Fathima Thahiliya (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Who previously created this page and other editors who shared it in the deletion discussion did not have the quality pass to retain it, so this page has been removed, and as of today, this page is eligible for a new political position WP:NPOL or (officeholder), WP:GNG. category, which should be moved to draft to be edited and moved to the main page ~~ Spworld2 talk 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD, which is three years old. Did you ask @Daniel: for a draft? It's unclear why we're here when there's no protection limiting a new article from being created. Star Mississippi 11:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi SM, thanks for the ping - this is the first time I'm aware of this DRV. It definitely was not discussed with me prior (noting that this is 'optional', although definitely encouraged by Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions). That being said, what isn't optional is the notification to the XfD closer, which is mandatory and required per step 2 of 'Steps to list a new deletion review'. Unfortunately, this wasn't done by the applicant. Daniel (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original AfD as closed. I'm not sure what the appellant means by, should be moved to draft. Our policies have a long list of cases when an article should generally not be draftified, and some when it can, but no case where it should. If the subject's status has changed such that it now meets our notability guidelines, an article can be created, either in mainspace or in draft, and no one is stopping the appellant from doing so. If the subject's status has not changed since the AfD, draftifying is a waste of time. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the 3-year-old close. We get a number of requests to restore a deleted article to draft, possibly because the requester wants to start with something rather than from scratch. When the original article was found not to meet notability or not to be based on significant coverage, sometimes it really is better to start from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per the request, assuming that this person did just win the election - I have absolutely no idea of how to check. Otherwise endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical American Documents (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus for splitting was clear and was initially given by closing editor here and in previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 12#Template:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, yet refusal to accept this consensus and consistent WP:BLUDGEONING by a certain editor at Template talk:Historical American Documents seems to have overturned and derailed the correct outcome --woodensuperman 06:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that the nominator did not first discuss the closer's decision with the closer, which is listed as a required step before a review. Procedural close? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seemed pointless, as you'd already convinced them to change their close against consensus. Needed to be seen on a wider forum. --woodensuperman 12:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Keep [see my comment below] While the discussion, on a quick glance, seems to be a consensus to split, in reading it carefully - as the closer eventually did before reversing their response - that falls apart quickly. Split arguments included 1) that the navbox is too large (incorrect, there are hundreds if not thousands of navboxes which are broken up into sections, and this one has four easily understood and distinct sections), 2) that the navbox includes duplication (incorrect, each of the four sections lists individuals who drafted a particular document. That some were active in two events is akin to sportspeople playing two seasons of a sport, a sport which formed a 250 year old nation), 3) that other navboxes exist (there are signatory navboxes for each document, which are used in place of adding the central navbox to each signer) and 4) that there is a basis for splitting because of a previous discussion (incorrect, the rational fails when realizing that although this navbox was used as an example in an earlier discussion there were no notification tag placed - not on the navbox, not on its talk page, not on the pages of its topic structure, and not on the talk page of its creator). This collapsed and typically sectioned navbox actually saves space, has an accurate visible title ("Founding documents of the United States") and has been carefully edited and maintained since 2010. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Other than the two "keep" !votes, both converstaions were practically unanimously in favour of a split. --woodensuperman 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You missed some editors, more than two. There was only one conversation involved in this request, the first only used the navbox as an example without notifying anybody that it was being scrutinized. I address the split above (please remember that these decisions are not made by counting heads). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, only yourself and Gwillhickers advocated for "keep". --woodensuperman 12:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy vacate and leave for an admin, Toadette is not ready to be closing XFD's, especially contentious ones where there's clearly a split in opinion as is evident here. I'm not familiar enough with templates or I'd have done it myself. Star Mississippi 12:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Star Mississippi, the discussion may tend to confuse inexperienced closers, as it did initially for Toadette who, when asked, took another read and came to what I view as the correct conclusion. Hopefully an admin will take a good long look at this one, grab some coffee, view the "Founding documents of the United States" navbox, and create a solid mental map of the two "sides" before completing their analysis. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note: @Woodensuperman and Randy Kryn: you have both commented verbosely and continuously at all venues related to this discussion. I would kindly ask that you cease commenting and let uninvolved editors discuss the matter. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy vacate and revert on sight any other BADNACs by this out-of-control editor. Every few days we have to undo another BADNAC from this one editor. Enough already. Owen× ☎ 14:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you accusing me that I am "out of control"? Toadette^Edit! 12:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect, I think any sensible editor, after seeing two of their XfD closes get vacated or overturned as BADNAC within a week, would step back and figure what they've been doing wrong. You, however, went right on to make your third BADNAC. It took a failed RfA to finally convince you to stop. I know your intentions were good, but this level of tone-deafness is incompatible with a crowdsourced, collaborative project. I've been closing AfDs for 18 years, and even now, when editors tell me I'm doing something wrong, I listen, learn, and adjust my actions accordingly. That's the only way things work. Owen× ☎ 13:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate per User:Star Mississippi. I don't see a guideline for Speedy Vacates. Should there be one, or do these editors just mean that it is obvious that the close should be vacated? The original close of Split was a valid close, and did not need to be changed, and changing it did not reflect consensus, so much as an argument from one of the two editors who has been bludgeoning this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps "summarily" would have been a better term than "speedy". I (and, I'm guessing, Star Mississippi) believe this DRV can be closed by any uninvolved admin without waiting the statutory seven days. Owen× ☎ 15:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Procedurally speaking, Deletion-related closes may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity... or by consensus at deletion review, which is somewhat ambiguous about whether one can re-open as an individual admin action while a DRV is progressing, but does not expressly forbid it like some other wordings I've seen. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. I read prongs #2 and #3 of that policy to imply that if there's a rough consensus to summarily vacate, any uninvolved admin may close the DRV and revert the XfD closure, without waiting for the DRV to run its course. Leaving this here for seven days isn't a disaster, but I also see no benefit to doing so if there's a consensus to vacate. Owen× ☎ 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for confusion and delay @Robert McClenon. My proposed course of action was clause A as @Primefac noted. When a close is contentious (as this is), my POV is the action can be speedily undone by an uninvolved admin, as some of this editor's closes (and other bad NACs) have been. Personally believe seven days for the sake of process here only to likely kick it back to TFD seems like process wonkery,but that might be IAR. Star Mississippi 00:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As per User:Primefac, can User:Randy Kryn and User:Woodensuperman stop bludgeoning this discussion? I hope that we don't need to go to WP:ANI to ask for a one-comment-per-24-hours limit on these two editors (but we probably do, unless they will really back off voluntarily). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Primefac, Robert McClenon I was sort of shocked to find that after the closing at decision to keep, woodensuperman went to the Template:Historical American Documents and tagged the template for deletion. IMO, this was nothing more than a vindictive reaction from someone disgruntled over ToadetteEdit 's decision and closure. Because of the developments that occurred here the tag has been (was) reverted, just for the record.
  Additional note: Initially there was indeed a clear consensus to split, and only split, the template, but once it became evident that one editor was not content with just splitting but wanted to further make edits to the would be separate templates, and kept making one point of contention after another, even many of the notified editors didn't bother to pursue a never ending discussion, so it's perfectly debatable as to whether all the involved editors still wish to split. IMO,Toadette.'s decision, all things considered, was certainly called for.
  Latest: As I write, Woodensuperman has just restored the tag for deletion. Could someone please deal with this editor? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gwillhickers: the only tag I see there is the DELREV tag, linking to this review here, as required by policy. Am I missing something? Owen× ☎ 20:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a tag for deletion review. In any case, we can let the tag ride, because it seems this nomination, also, isn't going anywhere. I bowed out of the original and belabored discussion days ago. Opting to outright delete the entire template simply because a nomination to split didn't go as expected, is an overkill request and completely uncalled for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is to notify people of this discussion, not to delete anything. Deletion review is simply where you go to appeal a closed decision. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwillhickers, the tag is to direct editors here, as SportingFlyer said, not to "outright delete the entire template". Your removal of the tag, while well-intentioned, was wrong. In the heat of battle, you seem to be mistaking good-faith actions for combativeness. A deletion review is what we're doing here now: reviewing the closure of that TfD. No one here is suggesting we outright delete the template. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I assumed that the purpose of the discussion was to delete the template. My mistake. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Owen× ☎ 22:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gwillhickers - The template that indicates that another template has been nominated for deletion looks like {{tfd}}. The template that is on the template under discussion is {{delrev}}. Click on them to view the difference. A deletion review is an appeal or reconsideration of a previous deletion discussion. This discussion is a deletion review. I can see that you were reasonably confused. 00:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to Split. There's only one way to close that discussion. It was also poorly closed, so I don't care if the BADNAC is simply undone and re-closed by an administrator. I think we're also close to handing out topic bans. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Does User:SportingFlyer mean the Wikipedia community by "we"? DRV is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk)

  Of course. Just an observation. SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy vacate BADNAC Jclemens (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Does Speedy Vacate mean to open the nomination again for an administrator to closely study the discussion and make a new close?, then that's the one I'd pick. Have struck my keep comment above. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what I mean by my !vote, yes. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to split. I knew this should be split, so I closed it, but anouther editor convinced me of the closure and demanded me of amending to so the template should be kept, and so I've amended the close. Since I've stopped closing discussions following complaints on my talk page and elsewhere, I looks like it should be overturned and not vacated. Toadette^Edit! 11:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As a participant but clearly not an active one relative to the discussion, the clear consensus appears to be split. So overturn to that. I have no strong opinion on having an uninvolved editor (per TFD closing procedure) re-close. "BADNAC" is not pertinent to this case. Izno (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. BADNAC says nothing more than the discussion is contentious and should not have been closed by an inexperienced, non-admin editor. That is, in principle vacating the close is less an indictment of the closer than overturning the decision is. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BADNAC doesn't apply for two reasons: 1, it's an essay. 2, we're talking about TFD. That essay was written for AFD closes, and this isn't one. The actual policy on the point is at WP:NACD and the most interesting point it makes is Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. (emphasis mine), so BADNAC is also out of step with documented policy.

  It's fair to say that a particular close was bad and that didn't document the consensus correctly in this case. It's not fair to say that that's because of "BADNAC". Izno (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Izno, out of curiosity, are you saying that the original close was bad, or that the re-close and self-overturn was bad? Primefac (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The original close was fine (the clear consensus appears to be split). I am making a point about how BADNAC likes to creep into discussions in which it has no place. Izno (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Gotcha, thanks. Primefac (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't really matter if something is an essay if it's applied consistently in practice as BADNAC is - with your first point, you're arguing that BADNAC can never apply to anything because it's an essay. That's completely inconsistent with how we treat BADNAC. SportingFlyer T·C 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then consider whether you should be treating BADNAC that way. Izno (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We absolutely should, it works very well in practice. Why are you implying otherwise? SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It discriminates solely on whether a user is an admin. Izno (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is exactly why it is needed. SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, if it is needed it is because we have inexperienced users, not because we have users who are not admins. Consider that you (in the specific) are disenfranchising yourself from closing divided discussions with your current line of argument, despite what would appear to me to be sufficient experience to do so, and it's solely because of a particularly arbitrary divider.

  Secondly, as pointed out above, the essay diverges meaningfully from what our current guideline text is. BADNAC the shortcut bans such closes, our guideline says "you shouldn't". If someone would like to change the guideline text, there is a talk page for that and an RFC process I'm sure would be disputed. BADNAC the shortcut should instead reflect the relevant guideline, but it doesn't (and the only reason I can assume it does not is because of some POV pushing or another about who should be able to close discussions, but I'm sure someone can AGF to find another reason).

  Thirdly, it is trivial to say "this close was bad" without pointing to whether the closer was of some arbitrary experience level—"comment on content, not contributor". If anything, such an essay or the guideline section of interest should be pulled out only to ask users to stop when they have made multiple bad closes. It's appropriate on a user talk page or at AN, not in a discussion about potentially overturning a specific close.

  Anyway, we are clearly into arguing the generalities in a discussion that does not hinge on those generalities. I will move on. Izno (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to split. I was going to close the discussion a day or two before Toadette got to it but got sidetracked; their original close matches what I was reading from the discussion. I don't really see a point in reopening just for myself (or I suppose, another admin now) to close in the same way. Primefac (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion discussion was taken without any proper discussion based on policy happening. The article had enough reliable sources with significant coverage over a wide period of time. I provided a wide list of sources. Two participants simply did not see anything and made vague comments, one of them was a brand new account and the other's only objection was that it was edited by sockpuppet. One more participant later came and after some discussion he accepted that the coverage was fine but he did not consider the topic notable because the topic didn't meet WP:NPOL ignoring WP:BASIC and also WP:GNG itself which the coverage meets. There was no other participation. Therefore it must have been no consensus or keep, not delete.

P.S, there was one more participant who concurred but didn't give a (vote) and wanted to see some more sources over a wider period of time which I showed but she didn't come back to it. It should be counted too. MrMkG (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I relisted per @Liz's request at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saira_Shah_Halim_(2nd_nomination) but haven't had time to look at new input since then as I've been offline. Regardless of how this DRV closes and despite questions about the legitimacy of Shuvomoyghosh reactivation, I think @Nyttend's A7 probably shouldn't have happened given long history of this article. My .02 though, not policy.Star Mississippi 02:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the original AfD, since everyone except the DRV nominator supported deletion so it couldn't have been closed any other way. Overturn the A7 since I think being a political candidate is a CCS even if it isn't evidence of notability, but re-delete that as a G4. And salt * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the original AFD as Delete. As per Pppery, Overturn the A7. I haven't seen the reposted article, but having seen the history, I concur with salting. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• For the benefit of non-admins, the A7'd version stated in its entirety "Saira Shah Halim is the CPI(M) candidate of South Kolkata Lok Sabha." (No sources.) Arguably it's more of a G4 than an A7. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Extraordinary Writ I am confused. Did someone create the article again with that single sentence after the article was deleted in AfD recently and is that what all the admins are seeing?

  I would request them to see the article that was created by me and deleted in the 2nd AfD nomination and see the conversations in the 2nd AfD nomination. It was a proper article, multiple paragraphs long divided into multiple sections with multiple sources.

  This DRV is about that. It shouldn't be deleted just because some sockpuppet or whatever is active around it too. MrMkG (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's what happened. I think everyone here is aware that you're talking about the second AfD (which people are calling "the original AfD"); they just have comments on the deletion of the single-sentence version too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats the only thing they really have comments on and it's an absolutely minor frivolous thing about "A7" or "G4" of a later single sentence nonsense recreation, not the actual article or AfD.

  7 of the 8 people who have said something here are like that. MrMkG (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The AFD-deleted article was thousands of bytes, with multiple sections and eight references. The speedy-deleted article, as you see from Extraordinary Writ's comment, was one sentence. It's obviously not a repost, and obviously not a G4 candidate. Anyone can be a candidate for political office; it's not at all a claim of importance merely to be a candidate. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have A1'd it after my third failed attempt at finding an article at some subphrase of South Kolkata Lok Sabha, if I somehow didn't notice the previous version. I also disagree on G4 - the new substub was a proper subset of the version deleted at AFD. It's immaterial, anyway. No reasonable person is going to leave that in mainspace after we deleted the full article that was here. —Cryptic 03:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably Kolkata Dakshin Lok Sabha constituency (aka Calcutta South (Lok Sabha constituency)). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's not about the original AfD, that was in 2016. Its about the second AfD. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim (2nd nomination)) MrMkG (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the conversation on User talk:OwenX#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim (2nd nomination) too. Over there User:Amakuru is also making the point, I am making. MrMkG (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The AfD was poorly argued. Even though numerical consensus was against the appellant, statements like Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. are not policy based, and demonstrate a bias against failed political candidates, as if that somehow eliminated their GNG compliance. Of course, that GNG compliance itself is challenged by the general unreliability of Indian news sources overall. Neither G4 nor A7 applied to the recreation. In short? This is a big mess, and I'm not sure deletion is a better outcome than no consensus, given the amount of uncertainty and poor policy argumentation in play. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indian news sources are not overall unreliable. How can we create any article if that is so? There are many bad sources but I did use the best sources. Two of them (Indian Express, The Wire) are green marked on the page WP:RSPS and none of the others are yellow or red marked. MrMkG (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - G4 should be clarified that it applies when the page in question is a subset of the deleted page, and, in the meantime, should be interpreted as applying when the page in question is a subset of the deleted page. The recreation after the AFD was a stupid subset of the deleted page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the Delete original decision. I cannot find anything out of order in it. I suggest we decapitate that hydra and salt it. -The Gnome (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Gnome, can you tell me what do you mean by "original decision"? Is it the first AfD from 2016? If you want help finding out whats out of order, it is that WP:CONSENSUS needs one to make policy based arguments which was not made in the 2024 AfD in question.

