I do not understand your question. All I know, is the article - Lawrence Gaughan has been there for several years and there is no reason to delete it. It makes no sense. It is clear that someone decided to try to delete it (probably a political enemy or someone who has a personal interest in seeing it deleted). Otherwise, why would it be deleted? It is an article about a person who is the founder of a non-profit, a credited actor, a musician who has released several albums on worldwide platforms, and someone who won a major party nomination to run for very high office in the United States. That all adds up to quite a lot of notoriety and it does no harm to Wikipedia as an academic platform to have an article (or page) about such a person, especially if new stuff continues to be added. What happens if a person has their article deleted, but then they get some press for their creative endeavors or they run for high office again? How can they add to an article that has been deleted? Have you ever given that any consideration. Please at least temporarily restore the article. There is no compelling reason to delete it. LawrenceofVA (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the three questions. These are yes or no questions.
Are you Lawrence Gaughan?
If no to the above, are you being paid or compensated by Lawrence Gaughan?
If no to the above, are you a friend or otherwise personally connected to Lawrence Gaughan?
Note that it is a violation of the Terms of Service to be compensated for edits and failing to disclose your conflict of interest. JumpytooTalk06:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am Lawrence Gaughan, and can certainly provide proof of this fact. There have been NO violations of any kind in regards to the article for Lawrence Gaughan. I ask that it immediately be restored and promos that there will never be any issues with the article as it is added to in the future. It only hurts Wikipedia for a page that is seen on a regular basis to be deleted. LawrenceofVA (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No other way this AFD could have been closed. Nom does not present anything to refute the arguments presented at the debate. Disagreeing with the result is not calls for DRV. ✗plicit11:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - AFD was closed in accordance with the discussion, and in accordance with standard practice that unsuccessful candidates for political office normally do not satisfy general notability. Appellant has not provided a reason for an appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reason for an appeal? Look at your own words. You say that an "unsuccessful candidates for political office Normally do not satisfy general notability"? But look at the article and you will see there are many other factors including several major film and TV credits, and other things that most people do not normally accomplish in half a lifetime. Do you see the fallacy in your own words? Just because there are guidelines for notability of political candidates does not mean that the article should be deleted. Name one political candidate who has also been in major movies, founded a non-profit that has received national coverage, and also released several albums of music who had their page deleted from Wikipedia. You probably cannot name such a person, let alone find one such person who HAS a Wikipedia page. Do you understand? Wikipedia is an academic platform, where someone who has accomplished all of those things is very RARE and should not have their article deleted based on some subjective decision. What person has done all of those things and had their page deleted, let alone done all those things period. IT does not degrade Wikipedia in ANY way to restore the page. I can tell you that until the article (page) was deleted, several people went to look at it on a daily basis. I know for a fact that every day someone would Google Lawrence Gaughan and see the article and click on it. Such activity only reinforces Wikipedia's purpose and mission. Deleting the article does NOTHING to help Wikipedia or bring more people to the site. LawrenceofVA (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is deletion of the article does nothing to help Wikipedia, because people were viewing the article on a regular basis before it was deleted. When someone would Google the name Lawrence Gaughan they would see the link to the Wikipedia article and click on it. The link to the Wikipedia article has also been posted on sites like YouTube and other media sites where people would click on it and go to the Wikipedia site. So deleting the article does nothing to further the mission or purpose of Wikipedia. In fact it only reduces the number of people who will potentially go to the site and view articles or donate. So, yes, not only is there absolutely no reason to delete the article, but it is actually counter intuitive and goes against the purpose of getting people to view the site. Furthermore, the article absolutely does NOT violate any laws or copyrights. The article was carefully assembled and edited so as not to cause any conflict what so ever. To delete it makes no sense and the deletion appears to be subjective, arbitrary, and even capricious (perhaps motivated by an interest in harming the subject - Lawrence Gaughan). If you can prove that deleting the article benefits Wikipedia in ANY way, or that Wikipedia will get MORE views by deleting the article, then, and only then, will you have made a solid case for deleting it. People viewed that article on a regular basis, and now that it has been deleted, those views are no longer occurring, which can not possibly serve the best interest of the site. You cannot prove otherwise. LawrenceofVA (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per all of the above. There's a possibility for someone to demonstrate independent notability, but the WP:ATD-R outcome was entirely consistent with the discussion, which was policy based. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the replies to "all of the above" and you will see that there is absolutely no reason to delete the article, and in fact it is counter intuitive to the very purpose of Wikipedia to delete it. To endorse deletion (or redirection - which IS the same as deletion) despite the demonstrable independent notability is faulty reasoning. Before the article was deleted, 1) no harm or violation against Wikipedia occurred and 2) there were people clicking on the Wikipedia link in a Google search and without the article that means there will be fewer people going to Wikipedia's site, because there will be one less article for people to read. It makes absolutely no reasonable sense to delete the article. It was not in violation of any laws governing academic sites. LawrenceofVA (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Gaughan, thanks for taking the time to engage here. Saw you in Babylon 5, though I'd be hard pressed to say which telepath you were playing. At any rate, I'm sympathetic: you've gotten some press, in a number of different venues and rationales, but the consensus of the people discussing your article at the time was that none of them--candidate, organizational founder, actor, musician--had achieved sufficient independent recognition ("notability") in the general press. I don't think the outcome, redirecting your name to just one political campaign, is all that great, and I think there's a reasonable chance you do indeed meet the criteria for having an article... but that's not what the discussion found. The discussion and this associated appeal only apply to the deleted version: identify substantial new or previously overlooked material, and you can un-redirect the article and add it to it. Feel free to ask an experienced editor for help with that, as you do have a conflict of interest in your own article. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This CFD has caused a lot of oddities in video games, particularly the one on "fictional planets", which was upmerged into "video games set in outer space". While for some games like Ratchet & Clank, this obviously is fine, but this has placed other games like World of Warcraft and many other role-playing games (like Final Fantasy), as "video games set in outer space", which is obviously not true. While DRV is not meant to review the reasoning for the review, the discussion did not have a clear consensus (rough !vote count) and that the proposed solution has made more of a mess that needs to be cleaned up. Masem (t) 14:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking personally, I didn't see any problems with the original category. Saying something's set in a fictional world is different from saying something's set in outer space. As per the problems caused above. I think this is a case where the deletion should be undone. If anything, I'd say "Video games set in outer space" was the one more in need of a close eye. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of scope creep, I'd probably be in favor of deleting "video games set in outer space" as well, but that would probably require a new CFD. You should definitely open one if you feel that way though. SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete as original nominator. The original nomination was to simply delete these categories, and the only !vote for upmerge was from ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. I think the upmerge was a good call for "fictional islands" to "set on islands" but obviously led to some wacky side-effects for fictional planets. Of course, this is because that category was very loosely defined and including wildly different cases (a sci-fi video game set on Mars as well as some miscategorized fantasy video game settings with named planets have rather little to do with each other). Anyway, this category was sufficiently nonsensical that it shouldn't be restored due to the reasons described in the original CFD. SnowFire (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming we want to keep these categories, there are better terms to use for games like World of Warcraft, such as "video games set in fantasy locations". That said, this problem also exists for other mediums, eg Category:Films set on fictional planets which is placing the Middle Earth works there too. Hence why I think this close wasn't a good solution to address the larger problem. --Masem (t) 19:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I (we?) absolutely don't want to keep these categories, though! Precisely because they're not good fits under any term, they're utterly trivial. As far as other mediums, one thing at a time - sweeping nominations of a zillion categories / articles at once tend to get rejected as a trainwreck, so a "Test case" single article/category set is very common. It's an impossible demand if some editors demand that everything be nominated and other editors demand that only a small slice be nominated - we gotta start somewhere. SnowFire (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's where I know DRV is not meant as XFD, but the original argument that these aren't defining categories for video games is just not true. There are some games where they are absolutely known for their locations, like GTA, BioShock, Warcraft, etc. So that initial rational was bad, IMO. It would have better to get consensus across all forms of media for these categories (maybe just starting with fictional planets) as that has a wider impact. --Masem (t) 03:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as BADNAC, to no consensus. Not a terrible discussion, but nothing I would call sufficiently clear for a NAC to close. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Relist as BAD Non-Admin Closure. Rather than closing it as No Consensus, since it wasn't previously Relisted, a Relist might establish rough consensus, or at least give an admin closer more confidence to say No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (revert the close and relist). BADNAC (contentious and unclear) and WP:Supervote. New Wikipedians employing their logic in closing should !vote. Upmerge, alongside Keep and Delete were well argues, but each lacked sufficient agreement. A closer needs to close on the basis of what the participants are agreeing to. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer now agrees to overturn and delete, this discussion can be speedily closed and the action taken without further ado. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Gstatic.com – Deletion endorsed. However, do note that recreation as an article is permitted and would not be subject to WP:G4, which "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠07:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was not deleted because of anyone's understanding or otherwise about how web sites work but simply because it is not mentioned at the target, making it a useless redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are commonly deleted if here is no information at the target that would help a reader searching for that term. signed, Rosguilltalk14:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I neither know nor care (at least for our purposes here) whether this is documented as a reason for deletion. I do know that the whole point of a redirect is to take readers to a place where we have content about what they are looking for. This did not fulfil that basic purpose. If you can add reliably-sourced, due-weight information to the Google article about this then a redirect to the section would be valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a bad idea to delete random articles. Wikipedia has a deletion policy after all. We have hundreds of domain redirects, most of those are useful. This website gstatic.com is probably among the very most used websites in the whole world as is powers google. You can run a simple whois to find out as much. This redirect would tell that to common folk who are not internet savvy. --Palosirkka (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect, without adding content to the Google article, told precisely nothing to the "common folk who are not internet savvy". It may also surprise you that, although I am in my sixties and have retired, I'm actually pretty "internet savvy" myself, as was my mother until she died last year. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFD#DELETE #2 and consistent practice at RFD almost from the day it was created in November 2003 says lack of mention at a redirects target is absolutely a criterion for deletion. —Cryptic21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
#2 is fittingly about confusion. #8 would be closer but still not relevant here. Interesting if consistent practice is at odds with policy. --Palosirkka (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Is the appellant saying that the RFD was incorrectly closed, or that they want to create a new redirect?
The RFD was closed correctly because it was and is a useless redirect, not mentioned at the target, and because there was a consensus in agreement.
If a new redirect is created, it will still be a useless redirect.
If not being mentioned at the target isn't a basis for deletion of redirects, then common sense is that it should be.
As was noted by one of the participants, gstatic.com returns a 404 error, so that the redirect is meaningless as well as useless.
As Phil Bridger says, if the appellant wants to add a discussion, it might be worth creating the redirect again, but not without an explanation.
Maybe the guidelines for deletion of redirects should be clarified, but in the meantime, common sense can be used.
It's not useless redirect, for the reasons above... apparently common sense isn't. Another person who does not understand how websites work. If you don't understand websites, perhaps don't opine about them, please. --Palosirkka (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Review of Draft - The appellant should write, and submit for review, Draft:gstatic.com, explaining what the relationship is between gstatic and google. The fact that gstatic.com is registered to Google is true but useless, because gstatic is non-routable, unless there is an explanation of what it does. The reviewer may then accept the draft as a stand-alone article, or state that it should be merged into Google. The redirect, without explanation, is no more useful than typing "gstatic.com" in the URL bar when the name is non-routable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be ineligible? WP:G4 says, "recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". This was a page, and RfD is a deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G4 also requires the page to be substantially identical. One would hope an actual article would not be substantially identical to a redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was a redirect when it was deleted as a result of a discussion, and was a redirect when it was G4ed. It wasn't only substantially identical but was exactly identical. But I see now that User:IAmChaos was referring to a hypothetical article. That is not what this discussion is about, so I don't know why so many people are bringing up such a red herring. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Palosirkka - You said that I don't understand how websites work. I don't understand how gstatic.com works, except that it is registered to google but is non-routable, because the encyclopedia doesn't explain how, and simply providing a useless redirect will not further explain. You chose to disparage the knowledge, and thus the ability, of those who think that the redirect without further explanation is useless, thus insulting them. An apology would be in order (if you expect to contribute to the encyclopedia). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to handle cases where deletion review has not been properly followed. It is not a venue to merely express a disagreement with or objection to the outcome of a properly-closed deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that either 1) Gstatic should be mentioned in Google's article before the redirect is recreated, or 2) a stub article on what gstatic is, using content like [1] that can in turn link to Google, substantially per Robert McClenon. Overturning a deletion doesn't change a problem, either solution just mentioned would, so endorse. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Redirect terms need to be mentioned, preferably explained, at the target, and for this reason it was properly deleted. Palosirkka misunderstands something fundamental. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Since that was the view of the discussion and is in line with normal practice. As a personal view I imagine google own thousand upon thousand domain names, redirecting each and everyone to their article (and likewise for everyone else) I can't see serves an encyclopaedic purpose - someone can use whois if they want to find out who owns a name - in the case of gstatic a redirect might imply (which would essentially mean uncited) that google have some relation to the URL but nothing else. I very much doubt that there is much scope to mention gstatic.com in the google article, as in the scheme of things which could be written about google, gstatic is trivia. There may conceivably be scope for an article about the use of separate domains/subdomains for static content (I haven't look or established it's a topic which would reach any inclusion standard) and gstatic could conceivably be an example of such practice (again haven't check if anyone has written about that in a usable reference, rather than a forum etc.) alongside other such examples. If that were the case I'd think gstatic.com could then be a redirect to that article. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we should have a (short) article here. I'm trying to find sources. I'd love some help as I think I'm still below the WP:N bar:
Anyone have anything else? I'd imagine some book spends a page or two on it. It's a bit hard to search for because of how often in shows up in URLs. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stick by my view you shouldn't focus on gstatic, the concept is applied in many cases so I suspect you'll find many more sources on that topic. e.g. [2]. I would suspect such an article could discuss or use as an example gstatic.com and would then become a suitable redirect target. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of redirect, per the RFD (confusing, since no mention at target). It is possible that there is enough material to write an article about gstatic.com, or (at editorial discretion) discuss it at the Google article. In the latter case, it might then make sense to create a redirect. But unless/until that would happen, the consensus at RFD is reasonable and no real argument has been presented to overturn it. Martinp (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allen Career Institute was deleted 6 years ago in 2016 after a deletion discussion. But more sources have come into light that assert notability. I have created a new draft. We usually need two for CORPDEPTH but there are multiple. Listing few of them below for consideration:
They built a coaching empire in Kota. Next, a global makeover in Forbes India by Rajiv Singh. The coverage contains independent analysis like What could have easily been the second major crisis for offline-heavy Allen—the March lockdown and closing of schools and colleges and coaching centres—didn’t turn out that way. Reason: The second generation had been modernising the business, giving it a tech makeover.
