2024 Canada railway shutdown (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Three rationales were provided for why the closer chose the result she did:

First, the issue of systemic bias, which boiled down to keeping this because it happened in Canada. This has nothing to do with any notability guideline, and there are some problematic implications of giving different countries different worth in deletion discussions (this is ignoring the various nationalistic aspersions, which are beyond the purview of this forum).

Second is that there are "ample sources demonstrating notability". This suggests the closer did not look closely at the sources, which are all news articles about the event itself. Simply being in the news indicates primary source coverage that does not meet GNG's requirement of secondary coverage (the whole point of which is that reliable sources should be choosing which news stories are notable, not Wikipedia editors). If you're not familiar with the use of newspapers in historiography, WP:PRIMARYNEWS has a good explainer.

Third is that other articles haven't been deleted, which is about as textbook an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as it gets.

Every keep argument was based on these three arguments, generic "I consider this important or consequential" statements, or crystal ball speculation about whether it might be notable in the future. There's no scenario where the arguments at this AfD result in a keep without a headcount or a supervote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• News articles are considered by many (most?) editors on enwiki to be secondary sources, not primary sources, based on what I've seen. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But news articles aren’t necessarily secondary sources. If news piece simply regurgitates press releases and controlled, scripted interview quotes, it is merely a convenient bundling of primary sources. A lot of coverage of strikes, lockouts, and other labor difficulties look exactly like this. Union rep said such-and-such, company executive said this-and-that, politician said bleah-and-meh. Dust it with a few related facts about the impact of the industry on the nation, as likely as not cribbed from wiki itself these days, and you gotcherself a byline. Qwirkle (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This encapsulates a lot of the misunderstanding, including one of the !votes citing NOTNEWS. Most anything Wikipeida would cite for an article of national significance, even in Canada, doesn't represent anything other than independent, reliable secondary sourcing. The burden of proof should really be on those who assert that it is not, to demonstrate from our policies why it is not. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even wikipedia disagrees with you: "Secondary sources in history and humanities are usually books or scholarly journals, from the perspective of a later interpreter, especially by a later scholar." Qwirkle (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My closure statement wasn't really that long, I think you are reading a lot into it. Participants disagreed on whether or not news stories are primary sources and whether they can help establish notability and I brought up the example of the article on the attempted assasination of Donald Trump where news sources are accepted as sources as that point was mentioned in the discussion.

Bottom line though, I thought the arguments for Keep were stronger than the arguments to Delete (which basically denied notability) and I saw more support for a Keep outcome than Delete. I didn't think much would change with a Relisting but if you would prefer that, and there is support among editors here at DRV, I'm comfortable reverting my closure, relisting and letting another admin close the discussion. I close a lot of AFDS and my ego is not invested in an individual discussion. It is also not a "supervote" because I honestly have no opinion on the outcome of this discussion. If I'd seen more support for Delete (and that is not just a headcount), then the closure would have been Delete. My job is to assess consensus, not to impose an opinion of my own. If I do have an opinion (which happens occasionally), I participate in the AFD and would not close the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Slice it any way you want, there is simply no consensus to delete. You'd have to discard three quarters of the Keep views to see a Delete consensus; now that would be a supervote. Would a "No consensus" close appease the appellant? The only practical difference would be an earlier potential renomination, which I'm okay with. Owen× ☎ 06:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is a misreading or misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARYNEWS to think is says that newspaper articles about events are therefore primary. These days few journalists go out and about and observe or directly report on events as they happen. The question usually is how much the printed news article has been regurgitated from original reporting. Thincat (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. There's usually no point in debating an administrator's closing statement when the outcome can not be different.—Alalch E. 08:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD result. This is a severely notable event that caused and is causing harm to Canada's economy as a whole. And there were several more keeps than deletes. I'm sorry if this comes off as hostile but I'm just telling it how it is. The AFD closure should stand and filing this review was unnecessary and I feel like you're just trying to get an article in a good, detailed state deleted. Just because an article uses primary sourcing as its primary reference source doesn't mean it should be deleted. If that was the case every single article on Wikipedia should be deleted as most articles cite news publications as their primary means of sourcing, and sourcing alone doesn't qualify an article to eligible for deletion. I literally live in Canada, and have all my life. This is a severely notable event that is impacting all Canadians, and the union has now moved to file a legal challenge against the CIRB for its decision. Trying to get this article deleted is unfair. Not to mention, you gave a reason in your delete argument that being in the news doesn't make something notable. It literally does. The whole point of news is to cover notable events and stories going around in the world. News coverage does make something notable, so your AfD argument goes against many of Wikipedia's own policies. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 09:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as correct and thoughtful reading of consensus. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I haven't !voted in the AFD, but I do think the closure was correct. Though there were some arguments citing WP:NOTNEWS, especially during the first few days, the later !votes were predominantly "keep" !votes, and at least one of these (Novem Linguae's) provided sufficient sourcing that goes beyond WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources. Thus, I do not think the discussion would have closed with any consensus to delete. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Its seems that the majority of voters want the article to be retained. Wikipedia:Deletion review appears to be for when the decision was procedurally made improperly. But why would one think it was? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a delete !voter. I'm still not completely convinced this should be kept as a stand-alone article, as just because a topic receives coverage does not necessarily make it suitable for the encyclopaedia, there's some mention it could be validly discussed elsewhere, and the problem with current topics is you just can't tell if coverage will be WP:SUSTAINED. That being said consensus was clearly to keep, and the argument it was sustained was clearly made by the final !voter, so you can't really overturn it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved): I don't know what you were expecting here. The consensus was clearly to keep. Sure, if the delete votes were weighted significantly heavier than the keep votes (which, as others have mentioned, would likely not have been warranted), then you could probably get away with a "no consensus" close. But a "keep" close and a "no consensus" close have practically the same result. A "delete" close would have been a textbook supervote that would have almost certainly been overturned at DRV. Surely that's not what you were expecting? C F A 💬
• Overturn to Delete (uninvolved)

The OP has made some valid arguments. I haven't read the article and coming from America, I haven't heard of this event which would be news considering Canada is our next-door neighbor. To me, it seems like a primary source since if there were newspapers talking about this outside of Canada, they could be used as sources for secondary sources. However, if all the news sources are Canada based, then the bias would naturally make it a bigger deal as it occurred in the country they are based in.

The argument with the assassination of Donald Trump was valid but that was because it became national and then world news. I haven't heard anything about this event so I don’t really see its need to be on the Wikipedia given the guidelines OP mentioned. I understand my points are most likely to be proven wrong as this is just an outside perspective. I have not done any research into this so there is probably more to the story than what I currently know. Reader of Information (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion....A search for international news perhaps ?

• Austen, Ian (Aug 22, 2024). "Canada Orders Arbitration and End to Rail Freight Shutdown". The New York Times. Retrieved Sep 2, 2024.
• Isidore, Chris; Maruf, Ramishah; Newton, Paula (Aug 22, 2024). "Canadian government forces rail lockout to end". CNN. Retrieved Sep 2, 2024.
• Gurley, Lauren Kaori (Aug 22, 2024). "Canadian government ends major railway stoppage, ordering arbitration". Washington Post. Retrieved Sep 2, 2024.
• Murphy, Jessica (Aug 21, 2024). "Canada rail shutdown threatens US supply chains". BBC Home. Retrieved Sep 2, 2024.
• "Labour dispute stops Canada's two main freight railways". SBS News. Aug 23, 2024. Retrieved Sep 2, 2024.
• "Canada moves quickly to end rail shutdown, sees trains running soon". Hindustan Times. Aug 23, 2024. Retrieved Sep 2, 2024.

Moxy🍁 03:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using an excuse such as "I didn't see anything about it so it clearly isn't notable" is the wrong way to go about trying to argue that an article like this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's just as bad as someone saying "well I didn't see it so it clearly didn't happen!". Just because you didn't personally hear about it doesn't mean it isn't notable. Therefore I see this reasoning as unnecessary and inappropriate. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 07:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lazy rationale. Read the article before commenting.--User:Namiba 13:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close as Keep, as the obvious conclusion of rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the reasonable Keep close. There was clearly not a consensus to Delete, so that is out of the question. One could try to argue that some of the Keep comments were not strong from the perspective of Wikipedia policy, but others undoubtedly were solid. Closer seems to have engaged with that on some level and decided there were strong enough arguments provided for a Keep rather than a NC closure. That is an a priori reasonable interpretation and the distinction between a Keep and NC close, if that were the alternative, is not worth arguing about. As an aside: 1) Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and articles need to be evaluated on whether they meet our inclusion criteria and are meaningful in any part of the world, not (just) in the U.S. or truly globally. That's true whether the subject is of relevance to Canada (this DRV) or Nigeria (a DRV nearby.) 2) While the railway lockout was short-lived, there was real economic impact and there was enough discussion of real and potential economic impact that the shutdown would have remained important to the Canadian economy even if it had lasted just 1 second. Martinp (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has been expanded upon since the last deletion/redirect post. There is no reason for it to be merged. If merged into the proposed page, the blurb for the character will become too long.

Editing my point as people pointed out that I didn't expand on it so I'll expand it using the reply I replied to Cyrptic under.

"I did not look into the history and see that template but the talk page of Megumin still says "This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2022. The result of the discussion was merge."

I created this deletion review because I don't believe it warrants a nomination for deletion anymore. The deletion request itself also states the merge which can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megumin. I am contesting this deletion request under the premise that it no longer warrants a nomination for deletion. Like you pointed out in your comment, it was so quickly removed under "false pretenses" despite the decision being made to merge the page.

If the talk page still says it is a candidate of deletion, it should be taken that it is a candidate for deletion. I looked into how I could contest this deletion nomination. I looked into Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion but considering the page has not been deleted yet, it would not fall under that title. There were multiple people involved in the discussion of the deletion so even if I was to post under there, it still wouldn't fit the criteria.

I agree that the Megumin page is a little bit of a weird unique spot due to it having information that could be put into a blurb and doesn't need its own separate page to be expanded upon. Despite this unique situation, there are is also information regading the character that would infringe on the whole purpose of the list of characters, this being that it is supposed to summarize what the character is about. If we merged the page, it would cause information in certain sections to be nonexistent and unable to be added to the blurb. An example of such is the reception section which would be quite difficult to put into the blurb of the list without expanding on it in the blurb itself. This could be potentially confusing for people who are only looking for a summary of the character, not what fans think of the character.

Considering the fact that this article would not fall under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion due to the deletion request having objections throughout the discussion of deleting the page makes this deletion review valid.

In addition, the edits that have been made since the deletion discussion have expanded upon the character tremendously. This makes the nomination for deletion questionable. If Megumin's page has been expanded upon to include information that would be difficult to put in a blurb, does it require a nomination for deletion?

Finally, the last point I want to make to contest this nomination of deletion is the fact that Megumin's page gets a lot of views on her page. There are clearly people interested on what the character is about so limiting the information on what the character is about would go the whole point behind this article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility

This article doesn't just imply the accessibility to making web pages easier to navigate and read, but it in another way also means that people should have access to all the information which is expanded upon here: Wikipedia#Readership. In particular, the article states, "Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.".

If Wikipedia is used as a reference website and the information on Megumin cannot be condensed into her blurb without it interfering with the whole purpose behind the page being a list of characters (summarizing what the character is about and their significance to the plot), then this deletion review has a valid argument."