  In the AfD, one claimed "extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help" which makes no sense policy wise. The other two were vague handwave comments, one (a 33 edit old account) said that was no in-depth coverage but there was (examples in the AfD and Amakuru mentions it too) and the other completely ignored GNG. JoelleJay (only comment) and Oaktree b even accepted that there was significant coverage.

  The non policy complaince problem of the deletes in the AfD have been highlighted by 3 others by now; Amarkaru (here), Liz (here) and Jclemens (above). MrMkG (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also @Jclemens, can you please follow up and give a final opinion of overturn or endorse instead of leaving it only as a comment? MrMkG (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed by a non-admin with a merge/redirect decision even though there was no outright or majority consensus to redirect/merge the article. There was a tie vote of keep and redirect/merge with eight each. A tie vote here would mean there is no consensus to remove the article. The article not only met notability requirements but also had enough reliable sources on an election that happened making all the information necessary to have its own article.

All those that voted to redirect/merge mainly opposed because they felt since there was only one candidate, that in itself didn't make it less notable and they provided no evidence to their arguments other than what they felt and said all the sources were routine coverage. Yet, the so-called routine coverage were from reliable sources. The nominator of the Afd even tried to pass off an unreliable source from a right-wing publication as evidence of "in-depth coverage". Routine coverage does not apply to those sources. Elections are not routine coverage even if there is only one candidate on the ballot. And none of these had passing mentions. Yet an election still occurred where votes were cast for the incumbent and were not immediately awarded to the sole candidate by his political party which unlike in previous years where the incumbent president is running for reelection, the primaries wouldn't be held and all the delegates would be awarded to them. The vote this year unlike in Delaware and Florida, was not canceled in Alaska despite there being one candidate.

If this article has to be redirected because there is only one candidate, then all the Republican primary articles for primaries happening in May and June will have to be redirected to the main 2024 presidential election articles for each state. As would contests that already happened such as the 2024 Wyoming Republican presidential caucuses, 2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses, and Democratic contests for Indiana, Nebraska, Montana, and the U.S. Virgin Islands that are happening in May and June. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate and enjoin this editor from closing any more AfDs until they've shown they understand WP:BADNAC. This is the second improper closing we've seen from this editor in three days. Not exactly the best way to win the community's trust for their RfA. Owen× ☎ 23:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (involved) Leaning relist. I totally disagree with WikiCleanerMan's rationale, I nominated the article for deletion. I think this request for a deleion review stems mostly from WP:ILIKEIT. However, I agree that there is not a clear consensus in the discussion and a relist will hopefully allow more voices to be heard. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I provided sources to improve the article, and added information to add depth to the article. If I did, then it's not an I like it scenario. It's called improving the article which you hadn't done at all. You redirected it at first, then moved to Afd without starting a discussion on the talk page. You're now casting aspersions on an another editor who provided evidence to his argument. You didn't provide evidence of what made the article not notable and you were cherrypicking various guidlines without making a correct arguments. It is your I didn't like it because you felt some sources weren't up to your standard. Your personal view on sources is not how you should edit. It would appear you still stand by providing an unreliable far-right article to support your argument. A relist is not necessary as it has reached the one week point since the the last relist and it should be closed as no consensus. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Collective (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Pinging @BoraVoro: Mach61 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. WP:BADNAC clearly states: A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: [...] The outcome is a close call [...] or likely to be controversial. Almost any No-consensus closure is bound to be a BADNAC. Whether the proposed redirect is a suitable ATD is something the re-closing admin should determine. Owen× ☎ 22:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate per above.—Alalch E. 23:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – As an editor who was citicized for closing AfDs, it should have been redirected rather than being closed as a no consensus. I do not see this as a "close call" and I do not understand what it is, but I do know that the closure was unjustified. It is better to wait for the closer to be online to question them about the reason for their closure. Toadette^Edit! 10:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is better to wait for the closer to be online to question them about the reason for their closure" - question, did you check to see the timeline here before making this statement? The applicant enquired at the closer's talk page at 02:16, 27 April 2024, then waited nearly 48 hours before initiating the DRV at 22:32, 28 April 2024. No issue with Shadow311 not being available (we are all NA for periods at times), but to suggest that Mach61 should have waited longer here before coming to DRV or done something different, as your comment points to, is not accurate or fair in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to (soft) redirect. This is a WP:BADNAC, as is just about any no consensus closure or any closure on a relisted discussion, as it is obviously a “close call.” In this particular discussion there is the nom and one redirect !vote based in policy against two keep !votes. One is a well-meaning COI account and the other is a baseless claim of notability. As there is not a quorum, this must be a soft redirect which can be spun back at any time for any good-faith reason without the prospect of re-redirecting without further discussion. I consider vacating for an admin to re-close an acceptable option as well per OwenX though that is my second preference. Frank Anchor 12:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw the request to revert the close today, sorry. It appears I can't revert the close anymore since the deletion review is happening. Shadow311 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can still reverse your close. Per DRV rules, Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, [...]. Just revert the AFD close, re-add it to the AFD log, and close this DRV with language along the lines of "speedy overturn with consent of AFD closer." (or have an admin do so on your behalf). Frank Anchor 13:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert the BADNAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate the WP:BADNAC but endorse outcome per WP:NOQUORUM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @King of Hearts This should allow for speedy nomination, right? Mach61 19:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, per WP:NPASR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate per WP:BADNAC. No other comment on how this should be closed, but considering this leaned not-keep it should be closed by someone who can implement the full range of closes. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate - I would Endorse the close if it were closed by an admin, as a valid closure, but I concur with the previous statements that this should have been left for an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How "sticky" is a COI? Article creator declares a COI on COPIM, COPIM is directly related to this article... but is that sufficient connection to assume that the original article creator has a COI with respect to this article? It seems plausible, but not incontrovertible, so where do we draw a line? Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn to redirect. I mulled over this for a while, but I find Mach's source analysis convincing, and the keep arguments unconvincing. And, of course, the redirect's target can always be expanded with information. Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the next Australian federal election (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer erred by draftifying an article about an upcoming event which already contains content about the event and which does not violate WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON, and selected an arbitrary time for the article to be moved back into mainspace. Draft space is not a place for currently notable articles, and I believe the keep !votes were disregarded. Asking for this to be overturned to no consensus or keep so the article can be moved back from draftspace. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have absolutely no idea how I screwed the template up this badly and every attempt I make to fix it makes it worse. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge to next Australian federal election as a more sensible outcome all round. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While Merge may have been a reasonable proposal, it was clearly not supported by a consensus of discussion participants. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus (and restore full article) as there were solid arguments made for keep, draftify, and merge. I strongly disagree with J2m5's comment that a no-consensus close should lead to re-draftifying. The April version of the article was substantially different than the version that was draftified in January, thus the draftify result on the January AFD has no bearing on the recent AFD. A merge discussion may be appropriate and can take place on the article talk page. Frank Anchor 12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus (involved) - A neutral closer would find reasonable arguments on both sides (Draft and Keep), relatively similar popularity between the two sides, the contributions to the article during the discussion, and the trend towards Keep against Draft strengthening as the discussion progressed. The closer in this instance did not assess or attempt to assess these elements, and did not provide a reason to find there was a consensus for Draft despite all this; the closure comment looked more like a vote for one side than an assessment of the discussion. The article should therefore be restored, without prejudice to any further deletion or merger discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. Editors did not agree on whether WP:CRYSTAL applies. As the nominator notes, the closer appears to have selected an ad hoc criterion for the article to be moved back into mainspace, an invented criterion of inclusion that is not supported by policy and is contradicted by the nature of drafting being optional. The closer's idea about when the draft should be moved back is the closer's editorial idea, but other editors might have different ideas about when to move back. AfD closer can't prevent good-faith bold mainspacing other than through salting, and salting would have been clearly inappropriate. —Alalch E. 08:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved) Being notable does not mean ready for mainspace which a number of editors made a convincing argument for. That the article continues to have predominantly blank spaces where the future candidates will be speaks volumes. If it is the case that consensus here finds overturn to no consensus then it should still be moved to draft because of the article creator moving it back to mainspace merely three months after the first deletion discussion when there was no substantive difference to the article. I could for all intents and purposes probably have slapped it with a CSD G4 rather than nominating it for the second deletion discussion and my speedy would have been in all likelyhood been accepted. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article is substantially different than the one discussed in January. Therefore a no consensus close MUST result in the article being restored (without prejudice to renomination), and not default to an outdated discussion involving five participants. Likewise, G4 would not have applied for the same reasons.Frank Anchor 11:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of taking it out of draft into mainspace, merely three months after the first AfD, the only substantial difference (refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ACandidates_of_the_next_Australian_federal_election&diff=1217634391&oldid=1199169820 for differences between being put into draft as consequence of the first AfD and being put back into mainspace) was the additional of a number of empty tables to be filled at a later date when candidates appeared. Notably those tables are almost completely empty. TarnishedPath^talk 12:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse good close. Wikipedia-notability does not guarantee the topic a page in mainspace, WP:Consensus May merge a notable topic. Merging may be done from draftspace. The draftified page is very drafty looking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no consensus behind the WP:CRYSTAL rationale and if there's no consensus that there's a barrier to mainspace retention for policy-compliance reasons, there's no objective barrier to overcome to know when to mainspace, and, knowing this, the closer improvised a criterion upon which to allow returning to mainspace, but there's no force behind the improvised criterion, just creating tension, and that tension needs to be resolved by letting this harmless page harmlessly sit in mainspace where it will slowly be improved like any other article. —Alalch E. 23:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have an implied argument that it being in draft will result in it not being improved. That argument is simply not born out by experience. As it stands now we have a article which claims to be about the candidates for the next Australian federal election which has absolutely no idea who the vast majority of those candidates are. That is evidenced by the vast amount of empty space found in the tables contained in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, promote to mainspace as new information has been added since the AFD nomination This is a fair reading of the discussion, and I cannot find obvious error in the top line close. As SmokeyJoe says above, passing WP:N does not necessarily mean a stand-alone page is warranted. That said, looking at the draft page, there does seem to be multiple nominees already determined, so I believe that whatever the result here, this page will be in the mainspace soon. --Enos733 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The majority of the edits since the last move the draft have been small. The only substantial edit was one I preformed adding in archived links to existing references which is not what I would call a change to content. TarnishedPath^talk 04:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They are referring to changes made since the article was nominated for deletion, not since the article was moved to draft. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the scope of the problem - because there are multiple reliably sourced nominees, the topic is no longer TOOSOON and is ready to be moved into mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 04:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved) there is a premise here that this information is needed now. But looking at Next Australian federal election the election is very unlikely to be called before 3rd of August. Additionally, the redistribution will not be finalised to Q3 or Q4 of this year. So Sept/Oct is a more reasonable time to review draft status. The article is trying to publish too much. Looking at this alternate draft User:J2m5/draft6 we see only 34 potential candidates so far for 150 seats. But the tabular format of this article reserves space for approx 600 to 700 potential candidates, many who will never actually appear. Now senate potnetial candidates have been added, but these are the last to be pre-selected as they only represent a state and not a single electorate. Hence the unbalanced look of largely empty tables. It also has too much conjecture. The seat of North Sydney may well be abolished, so better to wait for the redistrubtion than list speculative pre-selected candidates. The issue of party pre-selection ballots were deemed as inappropriate and often unsourced in an earlier article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Liberal Party of Australia preselections, but they have appeared again in this article, contrary to an AfD decision. A entry is made for an attempt by 2 candidates to share a seat in Higgins in Victoria. But this is an impossibility as only a single name can appear on the candidate nomination form. This non-encylopedic approach should be cleared up before this article can be considered for mainspace. Teraplane (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But the tabular format of this article reserves space for approx 600 to 700 potential candidates, many who will never actually appear. This is completely untrue, the tables contain spaces for parties which contest all the seats. Regardless, this discussion isn't to determine whether the article should be deleted, but whether the closure of the deletion discussion was adequately representative of the discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid close. The question at DRV is whether the close was a valid close, not whether another close would have been valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Naji (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe my rationale for delete carried more weight than those of the other two editors who voted to keep. I pinged Randykitty to know the rationale for 'No consensus' where they said there were policy-based arguments for and against deletion., but I do not see any policy based keep votes on the AfD apart from the IP's final comment. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the keep votes are weakly justified, the delete vote stands alone, there's plainly no consensus for any kind of action. BrigadierG (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think standing alone matters here, rather what's important is the deletion rationale, as AfDs are not based on votes. Please see bullet points #6, #7 and #12 on WP:DISCUSSAFD. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Despite the AFD being listed for a month, there is not a WP:QUORUM to delete the article, no matter how weak the "keep" votes are. While a soft delete could be possible without a quorum, the article would need to be fully restored upon any good-faith request (e.g. the "keep" votes in the AFD). Therefore, no consensus is clearly the correct result. Frank Anchor 20:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This was not the reason the closing admin gave on their talk page. Even if the closer's rationale was based on WP:QUORUM, I believe the three other common outcomes listed on WP:NOQUORUM apart from relisting would have been more suitable here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The end result is the most important aspect. The end result was correct. Frank Anchor 22:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There is simply no consensus to delete that article. I've been in frustratingly similar situations before considering I don't necessarily see clear good sources. No reason you can't wait six months and try again. SportingFlyer T·C 22:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Even if there were no Keep views at all, the most the appellant could hope for is a soft delete, to be instantly restored at the first good-faith request, as Frank Anchor explained. With any opposition at all to deletion, no matter how weak, we won't delete based on a solitary !vote. Jeraxmoira, you've been here long enough to know that. Treat this a contested PROD, and move on. Owen× ☎ 22:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was no consensus to be found from the limited participation. Just because you disagree with their opinion doesn't mean they weren't policy based. FWIW, an editorial discussion might find an ATD such as Groen_(political_party)#Party_chairperson if that's of interest. Honestly I think minor European political parties are of relatively little interest here. Star Mississippi 01:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Addressing the comments above, I find it interesting how everyone interprets the policies to suit the AFD outcome. What's the point of waiting 6 months when the IP arguments were based on WP:IAR, automatic notability and The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months. Regarding everyone's argument about the AFD receiving no quorum, the common outcomes at WP:NOQUORUM are:

• closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR)
• closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal
• soft deleting the article.

I believe NPASR would have been more suitable here considering the format of AFD clearly mentions "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus.". PamD's keep did not have WP:THREE, so I feel this AFD was gamed into no consensus by the IP editor. FWIW, I was okay with ATD-I and ATD-R as mentioned in my AFD comment.

