Song Like You (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Insufficient discussion for multiple pages which should have resulted in "No Consensus" Jax 0677 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion was relisted twice, there is no sense relisting indefinitely. As the closer said, you can try to establish consensus via talk pages if you think a different result is appropriate. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with AfD closer. While there was limited participation, despite it being relisted twice, the rationale to redirect was sound.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/* Song Like You */

• Reply - There was no strong consensus to redirect, therefore, the default should be "Keep (No Consensus)". I agree with Nfitz, but only with respect to overturning all articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Song Like You but Overturn remaining articles. None of the other articles were ever tagged with an AFD notice - how then can they be included? At the same time, there is no reason for an editor not to simply redirect the articles, after the overturn - but they shouldn't be logged as redirect as per AFD. Also no reason for editors to improve the original articles, to establish notability - if there is any. Nfitz (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as to Song Like You, but concur with User:Nfitz as to improper bundle for other articles. Those articles never got onto the train. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Result for the other articles. If someone wants to nominate them, they can nominate them. They were never properly discussed. This is not a closer error so much as a nominator error (although maybe the closer should have noticed that the bundle was improperly bundled). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for Song Like You. Overturn the other articles due to procedural impropriety (no AFD tag added to the articles) with option to relist. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Song Like You but Overturn remaining articles per Nfitz. – Levivich 03:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was very surprised to see this article closed as a keep. This started out as a garden variety WP:NOTNEWS, and while sources were added to the article, I think the closer incorrectly ignored the delete !voters who commentated after the addition. The WP:GNG/WP:EVENTCRIT analysis by the closer comes off as a bit of a supervote considering nobody discussed WP:EVENTCRIT. I myself did not follow the AfD closely and did not realise it had been improved until I checked the close, but I would have reiterated my delete !vote. I'm asking that this either be relisted or re-closed as a no consensus, so it can be easily renominated in the future. (Also entirely ignored at the AfD were possible issues with WP:CRIME.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse-ish - I probably would've closed as no consensus - there's a lot of asserting back and forth about NOTNEWS, though it's not straightforwardly applicable and they're largely just asserted opinion - more detail on the review of security procedures could push that argument; as it stands, it's extremely skimpy, but not wholly untenable, so it's hard for a closing admin to strongly favour either position as a closer. The tenor of the discussion also changed after the re-write, which means a straight headcount would be inappropriate. WilyD 12:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse-ish. My habit, when there's been substantial work on the article late in the discussion, is relist to allow additional consideration of the changes. I agree that no consensus might have been a better close, but I can't get too excited about the difference between Keep and NC. I reject SportingFlyer's thesis that NC would make it easier to renominate in the future. That's invoking WP:RENOM, which while widely regarded as good advice, is just an essay. We don't overturn closes just to make them essay-compliant. I'm somewhat more concerned that the closing statement does sound like a supervote, and I'm also disappointed that Scott Burley didn't respond to this query on their talk page per WP:ADMINACCT. I wouldn't object to voiding the close and relisting this, but I can't argue that it's necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @RoySmith: It's not just WP:RENOM I'm invoking here, to be honest - while WP:RENOM does imply this can be renominated more quickly (and, let's be fair, I'm typically skeptical if someone doesn't follow WP:RENOM in practice), any renomination of this article would have to explicitly deal with the fact it had been previously kept on similar grounds. If I see an article has been nominated for a second time and it was kept the first time, I will generally query as to what has changed which would cause the article to need to be deleted now. I don't think overturning this to no consensus (or relisting) is that big of an ask, either, as I don't think this could have been kept based on the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong ugh- drip feeding sources to invalidate previous votes? Check. Insulting disdain expressed towards anyone !voting delete? Check. Supervote by a subsequently unresponsive admin? Check. This isn't going to get overturned, but it's also emblematic of everything that's wrong with AfD. Reyk _YO! 16:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist - There are two concerns. First, the close was definitely in the nature of a supervote. However, second, it appears that the Delete and the Keep were in response to two versions of the article. That calls for a Relist with the new version of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we complain about supervotes every time a closing admin explains what they're doing, all we get is an opaque set of unexplained