who's played in a professional match in various sports is likely to be notable″ ! that's incorrect, it is only for footballers and not for other sport ! every sport hast it's SNG. --Mojtaba2361 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject passes the GNG then you should be able to point to 2-3 of the best sources which you feel show this. There's certainly nothing in the most recent version at Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo which shows this, the sources cited are statistics which summarise a match and don't represent significant coverage. It doesn't really matter whether some other footballer meets the GNG or not, what we're interested in here is this article, not some other article. It might be that other articles don't meet the GNG either and should be deleted as well. I am taking that guideline into consideration, as I've noted it does not say that footballers become automatically notable just for playing in professional matches. There are subject-specific notability guidelines which are intended to be alternatives to the GNG, but NFOOTBALL isn't one of them. This page has been protected against creation because of the sheer number of times it's been created and deleted in the space of a few months. Hut 8.5 06:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
see my other cms in this page.i answered your problems. Ivan Brnić is good example.i didn't have time to improve my article, i had many links to add.some links showed here to see the coverage of this footballer. another incorrect sentence from you as an admin at above is: wp:NFOOTBALL isn't one of them!. All shortcuts (like WP:NBBALL) in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is enough for each special sports persons to be notable. These guidelines are designed for this purpose and we should respect to them I don't know what others done before.I'm defending of my article. again and again i'm saying that, if an article create by truth user, we can get rid of spams/vandalism.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passing one of the criteria in WP:NSPORT is not enough to make someone notable by itself. Read the first paragraph. It clearly says that the page is there to indicate when someone is likely to be notable, and that passing those criteria does not guarantee that a topic should be included. Hut 8.5 06:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The quote from WP:NSPORT has a vital part omitted from it: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below (bold and italics as it is written in the guideline). That seems unambiguous that meeting WP:NFOOTY (in this case) is sufficient to meet the notability requirements. --John B123 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not reflected by longstanding AFD consensus, which says you must meet GNG, not just SNG. GiantSnowman 21:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that is not reflected in WP:OUTCOMES. It is pointless having guidelines and then saying we don't like that one so we'll ignore it. If the guideline doesn't reflect current thinking then it needs changing, usually after an RfC, but until that happens the guideline should be respected. --John B123 (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every article, in terms of notability, has to pass WP:GNG, as our notability guidelines are based on the topics of articles receiving secondary coverage. The SNG is a rule of thumb which works well for most cases, as meeting the SNG is almost always proof that GNG is met. However, articles can and do get deleted if WP:GNG is not met even if the SNG is met, even for non-football articles. For football especially, professional footballers playing in professional leagues are almost always notable, but because it's the one truly worldwide sport, the SNG doesn't always fit for players who have played only a minimal amount in a professional league. This is one of those instances - we don't have any proof any secondary press has actually taken notice of Keshavarz, but rather just directory listings and a Facebook post. Best to leave it in draft space until notability is clearer. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
see 8 other wikis (he has articles on them) and this links : 1, 2 (they are reliable source in persian, you can use google translate), 3, 4, azerbaijan news, 5, 6, 7, 8, twitter azerbaijan league, 9, PFL official website, 10, instagram off sabail fk, Goal.com, 11, 12, 13, eurosport.com they all cover his name, matches and news of his scoring. some of them can add into article--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion is flatly wrong. The part of the guideline you quote is talking only about the sources that should be in the article, not whether they're sufficient by themselves to presume inclusion. The long-standing consensus that NSPORT by itself is not sufficient, absent meeting the GNG, is stated lower, in WP:NSPORT#Applicable policies and guidelines: "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." —Cryptic 07:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion is only "flatly wrong" if your reading of WP:NSPORT is selective. Reading the guideline in full, there is some ambiguity. As the "either/or" part has been emboldened by previous editors, then that part must carry the most weight. The long-standing consensus that NSPORT by itself is not sufficient - can you post a link to this. --John B123 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My reading of the present DRV nomination is it is seeking to overturn the WP:G4 speedy deletion and salting of Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo[27]. However, this discussion has concentrated on a reassessment of WP:Articles for deletion/Peyman Keshavarz (the same person's "biography"). Regarding the AFD I would endorse the close. For WP:G4 the recreation must be "substantially identical". At User talk:Eddie891#peyman keshavarzi nazarloo Eddie891 doubts whether this is the case. I can't see to judge whether they are substantially identical. If they are, and anyway, the salting, if not the G4, seems to me reasonable because of recreations all over the place. The salting effectively requires a DRV to precede a recreation and for that a draft (or strong evidence of adequate sources) ought to be presented. Perhaps that is what is being requested here. Do we have such? Finally I note Draft:Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo is waiting in the wings. Is it relevant to this discussion? I find the whole situation, including this DRV discussion, very unsatisfactory and I fear I may be making things worse! Thincat (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin who G4ed and SALTed - I believe that the versions of Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo (as of 29 September 2020, at 06:15, by Mojtaba2361) and Peyman Keshavarz (as of 28 September 2020, at 14:28, by Dyrrachion) were significantly similar to justify G4. If anything the latter was more substantial and had more references (15 to 7). Content was very similar. GiantSnowman 21:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thincat Thanks. I say the same as you said,it's new creation of article,i don't have access the old version when i created this but i'm sure they are not same (how can it be same?!).Admins can prove what i say.I wanted to improve article but after few hours,wrongly deleted. In addition, i don't know whom made this draft (i sent message for him/her) but it's very copy of mine's. an important reason to overturn, we can get rid of incorrect names and vandalism of banned users/ip for this article.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is a complete mess, exacerbated by the numerous attempts to create this page. As to whether Keshavarz passes WP:NFOOTY, he does, barely, with only six total games under his belt, though he remains a current player and two of those games have occurred since the AfD. While WP:NFOOTY gives a presumption of notability, Keshavarz is not entitled to an article just because he has played six games - the player has failed an AfD, and looking at the draft for WP:GNG concerns, I can see this is not currently in error. Per long standing football consensus, if WP:GNG is met, Keshavarz may have a Wikipedia page. The deletion is fine, and even if it's not 100% technically correct, the article should not be in mainspace until secondary articles (not Soccerway, not directories) are added. SportingFlyer T·C 22:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