The good and bad of Franchising of Kota coaching institutes a coverage by Vernon Mascarenhas in Daijiworld questioning the franchise business. They write Looking at reviews across the web, Allen non-Kota centers garner a mix of reviews. But having a close look, it is hard to distinguish if the reviews are referring to that particular center since the commentary is on Allen as a brand and not for the center. The flood of polarizing generic reviews is also, possibly the outcome of the attempts of creating an image with rivals posting negative reviews and then Allen trying to balance the ratings with positive reviews.
There is another incident that's covered in-depth by Tribune where Allen was asked to return the fee of a student [[3]]. That coverage doesn't have a byline but considering it is criticizing the institute, we can assume that it is independent. Some more sources that can also be considered for notability are [4], [5] and [6]Mtpos (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think sometimes users choose to come here in lieu of AFC as we have a considerably lighter docket, but the instructions could certainly do with improving. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Template:TVQ – There isn't much discussion on this review even after about 3 weeks, but what is seems to support a relist as new information has come to light since the original close, with no prejudice to the original close. That is, removing the template from the TFD holding cell and making a new TFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The reason I had suggested TVQ be deprecated and deleted (prior to the opening of the TfD by another user), a lack of updated data in the query, is no longer the case. When the TfD was opened, TVQ was bound to a years-outdated set of data from the FCC as it navigated what has been a quite prolonged transition of broadcast information databases. Updated data from LMS is now flowing through the FCC query system linked to this template, and I would now support maintaining this template and marking it as un-deprecated (with TVQ and {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} coexisting). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TVQ is a query template that links to an FCC database. It was not linked to current FCC databases at the time and frozen in 2016, resulting in some wildly inaccurate results.
We have other FCC templates that were already linking to these, namely {{FCC-LMS-Facility}}. It is not a drop-in replacement because that requires a Facility ID where TVQ just takes call letters.
TVQ went to TfD in 2021 on the basis that it was out of date in its database. We agreed to delete it but each transclusion has to be changed manually.
The underlying FCC database queries behind TVQ now link to current FCC databases, and it doesn't really need to go away anymore. Stations now show current data when queried.
It's still in the holding cell, but I would not have advocated for its deletion in its current state—thus this DRV. The circumstances underlying the original TfD have changed, and it should be pulled out of the holding cell (and the deprecation removed) as it's a valid option again. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you’ve skipped the step of talking to the deleting admin. Do you want DRV to give permission to re-create. DRV isn’t for that. Do you want DRV to order a relist of the TfD? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, the template has not been replaced yet, which is why it is still at TFDH; this is perfectly normal for the not-straight-forward replacements/removals. That being said, if the reason for nomination is no longer valid, then it seems reasonable that the outcome be overturned. Since we're at DRV, we might as well get a formal consensus to do this. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the apparent SNOW nature of the TfD, I recommend a TfD relist. I endorse Primefac's close of 12:41, 20 June 2021. However, there appears to be new information to consider. I also recommend a fresh discussion in cases where the original XfD nominator is no longer in good standing. Have Sammi's copy quick wrapup to the relisted TfD.
TfD is a better place to attract template people to comment. I believe that TfD is a good, competent forum for templates, and DRV should not interfere, short of judging a discussion close to be bad. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Pushpam Priya Choudhary – Relist. The long list of references was presented halfway through this DRV, so the participants at neither AfD had the chance to review them. It seems that the "endorse" !voters were more annoyed with the nominator's behavior than anything, but in the end legitimate arguments from the nominator such as their reply to the BLP1E angle went unanswered. Relisting is often a good idea when there's unfinished business, especially after a lightly attended AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠06:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The relevant guideline says that a person is notable if "The person founded, leads, or operates a major political party or similar electoral organisation" and also if "The person is a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage outside their specific region". The concerned person Pushpam Priya Choudhary fulfils both these criteria. She founded a political party in which she is an elected President and also the candidate for the Chief Minister post in the State of Bihar in India. Her party contested is 148 constituencies in the last General Elections, the highest number of seats fought by any political party. Her party named The Plurals Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurals_Party) got hundreds of thousands of popular votes. Currently She has millions of followers and supporters which can be verified from her social media accounts as mentioned on the page. Just because the current central and state governments in India are working in a fascist manner and their supporters/workers in the digital space are working day and night to downgrade opposition leaders, a genuine and eligible article should not be pulled down in a discriminatory manner. Who will decide if an opposition upcoming politician is popular or not in a country which is ranking below 150 in the Press Freedom Index? In any case, in the age of digital coverage of news and reporting, press coverage should not only be judged by the coverage done by mainstream media (though Pushpam Priya Choudhary also has significant coverage there), but also in other spaces as in the current global practices specially in India, mainstream media is working under too much pressure from the governments. I will request the users to please don't allow a global platform like Wikipedia to be used as a political tool for fascism in a democratic country which is struggling to keep its democratic nature. Let's everyone have a fair opportunity and level playing field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakshinamurti (talk • contribs)
Closing admin comment: Just noting that nom and I did have a discussion and I support this DRV as I do not see any other way I could have closed this discussion. It's at User_talk:Dakshinamurti#Closed AfDs and not on my User Talk in case others weighing in wanted to be sure I was aware prior to filing. StarMississippi17:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse those quotes aren't taken from the relevant guideline, they are taken from Wikipedia:Notability (politics). This is a proposed guideline which doesn't have community support (at least not yet). Social media followers are not good indicators of notability, and nor is the number of votes achieved by the party she founded (although we do have an article on it). While this AfD had minimal participation, I agree it was reasonable for the nominator to close as delete in light of the better attended AfD from 2020. Hut 8.518:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the deletion is based on the 'better attended' AfD from 2020, then I must say it is ridiculous. Because that happened in the month of March 2020 when Pushpam Priya Choudhary had not started her political campaign. Though she launched herself as a Chief Ministerial candidate on 8th March 2020, her actual campaign on the ground started from 11th June 2020 as in between the whole country was facing lockdown because of COVID Pandemic. Even in March 2020, her party was not formed. Her party finally got registered on 13th October 2020 when she had her popularity at the peak and she campaigned in all 38 districts of the state while addressing hundreds of thousands of people. During her campaign she was significantly covered by the local and national press and media and tons of digital material including interviews etc can be found on the internet. Her party also contested a bye-poll election in October 2021 (only 4 parties contested) from Tarapur constituency. In nutshell, she is one of the important political leaders of the State of Bihar and definitely a youth icon. Finally, once again, I have to submit that the page should not have been deleted on the basis of AfD from 2020 which had not evidence of notability at that point of time. Also, I am aware that social media followers are not good indicators of notability but in the age of post-COVID political campaign, when the Election Commission of India itself is promoting social media campaign than the field campaign, the number of followers indicates the real supporters and political workers who support their leader. Today it is beyond doubt that Pushpam Priya Choudhary is in top 5 leaders of her State and her notability is beyond any suspicion. Dakshinamurti (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn If the deletion is based on the 'better attended' AfD from 2020, then I must say it is ridiculous. Because that happened in the month of March 2020 when Pushpam Priya Choudhary had not started her political campaign. Though she launched herself as a Chief Ministerial candidate on 8th March 2020, her actual campaign on the ground started from 11th June 2020 as in between the whole country was facing lockdown because of COVID Pandemic. Even in March 2020, her party was not formed. Her party finally got registered on 13th October 2020 when she had her popularity at the peak and she campaigned in all 38 districts of the state while addressing hundreds of thousands of people. During her campaign she was significantly covered by the local and national press and media and tons of digital material including interviews etc can be found on the internet. Her party also contested a bye-poll election in October 2021 (only 4 parties contested) from Tarapur constituency. In nutshell, she is one of the important political leaders of the State of Bihar and definitely a youth icon. Finally, once again, I have to submit that the page should not have been deleted on the basis of AfD from 2020 which had not evidence of notability at that point of time. Also, I am aware that social media followers are not good indicators of notability but in the age of post-COVID political campaign, when the Election Commission of India itself is promoting social media campaign than the field campaign, the number of followers indicates the real supporters and political workers who support their leader. Today it is beyond doubt that Pushpam Priya Choudhary is in top 5 leaders of her State and her notability is beyond any suspicion. Dakshinamurti (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, @Dakshinamurti:, Notability isn't inherited. See WP:NOTINHERITED. The party may be notable but that doesn't make its founder notable automatically. As mentioned in the AfD discussion, WP:NPOL doesn't make the requirement to satisfy WP:SIGCOV redundant. She must satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP but its not visible at all. When you claim that she does, the onus is on you to show us the exact set of references that qualifies her as notable. Chirota (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Yes, I understand that notability is not inherited. However, here the case is otherwise. It is the leader and founder who is more notable than the party and in fact to some extent party has inherited notability because of her. Party got registered and came into light only after Pushpam Priya Choudhary got attention and sufficient notability in the country. It would not be exaggeration to say that because of her party became notable automatically. Furthermore, WP:SIGCOV requires 'significant', 'reliable' and 'independent' sources to confirm notability. It can be seen even from the few references given on the article page, that Pushpam Priya Choudhary has significant coverage across all forms of media and press. All these sources are reliable and independent and their tone are clearly critical under the overall theme of political analysis. Also WP:BLP is based on three policies - neutral point of view (NPOV), verifiability (V) and no original research (NOR). The article had taken a neutral point of view. It was neither promotional nor gossip. All the contents were properly referenced which were not the outcome of any original research but fully based on secondary and verifiable sources. Though sufficient references have been given on the page to prove the fulfilment of guidelines of WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP. However, it will not be irrelevant if the same are reproduced here for further verification, though there are tons of material available even in the digital space to prove her notability:
I request all the contributors to kindly treat this case as genuine and please also see that the person does not get discriminated just because the hate and opposition she is facing in her political sphere where every now and then people are coming up to pull her down from the mainstream political space. Thanks. Dakshinamurti (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dakshinamurti you may look at WP:BLP1E, the subject apparently came under limelight for a few days while filing her nomination for the candidature. All the coverages originated from that event. Apart from that the references are highly dependent on what the subject says, hence aren't independent. Your points are well understood by other editors, there is no need to repeat yourself countless time, it will only annoy others. Chirota (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The observation that "all the coverages originated from that event" is factually incorrect. Nomination happened in October 2020. She launched her political movement in March 2020. She is still amongst the most popular and important political leaders of her State which has a total population of more than 130 millions. The news references to her is mostly independent. Dakshinamurti (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer to refer to the previous AFD.
The URL Dump in this appeal annoys the reviewers but does not make the article notable.
I am not trying to do bludgeoning. However, I am sorry if it appears so. I am just trying to convey that the person here is a notable one in her field. She is fulfilling the criteria of notability. If overturning is not possible, I am requesting for *Temporary Undeletion so that the article can be looked into with fresh eyes by other contributors and notability can be discussed there in a more detailed manner. Dakshinamurti (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AFD was closed reasonably, and nominator's bludgeoning, refbombing, and tendentious conduct won't change that. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Katie Nixon – Deletion endorsed. Lawn bowling is not listed on WP:NSPORT. When there is no specific WP:SNG criteria applicable to the case, the only thing that matters is meeting WP:GNG. Hence, I have discarded some of the arguments in favor of overturning to "no consensus", such as: 1) this case is about a choice of which guideline to follow and there is no objective way to determine which one is more valid (no, actually there is no guideline that says a European champion of lawn bowling is notable, so any argument based on that is rightly thrown out); 2) a majority of the AfD !votes cited non-policy reasons (not true, especially of the "delete" side); 3) !voting without giving a detailed justification. To be fair, there were certainly policy-based "keep" !votes in the AfD that argued that GNG was met (which is in fact a subjective determination the closing admin should not supervote over, if that was what the "keep" !votes actually said), as well as policy-based "overturn" !votes in this DRV. However, as a whole they form a minority compared to the policy-based "endorse" !votes, so overall consensus is to endorse. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠06:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I really don't see how the closing statement can be seen as anything more than a supervote. The majority of the keep votes seem to be citing non policy based reasons for keeping and the sourcing has not been shown to be sufficient. On the contrary, the claims were that the sourcing is sufficient and that Nixon's status as a European champion is clearly sufficient to prove notability. It is not the closer's job to decide whether or not sourcing is sufficient. If it were then we would not have AfD discussions. We would just mandate any admin to delete any article they thought was insufficiently sourced or decided was not notable enough. Closing an AfD that was at best a keep and at worst a no consensus as a delete makes an irrelevant nonsense of the whole AfD process and is a worrying extension of the closer's remit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain how you concluded there was no consensus? Are you counting votes or just ignoring the conclusions of the recent RFC on how we should approach sportspersons’ notability? SpartazHumbug!18:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Not counting noses, but because there are valid opinions on both sides. I say this as someone who was totally neutral whose only contribution was relisting it for more input. The way I read it, those arguing keep were doing so in the sense that being a European championship garnered coverage that hadn't yet been found, not that she was notable by virtue of being a European championship, which would be a misread of the recent consensus. Whereas those arguing for delete said what was present wasn't GNG compliant and didn't think there was more to be found. That to me is a clear no consensus. I'd argue the disparate opinions here from established contributors underscore that. StarMississippi00:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are overlooking WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which requires deletion of articles about sportspeople if no WP:SIGCOV can be found - an argument that sources might exist cannot override the requirement to provide at least one. BilledMammal (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was looking at the BBC article as more of a start than a "that's all" that exists in reading the no-consensus, but you may be right. I still don't see a strong consensus here or at the AfD. Unfortunately sports discussions are still clear as mud as you and I have discussed... somewhere. StarMississippi01:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any mention or hint of potential sources to be found in the AfD. Pipesmoking Legend and Huggums537 seemed to be satisfied with the known sources. Sjakkalle may have found other articles, but they should have just included them in that case. Necrothesp didn't mention sources at the AfD, and his nomination above might contradict your interpretation. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. My "keep" vote in the discussion pointed directly to the fact that Nixon has received coverage in national media such as the BBC, and I linked to an article there. That is absolutely policy and guideline based (WP:GNG) and there is no rationale as to why that is being dismissed as a "non policy based reason". Sjakkalle(Check!)18:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, Closing statement is accurate and reasonable. Of the "keep" voting editors only one identified any specific published sources supporting their position and they offered a single BBC article. GNG looks for multiple sources. An editor produced an assessment table and no editors pushed back on it. Several editors claimed that a European championship is enough to establish notability but this is not supported by notability guidelines. NSPORT points out that this is not a valid criteria, see Q8. Gab4gab (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, per Gab4gab. Consensus is based on strength of argument, and the arguments for keep were very weak - I note that the only editor who did provide a source only provided one and didn't even claim it was WP:SIGCOV, just that it was The most substantive BBC article covering Nixon. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of users accusing admins of supervoting because they did not apply the non existent policy the user cites in their argument. Let's see exactly what NSPORTS says
An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page.