I rest my case at this point as I can see that many of the arguments are solely based on WP:QUORUM, but the surprise is how none of you wanted to argue the common outcomes that is also listed on WP:QUORUM. Cheers Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of your comment seems to show concern that @Randykitty didn't follow the letter of NOQUORUM as you read it, but then you cite THREE which isn't even a guideline but an editor's opinion. It really isn't possible to have it both ways when AfDs will almost always come down to some subjectivity. You believe NPASR would be suitable, but that's a N/C which you're contesting here. I ask with no sarcasm, you realize the ability to renominate isn't contingent on the closer typing exactly that acronym, right? You still retain that right because you can cite limited participation. Star Mississippi 11:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty did not close the AfD citing WP:QUORUM. Only the editors here argued that there was no quorum to achieve consensus, for which I highlighted the common outcomes. And no, I did not know that we can cite limited participation and work around what's on WP:2MONTHS. If that is the case, then this DRV can be closed as withdrawn. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There's no policy grounds on which to simply discount the keeps. Weak-ish argument =/= discountable !vote.—Alalch E. 13:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The appellant is asking to overturn to Delete, but, if the closer had said Delete, we would be overturning that to No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep Nom admits there are two RS in the discussion, asks for a third: Thank you, that makes two sources. If you can share one more, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. That's 3-0 keep, even if the nom isn't inclined to admit that 'multiple' includes the number two. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Touché! I'm still happy with no consensus, but yours is indeed an apt response to this type of vexatious relitigation. Owen× ☎ 17:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OwenX: Would you mind explaining how this is a type of vexatious relitigation? If not, please retract your statement. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Everyone in this DRV has already explained to you, in every possible way, how there was nothing close to a consensus to delete in the AfD. And yet, you persist in your demand, because you feel the language used by the closing admin did not adequately validate your nomination, nor properly discard the Keep views. Once again: even without the Keep !votes altogether, there was still no consensus to delete, except as a soft delete, which is clearly contested. And since you admit to the existence of two sources providing significant coverage, even your solitary delete !vote loses its basis. The only respectable thing for you to do at this point is to promptly and unconditionally withdraw your appeal, and request a speedy close to this pointless waste of time. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not persist in my demand. My final argument was made here and I only replied to Star Mississippi after that. I never made any arguments to the other endorsers who voted after my final comment, so if you still feel it was a type of vexatious relitigation, then I cant help it. And I did not realize my above withdraw statement was a conditional one until you highlighted it now. This DRV can be speedy closed as withdrawn unconditionally by any editor/admin. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Motortcycle Manufacturing Company (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Plausible typo ("R" and "T" are next to one another on a QWERTY keyboard) which was speedy deleted without proper discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion as to the speedies (unclear which is being contested), but wait for the RM at Talk:Indian_Motocycle_Manufacturing_Company to close and then put in the necessary redirects rather than all that have been done in the interim which will then need cleanup. Star Mississippi 18:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - "Indian Motortcycle Manufacturing Company" was speedy deleted, and that is the term being contested. Any resulting double redirects will likely be fixed by a bot. Also, your signature is on a different line than your response. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, to be clear, @Zzuuzz: moved it without a redirect-essentially a deletion and @Deb: speedied it. I wasn't sure which of the two actions you were contesting. Star Mississippi 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In practice, very few typos can escape an R3, as opposed to misspellings and misnomers - typically only common typos are kept. Even more so when it's part of a longer title - while "motortcycle" gets a surprising number of ghits, the phrase "Indian Motortcycle Manufacturing Company" appears nowhere on the Internet except Wikipedia and its mirrors. Gripping hand, I'd be more sympathetic to this if motortcycle had ever been created. A typo does not become plausible just because you made it once. —Cryptic 02:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse as per Cryptic. If a typo only happened once, that means that it was possible, but not that it was plausible. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well... It's a CSD contested by an editor in good standing, so I guess the by-the-book answer would be send it to RfD, but it sounds like there's a better/alternative way forward per Star Mississippi. I agree that possible and plausible are a pretty far stretch here, but that's for RfD, rather than a CSD or DRV. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I feel like people are overlooking how easy it is to accidentally create a redirect without really intending to, as it's obvious the creator of this redirect did. This particular typo can only happen when someone presses two keys simultaneously, not when someone accidentally presses the wrong key. How many people are likely to do that? Deb (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that the typo version was the one I deleted (or suppressed-redirect) at this title. The recreation of the redirect was a deliberate reconstruction of that typo (likely because it was linked from ANI). Incidentally I speedy-deleted Indian Mototcycle Manufacturing Company (with the 't' but without the 'r') in the same session as I did this redirect-suppress, which I see no one is complaining about. My own view is that the deletion was legitimate, and it should be endorsed without prejudice to recreation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - It is not as rare as you might think. In any event, per procedure, this likely does need to go through WP:RFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Cryptic. Also, If this is a plausible typo, then the addition of any other letter at any point in the title could be considered an acceptable redirect. Frank Anchor 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, not plausible redirect. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Frank. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum economics (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was proposed for deletion, I contested it but a decision was made, without consensus or further discussion, to merge with another article Econophysics. As explained on the Econophysics talk page, this is not an appropriate merger. I therefore ask that the decision be postponed until there has been a suitable discussion period. Sjm3 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The appellant is incorrect in all their claims. There was a full week of discussion, as required, and there was clear consensus. All agreed to the merge, except the appellant, who is also the author of the page, and whose 113 edits on en-wiki are almost all related to that article. A classic case of WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE to improve an encyclopedia, but likely to promote their own research. Owen× ☎ 13:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The claims I am making are that (a) there was no further discussion, and (b) this is not an appropriate merger. For (a) the editor says there was a full week of discussion, but there was no reply to my comment. This therefore seems a narrow definition of discussion, and in particular there was no further discussion of my comment. Further to the remark about my editing history, a decision about maintaining a page should surely be based on the content of the article. Note also that the article cites work by some 20 researchers. For (b), this is not an appropriate merger because quantum economics is not considered to be a branch of econophysics. The merge decision appears to be based on a single paper (and the only one published in the last five years) which mentions "quantum econophysics" in the title (Arioli and Valente, 2021). That 2021 paper in turn seems to have got the name "quantum econophysics" either from an unpublished paper from 2007 (Guevara, 2007) or a chapter in a 2014 book (Schinckus, 2014). More recent works do not appear to use this phrase. Quantum economics is distinct from econophysics because it does not focus exclusively on things like financial statistics and time series, but also considers broader effects from quantum social science such as quantum cognition and quantum game theory. Sjm3 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The discussion was open for the requisite period of time and the closure as merge is in line with the consensus. where one of the keep !votes agreed that a merge was also okay. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see my reply to the previous comment. The consensus excluded the author and there was no attempt to discuss with the author. I find it hard to understand how it is okay to merge one article with another when the author is giving specific reasons why the merge of the two subjects is inappropriate. Sjm3 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to be under the impression that the author of an article gets a veto on anything done with that article. I'm sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. There is no WP:OWNERship of pages here. Your opinion about that article carries as much weight as the opinion of anyone else about it. Or possibly less, seeing as you are woefully unaware of our policies and guidelines, and seem to be here solely to promote the subject matter of that article. Owen× ☎ 15:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read my reply again. I am not claiming that authors should get a veto. I am saying it is inappropriate to merge an article with another, without further discussion, when the author is giving valid reasons why the fields are not the same. For the statements that I am "solely here to promote the subject" and not "to improve an encyclopedia", and so on, please note that the article is written in good faith, and also that Wikipedia benefits from the input of both specialists and generalists. Sjm3 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the above, with no prejudice against it being split out again when sufficient reliable sources have been identified such that it will no longer fit (either based on size or topic attributes) with the recently-targeted article. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I have given reasons why the field is distinct from econophysics, here and on the page itself. What I had expected from the discussion process was that I would be told why the article was being deleted, and would be given a chance to address these concerns by answering comments and improving the manuscript. Instead a decision was simply made to merge with a page suggested by one of the editors. Rather than immediately merge the article with something inappropriate, I would therefore request the editors tell me what the article needs in order to work as a stand-alone article, and give me a reasonable opportunity to make those changes and additions. Further to "sufficient reliable sources" note that I have now added several, including some from a new journal Quantum Economics and Finance from Sage Publications. Sjm3 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid closure and as the correct result:
  • • Either Merge or Relist would have been valid conclusions by the closer.
    • The appellant says that the decision to Merge was made without consensus or further discussion. There was consensus. The reason that there was no further discussion is that the originator responded on day 6 out of the usual 7 days for discussion. The closer was not required to Relist because the originator only edits sporadically.
    • I'm a chemist, not an econophysicist, so I read the original article and the article that it was merged into. I concur with User:XOR'easter (who is a physicist) that quantum economics and econophysics are a variety of different related topics, and that there is no need for a separate article for each of them. So I would have !voted Merge if I had taken part in the AFD.
    • In other words, it is a valid merge. Econophysics is very much a mixed bag, and quantum economics is another element to go in the mixed bag.
    • DRV is not AFD Round 2, but the appellant is using DRV as AFD Round 2, and so is getting the further discussion that they requested (even if this is a misuse of DRV). So we have reason to know what a Relist would have done, which is to support the Merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as participant. A consensus was arrived at in the ordinary way and correctly evaluated. We're done here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse was very clearly a merge result here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse . Content headed for merger from an AfD can be rejected at the target article as an editorial decision. AfD can't decree insertion of unwanted content into an article if the consensus of editors on that article's talk page is to reject the addition. Therefore, this should be resolved editorially, and a deletion review is not needed. The consensus was to merge, but the practical outcome could be simple redirection. It is worth noting that this is one of the problems with using AfD to merge and with AFD merge outcomes. It's not a problem with the real and true merger process because that process considers the target article and is normally conducted on the target article's talk page (for this reason), while "merge AfDs" almost never seriously consider the target articles, as there is too strong of a focus on deletion/retention of the nominated article and it's difficult for participants to adopt the correct perspective that merging is keeping content.—Alalch E. 01:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse consensus was clear to merge. However, relisting would have also been acceptable due to reasonable keep votes being present and relatively low attendance. What specific content is to be merged can be discussed at the target’s talk page. Frank Anchor 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion has already happened; DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach Township Beach Patrol (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This beach has been established as one of the oldest and largest in America per the Philadelphia Inquirer. (https://www.inquirer.com/philly/living/travel/shoreguide/20150711_Here_to_save_the_day.html) 73.150.197.202 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The only P&G-based views on that AfD other than Merge were Delete. The merged article was about the beach patrol, so I'm not even sure how the appellant's comment about the beach pertains to this. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; Deletion review isn't a re-do of a deletion discussion. No assertion has been made that the deletion was improperly closed. See WP:DRVPURPOSE. I've looked at the link (which is now a redirect) at archive.org [1]. There is a single sentence mention in the article. This is well below WP:SIGCOV. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sensing that this editor is new to the process and might benefit from mentoring or coaching, for example about draftification and AfC, even if there's nothing out of process with this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse. The nominator isn't saying anything of relevance in a deletion review and there's nothing to discuss. Help can be offered to the editor on their talk page, at the Teahouse etc.—Alalch E. 02:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The appellant has said nothing about any defect in the close and not even anything about notability of the beach patrol. The statement about the beach is not about the beach patrol. Registering an account should precede any mentoring or coaching of the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correctly closed, and the source presented in the DRV doesn't really do anything to suggest a mistaken outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 03:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer, don't see how else I was meant to close that. The new information presented in my opinion does nothing to change the current status quo. Daniel (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Quite a bit of sockpuppetry, both at this now-redirect and at its target. Not that that should affect the outcome here, but just sayin'. —Cryptic 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Century Financial LLC (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was speedily deleted. This a a new articles, new content, new sources. Pls could you restore Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as a page previously deleted via an AfD. I cannot view the original or recreated article, or if as the proposer asserts, it had "new content, new sources". I trust that JBW would have done reasonable due diligence on comparing with the AfD version before proceeding with the CSD. It seems the title of the page was changed too, maybe to try and get it accepted through the backdoor, but I note from the history of the AfD article that it has already been recreated several times without merit. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If it's a new article with new content, then use the AFC process to have it evaluated on its own merits. Sneaking around create protection ("salting") is not behavior consistent with good faith. While it may be a mistake from ignorance, anyone who is going to write a policy-compliant article on a corporation should know better. Jclemens (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I deleted the article. Unfortunately at present I am short of time, but in a few hours I may possibly come back and say a few more things. For the present, though, I'll say this. This article has been created numerous times and deleted. It has been the subject of at least two deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial Consultancy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial, each of which produced a "delete" outcome. All of the numerous creations of the article have been substantially similar, and the concerns raised in the two deletion discussions substantially apply to all of them. There are different views among editors as to how near to identical a new version of a page has to be to a deleted version to qualify for a G4 deletion, but usually if a deletion of mine is questioned, I give a generous interpretation, and undelete the article if I think there is any reasonable case for saying it's different, with the possibility of another AfD if appropriate. However, there has to be a limit to this. G4 is intended to prevent wasting editors' time by repeating at a new AfD the same arguments as have already been discussed. That purpose is not achieved if an editor repeatedly creates substantially similar articles, but makes some changes each time so they can say "It's a different article, so it can't be deleted without everybody spending more time discussing it again, and going through the same arguments yet again." This is unambiguously one of a string of attempts, at least some of them by one person, to establish an article which has repeatedly been discussed and found to be unsuitable. There has to be a time to say "enough is enough; we are not going to keep discussing essentially the same article endlessly." The history of the article strongly suggests paid editing; if so the owners of the business would be well advised to put their money into advertising it on some other platform. JBW (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not allow recreation and salt [blacklist 09:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)] also this name. This is salted at two other names after two AfDs and tendentious recreations. Require submission of a draft suitable for a review at DRV for recreation. There is no need to endorse or overturn the G4 deletion, that's not the important aspect here.—Alalch E. 10:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the third title this user has created this content at, after the previous ones were deleted and salted. It wasn't a "new article with new content"; the two-bullet-point Timeline section was removed, two sentences were added, and a handful of new references with exactly the same problems as the previous ones were piled on to anodyne statements already cited to four or five press releases. We shouldn't be looking at restoring this for yet another one-sided afd; we should be looking at blacklisting the title and blocking the author. —Cryptic 10:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and keep salted, along with any other title-gaming variants. The main difference between this version and the one deleted in the last AfD is that this one includes, It was voted as one of the best places to work in the GCC, while the older one had, It was voted as one of the best workplaces for women to work in the GCC. The cited source clearly says "for women". I think it is warranted to run a CU on the editors involved; the whole thing smells of WP:PAID. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I have just discovered that the same editor previously took this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 19, where deletion was endorsed. I think this reinforces still further the view that enough is enough, and Francisjk2020 needs to accept that consensus is against them, and drop their persistent and disruptive attempts to get round that consensus. JBW (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're being unrealistic here. Francisjk2020 likely gets paid to keep the page in place, and will not stop until they and their socks get banned. Our best course of action is to waste as little time as possible on these disruptions. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @OwenX: I can only assume that your comment "I think you're being unrealistic here" means that you took my comment "needs to accept..." as implying that I thought that was likely to happen. My "needs to" was "should" rather than "is likely to". JBW (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it. Owen× ☎ 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and close as disruption. Since it's clear SALT doesn't work, time to look at a block since Francis doesn't respect that their opinion doesn't overrule consensus. Star Mississippi 13:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and salt clearly tendentious editing. SportingFlyer T·C 06:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This is an obvious case of the gaming of names. If the appellant really thinks that the subject satisfies corporate notability, they are more likely to get an article approved sometime by submitting a draft than by trying to change the title. The company is more likely to get the Internet coverage it wants by paying to improve its own web site, which is under its control, than by clumsy efforts to manipulate Wikipedia. Consider Title Blacklist. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but do not salt or place it in the title blacklist. There is no way for this to have its own article. The reason I am opposing salting or blacklisting is because it is really harmful. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 14:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Harmful to whom? How? I don't think a title blacklisting is necessary because someone should just block Francisjk2020 as WP:NOTHERE instead, but it wouldn't cause any harm. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The DRV applicant failed to notify me (as the closer of the XfD discussion), as required by step 2 of the DRV instructions. Notwithstanding this, for me this is a pretty clear endorse deletion and salting as closer - and the salting should absolutely be maintained. I cannot understand the comment immediately above me which suggests salting is "really harmful", with no elucidation as to how said harm is caused. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly oppose salting. This page has been re-created a very large number of times, under different titles. My experience over the years is that in this situation salting at the best achieves nothing, and at the worst can be very counterproductive. One or more people have put in a large amount of work over a long period in working to get the article established. (Francisjk2020 is just the latest in a string of accounts.) If they still wish to persist in trying to establish the article, they won't be stopped by salting; in the past their response to salting has been to switch to new titles, and there's nothing to stop them doing the same again. Therefore salting will stand zero chance of stopping re-creation. On the other hand, salting will make it certain, instead of just likely, that the next re-creation will be under a new title, and we can watch existing titles, but we can't watch every conceivable new title that they could possibly come up with. Therefore salting stands a significant chance of increasing the likelihood of a new copy of the article getting under the radar. This is not just a theoretical possibilities: I have seen it happen many times. A case in point came to my attention just a few days ago. An article had been repeatedly created and then salted in 2013, and not very long after it was recreated under a new name. It remained undetected until, as I say, just a few days ago. There are situations where salting can help, but this is absolutely not one of them. Title blacklisting stands a much better chance ofcworking, as it can deal with patterns of titles, rather than just exact titles that we specify, but I am still not sure about its usefulness in the present case, as it is still possible for a sufficiently determined spammer (which is what we are dealing with) to find titles that aren't blocked.
• Pinging editors have have made any mention above of salting: Jclemens, Alalch E., OwenX, Star Mississippi, SportingFlyer, ToadetteEdit, Daniel. JBW (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, yes, I said "salt" more abstractly in the sense of technically prevent recreation. I agree that title blacklisting is the correct action.—Alalch E. 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine with a title blacklist instead of salting, although I don't agree that just because something isn't likely to effectively deter a bad faith editor means we shouldn't do it. Sometimes, just knowing that create protection was dodged, as it was in this case, gives information about motivation and good-faith on its own. Jclemens (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you that SALT isn't working anyway, which is why I suggested a block. I'd be fine too with title blacklist as well @JBW. @ToadetteEdit why do you find either of those harmful? Star Mississippi 12:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I still endorse any decision that prevents an editor from creating an article at that title. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also support title blacklisting in the place of salting - agree it is more effective, although salting is (and was at the time) an appropriate measure also, if slightly less effective. Daniel (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Robert McClenon. Coastie43 (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and consider listing at WP:DEEPER. No opposition to title blacklist, salting, etc. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I support the suggestion by User:Stifle that the title be listed at DEEPER because this is a case not only of the gaming of titles but of the misuse of DRV to facilitate the gaming of titles. We don't need direct evidence to know that this is a case of paid editing. Other than endorsing the closure, which is obvious, the question is what else to do:
  • • List at DEEPER? Yes, a clear case.
    • SALT the additional titles? Probably not, because it is just a little easier to see the record of previous creations at the same title and do a G4 as to notice that a new title has been used and do a G4.
    • Title blacklist? - Yes. The spammers may try to work around the regex, but, inmy opinion, spammers are often stupid about that. These spammers in particular are likely instead to come back to DRV, and can discover a deeper well, pun intended.
    • Block the editors? Probably, but DRV is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Eden (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussed with closing admin here. Only 1 person !voted redirect. The consensus seems to be delete. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a viable ATD. No reason made not to. Star Mississippi 02:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the above, but more importantly: Delete !voters had plenty of time to argue against a redirection; no one did. Redirection to a relevant, notable parent topic is almost always a great ATD for a distinct topic that fails inclusion solely on notability grounds. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're assuming that delete !voters aren't against redirect, I take a delete !vote as one for delete not one for redirect. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the policy basis for a deletion without redirection? Since I know that there isn't one, it would be rude of me to ABF that voters intended a non-policy-based outcome when they didn't explicitly argue for such. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse Weak only because the consensus was clearly delete, I probably would have closed it as a delete, and I want to call attention to that. However a viable ATD is always welcome and I have no problem with that outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have a confession to make: Unless the consensus is unanimous to delete, I like to look for ATD. It's because there still resides in me a small, tiny hope that maybe some day, we can find a use for content that has been written with good intentions. And, even if the article is crap, I think redirects are useful for readers looking for subjects through search. Also, in the over three years I've been putting in time closing AFDs, I've found very few editors who object to redirects. But there are some who seemingly want a subject and its page title obliterated from the project. I don't agree but editors have different preferences. LibStar seems to be the latter. There was one editor who suggested a redirect, though it was not a bolded comment, and I took that suggestion. If no editor had mentioned a redirect, I never would have closed this discussion as a redirect because that would be me, the closer, introducing a option that had not been suggested by the participants. But it was suggested by an editor. When LibStar came to my talk page upset with the closure, I offered what I thought was a compromise, I would delete the article and then create a redirect from that article page title to the target article. But that was not an acceptable option either. So, here we are. Thanks for hearing me out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not upset at all. In fact, if this deletion review ends up endorsing the closure, I will accept that. Wikipedia is not the end all be all of life. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me that the offer to delete and redirect would have saved a lot of time and angst. That is a delete closure. Anyone can create a new redirect after a delete closure, and an objection to that redirect would need to be taken to RfD. But why? The page history would not be visible and this person was a mayor so it is a reasonable search term. Perhaps the nom. can withdraw this and return to that offer. Or perhaps that ship has sailed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On what basis would a deletion of an article with valid a redirect target, whose only issue is lack of notability, be a policy-preferred outcome? What is the benefit to the encyclopedia or its readers if only admins can see the deleted content? Jclemens (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You might want to see Bungle's reply below. I'd have voted redirect if I had seen this, but I didn't. But after the keep !voter suggested a redirect as an ATD, the AfD gained 4 additional deletes, so we can't say the redirect suggestion was not considered. The consensus was clearly delete here. And DRV, as we are often told, is not about relitigating the AfD but assessing whether the close correctly assessed the consensus.