number of match is not important for notability! socccerway.com is enough for footballer's article because it's reliable source.i have a question: what makes Ivan Brnić, with only Soccerway.com Reference, notable?(he played 8 matches in pro league at all same as Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo) (answer According to your speech above and describe GNG for this player). another example: Pedri played his professional debut on 18 August 2019 for UD Las Palmas and his article created on 19 August 2019 because of his first match played in professional league! and every name that has this situation is NOTABLE for having article in wikipedia. That's clear guideline and there's no doubt about that. according to your speech more than 10000 footballer's article must deleted!--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Brnić went to AfD, I'd quickly add [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] to the discussion (and there's more on Brnić, Hajduk Split are a heavily covered club in Dalmatia) - an article isn't deleted because it only links to a single Soccerway source, but because the single Soccerway source is the only available source for that particular article. In Keshavarz's case, there's been an AfD and nobody has yet found qualifying coverage, (AND it was created by a banned user, AND we were spammed with four different articles on the same player.) SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sent some links under your above message (rsp to john123) from different languages.i didn't have a time to develop my article. my point is exactly this, if an article create by truth user, we can get rid of spams/vandalism. This article has GNG coverage and minimum stay conditions--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those sources would necessarily pass GNG, but there's at least some coverage. Note the database sites do not count! You have a lot of those. I don't mind seeing this developed as a draft. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i know that.he played in Iran U19 too. when different sources has a news about him, he'll be notable. I will work on the article if developed as draft. please change your first comment, endorse.Best--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
one of Afd participation was GiantSnowman, who deleted my article too! i explain lot about that Afd was for something else (please read above).i can't create this because the article has Require administrator access that's another problem. I want minimum of draft to work more on it.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic that's incorrect. i had never edit on this article in none of versions. i just created my own version on 29 September. i worked on Sabail FK's teams on that they (creating Template:Sabail FK squad and Category:Sabail FK templates and one player in same day).how you say that? please prove your speech.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the deleted edit histories, you moved Peyman Keshavarzi nazarloo to Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo on 29 September, and edited Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo, on 29 September. You also edited Peyman Keshavarz on 23 September and 29 September. GiantSnowman 11:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i said in first sentence at top, i had a mistake in ″nazarloo″ and moved my version.This is marginal comment and for diverting the discussion. The main is that the article is notable according to guidelines and many links and sources and can be exist. the situation has been changed and deletion of my article was incorrect (against the guidelines). Peyman Keshavarz wasn't exist on 29 September (i created redirect and it wasn't count on edit for Peyman Keshavarz)!! --Mojtaba2361 (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • see WP:FPL paragraph 1 & 2 : This page is part of the WikiProject on Football and provides a list of known fully professional leagues, and also those that are known to not be fully professional. As such, this list can be used as an aid in considering the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline, which 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. Players who have not played in a fully professional league listed below may meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline. and carefully notice that Bold sentences. We Should respect to guidelines. in summary: if a footballer plays one match in professional league is notable for having article, if not played in pro league he may meet GNG. according to this and i'm not banned user, Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo must Overturn.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:NOTE): A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right
(WP:NSPORT): The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below
This is further clarified in WP:SNG: A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article
Previous outcomes at AfD do not modify guidelines, as confirmed in WP:OUTCOMES: previous outcomes do not bind future ones
--John B123 (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: - you are picking and choosing what bits you quote from. NSPORT goes on to say (immediately after your quote ends) that "if the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", and NSPORT starts by saying "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia". Taken altogether, what it means is that if you meet the requirements of NSPORT then there is a presumption that you also meet GNG - and in practice what that means is that meeting NSPORT buys you time for GNG to be actually established, rather than just presumed. As has been seen at dozens and dozens of AFDs is that meeting NSPORT but failing GNG is insufficient for notability. GiantSnowman 19:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: - On the contary, I am trying to balance the picking and choosing by others to try and give different meanings to the guidelines and ignoring the explicit statements within those guidelines that articles that articles need to meet either GNG or SNG. If that is not the case then perhaps you could explain why that statement is emboldened in WP:NSPORT. --John B123 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Poor choice of wording/drafting, nothing more. GiantSnowman 21:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon i'm surprised by these personal impression comments about guidelines! see the message of user:John B123 at above : It is pointless having guidelines and then saying we don't like that one so we'll ignore it. If the guideline doesn't reflect current thinking then it needs changing, usually after an RfC, but until that happens the guideline should be respected. Here we don't want to change the guidelines! we want to decide whether article is against the guidelines or not!--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Mojtaba2361 - Are you surprised that an editor disagrees with the guidelines? Duh. Am I proposing to ignore the guidelines? No. But with several editors agreeing with a guideline that results in many contentious AFDs and DRVs, I am stating an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one takes the various guidelines as definitive and reads them literally they are contradictory. There has never been consistent consensus about the relationship between the GNG and the SpNG. There have been many AfDs where meeting the Sports SNG has been considered enough even with not meeting the GNG, and many where meeting the GNG alone is enough even if it doesn't meet the Sports SNG. There have also been many requiring meeting both. Any view here can find hundreds of precedents and dozens of statements claimed to be definitive. . Personally, for people whose notability is only in sports I consider that they must meet the Sports SNG, and that there can be a reasonable presumption that if enough sources were available to us they would meet the GNG; if we treat "reasonable presumption" broadly enough, this comes out meaning that meeting the Sports SNG is enough. I would personally prefer to deal with sportspeople who meet only the GNG by looking at how well general notability is shown, and exclude all local or questionable sources. I think this is enough to resolve the contradiction in individual cases. I have not looked at the example here. In practice., conclusions in AfDs generally are decided by the determination and skill of those who show up, not by the guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I wholehearted agree with your last statement. Also, even a "well attended" AfD may only have a dozen editors participating. Of those, some will have strong views on the subject and participate because of that, others will be regulars at AfD. Given the small numbers of people attending AfDs, it is erronious to think that the "case law" built up by previous AfDs is representative of concensus of the community. --John B123 (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG and John B123: Thanks. Right with both of you. these are the correct points.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 08:01, 15 October 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 October 2020

