Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Winter Throwing Championships (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In my opinion you should restore the page that was deleted by a "mere mistake" without any consensus from the community (one upkeep vote and one redirect vote). Incidentally, the redirected page does not contain as much information as the original page did. Kasper2006 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (voted redirect). The close was not a "mere mistake." This AFD was up for over a month and there was only a single "keep" vote that was more of an WP:ILIKEIT vote than one based in policy. There was no independent WP:SIGCOV in the article whatsoever. Also, the whole point of a redirect is not to contain as much information as the original page, but to briefly mention/summarize. Frank Anchor 13:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment with limited participation in the AFD, the close could be considered the redirect equivalent of a soft delete. The appellant is free to move the most recent version to draftspace or userspace and restore it in mainspace submit an AFC request when (and only when) the article is improved and includes significant coverage from multiple independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 14:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree that it is wise to give this advice. Firstly, the AfD decision should be afforded respect. Secondly, User:Kasper2006 does not appear competent to judge unilaterally when the reason for redirection have been overcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I agree with the closing statement here, the Keep argument did not address the concerns in the nomination. The fact that almost all the sources cited come from the organisation responsible for the event is a serious problem, the verifiability policy (which is very important) expects the articles should be based on independent sources. The only independent sources cited were [1] (a very brief announcement that the event had been cancelled) and [2] (a dead link). If there are better sources out there then I suggest trying to improve the page as a draft. Hut 8.5 17:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There are two delete/redirect votes and one keep vote. Unfortunately, additional input was not obtained after three relists. Therefore, I agree with Frank Anchor that this should be considered to be the redirect equivalent of soft delete, instead of a full deletion, so IMO allow review of draft at AfC could be a viable option. However, IMO the keep side is apparently weaker in contrast to the delete/redirect side, with the keep voter using a weak example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and then proceeding to vaguely complaining the deletion process in general: but I would never allow myself to ask the delation of a Wikipedia article... human beings are not all the same, everyone has their own modus operandi... their own morality, their own ethics. For example, I have respect for people's work and the desire to belittle it is not one of my priorities. Therefore, IMO the delete/redirect side is significantly stronger, and redirect is also a suitable WP:ATD. Hence, I think the close is a reasonable conclusion. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The appellant doesn't seem to understand that notability is based on significant coverage in secondary sources, because their Keep argument is that their sources are primary. The only "mistake" that I see is the appellant's misunderstanding of policies. There was no mistake by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD close as consensus to redirect. Any future attempt to establish a consensus to reverse that decision should be made at the redirect target talk page, Talk:Athletics in Italy. Not here at DRV as there was no deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is also a semi-related thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User not going to deletion review after AfD decision he didn't agree with relating to this DRV. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as nominator. The one keep !vote was very weak and did not address notability concerns and used WP:ALLORNOTHING reasoning.LibStar (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since it is a national athletics championship, if anything, a redirection Italian Athletics Championships would be more correct. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree this probably would be a better target, I was unaware that page existed when I suggested Athletics in Italy. Frank Anchor 13:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft So. Two non-Fidal national sources have been included in the draft (the second is from one of the most authoritative Italian national newspapers, La Stampa of Turin). In the quotas it is better explained why the national championship of throws has a reason to exist (in winter for long shots the indoor arenas cannot be used for obvious reasons) and in the second one that in any case the Italian championship has a national and not a regional value. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify that, as the DRV filer, are you supporting creation of a draft to submit through AfC? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Beyond the acronyms, I'm just trying to understand why the presence in the encyclopedia of a page of a national championship of an important sport like athetics is considered useless. That's why I want to respect the procedures and regulations and I'm therefore responding to those who objected that the only source was from the national federation that organizes them, even if I don't understand what harm there would have been by adding two sources from national newspapers. And above all because we want to consider an event that is irrelevant at national level. Kasper2006 (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your comment. I don't believe anyone here has suggested that the page is useless. It's just that IMO there is consensus in the discussion that this fails notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. Additionally, would it be acceptable if your work be submitted from AfC for review by another neutral experienced editor? I get that you are passionate about this topic but looking at this thread right now the original closure would probably be endorsed, so submitting a draft for review is probably the best route you can take. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks to you. I will listen to your advice, as soon as I find a minute, maybe tomorrow, I will send it to the AfC. Kasper2006 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loran de Munck (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Loran de Munck won a silver medal at the 2022 European Men's Artistic Gymnastics Championships (press coverage e.g. 1 and 2). I am here after this answer. My preferred result would be allow recreation (the deleted article I could see in an internet archive was very short). Kallichore (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support recreation - as the individual now passes WP:NGYMNAST. Hopefully the article will also pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation as factors have changed rendering the discussion out of date. Star Mississippi 16:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If you want to recreate the article then you don't need to come here for permission, or to ask the deleting admin: you can just do it. A recreated version won't be deleted if it addresses the issues in the AfD or is a significant improvement on the previous version. The deleting admin referred you here because you asked to see the content of the original deleted page, which was written by a banned user (it would have qualified for deletion under WP:CSD#G5) and as you've realised was very short. But if you're going to start again then you don't need the deleted version. If it helps the sources cited were: [3] [4] [5] and [6] which is now a dead link. Hut 8.5 17:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savings Account (2022 film) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are sources and feel that the AfD was closed too fast, it should have been extended at least once. I had added this review and a Bengali source on the article but did not vote because I thought the whole AfD process was long and required input from many users. More sources here, here and here. The AfD closer should reopen the AfD discussion for another week at least to get more input. There are sources just nobody else did a WP:BEFORE. Also, given that Bengali language sources are hard to find, it would be helpful for any Bengali users (i. e. @Titodutta:) to voice their opinion. Unlike what the AfD says there is actually a reliable review from The Times of India. The reason why this page is not getting recreated is because of the user created it? Can somebody at least list the sources present on the article before it was deleted (they were reliable press releases). Because before the article was deleted, then the article seemed to have a lot of at least press releases. DareshMohan (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation of Draft, Weak Endorse the outcome. Per WP:RSP, The Times of India is between marginally reliable and generally unreliable, though it is listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force as a WP:RS for film reviews. So whether it is a RS is debatable. Of the other references you found I find them unconvincing but opinions will of course differ. Nevertheless, IMO this is a routine announcement on the actor and non-SIGCOV coverage of the plot, this is a purely routine announcement on a minor poster release, and falls under minor news stories or annnouncement columns IMO under WP:GNG. Then there is the interview, probably non-SIGCOV, likely primary, and likely non-independent. Therefore, IMO the sources provided are weak, but have no opinion on endorsing the close or overturning it to relist right now. Additionally, Also, given that Bengali language sources are hard to find, it would be helpful for any Bengali users (i. e. @Titodutta:) to voice their opinion IMO just feels very unconvincing, however, Robert McClenon's suggestion of overturning this to soft delete so that a new article could be created or submitted to review via AfC is also a good suggestion in addition to relisting, which is also a decent option. Nevertheless, IMO the closure is also reasonable so I'm still at neutral for now. Moreover, WP:HEY by another user is probably not mandatory for participants to agree whether a page should be kept per WP:NEXIST, but it is desirable and would be more convincing. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've clarified my bolded vote as allowing recreation of draft to submit via AfC but endorsing the original outcome for clarity. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as an Ignore some rules alternative to allow the appellant another seven days to expand the article. But it isn't enough to say that there are sources. The article has to summarize what the reviews say in order to qualify for a Heymann close. The alternative would be to change the close to a Soft Delete and allow the appellant to create an article, subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The sources cited in the last revision of the article were [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. —Cryptic 21:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I see the review from The Times of India was already included at reference 6, whereas the rest are routine announcements, minor news stories, and routine releases. So to clarify, Robert McClenon (who was a participant in the original AfD) and DareshMohan, is it true that this is only the single review you were able to find in both of your WP:BEFORE searches? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the correct reading of unanimous consensus to delete. I think the appellant’s best course of action is to request the article be restored in draft space or userspace at WP:REFUND to allow all the time needed to develop an article based on the sources presented here, obviously subject to its own AFD. Frank Anchor 01:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure, as correctly interpreting the recommendations. The article creator can try again in draft or userspace to address the concerns raised in the discussion. Joyous! | Talk 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment DareshMohan, next time you open a Deletion review, it's customary to alert the AFD/MFD/RFD discusion closer or admin who deleted the CSD-tagged page and to also post a notice of this review discussion on the AFD (which was done for you). I think the information regarding this is all there in the instructions. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This AFD ran for seven days, and had multiple participants all of whom !voted for deletion on notability grounds. How could this possibly have been closed in any other way than "delete" !?. Closers can only weigh an opposing argument if someone actually shows up at the AFD to make it, and they are specifically not supposed to form their own opinions based on the state of the article and its references. All the same I think the new sources do have some value and it makes sense to work on it in userspace then recreate. Thparkth (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Danielle (2022) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurricane Chandler. I've decided to request a review for a "regular keep" due to some users participating on the AFD (which is sock). HurricaneEdgar 03:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge Even the good faith keep users didnt address the policy concern, and the article remains a blatant WP:CFORK. Do not relist as it was already relisted.--47.23.6.178 (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments:
  • • It isn't clear what the appellant is asking.
    • It isn't clear what policy concern the unregistered editor is saying wasn't addressed. The good faith editors discussed general notability, and the ambiguous project guideline.
    • It isn't clear why the unregistered editor thinks that there is a content fork. If there is any inconsistency between the parent article and the child article, the parent article should be revised. The need to avoid inconsistencies always applies to tropical storm season articles and storm articles.
    • I was the AFC acceptor, and said to Keep in the AFD.
    • I repeat my concern that there appear to be two different interpretations to the project guideline.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments According to the Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors Using an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden.. CheckUser has confirmed that SOCK accounts are participating in the AFD. HurricaneEdgar 06:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What exactly is the nominator requesting here? Stifle (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because the appellant hasn't answered the question, asked both by me and by Stifle, as to what they are asking. It is true that there were sockpuppet !votes, and that sockpuppetry is forbidden. It appears that the closer would have closed the AFD in the same way if the sockpuppet !votes had been stricken. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - What is the appellant requesting? Does the appellant understand that they are being asked to clarify what they are asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Despite being pinged and a specific talk page message left asking for the nominator to come back and explain what precisely it is they want done, they have chosen not to do so, but have still been editing other articles. As such, I suggest this discussion be speedy closed for failing to particularise the request. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - there was no doubt sock-puppetry, but even removing those 3 votes, there certainly wasn't a delete consensus, and not even a merge consensus. After the final relist, there were only 3 more comments - all keeps. Looking at the content, there might be some debate as whether the storm was a tropical storm when it hit Europe - but the storm itself appears noteworthy, and article name debates are outside the scope of DRV. Nfitz (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Danny (2021) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