  However participants in an AfD may not always fully appreciate the options, and sometimes Liz gives very helpful guidance in a relist comment. She might have written something like "would delete voters consider the above redirect suggestion" or similar in her relist comment. Liz is unusual amongst relisting closers in doing this, and I find it to be a very good and helpful practice. That she didn't do it here is certainly not blameworthy, as this is very much an additional aid/service that she sometimes employs on a grace and favour basis. But had that been in the relist comment, we might have seen some re-evaluation. Or not! It can be hard to get !voters to look again. But at least additional !voters would have had that steer that the option is available. I also note the relist was not then left for a full week, and the only additional !vote was another delete. So... if the closer's job is to assess consensus, then it is hard to assess this one as anything other than delete. Liz offered to amend her close to delete, followed by creation of a redirect - which any editor, including Liz, is perfectly entitled to do. It was a fair offer, and in the big plan of things, having this text in visible rather than hidden page history is neither here nor there. So redirect is a perfectly good outcome in my opinion, and much time and angst could have been saved by working with Liz on this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse for broadly the same reasons as SportingFlyer. A redirect is a de-facto delete, except that it can be easily reverted, although by the same token a deleted page can be recreated. That said, even if this seems an appropriate ATD, it feels like a supervote as there was, for me, quite an overwhelming majority advocating a straight "delete" that this should have been the default outcome. A redirect, or anything else, could have been done separate to the AfD. Seeing as this page could have been uncontroversially redirected after a deletion, then the close is not in itself inappropriate, but in this instance i'd have usually expected the outcome as "delete". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And how would having the history of this article inaccessible to non-admins improve the encyclopedia vs. it being preserved under the redirect? Jclemens (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens: my point was around the determining of consensus, not so much the aesthetics of a clean redirect. This discussion is just to determine if the reached outcome is correct and appropriate, and my view is, while strictly maybe not correct per consensus, is none the less probably appropriate. Just be mindful not to overly hound participants though, please, particularly as so far everyone has endorsed the decision in some form. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair advice; my intent in questioning isn't to hound, so much as highlight the "Why?" behind the policies. I've been pursuing a curationist approach to the inclusionist/deletionist wars for quite some time, and if I accomplish nothing else in my Wikipedia career, deemphasizing binary delete/keep, win/lose thinking would be a satisfactory accomplishment. Having said that, I would dispute that identifying an ATD is against consensus in this or similar cases, in that it honors the finding that the individual is insufficiently notable for her own article, removes the content from mainspace, and allows all the nonproblematic (no promo, BLP, etc. issues) to remain in article history. It's especially important for admins to have the freedom to implement relatively obvious ATDs like this despite the nose counting, because that avoids pointless posturing like "keep or redirect" !votes, when everyone can see that at the time of such a !vote there aren't sufficient sources identified. Honesty and candor should result in optimum outcomes in a well-run consensus determination process, and I think Liz does it very well. Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This is the outcome suggested under policy. It was decided against a standalone article for the reason that the topic isn't notable. That does not by itself indicate that it is important to make the page history inaccessible. If the consensus to delete had formed around other reasons, such as BLP problems, it would not have been appropriate to redirect and leave the history accessible. But there is no such problem here.—Alalch E. 10:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Why should anyone bother commenting at afd if we're just going to endorse its treatment as a closer's suggestion box? —Cryptic 10:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have a great deal of respect for Liz, whom I regard as one of our best administrators. However, I find it alarming to see an administrator saying "Unless the consensus is unanimous to delete, I like to look for ATD. It's because there still resides in me a small, tiny hope that ..." A closing administrator absolutely should not allow their personal opinions or "hopes" to influence how they close a discussion, at all. Unlike Liz, I don't regularly close deletion discussions, but on the infrequent occasions when I do so, I quite often close them in ways which are strongly opposed to my own preferences. I do not wish to comment on the closure of the particular discussion being considered here, but I feel very strongly about the principle in general. JBW (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and rescind offer to redirect over delete. The AfD determined that the subject did not meet our threshold of notability. It did not determine that the content violated policy. The appellant has no basis to demand deletion under the redirect, and has no locus standi to even request the removal of a redirect without an RfD. The entire appeal comes across as based on spite, rather than on a genuine interest in improving the project. I assumed good faith until I saw the appellant's refusal to accept the closing admin's compromise. This appellant will not be satisfied with any outcome different from their nomination, regardless of policy or benefit to WP. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A vote to delete as not notable and a vote to redirect are one in the same, the only difference being that the latter specifies a redirect target. None of the delete votes stated any opposition to redirect, and the AFD nominator also opined that redirect was a viable option after the redirect vote came in. Redirect is a reasonable close, and in this case the correct close (had delete been the outcome and someone challenged that at DRV, I would have voted to overturn to redirect with history restored). Frank Anchor 14:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, per User:Alalch E.. Fundamentally, Liz was following the policy spelled out at WP:ATD, but perhaps more importantly was following a long-standing consensus that if an ATD has been suggested and not objected to then it is preferable to use that ATD rather than to delete history. (Among other minor benefits, it saves a future administrator the effort of doing a WP:REFUND.) Suriname0 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. When in doubt, don't delete. A consensus that a topic is not notable does not make redirection or history preservation inappropriate. losers should always consider ATD's that have been suggested in a discussion and implement them if they are appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The consensus was Delete, and redirects are cheap, and the redirect is a valid one, so deleting the redirect would be silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not endorse, I see a consensus to delete that the redirect close overruled. WP:Consensus is the controlling policy.
  • Regarding WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions, but no material policy changes.
  • I reviewed the last 12 months of DRVs containing "ATD" and deciding between delete and redirect. Please see the table on the talk page. Including this one, there are six total: three each of delete and redirect. The redirect AfDs were all closed by Liz, while the deletes had different closers. Assuming that this is endorsed, the four endorses will be evenly split.
  • If the article had been deleted, any autoconfirmed user could create a redirect. The history is only potentially useful for article content if and when Eden becomes notable – undeleting may never be necessary – and it would be outdated and overly focused on her campaign.

  Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, yes... you don't see it the way the endorsers do. Without rehashing why I think you're wrong on that point, I don't recall yet seeing a good articulation of why doing things your way would benefit either or editors or our readers. Making it easier to just count noses and call that consensus makes things easier for closers, no question about it. But the readers? Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD reached the consensus that the history had no value as article content. I searched WP: space for benefit reader, finding WP:Purpose (information page), WP:Wikipedia is for readers (essay), and WP:About (not tagged). None of them mention page history. Did you have a policy, guideline, or other page in mind? Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Deletion is not the default, but only an option when no other alternative applies. WP:DGFA makes this clear. If page history were not valuable, ATDs of redirect or merge would not exist. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you mean #11 in WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators#On deleting pages (permanent link in case the numbering is changed), it describes copying content to another article: merging, not just redirecting. Per WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline), the source page's history is generally required to provide attribution. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was actually referencing the bolded point #4 of "Deciding whether to delete". I hadn't meant to be obscure there, but the fact that you were thinking I was referencing any other portion of that page is a surprise to me. That is, one should always read the big, bolded bits at the top of the page: the rest of it is about how to implement those overarching principles and must necessarily be read in light of them. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A redirect is a delete with history restored, and I see no reason that would preclude such a restoration at the discretion of any single admin (RFU). It may have been "more optimal" for the suggestion to redirect to be left as a !vote instead of immediately implemented, but that is outside the purview of DRV. We're not here to pick apart every single detail of how a close is implemented, only to determine whether it is within the discretion afforded our closers, and with broader discretion typical for substantially very similar closes, I don't see any case for an overturn except that there were an explicit, rather than implicit consensus that article history be deleted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low Pavement, Chesterfield (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not believe there was a consensus to keep. While there was an initial flurry of keep !votes, I do not believe they adequately addressed the arguments that were made in the discussion and none of the keep votes provided SIGCOV in reliable sources. Additionally, there was a keep that turned into a comment and a merge !vote toward the end of the seven-day period. I believe that this discussion should be relisted. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse overwhelming consensus to keep including overwhelming rejection of the source analysis presented by the lone supporter of deletion. While the single merge vote to a currently non-existent page could be given some consideration, this can be done in a separate merge discussion on its talk page rather than an AFD where there is ZERO prospect of deletion. Frank Anchor 21:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. I think sometimes you need to pick your battles. This one had five keep !votes, including some carefully considered ones, and no deletes. There was indeed a late merge !vote and an editor who struck their keep on reflection - but did not switch to anything else. It was within closer's discretion to close this after the week without relisting, and I doubt that DRV will come to any different conclusion. Merge can be proposed outside of AfD, and this one didn't really have much chance of moving to delete. I would suggest accepting the AfD result but considering proposing a merge on the article talk. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough RE picking battles, but I was willing to pick this one given that the bulk of the keep !votes invented a new SNG out of thin air (i.e., having listed buildings on a street makes the street notable) and there was very little analysis from those !voters otherwise. I don't think it's really within closer discretion to accept blatantly wrong arguments, no matter how many people agree with them. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussion is an attempt to gain consensus rather than proving who is right or wrong. "Blatantly wrong arguments" is an opinion. It's somewhat luck of the draw who responds to the discussion. On another day, with a different set of respondents, delete or an AtD may have won out. Rupples (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By "blatantly wrong", I mean arguments that are obviously not rooted in PAGs. Consensus is based on strength of arguments, not on counting heads, and we have a whole page on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. For example, if there was one delete and five keeps !votes in a discussion, but all of the keeps said "keep because this must be notable and I like it", the closer would obviously be wrong to say there's a consensus to keep. In my view, inventing a new SNG (e.g., a street is notable if it has buildings on it that may be notable [nobody in the discussion actually proved that they were]) is not a valid argument at AfD and should have been discounted because notability is not inherited. Once those keep !votes are discounted, I don't think there's a particularly strong case to keep here based on the sources added during the discussion. In any event, I respect that my view probably won't align with the ultimate consensus of this DRV. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not every valid argument has to be in the guidelines. We don't have a guideline on notability of streets, so that neither allows nor excludes a consideration of a large cluster of listed buildings on the street. An argument was made that these were an indication of notability, and it was pointed out that the street is most unusual for this. You disagreed, but a considered consensus emerged that this was significant. That happens sometimes, and the closer correctly assessed the consensus. As Rupples says, there is a certain luck of the draw in AfD as to who turns up, and what they think. I have seen articles kept based on grounds I considered extremely spurious, and those articles languish and remain unencyclopaedic. Is this one such? You will think so, and perhaps you are right, but the consensus was against you on this one, and there was no way a closer could have read that any other way. This is what I meant about picking your battles. You will remain convinced you are right, and perhaps you are. But DRV is a high bar, and the question is only whether the closer assessed the consensus correctly. They did. Renomination in the future is an option. Merge is an option. And if you just leave it be, and if you are right and there is a non notable subject on the encyclopaedia, it will not grow lonely for lack of company. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was unaware that indicators of notability could be created outside of SNGs; I thought that was precisely why we have SNGs and that's where my hang up is RE this deletion discussion. I think that that practice is a problem in terms of consistency of outcomes and clarity of the rules we all play by, but DRV isn't the place to address that. I'm not a DRV regular, so I defer to the regulars here. If this is the way deletion discussions are currently assessed and closed, then I accept that. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AfD participants were unpersuaded. If a merge discussion on talk page isn't preferred, you can try again per WP:RENOM, but it doesn't strike me as something I think needs that level of effort. Your assessment may vary, of course. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there's really no other way to close that discussion, with one delete, one merge, five keep, and one neutral vote, and the keep !voters all having access to the argument for deletion. (With the full understanding this isn't AfD part two, and without having any impact on my endorse, I can say I also would have !voted to keep.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. The only !vote for deletion came from the nominator, who put up a lot of argument but didn't convince any of the keeps to change their opinion, nor realise any later opinions for delete. Five !votes were keep. The !vote for merge was to an article yet to be created, so wasn't at this stage practical, but could potentially be discussed on the article talk. I struck my initial keep !vote based on the source assessment table and possible duplication of content, but later challenged aspects of the source analysis. Further material was added late on and if I'd reacted before the close, I would have reinstated my initial keep. Rupples (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There was a consensus to keep. A Relist after the nominator provided their source analysis would have been a reasonable action, but was not required. That is, either Keep or Relist would have been good, and there was a consensus, including one Keep after the source analysis. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The comment about creating a new article and merging to it is obviously not something that consensus could have formed around in this AfD, and what AfD outcome is that: 'create article'? There was a consensus to keep.—Alalch E. 08:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved). How on earth was there no consensus to keep? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Please withdraw this review. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Given that this is no longer unanimous endorse, I do not believe withdrawing is appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. None of the Keep !votes is based on policy or guidelines. The street doesn't inherit notability from the buildings on it, and being listed in directories does not amount to SIGCOV. The appellant's AfD nomination statement, supported by his thorough source assessment by Rupples, casts serious doubt on the notability of the street, which was not adequately addressed by the other participants. There was clearly no consensus to delete, but this deserves a relist to give sourcing the attention it deserves. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The source assessment was conducted by the nom. and not by Rupples. Rupples responded to it to say that Bradley and Bradley2 should be taken together and represented SIGCOV, and thus counted as a single source towards GNG. That is not multiple sources of course, but Appraisal should also have been counted, rather than left as unknown. There was also no analysis of multiple book mentions, for some reason (which might indeed be a reason to relist, but not if the result is going to be clear). It is mentioned extensively in Secret Chesterfield [2], Aspects of Chesterfield [3] and Chesterfield Through Time [4] for instance. That is just an initial search. I expect a street with this much history will find its way into many more works. All due respect to the nom., who I think highly of, but this one was never going to be a delete outcome. It is clearly a historic street and the site of a medieval market. On that: Chesterfield Market is a stub, and sits on this street. This could be merged into this page, and perhaps the title adjusted too, in a similar way to how Croydon's historic Surrey Street Market is handled. This can be done outside of a deletion discussion. (ETA: But, unlike Surrey Street Market, Chesterfield's market is adjacent to the street rather than on it - so it is perhaps not quite comparable - still something that could be discussed outside AfD). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for pointing out my mistake, Sirfurboy! I fixed my comment above accordingly. Your evaluation of the book mentions would have been very helpful at the AfD, but this isn't an AfD. We're here to assess the closing of that AfD, not the notability of the article's subject. You said, this one was never going to be a delete outcome. I agree, but my participation in AfDs and DRVs isn't based on what I expect the outcome to be, but what I see as the correct application of our P&G, and the correct reading of P&G-based participants. I'm not bothered being in the minority, or even the sole outlier. The Low Pavement, Chesterfield may very well meet our notability standards, but that conclusion was not reflected in the AfD at the time of closing. A review of the book sources you presented is better suited for a relisted AfD than for a DRV. Owen× ☎ 14:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think here a statement from the closer exlaining their assessment would have been useful - especially given that, while not explicitly defined as such, there is effectively a debate as to whether the justification for keep is a form of WP:SYNTH. That said, this was not the only justification for keep (eg Warofdreams' statement on improvement to the article was unrebutted); there's no reading of the discussion that will produce delete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - after an "overwhelming consensus to keep" at AfD, we have a similar clear consensus that the closing decision was the right one. Is this re-litigation of the original point really a profitable use of time/resources? KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a friendly reminder to note that you were involved in the deletion discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a friendly reminder to Voorts to do the same, as they failed to inform people that they were the original AFD nominator when listing this DRV. However, this is not a big deal as per the DRV rules, involved editors may state involvement as a courtesy but are not required to do so. Frank Anchor 16:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's pretty obvious I was involved given that I filed the DRV and hopefully everyone !voting here is reading the AfD and would see that I was the nom. I wasn't implying it was a big deal or ascribing bad faith to KJP1. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is common for a DRV to be started by a party not involved in the deletion discussion. Frank Anchor 23:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies - having never previously participated in a Deletion Review, and only in about 3 AfDs to the best of my recollection, I was unaware of this. Very happy to make clear that I voted Keep in the original AfD. KJP1 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also not mandatory, just polite. A good DRV closer in a contentious close should review which contributions participated in the AfD anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, I write to request restoration of the page (an overturn), or at least relisting, because the process used, when looked at in conjunction with a broader AfD discussion occurring at the same time was confusing and misleading. When I first saw the deletion discussion for [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Israel], there was a note from the initiator of the deletion request that, having been advised by others that it was better, they wanted to withdraw the Israel Sports Broadcasting Contracts page deletion request to consolidate it with the deletion request for dozens of other sports broadcasting pages at [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Serbia]. This is consistent with the with the Articles for Deletion guideline that "If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively." And so, I put my keep comment in the Serbia discussion, and I limited my comment to generic points relevant to the broader category of sports broadcasting contracts. Some users agreed with my comment, and at least one did not. In any case, following the broader deletion discussion, which resulted in a procedural keep, I came back to the Israel sports broadcasting page, only to learn that it had been deleted the same day as the broader procedural keep. I understand the closer's point that a Procedural Keep on the overall category and a Close on the specific article are not inherently inconsistent. However, those decisions still should not be made at the same time. An implicit corrilary to the AfD guideline quoted above is that the individual similar article nominatations should be stopped, or at least paused, while the group nomination is handled. Indeed, the decision to maintain dozens of similar sports broadcasting contract pages is relevant to the evaluation of each individual page. There wasn't time, however, to take the broader decision into account on the Israel indivdual country page AfD. If dozens of other similar country-based broadcasting contract pages are viewed by many Wikipedians as notable, it is not clear what makes the Israel broadcasting contract page not worthy of Wikipedia. I do not want this deletion decision becoming another entry in the recent research report on [Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia].