Edit note: I'd like to correct myself, the article didn't imply it, it stated that accessibility is about web pages being easy to navigate. I misworded it when I wrote it. Just wanted to clear that up.

In addition, I want to add a few other things that I forget to add in that reply.

Looking at Megumin's page, there is also a section for creation regarding the character. Merging the page to this would remove all the information in that section (which includes images and sources). Removing the page would completely remove a lot of information as the page would lose a lot of substance regarding the character as the information would be forced to be condensed.

Thank you for those who pointed this out and I hope this helps for those who want a better understanding behind the reason of why I created the deletion review.

Reader of Information (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If there was a process error here, it was that the afd-merge-to template was so quickly removed under false pretenses. —Cryptic 14:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not look into the history and see that template but the talk page of Megumin still says "This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2022. The result of the discussion was merge."

  I created this deletion review because I don't believe it warrants a nomination for deletion anymore.

  The deletion request itself also states the merge which can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megumin. I am contesting this deletion request under the premise that it no longer warrants a nomination for deletion. Like you pointed out in your comment, it was so quickly removed under "false pretenses" despite the decision being made to merge the page.

  If the talk page still says it is a candidate of deletion, it should be taken that it is a candidate for deletion. I looked into how I could contest this deletion nomination. I looked into Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion but considering the page has not been deleted yet, it would not fall under that title. There were multiple people involved in the discussion of the deletion so even if I was to post under there, it still wouldn't fit the criteria.

  I agree that the Megumin page is a little bit of a weird unique spot due to it having information that could be put into a blurb and doesn't need its own separate page to be expanded upon. Despite this unique situation, there are is also information regading the character that would infringe on the whole purpose of the list of characters, this being that it is supposed to summarize what the character is about.

  If we merged the page, it would cause information in certain sections to be nonexistent and unable to be added to the blurb. An example of such is the reception section which would be quite difficult to put into the blurb of the list without expanding on it in the blurb itself. This could be potentially confusing for people who are only looking for a summary of the character, not what fans think of the character.

  Considering the fact that this article would not fall under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion due to the deletion request having objections throughout the discussion of deleting the page makes this deletion review valid.

  Furthermore, the edits that have been made since the deletion discussion have expanded upon the character. This makes the nomination for deletion questionable. If Megumin's page has been expanded upon to include information that would be difficult to put in a blurb, does it require a nomination for discussion.

  Finally, the last point I want to make to contest this nomination of deletion is the fact that Megumin's page gets a lot of views on her page. There are clearly people interested on what the character is about so limiting the information on what the character is about would go the whole point behind this article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility

  This article doesn't just imply the accessibility to making web pages easier to navigate and read, but it in another way also means that people should have access to all the information which is expanded upon here: Wikipedia#Readership. In particular, the article states, "Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.".

  If Wikipedia is used as a reference website and the information on Megumin cannot be condensed into her blurb without it interfering with the whole purpose behind the page being a list of characters (summarizing what the character is about and their significance to the plot), then my deletion review has a valid point.

Reader of Information (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction, it's not that the article doesn't imply it, it states it. I misworded it when I wrote it. Just wanted to clear that up. Reader of Information (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and execute the merge (uninvolved). The consensus was correctly interpreted and the eventual outcome was unilaterally subverted by an editor as noted by Cryptic. The appellant has not stated a rationale for why the merge consensus was wrongly reached or articulated what exactly would make the outcome different today ("the article has been expanded" is not a reason to overturn an AfD decision). Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please check my reply to Cryptic's comment. I did add a valid point to my arugment. Reader of Information (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction, it's not that the article doesn't imply it, it states it. I misworded it when I wrote it. Just wanted to clear that up. Reader of Information (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry. Replied to the wrong comment. My bad. Reader of Information (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I've edited my original post to include what you pointed out. Reader of Information (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep. I see four !votes to merge, three to keep, and a nomination that can be read as supporting a merger or redirect. I see no reason to discard any of those views, nor to give any of them more weight than others. If the Keeps were Deletes, then a merge would definitely be the obvious ATD. But absent consensus, a merge cannot be an alternative to Keep. True, "the article has been expanded" is not a reason to overturn an AfD decision, but in this case, no expansion is needed, as the original close was incorrect. Owen× ☎ 15:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi,

  I agree that it was not written as merge but merging implies you delete the article to put the content into the redirected article. However, I edited upon my original post as people pointed out there was no substance. If you re-read the post I edited, I wrote the following, "Looking at Megumin's page, there is also a section for creation regarding the character. Merging the page to this would remove all the information in that section (which includes images and sources). Removing the page would completely remove a lot of information as the page would lose a lot of substance regarding the character the information would be forced to be condensed."

  This is a valid argument I made regarding it being merged. There is no forum (to my knowledge, feel free to correct me on this), that is used for reviewing merges.

  Considering the article was closed due to the consensus of it being merged, even if its incorrect, it does not deny the fact that some felt it should be merged.

  Hence, why this review was made because although the close was incorrect, the discussion regarding the deletion/merge was valid. Such, although the views shouldn't be neglected, it is still important to allow those who supported its merge to give weight to the situation even if it means contesting it on the review . Reader of Information (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have trouble deciphering your reply, Reader of Information. Do you no longer want the article kept? If you still want the article kept as a standalone page, why are you arguing with me? I never claimed the views to merge were wrong, just that they failed to achieve consensus. Owen× ☎ 15:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, English isn't my first language so sometimes I'll misunderstand. Re-reading your reply, I misunderstood what you wrote. I apologize. I do agree the article should be kept though. Reader of Information (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for the misunderstanding @OwenX Reader of Information (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What exactly is being requested by the appellant? The AFD was closed as Merge, which, if I understand what that means, should have resulted in the article being cut down to a redirect after moving information from the article into the parent article. As Cryptic notes, that was not done. Is the appellant asking to undo the closure of Merge and so ratify the failure to merge? If so, are they saying that there was an error by the closer, or that there is new information, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am requesting for the decision to be overturned to keep the article and thus stop the merge. My reasoning behind this is the fact that it has not be executed yet and there is new information to the article that warrants its stay. This can be seen through the creation article. If we go to the target page and look at the section, it is a list to describe what the characters are about and their significance to the plot.

  Yet the information on Megumin’s page does not only include the information about the character but the history behind its creation as well as the reception of the character.

  Not only this but the fact that there was an error on the due process is why the opportunity for me to appeal this was allowed lol. 😂

  While it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the source of ALL information a lot of the arguments in the XFD were made about sources at the time of it being written. Looking at the article now, that reasoning has become invalid as the sources are well documented with over 36 sources being cited. Reader of Information (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the merge, since the AfD's result is in question above - it wasn't a great discussion but you can't close that as keep because the keep argument that there was SIGCOV was rebutted. The problem is it's been almost two years and no merge has occurred. I cannot tell if the article currently passes GNG since it's a specialty topic area, and I haven't found really one that does yet but I could be wrong there. I don't really see a reason to enforce the merge at this point - my sense is that if anyone wants to send this for another AfD they should be able to do so. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with the rebuttal under SIGCOV.

  All the rebuttal mentioned was that the fact that all they could find at the time was related to what the character was about.

  I believe that the article can pass because in one of the guidelines I remember reading it stated something along the lines of if the article cannot be explained outside of the article then it warrants its own page or something along those lines.

  This is a double edged sword as yes the article can be explained outside of the article and be put into one page but it also worth noting that if we were to condense all the information we would be missing information regarding the character regardless.

  One of Wikipedia’s main points is that if we are gonna transfer all the information we should make sure it won’t be too long. The issue with that is I think we barely can explain the situation of the character with its reception and creation without it warranting its own page which is also mentioned in the guideline I once read. I’ll reply to this comment if I can find what I was mentioning. Reader of Information (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer Furthermore, I highly recommend you look at the sources page. There are over 12 sources relating to Megumin. I think it warrants enough attention under SIGCOV to be its own page. Reader of Information (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No action. Nominator says There is no reason for it to be merged, but the article has not been merged years later, and so there is no need to do anything. The close has not been challenged so there's no need to endorse. Some comments: The discussion did not consider the target article. The reality is probably that there is nothing to merge. Content about Megumin had already been included in the suggested target and that content has only changed superficially since the AfD. All editors !voting merge wanted is for the Megumin article to stop existing as a stand-alone article. The first merge !vote in the discussion is purely an argument to delete with no reference to the target article (apart from merely mentioning it), followed by a "per X" and two additional inferred perexes. All of those are basically redirect !votes. The merge "consensus" is purely historical.—Alalch E. 09:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the merge consensus being historical.

  Since the historical part of it no longer is accurate, I believe it should be kept which is why I am appealing the merge decision so the article is kept. Reader of Information (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no need for that, it was kept through the force of circumstance. —Alalch E. 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. However, the talk page still lists as it being merged. It can confuse potential editors. Reader of Information (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how discussions work. Deletion discussions don't expire if something goes wrong in the implementation process. The merge consensus has been crying out futilely for implementation for years, and must be implemented unless this discussion reaches a consensus to overturn it. And endorse that discussion since "merge" does seem like a reasonable reading of that consensus. And I don't find OwenX's argument to overturn convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's too late now, the article was significantly edited in the meantime. This is analogous to someone recreating an article after it was deleted. Sources were added etc. The consensus to merge is merely historical. It's like nothing ever happened. Advocating for merger now in a deletion review is also analogous to the situation (thought experiment follows) of the article actually having been merged, but then someone restores it and adds new sources; subsequently an appeal is made at DRV to replace it with a redirect. What does DRV have to do with it, and what outcome of a deletion review is that? —Alalch E. 19:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. I am not asking for a redirect. I’m asking for it to be kept. Reader of Information (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alalch E. Reader of Information (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that is understood. It doesn't matter what you're asking for, you started a process, the situation is being reviewed and various outcomes are possible. Different editors recommend different outcomes or no outcome in particular. Pppery recommends merging, and I disagree. I do not think that it is this forum's ambit now to form (or revivify or zombify) a consensus to merge the article. —Alalch E. 20:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi. The reasoning the merge was conducted was due to it not having enough sources. However, that has changed now with over 12 different unique sources. (Some are of the same company/website but 36 sources regardless is enough sources to make an article.)

  The reason I am appealing for the article to be kept is because it being merged into the said article would make no sense as if all the information was to be added to the redirected page, it would start to become a revelancy issue. This can be seen in the creation section and the reception section of the Megumin page. The redirected page that Megumin would be merged into is a list of the characters of the show. This said list is supposed to be giving a basic backstory behind the character and their importance to the plot, not every single little detail on the character. The list is meant to summarize, not explain every little detail about a character.

  I do not see how merging the Megumin page into the list of characters page would be of any benefit as the information on the page is of value for those who are interested in how Megumin was created by the author and what the audience thought of Megumin.

  The proposed article it is wanting to merge into is a list. Lists are not there to give all the information on said person unless the information known on the person is very small and doesn’t need its own page. This standard of not needing its own page however does not apply to Megumin which is why the article shouldn’t be merged into the proposed article.

