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

Per comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 22 § 🥺, it looks like consensus around emoji redirects is that there shouldn't be any emoji without a redirect to somewhere, so re-creating this as a soft redirect to wikt:🔞 would be reasonable (or allowing discussion of a potentially better target). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salting a redirect is the worst possible outcome. Wikt or Emoji#Unicode blocks are viable targets. Gonnym (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It took me a while to figure out what the context of this filing is, but I concluded that the issue is what should be done if the user copies and pastes this emoji into the search bar. The other way that an emoji could be targeted would be if an editor puts an emoji inside double brackets in a page, probably a talk page. That seems weird, but the whole thing is weird. Is there some other reason to have an entry for an emoji, other than if it is a search term? As a search term, I find the recent reasoning at WP:RFD cited by the filing party and by Gonnym that nothing is the wrong answer, and that there should be something. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the best answer. The search term does not appear in the encyclopedia. As the search term is not even present on any article, let only the subject of some text, a redirect is not appropriate. You can put it into google search for some results. Wikipedia is not google. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is the filing editor primarily requesting to unsalt a create-protected nothing? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robert McClenon: yes, as the redirect was deleted via RfD, I'm under the impression that DRV is the preferred venue for allowing re-creation in this case. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt and allow the decision as to the redirect target to be decided by normal editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A Wikipedia:Soft redirect seems reasonable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DRV doesn’t feel right for declaring the redirect ok. A lack of consensus to maintain protection, 5 years post XfD, suggests that protection should be removed, allowing anyone to re-create, and then a fresh RfD for the real discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I don't really think there's a clear venue for this type of thing? Protecting admin was desysopped so can't ask them. I'd be fine if this just closed as "unsalt", someone created the redirect, and we had a discussion at RfD about it. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous closing admin here. I don't feel strongly about this particular redirect, though I'm not convinced that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 22 § 🥺 necessarily supported a general requirement to bluelink every single-emoji title. I'm not opposed to such an editorial policy suggestion though. If it is decided that we ought to bluelink every single-emoji title, WP:REMOJI needs to be edited. Deryck C. 20:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• recreate as a soft redirect as suggested by Elli. wikt:🔞 looks like a great target. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unsalting. No argument is made here what the redirect target on Wikipedia should be, taking into account WP:REMOJI, which suggests that there would need to be "a clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia". A redirect to Wiktionary does not meet these requirements. Sandstein 09:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • REMOJI isn't a policy or even a guideline, just a list of common outcomes. Deferring to a list of common outcomes to determine the outcome is circular logic. Are here readers really better served by a salted redlink than a Wiktionary redirect? I don't think that is the case - we can provide some information in the form of a redirect to Wiktionary, as opposed to the nothing we currently provide. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt the option of a soft redirect to Wiktionary is a reasonable one and it doesn't seem to have been seriously considered at any of the RfDs which have been done so far, the most recent of which was four years ago. Hut 8.5 17:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt per above.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milt's Stop & Eat (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer incorrectly closed as Keep with a minimal number of participants evaluating sources using the "wrong" guideline when a "relist" was more appropriate. Closer also claims to have followed correct procedure but explanation at Talk page is flawed and contradictory but claims they're now being badgered (and oddly, claims they knew all along their close would be challenged??) HighKing⁺⁺ 10:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, HighKing, but I'm afraid that Bilorv's close of that discussion was exactly what we would expect. The fact is that that was a well-attended discussion by today's standards, and nobody at all agreed with you, so the article won't be deleted on this occasion. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 15:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (Comment by the closer.) I've been here long enough to recognise the signs in an AFD that the nominator is going to go looking for trouble with the person who implements consensus that they are angry at. You've been here long enough to know better. — Bilorv (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Response to the closer) That's three times (at least) you've tried to make it personal. I'm not angry and I'm around long enough to know that almost no DRV's are overturned (don't think I've persuaded anyone to overturn) but I like to think its important to try and its important that we identify if our processes and guidelines stop being fit for purpose. This isn't personal and I'm sorry if something I said has made you appear to be taking it so. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we overturn quite a good proportion, actually.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – per the DGFA, !votes should be discounted in cases where they "were not made in good faith", "contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious". Workaday disagreements about the quality of sources don't meet any of those standards, and indeed choosing a minority view in this case would be an undeniable supervote. More broadly, the notability guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are not etched in stone, "occasional exceptions may apply" to them, and they are descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not a closer's job to disqualify one interpretation of them as "wrong". This closure accurately reflected the consensus; if you disagree with that consensus, feel free to renominate once an appropriate period has elapsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the right closure, with a trout to the nominator for bludgeoning the process. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Serious Question Many editors attending NCORP-related AfD's don't know that NCORP has a stricter interpretation on references which may be used to establish notability than GNG and often quote from GNG instead. A serious question - why bother having separate guidelines for organizations (e.g. NCORP) at all if !voters can ignore it, safe in the knowledge that the closer isn't supposed to (or won't) take that argument into consideration because that'd be a "supervote" (or because "guidelines aren't etched in stone" or "IAR" or whatever) Isn't it just as much a "supervote" to decide which guidelines/policies to ignore (or allow to be ignored) as to implement? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're absolutely right to say that closers are clearly and specifically disbarred from deciding which policies or guidelines to prefer. This is set out at WP:NHC: If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. The closer's role is to evaluate which policy or guideline is preferred by the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians participating in the debate.—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:RENOM

  At AfD, like elsewhere, decisions are made by those who turn up.