Perhaps most simply, for a number of days, including the day when I came across the [Sports Broadcasting Contracts in Israel] page, the AfD withdrawl request led users like me to think it best to go elsewhere (to the broader discussion under the [Serbia page]) with comments, and also not make comments specific to the Israel page. For the 7-day minimum for AfD discussions rule to have meaning, there should be none of those 7 days when it would appear to the average reader that the AfD discussion will in fact occur elsewhere.

In any case, having overlapping deletion discussions (one to a broad category of changes, and another for a specific page) is very confusing and is not a process designed to achieve a fair outcome.

To summarize, the page should be restored (an overturn) and given time to be improved, or at least this is an appropriate time to use the relist procedures.

Thank you for your consideration. Coining (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Everything was done correctly and there are no procedural issues. There was a consensus to delete.—Alalch E. 22:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't think this was a correct outcome, and that this could have been saved with sourcing, but the consensus was completely clear. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just so I understand -- you don't think this was the correct outcome, and I've given a reason why the "consensus" was artificial, but nonetheless you endorse preserving the outcome of the deletion discussion? Coining (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. There was crystal clear consensus to delete, and the bundled AfD you mentioned was kept not because these are worth keeping as a whole, but because the group nomination was inappropriate. As for being the correct outcome, I would have gone into this AfD looking to make a keep argument based on whether or not I could find sources to support the article as I don't think WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies, but sources would still be needed, and in any case that is not what is being reviewed here - this is not AfD part two. SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the proper reading of the sense of the community.
  • • I respectfully disagree with the appellant's statement that the consensus was artificial, or that the overlapping deletion discussions were confusing. What was confusing was the blanket deletion discussion, and it was closed as a train wreck (and I agree with that closure). In other words, the deletion should be decided by individual deletion discussions, so this deletion discussion, standing alone, was the train around the train wreck.
    • The closer could have either closed as Delete or relisted, but the Delete closure was the better action, because there were multiple policy-based Delete arguments.
    • SportingFlyer says that there could have been better sources. I do not have an opinion on whether that is correct, but the appellant is free to submit a draft for review having better sources.
    • If User:SportingFlyer is saying that sometimes an editor has to accept a consensus with which they disagree, then I agree that is the proper collaborative attitude.
  • There is no need for a relist, and an overturn would be wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult films (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In this closure, the closer said "[A keep] argument was not successfully rebutted by the Delete views." Four of the keep votes came in during the final day of the AFD – following a canvass of previous keep voters – that I didn't see and I don't think there was enough time to allow for responses. With a final !vote of 6–5, I do not believe there was a consensus to keep already, and I request that it be relisted for further discussion. I also have concern about the closer's comparison "similar to that of List of films considered the worst" – that page is a contextual prose article in that sense more similar to the corresponding main article here, cult film, rather than 27 alphabetical pages of thousands of simple bullet points, so this feels like a supervote to me. Reywas92^Talk 00:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting seconded. (Disclosure: I voted del, but now I am leaning to keep/cleanup) A close call. The closer wrote: "isn't of cult films, but of films described by reliable sources as "cult", which is well-defined criterion" -- in the context of Wikipedia this is a tautology ( "Lists of stars is described in reliable sources as a "star" :-)), hence cannot be a relevant "keep" argument. - Altenmann >talk 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Close As the closer stated, we have many lists of non-binary and subjective topics (thank goodness), so that alone is not reason to delete. Also many of the Deleters misquoted WP:LISTCRIT to say subjective topics are not allowed - this is a fallacy, LISTCRIT says they are with reliable sourcing. Because of this AfD, there is currently ongoing discussion how to define/refine the criteria. -- GreenC 01:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respedctfully disagreed: LISTCRIT says: "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). At the same time, after the re-reading of the article "cult film, I see that it gives a rather specific and I would say, a rather objective definition. Therefore I am favoring cleanup now (enormous job), although I seconded the relisting. - Altenmann >talk 01:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:LISTCRIT says: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources. We have sources. LISTCRIT clearly allows for subjective criteria. Any quoting of this rule needs to say this. It's misleading to suggest the rule says otherwise. -- GreenC 13:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's distinguish between subjective topics and subjective criteria. We can have lists on topics that are inherently subjective, but we still have to have an objective^[a] way of determining whether each entry meets the threshold for inclusion based on the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I typically read the discussion before I read the reason why the discussion is being brought to DRV, and I came back ready to endorse the close. I don't think it was a supervote, though I think no consensus may have been a better option. However, I think a relist is appropriate because this was a clear delete until the time at which other editors were notified only yesterday, meaning those advocating for delete did not have time to rebut those wishing to keep this article. I'm not sure which way this will swing after a relist, but it doesn't matter - more discussion is clearly warranted. (Also a reminder to the closer of this DRV to check to see which endorsers participated in the AfD.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as even without the recent keeps, the delete votes were simply not policy based and failed to understand sourcing for subjective lists. To wit:
  • there are no reliable sources for determining "cult"ness of a film, because it's a vague, subjective term without a clear definition.
  • what makes a film "cult" is very subjective and there isn't a widely accepted definition of the term. Even if reliable sources call it a cult film, that's still using that source's own definition of "cult" because again, it is not a clearly defined term in the slightest.
  • When the inclusion criteria here is that one person used a certain term once to describe a movie, that isn't necessarily a relevant commonality or a useful description.
  • This list does not have a clear inclusion category other than "a source called it cult once," and cult itself does not have a clear definition.

  That's one quote per delete !voter other than the nom: each of them demonstrates a sufficiently bad understanding of how RS'ing applies to a subjective label that they should be entirely discounted. OwenX's assessment is spot on, and even if you discount the influx of late keeps, the AfD should still have been closed as delete keep. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those all seem like correct interpretations of whether a list is subjective/indiscriminate to me...? SportingFlyer T·C 05:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed; Yes, RS'ing applies to a subjective label regardless wikipedian's opinion, but here Wikipedia policy does come into play, together with Wikipedian's opinion, about what lists are based on subjective criterion, i.e., the issue is not verifiability, but our policy about lists. - Altenmann >talk 05:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, then you're either wrong or missing the point, I suppose. There is no definition of "cult film" or any other subjective list selection criterion, other than what RS'es say. If RS'es have a mish-mash definition, then it is elitist and against policy for Wikipedia editors to try and "clean up" what RS'es say. RSes can be contradictory and confused: that is not a reason to not follow them, but rather to carefully catalogue the differing viewpoints amongst them per DUE. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the sources are contradictory and confused, we need a fairly high threshold for inclusion (in terms of sourcing) to abide by WP:DUE—otherwise we would be listing different films where the designation as a cult film is respectively fringe, debatable, and uncontroversial on equal footing (so-to-speak) in direct violation of WP:DUE.^[b] A list format is of course not optimized for nuance. TompaDompa (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Good close. “Delete” was not close to being in the cards, so do not relist. People who don’t like the lists should read advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid closure, and the right closure. A Relist would have been also valid, but after notifying all previous participants, and after four previous AFDs, closure as Keep was a good idea. Either it isn't canvassing to notify all of the previous participants, or we need another word to characterize biased canvassing. Enough is enough. This result was the same as recent previous results. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Our list of cult films is a laughable list of cult films, seeing how it includes The Godfather, American Beauty and Taken as cult films (and many other films which are sometimes trivially and casually referred to as "cult films"; note how the articles about these films do not describe them as cult films, because there's nothing of substance to write about their purported cult film status ... because they are not, in fact, cult films). I advise everyone against looking at this list. A misinformation internet page. I agree with Reywas92. Comments on the delete side were excellent. I like what the IP wrote (that "list of films that have been called cult films" [emphasis mine] does not meet NLIST and is indiscriminate). But there was no consensus to delete.—Alalch E. 16:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Avatar is also a cult film according to this misinformation page. No instance of the word "cult" in the article of course. —Alalch E. 16:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note also this AfD for some perspective: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult television shows (closed on 5 April 2024 as delete) —Alalch E. 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alalch E. I didn't say there was a consensus to delete, but there was not a consensus to keep and there should be more time for additional votes which is why I requested a relist. "Keep" was a bad closure. Reywas92^Talk 02:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reywas92 It's almost impossible to delete these problematic lists once NLIST-based keeps start accumulating. I recall this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. A fabulously bad list. Incredibly strong arguments for deleting. Ultimately it was editorially TNT'd and reworked from ground up. This is what should happen here. Whether the outcome is no consensus like in that AfD or keep like in this AfD doesn't really matter. —Alalch E. 02:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:TNT may be the best outcome here. Just being described as "cult" in reliable sources is too broad, but the list also doesn't necessarily need to be deleted if everyone can agree on a clearer definition. SportingFlyer T·C 03:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Take a look at Talk:List of cult films#List criteria if you haven't. —Alalch E. 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the delete votes were weak and supported very little by policy/guidelines. The late keep votes were probably what put keep over the top, but as they are not canvassed (notifying EVERYONE involved of a subsequent discussion, without regard to vote, is a legitimate tactic to increase awareness), these are legitimate votes. The list is obviously subjective and can be improved, but that is not the scope of DRV. Frank Anchor 15:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm not convinced that there was inappropriate canvassing; pinging editors who participated in a previous discussion of the same matter is hardly unusual practice. There's even good faith grounds to argue that the onus should rest with a nominator to ping previous editors when sending an article to AfD for the n time. The closer might have mentioned explicitly the delete arguments for WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which were countered by WP:NEXIST-type arguments (I'm truly flummoxed by the claim that a British Film Institute source does not "pass the smell test for reliability"), the more detailed engagement with WP:LSC and the response that most concerns were content concerns, not notability concerns. There was one TNT contribution, which of the delete arguments to my mind was the strongest, but there was no other support for that since there was no follow up analysis of how signficanly problematic the article is in its current state (comments on examples of what should not be there, but nothing giving a qualitative assessment). FWIW, we accept a limiting factor to lists being our own notability requirements (see for example List of Norwegian musicians). Concur with the comment above, even without the "late" contributions, stronger p/g position was keep. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Editors are invited to the talk page to hash out the list criteria. I got the BFI book 100 Cult Films and have been improving the inline citations and adding some titles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because the request to have a definition violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. We don't get to create an internal definition of a cult film and determine ourselves whether it passes or not. Can you imagine doing that for a science fiction film? If reliable sources verify a film as a cult film, we list it as such, because we are reporting what the real world says. WP:NLIST is why it was kept, and we can come up with criteria for inclusion. There are a ridiculous number of books about cult films that a working list is completely feasible. Deletion is not cleanup. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've been working on cleaning up these lists using book references. Let's say we trash listings that aren't book references, see cult films starting with R here. I think we can achieve that across all the letters. Right now, I'm just adding book references and phasing out non-book citations (especially layperson journalists). See talk page for cleanup discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City shooting (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Based on an analysis of the votes, it’s in between disambiguation and no consensus. The discussion was tainted by WP:BLUDGEON behaviour by Thruddyulf as well. Some of the votes are based on the length of time between nominations, which for a current event must be discounted. Discounting those votes, the consensus is clear that disambiguation is the correct shooting. Keep voters completely contradicted WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT, etc. And regarding the Google searches - when I looked up Kansas City shooting, this was the first result, then this, then this and only my 4th article is about it. Granted, those shootings don’t have articles, but the media hype about this is dying down and it’s blatantly obvious that in a few months, this will be just as talked about as those other shootings that have articles. Finally, the closure gave no justification for their closure, so they didn’t even explain it. At least if they explained it, there’s logic that this controversial decision is based off of.24.89.159.222 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. On the procedural side, I'm not seeing anything inappropriate in what went on in the discussion, or that the closing was a misapplication of consensus. On the content side, since Kansas City shooting (disambiguation) exists, it's clear that something should exist at this title. The question is whether it's a redirect to the dab page or the dab page after a round-robin move. —C.Fred (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see anything wrong with the close myself and likely would have closed the same way. I also strongly disagree with the accusation of bludgeoning by Thryduulf - a bludgeoning accusation is serious, and we were far from it here. Finally, it may be proper to revisit this in a few months, but that was even mentioned by some of the !keep voters, and I don't see anything explicitly against policy. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When one is used to the anemic participation in RfD, rather than the lively banter at AfD, any participation at all can look like bludgeoning, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, closer here. I think I'll refrain from leaving a !vote and let the community decide whether or not my close was appropriate. However, I want to note that most of the nominator's statement is their opinion as it relates to the original discussion, such as sharing Google search results to attempt to determine the primary topic. Since that's not what deletion review is for, I won't address those arguments. As for the lack of a closing rationale, I actually try not to write significant closing statements for deletion discussions to avoid accidentally slipping into supervote territory; my job as a closer is not to provide my opinion, but to interpret the weight of other editors' opinions and apply them to (hopefully) improve the encyclopedia. Feel free to ping me with any specific questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: if anything, the redirect should not be deleted, but retargeted to Kansas City shooting (disambiguation), but this is the subject of editing discussion, not deletion. - Altenmann >talk
• Endorse, the close was proper. I would have closed it the same way but TechnoSquirrel69 beat me to it. Jay 💬 08:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good close reflecting the discussion. The discussion was to keep or DABify, falling on the side of Keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The appellant makes a valid point about some of the !votes being tainted by recentiism. But I'm not convinced it is enough to discard those views when discussing redirects and DABs. Unlike articles, redirs are kept based on current usefulness, not enduring notability. A survey of Google results is a valid indication of what search terms people are using today, even if it tells us nothing about what they'd look for in ten years or in two months.