• Saying the article should be merged is like saying that a good-quality product should be thrown away if it is of use to you. How would the reasoning that the merger was based on still be held to be a valid reasoning even years later after what Alache pointed out regarding the two pages. Remember, the target page of where Megumin would be merged into has changed very little since the discussion that the merge decision is based on. Meanwhile the Megumin page has changed a lot. What would be the benefit of having merging something into that hasn't been updated in years with information while the other page has changed a lot to include information that is of such value that it warrants to make it stand as a stand alone page? Reader of Information (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Logically it makes no sense. The Megumin page is of good quality. That is obvious. If you compare the purposes behind the two pages, it is evidently clear that merging the Megumin page into the proposed page would cause more harm than good. Reader of Information (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus largely per OwenX. There was a slight majority supporting merge (considering the nom as such) as compared to keep, but reasonable policy-based arguments were made on both sides. I certainly do not see consensus to not keep the article, so NC is the most appropriate close. My opinion is based solely on the AFD, which I believe was closed incorrectly and not on any updates made to the subject page since the AFD. Frank Anchor 04:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of JG 5 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am appealing the deletion of the template {{Knight's Cross recipients of JG 5}}. The template was deleted in context of a bulk nomination (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 30#Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 1st ID). Since 2017, all of the referenced entries in that template have been fully expanded, many attaining B-class or higher ratings with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. The layout of the template follows similar templates such as {{WWII women snipers}}, {{Female HSU Partisans}}, {{Women fighter pilots WWII}}, {{Heroes of the Soviet Union 37th GRD}} or {{Heroes of the Soviet Union 46th GNBR}}, just to list a few. The closing editor @Godric on Leave:, alternatively known as @Winged Blades of Godric:, seems to have retired. In a related instance, the deletion was overturned in 2022, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 12. Pinging involved editors from 2017 @K.e.coffman and Kierzek: Thanks for the consideration. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate and restore. The 2017 deletion was correct, but clearly things have changed since then. I see no reason to deny this appeal. Owen× ☎ 09:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No action—declare all refundable. MisterBee1966 should be trusted to ask for a refund only when it's appropriate.
  MisterBee1966 appears to be the main creator of such templates of which there are many. There have been 200+ of them or more, and most have been deleted over time as not serving a navigational purpose, over many TfDs, some individual some bundled. Example older TfDs: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 24. These particular older TfDs were closed by Primefac who added to the close: REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. At that time, it seemed that there was a general agreement that these templates are okay as long as there is a sufficient population of articles for each. Normal.
  But then the consensus changed to the templates being unwanted as a type of template, which is evident in the TfD brought up by the DRV nom. The rationale for deletion wasn't that there aren't enough members, it transformed into the templates being unwanted categorically, and consensus formed around that; it must have seemed like they're all on a path of getting deleted...
  This appearance of a wider consensus was short lived, as mass-nominations continued and the deletion trend was noticed and opposed by other editors leading to a subsequent "no consensus" bundled TfD. 70 have survived up to this day (such as Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 12th PD—strange how the DRV nom did not bring such functionally identical, surviving templates as examples).
  So there is no wider sense that these templates are unwanted. All TfD's of these templates should be understood in the words of Primefac: ask for a refund when sufficient new pages are created. Starting individual DRVs would not be so great.—Alalch E. 13:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the advise given by @Alalch E.:, I have requested that the template be refunded, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Template:Knight's_Cross_recipients_of_JG_5, Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The request was archived before a decision was taken. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't worked in template space enough to figure out if this is valid, and I know some things have changed of late. That being said I'm not sure why this would be a template instead of a category. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1) Wouldn't work as a category: "Category:Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross of JG 5" would be deleted as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization.

  2) Wouldn't need to also be able to work as a category (to be "replaceable" with a category) to be justifiable as a navigation template.

  3) Even if it had worked as a category, and we had both, one would not need to go away--because overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative. —Alalch E. 08:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Peel Club (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article "The Peel Club" was drastically overhauled in its last 24 hours of editing by me, resulting in a fully compliant, high-quality, well-researched page with both primary and secondary sources. The primary source material includes authoritative references from the UK Parliament and the University of Glasgow, supplemented by various books from 1836 to 1840 that offer significant historical insights, involving two Prime Ministers.

The main contentions that justify this review are as follows: 1. The initial draft of the article was indeed underdeveloped and flagged for improvement. However, the revised version addressed all concerns raised, meeting Wikipedia's quality standards. 2. I resolved the orphan page warning by linking the article to related pages, which seemed to have drawn undue suspicion. 3. The article was deemed promotional due to my inexperience and lack of neutrality in my first attempt. However, my intention was to contribute valuable historical content on a topic I am particularly knowledgeable about. 4. Editors mistakenly refuted the connection between the new Peel Club and the original, despite the new club's clear claim to continuity. This was substantiated on the Talk page, which hosted a detailed explanation of the legitimacy of this claim. Unfortunately, this explanation was overlooked by the reviewing editors. 5. My edits were based on empirical evidence from the sources cited and accompanied by thorough justifications for each change, yet these were repeatedly undone without proper review. 6. An error on the "Glasgow University Conservative Association" page linked to this page, and my correction (including the proper use of "The" in "The Peel Club" and appropriate linking) was accurate.

This well-researched page added crucial information to Wikipedia and the editorial process that led to its deletion was hasty and dismissive of the significant improvements made. I request a review of the page to assess its professional standard and content integrity. If the page cannot be restored, I also request the recovery of the Talk page essay where I detailed my rationale for retaining the article, as it contains valuable arguments that could be used for future reference. Thank you. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but Allow Recreation - DRV is not AFD Round 2. This appeal is a rearguing of the AFD. The appellant should be allowed to submit a draft for review, or to create a new article, subject to AFD, but not subject to G4 if substantially different from the original version of the article. The version of the article that was seen by the voters is not the same as the last version of the article. Either Delete or Relist would have valid conclusions by the closer. The end result of a Relist would have been that the revisions to the article be taken into account, which is what will happen if the close is endorsed and the originator submits a draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Temp undelete for review, please. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jclemens — done. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the applicant's statement around drastic overhaul in the last 24 hours of editing, oldid's before and after for reference. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD concluded the topic didn't meet our inclusion guidelines. The issues are that the sources that directly address the Peel Club appear to be primary (1, 3, 5, 7?, 8) or a blog (4). 2 is showing the Peel Club was discussed (in Parliament) and might count toward WP:N, it's really not clear to me. 7 is half written by a president of the club (from 2016? our article seems to indicate it didn't exist then?), making it probably primary. So while I'm not happy with losing this article, I think the AfD's conclusion is reasonable. All that said, I have to imagine newspapers of the time had something to say about this Club. Find those things and you'll have a fine reason to recreate the article. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist The AfD considered an admittedly stubbish and inadequate article on a topic and found it wanting, the article was then completely rewritten without any further !vote, and after the article was modified the improved version was deleted solely on the basis of !votes and a nomination addressing the older version. Neither the nomination nor either !vote supporting deletion apply to the final form of the article, and curiously, the editor expanding the article failed to log a !vote. As Robert McClenon notes, our normal process would require the deleted article be deleted G4 if reinstated, which is nonsensical as it was never commented upon by any delete !voter in its improved state. It is not DRV's job to assess whether that improved state is sufficient to merit keeping--rather, that is a job for further discussion at AfD, hence my strong preference for a relist rather than deferring to "recreate later" as my colleagues above suggest. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, the creator of the page (me) failed to log a vote due to ignorance of the system and what actions were required of me in the circumstances, thats why. Apologies. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Hobit. I see this as a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 type appeal. We are considering new information, and while the facts relating to the state of the artile are not new relative to the closing of the AfD, the information about those facts is new. Considering whether the facts are of such importance that would merit a different fate for this page, my conclusion aligns with Hobits that they are not, because the sources are not good. The page should not be simply recreated and it is appropriate that G4 should apply to an identical recreation. It should be considered refundable to draft upon request (it could be good for the DRV closer to note that its refundable to draft).—Alalch E. 10:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but Allow Recreation As a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 appeal, I recognize there was a lot of work done in the 24 hours prior to the AfD close. But, like Hobit, I don't see the sourcing necessary in the revised draft. That said, there are some sources from Google Scholar that mention the founding (and founders of the club) that are not yet incorporated into the article. I also do think there should be some newspaper reports of the 1839 discussions in parliament about the club. So, I think the sourcing is close, but not quite there yet and I am not quite willing to overturn based on new information or suggest a relist. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse looking at the improved version and the provided sources, it's still a clear delete to me. There's only one source in there which might be acceptable. I would disallow any recreation that's not in draft space. SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and draftify. The appellant did not even !vote in this discussion and did not flag the improvements to the article for the closer to see. Paul W did, but he also found the revisions and new sourcing lacking and this comment was unrebutted before closing. While a relist would have been within discretion, the consensus for delete was correctly interpreted. I am not unsympathetic to the appellant's efforts to get this article in better shape, but literally none of the sources in the revised article were independent and thus would not have changed the deletion decision had more time been granted. (I would support draftifying so the appellant and other editors have a chance to find independent sources to support the notability claim before submitting through AfC.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the original nominator. I did take time to review the updated revision and its sources, but I'm still unconvinced of the reliability of this organization and of the validity of the sources. They still seem to be mostly primary and WP:SELFPUB as per Hobit's argument. I can't support a relist, as I don't believe it would result in a different outcome, and would likely just result in more of the appellant bludgeoning the process as they did in the first discussion. Recreation at a later date via draft/AfC is possible if new, better sourcing comes up, but as it stands nothing they added would likely stand in a new AfD discussion. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 21:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

There is various speculation among editors here about what is really going on with this page. I am not an editor and have no knowledge of Wikipedia processes.

I am posting here to confirm that ‘The Peel Club’ is a very recent formation. The current formation is a group of fewer than twenty acquaintances who have held one dinner. While I’m sure lots of the people involved are perfectly decent, none are in any way presently notable. It is hard to see how any combination or permutation of the current membership could be notable or of public significance. The Peel Club is currently being heavily pushed on Instagram. Screenshots of the Wikipedia page (in the brief moments it has been live) have been used in Instagram stories seemingly to push the Club’s credibility and make a claim on an entirely unrelated history.

Editors are right to observe that there is no formal relationship with the Carlton. Several members of the Carlton Club have been surprised by the alleged association - Hellenic Accountant calls the clubs “sisters” somewhere in this discussion - and are establishing the facts of any association with the Carlton directly.