WP:SNOW closure that has had confirmed SOCK accounts participate in. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurricane Chandler. Requesting review for an overturn to regular keep. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - This should not have been a SNOW close, and SNOW was not required, since it had been open for seven days. In view of the sockpuppetry, a relist seems better than a weak keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What is it about tropical storm articles that results in conduct violations, such as canvassing, off-wiki discussion, and sockpuppetry? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Like longevity, beauty pageants, and trainspotting, it gives OCD personalities a place to exercise their instinct for blind accretion of mountains of uncontextualized information. EEng 16:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This looks like a topic that should be on EEng's list, but that list is getting rather long and I have already bothered him enough with proposed additions. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. EEng 16:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Snow does not fall in tropical storms. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not true. Hurricane Larry.160.72.81.118 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The storm had become extra-tropical when it dumped snow on Greenland. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse Several good faith editors supported keeping. It would’ve been keep without sock puppetry involved.160.72.81.118 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was unanimous support to keep (outside of the nom itself). Even if the sock votes are removed, there would still be unanimous support to keep. The smaller number of votes probably would mean a non-admin close a few hours short of seven days is not technically correct but there is no need to overturn a close because of who closed it when the end result is obviously correct. Frank Anchor 13:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I see nothing wrong with the close, even if you remove two of the seven keep votes. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belgians in France (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My request is more towards the sake of an established consensus for the original AfD as the nominator was a blocked sock. The deletion was done with one comment and one could argue it should have been closed as "no consensus" (overturn to no consensus), I am requesting this with AGF as I don't know what the article looked like during the AfD. – The Grid (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have noticed that the nominator also cast a Delete vote so that was an oversight on my part. In these circumstances, I typically close with a Soft Delete as there was one Delete opinion expressed as well as an editor who didn't vote but did make a statement. If I was aware that the editor was a sockpuppet, I would have struck their statements (which I seem to do a lot regularly these days). The Grid, I have no issues in these circumstances to revert my closure and relist the discussion if there is support for that action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the quick reply, I appreciate it. I would be ok with a relist. – The Grid (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist with only one !vote and the nomination by a sockpuppet, noting that the closing admin has said she is agreeable to that action. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist there is only one legitimate vote and there was an admitted vote counting error by a very good closer (along with her willingness to relist). Frank Anchor 13:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please restore the Dillon Danis article, the article was deleted due to notability issues of the individual. The notability of the individual has increased greatly since the article was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahwikiblah (talk • contribs)

Astros's combined World Series no-hitter (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In this discussion, numerous editors gave their opinions on whether or not the combined World Series No Hitter by the Houston Astros is notable. Out of the participants (by my count), 11 supported keeping the article, the nominator and 3 others supported deleting the article, two individuals supported converting the article into a redirect, and one individual suggested that the content of the article be merged into the article on the World Series. A summary of the arguments provided is below, and while I do not like writing walls of text at these sorts of venues, it is necessarily long so as to try to be comprehensive:

• Supporters of keeping the article provided a variety of arguments in support of keeping. Some (including Korijenkins, me, White 720 and others) noted that the no-hitter had substantial and widespread impact on the sport of baseball and was very widely covered in diverse sources in an in-depth manner. A number of sources were provided by me, including sources from the United States, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and France, in support of this claim. Several other editors, who joined the discussion after a large number of sources had been provided, were convinced that the sourcing was substantial enough to pass WP:NEVENT, including MrsSnoozyTurtle, GhostOfDanGurney, and Sewageboy. One editor in support of keeping the article (Frank Anchor) argued that the achievement had substantial enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and was therefore notable enough for an article. Other editors argued more plainly that the event was "notable" in the sense of being significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded in a more ad-hoc manner, including MushroomMan674 and Blaylockjam10, who argued that the achievement of a no-hitter in the world series inherently meets the threshold set out in the opening paragraph of WP:NEVENT.
• Supporters of deleting the article, on the other hand, largely argued that the separate article was not warranted as content was redundant to content in the article on the 2022 World Series. The nominator (Muboshgu) and others said that the article was an unwarranted WP:RECENTIST WP:CONTENTFORK that did not develop beyond the content in the world series article, claiming that this lack of different was enough for the item to fail WP:NEVENT. Other editors (such as Hatman31 and OliveYouBean) argued that this failed WP:NSPORT and should be deleted on that basis.
• Some editors also wanted to redirect/merge the article. An editor arguing to blank-and-redirect the article (Natg 19) said that it was unlikely that the combined no-hitter would "stick" in people's minds in the same way that 1-pitcher no-hitters do but should redirect to the game, while an IPv6 editor argued that the alleged redundancy to an existing article should turn it into a redirect. An IPv4 editor, in favor of merging, argued that there was some non-redundant content worth preserving and that this content should be moved into the article on the 2022 world series.

Consensus is not determined by a bean count, but is ascertained by examining by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, through that lens, this is a case where no consensus on what to do applies. Unfortunately, in their closing summary, the closer erred in explicitly ignoring all plausible reasons for keeping the article other than it being notable under a particular section of WP:NSPORT. Rather than entertaining arguments around WP:NEVENT, which were noted extensively in the deletion discussion, the closer writes that the relevant guideline here is WP:NSPORTSEVENT (emphasis mine). There is no basis for this claim in policies or guidelines—WP:N notes that articles are presumed notable if their subject meets either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline, provided that they are not excluded under WP:NOT. One such subject-specific notability guideline is WP:NEVENT—the guideline that the supporters of keeping the article explicitly appealed to in support of keeping the article. There is no need to meet every subject-specific notability guideline to be notable; all that is required is that one is met. When the closer arbitrarily discarded arguments about WP:NEVENT without any basis in Wikipedia policy, the closer made a fatal error that led them to incorrectly ascertain that the consensus achieved in this deletion discussion was "delete".