edit

5 October 2020

edit
  • R3_(company) – "Delete" closure endorsed. Although there was little participation in this deletion review, I have to discount the one "overturn" opinion because it does not address the closure but re-argues the deletion discussion on the merits, which is not what this forum is for, see WP:DRVPURPOSE. Even if we were to count this opinion, there would still not be the necessary consensus to overturn the closure. Sandstein 07:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
R3_(company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted unilaterally, and without proper discussion. The log for the R3 deletion talk page shows more votes to keep than delete and the page was totally redeemable if any remaining sourcing issues were fixed. It appears this particular editor has a history of attacking firms in this space: https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-hating-wikipedia-editor-david-gerard-claims-another-victim Notability clearly exists when you look at the quality of independent media coverage about R3 in top tier international titles such as the FT, Wall Street Journal, Reuters etc. This clearly warrants the company having its own Wikipedia page in the same way that others in this space such as Hyperledger and Ripple do.   Investors in R3 include some of the biggest banks in the world – such as Barclays, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, UBS and HSBC (https://www.ft.com/content/3084f066-3f9e-11e7-82b6-896b95f30f58). In addition, R3’s technology is being used by central banks and authorities such as The Bank of England, Bank of Thailand, Monetary Authority of Singapore and Riksbank. For example: https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/rapporter/e-krona/2019/the-riksbanks-e-krona-pilot.pdf 189.174.214.13 (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse While having someone else close the AfD may be better optically, delete is still the clear and correct result based on the nature of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 16:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin: We don't decide AFDs by a pure numerical counts of votes, but by evaluating the arguments first. I mostly based the close on the sourcing arguments re: WP:NCORP - where even the RS coverage was not of usable substance to show WP:CORPDEPTH. "Attacking firms in this space" is otherwise phrased "I am a public subject-matter expert", and it is not clear how linking an off-wiki personal attack helps your case rather than hindering it - except to demonstrate how cryptocurrency advocates are chronically unable to distinguish a lack of advocacy from a conspiracy - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clearly the right close, the arguments for keeping either weren't grounded in policies and guidelines (WP:CORP specifically) or were convincingly rebutted. Merely being mentioned in some publication is not sufficient to make something notable and having major investors certainly doesn't. Hut 8.5 12:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn a quick Google News search clearly establishes WP:NCORP for the company. They are not "merely mentioned in some publications" as argued below. If the page is re-instated the references can be tweaked so they better meet WP:CORPDEPTH This is an important and major player in the financial technology space and easily meets the criteria to have its own Wiki page.Travelsandwords (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC) — Travelsandwords (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 October 2020