Lawn Bowling is not listed in the notability standard and therefore it cannot be a policy based assertion that winning a major championship qualifies under NSPORTS which was the opinion advanced by the OP. I was also mindful of this discussion which found a community consensus that at least one substantial source was required for sports notability. The remaining keep votes do not address the requests to identify substantial coverage but are basically champion = notable, per someone or an assertion of GNG but not actually providing the substantial source. Indeed one keep vote argued for an aggregation of minor sources which is not only clearly in contravention of the RFC but is hardly a GNG supporting argument. Taking the policy into account and assessing the arguments against that policy I found that most of the keep votes either asserted non-policy based arguments around all major champions being notable or failed to provide the substantial source required by a widely attended RFC on sports notability. Basically the only way I could have not found a consensus to delete would have been to have supervoted. SpartazHumbug!18:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - If a majority of the participants in the AFD are citing non-policy reasons, that doesn't create a consensus for the minority, only a lack of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The content couldn't be seen as temundelete wasn't granted. From the AfD discussion it was clear that the keep side was more inclined to forcefully establish Nixon's notability for being European Champion. Whereas there is no policy based notability criteria that confirms such claim. We all know, its not about the vote count but the policy based argumentation that prevails in AfD. Moreover, the keep side couldn't address failing GNG concern adequately. In that light, I don't see why I should opt for overturn. The closure was very much in line with WP:CLOSEAFD. Chirota (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Do I think we should have articles like this? Yeah. But the guideline-based arguments were mostly on one side. I'd also likely endorse a NC close, but I don't see how this isn't within discretion. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus not only per Star Mississippi, but because while evaluating the strength of policy based arguments is within closing admin's discretion, the argument in this case is about notability guidelines where WP:DGFA and similar guidance leave no room for a closer to discount !votes which they feel fail to align with their interpretation of guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? There is a clear outcome from the RFC that guided my conclusion. The deletion arguments reflected that policy. Are you seriously arguing that as a closing admin I am supposed to give the same weight to votes that are not based on actual policy because admins are not supposed to interpret it? That is directly opposed to ROUGH CONSENSUS. SpartazHumbug!07:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears he's trying to render guidelines pointless, since he's saying any interpretation someone may make of a guideline, no matter how tortured, can't be discounted because the closer interprets it differently, since DGFA doesn't explicitly spell that out. Since DGFA is a guideline (maybe) whoever closes this by that logic can't ignore anyone's interpretation of DGFA itself, which of course leads to absolute nonsense... --81.100.164.154 (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's pejorative, but essentially correct. Read DGFA carefully--what it articulates are that policies are not negotiable, but guidelines are, and that is entirely consistent with the wording at CAT:G. Does no one else regularly consider the distinction between policies and guidelines? Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being right next to the DGFA statement you cited, this somehow missed your attention: a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. CAT:G says pretty much the same thing: guidelines represent a higher level of consensus than individual discussions and should be followed at the latter's expense if necessary. "Occasional exceptions" are just that, "exceptions". Avilich (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Those that come to this venue are the occasional exceptions". Don't make stuff up, anybody can bring anything here so there's nothing exceptional about that. DGFA clearly says that, in the lack of a consensus to suspend the guidelines, the closer must give said guideline no less weight than any other policy. None of the keep voters argued that N/GNG should be suspended, so this is not an exceptional case. Avilich (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Policies and guidelines (policy) distinguishes between them, but it often refers to them collectively as "policies and guidelines" (Ctrl-F returns 33 matches) or "guidelines and policies" (3 matches). WP:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays – an "explanatory essay" tagged with {{supplement}} and linked prominently in a {{See}} at the top of WP:Policies and guidelines#Role – states: There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a "policy" or a "guideline" or an "essay" or an "information page". I am confident that your interpretation does not reflect consensus, and I will propose a small clarification at WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators after this DRV has been closed.
Coming at this from a different angle, consider a case where an editor claims that material has been copied from the nominated article to a different article and that WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline) thus prohibits deletion. Another participant claims that no such copying has occurred, so CWW does not apply. (For the sake of this hypothetical, assume that exactly one is correct and ignore any nuanced possibilities.) Is it your stance that the closer is forbidden from evaluating which statement is true? Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The AFD discussion was solely concerned with "notability" but we have no policies concerning the notability of topics, including for articles about people or sportspeople. After careful thought a reviewer may consider our notability guidelines do not give appropriate advice in the particular (exceptional) circumstances. It is up to the individual reviewer to decide whether the particular circumstances are exceptional. Anyone claiming there are cannot be exceptions in a particular case are arguing in breach of the guidelines (which they are entitled to do but we are not required to agree). Policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP may sometimes apply that would require deletion of articles but such matters were not raised in the discussion and so were not refuted. On this basis there was no consensus in the discussion. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a ridiculous argument. You are correct that we do not have a guideline that covers Lawn Bowling. NSPORTS provides a basis to assume notability for sportspeople but GNG is the guide where it is not met. We are in a transitional period from a period where we were much more permissive in what we allowed and this may well have qualified under that. The RFC I linked above was exceedingly well attended and there was a clear documented consensus that the community now expected sports bios to have at least one substantial source. None of the keep arguments addressed this despite being persistently asked to identify the substantial source. No one made a claim to exceptionalism and regardless of that what gives the keep side the right to create a wholly different basis for inclusion as a local consensus against a widely supported community discussion when the arguments they were employing were not only routine but discussed to death in the RFC. SpartazHumbug!18:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While greater leeway (exceptions) exists for guidelines than policies, nobody in the discussion gave any evidence that this case is exceptional. Ignoring all votes which do not comply with the guidelines was therefore mandated by WP:DGFA and WP:CONLEVEL. All the keep votes violated the consensus rules of GNG and SPORTCRIT, so it's only right that they be ignored and a consensus be formed from the other side's opinions. Avilich (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question (context, I'm active at AfD, don't often comment here) Is it normal for someone who participates in a discussion where consensus is questionable to also close the discussion? My perception is that it would have been better for someone uninvolved to close it, but that's just a feeling, I don't know what the guidance/policy would say, hence my question... CT55555 (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closer was Spartaz, who did not participate in the AFD discussion. See WP:CLOSEAFD as a starting point for guidance/policy. The closer should not be an involved editor. Gab4gab (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The keep supporters failed to address the sourcing concerns, especially the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT/WP:SPORTCRIT. No one engaged with BilledMammal's source assessment table that evaluated each source as insufficient for GNG. Only Sjakkalle pointed to one specific source near the end.
Pipesmoking Legend cited GNG and was challenged within an hour by Spiderone, but their comment was not updated. Since GNG's requirement for significant coverage in multiple sources was not met at any point in the AfD, this recommendation should receive very little weight.
Necrothesp cited no policy or guideline, even to argue for an exception, despite Gab4gab providing relevant links. Referring to an old version of NSPORT and explaining why it should still apply would have been a possible approach.
Huggums537's "combined coverage" based on WP:BASIC was not rebutted explicitly, but BilledMammal's table indicates that even their sum is not much.
The BBC article found by Sjakkalle is arguably stronger than the one in the table – semi-finals versus quarter-finals, plus their reactions to losing – but Gab4gab contended that it is still short of significant coverage and that their reactions are not independent.
Endorse. As per the AfD source analysis, and discussion, all sources lacked significant coverage. Correct close. I guess that a merge could have been possible, but no one suggested one. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Classic supervote. And the closer's behaviour at this debate leaves a lot to be desired. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closer has made four posts. The first is a reasonable challenge to an over-brief !vote. The 2nd looks a reasonable closer comment, until I realise that the preceding dot point is also theirs, self-declaring a sickness bias. The 3rd and 4th come across as aggressive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The decision regarding deleting the the article was based on the initial 50 references which the article initially had and some participating editors said that those references may be significant and reliable but isn't independent. I added further around 20 references, mostly books and journals out of which I will like to highlight to the book Socio-Tech Innovation: Harnessing Technology for Social Good published by Springer which has a dedicated chapter on the entity (Chapter 15), to the Book Innovate India: A Roadmap for Atmanirbhar Bharat published by Bloomsbury Publishing which has a detailed case study on the entity (in Chapter 7), to the report published by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , to the book From Food Scarcity to Surplus Innovations in Indian, Chinese and Israeli Agriculture published by Springer where the entity was discussed under the chapter Innovations in precise agriculture. In case the previous 50 references were not enough to establish notability, specifically failed to achieve the requirements of WP:ORGIND, these books and journal references are possibly able make the entity pass the requirement of ORGIND and overall notability, as per my understanding. I mentioned this in my argumentations in the deletion discussion but it was possibly missed by others and was never addressed by anyone. So, I decided to bring this to this board. Khemotaj (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Khemotaj (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting for Temporary Undeletion to see the article content.
@Khemotaj:, please keep your arguments precise and short. None has the time to go through all your bulky comments. From the AfD discussion, it can be seen you came up with different set of references at different point of time. To that end, choose your final set of references that you think can be used to establish notability. Also state the associated notability criteria. Chirota (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiro725:, apologies for the long comments, but the intention was to illustrate the arguments. However, all what I have to say is already mentioned in this appeal.Khemotaj (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. By way of disclosure, I initiated the original AfD against the results of which this appeal has been lodged. The article has violated NPOV to an irremediable extent. I initiated the original AfD because I believed that from a neutral point of view, it is impossible to credibly assert that the article's subject is notable. The reference-bombing consisted of a large number of typically very shallow references in media (typically non-WP:RS and/or non-WP:SIGCOV), and there was a distinct lack of WP:DEPTH. In reviewing the sources cited above, I continue to hold this view. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I concur with the closer in that sometimes promotion and a non-neutraltone may require deletion of an article.
The article was reference-bombed, which does not make the subject notable, but the appellant has missed the point if they think that adding more references will establish notability.
@Robert McClenon: only one among the eight editors mentioned concern about promotional language, which as mentioned by closer can be resolved. The majority of the editors voting for delete expressed concerns about the entity not having enough references that pass ORGIND. I found some book and journal references during the last hour of the discussion, which weren't taken into consideration while providing final judgement. My query is very specific, if these references (please refer to DRV appeal ground above) satisfy ORGIND, if so, the entity is notable. The promotional language can be always remedied so is the refbombing as detailed in WP:CITETRIM.
Is the appellant saying that the close was in error, or that they think that they can develop a better article? The first is the usual reason for a Deletion Review, and my opinion is that the close should be endorsed. The second should not simply be the basis for overturning a valid close; the appellant should provide an improved draft for review. (If the appellant thinks that adding more references will establish corporate notability, they have missed the point.
Apologies, if my comments bothered you. I replied to two of editor's queries here (including you) and asked a question to another editor. Will it be right to say I am bludgeoning? This appeal is based on the first possibility posed by you - my act of addressing the concerns of majority editors in AFD voting for delete was not taken care in the close, nor it is being considered now. My request is please consider it as it should be. Khemotaj (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep A proper source analysis was needed to be prepared to have an objective view in the case. As per the source analysis, the subject passes criteria of notability WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. Only those references were included in this analysis which surfaced in AfD discussion.
The source discusses the subject directly and in detail
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Overturn and Keep extending my AFD stance here. There are references satisfying WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDEPENDENT, per WP:THREE the subject is deemed to be notable. Its also worth noting that one of the delete-voters got blocked for violating Wikipedia's TOU. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (delete). It was well discussed. Massively reference bombed with poor sources, and NPOV problems. The three sources in the source analysis above are not obvious. Recommend trying AfC following the advice at WP:THREE. Consensus was for “delete”, but maybe it could be called WP:TNT. It was not “no consensus” or “keep”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Entirely ref-bombed, none of the references met NCORP guidelines. It is a heavily promoted company and the references used rely entirely on promotional materials. Even the new references which were not looked at during the AfD (which is really an attempt to re-open an AfD but lets look at them anyway) are flawed. For example, the Development Cooperation reference in turn copies material word-for-word from this promotional article. The book "From Food Scarcity to Surplus" relies entirely on this LiveMint reference which in turn relies entirely on information/interviews and fails ORGIND. The book "Socio-Tech Innovaion" is also entirely based on the founder's thoughts and memories and various announcements. Practically every paragraph references the founder - "According to Krishna Kumar", "Krishna Kumar explains", "Krishna Kumar recounts", "Krishna Kumar narrates", "In Krishna Kumar's word", etc. The "Innovate India" book also relies on a meeting with the founder. I'm unconvinced by any of the new references. HighKing++ 20:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Was deleted due to non-notability. After release of the film Aparajito (IMDb), this actor has become notable and plenty of sources are now available. Hrishikes (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I agree that recent coverage, especially from Aparajito (2022 film), is likely enough to push Kamal over the WP:NACTOR/GNG line. Additionally, although the closer couldn't have known it at the time, the AfD (which features rather low-quality arguments) was tainted by sockpuppetry, so I think restoring the article outright (instead of sending it back through draftspace/AfC) is the best option here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the AfD had three participants, two of which were actually the same person using sockpuppets, so it shouldn't act as much of a bar for restoring/recreating this anyway. If he had starred in a prominent Bengali-language film then it is likely that more sources will exist. Hut 8.510:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Bapinghosh was blocked as a sockpuppet of the nom, so that vote must be thrown out. As a result, we're left with one other participant and the debate is essentially a "soft delete". This should be treated as a request for undeletion, which should be honored. ✗plicit00:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Page was deleted on the basis that the information was copy-paste on the page, which was fixed in later edits. No Census had been reached at the point of deletion. DiscoA340 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's customary to notify the closer when you propose to appeal a deletion here; I'll take your failure to do that as an inadvertent oversight. We don't use head-counts for assessing outcomes of deletion debates. Only one contributor was an unqualified keep supporter; the remainder were leaning merge. The thing is, many merge outcomes don't actually get performed by anyone; instead, the article sits around tagged for merging for months or years, and eventually someone takes the tag off. It's clear that the consensus of the debate is that there should not be an article at this title. In the event that someone is actually ready, willing, and able to perform the merger rather than talk about it, I have already said in my closure that the content can be restored under a redirect if such a person comes forward. Endorse own closure. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "merger" was poorly executed. Before there was a very neat organization that follows most other states' Interstate lists' structure (including a few promoted to Featured List). Highways are listed by their classification: primary (two-digit) Interstates, auxiliary (three-digit) Interstates and the Interstate business routes. Everything was listed in those respective tables: former, current and future. The tables used a set of templates to produce standardized output.