decisions. Indeed, in cases like this, it's helpful for the closing admin to explain how they read the discussion, so we can see if there's some error in their read. Slagging them for trying to be helpful isn't helpful. WilyD 05:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist it doesn't sound like Lightburst's edits were that persuasive, given that two people who commented afterwards supported deletion and SportingFlyer wasn't convinced either. A relist would allow more of a focus on that version. Adding more sources doesn't necessarily address a NOTNEWS argument either, because the point of NOTNEWS is that something which gets a short burst of news coverage may not be encyclopedic. The comment by the closer that "The sources added to the article appear to satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT" suggests a WP:SUPERVOTE, because determining whether the sources meet notability guidelines is the responsibility of the participants, not the closer. Admins are expected to justify their actions when asked as well. Hut 8.5 20:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Perfectly reasonable sensible close. The article was substantially improved during the course of the AfD, with supportive responses during the later half of the AfD. This calls for a close, not a relist. Give it time to settle. Follow the advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse. Like some others, I would have closed it as NC, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the closing admin was supervoting because he mentioned EVENTCRIT. After all, participants had debated whether the event was of lasting significance and others cited international reporting, so although "EVENTCRIT" per se wasn't mentioned in the discussion, it was certainly being alluded to in regards to notability.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Looks like a classic case of WP:HEYMANN to me. Nominator and early voters see completely unreferenced article, that seems trivial, fail to do due diligence, and say delete. Someone comes along, Significantly improves the article with a lot of GNG sources over an extended period of time (from three OTHER continents - what, could no one find one from Africa or South America :). A relist would surely lead to an unambiguous keep. Nfitz (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist I had been watching that article to see whether it would get relisted or closed as no consensus. I don't disagree with the improvement that has occurred but think, especially as one !vote for delete came after the improvement, the closing sysop cannot just say that it has become a keep consensus. An explanation is certainly necessary here and I am thankful Tone gave one, but I do not think that explanation sufficient for the consensus shown here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist – with the article having been changed significantly during the discussion, more time should be given to participants to review the new sources and see if it changes their !vote. It's true that when a closer says "sources [meet/don't meet] GNG", the closer is supervoting – commenting on the notability of the article subject, rather than on the discussion. "Consensus is the sources [meet/don't meet] GNG" is an entirely different statement, though, and I think a lot of closers write the former when they mean the latter. In any case, this discussion would have benefitted from more time to allow consensus to crystallize. – Levivich 04:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Starting a DRV to get a keep overturned to no consensus is a complete waste of everybody's time. There's no rule saying a keep closure can't be renominated at a later date either, and consensus can change. Smartyllama (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why I asked for a relist first :) SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SportingFlyer, are you confusing "relist" with "renomination"? WP:RELIST vs WP:RENOM? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe: No. I'm asking for either the discussion to be relisted so the late-arriving keep arguments can be addressed, or in the alternative the close changed to a no consensus to both reflect the discussion more accurately and make it easier to renominate for deletion in the future. SportingFlyer T·C 01:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Smartyllama wrote "renominated" and you replied as if "relisted" was a synonym. The AfD isn't complicated by "late-arriving keep arguments", but by stubstantive changes to the sourcing that probably render the PROD, AfD nomination and early !votes non-applicable. Better to let it settle for a short amount of time. Also, noting the nominator's reference to "news" and delete !voters reference to WP:NOTNEWS, letting the article sit until some times passes, enabling an observation of whether all sources belong to a brief burst of news, seems to be to be more sensible than rushing a 1 week old topic. The page is now approaching four weeks. I think a much clearer result will be obtained by waiting a few weeks and renominating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I responded to Smartyllama since they seemed to assume my only request was overturning a keep to a no consensus. I'm fine with a result here which would allow a renomination in a few weeks. Also, it's likely I misunderstand your latter reasoning, but the event itself happened in 2010, so it should be relatively easy to determine WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse proper XfD close. WP:HEY Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - precisely per Hut 8.5. -- Begoon 20:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse After improvements to the article were made there were 5 that said keep and 2 that said delete. It wasn't just the ample sources