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

When asked on their Talk page for their reasoning, they stated that "it was clear by a 2-1 margin that the consensus is that is it adjudged to have enough sigcov from reliable secondary sources, such as NBC News". This isn't an accurate summary. Most of the Keep !voters didn't provide any reasons beyond an assertion that the topic company is notable or that there were notable directors/playwrights or that it had a famous founder. One !voter listed 9 references and I provided reasoning why none of those references met the criteria. There was vague and wholly dismissive disagreement but not precise reasons provided, based on guidelines or policy, why the reasoning was incorrect or even counter-reasoning to suggest why the topic company was notable. The comment by the closing admin that "it was clear by a 2-1 margin" strongly suggests that a proper review, applying appropriate guidelines/policies was not correctly carried out. I've since reviewed the references again and I believe there are sufficient reasons to overturn the result of this AfD. At the very least it should be a "No Consensus" call but the most appropriate would be to delete the article as it fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this request goes against consensus. HighKing posted his views ten times during the AfD, and did not convince the other people involved in the discussion. This is continuing that WP:BLUDGEONing behavior even after the AfD closed. During this discussion, I wrote about this article from NBC News : "Theater that reflects a changing America? Venezuelan Michel Hausmann is doing it in Miami" which is entirely about Miami New Drama. HighKing did not respond to my analysis during the discussion, although HighKing did mention it in last week's attempt to re-litigate on the closing admin's talk page. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should know the processes well enough by now. I didn't try to "re-litigate" on the admins Talk page, I asked for the closing admin's reasoning and asked the closing admin to reconsider a close of "No Consensus". JGJowes hasn't responded to that request so, as per our guidelines and recommendations, I opened this DRV. Most of the time, at that AfD, I requested references and then commented on those references. Perhaps you missed the rich irony where on the one hand you're accusing me of bludgeoning the process and on the other, criticising me for not responding to your disagreement with my analysis ... there's enough drama on WP without you trying to mislead others on what has occurred.
As to the meat of the matter ... in fairness you wrote about the NBC news reference after I had already pointed out why it failed both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. You disagreed with my analysis, fine, but you failed to provide any rebuttal as to why the reference failed WP:ORGIND. While DRV isn't the place for looking at individual references, I hope other editors look at the NBC News reference and check that it fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND as I already stated. I believed a closing admin would have picked up on your incomplete rebuttal as well as the fact that multiple references are required and even if the NBC News one was accepted, at least one more is needed. HighKing++ 21:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re ORGIND, are you saying that NBC News has a financial stake in Miami New Drama? -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the AfD, I said that references must contain "Independent Content" a number of times. "Independent Content" is defined at AfD as follows: Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Therefore references that rely on information produced by the company without providing an independent opinion/analysis/etc fail ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if someone could provide an explanation though. HighKing++ 12:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse and speedy close. The OP here argues that "Notability is not inherited and coverage of the productions does not bestow notability on the production company any more than it would bestow notability on the director or the theatre". Let me phrase this carefully: This is a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid argument. (It also shows that the OP is unfamiliar with what WP:NOTINHERITED actually says, because, among other things, it says that notability can be inherited by creative professionals from their work.) People and corporations are generally notable for what they do (those few who are lamentably famous for being famous aside), and to say that coverage of what a person or corporation does is not coverage of the person/corporation itself is so mind-bogglingly boneheaded an idea that language fails me. Yet I have seen editors here argue that scientists do not "inherit notability" from their scientific work.The OP also appears utterly innocent of any understanding of journalism: they argue that any coverage incorporating any information provided by a source in any way involved with the subject must be treated as unreliable and lacking independence. Now there are many corners of the internet which privilege "journalism" that is utterly uninfected by informed sourcing, but I had believed that Wikipedia was not one of them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTINHERITED doesn't say that and appears to say the opposite. One example it uses as notability not being inherited is "the artist is famous, so the album is notable". It states very clearly (and excludes) "Inherited notability", being the idea that something qualifies for an article because it was associated with some other legitimately notable subject. It *does* say that four of the notability guidelines, creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances, but as you should have seen, the applicable guidelines for organizations doesn't allow for inherited notability. You expound the idea that notability of a person or corporation must flow from what they do, but that does not appear in our guidelines and in fact, not only does NOTINHERITED throw cold water on that idea, it doesn't appear in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG and says rather the opposite. There has been some discussion that perhaps it should be added (which I would favour) - for example at one recent AfD on an architecture firm named after two notable architects - but to date this has not progressed. You insinuate an innocence on my part on any understanding of journalism, yet what is more clear is that this opinion flies in the face of the requirement for "Independent Content" as contained in WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I cannot see how the closer could have made a different close. Community members can disagree whether a source meets (or multiple sources meet) the expectations of a SNG - the closer must only evaluate the comments about the source. In this case, there was valid disagreement about whether the sources provided met the expectations of WP:NCORP, and the vast majority of comments were to keep the article. No other close would have been proper. --Enos733 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks Enos733, two points. Of course community members can disagree but at this AfD, I provided an analysis on why the references failed NCORP and only editor pointed out one reference they believed was still good. I understand the role of the closing admin is to weigh the arguments with a view on policy and guidelines but the vast majority of Keep !votes were irrelevant because "Lots of coverage", "Founded by notable founders", etc, are not arguments based on NCORP guidelines. So by you saying "the vast majority of comments were to keep the article", you're essentially counting !votes. There was not a consensus to Keep, there was a disagreement. Very frustrating to editors that understand NCORP, understand what is required from sources, etc, only for it all to be reduced to a majority !vote. I don't mind. If that's the reality, I'd prefer to know. HighKing++ 16:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This appeal is only a discussion of whether the close was a reasonable close based on the discussion, not whether it was the appellant's or another editor's conclusion. It was a reasonable close. It is also what I would have said if I had been in the AFD, but that isn't important. The appellant, by continuing to bludgeon the discussion, is making other editors wonder whether they are personalizing this for some reason. We can assume good faith but still ask them to drop it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Nom OK, maybe I'm being stupid ... more than likely, wouldn't be the first time. I'm also probably close to bluedgeoning this process at this stage by asking questions but I'm really trying very hard to understand the logic behind the close. If someone could provide a quick step-by-step decision process to get the conclusion, it would help. Or I could try to embarrass myself more by posting what I believe my logic would be. Or take it to my Talk page? Whatever works. Clearly this decision is not as unreasonable as I thought when I opened the DRV judging by the experienced admins who have responded (thank you), happy to accept that, but I'd also like to understand what I'm missing. HighKing++ 21:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HighKing: The explanation is that it's a vote. No matter how much we say otherwise, in practice, disputes over whether source X meets GNG criteria are resolved by counting noses, because there is nothing in policy that gives a closer grounds to discount votes. So, if a dozen voters say one sentence is "significant coverage", then there's consensus that one sentence meets WP:SIGCOV. If a closer were to discount those dozen votes because "one sentence is obvi not sigcov", that would be a supervote, because SIGCOV doesn't say anything about a minimum length. There's nothing in WP:N that allows closers to filter AFD votes by common sense. The solution is to put clearer and more objective criteria into our notability guidelines, particularly expanding GNG on the topics of SIGCOV minimum lengths, interviews, local coverage, press releases, etc. But until then, when the overwhelming majority of voters say that sources X, Y, and Z meet SIGCOV, closers are compelled to call that consensus, even if sources X, Y, and Z are listings in a phone book. Lev!vich 19:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Levivich, I was struggling but your explanation and example helps a lot. I know you've put forward SIGCOV as an example and not necessarily how a closing admin would interpret each !vote. I didn't realise that a closer couldn't/shouldn't, for example, discount "one sentence is obvi sig cov", even if it is only one sentence because there's no minimum length. So even though SIGCOV says that the reference must "address the topic directly and in detail", we're still left open to an interpretation of what "in detail" means - the "common sense" argument you refer can still leave an admin with little choice. Am I right in thinking that an admin relies solely on what each !vote says and doesn't necessarily check to see if the references are just one sentence or whether what each !voter says about the reference makes sense? Would doing that essentially be a !supervote? HighKing++ 21:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @HighKing: I doubt most AFD closers will check references to verify that what the participants are saying about them is accurate. And if they did, yes, I think that would be viewed as a supervote, even if the closer was correct and the participants were incorrect. But that's just my opinion/perspective though, I certainly could be wrong. Lev!vich 22:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there is a difference in how much discretion a closer has based on the quantity of comments supporting one result over another AND to the degree to which comments are grounded in policy. If the comments are lopsided, then the closer will either relist with instructions or more likely close as with the majority of comments. If the comments are closer and only one position is based in policy, then there is more room for a policy-based close. In this case, there was a numerical majority for keep and several of the keep comments included references to new sources and others argued that the existing sources met WP:NCORP. On balance, a neutral closer would see this policy argument as debatable and look at number of opinions to see that those advocating for keep reflected the discussion consensus. --Enos733 (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The correct result. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is a clear endorse. Keep !votes were grounded in policy and quite numerous - the only way this could be overturned if voters had no basis for !voting keep, which isn't the case here. That being said, the article is currently written in an overly detailed and promotional manner for what it is. We don't need a list of all of the shows the theatre company has put on, for instance. However, there's clear consensus it's notable. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 October 2020