After, we had separate tables for "partially complete" primary, "partially complete" auxiliary and decommissioned highways. None of that was needed as it removed the ability to sort a single primary Interstate table by length or commissioning dates. Readers trying to find the oldest/newest highway or figure out how they rank by length would have to consult two tables. Even worse for the auxiliary Interstates, they'd have to consult three! Imzadi 1979→03:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closer indicated it would be fine to ask for the article to be restored under the redirect. That's enough to manage the merge if that's what you want to do. I'd have preferred a merge closure, but what was done is within discretion. If you need help navigating WP:REFUND let me know. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The OP did ask at REFUND [7] but since they obviously wanted the result of the AfD overturned rather than a merge I referred them here instead. Hut 8.518:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Fair. That said, if they are willing to agree to use it just for the merge, I'd say we should let them do that. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. It is not necessary to decide whether another conclusion would have also been valid. It should be noted that at least one of the delete statements was emphatic, saying: Indeed, I really do mean delete. That and the other opinions are sufficient for this to have been a valid conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus 1) trajectory was more keep/merge-heavy towards the end of the discussion. 2) Delete-but-merge-some-of-the-content sucks as an incoherent !vote and should have been either counted as merge or discarded entirely and Doncram called this out, and 3) pernom is, well, WP:PERNOM. I think a merge or redirect would have been a reasonable read of the consensus was well, but neither keep nor delete were really on the table. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse—there was nothing useful to merge into the other article. To wit, the other article is (List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina), by design, a set of three tables (primary/two-digit Interstates, auxiliary/three-digit Interstates, Interstate business routes), and this list here was prose sections with small infoboxes of content initially copied from the individual highway articles and then later rewritten. Every Interstate Highway that already exists is already listed in those tables, and this "partially completed" stuff is already discussed in the individual articles. Every confirmed future highway is already listed in the appropriate tables in the article and has content in specific individual articles already (either an article already about the future Interstate, or a redirect to a section of the article on the existing highway that will be upgraded to an Interstate). In short, nothing to merge, non-useful search term, so no need to even retain as a redirect. Imzadi 1979→03:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the point of the article was to list said routes in a single page to give light to them. The page was no different to List of future Interstate Highways and is almost carbon copy likeness to it, just about NC solely (Which is needed for the state). The issue of copy paste was rightfully brought up and quickly fixed. The people that supported deletion acted like the public know the information in this article by heart and would not need to have a list to know every future interstate in North Carolina. Using the argument that this information is found on each route page and is not needed to be in list form would mean there is no need for List of future Interstate Highways as it literally does the same thing. Not to mention the fact the same article was nominated for deletion on almost the same reasons almost a decade ago. DiscoA340 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're already all listed on a single page: List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina. Those that are proposed and not yet designated are listed with orange backgrounds in the appropriate tables wit an establishment date of "proposed". Those that have already been designated on some roadway segment are listed with the date they were first designated. This is how all of the other states' list articles work. There's nothing special about North Carolina that warrants a deviation from standard practices; they are far from the only state to have future Interstates. I-69 is still being built southward from Indianapolis, I-11 is still being built southward from Las Vegas, I-14 is still being built across the South, etc. Imzadi 1979→03:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't believe in supervoting in a forum like this but I do wish to point out that my vote was to delete, and not in any way, shape, or form to merge any content from what was ultimately a content fork. --Rschen775405:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, following the requirement of Lists, if any of the partial interstates appear to be notable, either a separate page can be created on that or it can be added to a suitable existing List. The AfD discussion was very obvious towards achieving a clear consensus of Delete. The closure was also reasonable. Nothing significant was brought by the DRV requester to call for overturn. Chirota (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This discussion was non-admin closed after only one day, with two keeps, a weak keep, and an "unsure, but not keep." I do not believe this is sufficient consensus for invocation of WP:SNOW. The discussion so far has mainly touched on the issue of sourcing, but the issues go beyond that. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is stupid. It was a clear keep. No one other than the nom raised issues beyond "it needs work". The article is loaded with sources that verify that it's a thing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)20:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, someone brought up WP:NOTTVTROPES. Other than that, don't you think it's disingenuous to cut off an active AfD after only one day and then claim that no substantive discussion was happening? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. You cut off an active AfD discussion when it had barely begun. Maybe there would've been more discussion of different issues tomorrow. Maybe there would've been more delete votes the next day. We'll never know because you cut that discussion off at the knees. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning delete but needed time to look into it more. I agree that it is a thing, but I am unconvinced it is an encyclopedia-worthy thing. It's my understanding that deletion discussions are about the latter, not the former. -- asilvering (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist This shouldn't have been closed 6 days early, particularly given two of the comments. Especially by a non-admin. I don't understand the rush. Nfitz (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it was almost certainly going to be kept, but I don't think the SNOW was heavy enough to justify the rapid close. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist You can't just close an AFD a day and a half into it. Also a non-administrator casting a supervote with the message "The article is sourced more than sufficiently." is wrong. If anyone could just close an AFD because they think the sourcing is sufficient, then that'd be done constantly. Don't attack every situation with a ten pound hammer. DreamFocus22:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If such an article doesn't link to Inara Serra, it's obviously deficient in the pop culture department... Oh, wait, wrong discussion. On the merits, I agree with DF above, but TPH isn't guilty of the judgment issues I took strong issue with last time a NAC of his showed up here. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I was confused to see this was closed already (I'd watchlisted it because I was considering weighing in). I'm even more confused to get here and find the closer voting in the deletion review - is this normal? Someone can "endorse" their own non-admin "snow" keep action? And in this particular case, when fully 3/5 of the respondents to the AfD are not voting for an unequivocal keep? -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is voting, and it's not about the closer, but about the close. It's useful for the closer to give more idea about the thought behind the close, and you'd expect a closer to endorse there own action (if they can't give a decent endorsing statement about the close, it really says little about the quality of the close). The closer is also free to read the other opinions and change their mind, understand alternate views and where their view differs from the general community view you would hope learn and modify their future closes. In the end the closer of the DRV will weigh opinions appropriately so I suspect the original closers bolded word or general opinion has little real weight, though in cases where it's fairly split or a good degree of closer discretion is anticipated their explanation could be important. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. As the "probably not keep" !vote, I raised concerns about the notability of the topic itself, and proposed the alternatives "prostitution in cinema" or a list. These options were under active consideration in the subsequent discussion, and I do not think an unambiguous consensus had been reached. Someone was even pinged into the conversation (TompaDompa) and hadn't had a chance to weigh in yet. I myself was planning to take a second look and see if I could make up my mind more firmly. The discussion should be permitted the full week. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, it's been two whole hours and everybody's voting relist. Using the standard set by Ten Pound Hammer, I should be able to close the discussion now and relist it, right? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely understand your frustration, but this verges a bit on a needless ad hominem. You might want to take a small break from this dispute. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture – clearly endorsed, though I'm surprised that several experienced AfD closers don't agree that it's within the closer's discretion to interpret a consensus to delete as allowing for a redirect per WP:ATD, since I (and the majority of participants here) thought that was a well-established practice. Maybe there should be a follow-up discussion about that. – Joe (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The AfD had 6 delete recommendations (including the nominator) and 1 keep. Two delete supporters also included non-bolded mentions of redirect toward the end of their comments. Liz closed it as redirect.
I approached Liz on her talk page. She pointed to the redirect mentions and cited WP:ATD-R. After further discussion, she clarified on the AfD: But while "Redirect" was not "bolded" in anyone's response, it was mentioned as a possible alternative to deletion by several participants here so I opted for that result. I think that was a possible option open to the closer of this discussion. Since this AfD, Liz also closed WP:Articles for deletion/Julia Bodina as redirect, explaining and altering to delete when the nominator contested it: The consensus was to Delete but a Redirect was proposed as an alternative to deletion so I opted for it.
I believe that Liz gave far too much weight to redirect. This approaches a "left-field supervote" (WP:Supervote#Types of supervoting, essay), but it differs slightly because redirect had some small amount of support.
The position that receives the strongest support amongst responders is that the weight of "merge" and "redirect" arguments is equal to the weight of "keep" and "delete" arguments. A point frequently made in the RfC both by those who supported the consensus view and the vocal minority who favored giving additional weight to "merge" and "redirect" is that the underlying strength of the argument for the position is what matters most. — User:Moonriddengirl 16:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Consensus for delete is clear if the extra weight is removed:
Count Splitting the two comments into 2/3 delete and 1/3 redirect, the totals become 5 1/3 delete, 2/3 redirect, and 1 keep, which calculates to 76% support for deleting.
I chose 1/3 as an arbitrary, illustrative value. It is less than 1/2 because I interpret redirect as a less-favored second choice.
Strength No participant presented a full argument for redirecting, although one of the mentions suggested a redirect target.
Side notes:
WP:Deletion review/Purpose 1: if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly.
Comment I thought that a Redirect was a valid alternative to deletion and I don't understand why this option is unacceptable to Flatscan. I don't know how to respond to this mountain of commentary on whether or not redirects should ever be an option. I thought it was within my discretion as a closer to leave a redirect as this option was mentioned by participants, whether or not it was BOLDED. My experience at Deletion review this year has been unpleasant (my good faith judgments as an admin have been called "appalling" and "despicable") and I'm sure that if others here disagree with my decision to leave a redirect, I'll be told so in no uncertain terms. LizRead!Talk!05:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Redirection was only tangentially proposed as an option in the discussion and therefore could not be the consensus outcome of the discussion. While it is true that redirection can be an appropriate alternative to deletion in some cases, it is for AfD participants to determine whether a redirect would make sense in any given case, and not for the closer. In my view, it is only appropriate to close an AfD as "redirect" if there is not outright consensus for this option if the discussion is split between "delete" and "merge" opinions, because in this case a redirect implements the consensus to not keep an article while also allowing the editorial process to determine what if anything should be merged. Here, however, nobody proposed merging anything, and there was near-unanimous consensus to delete. That consensus should have been followed. Sandstein 06:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable exercise of closer discretion, and I'm surprised someone chose to make such a big deal out of this. "Redirect" and "Delete" are functionally equivalent here, either way the article is gone. The appeal is predicated on the assumption that everybody who left a "Delete" comment is opposed to redirecting unless they explicitly said otherwise, which isn't true. None of the Delete comments actually opposed a redirect either. Hut 8.508:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect are distinct recommendations/outcomes, per WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. A closer has the responsibility to reflect the consensus accurately and precisely. Delete and redirect is a way to fulfill the consensus and keep the redirect, as suggested by another user citing WP:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist) as an example. Regarding your last point, I think it is unreasonable and not within current AfD norms to require a rebuttal to a suggestion lacking a supporting argument. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Delete comments all gave reasons why the article should not exist. A close of Redirect fulfils this. Per WP:ATD-R AfDs are supposed to consider alternatives to deletion, including redirection, and as you've noticed Delete and Redirect aren't even mutually exclusive outcomes. It's therefore fair to say that a Delete comment which doesn't explicitly oppose redirection, or offer any kind of argument against it, likely doesn't particularly object to redirection instead of deletion. I've been in that situation plenty of times myself. Even you don't seem to be offering any kind of argument as to why the redirect is a bad idea. Hut 8.507:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A redirect is obviously appropriate, some participants suggested that option, and no-one presented arguments against it. The arithmetic of bolded votes doesn't matter here. If anyone really believes the redirect should be deleted, then at this stage the appropriate step is to take it to WP:RfD, but I don't think that could result in anything other than snow keep.I would like to add that this close isn't some marginally acceptable borderline case where admin discretion is pushed to its limit. This is exactly how discussions like this should be closed. The focus of AfD is on evaluating whether a given topic should have an article, while the suitability of an article's title as a redirect tends to receive little attention. I've seen a decent number of AfDs with a redirect outcome where most participants voted for it as a softer form of deletion but where the resultant redirect doesn't make sense, and conversely: a fair number of AfDs resulting in deletion where redirecting would have obviously been better. These results aren't due to AfD working as it's supposed to, they're side effects of the tendency for participants and closers to not bother with question of redirect suitability. I believe closers should be encouraged to pay more attention to these aspects and use discretion to decide for redirecting even in cases where no participant has suggested the option. – Uanfala (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cited DRV Purpose 1 to emphasize that I am challenging the evaluation of consensus. RfD will only come into play after this DRV is settled. Your second paragraph's conclusion is exactly a "left-field supervote". Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse If you think the redirect needs to be deleted, take it to WP:RfD. I imagine it would easily survive such a discussion, which is a heck of a sign the redirect is a good idea. We historically do give closers a wide bit of leeway on redirecting rather than deleting at AfD. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and trout for Flatscan: a redirection is basically a de facto deletion--except that the content in the history under the redirect can be accessed by non-admins if they want to improve it or use it elsewhere. WP:ATD-R is policy. Therefore, any delete opinion which didn't address why a redirect was inappropriate isn't a policy-based !vote and was appropriately disregarded by Liz. Sandstein's logic is unsustainable, in that it would require every policy be mentioned to be considered in an AfD. That's not how this works; administrators are expected to know and apply policy appropriately, even when XfD participants do not. Liz gets a gold star from me. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reconcile your opinion with the RfC cited in the nomination? Weighting redirects more versus disregarding deletes is a distinction without a difference, as both give relatively more weight to redirect over delete.
Relying on a non-consensus interpretation of ATD to discard recommendations goes beyond closer discretion and infringes on WP:Consensus.
Your interpretation of ATD is not apparent in a plain reading. It requires cherry-picking If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. from the Editing and discussion subsection (shortcut WP:ATD-E) and twisting it to cover the other ATD subsections and all AfD outcomes.