Like the appellant, I would have liked to see a brief closing rationale. I can relate to the admin's reasoning for skipping an explanation. I, too, occasionally get accused of supervoting when I provide such transparency for my read of consensus when I close, but that's no justification for avoiding it. Be bold, be open, invite reasoned criticism.

Finally, the accusation of bludgeoning is without merit. What Thryduulf did is what we should all be doing: engaging with other participants in a civil manner, and attempt to build consensus.

All that said, I would welcome a fresh XfD in two months. Owen× ☎ 11:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope there's been some discussion at Talk:Kansas City shooting (disambiguation) or Talk:Kansas City shooting in the interim about how to title the dab page or what this title should redirect to. If there hasn't been, then the XfD might need to extend to the dab page and whether it's truly serving its purpose. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback — I do provide brief closing rationales for discussions I feel are contentious enough to warrant it, but maybe my threshold for that could be taken down a couple steps in the interest of clarity, which I'll keep in mind going forward. Also, just noting for noting's sake: I'm not an administrator. :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to express an opinion about the close, but I do think a closing summary would have beneficial. I do have to say though that I'm very surprised at the accusation of bludgeoning levied against me here. I made four comments in the 3 and a bit weeks this was open. The first comment was to express an opinion about the article, the second was asking another editor to clarify their rationale as it didn't (and still doesn't) make sense to me, the third was to express an opinion about an alternative proposal that was made after my previous two comments, and the fourth was to expand on my first comment a fortnight after I made it. To the filer of this DRV: please could you explain which of those comments you feel demonstrates bludgeoning and why? Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhuja Rajaraman (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The rationale to delete carried more weight. The subject article on its reading appears non-notable. Coverage is not substantial but sensationalism/churnalism. Marked for updation since 2015. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I don't believe keep was a reasonable close - those arguing for keep were not doing so very strongly, and those arguing against WP:BLP1E didn't really make strong arguments either (either confusing 1E and SUSTAINED, or saying "age is not an event" though the event is clearly becoming a young CEO). I think possible results of this discussion were no consensus and delete, and I would have closed as delete, but any result that's not keep is fine by me. SportingFlyer T·C 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus. The closer's reasoning would be good reasoning for a Keep !vote, but is a supervote as a close. Although a close is not a vote count, the vote count should be given some weight, and there were four good-faith Delete statements including the nominator but excluding the blocked editor, and three good-faith Keep statements. The Delete arguments should not have been discounted. After two previous relists, the close should be changed to No Consensus, and a new nomination can be made in two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the closing admin. This was my assessment of the views expressed in that AfD:

On the Delete side:

• User4edits, as nom, claiming:

• N WP:1E - successfully countered by the Keeps
• N WP:NOTWEBHOST - irrelevant

• ToadetteEdit claiming:

• N BLP1E - successfully countered

• Esprit15d, claiming:

• N "per nom"
• Y coverage not significant
• N sources in foreign-language media re: animation work - irrelevant

• N Bhivuti45 - user blocked
• RangersRus claiming:

• N no international coverage - not a P&G argument
• N there are many other young CEOs who are and can be considered notable - WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST

On the Keep side:

• Kvng claiming:

• Y SIGCOV

• Oaktree b claiming:

• Y two reliable sources

• I'm tla claiming:

• Y WP:BLP1E doesn't apply
• Y at least 3 SIGCOV RS spanning 8 years

So while at first blush, the Delete participants have a small numerical advantage, once you sift the arguments down to P&G, other than the one claim by Esprit15d which was reasonably questioned by others, all guideline-based arguments fall on the Keep side. I believe that closing this as Delete would have given weight to IDONTLIKEIT-type arguments in favour of actual policy. I, personally, have no opinion about the article itself, so the accusation of a supervote is without basis. Owen× ☎ 21:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping, it still appears to be a marginal !keep vote based on a re-review, but I'm not fussed either way, however we decide for it to go. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree the !keeps countered the WP:BLP1E argument, hence my overturn. SportingFlyer T·C 22:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question, as I read the AfD, is not whether this is a person famous for one event or not. She clearly is only famous for that one event. The question is whether the event, and the person's role in it, meet all three WP:BLP1E criteria to qualify for deletion. I believe the Keep !voters successfully argued that it does not meet C#3, seeing as the event received significant national coverage in independent RS for eight years, and the person's role in it was pivotal. For WP:BLP1E, all three criteria need to be met to qualify for deletion. Owen× ☎ 22:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were three !keep votes. The first vote doesn't understand why this is an "event." The second only says that there are two reliable sources. The third is a weak keep, saying they don't believe age isn't a BLP1E factor because coverage was sustained, which isn't part of BLP1E at all. Nobody in the discussion talks about C#3 either explicitly or implicitly. The way you're explaining your conclusion is starting to sound like a supervote. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said weak keep because this meets #1 and maybe #2 of WP:BLP1E. But not #3. Her role was substantial, as CEO, and is well documented in essentially all of Indian media. TLA^tlak 07:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No international coverage" was taken out of context, mea culpa for poor choice of words. I intend to say that the young lady's achievement is not many and the company that she is CEO of is not notable. Her achievement is that she was the youngest CEO that got same repeated coverage in sources early on and that is all. She has no significant other achievement if you take another young CEO Advait Thakur, at the age of 15 who continued to earn more notable achievement till today like created an app for Google Assistant called "Autism Awareness" and awarded The Startup India's "Main 10 Young Entrepreneurs In India 2018" and also included in "India's Hottest Young Entrepreneurs Of 2018, "Most Influential Youth Marketing Professional of 2CMO Asia CMO Asia, Zoom, and the World Federation of Marketing Professionals' Global Youth Marketing Forum. Sindhuja's achievement is not substantial. RangersRus (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Being a CEO is not 1E per WP:WI1E, while becoming one might be. No consensus would have been reasonable closure as well, but overturning keep to no consensus is not worth our time. The fact that so much of Indian media is paid placement muddies the water a bit, but this was picked up internationally. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a CEO of a 10-person company is not what I see to be claim of notability. The 1E in question is Guinness thingy, which caused the media stir. - Altenmann >talk 01:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability flows from RS coverage. If a topic gets coverage sufficient to meet the GNG, it's notable, regardless of my, your, or anyone else's opinion of whether the topic should or should not have been covered by reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or a weak overturn to no consensus. It's clear that the sources are good here, but the concern is with WP:BLP1E. But this fails #3 and only weekly hits #2, because the coverage spans 8 years. TLA^tlak 07:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (relist for more source discussion). The close reads Supervotery, OwenX stating his opinion/conclusion rather than quoting from the discussion. The discussion reads as just getting starting, except that it is tainted by being the football of a PAID turf war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#What's_going_on_here?). The source analysis above belongs at AfD. The blocked editor's "churnalism" allegation needs examination by other users. Actually, it is probably best to call it "no consensus" or "tainted" and to allow a fresh nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus to allow immediate renomination. Defining an event is done broadly in the context of BLP1E. Practically anything that someone in a deletion discussion labels an event could, ostensibly, be treated as an event for the purposes of that discussion. The discussion around construing the thing as "Being a CEO", i.e., as (arguably) not an event, or "becoming a CEO", i.e., as (arguably) an event, needed to have been more resolved for the closer to say that the BLP1E argument was "successfully countered" on the basis of how the claimed event was not an event. It is not clear if (and which) editors had "being" or "becoming" in mind, and it comes down to semantics to an extent. Overall, editors distinctly did not agree about the nature of the thing as an event or not-an-event. Discounting BLP1E-based !votes on the basis of how the "event" thesis was wrong had the character of a supevote. When what was discounted is counted in, it turns out that the discussion is unresolved. There were two relists and instead of overturning and relisting, it would be better to start with a fresh nomination. One that is laid out better.—Alalch E. 15:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure where you saw any of that in my closing rationale. I did not discard any !vote based on the claim that it is or isn't an event. However, as I'm tla and I explained above, while the article falls under the jurisdiction of BLP1E, it does not meet the deletion criteria listed in that policy. As such, deletion "per BLP1E" is a discarded argument, no matter how many participants voiced it. We do not delete biographies of living people based on a single event if that event is significant, well documented, and the person's role in it is substantial, as determined by RS. Owen× ☎ 16:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm tla disagreed with your interpretation of BLP1E just above and is now blocked indefinitely. With all due respect, with each of your responses here, your decision sounds more and more supervotey. SportingFlyer T·C 17:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll try to reread everything and see if I can modify the above comment. It does seem to me now like I got partially sidetracked while coming up with it. But my impression is that recommendation should still be to overturn. —Alalch E. 03:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus. I am not sure that the closer should just waive off BLP1E as a discarded argument. --Enos733 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn to NC Keep was a reasonable interpretation of this discussion but NC is a bit better. I agree with others here that the BLP1E concerns were not given quite enough weight. However there clearly was not consensus to delete and a third relist would not change that. I would advise the nominator here to take the advice at WP:RENOM if they wish to send back to AFD. Frank Anchor 11:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The close was well reasoned both at the time of closing and above. The other possible read of the discussion is as no consensus in which case we would also keep the article so I don't see the point in continuing the discussion here. ~Kvng (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus of the debate. I am also fine (as a second preference) with relisting. Stifle (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist for consideration of sourcing - while I think the issue of the WP:BLP1E is addressed, for me there is no consensus on the reliability of the sourcing, two deletes take issue (not considering the "international" angle) and the single (weak) keep !vote that addresses the issue acknowledges the sourcing is borderline. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. No consensus would have also been an appropriate closure. Discussion seems rather confused, and participants do not clearly indicate the are aware of the distinction between BIO1E and BLP1E. The fact that two of the participants have since been indefinitely blocked (1 keep, CU-blocked, 1 delete, for UPE) tilts me over towards a relist or immeidate renomination. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn to "No Consensus". I don't see a guideline based consensus to delete in that discussion but reading an outright consensus to keep feels a bit too much like a supervote. This was a close call IMO. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Choudhary (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Although the last deletion review was closed only a few days ago. We have been asked to come here with respect to the notice made by @Stifle in their talk page: [5]. As already stated by us several times in several places, Priyanka Choudhary has passed WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV through her various roles. There is significant coverage supporting the same in the latest deleted version of Priyanka Choudhary deleted by @Stifle on 3rd April 2024 at 9:43 am.

Infact there was an ongoing discussion which involved @C.Fred, myself Amma&Papa and @ManaliJain in the talk page of the subject which clearly proved that the article did have new information on the newer roles with reliable sources which made the subject notable. So, please kindly review the deletion and restore the article so that it can be subjected to a new AFD where a new consensus can be reached.

• Honestly, it is "unfair" that the Wikipedia admins are constantly penalizing the other editors who have no connection with the past and would like to create an article of Priyanka Choudhary by following the community guidelines while there are so many articles like Abhishek Kumar (actor), Isha Malviya and Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia which are kept even though the subjects aren't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amma&Papa (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse If you think Abhishek Kumar (actor), Isha Malviya, and Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia aren't notable you are welcome to nominate those articles for AfDs as well. It's unfair to the Wikipedia community that we can't make a final decision that this actress is not notable and instead have to keep wasting our time relitigating it again and again and again.
  Finally, who is we? Wikipedia accounts must be used by only one person. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse per the many previous DRV’s on the subject and her listing at WP:DEEPER. It doesn’t appear that anything has changed since the previous DRV a few weeks ago. No objection to creation of a draft to go through the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 16:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure of the previous DRV (?) and speedy close this DRV as out of proccess as nothing new has been brought. Per the instructions at DEEPER, the appellant is welcome to prepare a draft they believe would satisfy a prima facie review with new sources that have not been previously addressed or considered in prior AfDs or DRVs. I understand that they don't agree with the decision in that regard of the previous draft, but there is nothing new here. This concluded less than a month ago and appellants bring no new sources to this DRV, just a stick, unfortunately. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Airways destinations (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Before I begin, I wanted to make two points:

• If anyone thinks I'm judging people based on their editing background again, please call me out. I agree with what Liz said here and will explain below: not every editor who is interested in this subject was aware or participated in that RFC.
• The closer also brought up the lists of airlines and destinations in airport articles (example). In my opinion, a list of an airline's destinations and a list of its destinations from an individual airport are in the same category. Historically, however, we have treated them separately on this site, and I don't want to muddy the waters by talking about both right now.

First I'll address the discussions that occurred prior to this AfD. For a list of them, please see the top of my initial statement in the AfD. I believe most of the people who are actually interested in these lists and edit them often had never heard of or visited the Village Pump (where the RfC took place) or Articles for Deletion. I was the same way for many years. It's true that WT:AIRLINES was notified about the RfC and most of the AfDs, but it appears that most interested editors do not check that page regularly. Also, the AfDs up to this point generally addressed the lists of minor airlines like Syrian Air and Air Polonia, which few people probably were monitoring and contributing to. This AfD, however, covered several major airlines like British Airways and Emirates. 43 people !voted in it – compared to 24 in the RfC and 23 in the most-attended AfD since 2023 – and some people said they had contributed to the lists. Therefore, it seems like it was the first of the 28 AfDs since 2023 to attract a healthy amount of participation from interested parties, which is what we desire.

That being said, I don't think we should ignore all of those past discussions. The RfC creator and AfD nominators who notified WT:AIRLINES did what they were supposed to, and I don't know what else they could've done to attract more attention to the respective discussions. (As to whether an RfC can be cited to delete articles, that was addressed by the subsequent AN discussion.) So if contributors to the AfD thought the past discussions were relevant, I believe we should respect that opinion, and if they thought they were irrelevant (see the next paragraph), I think we should respect that as well.

Now I'll analyze the arguments in this AfD. In my opinion, most people who !voted Delete provided sound policy-based rationales. Specifically, parts of WP:NOT were cited: NOTINDISCRIMINATE, NOTCATALOG, NOTNEWS, and NOTTRAVEL. Most also cited the RfC/prior AfDs, which as I said I don't think we should ignore. On the other hand, most editors who !voted Keep/Merge made relatively weak arguments: USEFUL, EFFORT, HARMLESS, and that the lists are well-referenced (rebutted by WP:VNOT). Several people added that the RfC was six years ago and had limited participation, and that consensus can change. These are valid points; however, the arguments that these editors made for keeping the lists were still weak.