It’s naff; the President (an autocrat according to the website!) knows it’s naff; and this Wikipedia page is an attempt to look less naff. Themuffinman96 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suggest that the various editors saying "the revised version still didn't demonstrate adequate sourcing" are re-arguing the AfD, something we've said on many occasions isn't DRV's job. If we're going to review sourcing in this case, then by all means let's allow DRV reviewers to evaluate sourcing arguments all the time. I note that I have specifically avoided reviewing the sources out of just this concern, although I don't doubt these concerns are valid... is the process valid, or should the mess be sent back to AfD for re-consideration? SmittenGalaxy, Dclemens1971, SportingFlyer, Enos733, Alalch E., Hobit Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said above, I think the process was valid. The appellant made significant changes to the article but did not signal this to the closer on the AfD page! The only !voter to discuss the addition did not think it warranted a change in outcome. The closer could have relisted, but really why? There was a quorum for "delete" and only one !voter bludgeoning the process and not advancing policy-based arguments. No process errors by closer, consensus interpreted correctly, done. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The arguments I brought up were mostly because these were explicitly mentioned by the appellate, otherwise I'd see no reason to mention article content at all. My belief is the process was done correctly, though I still believe even if there is error found in the close that the article wouldn't survive AfD again in its current state. Relisting wouldn't serve much purpose even if the close was invalid, which I believe it was not. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't AfD number two - I was brief in my endorse, but I was looking specifically at whether the article had been improved enough to merit a relist, which did require looking at the sources. It's also not necessarily a bad thing to review sources, especially if the discussion was mistaken. SportingFlyer T·C 05:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The process was not pretty but it was valid. I think the most useful approach is to treat it as valid and to cover late changes to the article that have not been significantly addressed in the AfD as a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 appeal, i.e. to treat it as new information brought to DRV to review, and when DRV participants review new information consisting of additional references they have to review sourcing, and I don't think that this should be equated to "AfD round 2", but I agree that it looks a little similar on the surface. —Alalch E. 10:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do believe there is a difference between not relitigating the AfD and reviewing "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." In this case, the appellant significantly revised the article late in the process. One of those additions was the fact that parliament discussed the (first iteration of the) club. To me, this would qualify as "significant new information" (even as the underlying source may not contribute to notability). The addition also changed the focus of the article from the modern club to the historical club. So, to answer the question, yes, the process of reviewing new information is valid, even if this is a (relatively) rare reason for appeal. -

  Enos733 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I could see reopening this for another week if the improvements to the article had gone totally unnoticed at the afd (such as happened here), but it was noticed and did get further discussion. There's no reason to think that relisting this for the nominator here to further bludgeon the discussion would result in anything different. Endorse. —Cryptic 11:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can the appellant be blocked from commenting further in this DRV? An obvious case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT w/r/t the primary sources and WP:NOTHERE generally; moreover, the formatting of their responses is disruptive to anyone trying to follow the rest of the conversation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconding this; they're just bludgeoning the process in almost the exact same way they were doing on the original AfD. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've restored this debate to being an effective process through very liberal use of {{collapse top}} to remove the disruptive bludgeoning — before and after. I agree that this editor probably needs to be blocked from this DRV, but as the person who took the action here, I'd rather another administrator use their tools than myself (call it a hyper-sensitive approach to INVOLVED, if you will). Daniel (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Before getting all caught up in process (what is DRV, perceived bludgeoning or not), I've reviewed the revised version of the article. While the notability-centred arguments for deletion at the AFD may have been made on an earlier version, they seem to apply to the current version as well, which is not materially different in that regard. So I don't see prima facie evidence that consensus would have been judged inappropriately. It is certaintly possible that with enough effort, additional independent sources adequate to get over the notability hurdle can be found, and so no objection to a future draft being reviewed and ultimately accepted at the AfC process or similar. But it will need to look significantly different than the current version, and it is distinctly possible (in fact probable) that notability is just not there at this time. Martinp (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I participated in the original AfD, so no comment on the process here. I've reviewed the "improved" article as shown above and the source are primary (either to the club or to the government), so would still not be acceptable. I don't think a draft would help, but I'll leave that up to the participants here to decide. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Peel Club article has been re-created by a previously uninvolved editor (User:DowryOfMary, with a declared COI regarding the club) who deleted the tempundel notice. (After it appeared in my Notices, I started to edit their work, but then realised I should not edit the page until the Deletion Review is completed and an administrator has removed the notice. Apologies.) The original article creator has since also started to edit the article. Paul W (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All this new activity around "The Peel Club" is a deeply promotional push to increase the visibility and enhance the image of the organization whose website is https://www.thepeelclub.org. Today's edits: Special:Diff/1242666701/1243926564. The idea is to aggrandize the new group by supplying it with a claim of historical rootedness and relevance. I have warned Hellenistic accountant about this on their talk page (permalink). —Alalch E. 12:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the original closer, I'm staying out of this DRV discussion. I have reverted the page in question back to the temp undelete notice, though, because the whole purpose of temporary undeletion was to let people find the article's history and know how it looked at the beginning and end of the AfD period. I hope it will not need page protection just to get through DRV. I also hope I have not overstepped by doing even that much. This whole thing is already unnecessarily chaotic. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, I too used to think DRV participants were all adults who could realize things only got brought here when the deletion process had already gone very wrong, and treat undeleted material accordingly. No longer. I've protected pages I tempundelete as a matter of course for a number of years now. —Cryptic 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic - fair shout. I'm going to start doing this too from now on, as clearly editors can't be trusted to treat {{tempundel}} articles appropriately. If anyone was to challenge that protection, I guess I can point them to this page as to why I (and others) do it. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy has allowed it since 2006, and has instructed you to - in almost identical wording to the current version - since 2008. You don't need this as an example. —Cryptic 06:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read that as "instructed to" because it all appears to fall under what you can do, not must. That said, though, I'm all in favor of considering it a requirement as part of the tempundelete process. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enh, it's ambiguous. It boils down to either "admins may (w, (x or y), and z)", "admins may w, ((x or y), and z)", or "admins may (w, may ((x or y), and may z))". The second doesn't make any sense, since the actual undeletion is w; and I don't think the third is a natural reading. But I didn't feel at all guilty about not protecting, despite being aware of the passage, before I got to the point where I started protecting every time.

Irritating that we don't have an actual WP:Undeletion policy anymore. What it now points at is instructions for where to ask admins to do it, not policy for admins. (There's some mention in paragraph 2 of the section above that, and it's scarily wrong.) —Cryptic 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Do not delete this page, because it was merged. The content that replaced the tempundel notice was merged before the notice was restored (see page history). —Alalch E. 09:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following this drv very closely - it's been a hectic week - but if need be, we can still attribute that in other ways than leaving a live mainspace redirect with full history. —Cryptic 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redeleting + an att history page such as Talk:List of Regular Show episodes/attribution history might be better (no opinion; for the closing admin to decide). —Alalch E. 20:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic - Thanks for that. The more you know! Might be worth including on the tempundel template itself for ignoramuses like myself who weren't aware of that part of the protection policy, perhaps? Can be discussed elsewhere, obviously. Daniel (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endore. Properly deleted on criticism of the sources. A case is made to allow for recreation. Do this in WP:AfC, and follow the advice at WP:THREE. The improved version has eight sources, I don’t want to analyse eight sources, but I will make time to analyse the best three. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Overturn to Redirect to Glasgow University Conservative Association. The merge has happened. The content is there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved and not weighing in on the discussion. Just flagging the Talk page discussion and User_talk:Moneytrees#Text_request_for_deleted_page_The_Peel_Club where the appealant is continuing the conversation and request for content. Star Mississippi 01:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. DRV#3 allows us to consider "new information", which would include brief evaluation of the legitimacy of any new proposed sources. Though one of the !voters in the AfD actually did address this information, so DRV#3 isn't really applicable... Anyway, the three sources being promoted above do not require any assessment beyond looking at their web hosts to dismiss as invalid for notability purposes. 1. Hansard is a primary transcription of parliamentary proceedings N. 2. Is a book on Peel Club proceedings written by the Peel Club/GUCA. It is neither independent nor secondary N. 3. GUCA is the continuation of the Peel Club and is thus not independent. Anything published by Glasgow University or its clubs would be non-independent in this context N. The other sources in the initial undeleted version are a blog, more non-independent websites, and an article on Robert Peel co-written by a president of the "revived" club that contains no information on the club (and would not be independent if it did) N. The appellant does not seem to understand our policy that articles must be based on secondary sources and the requirement for secondary, independent SIGCOV in RS for a topic to be notable. JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective PAC (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I objected to the original proposed deletion and my objection stands. Collective PAC is sufficiently notable. Stefanie and Quentin James don't have Wikipedia pages and this page is a sufficient landing site for information about them as well. The lister then re-proposed the article for deletion. The Cunctator (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the perceived problem is that Quentin James is notable but Collective PAC, the correct solution would be to preserve its content and redirect it to Quentin James, instead of deleting the Collective PAC article. But simply keeping a well-referenced article would be just as reasonable. --The Cunctator (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. With only two participants, this must be treated as a soft deletion. Although this might be an exercise in futility, as the appellant hasn't presented anything that would save the article from failing the next AfD, this time with quorum for a hard-delete. Relisting is also acceptable, now that this received more attention. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where, precisely, do you come up with "must be"? —Cryptic 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how you interpret WP:NOQUORUM's few or no comments, but a single supporting !vote after a nomination is as few as it gets. Owen× ☎ 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'll repeat. Where are you coming up, specifically, with "must be"? WP:NOQUORUM says such deletion discussions should be treated as expired prods, which is very different. It further goes on to say that if the closing administrator thinks that would be controversial - and I've seen no contradictory evidence as to Explicit's thought process - or if the page has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, which it has, then the closer may use his best judgement. Closing according to the nomination is not just within that discretion, it's (ahem) explicitly among the example options. —Cryptic 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore as a challenged soft deletion, subject to immediate AfD by any editor per RENOM, with advice to the appellant to use that time to wisely address the problems identified. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Overturn to no consensus as ineligible for soft deletion and lacking a quorum to come to a delete or keep outcome, on the basis of further/subsequent discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This notion that not just the usual supermajority, but a majority of above 100% is required for deletion has no basis whatsoever in either policy or guidelines. Had The Cunctator used the reasoning above and in his removal of the prod template - solely that the subject is "sufficiently notable", without any evidence or further reasoning - this would have been an entirely anodyne deletion, as a very weak keep straight out of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, that had been thoroughly rebutted. Silence in a debate must not be taken as a stronger argument than actually participating in it. —Cryptic 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Absent a minimum number of eligible participants in a discussion ("quorum"), one or two editors in agreement form a unanimity... but not a consensus. Nothing "above 100%" is required, nor is it a sensible concept. Try this, instead: two in agreement in a deletion discussion are not enough to consider the process appropriately completed, and after sufficient relists without sufficient input, "no consensus" is the appropriate conclusion for such a discussion. You don't have to agree with me, but I'd appreciate it if you understood where I'm coming from. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak endorse As I read No Quorum, one option for the closer in this case is "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal". In this case that would be to delete the article. So closing as delete is an option in a situation like this. I'm not thrilled with that in general--I don't really want No quorum situations to result in deletion. In this case I think it was probably the right call--the sources are thin, with that Hill article being the best I can find. The second reference to the Collective PAC is almost enough to count as a source for WP:N. But A) we need multiple sources and B) "almost". All that said, I think soft delete should be the norm in situations like this and so I can only weakly endorse. Or put differently: "Probably not what we should be doing, but within the rules I think and the right outcome in this case."Hobit (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is claiming the deletion was incorrect. What NOQUORUM tells us is that an article deleted under such conditions is soft-deleted, like an expired PROD, and is restored at the request of any editor in good standing. Owen× ☎ 08:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @OwenX:. I think we are reading that differently.

  • "If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:"

  And one of the options there is "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal". Soft deleting is also listed as an option.

