Xiaomi Mi Pad (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus was not properly reached based on arguments provided.

• Raw vote counting was used. Violating Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Deletion,_moving_and_featuring.
• 3 out of 4 editors that suggested "delete" DID NOT participate in discussion after 15 November 2019.

On & after 22 November 2019:

1. Reliable References were added to the article such as from The Verge, The Washington Post, Ars Technica and others.
2. Article was updated with content from the mentioned reliable sources,

With reasoning for deletion:

"This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit." 

No longer seeming valid.

I suggest to undelete article. 0xSkyy (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The close was squarely within the closer's discretion. Only one editor offered a rational for keeping the article and that rational was questioned by at least one participant. --Enos733 (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I recognize there might be a slight question of whether the closer became involved in the discussion with the comment "And I am leaning towards deletion at this time, I would have deleted the article yesterday but wanted to give other users the opportunity to respond to the references which you have added," after relisting the article. --Enos733 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733:, I disagree that closer became "involved". I believe the closer posited that they're inclined to delete at the moment, based on the discussion; and re-listed the discussion to give opportunity for additional input that may shift the consensus. So I believe they were correct to uphold the existing consensus in absence of additional inputs. Graywalls (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've temporarily undeleted it for DRV. WilyD 08:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, with the explicit expectation it'll get renominated. Article was massively expanded (including a lot of additional sources), after which one editor argued keep, and one kinda equivocated about the quality of the sources. Previous participant's arguments (which were mostly "per noms") wouldn't carry through to the expanded article (though, I could certainly see a new AfD ending in a merge/redirect to List_of_Xiaomi_products#Mi_Pad_Tablets). WilyD 08:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I was one of the first delete !voters who should apparently be discounted because we didn't !vote twice?

Sorry, but I still see no reason why this is a notable product. There are many tablets, I'm still not seeing anything to distinguish this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's a discussion, not a vote. If one makes an argument, and circumstances change, and the argument no longer applies, then it no longer applies. When the number/depth of sources is substantially improved, old evaluations of whether WP:N is met don't apply any further. WilyD 13:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• " first tablet from Xiaomi." might carry it. But that's the only reason I can see. Everything is a "first use of next-gen processor" or "popular with userbase". Now, are Xiaomi enough for this significance, and is this enough for its influence on Xiaomi? "First tablet built by Foxconn" would be notable, as would be "first Android tablet" but Xiaomi are a brand, not a mega-corp like Foxconn. Is MIUI enough for notability here?