  In some ways, AfD can be considered like a court, with rules and a decision by jury.

  In another, it is a group learning exercise, where participants learn largely through the discussion. In this view, it is the role of participants to explain things to other participants.

  Was a participation poor? Consider Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Look, just because NCORP has 1) an expansive definition, and 2) is stricter than the GNG, doesn't mean it's the Rosetta Stone for deletionism's resurgence. The subject article is about a restaurant, not a nonprofit or a think tank, and as such it's got a building, a menu, a reputation... not just a boardroom and balance sheet. GNG applied, GNG was correctly evaluated, if I could move that this be dismissed with prejudice I would. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deciding whether a source is "independent" and "significant" is inherently subjective, and as long as the arguments are not clearly contrary to policy, it is going to come down to a vote in the end per WP:NHC, as S Marshall puts it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Guidelines such as WP:CORP are not absolute, and the unanimous (apart from the nominator) consensus was that the GNG was relevant and applied in this case. Relisting is supposed to be for unclear cases, or where there is almost no activity. In this discussion, the consensus was clear, the arguments well presented, and the turnout was moderately good so relisting would have been inappropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - not the wrong guideline, it's just a guideline anyway, not the wrong interpretation of consensus, and not the wrong close. WP:NCORP is the deletionist camp's argument de jour of late and we've seen it trotted out incessantly in the last little while, most commonly as an excuse for completely ignoring WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK, thanks everyone. I'm more than a bit deflated to be honest. I've probably been one of, it not the, most ardent supporter of NCORP and its strict guidelines on notability and I've participated in hundreds (at least) of NCORP-related AfDs over the past few years. I note there's some long-time editors here, who do great work and who've weighed in, very vocally, to knock a lump out of my position and me personally. I thought I was doing a pretty good job too but clearly based on the feedback here, I haven't a clue. Genuinely, I don't get why we bother with NCORP at all to be honest if all it takes is for enough !voters to turn up an say "Fails/Passes GNG" and the closer counts them up. And what's the point of any argument or debate at all if that's just going to be "bludgeoning" the process? I could make lots more arguments about consensus and guidelines and the role of a closer, etc, but lets be honest, I'm pissing into the wind. No hard feelings, good luck, I'll take my leave. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thinking a bit more on my comments, I think NCORP should apply if the defining characteristic of a page topic is a corporation. There are plenty of topics that are organized as corporations, such as the LDS church, but are described in reliable sources substantially as another sort of thing--churches, restaurants, whatever. And I apologize if my comment came across as harsh and personal rather than emphatic--it was not intended to be an ad hominem rebuke, and I am sorry if it was taken that way. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure NCORP should exist in anything like its present form. It was an attempt to instruct people to !vote to delete more articles (or how closers should consider nonconforming !votes) whereas our guidelines are intended to be descriptions about how the community views matters. It purported to take priority over WP:N and it also developed an extended ambit beyond the promotional articles it was intended to target. There should instead be a policy against primarily promotional articles, regardless of notability. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we should stick to the strict standards of NCORP for any organization or corporation, but for certain sourcing requirements the burden of proof is not on those wishing to keep the article, so long as the sources have been presented in good faith and do not obviously fail the requirement. For "significant coverage", this is a highly subjective criterion which will be decided primarily by !vote count. For "independent", too often I see "delete" !voters making claims of "churnalism" without proof. If it appears in a reliable source and is not a simple reprint of a press release, then the burden is on the "delete" side to establish that the source is not independent. Likewise, for interview introductions of significant length, the "delete" side needs to establish that they did not exercise editorial judgment and fact-checking when writing that bit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Making non-trivial claims of non-independence the responsibility of those asserting non-independence seems to be a good idea that should probably be captured and kept alive outside this DRV. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Especially when we have claims that despite being published by career journalists in highly respected newspapers and magazines, some sources are not "independent" because they include significant (or even some) interview-format quotes from company representatives. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. (and delete) There's a reason for NCORP and it has nothing to do with deletionism or inclusionism. In practice, it'sour most effective defense against promotionalism . It doesn't matter as far as notability (or. the actual policy behind it , NOT INDISCRIMINATE) whether we include on more small restaurant chain or not; It does matter to our fundamental policy NOT ADVERTISiNG, that we are very careful about adding articles in field where so much of the writing is promotional: ifw e make it easy to add promotionalism , we are no better than google. . This article is not intended as promotionalism , but it is indistinguishable from it: most of the article is about the menu and links to local reviews. Add the hours and locations, and it would do for the chain's web page. Anything that would do as a firm's web page is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article . DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a reasonable article and I'd be thrilled if we had similar articles on equally notable restaurants. I understand the concern about promotionalism and the slippery-slope argument. But I'd hate to see such arguments prevent us from covering topics like this. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I think this is what happens when good editors and admins have been fighting promotion so long they adopt a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that says it's OK to delete companies that pass the GNG just because they're entities who might benefit financially from Wikipedia's coverage. By all means let's stomp undeclared paid advertising editing and promotional writing, but how about let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Letsgetgoing (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC) The article was recently posted and was deleted. Could not contest it either, it was gone right away giving me no option to defend it. The person is a real person and is on several web sites and social media. A social media influencer. I created the article because I felt she should have a page given those reasons, no different than others here. I've done articles before, so this making a new one in general wasn't impossible. WhoAteMyButter deleted it, saying it didn't have any reliable sourcing (Which it did), and duggested nothing could be done by me until a "special someone comes and reviews your request. They can then decide to undelete it and restore it, or do nothing and not undelete it." I did ask others like User:Athaenara?Athaenara but it went nowhere, until Graeme Bartlett suggested WP:DRV.[reply]