  I think that means that the closer can accept the nominator's proposal, in this case, just deleting. Do you disagree with that reading? Sorry my formatting isn't great...Hobit (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All you said is true. Again, the admin closed that AfD correctly. But now that we have a legitimate request for undeletion/recreation, we have no valid reason to deny it based solely on that poorly attended discussion. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Not eligible for soft deletion after being deprodded. The deprodder could have opposed deletion in the AfD but didn't. It was relisted three times. Absence of arguments that the article is suitable for retention in this context and in this period means that deletion was appropriate, and so this is just an ordinary hard-delete AfD.—Alalch E. 11:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I understand your logic. If it's not eligible for soft deletion, yet was deleted without quorum, then the best course of action would be to correct this in a minimally-disruptive way, not to cement the mistake just because the original deprodder failed to show up. I don't think the situation calls for an overturn, but refund upon request should still apply here. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The logic is that the deletion process was followed correctly, that there was consensus to delete with low participation, but consensus nevertheless ("no quorum" is a symbolic way to say that the participation is unsatisfactory, but it doesn't mean that a low-participation AfD can not produce consensus, and the problem of participation is now systemic; also there were three relists and no one !voted keep, not even the deprodder), and that the result of that process was what we want to happen. There's no specific problem here really, what happened does not disrupt the encyclopedia; it can be reasonably assumed that the page that was deleted was a page that should have been deleted under the deletion policy. A refund to draftspace upon request should be a given if the article was not deleted for serious reasons (BLP, etc.), and should not require anything from DRV. In practice, at WP:REFUND, administrators might decline. It would be good to note in the close of this DRV that it's fine to refund to draft. If an identical recreation is brought back into mainspace, G4 will and should apply. The mover from draft to article space should be responsible that the article is made better. —Alalch E. 13:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOQUORUM reads clear enough to me. I don't see any provision there that says, "But if you wait long enough and no one else shows up, you can call this a quorum anyway". I agree with you that deletion was the correct outcome, and I never claimed the close was disruptive or incorrect in any way. But unless we're ready to trample policy by wielding IAR, then this was a no-quorum close, and should be treated as such. This means refund to mainspace upon any legitimate request, and a judicious--if any--application of G4 unless and until we can re-close this with quorum. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "NOQUORUM" is a shortcut, a symbolic representation for a particular being of process which is extending PROD into AfD to label some deletions as "soft", and the guideline does not really talk about quorum in the sense that quorum is mandated for consensus forming. Wikipedia:Consensus does not either. It doesn't even use the word "quorum" in its actual text. There's no "there must be quorum for a consensus-based deletion". There's a "should" a "Generally, ...", a "may", but nothing definitive with respect to a hard quorum requirement. As a being of process, soft-deletion only makes sense within the constraints of the process. We would IAR-ing now to repurpose soft deletion for this situation, outside of those constraints. —Alalch E. 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alalch E., I apologize for going on vacation and not checking Wikipedia when someone *relisted for deletion* a deletion to which I had *already* objected. (Note to self: "deprodder" is jargon for "someone who objects to a proposed deletion", as "PROD" is the abbreviation for "proposed deletion" and "DEPROD" the abbreviation for "objecting to a proposed deletion".) --The Cunctator (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Cunctator: All right, I'm leaning toward reinterpreting this AfD as a no-consensus discussion involving the two participants in the AfD and you as the "keep !vote" stemming from your removal of the PROD template, but please say what the argument against deletion is, and I'm noting that you said "notable" and "well-referenced", but if you could spare just a few words about why the topic is notable and what "well-referenced" means here, that will help me make up my mind. —Alalch E. 15:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that there's no consensus, then shouldn't the argument for/against deletion belong in the proposed deletion discussion in a relisting as a proposed deletion, rather than here? As Owenx has pointed out, the proper procedure is clear. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is only no consensus if you have made something to the effect (something that I am willing to construe as having that effect and by doing so I am really stretching the bounds of reasonableness) of a !vote against deletion that is not discountable, but if you have just opposed deletion while not expressing policy-based reasoning against deletion, then there was a consensus. Edit: and "notable" and "well-referenced" are close to a policy-based reasoning, and I assume that something like that is what you wrote in the edit summary when you removed the prod template. —Alalch E. 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I meant no quorum (in addition to no consensus). --The Cunctator (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree that quorum is determinative for forming a consensus. I'm not sure if you would agree that it is looking at it more broadly. An AfD in which the nominator and one respondent agree is a consensus and the WP:NOQUORUM construct is a rebuttable presumption, a fiction, that it wasn't a "real consensus" to let a third editor wave that consensus away under a presupposition that things will be better for everyone and that the dispute would have been more thoroughly resolved if there had been more participation (highly questionable). —Alalch E. 15:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the lack of a quorum, I don't think it's appropriate to debate the notability question here. That said, given that the deletion proposer accepted the notability of Quentin James, I really think this is a tempest in a teapot about whether the content that is at Collective PAC should instead be at Quentin James. E.g., is this an article about James or Collective PAC? It's certainly not a side reference to either. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD nomination records your "keep !vote" thusly: An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James.. If that is true and there was nothing better offered in your argument against deleting expressed when you deprodded, then it's a consensus, not a lack of consensus. Because objectively, it is a 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. It was persuasively argued that the topic is non-notable, one editor agreed, no one disagreed after an especially long time for discussion, ergo consensus.

  I believe that my view is consistent with policy. Would you start the Quentin James article so that the Collective PAC content can be refunded for the purpose of merging? That should be fine. The history could be made available at a Collective PAC redirect to Quentin James. That doesn't require doing anything to the AfD. Or the Collective PAC page can be refunded to draft and you can change its primary subject and title to Quentin James and publish it as the Quentin James article. —Alalch E. 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see Draft:Quentin James. —Alalch E. 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good to me! --The Cunctator (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, The Cunctator, but my "Allow recreation" above was based on the assumption that you (or anyone) can present a valid, notability-related argument for reviving that page. If your claim is based solely on the supposition that the deletion was improper, then I'm afraid I'm with Alalch E. on dismissing this appeal. Whether the deletion was soft or hard, it wasn't out-of-process, and absent a valid reason to restore the page, it will be left deleted. Owen× ☎ 16:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It's not eligible for soft deletion as it's already been de-prodded, and while I agree minimal participation at an AfD should be something we're wary of, the fact it can't be soft deleted should be treated as an additional, albeit small, hurdle. I think that hurdle requires a good argument to un-delete. I don't see any compelling argument to un-delete the page, nor am I seeing many sources in a cursory WP:BEFORE search which would make me think the deletion was done in error. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe soft deletion is an option for the closer to pursue. It's very much listed as one of the 4 options for the closer in WP:NOQUORUM. But there are other options too. We all seem to think that guideline says different things, it may require a discussion and maybe a rewrite... Hobit (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply being mentioned as an option in WP:NOQUORUM does not mean that option is permanently available. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved): I was the sole delete !vote in the discussion other than the nom. I agree with @OwenX that soft deletion is one option under NOQUORUM (as confirmed by this recent RfC), but, as @Hobit notes, NOQUORUM also states that "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal" is an option in "the closer's discretion and best judgement". No argument has been presented here that deletion was not within the closer's discretion. I disagree with @Alalch E.'s proposal to treat a de-PRODing as an implicit keep !vote if the de-PRODer happens to come around to DRV. People can de-PROD for various reasons (e.g., insufficient PROD rationale or believing that the article would benefit from AfD). Additionally, this creates an easy way to game the system. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfC was closed with "no consensus" so as not to enable soft deletion of articles for which PROD was attempted (it's not an option), and what was effectively reaffirmed in the RfC by lack of consensus for otherwise and in light of existing practice is that articles ineligible for soft deletion and nominated for deletion are hard-deleted when consensus for deletion can be reasonably found (in spite of low participation), and that, for example (taking one of the AfD's mentioned in the RfC--as an extreme example, much more extreme than the AfD that is under review here), this 0-replies AfD with the close of delete‎. Ineligible for SOFT deletion, but there is no one supporting retention or providing any input (courtesy ping User:Star Mississippi) is good and normal: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashland, Concordia Parish, Louisiana. —Alalch E. 10:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Alalch E. for the ping. I haven't reviewed this discussion or AfD but will say that my general MO there is it's treated as a PROD in that if you came to my talk and asked for restoration, I'd do so without question and exactly as I would if it were a PROD or closed as soft deletion. However my personal POV is that we don't need to relist again in order to get someone to weigh in when the barrier to addressing the issue is so low should someone stumble upon the deletion later. I will admit to sometimes accidentally closing these as SOFT (User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_18#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Equinox_(Amiga_demogroup)_(2nd_nomination)) but agree with the RFC that it shouldn't have been phrased as such even if the outcome is the same. I don't want to derail this DRV so if further is needed, feel free to ping me elsewhere. Star Mississippi 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the delete closure but restore article. WP:NOQUORUM allows deletion as an option for closers to consider, particularly when an article is not eligible for soft deletion. The issue remains that there is little support for deletion. Now that there is support to retain the article, it should be restored, subject to another AFD if a user wishes to pursue that option. Frank Anchor 14:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• In attempting to clean up the (relative for DRV) large backlog of unclosed DRV's, I read this debate twice and struggled to find a way to close it that didn't veer dangerously towards supervote territory (even if it may not have been, it would have been right on the edge). I think my !vote here is endorse deletion, but allow recreation via Draft:Quentin James, and undelete Collective PAC and create a redirect from that page to Quentin James if/when the QJ draft gets moved to mainspace. At that point, any interested editor can nominate Quentin James for AfD if they so wish, and we can have a discussion that hopefully reaches a clearer conclusion for moving forward from. Clear as mud. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with that. —Alalch E. 12:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYWC-AM (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. The deletion discussion was closed around an hour after it was relisted for the second time.
2. The nomination was weak as it failed to explain why the articls does not meet WP:GNG or such. And so did the recent editor who just voted to delete and salt the article.