edit

2 October 2020

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

Belatedly requesting a review of the close of this deletion discussion; deleting administrator Tone already declined, and a recreation of the originally proposed redirect today was speedy deleted by Muboshgu citing WP:G4. I'm not challenging the article's deletion - there was very clear consensus that the article should be removed, however out of 20 bolded !votes, 4 explicitly endorsed redirection, and 9 more either were of the form "delete and redirect as proposed" or endorsed deletion because the topic was covered at the proposed redirect target. Only 5 endorsed deletion and made no further argument. I feel that upon wholesome analysis of the comments in the discussion, "the result was delete" is an incomplete reading, and that today's creation of a redirect in its place does not qualify for WP:G4 and should be restored. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My G4 deletion was based on Tone closing the AfD as delete and not mentioning the possibility of redirect. There were votes to redirect, but that was not the closing admin's decision. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Not mentioning the possibility of redirect" is basically what I think should be reviewed. G4 was probably procedurally correct given the close but maybe not taking the whole situation into account, but that's really a side point to whether the close was entirely accurate in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn something if the question is whether to allow a redirect. Either overturn the close from Delete to Delete and Redirect, or overturn the G4 because a redirect is not substantially the same as the deleted article. If what is being requested is restoring the redirect, then overturn something to permit it to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not make sense. If the AFD is closed as delete with no redirect, then you can't immediately rock up and recreate the redirect anyway, because it's "not substantially the same". What would be the point of debating the merits of delete vs redirect then? That's a clear G4 whichever way you cook it. You can only overturn if the close itself was wrong.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize you want G4 to stretch to that. And I can see why. But as written, it clearly doesn't. And in my opinion, it shouldn't. We have a place to discuss redirects. The people that frequent that venue tend to be more knowledgeable about our redirect policies than those that frequent AfD. Hobit (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of redirect per Robert McClenon. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I read a consensus to delete, not redirect, with the vast majority !voting for that or approving that. Also, Wikipedia should not be entrenching controversial political phases as redirects that will give positive feedback to external search algorithms. The existence of the redirect causes the internal search engine to be bypassed by default. No redirect gives a far superior result, as multiple pages may better match, now and in the future. See the real internal search. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine, but are you claiming a redirect is a recreation of the original article? If not, how does G4 apply? Hobit (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think, if the AfD was closed with a calling of consensus to not have a redirect, then G4 serves as the mechanism to enforce the decision. I think that call was not clear, and so the redirect should go to RfD, on second look. At RfD, I would !vote to delete as above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of the redirectA decision to delete an article does not prohibit the subsequent creation of a redirect. I'm not even sure that an AfD could legitimately close with a decision to delete and not allow a redirect Anyone objecting to the redirect should proceed via RfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion - G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies", so it doesn't seem applicable in this case. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 06:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect. Looking at the debate itself, it seems fairly clear that the prevailing consensus was to remove the content and redirect. Like SmokeyJoe I probably wouldn't vote that way myself, I'd just delete outright. But a case for notability was made in the discussion and I didn't participate, so from an independent perspective that was the outcome. Re suggestions that the G4 was wrong, that's just preposterous. AFD closing instructions explicitly note delete and redirect as separate outcomes for the close, which means if it's delete it's delete. You can't then recreate the redirect anyway. The substantially identical clause is met because the closer said explicitly no to a redirect, and recreating that redirect therefore means creating something that was rejected. Until and unless the close itself if overturned, the redirect should remain deleted.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who do we think is likely to type Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories into the search box?—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirects and links to this page that were also deleted and removed, sight-likely-unseen, are a little more plausible. Also, blah blah internal search hinting blah. —Cryptic 21:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, if someone bookmarked this article, they at least will now get more than a "no page" error. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you go straight to the redlink, via bookmark or clicking on it now, you get the fairly usefully informative deletion log that links to the AfDs, the later of which will link to this discussion. That will be far more useful than a redirect to but one relevant page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's appalling and abhorrent that American people who have brown skin get targeted in this way. Trump talks in an unfiltered stream of consciousness, and the media hangs off his every word; I think we, as Western society, and we, as Wikipedians, both pay far too much attention to his random blitherings. He'll say something completely different tomorrow. I honestly think it would be best to ignore the whole thing; but good faith editors disagree and they have an arguable case, so I rather grudgingly suppose I'd come down on the "allow redirect" side here.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not certain that most people would want to delve into the deletion discussions? Useful for regular editors, but I'm pretty sure (though I'm honestly not positive) that most folks would find that fairly hard to understand and get useful information out of. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Going straight to the redlink only gives you the deletion log if you're logged in. (Or, I seem to recall, very shortly after the deletion.) —Cryptic 07:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4. A redirect is not substantially identical to a substantive article. G4 does not authorize deletion by administrative fiat merely because an admin believes they can accurately predict the outcome of a deletion discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 deletion - G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" Lightburst (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 - this case is a good example of why G4 doesn't apply to articles recreated as redirects after an AFD: because whether it's OK to redirect or not OK to redirect is a judgment call that should not be made on a speedy basis. People will often disagree as to whether a particular AFD discussion did or did not prohibit recreation as a redirect. If someone !votes "redirect" and it's closed as "delete" and the closer doesn't say anything about redirect, does that mean recreating as a redirect is permitted or prohibited? Hard to say, need to read the discussion to really get it. Not all closers will remember to specifically say that a redirect is permitted or prohibited. Hence, we shouldn't delete such recreated redirects on a speedy basis; instead, if someone thinks an article was inappropriately created as a redirect, the thing to do is to RFD it, where editors can examine the AFD and determine if a redirect does or doesn't have consensus. G4 is narrow and specific by design, just like all the other CSD criteria. Lev!vich 19:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 of the redirect, without comment on whether the redirect can be discussed at RfD. SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 and allow redirect - the combination of a sloppily-worded close and a context-insensitive G4 deletion have clearly thwarted the consensus of the deletion discussion. Someone needs to WP:FIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 a Delete closure at AfD doesn't usually preclude a redirect, it just means the article should be deleted. The title can still be redirected afterwards. A redirect is not substantially similar to an article. Hut 8.5 18:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to buck the trend here and say the G4 was perfectly reasonable. Yes, most of the time it's incorrect to G4 a redirect based on an afd. Here, though, the afd explicitly considered whether to redirect, at length - it was even started with the goal to redirect without deleting - and was closed as deletion instead. The standard for whether G4 applies to a recreation that's not byte-for-byte identical to a previous version is whether the changes would have been enough to materially affect the outcome of the afd, and "#REDIRECT Natural-born-citizen_clause#Kamala_Harris" plainly doesn't for an afd that discussed that specific redirect target and was closed as "delete, don't redirect".
    That said, I don't see a consensus in this afd to forbid the redirect. Even most of the participants bolding "Delete" say that the subject is already covered at the redirect target. So endorse the G4, overturn the afd, and my apologies for the policy-wonking. —Cryptic 07:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cryptopia – Original "delete" closure endorsed. This discussion has no consensus for an immediate recreation based on the coverage submitted here, but several editors suggest creating a new draft from scratch, which would then probably need community scrutiny (e.g. WP:AfC) before recreation, given our problems with this topic area. Sandstein 20:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cryptopia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nominator wrote: "This seems like a Non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. All the coverage of it the article is extremely trivial, for instance a bank closing their account, and I wasn't able to find anything that would pass WP:NCORP in a before."