Please undelete the page. If anything needs to be changed or improve on, let me know and I will do it. But please give me a chance to do them or defend the page, instead of just getting rid of it. It's unfair, and I cannot do anything to make the changes if no one gives me that chance.Letsgetgoing (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A7 Categorically, if something is legitimately a G11, it must be unambiguously promoting something such that I can't see any way G11 and A7 would apply to the same content. Having said that, I suspect G11 is likely to be sustained based on the appeal. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected. This did indeed meet both A7 and G11. I've had my horizons broadened in a "Well, that's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back" way. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD. Have the discussion there, not here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily undeleted. Endorse on both counts. How on earth have you never seen an article that's both solely promotional and asserts nothing of significance? —Cryptic 08:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G11. Being entirely based on unreliable sources means that nothing in the content can be re-used. And is blatant promotion? Maybe. CSD#A7 applied, it isn't even promoting anything of significance. I still think that challenges of G11/A7 should go to AfD for a standard AfD discussion, with the useful AfD template links, even if it is headed to a SNOW G11. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A7. I wouldn't say that this is promotional in the G11 sense, but I certainly don't see any claim of significance that could defeat the A7 - going by the article she just looks like a dominatrix with a vanilla web presence to me and all the sources are social media. I don't have a crystal ball but I'd be very surprised if the article were to survive WP:N-based deletion arguments at an AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Tips for the writer Letsgetgoing base the content on independent reliable sources, then A7 will not be applicable. Use an encyclopedic tone, rather than a press release tone, then G11 will not apply. If you can't find those kinds of sources, it means the topic is not notable. And if you are tempted to write about yourself, take a read of WP:Autobiography. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. G11, I agree with SmokeyJoe's reasoning above - these type of discussions and evaluations of sources should normally be sent to AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G11. The tone of the article is wholly inappropriate and it would have to be rewritten to be acceptable. "The woman who would be known as King Lexa"? "While building that success, she would use her influence and platforms to spread awareness on various topics"? "she made TikToks about the zodiac signs to both reach and build a level of relatedness and relationship within that community"? A7 isn't unreasonable either - I could possibly see "interviews ranging from iwantradio on Sirius XM, WTF TV, and even season 2 of Sex Life on Epix" as a credible claim of significance if I squint, but that's a stretch and nothing else in the article qualifies (the social media follower counts are low enough that they're a claim of insignificance, if anything). I would advise the article creator that their time would be better spent writing about other topics. Spicy (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sending this to AfD would be unnecessary bureaucracy and simply prolonging the inevitable. Spicy (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as A7 and probably G11. I'm not seeing a claim of notability or sources and it feels pretty darn promotional though maybe not to the G11 bar. No opposition to listing at AfD instead, but better sources than I can find better exist if it's going to have a chance. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:Jclemens - A spammy piece about a corner bodega would be a candidate for both WP:G11 and WP:A7. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn of G11. It isn't purely promotional. Not every useless article is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse of A7, because it has no reliable sources and does not make a credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AFD in lieu of speedy deletion, because even a weak challenge to a speedy deletion should be sufficient to allow the AFD process to determine the view of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see any prospect whatsoever of this content surviving AfD, so I think sending it to AfD would be a reprehensible waste of volunteer time that we could spend much better. It's spam: leave it deleted and move on.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]