You've seen everything right in front of your eyes... and aren't putting it together. Deletion is a last resort when nothing else makes sense. In cases that might be covered by G10-11-12 (attack/spam/copyvio) it's clear that nothing should be preserved, nothing should be kept for future merge or resuscitation by an editor with time to fix it. This isn't that. Every "cruft" or "indiscriminate" anything doesn't need that level of correction, nor should it receive it. We work in a place that thrives on the contributions of people obsessed with trivia, and our job is to not discourage them just because some of us happen to be a bit OCD about inclusion criteria. The punitive deletionist mindset goes beyond merely polishing the publicly-facing article space and instead tries to minimize the chance of anyone else contributing anything else in the future. Myopic but well meaning, such punitive deletion advocates are attempting to strangle Wikipedia without realizing it. So yes, ATDs should be normative for things where they make sense, which includes this article. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid choice by the closer that implements the consensus to delete the article. Redirects are cheap. When a redirect seems like it might be in order, it probably is in order. The participants weren't saying that the topic was forbidden. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The redirect target was mentioned and described in the nominating statement (and the second bolded comment accepted a redirect was appropriate). After the relist, 2 of the 4 commentators suggested a redirect or that a good article could be created about "Egypt's representation in fiction". I think that the closer was well within discretion to close as a redirect. --Enos733 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per Sandstein. Policy is to be interpreted and applied to individual situations by way of consensus. Individual !voters do not need to explicitly state they are interpreting policy in a certain way if their !votes can be read as such. It is rarely appropriate for closers to determine unilaterally that the contributors' interpretation and application was wrong and substitute their own. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. More discussion is needed on redirect or not redirect. It was mentioned by participants, and has policy mandate under WP:ATD-R and the delete voters did not articulate why not. The nominator User:Zxcvbnm was at more fault than the closer because the nominator named a redirect target and did not argue against a redirect. He called the nominated article a duplicate, aka a content fork, and content forks should be fixed by redirection, unless there is a good reason not to. WP:BEFORE was not followed, and it should be mandatory. The closer erred by glossing over the nominator’s BEFORE failure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete It's simple, almost everyone there voted delete except for a single vote with a faulty argument. Nobody voted redirect, therefore the article shouldn't have been redirected and I'm not really sure why it was. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I'm as big a fan as anyone in counting noses at AfD. But do you agree that there is no way RfD would delete this as a redirect? And do you agree that there was no policy-based argument in the AfD for not having a redirect? I'm struggling to understand why folks are think it makes sense to delete a redirect here. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Consensus was clear. There was no basis to support such a redirect, and the two comments that mentioned redirecting as an alternative failed to cite a relevant policy or guideline to explain why this particular title was justified. Far too much weight was given to these afterthoughts. The above comments about this surviving RFD are at odds with actual practice, as this is a standard candidate for deletion due to the lack of mentions or information regarding "Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture" at the target. ✗plicit02:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no information about those deities in popular culture at the target? How about its second section ("Depictions of Egyptian mythology"), which takes up the bulk of the article. It's a deity-by-deity enumeration mostly of portrayals of the deity in popular culture. – Uanfala (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If actual practice is to delete an article where a redirect is discussed and no policy-based reasons are given for not having it (in this case, no reasons at all...), then actual practice needs some improvement. Hobit (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the redirect to point to the correct section of the article (which is 90%+ of the article, but still). Hobit (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect is a valid ATD. The article is gone and the pointer helps the reader. No harm, no foul. I personally find it silly to quibble over redirects as Liz could have deleted this and any user could have made a redirect. It's not strictly within admin control. Can go to RfD if you have an issue with the redirect existing. StarMississippi01:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Uanfala. The close is spot on. Not to mention that even if we start wikilawyering rather than employing common sense – as is pretty much the basis of this discussion – then this is much more of non-prejudicial supervote than a left-field one. J947 † edits21:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete ATD says articles 'can', not 'must' be redirected, and there was no consensus in the discussion that it should. "Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture" is a descriptive phrase which isn't mentioned verbatim at the target so there was no argumentative basis for a redirect, besides the fact that nobody voted for such a thing. If Liz wants to insist on some stray occurrences of the word redirect then she should do as the closers did at WP:Articles for deletion/Ioma Rajapaksa and WP:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist) and erase the revision history first, which is what the particiants voted for. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a good close. A sensible compromise, that avoids deciding immediately what is likely to be a complicated discussion on the basis of few participants Personally, I would have said "keep" had i noticed this, According to current practice, there is a great deal of flexibility in closes. The current practice is the guideline. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, While technically its true that there are overwhelming consensus towards delete, but as mentioned by various editors functionally, delete and redirects are same but they are different at the same time. Labelling the closure as a Supervote is possibly too much when the closer indeed exercised their judgement rightly towards the consensus and used some laxity that policy allows. Aren't we getting too pushy when asking for overturn? However, this can become a landmark DRV decision to be used in future. Chirota (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Coco Bandicoot – Closure undone and AfD relisted on my own authority per WP:NACD. Per that guideline, "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins", and this DRV shows that early closures are often controversial. Sandstein 06:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The discussion was closed less then four hours after it was started. The closer justified their move because there were three calls to redirect in less than an hour. It hasn't even had time to be listed by the deletion sorting system. This doesn't set a good precedent at all. A WP:SNOW clause would have been more convincing if say, the discussion was allowed to run for at least a few more days and more then a dozen people have called for the exact same outcome. An uninvolved administrator should look into the issue and see if WP:BADNAC applies. Haleth (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The redirect was undone without consent on May 4. There was no attempt to discuss the undo of the redirect, which sat just fine for nearly nine years. The AFD was so obviously leaning "redirect" in such a short time that there was no reason to drag it out any longer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)00:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: As the person who restored the article in the first place, I have to say that this was closed way too quickly. It should be relisted, and given as much time as other AFDs. Also, redirects do not need consent to be undone, per WP:ATD-R. MoonJet (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undo NAC/Relist Sure, three "redirect it again" in a row are a hurdle to overcome, but no, this was not an appropriate SNOW. TenPoundHammer, you have an exceptional track record among deletionists as being against most pop culture articles, both in length and consistency. You absolutely should not have been the one to close this as a NAC. What needs to happen is it be relisted, be delsorted appropriately, and allowed to run for the week to see if anyone comes up with SIGCOV to justify a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind if I double down, do you? And yes, "don't mind?" is a polite fiction: you've earned what's coming, and if you don't want to read it, you aren't required to. Your involvement in this NAC is at least half of what is wrong with the close, and presumably WP:ADMINACCT applies to non-admins who choose to NAC, even if it doesn't explicitly say so. You don't get to NAC articles as delete, or anything like it, outside of undisputable circumstances, just like I don't get to NAC articles as keep, or anything like it, again outside of undisputable circumstances, because every editor has the right to an impartial closer, and in deletion discussions neither one of us are. We've edited in the deletion arena together for what, fifteenish years? You know what I prefer, I know what you prefer, we don't see eye to eye on how to best improve Wikipedia, but we get along fine when we each honor the process and stay in our lanes. I cannot see how this action fits that mold. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn but don't relist. The AfD nominator is no longer seeking deletion, so the AfD should be closed as withdrawn. Whether to merge-and-redirect is an editorial decision for the article talkpage and doesn't require an AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This AfD should have been closed as "delete", "redirect" or "merge".
The closer, Star Mississippi, erred in merely counting numbers and not weighing the opinions offered in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. Had they done so, they would have recognized that all of the seven "keep" opinions did not address the reason for deletion at all, which made them pure votes, which are discounted in assessing consensus.
The one "keep" opinion that made something even resembling an argument was that by Ainty Painty, but their argument was "The mentioned articles are surely connected to each other." This does not address the reason for deletion, which was that it is prohibited original research to connect these supposed crises to each other without sources that make this connection - and Ainty Painty did not respond to a query to that effect. For that reason, their opinion, too, cannot be given weight in assessing consensus.
With all "keep" opinions discounted, the closer should have recognized that there was consensus to not keep the article, which would have led them to close the AfD as "delete", "redirect" or "merge". My personal practice is to close AfDs that are split between "delete" and "merge" as "redirect", which allows the editorial process to figure out what if anything should be merged. Sandstein 16:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several political upheavals taking place at roughly the same time:- at the national level, the motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister and his replacement (28th March - 11th April), which involved a constitutional crisis that has its own article; and at the local level, the resignation of the Punjabi Chief Minister and his replacement (28th March - 6th April); and two other motions of no confidence in other Chief Ministers. If these upheavals are connected, I don't see how.If I take the absolute most charitable view of the "keeps" that I possibly can, I can think of them as saying we need a high-level navigational article to help readers make sense of simultaneous events in Pakistani politics. And if I stretch that interpretation as far it'll go, I get to "List of Pakistani political crises in 2022", which roughly fits into WP:CLN --- in other words, being super-kind to the "merge" side, I can see a policy basis for what they're saying.On the other hand, where that leads is to a merger where the final article has a different name and completely different content. That's functionally identical to a "delete", I think. So I can't really understand that any differently from Sandstein's understanding.—S MarshallT/C 20:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse The article is, as it stands, a list article. It doesn't need to have the word "list" in it to be a list article as far as I know. I think the point Sandstein is making is that the article doesn't meet WP:LISTN because it hasn't been "...discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." And the discussion didn't seem to turn up any such sources. But LISTN only says that such sourcing is "One accepted reason...", not that it is required. The idea of merging into 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis makes sense to me. That article is lacking far too many details. So basically keeping it as a list article or merging it (pretty much as-is, not much removed) all seem like reasonable outcomes that were supported in the discussion. Deletion most certainly didn't have consensus--it barely had support. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel the closer could have found consensus to rename it back to 2022 Pakistani political crises. But that would have been a bit of a stretch. I also feel the closer should have suggested an RfC or other way forward to resolve the issue. NC in this case isn't really leaving us in a good spot IMO--very few people felt that the article, with the title it has, was the right place for us to be. Not a great thing to default to without a suggestion of how to move forward. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin comment aware of and fine with this DRV as I know my decisions aren't foolproof. I was willing to relist this, and I nearly did before close, given there was an apparent glitch between 4/30 and 5/2 relists, but I do not see a consensus emerging out of that. Not going to formally endorse it and hold up any consensus here. Re to Hobit's comments, I can see that. It's not something I'd thought about before but will definitely keep it in mind going forward for complex closes. StarMississippi23:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No consensus. See WP:RENOM for advice, a better nomination would have been better, but before renominating ensure that WP:ATDs do not exist. If merge was one the table, and consensus is not there, then AfD has to be closed as “no consensus” because AfD can’t enact a merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By “enact a merge” I mean “actually perform and complete a merge”, in the face of complexity and objections at the target article.
AfD can declare a “consensus to merge”, which then carries the authority of WP:Consensus, not WP:Deletion policy.
Was there a consensus to merge? No.
A rough consensus to merge? That would be an aspirational call. Even if the closer immediately performed the merge, they are immediately revertable per WP:EDITCONSENSUS.
At best, a rough consensus to merge should mean the closer refers the case to WP:PROPMERGE.
Was there a consensus to “redirect and allow possible merging from the history”? No, I do not read that from the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid close by Star Mississippi when there was in fact No Consensus. The appellant would have closed it differently, and that would have also been a valid close by Sandstein. It isn't worth arguing over which close would have been better, but this was a clearly valid assessment of (no) consensus by the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn At the very least, there's a clear consensus from the contributions that the article is mistitled. The status quo ante of no consensus is not a reflection of the discussion. There was no refutation of arguments regarding a lack of sourcing that linked the events discussed in toto as crises, that is, no refutation of the problems of SYNTH in the article. If it cannot be demonstrated that policy has not been breached, a !vote to keep cannot be considered. Discerning between delete and merge is open to interpretation, I favoured delete, but it is one or the other, not no consensus. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You start by implying a rename could fix it, but end by saying it was either delete or merge. That sounds like no consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not relitigating the AfD, I'm summarising the discussion. The vast majority of contributors identified multiple problems with the article, hence "at the very least". However, the most significant issue, left unrefuted, was sourcing to justify the article. No amount of keeps that fail to address a fundamental policy breach can produce a no consensus result. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This Wikipedia page Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) was deleted by MelanieN after being marked for speedy deletion by GPL93 based on false claims made by bonadea: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
The Wikipedia page Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) was written from a neutral point of view, and accurately included over 20 sources of significant coverage from independent and credible news sources, including national magazines and websites, including, but not limited to:
The Wikipedia page Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) contained far more independent news sources than the Wikipedia pages of these interior designers:
As the nominator has chosen not to answer this reasonable question, I am choosing to assume they no longer wish to pursue their nomination and will say keep deleted, plus delete the recreated draft for good measure. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was most definitely not written in the neutral point of view and after making their initial 10 edits this editor has acted as an SPA trying to promote Chris Barrett. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting administrator's comment: This draft was rejected for submission in August 2021 and again in March 2022, both times for reading like an advertisement and for not showing evidence of notability. The draft was then tagged G11 “because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic”. I concurred with that assessment and deleted the article on that basis. I just took another look at it. It basically consists of exactly what the author has provided here and on multiple user talk pages: A list of times that somebody said something about her. I agree with GPL93’s analysis. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse clear G11, ref bombed to hide a lack of notability, and clearly with the goal of promoting Barrett/her work. IntDesign, you should be aware of WP:OSE before comparing an article against others. StarMississippi23:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This stinks of promotional editing and I'd be amazed if the author doesn't have some kind of connection to the subject. G11 was entirely reasonable. Hut 8.511:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think my favourite part is how the nominator said "The Wikipedia page Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) was written from a neutral point of view" as they demanded its immediate restoration. Comedy gold.—S MarshallT/C 19:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse:
Written before reading the restored material: The appellant has made the case for the tagging editor and the deleting administrator. Reference-bombing doesn't disprove promotion, and is typical of promotion. The URL Dump has one purpose, and that is to establish that the author is trying to overwhelm us with useless references.
Written after reading the restored material: It's a resume, but it's a reference-bombed resume.