From that guideline: "Examples of substantial coverage" include "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization."

Can't believe I have to say this, but quite simply, it has ongoing media coverage.

The following sources were not in the article and there's no indication that they knew about or considered them. See archive.org snapshot of the article during its AfD.

I did not participate in the AfD. The reasoning to delete is now invalid because I have shown how it does meet the guideline. The article should be restored and require a new AfD in order to delete. Ҥ (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Ҥ (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The statement that 'The reasoning to delete is now invalid' is unpleasant and isn't the most collaborative way to get an article approved. Is the appellant trying to insult the closer, or is the appellant only forgetting to be civil? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deletion review may be used:
    2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
    3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"
    WP:G4 excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"
    The appellant respectfully disputes the eligibility of G4, your honor. Ҥ (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The appellant could have said "no longer applies" rather than saying "is now invalid", which is insulting. But perhaps we should not expect courtesy when dealing with cryptocurrency. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Draft if that is what the appellant is asking, but reviewers, like closers, are likely to be cautious about cryptocurrency. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're not asking for a draft, or at least not honestly if so. They asked Tony to undelete and draftify it, and when he did, they immediately moved it into mainspace (where it was promptly G4ed). —Cryptic 17:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Also asked "So I can add significant details of the liquidation / bankruptcy proceedings to the article. Would you agree that the article won't be worthy of speedy deletion if I improve it based off all this?"[33]
      I moved it days later, not immediately. I admit that I did not make significant improvements, only minor. But I am not disputing the deletion on those grounds ("excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"). Ҥ (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse the original closing decision. Those news items are just reporting on court orders and press releases, they do not contain original research as required by WP:ORGIND. It is unreasonable (you imply it is reasonable when you complain that there was "no indication that they knew about [...] them") to expect a deletion debate to list every single source that can be found. The deletion debate had an outcome that still stands, since the rules of WP:ORGIND also disqualify the sources you listed. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think any of it is from press releases. I don't see how this one could be, for example:
    • February 8, 2020 "Sabotage or theft? Inside the $24m Cryptopia heist" Stuff
      "Cryptopia could have been one of New Zealand's most successful hi-tech start-ups. Its end was caused by one of the country's biggest heists worth $24 million. SAM SHERWOOD and MARTIN VAN BEYNEN follow the twisted path to the company's collapse."
    And I did not attempt to list every other source I could find. See:
    So I only listed sources after the initial May 2019 liquidation news and did not include ones that are about the same thing. Ҥ (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pinging debate participants indiscriminately @Adamant1:, @Bearian:, @97.113.248.72: --Ysangkok (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Reply to says "IP addresses are only notified if you post to their user talk page."
    An inexperienced IP user probably would not be able to impact the outcome of this deletion review, so doesn't matter if they are notified. Ҥ (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At this point I think the only real question is whether to salt. But DRV is not a salt mine. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm seeing one bit of coverage, in the same vein as previous coverage, since the AfD. The G4 is fine. That said, I think the coverage is way over what is needed for an article. Maybe it should be an event article on the "heist" or something. But that's plenty of coverage. relist at AfD The sources listed above were not really discussed in the very limited AfD that resulted in deletion. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Properly deleted. WP:Reference bombing is not a way to sidestep WP:CORP, and cryptocurrencies are given very little leeway. Allow drafting, and advise proponents to follow the advice at WP:THREE. The criteria for inclusion, once you understand them, are very low, it takes only two qualifying sources. If you can’t do it with three, give up. Don’t waste our time with reference bombing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are almost all articles with the name of the company in the title. Pointing out that there are metric ton of sources is useful given that we use sources as our method of deciding to keep an article or not. I agree it would be best if the nom listed the best few sources, but I think knowing that there is this much (almost all negative) coverage is useful to the decision process. Hobit (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • For commercial topics, it is hard work to judge whether the sources are independent. You have to analyse the writing style, look into the history of the author, and look for links between the company and the publisher. An objective story next to advertising for the product, and I deem it non-independent. Let the onus for making the choice of best sources lie with the proponent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, but in this case, they are almost all pretty uniformly negative. Maybe someone is pulling strings somewhere in the coverage, but it seems unlikely to be the company. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure indeed. My gut feel is that this topic has a good chance of getting back into mainspace, and the best and most efficient route is via draftspace and the advice at WP:THREE. With a clear AfD less than six months ago, it is not OK to just re-create straight into mainspace. This DRV was ill-advised, as the AfD process was done correctly. Here at DRV we will review the sources more actively, if AfC refuse to mainspace it on submission, and if the notability evidence is not excessively long. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. This is not the place to reconsider the details. It needs instead another discussion at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's probably not enough there for a standalone article, but I do think there's enough about the breach to expand cryptocurrency exchange#History to cover Cryptopia as well as Mt. Gox. Once that's done we could have a redirect instead of a redlink in this space. Cryptocurrency articles have such a shitty history on Wikipedia that I'd advocate pre-emptive, indefinite full protection of the redirect.