In short, I ask that this be overturned to no consensus, an outcome that would correctly reflect the relative strength of arguments in this deletion discussion, and I believe that the closer was errant in failing to allow any arguments about WP:NEVENT to be given weight in their closing summary. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh. Most of the keep !votes are WP:AADD (it's important, it's rare, "it's notable" [sans sourcing to show why], etc.). RTH brought up some sources, Muboshgu showed why they don't get over the WP:NSPORTSEVENT hurdle. The closer weighed arguments against NSPORTSEVENT. It might be notable, but the case wasn't made very well in the AfD (except insofar as it could be argued that every individual World Series game is notable). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is a music professor who fails WP:NMUSICBIO but passes WP:NPROF presumed notable? My reading of WP:N is that the answer is yes, since one subject notability guideline (WP:NPROF). That's akin to what we have here: the deletion camp is arguing that WP:NSPORTSEVENT (i.e. WP:NSPORT) is not met, but the individuals in support of keeping are arguing that WP:EVENTCRIT#2 and/or WP:COVERAGE (i.e. WP:NEVENT) is met. Unlike the way some other guidelines interact, NEVENT does not itself defer to NSPORT as being controlling here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think MUSICBIO and PROF are a good analogy, because they're not related to each other and function differently. N, EVENT, and NSPORTSEVENT are just more and more specific guidance. It's pretty uncommon (not unheard of), when there's a guideline which very directly applies to the subject but it's kept per a higher-level guideline. In most of those cases, we're talking about something which otherwise wouldn't be covered on Wikipedia, not something which is already covered as part of a parent article. NSPORTSEVENT is thus helping to clarify both notability and WP:NOPAGE in a particular domain. EVENTCRIT also isn't like PROF in that there's not as clear of a threshold -- it still comes down to show sources which make the event exceptional (it being rare just makes it likely that those sources will exist), and it still wants coverage over time. One of the useful things about more specific guidelines is it can show when there's consensus to cover certain subjects as part of a higher level article by default, unless a higher standard than just SIGCOV is met. I see no reason not to weigh arguments in the context of the most applicable guideline here. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW there is some prior discussion at on my talk page, but given the US holiday weekend I am hoping to not be online until Sunday; I can give a more substantive reply then if necessary. Legoktm (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Accurate reading of consensus and application of policy. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I voted keep, however there was consensus to not keep and the delete/ATD votes were more based in policy than the keep votes. Frank Anchor 12:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That said, I would support restoring the history as a redirect from a different title that is more grammatically accurate. Frank Anchor 12:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus is largely about the quality of the arguments; it's impossible to see the keep !voters as having the better side of that in this case, despite their slightly larger numbers. Closer correctly read the consensus and applicable policies. --JBL (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lister, 2nd Baron Ribblesdale (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Redirect was deleted out-of-process despite not meeting any of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, restore the redirect, no reason why this can't be a redirect to Baron Ribblesdale where it is mentioned. Deleting circular redirects doesn't seem to match any policy, and doesn't help our readers one bit. Fram (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This deletion was made under "Other reason", which is not CSD. I cited as reason the creation of a self-link. Such self-links have in the past been created quite often on such pages listing noble titles. They are clearly in tension with having a redlink for the person with the title, which in my view comes under WP:REDLINK as a redlink that should exist. I was working on Charles Lister, related to the baronial family, and came across this redirect. It seems to me legitimate to cite that editing guideline as "other reason". If @Opera hat: who created the redirect feels strongly that the redirect should exist, I'll concede the point: there are cases where creating the article isn't so obviously a good idea. But having the redlink there is mostly a good idea for well-known reasons. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That guideline is about having a redlink vs. not having a link at all. It is not about removing redirects, otherwise one could delete all 80,000 redirects with possibilities and replace them with a redlink in the target article. Fram (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this is an argument that could have been made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (WP:R#D10). It probably wouldn't have convinced me, but it might have convinced some other regulars of that venue. What's not acceptable is deciding that you know better than them and deleting it yourself without going through proper protocol, and the fact that you don't realize this is concerning. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you gave me a short reply on my user talk, and escalated the discussion here within 60 seconds of that. WP:CSD speaks about "broad consensus" cases, not "only" cases, which below seems a stretch. WP:PROCESS is just an essay, but says "processes are deferential to policies and overlap with guidelines". I don't discount Wikipedia:Process is important, also just an essay. But I think you could have had a discussion where you started it. I'm a fundamentalist content guy, and if the consensus is that these redirects do no harm, I would argue against that in some cases. For examples barons are different from baronets, who do not have the same automatic notability. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The notability of barons, baronets, ... is not a reason for speedy deletion. I still have no idea why you think this would warrant not only deletion, but "speedy" deletion, which should be reserved for things which have no chance at all to survive a discussion, not for things you don't like for unclear reasons. It's one thing if you had just misinterpreted some speedy reason or thought this was an IAR situation because the redirect was somehow obviously harmful or ridiculous; but all you seem to be arguing is that your personal preference is sufficient to speedy delete something. I hope this is a one-off and not something you regularly do, as it really is conduct unbecoming of an admin. Fram (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a couple of points. I used to do this. I haven't done it for a while, and would be quite happy to see the matter clarified. I explain my reasoning because I'm here. In dispute resolution, the first step is to get the views from both sides. My reasoning is that where the redlink clearly should exist, under the guideline, then the redirect clearly should be deleted. Others may disagree. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Fram: With reference to your remark about circular redirects above, I asked a friend for an analytics query to count them. So https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/69227 runs in about 20 minutes, and gave an answer 317453. On the basis of that figure, there is an issue with 4.8% of articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles which reference themselves directly, or through a redirect without possibilities: in those cases, the link needs to be removed from the article as being completely pointless. In the speedy case here though, you have on one hand the redirect which serves as a way for readers (and other articles) to search for the person, and find some info on them in the larger article: and on the other hand when an article is created instead of the redirect, the larger article will immediately point to it. What it doesn't do is invite the readers clearly to create the article as it is already a bluelink. It is sadly not possible, I think, to fulfill both services at once. Perhaps some mechanism could be created to have "redirects with possibilities" show up as redlinks in the target article, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. But deciding that the need of the target article (having a redlink) so far surpasses the benefits for readers and so on of having the redirect as being not just a deletion reason, but a actual speedy deletion one, is not something one admin can or should do. Restore the redirect and start a RfD if you want to delete it anyway (or a policy discussion if you want it to become standard procedure). Letting this DRV drag on serves no purpose though. Fram (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome here being clear, the discussion in this forum can be closed, and the issue can be moved to RfD. (I think a 300K backlog can be treated as "exceptional", but if no one else here agrees, we adjourn.) I mean the whole issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be the only cases where an admin can delete a page purely on their own discretion without going through some kind of process, aside from exceptional circumstances. That is essentially the first thing WP:CSD says. This rationale doesn't fall under any of the criteria so it should go to WP:RFD instead. (I assumed "self redirect" meant a redirect from a page to itself, which would have a reasonable G6, but it wasn't one of these.) Hut 8.5 18:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Deleted out of process. This redirect does not meet the speedy deletion criteria. ✗plicit 00:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and send to RFD. This does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Frank Anchor 03:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy delete - A possibly useful search term that should be kept as a cheap redirect. No basis for a speedy delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Ross (screenwriter) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While a redirect may have had a marginal lead in determining consensus by numbers, a keep argument based in two WP:SNGs was made after these comments. Very little time was given to consider the keep argument before it was closed (indeed no editors commented after this argument was made), and this should have been re-listed to allow other editors time to consider the keep argument Further, if I had known that this argument was going to be completely ignored before the AFD was closed, I would have made a stronger case against redirection. I honestly think our policies are pretty clear here, and it would require ignoring the policy language at both WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE to have any outcome other than keep at this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC) 4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Insofar as why the AfD was closed the way it was, I believe that the outcome is the correct one. What was challenged was not the nomination of the awards, but rather whether there was sufficient reference material available to sustain an article. I believe that the arguments showed that several editors made good faith efforts to locate such material, and each one came up empty. Given that, I believe there was a clear consensus that this topic was not a suitable one for a standalone article. The AfD had run for sixteen days and had come to a consensus, so I do not believe that further relisting would have been a good use of the community's time, nor that it was in any way necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with 4meter4's argument and would now vote keep. I notice a number of edits have been added since the article was originally nominated and that he wrote Tømmerflåden which has the English title The Raft and according to the Stage was written in 1964: "Mr. Ross is twenty-four. His first play "The Raft" was produced at the Hampstead Civic Theatre in June of last year. Since then he has written a one-act play, "The Messenger", a play for television,"The Roundelay", which has been bought by ATV, and "Mr. Kilt". Details of other plays can be seen at https://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsR/ross-kenneth.php Piecesofuk (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade That seems a very narrow and limiting take on notability policy. Essentially you are saying SNGs don't apply if sourcing issues exist and good faith searches for sources were made. If we are going to use good faith sourcing searches as required by WP:BEFORE to measure notability in relation to WP:SIGCOV as the only measuring stick, than what purpose do WP:SNGs serve? Why have them? We could just use SIGCOV as the only measurement of notability and forget the rest under that logic. The whole point of SNGs is to lower the threshold of inclusion demanded by GNG in cases where sourcing is problematic. That said, I don't think editors were necessarily able to access sources in this case given the age of the films and the pre-internet era of his work as an author of plays for the stage. It's likely offline references or references behind paywalls exist. Further, it appears the author was active writing in languages other than English as well, so it is possible foreign language sources from the mid 20th century also exist. I think there's a good argument to be made here about problems of sources accessibility online, and why we should apply SNGs in this case. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse as there are four delete/ATD votes (including the nom) compared to one keep vote, all with basis in policy. All but one of the delete/ATD votes cite a lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP, while the keep vote cites two WP:SNGs, which suggest notability is likely, but not guaranteed. That said, I would not oppose relisting to allow more time to analyze User:4meter4's keep vote though I think redirect was the correct close based on the arguments at the AFD. Frank Anchor 13:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• relist A reasonable keep !vote came in 24 hours before the closing. I think it would be useful to relist while perhaps pinging prior participants. Hobit (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As was discussed at the AfD, the article says next to nothing about the subject and just-about meeting an SNG is not a guarantee of inclusion. In fact WP:BIO (of which WP:CREATIVE is part) says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included (emphasis in original). There was a clear consensus for redirect and no sources were presented in favour of keep. The history is intact in case more in-depth sources surface in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell you are making a policy argument here on notability, which isn’t why this is here. You would be free to make that argument if the AFD were relisted. The question/ objection here is procedural. When a new argument is made, it’s bad practice to close the AFD without giving the wider community time to respond and consider it. It is as simple as that. It’s not uncommon for articles to be relisted two or three times, so there’s no harm in allowing discussion to move forward.4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a comment on the validity of the vote that is the reason we're having this discussion; my "argument", so far as it relates to whether the article should be kept or not, as opposed to the procedural aspect, is a copy and paste from the same guideline you're quoting. There's no bad practice in closing an AfD shortly after a comment. If consensus is clear and it's been open for >7 days, it can be closed. Had new sources been presented to demonstrate notability, I would agree that the close was premature but a keep vote whose rationale was contradicted by the very guideline it was citing wouldn't (or shouldn't) have affected the outcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a mischaracterization of what actually happened. There was not enough time for the new argument to be read by earlier commenters as it was closed within 24 hours after I made the post and with zero comments. We already have one AFD participant in this discussion above who retracted their delete/redirect vote after seeing my comments here and in the AFD discussion. This shows a progression away from consensus, and demonstrates that the new argument has some merit and deserves time for community comment. Cutting a conversation in progress short isn't helpful to the community and is frankly not congruent with our overall philosophy at Wikipedia:Consensus; particularly as articulated at WP:CCC. Further, additional sourcing is not required to make a successful keep argument under policy at WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE and saying it does is just not true. That's an issue that needs to be worked out in the AFD itself and not here at deletion review.The cogent issue here is about AFD process per criteria 5 of WP:DRVPURPOSE and as that criteria relates to WP:CONSENSUS; not about sources and notability policies which are issues pertinent to the AFD discussion itself but not the objections being raised here. 4meter4 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's off-topic for DRV but you are selectively quoting the guideline, which in full is Wikipedia:Notability (people). As quoted above, the criteria are for people who are likely to be notable; meeting one or more of the criteria does not guarantee inclusion. Boiled down to its simplest form, this a discussion about a discussion about an article that says "this person is a screenwriter; he was nominated for several awards for one of his films". There was a consensus that that was insufficient to sustain a standalone article and nobody suggested that there was more information available. The closing admin correctly evaluated and enacted the consensus and best of all nothing was lost so it can be restored with minimal effort if or when more information becomes available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't a clear consensus anymore with one of the few participants in the AFD changing their opinion as indicated above. The division of opinion here by multiple commenters is a pretty good indication that their isn't a clear consensus. That alone should indicate the need for a re-list.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• weak endorse as a correct interpretation of the discussion. The additional criteria at WP:BIO don't guarantee notability, however that so little can be found about the screenwriter of The Day of the Jackal is surprising. Creation should be allowed if sources can be found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As he passes WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". Another source which includes his date and place of birth is the International television & video almanac which lists a number of his plays from the 1960s and his screenplay awards/nominations Piecesofuk (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - I don't see a major award either in the AFD or in the history of the article, and I don't see a strong argument for Keep based on multiple nominations. The appellant should be allowed to create a new biography in article space or draft space, subject to the usual procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Redirect was a reasonable assessment of the consensus, and has the advantage of allowing recreation once enough coverage has been found to justify a standalone. I think what AllyD said about the article being basically a database entry in the absence of SIGCOV was compelling, and the subsequent claim of meeting an SNG did not address such PAGEDECIDE arguments (which, as Seraphim noted above, are also built into the cited SNGs). FWIW, I don't see where CREATIVE clearly confers notability from being nominated for a couple awards, and in my opinion "several" implies "more than 3" so I don't see an ANYBIO pass either. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Gokongwei (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

IMO the close has two issues:

1) A non-admin closure in a borderline scenario is inappropriate. Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is an essay but it states that The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial is a WP:BADNAC. The closer had acknowledged that Consensus seems to be borderline, resulting in this likely being a close call that is not a good non-admin close.