talking about this but also this being a notable case. How often has someone been caught wearing a silicon masks to impersonate someone else to get past airport security? The two nations involved had to review their security procedures and try to work out how to prevent this in the future. The closing administrator read what everyone said and stated it passed WP:EVENTCRIT, which it does, this a notable event obviously. Dream Focus 21:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse proper XfD close. WP:HEY Per reasoning of User:Dream Focus and User:SmokeyJoe 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Education Institute of Texas (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I was never notified of the speedy deletion of this article, first created in 2010, until after it already occurred, and I dispute the characterization of "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Note that Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11._Unambiguous_advertising_or_promotion states: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." I reviewed the deleted article and do not see how the text is promotional. Please refer to the talk page User_talk:WhisperToMe#Islamic_Education_Institute_of_Texas. @Jimfbleak:@Liz:

BTW, some background: This is the Islamic school controlled by the Islamic Society of Greater Houston - I wrote an article about the organization too, and the organization itself is dicussed in multiple reliable sources, mainly from newspapers. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G11. This wasn't a great article, and might not even survive AfD were it not for our silliness about keeping all secondary schools just because they exist, but I sure don't see how this is unambiguous advertising or promotion. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 Even if I read this with my most SPAM colored glasses on I can't get to G11. I think there could be a version of a private school that was G11 but this isn't it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 maybe the word "serves" is slightly promotional jargon-y for schools, but otherwise it's a completely neutral article, so far as I can see. Substituting "educates" or the like for "serves" a couple of times is in no sense a "fundamental rewrite". WilyD 05:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is there a way that non-administrators can express a view? I can't see the article. It appears that admins want to overturn the G11. Please notify us non-admins if the article is restored so that we can participate in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for bringing this up. I've refrained from commenting for that reason alone. (Well, that and being generally busy.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm surprised neither of you know about WP:DRV#Temporary undeletion, which I've just done. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roy! I found a reference about the school being denied a place on a private school athletic league (and accusations that the decision was done as a bias against the Islamic religion), so I'd like to add it when I can. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this goes where it looks like it's going, the article will be restored at the end of the review period (normally, one week), and you can make your changes then. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I don't see anything promotional about the article, and certainly nothing which would justify a G11 speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 22:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn and send to AfD. Discussing the details of sourcing and promotion is for AfD, not DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 and do not list at AfD. If anyone wants to nominate this for an AfD, they can do so directly and make a proper nomination statement. I see noting even slightly promotional in the last version of this. A purely factual article, well supported by sources. i also note it was never tagged for G11, apparently the deleting admin deleted without any other editor weighing in, rather than tagging it for review by a 2nd admin, as is best practice. I would like to hear any policy-based argument for deleting this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, DES, I am assuming that there is the speedy deleting admin who genuinely believes that the page should be deleted; when challenged, this admin should undelete and list at AfD given their reasons, it should not have to come via DRV, let alone be formally discussed and closed at DRV. If the deleting admin does not continue to maintain that the page needs to be deleted, as I think I read below, then no, do not list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks for ping. Looks as if I got this wrong, possibly influenced by the fact that a problematic editor had been involved at this page too. However, I'm happy for the article to be restored and improved Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak:, the simplest thing is if you just revert your deletion yourself. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy Smith:, but you've already restored the page, so surely just need this review to be closed, preferably not by me? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Jim wrote on my talk page that he's OK if the review is closed as a SNOW @Liz: WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 and do not list at AfD. Reading this article, and looking at it's almost decade-long edit history, I'm completely baffled how it comes close to meeting any speedy category, let alone G11 ... seems like a bog-standard article. Also hard to imagine how a K to 13 school with over 1,000 students wouldn't be notable. Article should be improved and expanded. Nfitz (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]