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion if I'm allowed to do that (if not then this just a comment. Since I was pinged). The good majority of sources that Ҥ mind read weren't reviewed were around before the AfD and were considered, at least by me. As stated by Ysangkok most (or all of them) are garbage and not every source in existence (or that was looked over) needs be listed in an AfD for the outcome be valid. Also, the close of the AfD, which is what AfD reviews are for, was perfectly valid based on the consensus. So, there's zero grounds to do another AFD about it or do anything else related to it either. Except for keeping it deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "there's no indication that they knew about or considered them." Claiming you knew about them before I brought them up at deletion review doesn't change anything for me. I think they should be considered in text at AfD, not just inside your mind which I can't read. Ҥ (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the world doesn't revolve around you and that's not how AfDs work. If you don't like it cool, but it's not my problem. Feel free to take your ridiculous assertion about it to whatever forum serves as the place to discuss changing AfD policy though, but this isn't the place for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and disallow recreation for now per SmokeyJoe and Adamant1. The deletion nom was based on poor sourcing in the article at the time, but also a failure to find sources to satisfy WP:NCORP. That remains the case and per SmokeyJoe the above links don't show enduring notability, NCORP or even GNG (they are not in depth secondary coverage, but rather news articles tangential to the subject). Keep in draft, find the WP:THREE best sources is they exist, and then we can reconsider. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this source good enough for NCORP? If not, can you explain why?
February 8, 2020 "Sabotage or theft? Inside the $24m Cryptopia heist" Stuff
"Cryptopia could have been one of New Zealand's most successful hi-tech start-ups. Its end was caused by one of the country's biggest heists worth $24 million. SAM SHERWOOD and MARTIN VAN BEYNEN follow the twisted path to the company's collapse."
Quoting participants and requesting if they or anyone else can expand on their reasoning, with regard to just this one source I've highlighted.
@Ysangkok: "Those news items are just reporting on court orders and press releases, they do not contain original research as required by WP:ORGIND."
@Adamant1: "As stated by Ysangkok most (or all of them) are garbage"
@Amakuru: "the above links don't show enduring notability, NCORP or even GNG (they are not in depth secondary coverage, but rather news articles tangential to the subject)" Ҥ (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On my end no, because I don't think a deletion review is the place to relitigate AfDs in that way or to analyze sources. "new" or otherwise. Like me (and other people) have already said, a deletion review is to determine if the AfD was closed properly or not based on the consensus. Not to continue the AfD, just in another forum. Which is what your trying to do by making us analysis sources post AfD close. More so because the hiest and if it was enough on it's own to make them notable was already discussed in the AfD. Just because you have another source about it, that people already looked over, doesn't mean or change anything, or make what your doing any less relitigation. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I already explained the same above but I'll do it again for you:
"Deletion review may be used: if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;"
WP:G4 excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"
If the nominator claimed that he "wasn't able to find anything that would pass WP:NCORP in a before", then that no longer applies if any qualifying sources can later be identified. Ҥ (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, except you've failed to find any sources, new or otherwise, that are "qualifying." Just asking people's opinions repeatedly about the same sources that were already looked at for the AfD and have been rejected repeatedly doesn't count. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow and oppose. All the coverage is after the fact reporting, re: what is happening at the liquidation company. There is no new in-depth analysis to support undeletion. Several of them seem to be the same story, indicating a press-release as the source. scope_creepTalk 14:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) @Scope creep: Did you look at this source? "Sabotage or theft? Inside the $24m Cryptopia heist"
2) About 1,300 out of 2,500 total words are about the the company before the hack from counting everything after "The Hobbyists" to before "The Hack". Is that accurate? If not, what would be more accurate to say?
3) WP:CORPDEPTH says "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." So even if you think it's not an "in-depth analysis", how does it otherwise fail? Like why isn't it an overview?
4) I don't think any of the sources I linked to at the start of this deletion review are the same story. Which ones do you think are the same story? Ҥ (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian:, all articles discussed in Deletion Review have already been deleted. The purpose of the discussion is explained at Wikipedia:Deletion_review. You're not supposed to "vote" delete here. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion then. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I might not have been clear in my comment as I had quick review of the instructions, but I absolutely Endorse deletion. The references posted above are routine announcements , that startup creates using the branding and advertising budget, and clearly fail the WP:NCORP policy. A routine court-case re: the liquidation, is simply not notable. scope_creepTalk 08:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the discussion as a delete. Based on the argument, I don't have an issue if the DRV nominator wants to create a brand new draft using the articles above (which I have not reviewed) but given the discussion was clear and our ongoing difficulty with crypto-spam I don't think this should be a straight up restore. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I suggest the OP try to write a new draft if they want to show the subject is suitable for an article. I can't support restoring the previous one for them to work on because when that was done before the OP moved it straight back to mainspace with essentially no changes (they added one external link). The fact that the subject has news coverage doesn't necessarily mean they are suitable for an article, because Wikipedia is not a news source and WP:CORP imposes strict criteria on sourcing for articles about organisations. The fact that we've had a lot of promotion for cryptocurrency-related subjects here does mean increased scrutiny on articles about them. Hut 8.5 12:19, 9 October 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 October 2020