I suggest that the deletion discussion should be re-opened for at least a few days so that other editors, including me, to share our input about the article. ASTIG😎🙃 16:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AfD was open for over two weeks. It was closed--correctly!--as soon as there was quorum, unanimously. Per WP:RELIST: A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. If the appellant has input to share that would reverse the decision, they can present it here, rather than cryptically allude to its existence. I see no reason to waste the community's time with another kick at the can just because someone believes they have a crucial piece of evidence that would turn consensus around. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What a miserable afd. Nomination was just a delete-by-reference to DYWC, but that had only been prodded, deleted as a copyvio, and created as a bare infobox (and improperly speedied A3) before being salted. The final delete was no better; the only users editing the afd that I give any credit at all to are Badbluebus and Wcquidditch.
  That said, I can't really argue for undeletion of the article on its merits. Sources were 1 2(p99) 3 4 5 6 7(p179). I can only see 1, 4, and 5 of those, and there's really nothing there. Still, curious why it wasn't just redirected to Radio Mindanao Network, where it still has a mention.
  So while there's not much of a hump to get over to explain why it does meet WP:GNG or such, you do have to explain it. The article doesn't on its own. Convince us. —Cryptic 17:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Cryptic - there's really no way that can be overturned, even with a weak AfD, but if a mistake has been made, it should be easy to restore. SportingFlyer T·C 17:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per Cryptic and SportingFlyer, but do not salt. It is true that the nomination was weak, but that does not mean that the Delete !votes can or should be ignored. The closure shortly after relisting was correct because it was shortly after another Delete, and the closure correctly identified consensus to delete. Do not salt, but allow a better article or draft to be created subject to AFD or reviewed by AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Radio Mindanao Network, and leave DYWC SALTed and SALT DYWC-AM. Discourage drafting unless supported by a consensus at Talk:Radio Mindanao Network. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As nominator I'm fine with a redirect - I only took it to AfD because it had previously been redirected and then contested. But it should be salted, since we must not reward the sort of rule erosion that got us here in the first place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposed redirect sounds good. SALTing seems premature in the absence of repeated recreation attempts. Owen× ☎ 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There were, over at DYWC (plus the reversion of the redirect here). But - as I said above - DYWC shouldn't have been salted in the first place, at least not indefinitely. It was just the one sockpuppeteer that needed deterring. —Cryptic 22:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect. There’s an obvious redirect target and page where content can be added. Protect both titles or neither. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both titles I'm not sure if the recreation attempts are enough to SALT (I don't have a lot of experience with our rules for that), but I'm personally fine with doing so. Doesn't really make sense to have one salted and one not. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Alalch, a better way to address this is endorse and unsalt to allow redirects. The close was fine. Redirects coming latter are fine and good. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The deletion process was followed roughly correctly, and while the AfD is not pretty there is no basis for overturning. !Voting "redirect" in a deletion review suggests overturning the outcome from delete to redirect, and that is not what should be done here. Finding a suitable target for a new redirect at the name of the deleted article is not reviewing a deletion. Explicit's close should stay as it is and no changes with respect to the AfD outcome should come out of this DRV. Anyone can create the DYWC-AM redirect, which I just did. Remove protection from DYWC, as there doesn't seem to be an ongoing cause for it.—Alalch E. 10:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair, I'm undating my !vote. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per nom. The last time I checked the article was months ago after another page I created (the sister station) was deleted. I checked the sources and they're reliable, with most of them in-depth. No idea if there were some recent changes prior to its deletion, but the now-deleted page was in a better state compared to the one salted years ago. So I believe it does meet GNG. SBKSPP (talk)
  • Which sources would you consider in-depth? I've listed all the ones from the last revision above, and the only one that comes close even at first glance is #6 (archive) - and that's almost entirely about a related television station, not the actual subject. (I still can't see any version of the two Google Books sources, though.) The only other source that was ever in the article is this, which is no better than the others. —Cryptic 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the sources presented in this DRV:

  • Source 1 is just a mention in that directory. It's reliable, but pass.
  • Book 1 contains around 3 paragraphs about the station. So it's in-depth enough.
  • Source 2 (the one presented is a dead link) says part of the station's programming, despite on a couple of sentences. So it's still reliable.
  • Source 3 says part of the station's programming. So it's reliable and in-depth enough.
  • Source 4 says that the station held a concert. So it's reliable.
  • Source 5 (the one presented is a dead link) says that the station venturing into TeleRadyo. So it's reliable and in-depth enough.
  • Book 2 contains around 3 paragraphs about the station and its fate at that time. So it's in-depth enough.

  Overall the station really meets WP:GNG and I allow the article to be recreated as a standalone one. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found the article in a poor state sometime in 2020. So, I decided to clean it up and add some references at that time. Prior to its nomination for deletion, I added a couple more references. This is all I can say. ASTIG😎🙃 15:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle For Dream Island (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is now professional and independent coverage on the topic: https://www.businesstoday.in/impact-feature/story/the-brilliance-of-niall-burns-creating-successful-animation-in-the-world-of-digital-content-creation-438292-2024-07-23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupConnor64 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, yes, if there's one thing India Today's Impact Feature is known for, it's its independence from its subjects. —Cryptic 06:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You don’t have to act like a dick about it but alright SupConnor64 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and dismiss appeal, the proposed 'new' source is not independent and does not meet the standard required to contribute to WP:GNG. Please also see Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, or Do not accept source. The article is not neutrally written. The headline reads: The Brilliance of Niall Burns: Creating successful animation in the world of digital content creation The second headline reads: Burns is responsible for bringing the characters to life through his uniquely smooth and fluid animation, prioritizing expressive and believable character acting while also keeping the animation loose and cartoony. The rest of the article has the same promotional tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unanimous deletion at AfD, and keep SALTed. Owen× ☎ 16:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enh, they're not really asking for the afd to be reviewed, per se - it was me who stuck that in the header here, and it happened fairly late in the article's history. See WP:BFDI#List of deletion nominations and WP:BFDI#List of publicly logged deletions if this is the first time you've had the displeasure of reviewing this subject. —Cryptic 16:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close. Nothing newly presented here worth reconsidering. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Savchenko (footballer) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is a source/reference that in my opinion provides WP:SIGCOV for the above deleted article. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The newly discovered "SIGCOV" is nothing more than a routine stats page for the footballer. This appeal can only be seen as a tendentious continuation of the bludgeoning at the AfD, a standard practice for this editor. The appellant's contribution history paints a picture of an SPA who is not here to write an encyclopedia. Owen× ☎ 11:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  >The newly discovered "SIGCOV" is nothing more than a routine stats page for the footballer.

  I disagree with you. The above source imho provides not only stats. The sport's biography facts of the player are presented in the source.

  
  

  >This appeal can only be seen as a tendentious continuation of the bludgeoning at the AfD, a standard practice for this editor.

  Again, I disagree with you ... this appeal has nothing to do with a tendentious continuation of the bludgeoning at the AfD. It's not your job to accuse me of "standard practices" and so on.

  
  

  >The appellant's contribution history paints a picture of an SPA who is not here to write an encyclopedia.

  It's not your job to accuse me of things like "an SPA who is not here to write an encyclopedia". In my honest opinion you have no business here.

  
  

  Kind Regards Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll endorse this too. No error, of course, in closing the discussion - policy-based opinions were unanimously to delete - and while this single additional source might, barely, be considered significant, it's not independent, it's not of dissimilar character to what was in the article, and I don't think there was any reasonable chance for it to have affected the afd. —Cryptic 11:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There's no error by the closer. User:Web-wiki-warrior is the only contributor who has made keep assertions in these processes. Deletion review is an inappropriate place to bring new evidence. On the merits, WP:SPORTSPERSON, created for exactly this situation requires at least one source which directly details. Nothing approaching that here. BusterD (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved). Consensus was correctly interpreted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close — this is clearly and obviously a totally deficient application on the facts. The new "source" does not even meet the threshold of being discussed as potentially SIGCOV, it clearly fails. Further, this editor has not notified the deleting administrator of this discussion as required by the procedures. This request for review should be speedy closed as a combination of clearly endorsed and procedurally unsound, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree; a speedy close is well justified here. Owen× ☎ 18:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and SALT - The appellant is offering a database entry as if it were significant coverage. DRV is not AFD round 3. (The AFD was AFD round 2.) The close was correct, which is the real issue at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I, personally, would prefer to leave this sort of filing open for seven days in order to pile on the filer, to use an American football term. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - no amount of 'pile on' is going to communicate a different message here. The applicant has significant IDHT-exhibited behaviours in previous situations (some of which are linked above), which renders a pile-on moot in terms of 'changing behaviours' or 'sending a clear message'. My view is we shouldn't waste any more time on this. Daniel (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pile-on rarely has much impact on an SPA, as they are not here to collaborate. But an AN/I case, with the goal of a topic ban, seems like a good choice, especially seeing the appellant's reaction above. An SPI case for the likely socks that materialized in this AfD would also be a good idea, and may eliminate the need for the other measures. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for a pile-on or an early closing, either one. —Cryptic 06:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Salt is not appropriate after a single violation, and we don't even have a single one. The fact is that a lot of the Wikipedia mandarins don't like sports articles, and a lot of the rank-and-file editors like them just fine. Nothing against policy is happening here on either side, just the ongoing slow erosion of editor participation by virtue of self-proclaimed beach purity guardians kicking down sandcastles that enthrall their creators. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at Web-wiki-warrior's AfDs. They are all unanimously against keeping except for www. Don't make general railing about mistreatment of sports fans without looking at THIS current evidence. BusterD (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean he hasn't been beaten down, given up, and gone away yet? It takes guts to be 1AM, although granted that not every stance taken is principled or sensible. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This was a badly argued AfD and I don't think we're necessarily being very fair here, as a quick search in Cyrillic, narrowing down to his specific football club, brought up lots of recent coverage. Even though most of it was about his signing, he's a young player and is likely to receive coverage in the future as well. Not saying this is should have been a keep, not saying there's not potential character concerns here, just noting this would may been a lot closer AfD if sources were presented: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse as a correct reading of the consensus in the AFD but no salting as it is highly plausible that the subject will gain notability in the forseeable future. Shakhtar Donetsk is a major European club, and Mr. Savchenko is one of the few players on that team not to have a separate biography, although that can probably be somewhat justified by him not playing for them much, and being on loan to another club. The source provided in the DRV nomination here is insufficient, but as with SportingFlyer, I am open to the possibility that there are other sources in other languages that would be adequate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved) but I oppose salting as there is a reasonable chance that Savchenko will meet GNG if and when his career takes off properly. The sources above do address the subject but not in a huge amount of detail so I don't think that there is any mistake made either by the closer nor the participants at AfD. Sources like this are basic transfer announcements and are not usually considered as significant coverage. The close was correct in line with the consensus from the participants. No prejudice against the article being recreated should the coverage of Savchenko increase. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure was correct. Supplied article does, IMO, count toward WP:N, but it's not enough to overcome that quite recent discussion. But per the above salting would be wrong-headed. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