2) The close did not weigh the two sides accurately. Numerically, the consensus is 4-3 keep to draftify/delete, being insufficient for a keep close unless the keep votes is significantly stronger. The closer suggests that one of the draftify votes should be disregarded as WP:PERNOM, which is understandable, but there is insufficient evidence that the keep side is significantly stronger. The first keep vote is essentially a policy-free WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, shown by However, there are also other Wikipedia pages of other CEOs who have not been notable outside of their business, such as Jim Walton, William Clay Ford Jr. and Theo Albrecht Jr, the second keep vote is from the article creator, whereas the final vote unclearly cites that WP:NBIO is met without addressing which sources demonstrate so nor address that the arguments that a draftification is required is unnecessary. Therefore, three of the keep votes should be given slightly less weight. With the keep side at best being similar compared to the draftify/delete side, and the numerical outcome being 4-3, IMO this should be at least be overturned to no consensus or vacated for another closer. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus It is probably leaning toward keep, but closer to no consensus. Even the closing statement itself could be interpreted to be no consensus: Consensus seems to be borderline. Nonetheless, the article needs to be improved to prevent renomination in the near future. While I disagree with the close being done by a non-admin, it is obvious that there was not consensus to delete/draftify the page, so there is no need to vacate the close to be redone by an admin. Likewise, as this AFD was already relisted twice, reopening the discussion will almost certainly lead to the same solid policy-based arguments on both sides. One of the largest concerns in the AFD was that the content was promotional and more related to JG Summit Holdings, Gokongwei's company, rather than Gokongwei himself. This was partially addressed by the article creator here. Also, there were no valid delete/ATD votes after the last relist which occurred after the creator modified the page. Frank Anchor 13:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Anchor: Agree with your thorough comment. I wasn't suggesting to draftify/delete the article, IMO overturn to NC is probably the best, and I have striked my vacated for another closer part. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist For me, I think it is better to be relisted so consensus will be reached. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus was not reached after the first two relists, so it is unlikely a third relist would be any different. Frank Anchor 03:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two relists are enough. So, a 3rd relist can't do anymore. It's either the closure is endorsed or overturned to no consensus. SBKSPP (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate NAC and let any admin close. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I disagree with the closer that all keep !votes are strong. One of them states WP:OTHERSTUFF and thus is week. The rest, including mine, are valid. But, I agree with him that the only draftify !vote is valid. I really see nothing wrong with the closure since he pointed out that it's a borderline keep. SBKSPP (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You cited WP:PERABOVE and then referenced a bit unclearly WP:BIO, while not explaining which references meet so or how the promotional concerns have been addressed. In the future it might be beneficial to elaborate a bit. Additionally, MrsSnoozyTurtle the deletion nom said drafting might be all right, IMO their vote, which is not a keep, is valid as well, though perhaps in your opinion it could be stronger, which is definitely reasonable. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So what if I stated PERABOVE? There's really nothing wrong if I agree with any of the keep !voters in the AfD. The sources in the article, set aside the links about his profile, are reliable enough IMV and therefore I'm convinced that the person meets BIO. That's enough explanation. So, I'll still endorse the closure no matter what. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your response. I find it contradictory, however, that you agreed with the closer in entirely discounting User:SeanJ 2007 as a WP:PERNOM vote, given that you only belive one of the draftify votes is valid. Nevertheless, reading your description in the AfD it seems to be a WP:PERABOVE with a rather unclear assertion, it might seem obvious to you that WP:NBIO (I'm assuming you are meaning WP:BASIC here) is met and the article is non-promotional, which you articulated somewhat here, but I don't see why your vote should be weighed significantly more compared to SeanJ 2007's. I don't believe PERABOVE or PERNOM votes should be entirely dismissed, unlike WP:ITEXISTS or WP:ITSPOPULAR, but I think your vote should be given equal weight compared to SeanJ 2007. VickKiang (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My vote is not just plain PERNOM because I briefly explained that the sources in the article, set aside the links about his profile, are reliable enough IMV. Therefore it has more significant weight than SeanJ's plain PERNOM vote. It's truth. So if you don't have anything good to say about my vote, then don't say anything at all. SBKSPP (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's truth. So if you don't have anything good to say about my vote, then don't say anything at all- I don't think there are any guidelines/essays/policies stating that I couldn't comment reply somewhat to your suggestion. Though (I'm not suggesting you are believing so), if you think that I am commenting here too frequently and badgering the process, I will abstain from continuing this thread further per your suggestion. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how the cited sources "being reliable" is a valid keep argument? Just because something is verified doesn't mean it's received SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC I find the !votes to draft are largely stronger, but I don't see how this could get to delete at this time. I think a relist is now reasonable because this DRV will bring more eyes, so no objection to that. I see no problem with a NAC here, I just think this one reached the wrong conclusion. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus but "Duh". What difference does this make , except to permit a quicker renom? No Consensus leaves the status quo, which has the same effect as Keep. Another nomination is likely also to result in No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good close. Correct. Well worded. Superastig (talk · contribs) is a long-running very bold NAC-er very often raising eyebrows, often failing WP:ADMINACCT with respect to politely responding to enquiries, but again on close examination the close is good. I recommend any uninvolved admin to counter sign the close to make it fully legit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The correct close was “keep”. The deletion nomination was weak. There were no valid votes to delete. Votes to Draftify did not specify what exactly is lacking before it can come back. The stand advice at WP:RENOM applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  “Keep”, not “no consensus”, was correct because not a single participant gave a reason to delete. The !votes to Draftify were all vague. The article contains numerous reliable sources, the top three WP:RSPSS generally reliable sources, refs 2,7,10, satisfy the GNG in my quick review of them. Not a single participant made a serious start at any source analysis. On “keep” vs “delete”, the discussion has no substance supporting “delete”. On “Draftify”, is it contested superficial comment. Despite the number of participants, noting the complete ignoring of the several reliable sources in the article, “keep” is the right result. Anyone not happy should read WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. There wasn't a clear majority for either side. Two of the Keep comments asserted that the subject is notable without providing any real evidence, and the other two didn't engage with the notability arguments at all (or at lease not with anything listed in WP:N). The Draftify comments didn't particularly go into specifics either, and their position would have been stronger if somebody had gone through the sources in the article, for example. In all I don't see a particular consensus. I would also be happy with Hobit's suggestion of another relist now this has attention at DRV. Hut 8.5 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC. I don't read a consensus there. Non-admin status not a factor. Thparkth (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No action. I don't see a compelling reason to change "keep" to "no consensus", which has the same effect. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the closer: The nominator, MrsSnoozyTurtle, thanked me for my closure of the discussion a couple of days ago. I'd rather not comment about this DelRev any further. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe that the nom thanking you would count as an endorse vote, however, MrsSnoozyTurtle: feel free to comment here if you would like to endorse the closure. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello VickKiang. The reason I thanked Astig was to show appreciation for what is often a thankless task. In hindsight, I think No Consensus would be more appropriate than Keep, but as nominator maybe I'm a bit biased :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your clarification, and thanks for Superastig for the bold close, as much as I disagree with it. VickKiang (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment people have asked what purpose an overturn to No consensus has. My answer is that in addition to allowing a relist a bit sooner, it also helps our admin (and non-admin) closers get a sense of the consensus of the community in cases like this. I'd think reading DRVs would be one of the best ways to learn the more nuanced issues with closing a deletion discussion. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. An inappropriate NAC and an AfD polluted with socks and double votes and an article in need of work to separate the wheat from the chaff makes for a confused picture. I'd like to hope somebody would do the necessary editing and re-nominate if they don't feel the wheat is sufficient to establish notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This was a very muddy AfD and therefore wholly inappropriate for a NAC, especially when the close itself reads like a supervote. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rifat Hasan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi! Hi! I am totally new to editing wikipedia. but i just checked this tag where you mantioned this page as:

'because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rifat Hasan Rabbi'.