Endorse deletion without prejudice to someone unrelated to the OP coming along, using the sources provided above, and writing a properly toned, non-promotional Wikipedia article. The sources helpfully provided above establish notability, but the article was still rightly deleted per WP:G11. As long as the person with the likely COI who wrote the ad copy and tried to pass it off as an encyclopedia article has no involvement in its creation or editing, a possibly compliant Wikipedia article can be written about this person. That doesn't mean the article was incorrectly deleted. It was correctly deleted. But thanks for the sources that may help someone without a COI write a new one. --Jayron3213:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aadi Lakshmi – While the original deletion conclusion is endorsed, people are mostly fine with draftification or recreation and someone has already restored the content to draftspace. Note that some editors have qualified their OK with restoration and expect proper sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There is nothing stopping you from writing another article about it, and you don't need to come here or get anyone's permission to do that. If you want the original version to serve as a starting point then I'm sure it can be restored to draft space, but it had very little content apart from an infobox and a cast list and it was completely unsourced (apart from IMDB, which doesn't count). Hut 8.511:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original deletion as correct based on sourcing known at time. Recommend undeletion and userification or draftification for the appellant to fix it up so it demonstrates appropriate policies and guidelines, then moving it back to mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as original closer. Based on the good faith efforts by the users in the last discussion to find sources, I don't believe my assessment of consensus was wrong. However, I'm fully on board with the restoration and draftification undertaken above (thanks Graeme Bartlett!) if new/previously unknown sources can be used to show notability. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way. New sources listed here are not a slam dunk, and need a close look. Encourage REFUND to draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This article was written like a non-free gallery of images, which means a subject of non-free images which is the images have been copyrighted and too much blank spaces, which means a little of WP:LISTCRUFT. 182.3.41.210 (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you appealing against deletion? From what I can make out you seem to be supporting it, which is unnecessary. I'm afraid that if you want this discussion to go ahead you will have to explain your reasoning a bit better. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to be an appeal against deletion. Can the requester please explain what it is they want to happen? Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close No valid rationale for overturning the deletion has been provided, in fact, judging from the IPs other edits, they seem to support it, so... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closed on the basis of no sources. There are plenty. Several reviews here, here and here. Sources about production here, here, here and here. Box office source here. Easiest if the article is restored. Please rename the article Tirupathi (2006 Kannada film) as that is what is in the sources. The film Thirupathi (film) should be renamed to Thirupathi (2006 Tamil film) after this article comes into fruition. DareshMohan (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion outcome which could not have been closed any other way. Nothing prevents a new article being created that overcomes the reason for deletion. If you would like the previous article restored as a draft for you to build on, the place to go for that is WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment: I wasn't contacted before the DRV was filed. I stand by my close as an accurate assessment of the consensus reached but that was also 15 months ago and since the editor has sources not present or discussed at the time of deletion, I happy to restore to draft space for further development. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. People who think they can overcome a past reason to delete need better advice than to bring it to DRV. People who don’t know whether their new sources overcome the past reason to delete should try WP:AfC to draft it and get an AFC reviewer’s opinion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was closed as "no consensus", in what seems both A) a SUPERVOTE and B) an inaccurate summary of the discussion, one which does not consider the strength of arguments.
The supervote is that, apparently, the consensus (or similar lack thereof) of a previous discussion must be followed otherwise "this would result in a complete mess". Not only, as explained to the closer on their talk page, can consensus change, but a "consensus" at one time and at one place which ignores a very fundamental aspect of policy (WP:NOT) certainly does not hold enough, if any, weight, to support this conclusion (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). This is a supervote because nobody made this specific argument (there were plenty of "keep per my previous arguments", but no "keep because of the previous discussion").
Furthermore, even ignoring this, the close fundamentally fails to weight !votes in line with policy. While a superficial count might reveal what appears like equality, most if not all of the keep !votes only have a very thin grounding (if any) in policy. "keep because of size restrictions" or "keep this is valid information" both assume that this is valid information, without proof, and without engaging with the NOT argument (or the lack of reliable sources as pointed out by me). And again, a consensus at one time and at one place cannot ignore broader policy which explicitly mentions this kind of stuff as not being "valid information".
I've attempted to discuss this with the closer, but all I've heard so far has been crickets. Anyways, this should be overturned to deleteRandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, those advocating for deletion use weak arguments such as WP:IINFO, which is for unexplained statistics and data without context. This is in no way "a list of things made without care or distinction," rather a list of episodes provide value by giving context as to what the show is about. Another key argument for deletion is WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but that's not what these lists are. They do not list upcoming events, nor current promotions, nor current schedules, nor format clocks. --Tavix(talk)15:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I do not and can not endorse the closer's lack of engagement when the close was questioned. That is a fundamental failure of WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions. --Tavix(talk)15:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how INDISCRIMINATE is a "weak argument" when the first element within it is "1. Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works". This is exactly that and is a much stronger argument than the opposite, which is mere personal opinion (not backed up even by a link to policy) that this is "valid information". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I've always found that the correct interpretation of WP:NOT is usually wider than what a strict lawyer-like reading of it would suggest. This is also supported by WP:BADIDEA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is fundamentally dangerous for you to interpret WP:NOT wider than how it is read. TV episode lists are an entrenched aspect of Wikipedia, and if you want them deleted I suggest you start an RfC. Using a WP:NOT backdoor that does not support deleting TV episodes is not how to do it. --Tavix(talk)16:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TV episode lists are an entrenched aspect of Wikipedia is only your opinion, and not Wikipedia policy (like the keep comments arguing that this is "valid information", when it in fact cites no reliable source and thus also fails WP:V). WP:NOT (which includes WP:IINFO - which you incorrectly dismiss as a "weak argument"; and WP:BADIDEA), on the other hand, is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this is fundamentally a dispute over whether the content is encyclopedic: the Delete side say it isn't and the Keep side say it is. "Encyclopedic" is a very loosely defined term and whether or not something is encyclopedic is largely left up to editors' judgement, leaving little scope for strength of argument. While WP:NOT does list various cases of things which are not considered encyclopedic, most comments relied on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is extremely general. I also agree with the closer that it doesn't make sense for these lists to be treated separately from another collection of lists of episodes of the same programme. It's true that consensus can change, but there isn't any reason for separate consensuses to apply to each group of lists, and in any case it's very unlikely that consensus has changed in such a short period of time. Hut 8.518:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: I don't see how "WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is extremely general" when it literally mentions, first-up, "Summary-only descriptions of works" and even before how "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" (and both of these are rather accurate descriptions of stuff like List_of_The_Late_Late_Show_with_Craig_Ferguson_episodes_(2011)). Someone saying it is "valid information" isn't very far from a WP:ILIKEIT argument, somebody saying this fails WP:NOT is much more convincing and shouldn't have been dismissed by the closer simply because there was a similar discussion previously (which is one year ago, so not exactly "yesterday"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Valid information" is a statement that the content is encyclopedic, which carries as much weight as a statement that the content is not encyclopedic (e.g. "these lists offer almost no value"). The "Summary-only descriptions of works" bit means you can't have an article which is solely comprised of plot summary, this is certainly not interpreted to mean that all lists of TV episodes are unacceptable. There was a reasonable argument put forward that this programme shouldn't have lists of episodes because it isn't scripted, but AFAIK there isn't any policy/guideline basis for this, so it's just an opinion. As the closer said, I fail to see any rational reason why List of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson episodes should be deleted but List of The Late Late Show with James Corden episodes should not be. They should clearly be considered together, and not doing so was a flaw in the discussion. Hut 8.519:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Summary" has multiple meanings, including a short statement of the main ideas or facts in a report, discussion, etc.. Stuff like List of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson episodes (2011), which consists of solely a table with a list of guests and musical entertainers, is pretty much a "summary" description of it. Whether some people think it is "valid information" doesn't mean it doesn't fail NOT, something which the closer should have recognised. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is unambiguously a "summary", and that clause is normally invoked in the case of plot/content summaries. That argument, if accepted, would also apply to most of the (many) lists of TV episodes on Wikipedia, for example there are about 80 featured lists which are lists of TV episodes, and I think your rationale would lead to most of them being deleted. All NOT really says on this case is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we should delete unencyclopedic content, even if verifiable. Exactly what constitutes "unencyclopedic" is largely left to editorial judgement. Hut 8.507:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse there is no consensus about how to handle these. That seems plain. There also was a very recent discussion and I don't think it's clear that NOT applies here. Hobit (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Sometimes we hear an appeal where the appellant says that the closer supervoted. Such a call should be overturned, unless policy is clear and the participants were just plain wrong. However, this appears to be an appeal where the appellant is saying that the closer did not supervote. It is true that the closer did not supervote in this case, because there really was a scattering of arguments. There was no obligation to supervote. Sometimes no consensus is really no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseWP:IINFO is cited badly all the time. I was going to lambast the appellant for raising obviously specious arguments, but it turns out that WP:NEPISODE is itself a dumpster fire of an essay masquerading as an SNG. I've repaired it somewhat, but it's therefore excusable that good faith editors would try to hold episodes to a higher bar than the GNG, based on its inappropriate emphases. Having said that, no, "list of" episodes of a notable television show are always kept unless there's V problems or other critical fails with the list itself. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought Overturn to keep since no policy-based deletion arguments were advanced. Due weight to each side clearly leans to keep. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most nonsense I've seen on Wikipedia in a while. Articles which consist solely of prose-less database-like tables obviously fail WP:NOT, no matter whether some people claim its "valid information" or not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is not AFD Round 2. What you're arguing is whether you think the pages should be deleted, not whether the closer judged the consensus correctly. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I'm doing is correctly pointing out that the closer gave the same weight to different arguments when in fact, in light of policy (such as NOT), they shouldn't hold nearly the same weight. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." part from the same section? or the WP:NOTDATABASE part that "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." (an argument which none of the keep !votes even attempted to address). Or maybe even the more fundamental part that all of these NOT-failing lists also fail WP:V? A few people arguing that its "valid information" does not mean a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override broader policy, particularly when the fail is obvious like here, and the closer erred in this aspect of giving equal weight to less valid arguments of the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:LASTTIME type. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, actually. In the final opinion listed, you did articulate actual deletion rationales; no one else before you did. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, neither side (the keep nor the delete side) made much of any policy-based arguments on how this list actually meets or fails Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, and most that did, did not give any sort of rationale as to how. As Jclemens has stated, you were the only one to actually give any sort of rationale that wasn't just a "per policy" argument. All of the other arguments were mostly based on ITUSEFUL/NOTUSEFUL, and the preceding delete rationales, cannot be assumed to be in support of your rationale, since their rationale wasn't the same as yours (and yours came after theirs did). That's probably why both the keep and the delete side were given equal or close to equal weight. WP:RENOM is probably your best course of action at this point. The fact that this was closed as "no consensus" and not "keep", should actually go in your favor, seeing as "no consensus" closures are strictly procedural and not the same as a straightforward keep, delete, redirect or merge closure. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the debate. AFD does not operate on a precedent system and it was improper for the closer to refer to the outcome of a different article's debate as a reason not to delete. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that was exactly what some of the participants argued. It would only have been improper if I had pulled that rationale out of thin air. SpinningSpark08:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AFD was relisted twice and still ended with no consensus. DRV is not AFD Round 2 and this DRV seems to be more based on the initiator not agreeing with the outcome, as opposed to actually citing any problem with how the closer judged the consensus.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Neither side put forward particularly convincing arguments. Claiming Wikipedia is not TV Guide/IMDb without any substance amounts to WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Looks like a sound closure to me. ✗plicit12:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (revert the close) due to WP:ADMINACCT failure. Let another admin re-close. It doesn’t matter if it is reclosed the same way, but it matters that the closer is available to discuss the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
David Rohl – No consensus to overturn, allow a new discussion. This discussion has continued for almost the entire month. While initially this was overwhelmingly in favour of endorsing the original close, later comments are more in favour of relisting or restoring the article - citing sources presented in the discussion - even if they don't fault the closer for a relatively poor discussion. Numerically, most people are in favour of endorsing but not by a sufficient margin to call this an "endorse" consensus. The DRV instructions explicitly state that sometimes a no consensus close should be interpreted as a relist, and given the source-based arguments presented by the relist/restore camp this seems like a reasonable approach to take. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Not sure that replying to a DRV close in this manner is actually the correct approach]It means that if someone wants to relist the AfD, they can do so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Another really painfully bad discussion. The nomination had nothing to do with our inclusion guidelines. Nearly all the keep and most of the delete arguments had similar issues. @Tuckerresearch: can you provide the best three or four sources that you believe contribute to him meeting WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or some other guideline? If secondary, reliable, independent sources exist that cover him in some detail (say each with a paragraph or more) this will likely be overturned. If not, the redirect will likely stay. At the moment I'm at "overturn to relist with a note asking people to focus on sources that count toward the GNG". Hobit (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just two real quick, outside his work on the New Chronology. On the subject of ancient history, biblical history, biblical chronology, and Egyptology, he is referenced in many books. Yes, often to bash his views on the New Chronology, but nevertheless, to discuss him.
Here is a bit about his theory on the location of the Garden of Eden, which is a theory that does not rest on his alternative New Chronology: Weir, J. (2007). In Search of Eden: The Course of an Obsession. Armchair Traveller Series. Haus. ISBN 978-1-905791-07-1. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
Outside his work on the New Chronology, which the DELETE voters and REDIRECT voters mistakenly claim is his only claim to notability, his work on pre-dynastic rock art in the Eastern Desert (east of the Nile) in Egypt (Rohl, David M., ed. The Followers of Horus: Eastern Desert Survey Report. Basingstoke, UK: Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 2000.) is well-cited by other, mainstream scholars, which contributes to his notability.
Thanks! Would you mind if I reformat that (or you do) to make it more readable? It's a bit hard to parse as a wall of text. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Tuckerresearch that the page should have been kept under its original name, without a redirect, seeing that that was the consensus of contributing editors.Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with TuckerResearch. There is a wealth of RSs on Rohl, easily available via WikiLibrary and elsewhere, for example:
Endorse, I too think this was a reasonable close. The "keeps" were really bad there, incredibly poor quality with lots of hallmarks of COI editing and offwiki canvassing, including direct attacks on the nominator's motives and competence.—S MarshallT/C 13:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not feel the need too notice the "direct attack" of the original person who nominated the article for deletion? See the diff, which done in a derogatory manner with some apparent malice! TuckerResearch (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore -- I am not sure that David Rohl is notable apart from his controversial chronological theory, which, I have to say, I found stimulating when I first read it. This is in a sense a fringe subject on the boundaries of history/archaeology. I suspect that he has indeed published quite a bit, apart from his initial work. I do not think he deserves a full length bio, but equally we need to know who he is, assuming we can produce something that is not an attack article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could also point out that the original nominator has commented that another "fringe theorist" when it comes to ancient chronology, Peter James, should not be called a "historian." (See: Talk:Peter James (historian)#Writer, not historian.) By the by, the Peter James article was once upon a time nominated for deletion. The result was KEEP. If James was a KEEP, Rohl should have been a KEEP. There are numerous sources for Rohl, he has a career outside the New Chronology that is referenced by reliable sources (see my comments above), and Wikipedia has lots of articles about "fringe" writers outside their theories: Thor Heyerdahl, Erich Von Daniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, ad nauseum. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your comments above and see nothing but the most passing of passing mentions in reliable sources. This is certainly no Heyerdahl, von Däniken or Velikovsky. Please also note that to be notable in terms of citations requires them to be numbered in the thousands, not a couple of dozen. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'd originally closed this as "no consensus" before it was brought to my attention on my talk page that I did a WP:BADNAC closure (I hadn't closed any AFD's in a long time, so BADNAC kind of slipped my mind). Sandstein is correct that the keeps were not based on policy, and since redirecting is close enough to a deletion, and only the delete/redirect side was actually based on policy, I'd say Sandstein's closure was correct and that my closure was improper (and that I should've left it to an administrator, since it was such a close call and wasn't an obvious keep/delete/redirect/whichever).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI would also like to note, that this DRV is also malformed as the initiator of this DRV did not tag the AFD as being under deletion review.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and allow re-creation at AfC. The arguments in favor of keeping the page are really not arguments that have any strength in light of WP:PAG, which is the lens through which arguments are evaluated for their strengths. Redirects are cheap and the alternative to deletion made sense. There does appear to be coverage of his work that might lead him to meeting WP:NAUTHOR#3 if he has created at least one significant or well-known book that has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources. But this argument didn't really come up at all during the AfD, so the closure was appropriate given the arguments presented. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There appears to be sufficient sources requiring analysis to justify “delete” or “pseudodelete by redirect”. I’m not sure where new sources are being listed here, and were unmentioned in the AfD, but I am sure that further source analysis is a good idea. Some effort is needed to discard the poor quality “keeps”, as without that effort there is a bias to delete. For those arguing to “keep”, read the advice at WP:THREE. You need two or three good sources, and if you don’t have them, then many poor sources won’t suffice, and you will be perceived as wasting others’ time.