African Wild Dog Conservancy (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted page is suitable to describe another relevant organisation (not the one it was initially created for). "African Wild Dog Conservancy" was originally created for an US-based NGO and rightfully deleted after AfD discussion. The same organisational name however is also used in Namibia for a government gazetted conservation area. I propose that the page is used for the Namibian entity. My initial edit for this purpose was reversed, with reference to the deletion discussion. The page currently exists, but serves as a redirect to "African wild dog". If agreed, my edit of African Wild Dog Conservancy can be restored. Calidumpluviam (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close. What the OP wants is not within the scope of Deletion review. They were given incorrect advice. This is about an entirely new article about a topic that never had an article. Creation of new articles is allowed. Creation of new articles over redirects that have content about a different topic in their history is allowed. If someone thinks that the new article is not suitable for inclusion, they should start an AfD.—Alalch E. 12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. This is a bit of a dilemma for the appellant -- undoing a redirect established by an AfD is generally going to be reverted, and a discussion on the talk page is likely to be lightly attended (or at least it would have been until brought here). It seems to me like the prior deletion will need to be overturned prior to having a new stable article under this title. However, based on the appellant's sourcing and a BEFORE search, I don't believe the Namibian African Wild Dog Conservancy would qualify under GNG or NORG, which would ultimately result in a second deletion decision should the first AfD be overturned. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree with Dclemens1971 that while technically outside the scope of DRV, the appellant is unlikely to be able to create the new article on the page the old AfD (correctly!) placed a redirect. Instead, I suggest they create it at Draft:African Wild Dog Conservancy (Namibia). If it passes AfC, a move request to the current page will be better attended and far more likely to reach the outcome the appellant is seeking. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, this is the best approach to be recommended along with a procedural close of the DRV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OP here. I agree with this approach and have proceeded to create a AfC, anticipating that this will be the consensus of the discussion here. Thanks for your advice.41.182.56.70 (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps we could agree that our remit should include giving advice in cases of non-obvious efforts to deal with previously deleted titles. I get that we say "there's no barrier to doing that" a lot, but if we don't... who will? Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• feel free to create, overwriting the redirect. Might be good to include a "other uses" template to point to the current redirect target though. No need to use AfC. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's going to get AfD'd if it's created in the form that the appellant first created it. Going through AfC is a good recommendation to ensure the appellant can get some advice on sourcing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The draft should have a hatnote such as {{About|the organization in Namibia|the organization in Kenya|African wild dog}} . Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Jackson (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not believe the consensus was correctly interpreted in closing this as "delete." Besides the nomination, there were two "delete" !votes and two "keep" !votes. One delete !vote addressed sources in the stub-length article but not sources that might be found in a WP:BEFORE search. The other !delete vote sought to rebut my !keep vote, which cited WP:NACADEMIC criterion 7(a) (rebutting the nomination, which claimed no passage on NACADEMIC) and offered links, by applying a criterion ("particularly substantive") that is not in the SNG, and which I rebutted without further response. A second !keep vote cited WP:NAUTHOR and offered sources to back it up, and this vote was unrebutted. The AfD was closed after just one week without relisting, but if it had to be closed, I think this would have been a "no consensus" close. However, when I asked the closer to elaborate on his rationale, I and the other "keep" !voter became convinced that the close was a supervote. The closer made a WP:NOEFFORT argument ("That two-sentence stub of an article? ... After 7 years, the stub remained just that.") and claimed that the delete !votes "did not refute the other arguments and did not address this key issue: What exactly is Jackson supposed to be notable for?. This is untrue; delete !votes received substantive rebuttal in the discussion and as I pointed out in my response to the closer, my !vote made clear that the sources supported the subject's notability in “his area of expertise, which is celebrity influence on politics.” (I sought to resolve this at the closer's talk page but he has not responded to my and Goldsztajn's most recent comments, even though he did view them since he archived the talk page after they were made, so I am bringing this to DR.) My request is either to relist or to overturn to N/C to allow the article to be improved. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the closing admin: Any response would have been redundant and therefore simply argumentative. You expressed yourself, and your remarks are still on my talk page. Regarding the RfD itself, I stay out of it. Either the close was correct or it was not. Although, I will answer the question below about self-creation. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla, you did not respond to my asking if you would be open to relisting or re-closing as N/C to allow expansion without the threat of a "delete" result hanging over it; I guess your answer is "no"? Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It would be helpful for non-admins to be able to see the admission of self-creation. Request temporary undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page creation information: (diff) 13:27, 4 July 2017 . . Professorjackson1969 (talk | contribs | block) 587 bytes (←Created page with 'David J. Jackson is a political science professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.<ref>https://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/political-science/faculty...') - Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While self-creation is obviously the most probable reason for someone with that username creating that article, there are clearly other possibilities. Absent username filters, anyone can pick any username at any time. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly looks endorse-able from here. I don't think the first keep !vote is necessarily good as you can't really become notable from being interviewed, but the last keep !vote shows he may pass NAUTHOR. I probably would have relisted given the last comment instead of closing as delete, though, so a relist may make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer Not trying to relitigate the AfD here, but WP:NACADEMIC criterion 7(a) specifically gives a path to determining notability based on media interviews. "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." As far as I know it is the only SNG that allows this path. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it'll likely be relisted. I just don't have a problem with the close. SportingFlyer T·C 05:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Try as I might, I don't see a consensus either way, and there was no rush to close the AfD. The closer's response to the appellant on his Talk page presents a valid argument to delete the page, but if he felt that way about the article, he should have !voted and left the closing to someone else, rather than impose his own view and force a consensus that wasn't there. If some of the Keep views were discarded in arriving at his decision, a brief closing note would have been helpful. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. There was consensus that the topic is notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews were found for one book, but reviews for other books were sought. And they were found. The appellant was also correct that NACADEMIC criterion 7a does not establish a SIGCOV-style test for “substantiveness” of quotations. This could have been disagreed with in some way, but it wasn't. The first delete !vote and the nomination have little weight in context.—Alalch E. 22:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (involved; the "other keep") Close appears a supervote given talk page responses; no consensus whatsoever for delete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, while there was sufficient input that it wasn't necessarily required, split input there and here seems to indicate more time would be helpful. That said, the close isn't wrong, just the discussion is incomplete to my read. Star Mississippi 02:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, closely balanced debate that would benefit from more input. Stifle (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. In any case, the arguments for keeping were much stronger than for deleting. But more discussion would be helpful, so relist is the better close. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist While I would normally want to see the text before opining, I see that such a request has been made, seen by the closer, and not done. The strength of the arguments are not sufficient for a delete outcome to be considered consensus. It looks like it could be a "must kill all self-promo with fire!" response, for which I have some sympathy, but our P&Gs expect due process on any topic considered, unless the author was a banned sock at time of creation. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens FWIW the full text of the stub is quoted on the closer’s talk page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I hadn't looked, so thank you for that. One of the reasons I prefer full restoration is to see the trajectory of a page--what was added, when? What was deleted? Who all did what to it around the time of the AfD?--I tend to find those issues more telling than the discussion on the closer's talk page, which is usually a less well formed version of the appeal statement here... but in this case, those aspects of the page don't appear to be germane to this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The content just isn't promotional. No WP:BEFORE was done by the deletes. Secondary sources exist as was proven. When you look at it, the delete case is nonexistent. —Alalch E. 23:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - Although the Delete arguments were numerically stronger at 3 incl. nom. to 2, both the Keep and the Delete !voters gave sound arguments, so that more input is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Wii 2: Galaxy Adventure Together (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The redirect was created by an erroneous page move that was quickly reverted. Although Super Mario Galaxy 2 is known by this name in Korean, Super Mario Galaxy 2 is not a Korean-made game, and this name is not mentioned in the article. Super Mario Wii: Galaxy Adventure was deleted for the same reason as this, and the RfD was not closed by an administrator. Mia Mahey (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own close. DRV is not the place to discuss one's case for why a discussion should be closed a certain way, but rather why the close itself was an issue. Looking through the discussion, there was consensus to keep the redirect due to it being an alternative name for the target that was established during the course of the discussion. (Also, this DRV posting could possibly have been avoided if the nominator of the discussion had attempted to reach me about the close prior to posting this DRV discussion, which did not happen; I probably would've stated everything I just stated here, so I'm not sure if that would made any difference to the nominator.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, whatever. For some reason, I didn't see Cogsan's vote until now. I'm going to relist the discussion, and wash my hands of this. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mia Mahey: For what it's worth, and I don't care if this statement ends up biting me in the butt: Pointing out that a close was faulty because the closer is not an administrator is incredibly disrespectful and rude. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Arguments for Keep weren't very policy-based; I think it should have concluded as Delete. Jruderman (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pings: Hello @Grayfell:, @Generalrelative:, @Biohistorian15: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jruderman (talk • contribs) 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jruderman: Those attempts to ping will have had no effect, because you didn't include a signature when you posted them. I also suggest that selectively pinging three of the participants in a discussion in which seventeen people took part is questionable. JBW (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no specific critiques of keep !votes are articulated, and none are immediately obvious to me. Obviously, people disagree about how to portray this appropriately, and whether we're doing more harm by having an article than not, but absent a key policy-based objection, this does not present a clear case for DRV to overturn the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close. There was clearly no consensus in the discussion, and the close was "no consensus". JBW (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close of No Consensus. Sometimes when there appears to be no consensus, the closer does not have an obligation to tease out a consensus by evaluating strength of arguments, and is allowed to conclude that there really was no consensus. I agree with the close, but I am not required to agree with the close in order to find it a valid close.
  • • The history of previous AFDs shows no consensus, and is further evidence that the closer was reasonable in concluding that sometimes no consensus really is no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That was a really tough discussion, and given there were calls to draftify and the keep !voters even basically said it needs work, I probably would have tried to move it out of mainspace. That being said no consensus is reasonable and considered. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If we need to WP:TNT again, we can do it in another AfD, but nishidani gave good reasoning in the AfD that the past AfDs have generally all agreed in notability. this article, like related Race and Intelligence articles, remains notoriously difficult to write and find consensus on. I see no way we can avoid no consensus again unless we give others time to polish this article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while I personally have very strong sympathies for deletion, that's not a reflection of the discussion, which the closer rightly had no option but to interpret as no consensus. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close. We could have a good article, but every attempt to construct one meets with deletions of perfectly acceptable, sourced material. The topic is out there, with dozens of reliable sources, but until this ostensible campaign to erase any shape of such an article ceases, they cannot be used. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This is a reasonable interpretation of the consensus from the discussion. I'm not sure I'd fully sign on with Nishidani's argument in that discussion, perhaps because of my own unease about the topic, but it was clearly a policy-based argument and other editors were sufficiently persuaded to concur with it. I think the NC was a fundamentally reasonable conclusion to draw, and certainly falls short of the stiffer standard to overturn. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. While it's true that some of the Keep views were weak, I don't see how you could find a consensus to delete there without imposing a supervote. Bear in mind that a "WP:TNT" !vote effectively says the topic meets our notability guidelines, but the content needs rewriting. This is equivalent to a Keep !vote, and should be read as such. I also agree with the closer than an additional relist wouldn't have changed the outcome. Owen× ☎ 11:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

See also, articles about races for similar cases has been successfully deleted or merged before amongst numerous others I can find.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Macau FBMW Pacific
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 Silverstone Superbike World Championship round
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Jeddah F1 Academy round
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Spielberg Formula Regional European Championship round
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Le Castellet Formula Regional European Championship round

I nominated this as most races of feeder series for young drivers, with the exception of the Macau Grand Prix, are not notable enough for individual articles, thus failing WP:GNG, WP:SIGNIFICANCE and WP:EVENTCRIT. The irony of that nomination and the sucessful deletion of SWC articles is that the latter is a top tier series for production motorcycles. The nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Le Castellet Formula Regional European Championship round covered this rationale well. Rather than reword this as my own, I will copy and paste it here…

"This is a collection of articles that serve as race reports for the Formula Regional European Championship. For context, this is a junior motorsport competition at the Formula 3 level for young drivers in Europe. The series itself is notable and that is not what I am disputing. However, these articles are not. While the season may receive significant coverage, each event unambiguously does not. All of these completely fail basic content policies: the only coverage I can find is from Formula Scout, a specialty source which I do not believe can be used to prove notability given its obscurity and extremely limited scope. It is routine coverage and does not provide any greater analysis other than a recount of the basic going-ons of each round (i.e. the results). Other sources used are primary, typically results tables. In fact, the articles consist almost exclusively of results, with negligible prose. There is no prospect of expansion for these articles because such little coverage exists. Simply because the series is notable does not mean each individual race warrants its own article: notability is not inherited. Not every open-wheel series receives attention requiring F1-style coverage. Per WP:GNG, WP:NOSTATS, and WP:NSPORTSEVENT, these should all be deleted."

I will now add my own point - Unneeded WP:CFORK of respective seasons that is solely useful to the tiniest minorities of dedicated fans. WP:SIGCOV have always been mediocre outside of dedicated motorsport magazines. Sources is over-reliant on WP:PRIMARY. One of the source mentioned in the nomination, Formula Scout, is a hobbyist site, also dubious at best as mentioned above. Lastly, do poor spectator attendances at these races warrant a Wikipedia article?

I do not object to a redirect, but Wikipedia is not a repository of sports stats.