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

This was a clear no consensus result. The closer's rationale is: Every Wikipedia article needs to pass GNG. SNGs are simply a shortcut that presumes that sources exist to satisfy GNG when a topic satisfies the SNG. However, what WP:N actually says is: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. Since this article clearly does meet WP:SOLDIER, which is listed at the SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people), it was incumbent upon the closer to take account of those !votes which quoted WP:SOLDIER and not suggest that those relying on GNG held more weight. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Necrothesp (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still mulling this over, but for an SNG instead of the essay (which SOLDIER is), how about WP:ANYBIO #1? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would work too. However, given that despite its essay status, SOLDIER is actually listed at WP:NBIO I think citing it remains valid, despite the ongoing efforts of some editors to claim it isn't. Frankly, given the frequency of its use in AfD discussions and the respect it's given by the majority of editors working in the field, I'm really not sure why it has remained an essay. But yes, you are entirely correct that the MoH also clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the close by Scottywong: I was a Delete vote, not a Redirect vote, but Redirect was the correct outcome.
  • I think that what Necrothesp is trying to say (sorry I don't speak Extreme Wikilayer yet), is that because WP:N refers to NPEOPLE in the box of the right, NSOLDER becomes an SNG because it is referred in NPEOPLE. By this logic, every essay that is mentioned in any SNG becomes part of the N guideline. Slick as a contract at a used car lot.
  • I think Necrothesp's idea that GNG is not a weightier standard than NSOLDIER is outside the consensus. yes GNG has more weight than a misinterpreted essay.
  • This is not the place to relitigate the AfD, but the place to review the close. In this case, the closer did examine and weigh the arguments presented in the discussion regarding the existence of RS showing notability. I believe they also properly weighed the "votes" against the !votes WP:CLOSEAFD. This is too often lacking in closes and I appreciate the closer doing it here.
  • Too often AfDs are lazily closed based on presumption, when the presumption has been objected to in the AfD, instead of the closer taking the time to evaluate the arguments and evidence. I appreciate the closer not doing a lazy presumption close here.
  • With all the discussion that went on, the Keeps failed to produce any sources for the closer to consider and failed to offer convincing arguments for the closer against the Delete rationale. The Keep votes simply lacked evidence/sources and effective arguments for the closer to consider.
  • Weighing essays just like SNGs is a problem at AfD and closing AfDs based on votes instead of !votes is a problem at AfD. The closer did not do this and followed WP:CLOSEAFD.
  • The reasons why NSOLDIER and ANYBIO are not met are clearly explained (and remain unrefuted) in the AfD discussion, not appropriate to repeat here.
  • Scottywong, thank you for explaining your close. Doing this (when appropriate) is very helpful.   // Timothy :: talk , 20:34, 1 October 2020‎
  • Endorse- people look at the words "rebuttable presumption of notability" and, through some trick of eyesight or psychology, read "permanent exemption from WP:V and WP:N". The fact is, after over a decade on the encyclopedia and a week at AfD, the only sources were a database entry at an archived website and the perenially unreliable Find-A-Grave. That tells me that, whatever the "rebuttable presumption" may be, it's been rebutted. Reyk YO! 06:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, overturn closing statement I don't think this is an SNG. So the close justification is just mistaken. But then again, it's not an SNG, so the close result it right. Hobit (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, although SOLDIER has not had widespread community discussion that I'm aware of, so it's not an SNG. WP:PAGEDECIDE never came up in the discussion, but this seems to be a case where, while the information is worthy, there isn't enough coverage to support a stand-alone article. Hog Farm Bacon 11:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was for a merge and redirect if not deletion. An RfC on spinouts can be held at the redirect target’s talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse An article without sources would come close to WP:OR. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer is correct - GNG must be met, regardless of SNGs. I see nothing else being appealed. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse in view of the SNG being an essay rather than an SNG. I would much prefer to ignore GNG, which I consider troublesome, and rely on SNGs, and would favor overturning if there were an SNG. Can we upgrade the essay to an SNG? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I think of SOLDIER as an SNG, because WP:NBIO links to it, which I see as an incorporation by reference. Still, the key word in A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... is presumed, which doesn't mean "guaranteed". A presumption can be rebutted, and here, it was. Lev!vich 17:19, 8 October 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_October&oldid=981152009"