These were the main counterarguments made by Keep/Merge !voters that I identified:

• The lists are actually discriminate because there are clear inclusion criteria. – I tried rebutting this point (Naturally I think my rebuttals were sound, but I will leave that to your interpretation.)
• If context in the form of prose is provided, NOTCATALOG will no longer apply. – No one gave a concrete explanation of what sort of context would justify keeping any of the lists.
• The lists convey key information about the airlines, such as ups and downs in economic ties and international relations. – I tried rebutting this point
• This is a trainwreck. – If editors were referring to the fact that some lists had more references than others, VNOT would apply.
• The cited sections of NOT do not explicitly address this class of lists, and NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply because no travel guide would include this information. – Draken Bowser and I tried rebutting these points

Ultimately, I believe that on the basis of the arguments in this AfD, there was a consensus to Delete all. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved). As I said on Liz's talk page, there was no other way that this could have been closed, and was well explained in the closing statement. There were policy-based and non-policy based arguments on each side but none of them were convincing enough that they persuaded significant numbers to change their mind. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved, voted delete). Very well written closing statement and there was clearly no consensus. With the high attendance already, there was indication consensus would not form if relested. While I believe this article is at odds with global consensus in the 2018 RFC, several users disagree and provided policy-based reasoning. Frank Anchor 19:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rerun the 2018 RfC, and put the AfD aside until we've reached a consensus on the guideline. I agree with the closing admin that the broadly-participated AfD effectively vacates the six year old RfC, and the appellant seems in agreement as well. But if that's the case, we should be running a fresh RfC about this, with notice given to all the original participants, all the AfD participants, Village Pump, and WT:AIRLINES. If the new RfC reaches the same conclusion as the old one, it can be treated as a DRV, with all 153 articles deleted. If the new RfC concludes that such articles belong here (provided they are properly sourced), the AfD will be treated as a "Keep", and there will be peace in the land for at least six months. This subject involves too many pages, and is close to the heart of too many editors, to keep going back and forth between AfD and DRV. Owen× ☎ 19:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support re-running the RFC as well. Consensus can change over six years. Frank Anchor 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OwenX, I think a new RfC could be appropriate. My only concern is the following. You say that a new RfC could be treated as a DRV for this particular AfD. That sounds reasonable, but what impact would the RfC have on the other 34 stand-alone lists and any new ones that may be created? A major issue that arose after the 2018 RfC was that RfCs are not a deletion venue. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The question of how to handle those 34 standalone lists should be brought up in this RfC. If the consensus is to remove those lists, it's a simple formality to do so per the new guideline, with one extra AfD if that's what is decided. Or we can just tag those 34 pages with a link to the RfC, and skip the superfluous AfD. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This all seem far too much of people trying to act like lawyers and insist on complex rules around what should not be included which only people with the most time will spend reading up on. I (and probably many others) joined Wikipedia as an editor to ensure everyone had free access to knowledge. If I knew about something that was objective, non-offensive, appeared in books in a national reference library and likely to be of interest to a wide audience, then I should try to make that knowledge available to others. Now it seems we need endless arguments around what counts as important, adding info to Wikipedia is becoming increasingly painful and it's just not fun to do this any more. If you reject somebody once, they forgive you, reject them twice and maybe they try again.... but keep rejecting people and deleting what volunteers do out of goodwill, and the atmosphere of Wikipedia becomes a very different place.

  A society that has endless and complex debates involving technicalities about burning books to achieve purity is telling future authors to go elsewhere. Pmbma (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We all support making knowledge freely accessible to everyone. But not all knowledge is encyclopedic. I, for example, find business directories and train timetables very useful. They're objective, non-offensive, appear in books in a national reference library or in railway operators publications, but they do not belong in an encyclopedia. Do airline destinations belong in an encyclopedia? I don't know, but I won't feel rejected if the community decides they don't. I appreciate the need to keep volunteer contributors happy to retain them, but Wikipedia will not sacrifice its primary pillar just to appease a group of editors. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I generally concur as over the course of my period of participating on here, different editors would steer me in different ways whether by reverting entire edits of mine based on the 5% that they disagreed with, address my edits with varying definitions on what is/is not encyclopedic, or showing me to the WikiProject's Guidelines, which in themselves have changed in that time. I can compose and edit content on different pages in an identical fashion, and it'd be a toss-up on whether a given user will assure me that it's encyclopedic, or confront me that it isn't.

  Between the AfD or in general, as often as these different editors will cite guidelines or policies, it comes off as less about the policies and rather which policies have been cherry-picked to suit the editor's opinion, whether it is for or against you. One demographic of editors tells you to do one thing but another demographic decides that's wrong and proceeds to delete/revert what you do. I don't believe this environment of confusing and discouraging users from contributing is what is intended to be fostered here, but perhaps I'm wrong?

  Despite saying that, I'll offer my input that I believe it's impossible to take an action on airline destination tables while also not taking the same action or stance on airport destination tables, in that they should not be treated separately or inconsistently which was one of my main issues. They generally serve the same purpose, although only airline destinations will have retained historical information, such as previously-served destinations. Either keep them all or delete them all, but of course given how wide and encompassing the notion was to delete 152 Lists after the 400+ that were already largely deleted, calling it daunting after adding the numerous upon numerous number of airport articles with destination tables is a huge understatement. ChainChomp2 (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, mark the 2018 RfC as historical and not (no longer?) reflecting community consensus, and put all the recently-deleted similar articles back until and unless a well-advertised RfC returns a consensus to delete such articles, Per OwenX. More often than not, deleting well-maintained and longstanding articles because "Wikipedia has evolved" comes across as both pretentious and NIGYYSOBish at the same time. I have no dog in this fight, but it certainly seems like a lot of people have commensurately strong feelings. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Separate deletions of over 260+ list articles are recorded in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/AfD_record, with many of them stated to be poorly referenced and/or heavily relying on one source. Including two well attended multi-deletions 1 and 2. One of the multi deletions were endorsed on the DRV. There would need to be separate DRVs on the 260+ deleted lists, as many had varying qualities. Coastie43 (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but I'm entirely unimpressed by the sequence of events: 1) Argue for a policy change, 2) Delete the worst offenders that maybe should have been deleted anyways for other reasons, 3) Go for bigger fish with a poorly attended "gotcha!" nom that succeeds because no one realizes what's going on, and 4) When the next bigger nom fails because rank-and-file editors have woken up and object, complain that consensus is already well established. Not saying that this is intentional or deceptive on anyone's part, but if I were going to try and cynically destroy a class of articles, this is precisely the playbook I would use. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So these articles will just get deleted anyway now that's very unfortunate. Despite what the voting results were. CHCBOY (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment reminds me of a conversation between FOARP, Rosbif73, and Tserton in the List of Eurocypria Airlines destinations AfD in May 2023. FOARP laid out their reasoning there for their approach. (I don't mean to canvass by pinging FOARP; I just thought that since they started so many of the AfDs, they might be interested in this discussion.)

  In February I tested the waters with the larger airlines by starting an AfD on the United Airlines, American Airlines, and Lufthansa lists. The outcome was to delete* – though just five people took part. (*A deletion review is ongoing.) Sunnya343 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens - Advertising these AFDs on every single relevant project page is hardly hiding them. Deleting the worst offenders is hardly a reason for not working your way up the list. Passing an RFC is hardly just "arguing". I'm not feeling the WP:AGF in your comment here. FOARP (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say "hiding," although I didn't comment at all about how well the AfDs were advertised, but I did specifically include the caveat Not saying that this is intentional or deceptive on anyone's part to specifically address ABF concerns. Even if you advertised stuff on all the relevant project pages, that doesn't include everyone who cares nor does it ensure that they understand what happens when they don't participate, and that is why I specifically had the United/American/Lufthansa AfD in mind in my Step 3. That's a significant enough AfD that the rank-and-file editors who use those pages are going to show up howling about new AfDs on the basis that their ox has just been gored. This is what I perceive this AfD and associated kerfuffle to be: step 4. To clarify, I have no strong opinion on whether these should be in the encyclopedia or not and have never used Wikipedia for anything travel related at all, despite this being my 19th year here. What I do have strong feelings on is that WP:NOT is not supposed to be a political football, by which one can make an argument that something falls under it and hence must be deleted as a matter of policy. That's not really an appropriate take in an IAR world. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but your clear implication here is this was something that was hidden from people, that the previous AFDs were somehow sneaked through just to get a pre-determined result ("a poorly attended "gotcha!" nom that succeeds because no one realizes what's going on"). I literally posted one of them to CENT! And got told off for doing so! What exactly more was I supposed to do to advertise these AFDs?

  What instead happened is when the people who are relatively uninvolved in this subject area voted in AFDs, the AFDs were passed as delete. When fandom got involved we had a wave of essentially "I like this" !votes which the closer was not willing to go against.

  To me all this shows is the general worthlessness of an RFC on any topic, or indeed even our core policies, in the face of mass-voting at AFDs by fandom, however groundless. Which is fine because the split between "people whose hobby is Wikipedia" and "people whose hobby is XXXX which is why they care about XXXX being on Wikipedia" is a very old one. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also wanted to stress that my goal with the United/Lufthansa/American AfD was precisely for lots of people to participate. That's what I was expecting by nature of the airlines involved. I left this comment at the top of the AfD: "I am taking a conservative approach here because these are the lists of three major Western airlines, which may attract more attention on the English Wikipedia than other airlines. I want to give people the opportunity to concentrate on and discuss a small number of such lists before more are nominated for deletion." Sunnya343 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This may sound harsh, and I respect the people who created this content. But I wanted to add that it's not like 260+ articles of the nature of History of British Airways were deleted. We're talking about airline route maps in list form. Moreover, the articles were not deleted on spurious grounds. Many nominators wrote detailed rationales that went beyond the 2018 RfC, and in some AfDs 20+ people participated. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree on your last statement in the introduction which you said: "there was a consensus to Delete all." I counted 18 votes for Delete and 29 to Keep on the AFD. So 11 more voted for Keeping these articles CHCBOY (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment To everyone, a deletion discussion is not a vote. To quote from linked page "When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor. While polling forms an integral part of several processes." Coastie43 (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, accurate closure of no consensus, and I agree with others above who say that this highly-attended AFD now overrides/vacates the 2018 RFC. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There are at least three questions here:
  • • Should Wikipedia have tables of airline destinations?
    • Should the closure of the subject AFD as No Consensus be endorsed or overturned? If the latter, how should it be overturned? (That is one question.)
    • Should there be a new RFC on whether Wikipedia should have tables of airline destinations?
  • We are only trying to answer the second question, whether the closure should be endorsed or overturned. By my count, there were 22 Keep votes and 18 Delete votes. That looks like No Consensus. When there is no apparent consensus, some editors will argue that a consensus should be found because the strength of the arguments in one way or the other was greater. The question for DRV is not whether a different closure might have been valid. We should only overturn if User:Liz's close of No Consensus was invalid. I see no way that anyone should argue that the close of No Consensus was wrong. So it should be endorsed.
  • Should Wikipedia have tables of airline destinations? My view is that it should not, based partly on Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and primarily because airline destinations change, and providing an up-to-date summary of something that is constantly changing is not encyclopedic. But that is not the issue in this DRV.
  • Should there be a new RFC on whether Wikipedia should have tables of airline destinations. My view is yes. Consensus can change, and some editors obviously think that airline destinations are encyclopedic. The lack of consensus for this AFD suggests that a new RFC might be useful, and would not make the situation any more confusing. There should be a new RFC. But that is not the issue in this DRV.
  • We should have a new RFC, and in the meantime we should endorse the closure of No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Robert McClenon, when you say tables of airline destinations, are you including the lists of airline destinations in airport articles? Sunnya343 (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Aeroflot destinations has closed as Keep, further solidifying that the 2018 RfC does not seem to reflect current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally find the Keep arguments there to be weak, e.g. that the information is not available elsewhere or that the list is encyclopedic just because of Aeroflot's Cold War history. Nevertheless, I won't bring it to DRV; I think the discussion we're having now is what was needed. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Precisely--this is just more input into the larger issue, not an indication there's anything problematic with this close--it's just another piece of the larger puzzle. Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The DRV for List of United Airlines destinations was just recently closed as a endorsed delete, with one user suggesting if there was a new RFC that overturned the 2018 decision, that may increase the chances of a number of already deleted lists being overturned. Coastie43 (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Given that I believe the lists violate WP:NOT, for me the only distinguishing factor among the stand-alone lists is the presence of prose in the article, because that prose would have to be copied to the parent article in accordance with WP:CWW, and then we'd have to redirect rather than delete the stand-alone list to comply with WP:PATT. Therefore, the whole process up to this point of doing one AfD after another with essentially the same rationale each time, never made much sense to me. FOARP added a WP:CORP-based argument to their AfDs, but that argument is based on notability and so it does not preclude merging the lists into the parent articles. For instance, the list of US Airways destinations was deleted in this AfD. It was argued that the references: 1) failed WP:CORP (again, a notability issue), and 2) were published before the date given for the list (valid point). To address these points, we could just merge the list into the parent article, cite a route map like this one from December 2013, and write, "This is a list of all the cities US Airways was flying to in December 2013". I do think that's a textbook case of WP:IINFO, and it appears that most of the contributors to that AfD would agree. But as people have said, the consensus on this matter is no longer clear. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Overturn to delete and also a no-consensus AFD cannot overturn an RFC - Nobody has even tried to justify the lamentable sourcing of these articles, which all ultimately originate with the airlines themselves, typically by performing a WP:OR analysis of different versions of the company websites at different times to say when certain services were and were not offered. If the topic is ever discussed at all, the supposed encyclopaedic nature of this content is used as a justification for just never providing sourcing that doesn't come from the airline themselves.

Per WP:AVOIDSPLIT split-out articles have to have stand-alone notability, but none of these articles do because reliable, secondary sources never cover these destinations as a list except in run-of-the-mill business-activity articles of exactly the kind that WP:NCORP tells us can't establish notability.

This is the equivalent of having an article listing all the Burger King franchises that were operating on 9 June 1992. These are clear WP:NOT fails.

I strongly suspect that holding another RFC on this is just going to endorse the 2018 one, but when it comes back to AFD the airline fandom will again try to stymie deletion because any reason is used to ignore RFC results. I also totally don't understand how a no-consensus close at AFD is being interpreted as requiring the re-running of an RFC. The thing about no-consensus closes is, they don't decide anything, especially they don't negate the entire basis that the AFD was brought on. If AFD !voters choose to ignore NOT that doesn't mean that NOT itself is cancelled, does it?

In terms of the close, it should be overturned to delete because it failed to give sufficient weight to a reasoned RFC attended largely by uninvolved editors as compared to fan-base voters at AFD, gave too much weight to keep !votes that were ultimately "I like this" or "It's encyclopaedic", failed to engage with any discussion of the article quality at all, and failed to close consistently with the 26 preceding RFCs which have already deleted more than half of the articles in this category, leaving us with a mess. FOARP (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them have only one source from the airline themselves. The British Airways destinations list is not a page with only the one source. Having an actual look at it there is 267 references at the moment from countless different sources. It's a very well kept article for Wikipedia too. CHCBOY (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CHCBOY: - The BA website is the source for the overwhelming majority of cites, it's just been cited many times. The rest are to industry press or run-of-the-mill coverage of BA announcements about future plans. See also the review of VietJet sources below. FOARP (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also secondary sources about former destinations that were once served by BA. These are good records for certain interest. CHCBOY (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any. The nearest this gets to anything historical is 404 links to the "Explore our past" section of the BA website. Otherwise we're looking at industry press (e.g., trade directories) or run-of-the-mill press coverage simply relaying information that came straight from the airline, which is of course ultimately the only source any of this information could ever come from anyway. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look again they are there. There is even reference from a book with one. Anyway we never going to agree so time to move on good bye. CHCBOY (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book about Christchurch international airport? That was published by Christchurch International Airport? Yeah, again I'm not seeing how this is an independent, reliable source, even before we examine whether it gave any significant coverage of the subject (which seems unlikely, because it's about Christchurch international airport). We literally have a random photo from ebay cited as a source for two of the destinations on this list. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a courtesy ping to Just Step Sideways (formerly known as Beeblebrox), who as the initiator of the 2018 RfC may be interested in this discussion. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As one who supports the creation and maintenance of these lists, and one who has created several of them, I concur with those who argue that the most recent discussion was legitimately closed as "No consensus". SiniyaEdita (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and rerun RfC. Few of the keep !votes even put forth any P&G-based keep rationale at all. Vague assertions that "it's encyclopedic" (in what encyclopedia?!) are no better than ILIKEIT. The keep !votes also did not adequately rebut the delete arguments that these lists fail NOT, including NOTCATALOG, and PRIMARY.
  The policy requirement that articles be based on secondary sources, and that product availability details must be both sourced to independent sources and be encyclopedic(*) was entirely ignored by keep !voters, who instead focused on the fact that these entries were reliably sourced. Since this is policy that was brought up multiple times in the AfD, retention of the article should have been predicated on keep !voters addressing how these lists were generally citable to secondary independent sources.
  (*)Of the handful that even attempted to engage with NOTCATALOG, there is no defense of why such a list--even when it is for a defunct line, which clearly is irrelevant since content doesn't become magically encyclopedic the second a business folds--isn't analogous to should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable and isn't subject to An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Completely agree that the sourcing and notability issues with these articles was completely ignored in favour of a vague and pointless discussion without any reference to P&Gs of whether this is the kind of thing should included if there were independent reliable sources showing notability. This has happened repeatedly in the history of these articles - contrary to what it has been written above they have been controversial throughout their entire history with discussions happening regularly as to whether they were suitable content back to 2006.