But this is not true. I think, this misunderstanding is for mathing the first part of name with your mantioned discussion. I request to manually check my ettached refferences with the article for that perpose. I strongly believe that, this entry is totally different personality from your mantioned discussion link. And here, rifat hasan in my article is a very notable young poet and public intellectual of Bangladesh. So, i think it is worth to review the deletion. but i dont have idea how to request to review the deletion. Please help. Morshedul Alam Talukdar (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the deleted revisions and the Draft are both about the poet, so it's unclear based on this and the discussion at @Jimfbleak: what the other version may have been that wasn't about the poet. Star Mississippi 18:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There have been two deletions:
  • The A7 and G11 deletion. The deleted article is probably the same as Draft:Rifat Hasan.
  • The AFD deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rifat Hasan Rabbi.
  • Endorse the AFD deletion as correctly summarizing the AFD discussion.
    • As Star Mississippi says, it isn't clear whether this is the same person, but it doesn't matter.
  • I weakly disagree with the speedy deletion, but would have agreed with draftification:
    • There has been a weak credible claim of significance by reference-bombing.
    • It doesn't look to me like G11.
  • The draft needs declining. It doesn't establish general notability.
  • The draft can be left in draft space for possible improvement.
  • There is nothing more that needs to be done at DRV.
• Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rifat Hasan Rabbi was someone else entirely. —Cryptic 19:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The draft wasn't deleted as a repost of material deleted by a deletion discussion. Someone tagged it for deletion for that reason but the tag was mistaken and was removed. It was deleted under WP:CSD#G11 (advertising) and WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of importance/significance). I don't think it was a good G11 candidate, for a start there was a short "Criticism" section. A7 is more reasonable. The text didn't include any assertions of significance. There were quite a few inline citations, most of which were to blogs or other unreliable sources, but there were a few which might be better. I think it would be best if it was moved back to draft space, I doubt it will survive an AfD even if restored here. Hut 8.5 20:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  hi! i have posted an improved version of the article as a draft for review as adviced (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Morshedul_Alam_Talukdar) by Vinegarymass911. the draft link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rifat_Hasan I am editing and improvng the article every day as much as possible so that it can achive the lackings mentioned here! i see that, some other users also angaged/contributed time to time with the editing. I appreciate them. i dont have idea if it is wrong to comment here, as i am not familier with wikipedia things, if not admissible/needed, please delete this comment. Morshedul Alam Talukdar (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deji (YouTuber) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While this page was speedily deleted under G5, I strongly feel that was not the appropriate decision in that case, given that it wouldn't have been deleted if not for the G5. On the talk page, there was a move discussion in progress initiated by me, the subject meets the notability requirements now as opposed to when prior AFDs had occurred towards the subject years ago, and this occurred in the aftermath of the Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Deji fight on Sunday. The article was very well sourced, although I should note that I have found out that an identical draft exists at Draft: Deji Olatunji, which provided a foundation to the article as it appeared immediately before deletion. Either the deletion should be overruled and the move discussion should be closed as successful, or the draft should be speedily converted to an article and the article title is immediately unsalted. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation As stated above this article is notable and should be allowed to be re-created by a non-banned user. So I think a speedy conversion of the draft is the most appropriate way to get this content into mainspace. With of course the old move discussion being called successful for this new article. Paulpat99 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation No issue with this (or any G5 page) being recreated by any user in good standing. No opinion regarding a title move. Frank Anchor 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On second thought unsalt Deji Olatunji and move content currently in Draft:Deji Olatunji there. Frank Anchor 14:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If it were only appropriate to delete pages as G5s if they would have been deleted anyway then we wouldn't have G5; that it was an unattributed copy of the draft version is all the more reason to delete it; and it's never been salted. —Cryptic 04:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, I see now that it's Deji Olatunji that's salted, after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oladeji Olatunji at a (different) attempt at a scrutiny-avoiding title change. Most of the substantial coverage on the draft is years old. Endorse on all counts, don't unsalt. —Cryptic 04:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cryptic: The page in 2022 absolutely would NOT have been deleted if it hadn't been for whom created the article, causing the G5 to begin with when it otherwise wouldn't have happened. I should hereby issue this Correction on my part that the actual article, at the time of the G5, although having a foundation with the draft, was heavily expanded upon entering the mainspace, such as having a furnished and up to date early life and YouTube career section, and as such the word "identical" has been struck through from the proposal. Recent events, such as facing Mayweather (!!!!!!) have indicated that the notability has since been established after the fact of the AFDs. We should NOT be putting now-notable subjects into permanent deletion purgatory over some poorly created and sourced articles from YEARS ago from before they were notable enough for Wikipedia. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Also added AfD from 2020 at this title to header, which had not been done. I'll note that it included significant, identified sockpuppetry then. Not trying to ABF here, but this is not a pattern of behavior suggesting that mainspace-appropriateness has been established. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • • @Jclemens: I have removed that from the header in good faith, as it is the G5 speedy deletion being contested, NOT that AFD from years ago. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not your call to make. You claim to be protesting a G5 deletion, but the real problem here is a history of inappropriate creation, repeated deletion, and evasion of create protection, which your action served to obfuscate. So, I amend my opinion to Endorse, salt all remaining non-create-protected-titles, require AfC, and require all contributors to AfC to attest to no COI as part of the AfC approval process. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a March 2022 afd and salting at Deji (Youtuber) (AfD discussion), plus another ancient one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy Shorts Gamer. —Cryptic 06:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cryptic: Ahhh, gotcha. Wasn’t aware of that one. No objections to that one being listed, although it should definitely be noted that the Mayweather fight hadn’t even been anywhere near announced yet at that point. (That AFD’s title also stylized YouTube incorrectly.) DrewieStewie (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three more deleted versions at Deji olatunji, Deji Olatunji (ComedyShortsGamer), and Deji Olatunji (Comedyshortsgamer). I'll see if I can come up with a blacklist regex without too many false positives. —Cryptic 06:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there've also been article-length versions at Comedyshortsgamer, Comedy shorts gamer, ComedyShortsGamer (Entertainer), ComedyShortsGamer (Deji), ComedyShortsGamer (Youtuber), and ComedyShortsGamer(YouTuber). Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer) exists as a redirect to his brother, KSI. I can... maybe... see a case for a redirect from Deji Olatunji to there too, or to the fight article. Not from this name, though; disambiguated names make for poor redirects. (And do we normally have articles for retired boxers' exhibition matches, anyway? Shouldn't that merit maybe a one-sentence mention in Floyd Mayweather Jr., at most?) —Cryptic 07:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cryptic: Clearly he wouldn’t have been positioned against Mayweather if he wasn’t notable enough from YouTube and his activities with his brother and other YouTubers/media personalities to be placed in such a headlining match, regardless of if it was exhibition or professional. There’s no way a non-notable owner of a McDonald’s franchise in Wyoming could ever get such a match. Deji has though. Because he has established notability. Are all the Endorse voters forgetting about GNG here?! Good Grief! I agree that not every million+ YouTuber is notable enough, but sometimes it’s taken too far with things like this, because when someone actually has demonstrated such notability, Wikipedians often appears reluctant and ignorant to actually recognize that notability. If a notable headlining boxing match with its own event article is not grounds establishing notability for creation of a BLP, then what the fuck is??? Honestly. This appears to be a case of crazed fans attempting to make an article over a period of several years being held against a subject when notability is finally established for them, guilty because of the past instead of the present. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the G5 deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted the article, and for what it's worth here are my thoughts.

In the discussion above there seems to be some confusion between the issue of whether this deletion was justified and the issue of whether the article should now be allowed to be re-created. As far as my deletion is concerned, nobody has raised any objection to it apart from the totally bizarre "While this page was speedily deleted under G5, I strongly feel that was not the appropriate decision in that case, given that it wouldn't have been deleted if not for the G5"... ???? Well, if we can't speedily delete a page under a particular deletion criterion if it wouldn't be deleted if it weren't for that criterion, then when can we ever speedily delete a page? I don't think I need to say any more about that.