Endorse but recreate under #3 - All but two of the AfD Keeps were terrible, and the closer suitably executed a close as best they could in those circumstances. However, the far clearer source list above seems to be pretty clear that a keep is reasonable. Given the circumstances, I'm fine with relisting if we want to prove that - this use of #3 is more of a NOTBUREAU attempt Nosebagbear (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
relist with no fault to the closer. That is probably the best outcome here. As Nosebagbear notes, the closer handled things correctly given the discussion, but we have new sources so better to have a new discussion. I'm open with "recreate". I'm not fine with requiring anything involving AfC. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or overturn based on the sourcing listed here. As has been noted above, terrible debate, reasonable AtD by the closer, but sourcing here suggests that a separate article is the best way to present this data, and notability is met outside the New Chronology hypothesis. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
David Firth – No consensus, but allow AfC process. This discussion has lingered for several weeks with no close and no input, probably because it appears to be all over the place. Was the original close correct? Was it the best possible close given the poor state of the discussion? Are the sources on the draft (Draft:David Firth (animator)) OK? The draft itself is waiting for a review. I am not seeing a clear consensus in favour of keeping the AfD decision or overturning it, but it appears that most people are OK with letting the draft review play out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
So I heard tell of Mr. Firth's Twitter thread re: Wikipedia deleting his wiki page, and I took a look. I am surprised that the article was deleted.
David Firth has substantial coverage that should meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Ignoring news articles that are focused solely on Salad Fingers, I was still able to find a good handful with Google. I've created articles with less sourcing than this.
First off, you've got a news article on the deletion itself as a newsworthy event, published literally today:
Next, you've got multiple magazine articles on David Firth's other projects, including collaboration with wiki-notable individuals (music and film, not related to Salad Fingers):
The deletion discussion mentioned that there was an interview with The Scottish Sun, which is not a reliable source. Well, here's an interview with a local NPR affiliate, which should be more reliable:
And, last but not least, David Firth being extensively quoted in a BBC News article as an expert on Flash animation, after Adobe Flash was discontinued:
All this together should be enough to establish his notability for Wikipedia purposes and the suitability of the page existing as a standalone article. Hopefully I've fixed the formatting that I initially screwed up. Please let me know if I missed anything, as this is the first deletion review that I've requested. RexSueciae (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: I don't believe this is what deletion review is for. Deletion review is for challenging AfD outcomes based on the arguments provided at that particular discussion. If you believe there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability of the subject, you should present it at Draft:David Firth (animator) and re-submit for review.
Basically all of the sources you provide have already been presented at the draft article, and it has been declined regardless. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something which occurs to me is that the draft -- which is not great -- doesn't just have the (reliable, independent secondary) sources listed above; it also has a whole bunch of other stuff that may not be usable. Same with the original article. Prune out all the cruft; what you have left is a shorter article with a handful of good sources. RexSueciae (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse-ish and restore It wasn't a great discussion frankly. The closer did what they could. But the sources do look good. But I think Pitchfork (website) and Vice (magazine) are reliable. The NPR interview is probably not worth much (local, an interview) to most people but I find those to be both useful for (mostly primary) sourcing and indicative of notability. And most importantly, TheGamer (which is generally considered reliable for things published after August 2020) has a new article pretty much solely on him. It was a poor discussion, new sources have been brought forward, and frankly this person appears over the bar for a WP:BLP based on WP:THREE if nothing else. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS in regard to the TheGamer article, that's been published literally hours ago. Vice and Pitchfork don't amount to significant coverage of David Firth, but of his works. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Throast pardon me, but on these discussions I thought it was best practice to notify as many involved parties as practical. Hence I posted on the talk page of the article being reviewed. I did not cross-reference users involved in the deletion discussion and users commenting on that page, as I assumed they'd have been already involved. RexSueciae (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD decision. The sources provided by RexSueciae don't provide significant coverage of the person and they don't meet WP:BASIC. (Interviews generally don't contribute to notability because they aren't considered independent.) Schazjmd(talk)00:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn AfD decision. The new TheGamer source which talks significantly about Firth taken with the Vice, Pitchfork, and various other sources should constitute enough published material to meet WP:Notability. Mistipolis (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using a very recent news piece as the main pillar of significant coverage, especially one that's been written in response to the subject decrying the deletion of his own Wikipedia article and one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies, doesn't sit right with me. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 254-word article. The article notes: "If you think you've seen it all when it comes to web animation, you haven't been to a little site called Fat-Pie.com. British animator David Firth offers up a brilliant and original hodgepodge of hilarity, stupidity and unshakable creepiness. ... When he was 13, Firth got a camcorder and started making stop-motion shorts using LEGOs and other toys. He still does some model animation from time to time but mostly creates 2D animation using Microsoft Paint and Flash. He describes his style as "a lazy, less brightly colored version of South Park with smaller eyes" and counts among his influences Chris Morris, Jan Svankmajer, Stanley Kubrick and Franz Kafka. He was recently asked to create four new animated pieces for the British TV series Screenwipe."
This is a 527-word article. The article notes: "Created by David Firth, who studied animation at the Hull campus of the University Of Lincoln, each episode follows this lanky character as he stumbles through a baffling world. ... And now David is set to enjoy a retrospective of his work at Glimmer: Hull's Seventh International Short Film Festival. ... David, who grew up in Doncaster, began animating at 13 after he was given a camcorder for Christmas. His first films became a hit with friends and a TV and Film course at the University Of Lincoln followed. It was while he was in Hull that David began to establish his animation techniques - and began to develop the work which has won him a series of contracts with the BBC. There have been animations for Screen Burn - the rantings of TV critic Charlie Brooker - and David is currently completing a cartoon for the new series from comedians Mitchell and Webb. But it's still Salad Fingers for which he's best known - and which all came about after some banter with his friend, and co-writer Christian Pickup."
While Hull Daily Mail is a tabloid, the Animation Magazine article finally seems to be a solid instance of significant coverage. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hull Daily Mail is not a tabloid in the sense you mean. It is a regional newspaper. You appear to be confusing it with the Daily Mail (a middle market newspaper, which is national to the UK, widely seen as untrustworthy because of its political leaning) - or the American conception of a tabloid; a gossip magazine. Neither of these definitions applies. 51.6.79.19 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"widely seen as untrustworthy because of its political leaning" No, it's widely seen as untrustworthy because they just make things up. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain a bit why? There seems to be quite a lot of coverage of him and work outside of Salad Fingers in various well regarded publications including the BBC (above) or The Guardian, and he is a quite well known figure generally. Certainly the coverage of the deletion of this article alone is quite emblematic of that. LegateLaurie (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but restore. I agree that Sandstein did the best he could with a low quality discussion. It was dominated by the nominator, Throast, who seems to have a number of serious misunderstandings about our notability policies, including WP:NARTIST with the claim that the author of a notable body of work cannot 'inherit' (in reverse?) notability from their work. Clearly if, as appears to be the case here, an author's body of work (not just one work) is notable, then we can have an article about it. But following Throast's logic, that article is only allowed to exist at David Firth's body of work instead of David Firth (animator)? Because somehow material about a work a person created is not "biographical"? And we can't use non-independent but otherwise reliable sources (e.g. interviews) to flesh it out with more direct biographical details? That serves no benefit to either us or our readers. This line of argument was in fact refuted by Martinevans123 and PantheonRadiance in the AfD but for whatever reason they didn't manage to sway the consensus. Based on the AfD discussion, I think Firth is notable – moreso now since coverage about this deletion have appeared in reliable sources (Throast's implication above that WP:NOTNEWS prevents us from using these is another misunderstanding of policy). I think the best thing to do now is develop Draft:David Firth (animator) and move it back to mainspace after this DRV has run its course. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe, I feel you're mischaracterizing my argument in the deletion discussion a bit. Never did I claim that interviews could not be used at all, of course they can. If non-independent, they cannot however help establish the subject's notability, which I believe we all agree with? WP:NARTIST outlines indicators of notability. I still feel that we need to discern between artists and their works, if only their works are subject to significant coverage. That being said, I've changed my mind now that new information has come to light thanks to Cunard's research. Martinevans123, these sort of discussions do become quite contentious at times, and I regret that you feel this way. You have to admit that you didn't exactly help diffuse the tension either, though. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (tentatively) but would not necessarily object to a restore. The article was deleted under the correct conclusion that it was not verifiable enough to satisfy WP:BLP. The twitter thread is a little embarrassing, but honestly reading the last revision of the article is even more embarrassing to me: the first sentence alone was a string of nouns most not substantiated by the body of the article,
animator, director, writer, musician, actor, voice actor [...]
which all may have been true, but not verified. Or more to the point, justified that much front-loading. I also understand there was a major point of contention over the inclusion birth date. It should not have been included; it did not have a good source, and honestly not that important for understanding the subject. This wasn't formally in the AfD, but I suppose that may have ultimately motivated the delete. With all that being said, I think the subject is notable enough for a concise Start-class article. I think here and in the AfD there is an inappropriate barrier being raised against concluding the notability of the subject that I'd like to address immediately, rather than circumstantially leave it to future AfC review (which isn't going to happen in a vacuum). I looked at the above sources and back-and-fourth between User:Throast and User:Martinevans123.
Y Eicholtz, Kayla (August 14, 2013). "Youth Report: A Conversation With British Animator David Firth". WKMS-FM. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is significant coverage of the subject. Would not even say this is a primary source, it is an interview by a radio station with a producer and editorial oversight, not a self-published vlog.
Y Fox, Chris (January 1, 2021). "Adobe Flash Player is finally laid to rest". BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is significant coverage of the subject. It might not be the main topic, but it directly deals with
So the case I'm making is that it was correct to delete the article for BLP reasons, but not notability reasons, and better off being recreated and reconsidered under the AfC process. JAYFAX (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Endorse close and go through the existing draft for an eventual restore - I agree with what others have said about the discussion not being great, but the close was correct based on everything presented there. I think JAYFAX lays out a solid list of sources that could be used and should be incorporated into the draft. Given how contested this appears to be (and the history of Draft:David_Firth_(animator)) I think it's best that the restoration happen thru AFC. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me!16:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AfC is not, and should never ever be, a required process. It's so backlogged and so riddled with problems it's basically where you send people when you don't want to deal with their issues. Not where useful things are likely to happen. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it is or that it should be, I said that I think it's best that, in this specific case, the restoration happens through AfC. That's certainly the least important part of my vote. Either way, multiple other voters in this thread have also voiced this thought, and even more have said they want to see a longer drafting process rather than an immediate restoration. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me!17:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with "immediate restoration", provided that is accompanied, in the minutes and hours immediately afterwards, by addition of the new material and sources that the voters here agree are necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a draft article in my userspace User:JAYFAX/David Firth. It is intentionally short, uses sources discussed here, and avoids running to BLP issues. I reckon it is certainly not what someone highly familiar with Firth's work would consider "complete" but that's not the intention here, just need to create a stub that justifies its own existence. The other draft over at Draft:David Firth (animator) is kind of run over at the moment (I'm troubled by that big table that uses IMDb links) and considering between moving my wikitext over to there, or just create the article straight from what I've drafted. Pinging relevant parties for thoughts: @Martinevans123, Throast, ThadeusOfNazereth, and Hobit:JAYFAX (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC) (update) adding @RexSueciae: who expressed interest in cleaning up the draft, and @Fenestre: whose edits would be overwritten by this. JAYFAX (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think starting with a clean slate would do the article good, and I like what you've written so far. It would also make editors' job a lot easier judging a person's notability if the article is short and to the point. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little late to the conversation, but that draft looks good to me. I'd even go ahead and put it in article space, let editors take it on. Trial by fire. Of course, that might be a little bold. And I might put a stub template on it, although that's not strictly necessary. Anyways, well done. RexSueciae (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JAYFAX, personally, I'm very satisfied with the draft as it stands now. Thankful for the productive and civil discussion, and glad we've finally reached an outcome that everybody seems to be happy with. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Table seems to have been perturbing for some. The repeated claim was that Firth is not a notable person. One of the criteria is a body of work and that table did demonstrate that there was a body of work that comes from one person. That is not a claim that the person is magnificent or important but it evidences that they are, in fact, notable. Lack of notability was the original reason for deletion.
The table being 'reference bombed' is an unrealistic criticism since, as a draft it should be clear that the entire table would be significantly pruned or even vanish if the article were to proceed to the mainspace of Wikipedia. The repetitions of IMDB: where else do British creatives make their cultural contributions known? Yes it is a potentially contentious source, but some of the references are to BBC and Channel 4 entries. That gives a range of provenance to the works. Correlating IMDB references from Firth, BBC, and Channel 4 suggests that notability is there to be found.
Both BBC and Channel 4 commission work out of public money. That means a single animation on BBC and Channel 4 has gone through ridiculous amounts of committee 'value for money' vetting. Which, in turn means that Commissions are not just handed out to Creatives on request. An understanding of that, in terms of notability is useful. Hence the Table was simply a useful tool. It might have utility in a future article or it might not. That needs an understanding of British Culture that seems lacking in the process.