  
  

  Let's just look at one of these articles chosen at random: List of VietJet Air destinations - what are the sources? Aeroroutes.com (a blog/industry press), routesonline.com(a blog/industry press), vietnamplus.vn (based on a VietJet Air press announcement), travelandtourworld.com (based on a press-release), the JetArena Twitter feed (based on a press-release), networkthoughts.com (again, based on a press-release), VietJetAir.com (i.e., the company's own website - this is the source for the majority of content), and Anna.aero (a blog/industry press). At the very best these are industry press or based on press-releases, at worst they are blogs or 404 links, but in every case they are just relaying an announcement from VietJet Air about something that will happen, not something that has happened. This is run-of-the-mill coverage of product/service-offerings of exactly the kind that we ignore when it comes from MacDonalds, Microsoft, or Moulinex.

  
  

  Not a single one of them is a independent reliable source giving significant coverage to listing the destinations of VietJet Air. No such source exists, because the only source for this information that will ever exist is the company itself. FOARP (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I hope I'm not bludgeoning, but I wanted to make clear what the subject of this debate is. I don't think anyone can deny that the content in question is nothing more than a direct reproduction of airline-destination maps in list form. That's it.

  Even for former destinations, it's a matter of finding old destination maps and picking out the cities that don't appear on the current map.

  I concur with ChainChomp2 that any future discussion ought to address the lists in airport articles as well. Those lists are also direct reproductions of airline-route maps in list form. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Overturn don't overturn, I don't think it matters. Certainly this AfD appears as contentious as the RFC from 2018. I suggest running a new RFC to determine current community consensus. If there is consensus to keep such articles then the ones that have been deleted should probably be restored, and if consensus is against these articles they should be removed enmass. Either way it will put the issue to rest. (addendum - Reading through the comments I see I'm just making a poor copy of Robert McClenon arguments, I endorse all their points). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  " If there is consensus to keep such articles then the ones that have been deleted should probably be restored" - Let's recall that of the 260 airline destination articles deleted so far, 82 listed either only one or no sources, and 120 were sourced only to the company website and a few sources that were manifestly blogs/industry press. This was also true of nearly all (and likely all?) of the remaining articles but less easily demonstrated.

  I think the assumption is that if we simply decide that catalogues of company services are not a violation of NOT that all the other grounds for deletion would fall away at the same time, or that the NOT issues were the only problem with them. Why would that be the case? These articles are not sourced to any source independent of the company that provides the services listed in them - is the proposal also to create an exception to WP:CORP so that the services offered by airlines alone of all company services are exempt? With the only real reason for doing so being because they have a fan-base that is active on Wikipedia? FOARP (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:CORP issue is legitimate, but the solution to it is easy: merge the lists into the parent articles. That leaves us with the WP:NOT problems. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In nearly every case the articles already have a list of destinations of the airline to the appropriate level of detail for an Encyclopaedia article so the destination articles can be safely deleted, though obviously listing every destination is undue and unnecessary. WP:CORP was hardly the only problem - WP:V is also an issue, particularly if we are talking about restoring the dozens of articles that were deleted which had no sourcing at all! FOARP (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Regarding WP:V though, for most airlines this policy is easily addressed by finding a route map or destination list, whether from the airline itself or from some aggregator like FlightMapper.net, FlightConnections.com, or Flightradar24, and citing it for all the current destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not disagreeing, there referencing of the articles I've checked were beyond terrible and am of the opinion Wikipedia shouldn't include such articles.
  My point was that a new RFC could settle the matter, as no-one could say their weren't aware of this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I want to more explicitly point out that keep !voters failed to demonstrate that sufficient coverage in secondary sources exists for any of these lists to meet our policy requiring articles be based on secondary sources. None of the keep !votes even acknowledged this point. As this policy was brought up, and as the deletion guideline(*) requires closers to personally assess whether the article complies with policy, for this to be closed as anything besides "delete" it should have been necessary for a keep !vote to address why it is not very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy. But we didn't have a single editor put forth the sources for a single list that showed it could be based on secondary sources (let alone the requisite secondary independent sources of significant coverage on the topic as prescribed by GNG and interpreted by NCORP).
  (*)Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies." (emphasis added) - the close clearly violates the WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, since these articles are constructed out of original research using individual announcements from the company concerned (so not independent reliable sources) about future events (so also a WP:V fail). As such this RFC should be reopened or re-run to enable further discussion of this issue, or overturned to delete.

  
  

  Ping @Thryduulf, Frank Anchor, OwenX, Jclemens, CHCBOY, Coastie43, Stifle, Robert McClenon, SiniyaEdita, Sunnya343, and ActivelyDisinterested: - the discussion was treated by keep !voters, and I think in the above endorse !votes, as if the discussion were simply a referendum on personal opinions about whether this kind of article were (absent any discussion of notability/sourcing) something Wikipedia should host, but this was not the only issue at play in this AFD. Do you have any further comments on this? FOARP (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:FOARP - Is there a reason why you are pinging eleven participants, or is this simply a way of bludgeoning the DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain how this could possibly be bludgeoning? It is entirely reasonable to ping the previous participants of the discussion to see if they change their minds based on a new point not yet considered. FOARP (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:FOARP, User:JoelleJay - Are you saying that the closer, as a single administrator, should have determined that the articles violated content policies, and therefore should have closed the discussion as Delete? If that is what you are saying, then what is the purpose of community involvement in the AFD? Why not have the closer decide on their own? If you are saying that the closer should disregard the lack of a consensus and close as Delete, then should we instead have a speedy deletion criterion for Violates Core Content Policies? Maybe there is something that I don't understand, but your arguments seem to be saying that the participation of the community is unnecessary, because the closer should decide. Maybe there is something that I don't understand, or maybe you haven't taken your argument to its logical conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think continued discussion here is helpful. Let this close and then move on to the next step. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you not think it's relevant that the pages objectively fail policy and that this should have been considered by the closer? Why can't the next step be to overturn or relist? JoelleJay (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that even if this AfD is overturned and these articles deleted that it will solve the whole situation. The next AfD or the next article created will see the same editors making the same arguments. Having a new RFC that no-one can claim they didn't know about will both deal with these articles and any future issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An AFD can only be about the articles nominated - entirely new articles are always going to be outside the scope of the discussion anyway. FOARP (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The determination of whether an article "fails policy" is not determined by someone declaring it to be "objectively" so. It is determined by consensus. The consensus is that this article does not fail. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep editors didn't even address the issue with primary sourcing, which is objectively an issue with all of the articles. I don't see how there could be a consensus that an article based almost entirely on announcements on the airline's own website complies with our policy on primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:V means verifiable, not verifed. It's perfectly acceptable for an administrator--or any editor with common sense, really--to note that even without citations, anyone can look up, say, whether Airline A flies between cities B and C, and that any such supposed connection proven false can be excised from any such list article without the entirety needing to be deleted. If you're going to present arguments allegedly based on policies... then please begin with an understanding of what the policies do and do not say. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Verification does not guarantee inclusion, instead included content must be verifiable. Most of the arguments about these articles are not related to V, but to WP:NOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the arguments about these articles are not related to V, but to WP:NOT. Exactly. As someone who used to edit this content regularly and has reviewed past discussions going back to 2007, I think Delete arguments based on the following policies are unlikely to be effective:

  • WP:V – The information is easily verifiable in flight-schedule databases.
  • WP:PRIMARY – This argument makes sense for stand-alone lists, as WP:GNG comes into play. But what if the list is merged into the parent article on the airline? Now it's just one section of another article, and primary sources are acceptable for basic facts.
  • WP:CORP – WP:N has no impact on lists embedded within the parent articles.

  Sunnya343 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:CORP point misses the fact that these are stand-alone articles that need to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, not lists in larger articles. WP:V is not passed when the source is not reliable, nor when what is said is WP:OR. I think the overwhelming majority, and possibly all, of these articles fail on these grounds alone before we even discuss WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:CORP point misses the fact that these are stand-alone articles that need to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, not lists in larger articles. True. It would be beneficial to point out that the only reason some of these lists became stand-alone articles is that they were too long, with no consideration of AVOIDSPLIT. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @FOARP: The only way I can read a consensus for delete from the discussion is to treat all the delete !votes as policy-based and/or all the keep !votes as non-policy-based. There were arguments of both types on both sides, and neither side's arguments were sufficiently stronger or more convincing than the others. No consensus was the correct outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps we should rerun the RfC in the manner OwenX described. That is, notifying all interested parties and tagging all stand-alone lists with a link to the RfC. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested as well: "My point was that a new RFC could settle the matter, as no-one could say their weren't aware of this one". I explained in another comment why I think the current strategy of having one AfD after another doesn't make sense. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC) modified 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the bolding from the first three words of this comment, the nominator does not get to make multiple bolded recommendations. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the outcome of a future RfC-cum-AfD were that this type of content is acceptable for Wikipedia, I would not support a retrospective overturning of all the prior AfDs. Yes, some were based exclusively on the 2018 RfC (e.g. Wow Air), but others went beyond it as I mentioned elsewhere. The standard protocol for appealing controversial deletions, DRV, should be followed. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (reluctantly, having !voted to delete). While many of the keep !votes were little more than lamentations about the WP:EFFORT that went into creating the pages, there were enough remaining policy-based keep arguments to justify the closer's assessment of no consensus. There are two ways forward from here: either we continue the existing path of putting these pages up for deletion in smaller bundles over the coming months, or we hold a new RfC. In an ideal world I'd say that a new RfC would be far more satisfactory, but in practice I have my doubts that it would reach consensus clear enough to be implemented en masse. There's little point in agreeing on a broad principle if the decision then needs to be relitigated in multiple AFDs. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "we continue the existing path of putting these pages up for deletion in smaller bundles over the coming months, or we hold a new RfC" - I'm of a similar viewpoint about what happens if an RFC is held. I think the most likely result of a new RFC will be endorsing the old one, but voters at AFD will not see themselves as bound at all by the outcome of it, nor will closers give it much weight. Smaller bundles honestly sounds like a better plan as it would mean more attention is paid to the universally lamentable state of the notability and sourcing of these articles. FOARP (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Smaller bundles honestly sounds like a better plan Now I'm considering this approach again. Jetstreamer noted in the AfD how frustrating it is to discuss the matter over and over again. But the issue is that any proposal to delete content en masse, especially lists like these that so many editors value, is going to run into difficulties. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My earlier comment was meant to express that any new RFC should act as a de facto AfD for all these articles (policy should be updated to reflect the outcome). Having another RFC and then having more endless AfDs is just a timesink. Notify everyone and every effected article, get a clear picture of what the community opinion is and implement it all in one go. There's already precedence for using this method to stop these endless back and forths. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I know I keep flip-flopping on this: but yes, the endless AfDs are a timesink! ActivelyDisinterested, I don't understand what you mean by "policy should be updated to reflect the outcome" though. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Make it an example in NOT of what should / shouldn't (dependent on outcome of the RFC) have an article. So that it can't be argued about in the future. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly had Beeblebrox done that in 2018 after the RFC none of the rest of this would have happened. Not criticising Beebs, just saying. Getting any amendment of WP:NOT to pass at this point is mission impossible - you'll be monstered just for trying - and unnecessary because it already explicitly excludes lists of "products and services" which these articles manifestly are so the whole RFC idea at this point just feels pointless. I'd rather just AFD these articles on WP:V/WP:CORP grounds one by one or in small groups. What I don't understand is why a no-consensus vote is being treated as cancelling an RFC. FOARP (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A benefit of an RfC-cum-AfD, though, would be that unlike an AfD it can also cover the lists embedded within airline articles, e.g. airBaltic § Destinations. Also, I'm sorry to keep bringing up the related lists in airport articles, but those for example can never be addressed by this "convenient" one-by-one AfD process. If all the lists of airline destinations were in a compact form like in Heathrow Airport § Airlines and destinations (which could certainly be done for the current destinations at least, as they could all be cited to the airline's flight schedule) and were contained within the parent articles, an RfC seems like it would be the only way to address them...

  If we believe that there's no fundamental difference between any of the lists, we should really just proceed to such an RfC instead of having another 20 AfDs. And in this new RfC, there would be no discussion of the 2018 one; we would just focus on the arguments. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC) modified 20:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (voted procedural keep) Liz made an excellent close in a contentious discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I agree with the arguments by Thryduulf and Stifle. The forum to discuss deletion of articles is AFD, and a six-year old RFC cannot override that. The comments provided by Liz in the closure are an exemplary example of how contentious discussions should be handled. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Windsor (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The main reason for deletion is that the guy is not on IMDb, but the person is on IMDb https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1427947/ and other places https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/david_windsor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Us - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Dead_Yet_(TV_series) - https://www.emmys.com/bios/david-windsor - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Windsor&redirect=no - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Windsor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listedwhenyou (talk • contribs)

• Endorse but allow draftification. All the sources provided by the appellant are from the last eight years, which suggests that 18 years ago, when the AfD was closed, the subject was indeed not notable. Either way, their inclusion in IMDb is irrelevant. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've blocked Listedwhenyou as yet another sock of User:Khalafvand. Favonian (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Online 2 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is a page about Mortal Online which released on June 9, 2010. A sequel called Mortal Online 2 was released on 25 January 2022. However, the page was deleted by Stifle at 09:29, 3 April 2024. He gave the reason "No credible indication of importance", but the Mortal Online MMOs are significant. Mortal Online 2 is available on Steam and Epic Games Store. It's actively played by thousands of people. It is continuously being developed. Major roadmap milestones were achieved and are planned. Stifle deleted the page without a discussion. The developer StarVault was awarded a $1 million Epic MegaGrant which is only given to MMOs that are important enough. Mortal Online 2 is also one of the first MMOs to use Unreal Engine 5. -Artanisen (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Notable or not, CSD:A7 specifically excludes products and software. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own deletion, non-notable web content. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn being the sequel to a notable product is a claim of significance, and merging the information to the article about the original is an obvious alternative to deletion that is preferred over deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - being "online" doesn't specifically make it "web-content". As it is sold/distributed via multiple distribution platforms, it fits better in the product/software category, and as such, A7 isn't applicable, - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. It isn't "web content" as in a website, web app or similar but something that runs on computer hardware, a multiplayer game (running on Unreal Engine 5 per the company, and this is how it is installed). It's a piece of software that connects to the internet. —Alalch E. 14:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Had to sleuth for this one. I'm overturning based on: Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline. I then looked at the topic, which appears to be played as a stand-alone game not through a web browser, and is therefore ineligible for A7. Not the most straightforward case, though. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn mis-application of A7, which specifically excludes products and software. Frank Anchor 16:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, allowing it to be sent to AFD. There are two issues, whether the subject of the article was a valid A7, and whether there was a credible claim of significance. A credible claim of significance has been asserted, but we don't need to decide it. The subject was a software product, and they are not subject to A7. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• In light of the views expressed I will reverse my decision and undelete. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]