Category:China Shipping Group (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At the time of discussion, there is a lot of article is not properly categorized under the Category:China_Shipping_Group. For example, a lot of ships that owned or operated by China_Shipping_Group's subsidiary CSCL: "China Shipping Container Lines" (see also Category:Ships of COSCO Shipping). So, are the reason still valid for "empty" cat that only contain "few" article? Matthew hk (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification (as CFD participant) The description above puts "empty" and "few" in quotes which is confusing since neither word was actually used anywhere in the CFD discussion nor was WP:SMALLCAT given as a justification more generally. Although the category was removed, the contents were merged into Category:COSCO so no navigational pathways were lost. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a lot of CSCL ship article is not cat under China Shipping, so you alleged "2" articles so that it is a small cat is not valid. Either it is by good faith people just forget to cat CSCL ship to the cat or other reason....navigation still lost as still need assumed knowledge that COSCO is the new owner of former CSCL fleet or finding China Shipping Group related articles required to navigate to its successor instead . While if Category:China Shipping Group still exist, you still need assume knowledge for CSCL, the CS stand for China Shipping, that is another thing. Matthew hk (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(replied to a deleted comment) At that time the cat is incorrectly made almost empty (around 4) by not placing any China Shipping Group's CSCL ship article into the cat and your further argue two former subsidiary of China Shipping Group, are now renamed so that the article title in wikipedia, are now start with "COSCO" instead of "China Shipping", and on the "Clarification " section above, you stated the rationale of knock two more entries from countering (edit: counting 21:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)) for the cat, is "not" related to WP:SMALLCAT? Note that 4 - 2 = 2, not including redirect.

Also note that Deletion review is not another place to discuss the cat itself, but the Cfd close should be endorsed or not, or as well as allow recreation or not. I suggest just revert the close (and restart Cfd discussion for people to discuss based on correct info to for a while) and restore the cat and to see people think it still "overlap" or too small or not if quite a lot of CSCL ship article are now correctly added to the cat. Matthew hk (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (but wait) due to the revert of the merge that drove the proposal. There are, in my opinion, too many articles and categories named “COSCO...”, and merging or other restructure is needed, but categories should follow their parent articles. Sort out the parent articles first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Related Nominations

We certainly have a lot of balls in the air at once:

1. Requested Move of COSCO under discussion right here.

2. Requested Merger of COSCO Shipping Holdings under discussion right here.

3. Requested Merger of COSCO (Hong Kong) Group under discussion right here.

4. Proposed rename of Category:COSCO under discussion right here.

I'm neutral on all of them but encourage editors to weigh in whether pro, con or other to help bring consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sophia Barclay (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article has been (re-)draftified by Itaubrspxxx three times and un-draftified by Discospinster twice. Because of this, I think that the draft should be moved back into mainspace for the third (and hopefully final) time, and then the article should be move-protected from move-warring and the AfD re-opened. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a bit ridiculous - a newly created article moved into mainspace too soon, AfD'd, moved to draft by its creator and added to AfC, and moved back to AfD by the AfD nominator. I will only support this if there's a good reason this shouldn't be in draftspace. SportingFlyer T·C 18:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I performed a WP:BEFORE check prior to nominating the Sophia Barclay article, so it was not "too soon". The author of the article had also written other articles lacking evidence of notability (which are also in AfD and likely to be deleted), and has a habit of removing AfD tags and moving these articles into draft space to circumvent the deletion discussion. As far as I know, articles that are under an AfD discussion should not be moved or deleted for the duration of the process except for WP:SNOWBALL or WP:SPEEDY. ... discospinster _talk 22:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Comment - Is this the right venue for dealing with what is actually a move war? After a page has been nominated for deletion, it should not be moved while the deletion discussion is in progress, and moving it during the discussion is disruptive. Draftification is in many cases a good alternative to deletion, but when an article has been nominated for deletion, it should only be draftified by the closer. An uninvolved administrator should move it back to article space tagged for deletion and move-protect it. The closing administrator can unprotect it to do whatever they find is the consensus. Either RFPP or WP:ANI are better forums, but it is less important at this point where action is requested than that action (move back, tag, move-protect) be taken. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the non-administrative close as R2. On further review, I see that, although this DRV is poorly stated, it is an appeal of the R2 closure of the AFD. The AFD should not have been closed as R2 because the move of the article to draft space was improper. I concur with the nominator, User:Discospinster (who is acting as an editor and not as an administrator, so as properly to avoid involvement), that a move to draft space after an article is nominated for deletion is gaming the system. An author may instead properly request draftification in the AFD, but that decision will be part of the close. The R2 should be overturned because the move should be reverted and the AFD should run. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If I'm reading this right, it was created, AfDed, and then moved to AfC with the claim it was put in the wrong spot all in the same day. Given the editor in question seems to use AfC a lot, I'm prone to AGF here and just drop the AfD. If the user does this again, less good faith would be forthcoming. Weak endorse and move on. People make mistakes. Hobit (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn. Reopen the AfD, move the page back to mainspace. If the AfD results in “delete”, do not allow userfication or draftification for at least six months. Draftspace should not be allowed to escape AfD, and once an AfD decision is made, it should be respected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close without action - given that Discospinster has already blocked User:Itaubrspxxx in order to win this dispute, there's not really anything to be done. Normally, I'd want to avoid this kind of bullying of new editors who're struggling a little with our bureaucracy, but obviously too late here. If someone else wants to pick up the article, great, if not, oh well. If an article ends up in the mainspace, it can be AfD'd, but there's no need to pre-emptively do it, especially after you've blocked editors you're involved in the dispute with to win the AfD. WilyD 07:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orbs (band) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

XfD is not a vote, not much reasoning was given by parties vying for redirect, the AfD was relisted a third time without a substantial justification for doing so, and Asleep Next to Science, a sourced article which can be merged into the band page, still exists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The redirected article had no independent sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the deletion. A poorly participated AFD, with Delete as the proper close, but also:
• Allow Re-Creation in draft, if the filing editor wants to submit a draft with better sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow re-creation if independent sources are added. Also there's been a strange trend of relisting for a third time going on in the last month or so, and it needs to be curtailed - completely agree with the nom on that one. SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close, as it was done correctly. Regarding a draft version, not sure it's necessary, since the article still exists in history. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just added the album article to the artist article with this edit, which adds to the number of reliable sources for the band, for an album article that has not been nominated to Articles for Deletion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• More comment after a fresh look. DO NOT allow recreation in draft. Good merge and redirect decision. Appeals should be lodged at the talk page of the target, not at DRV, and not via AfC. Do not reverse the merge without an explicit consensus at Talk:Ashley Ellyllon. Personally, I see not justification for a separate article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]