As far as the issue of allowing re-creation is concerned, the article has at least three times been deleted at deletion discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji (YouTuber), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji, & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oladeji Olatunji, and it has been deleted at least twenty eight times under several titles, not counting deletion of redirects following page moves. I very much doubt that I have ever seen any other example of anywhere near that many attempts to get an article established in the face of such unambiguous consensus that it isn't suitable. I took no part in any of those deletion discussions, and until this deletion review came up I had no opinion whatsoever as to whether the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards, but I have now looked into it, and as far as I can see the claim that the subject of the article has now become more notable than at the times of those deletion discussions rests on the fact that he has once taken part in an "exhibition" boxing match. I have looked at the references cited for that match, both in the deleted article and in the article about the match. I don't see those references as providing convincing evidence that the match satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and they don't come anywhere remotely near to indicating that "Deji" satisfies them. JBW (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I very much doubt that I have ever seen any other example of anywhere near that many attempts to get an article established in the face of such unambiguous consensus that it isn't suitable. may I introduce you to the Battle for Dream Island and its edit filters and salt collection? It has good company Star Mississippi 18:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse G5 but it also could easily have been G4. There is consensus Deji isn't notable. If a redirect is created, it should be protected to prevent backdoor creation. Star Mississippi 18:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the G4 assessment as the listed AFDs all have occurred in March 2022 or earlier and there is significant content (at least on the current version in draft space) based on events from later in 2022, making it not "substantially identical to the deleted version" as G4 requires. Frank Anchor 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe there's a point like BDI above where when there's continued out of process re-creation, G4 gets broadened. I may be incorrect on that though. Star Mississippi 21:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Because this isn't explicit in G4, I tend to prefer create protection (salting) rather than expanding the CSD in cases of repeated disruptive re-creation. We've seen things G4'ed that at least deserved another discussion, and our guidance has generally been "recreate it yourself if you've got better sources now than at the time of deletion" because DRV is not a necessary stop when it's just a case of the deleted article being TOOSOON and now notability has been established since the correct-at-the -time deletion. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is another case, like the Battle for Dream Island, where fanatical fans, or ultras, have been their own worst enemy. By repeatedly trying to game the title in order to get an article into article space, they have ensured that there will never be an article in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with User:Jclemens, but with a comment that the requirement for COI disclosures is pro forma. These editors are not acting like COI editors, but like ultras. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're probably right, although I suspect that "ultras" who are sufficiently ultra are indistinguishable from COI editors using our public processes. I dislike attempts to game the system from whatever source, and prefer notability arguments be coherent and sensible: "notable for being a YouTuber who also got into boxing" doesn't cohere, in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So if these "ultras" killed his notability if it otherwise would have been established had it not been for this extensive creation and deletion history of poorly sourced articles by these "ultras", then does that mean we should delete the articles for the Paul brothers and KSI (his brother) too for not passing GNG (which they clearly do; any AFD for them will be SNOWed because they dont have fanboy article creations and deletions from before they were notable)? This is a classic example of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" on Wikipedia: when he finally is notable, the past reputation prevails. Wikipedia's biases against YouTubers are showing clearly here. Disgusting. Shameful. I neither hold a COI, as a college student from California who has no personal association, nor am an Ultra, as I abide by Wikipedia policies. I just know, given my YouTube expertise, that he is now notable for his independent ventures. While notability isn't inherent, he earned his notability himself despite being related and around other notable people regularly. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've on occasions opined the same way, but the deceptive way this case was presented drives my thinking: It's one thing for a petitioner to arrive with clean hands, and entirely another for them to arrive with intentionally deceptive behavior, on top of an extensive history of bad behavior from others with respect to this subject. So no, we're not saying "no article even if GNG pass," we're saying "AGF has been exhausted with respect to this subject." Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens: Ahhh, okay. I can actually agree with the assume good faith part in respect to others who have been involved with article creation of this subject. I do not condone it at all, and as such desire to distinguish myself from them. Although I’ve been watching KSI and Deji’s videos since my teenage years, I personally did not become involved with this Wikipedia saga involving an article for Deji at all until I stumbled on the mainspace article and submitted the move request shortly before the boxing match. In essence, consider me a Wikipedian who has been active for many years who stumbled upon this case and created this deletion review without realizing the extent of the prior saga of 25+ speedy deletions and hadn’t even been considering the prior AFDs in 2022 until a comment was made about them on the requested move and the G5 had occurred. :) For me, I was trying to figure out the best way to move forward and restore the article. Hopefully somebody who is familiar with the subject and has sufficient skill and reputation to bypss AFC can get it done, since I am too busy myself. cheers! DrewieStewie (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• send to AfD. There are new sources (e.g. this) that probably get us past WP:N. The past behavior of superfans isn't an inclusion criteria. The question is if WP:N is passed. And I suspect it is, but that's for AfD to decide. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse/keep deleted, delete all the drafts, list at WP:DEEPER, and re-read User:JzG/And the band played on.... Stifle (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article currently exists in main space now under this page title. It was tagged for CSD G4 deletion but I untagged it while this discussion is going on. Please consider what should happen with it, along with any drafts that exist. My only opinion is that I expect future attempts will be made at creating an article on this subject, it's just a question of in what namespace and under which page titles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since my previous comment; somebody (not banned) re-created the article in mainspace by updatimg the draft, thereby undoing the G5 (as the creator was not at all blocked or banned). Somebody then placed a G4, which was rescinded pending this discussion (as it has proven controversial and heavily debated). There were a few contested deletion comments in the tallk page as well, which had weight. Now, its a discussion of notability and whether or not it should stay, with half saying that this is a perrenial proposal that should remain out of mainspace (due to good faith being depleted by past fanboy behavior before notability wwas achieved to Wikipedia standards), and another half saying that notability has been achieved and that an article is now warranted due to his involvement in various ventures with increased independent stature from before. Never the less, the bar still appears to be higher due to fanboy behavior, which should not be a factor in 2022 for this subject, per Hobit. I'm hoping the end result is that the article remains up (as it looks satisfactory to me and established citation norms); and upon this discussion being closed, I intend on re-opening my previously in-progress move discussion, should that be necessary. "And the band played on" is the type of example that should expire and no longer matter after certain conditions have been met, and I think this example has met that criteria, coming from someone who stumbled upon this case in 2022 and had knowledge of the subject both before and after the notibility criteria were met. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Walker (Internet personality) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was only rough consensus to delete this in the first place, and since then, Walker has trended again. Except this time it's for something that could reasonably be considered noteworthy: publicly denouncing his father's run for senate (while having influence himself). Now there's more about him in the HuffPost, The New York Times, ABC News, CNN, Slate, People, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, National Review, Hollywood Life, and Heavy. —VersaceSpace (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a correct reading of consensus to delete. However, allow recreation based on the significant coverage posted here. Such a new article can be challenged at AFD if someone wishes to go that route. Frank Anchor 17:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation doesn't look like BLP1E to me, but it certainly might be AfD'ed on those grounds. Drafting is reasonable, as is userification for integration of these new sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per nom, substantial new sources overcoming the AfD arguments. Not a private person, and plenty of verification, so I think this should be considered a BIO1E not a BLP1E, and possibly it should be redirected to Herschel Walker#Relationships and children. Possibly it meets the threshold for a stand alone article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a correct reading of the AFD. No bar to recreation; the article is not salted. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close of the AFD. Review of draft or recreation of article are permitted, but are subject to new AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think that this article should be restarted and recreated because it was a legitimate crisis from 2019 to 2020. The rest after was synth and OR after March/April 2020. I think it should be recreated under the name 2019–2020 Iran–United States conflict/crisis or something like that Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 16:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as the deleting admin, I will not weigh in too much, but I'm not sure deletion review is the right venue for this proposal. The consensus for deletion was evident and no debate as to the closure took place in its aftermath. Mausebru also does not provide any evidence as to why they think the deletion was procedurally flawed. It seems WP:DRVPURPOSE was not followed. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so we should've just cleaned up the article. WP:TNT applies; The article was a legitimate crisis according to several sources, however, died out after 2020 by the same sources. It was just a dumping place for every little thing. We could've just deleted the section after 2020.Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 17:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was wrongfully deleted and should've been either WP:TNT or massive cleanup.Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 17:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The appellant says that the article was wrongly deleted and should have had a cleanup instead, so they are properly at Deletion Review, and they have a right to say that the closer made an error. I disagree, and think that the close was correct. The appellant is entitled to submit a draft for review, or to create another article subject to another AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse essentially entirely per Robert McClenon. Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The close was fine. The automated "cleanup" afterwards was an unmitigated disaster. Please be more careful. —Cryptic 00:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The relisting of this afd when there was a clear consensus to keep was a supervote. Consensus was clear that the subject satisfied WP:NACTOR. That is sufficient and has been a long common outcome. WP:N states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right" where NACTOR is in the box. Closers/relistors are meant to evaluate the discussion, not introduce thier own interpritation of policy.
The relisting comment itself was a fishing expedition for a delete vote. Relistor states that consensus existed that he passed the SNG but states incorrectly that that was not good enough. Effectively they say that GNG overrides it's parents guideline without a policy based justifiiction.
When the relister got the comment they were fishing for they quickly closed it within a day, not going with the standard seven days and not giving other the chance to discuss, especially wrong considering their relisting stated "relisting this discussion for another week".
That close too was also a supervote. SIGCOV does not override WP:N. Closer also states that no significant coverage "is evident, in the article or in this discussion" totally dismissing the Otago Daily Times article that multiple commentators said was good.
Frankly all round a poorly closed afd that should be overturned.
Disclosure of own invovelment: I was the first Keep comment. During the afd I improved the article on a series Wilson had a significant role in to a point it demonstrated a passing of notability guidelines (Not that QuietHere was convinced, apperently sources don't count in they can't personally see them). I checked back after the bad relist and saw another Keep comment so didn't feel the need to comment further. Next thing I new the whole thing had been quickly wrapped up as delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - I think Liz got this one wrong (a rare event), but only insofar as reasonable parties disagreed with respect to WP:NACTOR #1, and made the arguments based on policy. The user above (duffbeerforme) also provided sources which depict significant coverage. I don't see consensus in favor of delete. I don't see consensus in favor of keep, either, but I definitely don't see delete. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have restored this article for viewing during this deletion review, removed the AFD tag and protected the page so that it remains in the state it was during the AFD discussion. If the decision is to change the outcome of the AFD, please unprotect the page and tag the talk page appropriately. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After a complaint, either here or on my Talk page, about only leaving a closure that stated "Delete", I've started to leave more explanatory statements when I've closed an AFD. Recently, some of these statements have been seen as "supervotes" when I meant to sum up the opinions of the participating editors that I found persuasive. I really have no opinion on whether or not there is an article on this subject in main space so I will either go back to a simple one word closure or work harder on the language I use in a closure statement so it doesn't appear that I'm substituting my own opinion for that of the participating editors in an AFD discussion. If I find myself with an opinion on the fate of an article being discussed, I pass on closing an AFD and add my opinion as a discussion participant instead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn to no consensus (first preference) or Neutral (second preference) but I strongly oppose a keep close. Numerically the vote is 3 (delete) to 5 (keep). However, I do believe that some of the keep votes should be given somewhat less weight. Duffbeerforme and Dflaw4 had insightful commentaries, but I don't see which other editors directly stated that the interview-like Otawa Daily Times piece is Otago Daily Times article that multiple commentators said was good? The rest state vaguely per above but I don't see them directly endorsing the Otawa Daily Times as SIGCOV, they are more asserting that per above WP:NACTOR is passed, not that the piece is SIGCOV. That close too was also a supervote. SIGCOV does not override WP:N. Closer also states that no significant coverage "is evident, in the article or in this discussion" totally dismissing the Otago Daily Times article that multiple commentators said was good- when has one interview-like piece being able to single-handedly pass WP:GNG which requires multiple sources, at minimum two or three? Therefore, IMO none of the keep participants successfully stated that how GNG is passed. WP:NACTOR is more debatable IMO. It states that Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is generously two significant roles aforementioned, making the barest passing of NACTOR. Besides, the restored article states He had a supporting role in the 2008 film Second Hand Wedding, in contrast, Second Hand Wedding lists Patrick as a starring role. With the second role debatably significant, IMHO the keep votes should be given somewhat less weight, given three of the votes are vague "per above" ones, so IMO a keep would be an undesirable close. Nevertheless, IMO this probably leans somewhat closer to no consensus compared to delete. P.S: Noting that Dflaw4's comment is at User_talk:Liz/Archive 4#AfD Close of Patrick Wilson New Zealand Actor. Discounting the poorly explained vote by the fifth keep voter, a sockpuppet account, gives 4-3 (keep to delete). That is insufficient for a keep close, so I stand by an overturn to no consensus only but note one to keep. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang. When I said multiple it was two, I was saying that it wasn't just me. On that second role, I don't see any question about wether it was a significant role, just about wether it was a notable production, which is why I updated that show's page. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus. This is, unfortunately, a clear case of supervote. After relisting this AFD, and then not getting the result that she wanted, Liz should either have cast a vote to Delete, or left it for another closer. The numerical result is a Keep. There is no way that a Delete can be justified. Some credence must be given to what the community says. Liz should have become a participant (and she is almost always right). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Having taken part in this AfD, I was also surprised by the result. I did raise this with Liz on her Talk page (on 26 October 2022), as follows: "With respect to your close of WP: Articles for deletion/Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor), I believe you may have cast a supervote. There were five votes to Keep the article and two to Delete it. Yet you closed the AfD with a Delete. You had previously relisted the AfD when there was already a clear consensus to Keep the article, and noted your concerns with regard to WP:SIGCOV. And when you closed the article as a “Delete”, you argued that there was no WP:SIGCOV, which suggests that your own personal view that the notability standards weren’t met took precedence over the consensus, which was that such standards were met. I kindly ask you to consider re-opening the AfD and allowing another editor to determine the consensus." I was also concerned with the fact that Liz only left the re-list open for 4 or 5 days, and closed it soon after two Delete votes came in. I thought the re-list should have been left open for the full 7 days, and then, at that juncture, I would have expected the AfD to be closed as either Keep or No Consensus, or for there to have been a further re-list to allow for consideration of the Delete arguments. My understanding of the closer's role is that they determine the consensus of the voters, without allowing their own views to prejudice the close result. Their role is not to weigh up the arguments that have been made and then side with either the Keep-ers or the Delete-rs, which would mean that they then cast the ultimate vote. If that occurs, then the closing editor has become an invested juror in the proceedings, rather than simply an impartial arms-length bystander whose job it is to determine the consensus of the others. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus this is probably somewhere between no consensus and keep, but I prefer not to jump from one end to the other and those two results are the same in terms of keeping the article. The relist should not have happened as there was clear support to keep based on article passing the appropriate WP:SNG, almost bordering on a non-admin WP:SNOW close being appropriate. While two delete votes were added after the unnecessary relist, there still clearly was not consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 13:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC This feels wrong in a lot of directions. But yeah, there is no consensus for deletion. NACTOR is a reason to keep something, like it or not. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep 1) SNG or GNG are alternatives--an article must meet one or the other. 2) Opinions were numerically that the SNG, NACTOR, was met. 3) The relisting instructions did not reflect #1, and so a failure to produce SIGCOV doesn't affect the notability of the article, given that consensus as that NACTOR was met. I understand that not everyone agrees with me on #1, but the remainder of my argument follows from that fundamental understanding of how SNGs work. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would like to re-emphasise my concerns with regard to the way Liz is re-listing during AfDs. At this AfD she relisted not for the usual 7 days, but for just 15 minutes. During those 15 minutes a Delete vote came in, and she then quickly closed the AfD as a Delete just minutes later. This strikes me as problematic, and, in my view, it demonstrates bias. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dflaw4: Per WP:RELIST, A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days. But you can take that to deletion review as well if you feel that close is unsatisfactory to your preferences how a close should be, as in a 3-0 vote (delete to keep) should be closed otherwise? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also pinging Liz as well on the close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malti Chahar (2nd nomination). I think it's a reasonable close but you can resolve it on her UTP or another deletion review page. VickKiang (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The scope of this discussion needs to be limited to the deletion of Mr. Wilson’s page. If you have concerns about other pages, then raise the discussion on Liz’ talk page or open another DRV, but this shouldn’t be brought up here. Frank Anchor 17:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I generally relist if I don't see a consensus. I don't expect relisted articles to always be open for another full week. And sometimes, one editor can come in an make their opinion known that, to me, along with a deletion nomination, can then show a consensus to Delete. If an AFD discussion has no participation, is relisted, and then another editor comes and makes a strong Delete argument, well, that demonstrates to me that there are two editors who believe an article should be Deleted and no editor arguing for it to be Kept. Editors who participate at AFD can legitimately argue that I relist too frequently but I do so so as not to draw conclusions based on, say, only a nominator's statement (as some AFD closers do). It works differently for Kept/Redirect/Merge consensus decisions because every nomination at AFD already starts with one Delete opinion, that is the nomination statement. So if there was a nomination statement and one editor making a strong argument to Keep an article, then I would relist (and yes, I know that AFD is NOT A VOTE). I will also admit that, for example, an AFD tonight had only 2 editors who participated, both had less than 50 edits to their contribution history and I want to see the judgment of the proposal from more experienced editors so I relisted the discussion.