Overwriting my edits is not the end of the world. Not actually looking at them first is far sillier. I have confidence that you will do whatever you see fit, in any case. Which is just what happens in open edited documents.
The original article was a mess in terms of strict compliance with the arcana of Wikipedia. That really could have been improved instead of making a deletion that amounts to original research about the notability of a British Creative. It seems odd that a Northern British Creative gets mentioned in publications as far apart as San Franscisco, Canada, and Sweden, and has a reasonable body of video interviews which do speak to notability - but are of no consequence to the Wikipedia process and Wikipedia notability - yet has no article about them on Wikipedia; while, American Animators get three mentions in American commercial press warranting an equally poorly written article. That is an issue for another time and place.
It seems a lot of problems have centred on the lack of understanding of Popular Culture and how someone can be notable in the UK and not the US. That has resulted in a poor process that has not actually improved anything. I am happy to have my edits overwritten, hopefully in a constructive and productive way that actually builds a much better edit of the article. Which I trust is the outcome being sought.
I personally suppose David Firth is actually notable. He contributes to Northern Culture in way that might well seem vapid or insubstantial outside of the North. Apart from that I am not a great fan. I do not find lots of things on Wikipedia notable and their inclusion is simply because they are the hobby horse of an Editor who has put in sufficient work to establish that. Which may seem unkind. It is the basis for a lot of good editing. Someone championed the deletion of an Animator and someone could champion the inclusion of that Animator. Neither champion is me. The table was not some reference bombing idiocy but it has helped to provide indications of both a body of work and of notability.
Firth was featured in the 2017 Glasgow Film Festival, in the brochure, being described as "One of the UK's most significant independent animators".
This was a consequence of finding out that Cream had a first showing at the Glasgow Film Festival 2017 (Sponsored by National Lottery and British Film Institute). Which does actually suggest notability from an independent source. the BFI and National Lottery are, again, Public Money and not wont to throw around idle praise.
Yes, the table might well be an abomination but a useful one. An objective of deleting it systematical was the intent. Starting with a clean slate is not really a problem but please try to avoid slinging out the baby with the bathwater. Fenestre (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that IMDb can be very useful "bathwater" in suggesting leads to search for. You make some very valid points above about how notability can be assessed in terms of public funding. I'm sure you will collaborate in improving the new article for Firth. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn-ish. Keep the disambiguation page, but David Firth is notable enough as a person outside of his work on Salad Fingers to warrant a page at David Firth (animator), even if Salad Fingers is by far and away his most famous work. I'm annoyed at what's happening on the draft page, though, it's been reference bombed badly and the page is in a far worse state now than it was prior to deletion. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like any restoration of the deleted article is not going to happen? However poor you think the new draft is, those who have already contributed to it will not want their efforts to be wasted. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself is perfectly salvageable, and I honestly didn't think the article on the main page prior to being moved/deleted was that bad either. I think notability could be argued without making significant changes to it. It's mainly the table on the draft page that needs to go (it basically contains the contents of Firth's IMDb profile with no regard for relevance/notability), but I don't feel comfortable removing it myself. I've already removed it once, and I gave an incorrect reason for doing so (the deletion was justified, but the argument wasn't). I also don't want to come across like I'm bullying this one guy who's obviously well-intentioned but is putting a lot of effort into something that's to the overall detriment of the page. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while IMDb is acceptable for use as an External link, it is not considered WP:RS for use in the article main body. The table might be still be a good idea if any better source(s) could be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental argument for the original deletion was that Firth effectively produced Salad Fingers and no other of significance. In that case the Table would have had one line and notability would devolve to finding three acceptable citations for Salad Fingers' existence. Which would leave the situation as it is. You might not consider IMDB to be a reliable source, it has been used elsewhere as though it is. Place that remark aside. The IMDB listings - plural - pointed to Firth, BBC, Channel 4, and others which clearly points towards other more Wikipedia Reliable Source citations that should be findable. The purpose of the Table is purely to highlight the body of work which is the entire claim to notability for any writer, filmmaker or animator.
As a consequence of that Table, by examining IMDB listings and working outwards, some useful links were discovered such as Firth being interviewed by Alan Yentob of the BBC and for the work Umbilical World and Firth being invited to the Glasgow Film Festival. Where the Organisers described Firth as One of the UK's most significant independent animators in the Festival Brochure and a new film was premiered. (http://issuu.com/glasgowfilmtheatre/docs/gff_brochure_2017_digital_final/58). That suggests that the British Film Institute and the National Lottery think Firth might be notable. It might well be a really tedious way of proceeding. Deleting the table rapidly after it was inserted actively prevents discovery of notability and any rational progress to a consensus on notability. Which was the only thing deemed to be at issue. In that respect being productive rather than aesthetic directly addressed the issue of relevance and notability: the original underpinning rationale for deletion.
Did the Table look awful: absolutely. Could the Table be improved: hugely. Would the article be better off without it: visually yes; there may be an argument that a list of film works suits tabular presentation but that does not impinge on the reason the article was where it was. It was in that place because it was deleted and someone said it should not be.
To return to the IMDB remark. I have created tables in sandboxes for other Creatives and come out with the conclusion that I do not think they are notable in any way: their output is apparently work for hire that lacks personal creative agency and their Wikipedia presence is little more than personal brand marketing. I am not going to name them or to ask for their deletion because, largely, some other has determined what their notability is even if it is utterly unclear to me. Wikipedia rules allow for that. Wikipedia rules also allow for an over literal interpretation of Wikipedia rules when it intersects with material that is unclear, unpleasant, or simply from somewhere else. That kind of interpretation leads to long term nonsense when it comes to cultural subjects.
In short: it is a table, it can be tolerated for a few day as it gets whittled down. It is not the end of the world if it stays or goes. It is not bullying to delete it but it is a tad counterproductive. Fenestre (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb links can be useful as a way of confirming who took what part in a production, but an IMDb link does not by itself indicate notability. It mostly just proves something exists. IMDb and Wikipedia are two different databases that enforce different rules and standards, and serve different functions. Just because something's on IMDb doesn't mean it automatically belongs here, too.
The notable works Firth had created or contributed to had already been mentioned in the article. So all the table did was add a mix of duplicate notable data and filler, and taking a lot of space up in the process. It just made it harder to see the forest for the trees.
The word "reference bombing" has been mentioned a number of times, and I think it's a good idea to read the article on that (as well as the main article on overciting) before moving forward so we don't make the same mistakes with the new article. The intro reads this:
"A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. This may boost the number of footnotes and create a superficial appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information. This phenomenon is especially common in articles about people or organizations (including companies), given that they generally have to satisfy conditional notability standards based on achievement and sourceability, rather than a mere verification of existence."
The third item on the list in particular is relevant here:
"Citations to work that the article's subject produced – A series of citations that Gish gallop their way through a rapid-fire list of content that doesn't really help to establish notability at all. For example, an article about a journalist might try to document every individual piece of work they ever produced for their employer, often citing that work's existence to itself; an article about a city councillor might try to document and source their position for or against every individual bylaw or ordinance that came up for council debate at all, regardless of whether or not the person actually played a prominent role in getting that motion passed or defeated; an article about an entertainer or pundit might try to list and source every individual appearance they might have made in media, all the way down to local morning talk shows and interviews on individual radio stations; an article about a musician might try to reference the existence of their music to online music stores or streaming platforms, such as iTunes, YouTube or Spotify, instead of to any evidence of media coverage."
There are a lot of small articles and stubs on Wikipedia, because an article doesn't need to be long to prove notability. And a handful of good sources do that better than over a hundred questionable ones. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments at this time:
I see statements to Endorse but Restore. If that means to restore the deleted article to the history, it is already there. After the fourth AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth (4th nomination) . the result was Redirect to Salad Fingers, and User:Sandstein correctly cut the article down to a redirect. User:JohnThorne then converted the redirect into a disambiguation page, also in my opinion correctly. So the deleted article is still there the history of the disambiguation page, David Firth.
I reviewed Draft:David Firth. In the course of the review I moved/renamed it to Draft:David Firth (animator). I compared the draft against the previous article (since it was still in the history), and saw little difference. I declined it because I saw less than a 50% chance that it would, if accepted, survive a fifth AFD, which would resemble the fourth AFD. One of the basic instructions for AFC reviewers is to accept if there is more than a 50% chance, estimated subjectively, that the draft will survive AFD.
When I declined the draft, I asked that any resubmitter not simply add more references, because at 44 references it had already been reference-bombed. So, since there is a myth, held both by some new good-faith editors and some bad-faith editors, that more references are usually the key to acceptance or retention, another 62 references have been added to bring the total to 106.
When I declined the draft, I asked that any resubmission either specify how the new draft differs from the deleted article, or request Deletion Review. Improving the draft would still be a good idea. Adding more references will be an exercise in formatting the references (either manually or with a tool).
I don't know how much free time I'll have, but once this discussion is closed, I might have a try at cleaning up the article. Remove questionable sources, add reliable ones, and call it a day. It doesn't matter much to me whether we revise a version of the original, pare down the draft on file, or start entirely from scratch, as long as the result is serviceable. It does feel an entirely manageable task. Anyways, I'm curious to see what sort of consensus develops in this discussion. RexSueciae (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The differences between the current draft and the deleted article are, in my opinion, not substantial, except for the well-meaning but misguided reference-bombing. I think that it makes little difference whether the improvement is to the deleted article or the draft. I think that improvement is both possible and desirable. (I do not intend to review the draft again). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. WP:DEL-REASON#8, the policy-based rationale for deletion of non-notable articles, states that Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) (internal links omitted) can be deleted. This wording is very clearly reflected in WP:N, whose first criterion requires that an article meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). Simply put, WP:NBIO is one such guideline, and while lots of people focused on how to apply WP:GNG (which was unclear), there was also an argument by 2601:204:D981:8130:B595:613D:C7D8:5E46(talk· contribs ·WHOIS) that was explicitly made that the individual satisfied WP:NARTIST#3. Since NARTIST is part of WP:NBIO, and the article subject is certainly about a person, the relevant notability guideline is the notability guideline for people. In other words, the arguments for deletion that might have had some support in the WP:Deletion policy were largely refuted by the Sacramento IP. Among the remaining editor, they advocated for a reverse merge (Salad Fingers into David Firth). I'm not entirely convinced of the policy-based rationale that the editor is given, but I think that further discussion on this AfD would be fruitful in allowing the community to ascertain a consensus. This is a scenario where there was relatively little participation, arguments from !voters weren't really all that great from a policy perspectie, and additional editors might help in coming to a consensus. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Agree with above that the disscusion wasn't great but the closer appeared to come to the right decision on the matter. Keep would have been wrong considering nobody liked the article itself but rather what the article was talking about. Swordman97talk to me21:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ii should probably be looked at through AFC considering the sorry state of the article before this all happened. It needed a peer review anyway. Swordman97talk to me22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A well-supported peer review might have short-circuited this whole cycle. But, somewhat ironically, the reaction of Firth himself to the deletion, has in turn generated a lot of useful interest and suggestions. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hey, it's PantheonRadiance replying here once again. I'm not officially voting on this discussion but I felt that I needed to leave my two cents about David Firth and the AfD discussion.
First, I initially didn't care about the outcome of the discussion because I wasn't personally invested with him or any of his works. Looking back at the discussion however, it should've never been merged/deleted in the first place, and honestly if I were to have voted again, I would've argued that the article should've been a Weak Keep. There were a bunch of other sources I actually found about Firth's other work, but because of Throast's rhetoric of notability "not being inherited," I only picked ones that explicitly described Firth as a person. Looking at the new sources here, had they been proposed in the AfD I would've voted a Keep. Speaking of the AfD, I need to address this.
Second, I know the discussion was already filled with overly long responses, and I certainly didn't help with that.* However, that AfD clearly should've been relisted for one more week. I was genuinely surprised that this wasn't the case. Ignoring the depth of discussion, it was basically a drawn out battleground between Throast and Martinevans with me and Lamona acting as spectators. I felt like other editors should've weighed in a bit more to discuss the arguments proposed in a more concise manner.
Finally, my rationale for my response came from a larger issue I personally interpreted and saw as a twisted "double standard" surrounding notability on Wikipedia, especially with e-celebs and YouTubers. Although it may not be my place to express my thoughts about it, seeing as how this discussion actually got some mainstream attention I feel I need to address it. While "what about X?" is considered a fallacy here, I don't see it as entirely invalid; how exactly is basic pattern recognition between articles of similar topics fallacious? If anything, comparisons often help us understand the bigger picture, especially in moments where it seems genuinely unfair that an article about someone gets deleted while others survive AfDs with even weaker sourcing, and WP's policies honestly don't do much to rectify it. As for this case, even with a legit policy like the ARTIST one there still seems to be some sort of double standards. This may be a bit of a stretch, but for example: how is it that game developer Toby Fox gets his own separate article solely for creating the Undertale series, but David Firth, someone who created a web series that demonstrably had a similar impact on internet culture, loses his four times? Why does the "not inherited" argument apply to Firth but not to Fox? One could argue that Undertale had a much larger impact on the world, but does that diminish the significance of Salad Fingers by comparison? Toby has also done other projects that have been significantly covered by the press... and so has Firth as shown in this discussion. So what gives? Is this because people here merely see Firth's influence as only extending to internet culture at large? It just seems like there's some ingrained bias when it comes to anything based on internet culture. And sure, articles about internet personalities are added here all the time. But the ratio of articles kept to articles deleted is abysmally low.
At times I honestly feel that some Wikipedia rules were created merely to prevent articles from being created regardless of the impact of their subjects, especially with anything internet-related. Even if memory was so boundless that Wikipedia could hypothetically create and hold an infinite number of articles, Wikipedia would still find some way to delete articles - even with enough sources about them. All I hope for is that someday Wikipedia's policies will become more lenient and understanding with the notability guidelines going forward. More importantly, I do hope David Firth gets his article back soon.
BTW Mhawk10 (talk· contribs), I was the one who wrote that long response from an IP.
Overturn. Consensus was not clear. The discussion was not complete, and had too few participants, and I do not read it as heading to a consensus to delete, and I think the compromise of “redirect” and leave it to others later to figure out how to merge was not ok, because merging is not working. “No consensus” would have been a better way forward. There was no urgency to act. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Relist Consensus was all over the place; we've seen a lot more consensual discussions than this be relisted more than once. This wasn't relisted at all. Nfitz (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