I'd also note that I wasn't swayed at all by the added sourcing (and why I didn't change my !vote). I never had a problem with the WP:V of what was claimed, and that's what the extra sourcing reinforced. Rather it's still the question "Is Xiaomi's first tablet inherently notable, for being first?" Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy Dingley, we are quick to say that lists of accomplishments or distinctions, in the absence of significant coverage, do not satisfy the GNG, and generally do not demonstrate notability. The flip side is that coverage sufficient to satisfy the GNG does establish notability, even if the topic is soemwhat routine (and arguably the trademark dispute makes it not routine). But had the above view bene expressed in the AfD after the sources were added, the closer should have considered it. But it wasn't. If this should be overturend and re-listed, such a view could be expressed then. But it wasn't in the AfD we are now reviewing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Then if what you really want is to restore this AfD, because the delete !votes had expired invisibly, then fine. Then we can AfD it all over again. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OVERTURN to no consensus or even to keep. In the comment dated 8:03 pm, 21 November 2019, Graywalls attempted to set a higher bar than the GNG, and so that user's views should have been discounted, as this does not conform to policy. No one in the discussion fvoring deletion engaged with the sources added during the course of the discussion -- this seems to be a WP:HEY situation. 0xSkyy seemed to misunderstand the nature of notability in the comment dated 6:54 pm, 22 November 2019, But the sources added during the discussion and listed in the comment of 10:08 pm, 23 November 2019 (the last substantive comment, but a full week prior to the close) see to do a fair job of establishing notability, and no one gave any reasons why these sources were not sufficient, or indeed wrote of having read these sources at all. The non did not mention any WP:BEFORE search, and one must wonder whether a reasonable BEFIRE search wouldn't have found at least soem of these sources. The Time, story, the Mashable review, the Android Authority review, the Eurogamer review, the review by The Verge, the PC Mag story, and the Reuters. and 9to5Mac stories on the trademark dispute together make a decent case for notability, and no one in the discussion addressed that case at all, although there was plenty of time after those sources were added to the article. Since the AfD nom was based entirely in lack of notability, and the three further delete views (all the same day) did not discuss added sources at all, or indeed make any further comment after the sources were added, those opnions should be discounted. The nominator, Graywalls, did comment further, but mostly to opine that reviews were not sufficient (contrary to the GNG) without indicatign what else would be needed, or engaging with the sources (like the Timne story) that are not reviews. But even if the views of Graywalls are not discounted, the early delete supportes who did not reengage should be, leaving 1 delete view and one keep view, and no reasons given why notability is not established. The relisting by ST47 specifically said ... 0xSkyy has added some references to the article, and more input would beneficial., but no new commentators, and no significant further comment was provided. Under tjhose circumstances, the clsoe was not within the reasonable limits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep is probably too strong. There's very little participation after the article was improved - a potential re-nomination should be left open, given the very small headcount, which is better served by a no consensus outcome. Since the current article is essentially undiscussed, that there was an AfD shouldn't restrict the possibility of discussing the new article, going forward. WilyD 09:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- It seems that even after the expansion participants were unenthusiastic. I don't see any compelling reason to consign early delete votes to the shredder; this is clearly not a WP:HEY situation. And I don't want to encourage, even indirectly, the practice of drip-feeding sources into an article at AfD just to invalidate previous votes. Reyk _YO! 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Participants weren't unenthusiastic, Reyk, they were silent. No one came back to the AfD discussion and said "I've looked at the new sources and I still say Delete, and here is why." WP:AFDDISCUSS says: Experienced AfD participants re-visit discussions that they have already participated in. They are looking for new facts, evidence or changes to the article which might change their initial conclusion. In this situation, strike through your previous comment using ... (if you are changing your mind) or to explicitly comment "no change" to confirm that you have considered the new evidence but remain unconvinced. That did not happen this time. WP:AFDEQ says: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, ... and later If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, ... If early comments are taken at full weight in the face of added sources, and early comments not reconfirmed after significant sources are added are used to form a consensus to delete, there is far less incentive to improvce articles during AfD discussions, which I thought was considered a particularly good response to an AfD. In this case the article went from one cited source to 24 citations, including some highly reliable sources with more than trivial coverage, during ten days of AfD discussion (15-24 November). If that isn't a WP:HEY it must be approaching one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Reyk: For your convenience this is: Before Article Improvement and this is: After Article Improvement, and the following is the stated reason for deleting the "Before Article" from Graywalls: "This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit." WP:HEY 0xSkyy (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Someone commented I was going beyond WP:GNG. This is correct. Product notability falls within WP:NORG which as described in WP:ORGCRIT that "These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." Review sites provide accurate and reliable information about products and they're not disallowed but their value in providing notability is questionable. You can find pages long extensive review on things like processor cooling compound and making detailed comparisons that sometimes even include things like boogers and ketchup. There are in-depth reviews about specific models of clothes dryers and window air conditioners too, yet it's inappropriate to use these sources to claim notability to make an article ABC-13564 7,500 BTU electric household window air conditioning machine. Shortly after the AfD, several interesting happened, such as cite stacking, that involved cobbling together sources to support uncontroversial specifications, which I have undone in: Special:Diff/927843352. Some sources were not useful at all for notability purpose. https://www.anandtech.com/show/8022/xiaomi-announces-the-mipad-the-first-tegra-k1-device which reads inside "Source: Xiaomi via The Verge" this is Churnalism. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/01/02/can-chinas-xiaomi-challenge-apple-as-the-smartphone-innovation-leader/ the amount of coverage about the product is trivial in this one. I'm not going to do a source analysis on each single source, but the source addition gave a strong impression that numerous sources were being added to create an impression of notability. Graywalls (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OVERTURN to no consensus or even to keep- Graywalls used WP:GNG on the original delete discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xiaomi_Mi_Pad to argue for deletion.
  • AnandTech is a hardware review site with fair amount of credibility, true source of hardware specs would obviously be the original Manufacturer/Company and it uses reliable sources, in this case The Verge hence "Source: Xiaomi via The Verge".
  • Actually it was not cite stacking, it was merely a placeholder for future content - which was added, as can be seen in the last revision Mi Pad Last Readable revision. Graywalls had arbitrarily deleted content previously suggesting to cite sources. As can be seen in: Special:Diff/927749845 ( So, it became necessary to defensively cite sources ).
  • Also, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
  • And How about coverage from Reuters Reuters Article and 9to5Mac 9to5Mac Article again "noting" the topic. Maybe Reuters isn't reliable, as per Graywalls, who knows ?
  • Also, tablet computer is a computing device - a finished product which can be directly interacted with for its utility unlike "processor cooling". And whose main utility is in direct interaction.

0xSkyy (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Continuous response to disruptive filibustering is not required for deletion. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cryptic: For your convenience this is: Before Article Improvement and this is: After Article Improvement and the following is the stated reason for deleting "Before Article" : "This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit." Please reconsider. 0xSkyy (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist We have a relist left (only relisted once), a WP:HEY of over a dozen sources, the delete !votes were before the WP:HEY, two of the delete votes were per nom. I don't personally think a pre-WP:HEY !vote should be discarded. There's not really much of a discussion on the new sources in the article. There's no consensus to keep, and it's probably too soon to close as a no consensus. Why not let this one run another week, pinging all of the delete !voters again? From what I can tell, it doesn't look like they were pinged properly in the initial discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per the Flyer of the Sporting. It's been HEY'd with sources like [1] (in the news section), [2], [3], [4], [5], and over a dozen others. These new sources should be reviewed/discussed; although the closer tried, there wasn't much discussion after the first relist (except between author and closer), and so a second re-list should be tried. – Levivich 06:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starsight (novel) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is not asking for undeletion—I'm just here to ask that the revision history be restored. I messed up, and got the page deleted then made it again as a redirect, rather than changing it to a redirect, so the old content is hidden now. Thanks (sorry if this is the wrong place)! DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 20:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]