If there are specific instances that you are upset with, please come to my talk page. I don't enjoy getting called to Deletion Review so I try not to close an AFD discussion unless the consensus is clear to me and I'm sorry that sometimes the nominator or the page creator is unhappy with my closure. But that's what talk pages are for and Deletion Review serves as a secondary forum if the situation can't be resolved on the closer's talk page.

I'll also add that I've come to be very active at AFD over the past six months. So, I expect that I'll get more questions about my closures after closing 20 discussions than an admin who closes 2. I'm not ever going to be 100% correct, no closer is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC. This does look quite bad from a WP:SUPERVOTE point of view. It's blatantly obvious that there was no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Thparkth (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The fifth keep voter was later blocked for being a sockpuppet account, if that makes a difference to anyone's assessment here. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not appear that the master or any other suspected socks were involved in this discussion, so no effect on my opinion at all. Frank Anchor 18:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. Blatant supervote and poor judgment. ✗plicit 12:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, supervote. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was guided in my closure by Otr500's Delete opinion and I guess I should have specified that in my discussion closing statement (although we both mention the insufficiencies of IMDb). I've been urged by editors unhappy with a few of my AFD closures that I should include a statement explaining the decision but I believe my comments in this one have been misunderstood so I think I'll return in most cases to only a simple "Keep" or "Delete", etc. when I close a discussion or carefully word my statement so neutrally, without any opinion included, so that these misunderstandings will not happen again. In this case though, I thought the Keep opinions were weak and Otr500's Delete argument wasn't and it was echoed by others who agreed with it. And, as we know, AFD is not a vote counting exercise.

I will also join the ranks of other AFD closers who only take on AFD discussions with unanimous or near unaminous opinions expressed. Right now, there seem to be only 2 or 3 administrators who can close evenly divided or controversial AFD discussions without being brought to Deletion review and I guess I can't count myself among their ranks. I don't think it is the decisions I make but the way I word the decision statements that cause me to be called to Deletion review. I do my best but I have to recognize my limits and, like some admins working in the AFD area, I'll only close AFD discussions where all, or at least the vast majority of, participants agree on an outcome. I use to have a critical view towards those closers who only close those 100% Delete or 100% Keep discussions but now I see where they are coming from. They, and now me, wish to avoid getting a notice to come to Deletion review where even if your deletion is endorsed (and in this case it wasn't), a foe will show up to take potshots at you. Now back to work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other lesson learned is seeing how few admins or editors doing NAC closes show up to participate in these Deletion reviews of decisions they have made. In the past, I thought it would help the discussion to explain my decisions but I've noticed admins more experienced than myself do not come to defend or explain themselves at DR. So I guess the closer or deleting admin's participation here is not that crucial to assessing the decision that was made. I don't mean these comments to sound fatalistic, they just reflect my experience here this year with being scrutinized at noticeboard discussions. I do understand the great importance of having a review process for deletion decisions and my visits here have been instructive but probably not in the way they were intended to be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, on the whole you do a great job closing things. I've been involved in DRV for well more than a decade and the issues you have had a perfectly reasonable. I feel it's just that you put a bit too much of *you* in the close rather than closing based on the discussion.

@Liz:, as I see it, the key questions here are A) Does this pass the SNG and B) are the sources so poor that we have a BLP or WP:V issue that can only be solved with deletion? To my reading, it's pretty clear that the discussion concluded that it does pass NACTOR. The second question is a lot harder. But I don't think it could be said that the discussion concluded there was such a problem. And I think the (fairly poor) sources are enough that it doesn't require the closer step in here and override the consensus of the discussion. If this included "contentious material" I'd have a different opinion (per WP:BLPRS). Basically, I think that your views on WP:GNG vs WP:SNG is somewhat out-of-step with the general consensus on that issue and it shows here. Just be aware of that going forward. We all have views that differ from the community's (e.g. I'm more inclusive than most...) The trick is being aware of that. And if you find a discussion where the consensus and your own views are at odds, !vote (or not) and leave it for someone else to close. Your closes are almost all great, just treat the ones where you find that the community disagrees with you as a learning opportunity. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly non-palindromic number (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In this discussion, there were two issues to resolve: (1) Is the topic is notable for a stand-alone article? (2) Is content suitable for merging to palindromic number? Most participants solely debated issue (1), with a majority concluding the topic is not notable. Another editor and I argued in support of merging. In my view, the closure did not properly weigh consensus on the WP:ATD issue (2).

• Merging is an outcome compatible with the rationales supporting deletion. Concerns about notability are satisfied by merging.
• The merge proposal was unrebutted and deserves weight accordingly. In order for deletion to be the result, the answer to both (1) and (2) must be No. There were deletion rationales against (1), but no deletion rationales against (2). When a reasonable ATD is on the table, and no reason is given to oppose it, merging is supported by policy (see e.g. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try_to_fix_problems on merging).
• Even more so than for other types of ATD debates, explicit discussion is critical for a decision between delete and merge, because deletion of article history precludes normal content-editing. In contrast, after a delete/redirect decision, the redirect can always be recreated later. After a keep/merge decision, editors can always discuss merging outside of the AfD venue.

Notwithstanding the vote count, I suggest that the closure should be overturned to relist for further discussion of delete/merge, or directly overturned to merge. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: courtesy link to discussion with closer. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge per nom. I voted delete early in the discussion. I generally prefer a merge/redirect as an WP:ATD when a suitable target is identified, which it was after my vote was cast (and I was not aware of this until now). I oppose relisting as this is really a delete vs. merge discussion with very little interest in an outright keep. Frank Anchor 14:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have preferred merge as a closure in order to preserve the content, though delete was within a range of reasonable closures. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think per our guidelines we should merge, or perhaps redirect, rather than delete when there is a valid merge target. There clearly is. I'm unsure how much of this should be merged--I think even a paragraph might be UNDUE. But yeah: overturn to merge. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which guidelines are you referring to? If you mean WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I presented evidence that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion at the recent arbitration case. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and your evidence resulted in which findings of fact, precisely? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I provided it as rebuttal evidence to your proposed principle Alternatives to Deletion, which was not included in the final decision either. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You'll notice that I'm not here touting my contributions there as somehow increasing their normativity. You are, and I can't figure out why. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am unsure how you inferred that. I linked it because it is an organized and efficient presentation. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, endorsed by whom? If you're not trying to ride the coattails of an arbitration proceeding which ended up doing nothing whatsoever with the argument you made, then by all means put it together as an essay. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I presented evidence that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion at the recent arbitration case. is a statement of fact. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And I ate breakfast this morning: entirely true, and entirely irrelevant to this conversation. I don't mean to sound harsh here, but really: either you were trying to use the venue as some sort of [Inappropriate, IMHO,obviously] appeal to authority, or your inclusion of that tidbit was irrelevant, or there's some third option that I'm still missing. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Merge - When the participants are split between Delete, Keep, and Merge, Merge is the compromise. There wasn't consensus to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the policy/guideline basis for a compromise? WP:Supervote mentions "compromise" a few times, but it is an essay. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist for targeted discussion of what to merge – perhaps nothing – and whether a redirect is desired. I do not see a consensus to merge, but one may be developed. On a separate note, Liz's comment appears to be participating instead of closing, which I would like to encourage. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge Last two !votes were merge, objectively reasonable, and the core AfD question was N (should this have a separate article?) not V (is this thing even demonstrably real?). The alternative would have been to relist, but that's not necessary, because a merge keeps the content that everyone agreed in the discussion was real, but not as a standalone article. In other words, a merge outcome is the natural result of the discussion that was held, regardless of the delete vs. keep count, and leaving it open for more opinions is not at all likely to change that, except possibly to keep if something stunningly good was found--and in such case it could be un-merged later without much fuss. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation Church (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the page was wrongly deleted because the article has enough verification from reliable sources for it to have a separate page and not a redirect. Iwillkeepitup (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The decision appears to be correct based on the arguments put forth and the low quality of the sources presented, which provide very little information about the Church beyond the fact that it exists and that it is led by Lovy Elias. As such, the redirect to Elias's page is correct. Jahaza (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (uninvolved) Consensus is not there to delete/redirect. There are three delete/redirect votes (including the nom) and two keep votes. One delete vote on each side can be dismissed (4meter4's "delete" vote that claims failure of WP:ORG while not giving any insight as to why and page creator Iwillkeepitup's "keep" vote which says the opposite with no evidence). Ploreky Iwillkeepitup presents three sources that may be borderline-GNG which do not appear to be rephrased press releases as Elmidae claimed. Also the language of the close, "by the way, an individual church is not what we would consider a "denomination," could be considered a WP:SUPERVOTE (though I do not believe that was the intent as Liz is a one of the better AFD closers we have). Frank Anchor 19:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Anchor: @Jclemens: @CT55555: Pinging a couple of relist voters. Ploreky commented two times but didn't provide sources, it was the page creator who added those here. If I'm missing something please correct me, thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it was User:Iwillkeepitup who put in the sources in response to User:Ploreky’s vote. Not Plorkey putting in the source. This has no effect on my “relist” vote. Frank Anchor 03:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your update, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - There is not a single reliable, secondary, independent source which has "significant coverage" of this church, and several participants noted as much. I think it's quite clear that this fails WP:ORG, and policy is more important than # of votes per WP:NOTAVOTE. Additionally, Liz's comment to the use of "denomination" has nothing to do with the article's deletion or fate, and thus is not a SUPERVOTE by any means. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. I have a very high opinion of the closing admin, she does a great job at AFD, so it slightly pains me to disagree with her, but with an uncertain nominator, one delete, two keeps, and one redirect argument, there doesn't seem like a consensus to redirect. I'm surprised this one wasn't given more time. CT55555 (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Redirect isn't a terrible close, but I don't see the strength in arguments there when actually examining the sources. I agree with Frank that the sources are not press releases; whether they are reliable or significant coverage was not addressed in the discussion. Another week might well sort things out, but at the time of closure, I'm seeing no consensus to either keep or redirect. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. Relist would have at least as valid, probably better, but the question is whether the closer made a reasonable conclusion, and she did. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The delete/redirect side here is indeed weak per Frank Anchor and Jclemens's insightful commentary. However, IMO the keep votes are too weak. Other than the article creator, who of course will vote keep but provides decent commentary that sources are WP:SIGCOV, the only other independent voter is Ploreky. However, I should note that this user, while enthusiastic, has been warned for unhelpful AfD comments at User talk:Ploreky#AFDs. Here, they repeatedly critique the deletion rationale, but didn't provide a source analysis as well, instead vaguely criticising others, which does not push consensus towards keep much. As such, IMHO the keep side is also quite weak, with both two votes being less than the most desirable, though one of the redirect votes from 4meter4 is additionally weak, though I'm sure if this is relisted they will comment more). With the delete/redirect side having a slight numerical advantage (3-2), it might be marginally, though not significantly stronger than the keep votes, which is what Liz interpreted and I think it is sound. If this is a 4-2 I'm definitely at endorse, but as the AfD stands in my opinion a relist could also be desirable and an equally good choice as well, but I can see the closure's rationale. Therefore, I'm at neutral. VickKiang (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. I am not seeing a clear consensus among the participants. I think a source analysis would be useful at moving the discussion forward towards building a conensus.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see consensus here. Looking at the sources, WPl:N appears to be passed, depending on how you consider local sources. So overturn to relist for a fuller discussion. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  After a close, suggestions the “WP:N appears to be passed” should be required to be accompanied by the 2 or 3 sources that demonstrate the passing of WP:N. Otherwise, the circle may never end. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair, and looking closer, the articles do appear to be basically press releases. I looked at them for having facts and being in an RS, not for looking like just copy from a press release. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was the right outcome. Iwillkeepitup (talk · contribs) has the wrong apprehension that WP:V gives a threshold for a standalone article. They should be referred to WP:Notability. The correct decision was made. For ongoing challenges, discuss the matter on the talk page of the redirect target, and consider it a fresh request for a WP:SPINOUT. There was no deletion, do not bring it back to DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a reasonable interpretation of consensus with appropriate weight given to the various arguments. Thparkth (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BJ Dichter (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting consensus/permission to recreate article. Consensus was that BLP1E applied in March. Since then there has been coverage about his role in the ongoing public enquiry, therefore another event. There was many previous events he was notable for, such as running for office, but consensus seems that those more minor events did not get enough coverage. I think the new burst of coverage does illustrate notability. Examples:

1. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1929974/commission-rouleau-cedu-enquete-publique-etat-urgence-audiences-jour-16-convoi-camionneurs
2. https://ottawa.citynews.ca/national-news/freedom-politics-control-and-money-the-many-motivations-of-the-freedom-convoy-6048169
3. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-benjamin-dichter-helped-promote-a-cryptocurrency-fundraiser-for-convoy/
4. Also from June https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-freedom-convoy-renegade-jew-benjamin-dichter

Note that news sources tended to call him BJ Dichter earlier this year and all seem to use his full name Benjamin dichter now.CT55555 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Review of Draft - No need to endorse because already endorsed in earlier DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not in scope for DRV. No deletion occurred. It is redirected to Canada convoy protest, with a clear opinion that coverage should be within that article. Now, you want to spin it back out. For that, start a talk page discussion for consensus to do this, at Talk:Canada convoy protest. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not start a new draft. Do not fork to draftspace, at least not without consensus to do so, at Talk:Canada convoy protest. Draftspace is useful to waylay junk new creations made by inept newcomers, but it is not a substitute for article talk page discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know what "fork to draftspace" means, but I think I understand that you think I'm in the wrong venue to ask this question and I should ask on the talk page. I'm trying to do the right thing here, currently assuming I'm in error and you are correct. But I also don't want to be accused of forum shopping, so I'll wait for this to close before taking that action. CT55555 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but discuss, the close(s) were correct. But concur with SmokeyJoe that a Talk page discussion makes more sense. Consensus there, should it emerge, is more than sufficient for an established editor such as CT to create if Dichter is now suitably notable. That said, I don't fault CT for bringing it here given it had been here once. Star Mississippi 02:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator of Belarus (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Change keep to delete per the precedent established at so-called "Azerbaijan dictator" page Madame Necker (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The time to make that argument was during the RFD. Since the Belarus discussion was more recent, and since Wikipedia generally doesn't operate on a basis of precedent but instead on the idea that consensus can change, there's a stronger argument to be made that Azerbaijan dictator should be restored instead. (Not, you understand, that it's going to be me making that argument.) —Cryptic 14:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Madame Necker: thanks for the ping. Can you describe the precedent you are seeing that is established? Jay 💬 15:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  First, there is consensus that any BLP issues/concerns have been addressed per WP:RNEUTRAL, as Ilham Aliyev is described in multiple reliable sources as a dictator.

  However, there is another issue: there are multiple people who could be considered as an "Azerbaijan dictator", as Ovinus argued, which is a strong reason for deletion. Disambiguation was suggested as an alternative, however multiple people explicitly opposed disambiguation at the current title, noting that "Azerbaijan leader" would be a better disambiguation page (there was no opposition to that proposal if someone wishes to create that, though no one explicitly supported it). Legoktm (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Madame Necker (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but you have just copied and pasted Legoktm's close. I am asking for the precedent that you think there is established now. Jay 💬 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the precedent. Madame Necker (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, this conversation isn't happening. With no input, I won't be able to comment on this deletion review. Jay 💬 17:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per User:Cryptic and a clear conseneus to keep in the RFD. This appears to be an attempt by User:Madame Necker to relitigate the RFD because she did not agree with consensus. Frank Anchor 17:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse While the subject might be controversial, the closure of this RFD discussion seems very straight-forward. Is there a reason you didn't participate in it, Madame Necker? As Cryptic states, that was the appropriate place to put forward your argument that this redirect was inappropriate, not here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz My sister had a car accident last week and I had to take care of her, and it was also a busy week at my workplace. Madame Necker (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved, recommended keep) - the close was a correct reading of the discussion. Even if the Azerbaijan discussion created a precedent (which it didn't) that Wikipedia is bound to follow (it isn't) it still would not be relevant because "Azerbaijan dictator" is potentially ambiguous but "Belarus dictator" is not, neither Azerbaijani leader (to my knowledge) described themselves as a dictator but the Belorussian leader has done. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf It was in this video where he was calling himself a 'dictator' in an ironic remark. I don't understand why some users here want to treat someone's self-identified humor as an indication of supposed neutrality or reliability. Madame Necker (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly that is irrelevant here as this is not a forum for relitigating the discussion, but even if we were it doesn't matter, because it is a plausible search term for three other reasons - (1) he used the term to describe himself, so that makes it a plausible search term regardless of how he used it; (2) multiple other people have used it to describe him; (3) the term is discussed in the article. The WP:RNEUTRAL policy explains that non-neutral redirects are permitted in some situations, and the discussion concluded (correctly imo) that this is one such. TLDR: redirects do not have to be reliable or neutral (that is the job of articles), they just have to be plausible search terms that have an appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf The precedent established says it is irrelevant whether it is neutral or not because there could be multiple people -wrongly or accurately- identified as "dictator of Belarus". Madame Necker (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Madame Necker I will not be engaging in any further attempts to relitigate the deletion discussion here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a proper identification of consensus from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Madame Necker's been blocked indef, for those what don't have one of the gadgets that make that more visible. —Cryptic 04:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

There seems to be no consensus to delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not related to the video game article moved to this title after the afd. —Cryptic 22:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This review is about the engineering company in Kansas. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - - 4 votes to Delete including the nominator and 2 votes to Keep seems a rough consensus to delete, and so a valid close. The closer did comment that a source analysis would have been useful, so if the deleted article can be temporarily restored, a source analysis can be done. But the close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can't be restored without disrupting the video game article that was happily living at this title for years before and days after the company article existed. The sources in its last revision were Bizjournals 1, Prnewswire 1 cited 3 times, reprinted press release 1, proseless mention in a table, Forbes.com Contributor, CEO's alumnus profile, passing mention in local news, routine announcement of anniversary, reprinted press release 2, Prnewswire 2 cited 3 times, routine announcement of leadership change, Bizjournals 2, Bizjournals 3, Bizjournals 4, Prweb, another anniversary announcement (this time with some usable information, though it was only used as a redundant fourth citation for an item in a list of acquisitions), routine announcement of name change, Bizjournals 5, Bizjournals 6, announcement of donation by donatee, Bizjournals 7. The content was about what you'd expect from those sources. If it had been a G11 speedy instead of a deletion at afd, I'd probably still be endorsing. —Cryptic 03:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You can disambiguate the title of the deleted page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Numerically the vote is 4-2, which leans closer to delete compared to a no consensus closure and would be a reasonable if the strength of both sides are similar. However, AfD is also not a vote and the delete side is also stronger than the keep side. One of the keep vote is the article creator (who is the DRV nom), who gave vague, unconvincing rationales of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSPOPULAR. While User:Endercase was a a primary contributor to this article, their rationale is IMO decent if weaker than the delete votes and occasionally citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In contrast, the delete side directly rebutted the sources as press releases and routine coverage, therefore I believe the close was an accurate reflection of consensus. VickKiang (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable interpretation of the debate; DRV is not round 2 for when you didn't get your way at AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Proper use of admin discretion, per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, whereby the admin calls the discussion per rough consensus, as opposed to waiting indefinitely for increasingly disinterested participants to confirm a true consensus. It was headed to “delete”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request temp undeletion of the deleted article, to be sure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't want to restore it completely as it would need a history split, so I've restored the last version only at User:Black Kite/Terracon with attribution. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. It could be notable, but this version needed deletion. It was WP:Reference bombed with poor quality sources. Any attempt to recreate should wait six months and follow advice at WP:THREE. A G11 deletion would not have been ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closer gave a reasonable rationale and interpretation of the discussion. Standard note that DRV is not AFD Part 2... --Jayron32 13:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while a 4–2 vote on its own does not imply consensus to delete, the two "keep" votes had little to back them up and the "delete" votes were more based in policy. The sources in the "restored" version are generally primary sources and /or passing mentions. No objection to moving to draft/userspace and recreating a better sourced version down the road. Frank Anchor 14:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Completely reasonable interpretation of consensus that gave greater weight to the policy-based !votes. Also per Stifle.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - neither of the two keep !votes linked or cited any sources meeting NCORP/GNG. Merely saying "well sourced" doesn't make it so, and doesn't make for a persuasive argument; it's exactly the kind of evidence-free !vote that should be discounted by a closer. Levivich (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Funny, I was the AfD nominator but only stumbled across the DRV by chance. I stand by the nomination and believe the close was good. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]