This received a keep verdict because number of keep votes mattered the most to Wikipedia rather than the notability issues of the article. Summaries are a duplication of round-by-round summaries found in seasonal articles.

What kind of message does this keep verdict send? It’s okay for an unsourced article or one with WP:PRIMARY to be given a keep verdict because of a number of keep votes.

If we have to go back to 2004 as one editor said, then I will. I focused this nomination on this year’s season to kill it off, then they will be next.

If we are to allow them to be kept, in future AfD nominations, this will be uses as an indicator for notability as I have done already. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved). The consensus was correctly interpreted; there was no support for deletion beyond the nominator, and this is not AfD round 2. Furthermore, the appellant brought this to Deletion Review before contacting the closer, contrary to the recommended steps above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What is the asserted policy-based problem with or error in the discussion? Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse in the absence of any articulated discussion or consensus-assessment issues. DRV is not just because someone doesn't like the consensus, especially on editorial arguments like CFORK or notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions - 1. How many articles is the appellant asking to include in this Deletion Review? There appear to be 11 articles listed in the AFD. Are they all in the scope of this DRV? 2. What if any error does the appellant say was made by the closer? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (Involved, I voted keep) It's very disappointing that this was started and @SpacedFarmer hasn't responded to any of the comments. This feels pretty strongly like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT DRV and a failure of WP:DRVPURPOSE from what I can tell. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Jenna Wilson (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I must object that consensus was met on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vivian_Jenna_Wilson#Discussion.

First the raw tallies. They were:

Keep: 16

Do not redirect: 1

Redirect: 12

Redirect and merge: 2

Delete and redirect: 1

Ideally delete, if not, redirect: 2

Delete: 4

Grouping categories, we get to:

Keep: 16

Do not redirect: 1

Redirect: 15

Delete: 6

If we further merge categories down to just two:

Keep: 17

Redirect: 21

A 45%:55% split is not consensus. Consensus is not simple majority.

Of course, Wikipedia's consensus process is not simply about numbers, but argument. Individuals can vary on their judgement of an argument's strength, of course. But overall, factoring this in this does not change the picture. Removing "trivial" support / oppose votes without much argument, I get that "Keep" loses one trivial vote and "Redirect" loses 2 trivial. Wikipedia policies (in base voting arguments, I didn't check in subthreads) were mentioned 14 times by the keep side and 18 times by the oppose side. Contrarily, the keep side cited 22 external sources while the oppose side cited only one.

To get further opinions on whether consensus was established, I fed the discussion to the most powerful free LLMs (after verifying that they know Wikipedia's policies well, which they do - unsurprising, given how Wikipedia is prominently used in their training datasets). Under the discussion, I asked each, "Under Wikipedia's policies, does it appear that consensus is established?".

Claude: "Based on my analysis of the debate, there does not appear to be a clear consensus established yet. The opinions are quite divided between keeping the article, deleting it, or redirecting it. Here's a summary of the key points..."

Gemini: "... Analysis of Consensus: While there is a strong case made for keeping the article based on WP:GNG, the counterarguments about the subject's primary notability being derived from their relationship with Elon Musk and the potential application of WP:BLP1E are also significant. It appears that consensus is not clearly established. The debate is closely divided, with strong arguments presented on both sides. ..."

ChatGPT: Seems to be down at the moment

LLaMA 3.1 405B: "No, it does not appear that consensus is established. There are a significant number of editors arguing both for keeping the article and for deleting or redirecting it. The discussion is ongoing, and there is no clear majority or overwhelming agreement on a specific course of action. In Wikipedia, consensus is typically determined by the weight of argument and the quality of reasoning, rather than a simple headcount. However, in this case, the discussion is complex, and there are valid arguments on both sides...."

I believe User:RL0919 has erred, and that the closure should be undone. Consensus has not been met.

Starting a deletion review because the user archived the deletion discussion and it explicitly says not to comment on the deletion there, but to instead comment here. Rei (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comment: Large language models do not have opinions, and I will not defer to their output. I also don't put much stock in vote-counting that is carefully massaged to avoid noticing that over 60% of the participants did not want the article to be kept. --RL0919 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're free to dismiss any arguments you choose to. The fact is that there is nothing even close to a consensus in that page. And even "glorified Markov chains" (**they're not) can see that. -- Rei (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. Admin work is time-consuming and disproportionately thankless. You don't have to agree with the decision, but saying it's worse than the output of these glorified Markov chains is an unnecessary insult. —Cryptic 21:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Any time a closing admin thinks consensus favors no article for a BLP-related reason--in this case controversy about transition and family relationships--then that's a really high bar for us to overcome, doubly so when the numerical total favored, no matter how narrowly, not maintaining a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was not controversial due to "transition and family relationships", it was purely controversial over noteworthiness. Not a single person objected to it over its subject matter, and the subject in question refers to herself as a "Professional H-list celebrity" and is taking interviews, so clearly has no objection to being a public figure. Lastly, if a single admin's word is effectively final, what is even the purpose of deletion review? -- Rei (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were objectively unreasonable, we would tell that admin they were wrong and why. I'd like to think that we tend to have less admins getting overturned here because the collective participants here give diverse feedback that represents multiple points of view, so admins who get overruled here tend to take our input under advisement and not make similar closes in the future. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that nobody was objecting to the article for anything having to do with a BLP reason, only over noteworthiness, would you care you revise your original post? We should hold this discussion only on the facts of the (almost perfectly evenly split) debate about noteworthiness in the RFD. Thanks  :) -- Rei (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. Just because the discussion didn't explicitly take something into account doesn't mean I can't, in DRV, come up with a separate reason why I believe the close was correct. You don't have to be convinced by my opinion, nor do I have to strike it if you're not. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • ED: Well, BLP1e, but that's about noteworthiness. One person mentioned BLPNAME once, but only in regards to her siblings, not her. -- Rei (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "H-list celebrity" is pretty clearly a joking self-description of someone who does not consider herself a public figure. Funcrunch (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's also not something who someone is seeking to stay out of the limelight is putting in their profile. Nobody can plausibly read her posts or any of the interviews she's done and possibly think that she is seeking to remain private.

    And I will say that we're straying quite far from the purpose of a deletion review here.. -- Rei (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jclemens: As I've mentioned below, I'm confused about what you are claiming is the policy or guideline-based justification for the deletion. I know BLP, but I'm struggling with how this doesn't meet BLP. Is this more of an IAR-endorse on your side, or is that mischaracterizing your !vote? Hobit (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of controversy about transition and family relationships was unclear? I'll note that Where is Kate? had far more coverage, worldwide, and yet was deleted and redirected on BLP grounds. Just because the media covers something extensively enough doesn't mean we should have an article on a topic. Based on the totality of my experience, I'd say this is a less suitable topic for an article than that. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • My original point is that controversies about transition isn't some kind of special case in our rules. Do you disagree? But further, why should issues of transition and family relationships have less coverage here than other topics? I think it's a very important topic and not one our coverage should discriminate against. Obviously you disagree, but I don't understand why. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Other P&Gs that play into my reasoning include WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:10YT. I'd question by what standard you are asserting topical importance. Publicly codifying a dispute between family members reduces odds for reconciliation, which I'm sure everyone would hope for this situation. At a point we both remember, Wikipedia wouldn't publish Star Wars Kid's name out of a sense--Well, Jimbo's sense--that even if something was RS'ed, the human cost to the article subject outweighed the fact that it met notability guidelines and sourcing policies. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        The entire article could be 2 sentences: Person changed her surname to avoid association with her dad. Person addressed something her dad said about her on twitter. If this was anybody else whose dad wasn't famous (and famously transphobic at that), no newspaper would give the slightest of shits and their would be no coverage of her. If by some miracle they did, and there was coverage, I'm guessing it would be a speedy delete per WP:NOT/WP:NOTDB/WP:NOTPROMO/WP:NOTWHOSWHO/WP:BLP1E/WP:LOWPROFILE.

        If the media cared enough to report on every trans woman who 1) changed their name and 2) had a poor relationship with their father, we'd have GNG sources for 90+% of trans women. The only reason she has any claim to notability whatsoever is she's Musk's daughter. Since she has never been notable outside of that, we shouldn't have an article.

        This is not about special cases in rules, this is about the fairly obvious BLP issues with an article that is just person changed their surname + person said her famous dad lied about her. If she was not trans, that would still be an awful deletion-worthy article because the entire premise would be "two trivia facts about this famous person's daughter and her relationship with him". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        To echo what YFNS is saying, the only things that could really be said about Wilson are that she transitioned, changed her name, and criticized Elon Musk on social media. Not only are those things not indicators of notability, they're not even a credible claim of significance. They're credible, but not significant. Millions of people do those things and receive no attention. I've also done the third item, but I don't qualify for an article. The only thing distinguishing Wilson from any other member of the general population is that her father is famous. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        • Thanks folks. I continue to disagree (i.e. BLP1E doesn't apply as there is no "1 event" as coverage has been broad and sustained; WP:LOWPROFILE doesn't apply to someone who is putting themselves forward, etc.) but I do now understand where people are coming from and I appreciate the effort put in to make that clear to me. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          You've always been respectful in disagreement. For us to do anything less would be poor sport indeed. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: I'm not impressed by the LLM argument either, but a bad argument doesn't erase the very good argument that there was not a consensus even by the most optimistic reading of the discussion for "redirect". 55-45 isn't a consensus and even that is cherry-picking when you consider that 55% is a bunch of different types of votes lumped into one category, and that the plurality option was "keep". AFDs aren't votes, but ignoring the vote should require some significant argumentation for doing so, which there wasn't. Loki (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close of Redirect:
  • • After considerable tweaking and diddling with the !votes, the appellant still shows that a majority favored some action other than keeping the article. The closer was justified in concluding that there was a rough consensus for redirection.
    • The large language models are correct that there was no obvious consensus from counting the votes. Therefore the closer was expected to consider strength of arguments and determine what was the rough consensus.
    • An alternative approach to the large language models would be to send their output to a bit bucket.
    • DRV is not AFD round 2. However, having read the redirected article, it is my opinion that the paragraph in the redirected article is enough coverage, and is better than keeping the article.
    • I have not asked my cat for an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. While it's an interesting exercise to see how our robot overlordsnon-human colleagues might close a deletion discussion, the human who did close the discussion explained his reasoning perfectly well: those wanting a standalone article were not able to articulate why the contents merited a standalone BLP rather than coverage in an existing article, and WP:N is clear that there is no obligation to have an article about someone who is in news coverage for a narrow reason (quoting from the close.) And as the closer points out above, even if you ignore "strength-of-arguments" and go with "strength-of-numbers," most participants in the discussion (myself included) felt a standalone article was not justified. Bottom line, was the closer's judgment reasonable? Yeah, I think it was. Certainly it was not so unreasonable that overturning it would be justified. (Jclemens also makes a good point above.) 28bytes (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while I deliberately opted not to close that discussion because everything Musk related is contentious, I'd have probably closed it the same way. The majority of participants did not believe that Wilson is independently notable and therefore did not require a distinct page. Star Mississippi 01:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My only remark was with the closure statement that stated that opinion was divided between Delete and Redirect when clearly it was between Keep and Redirect. There were plenty of participants arguing to Keep this article and I don't recall seeing any justification for dismissing them. Still it was a close call and I don't like to second guess other closers over close calls. But I can also see why this closure was contested. But I don't think a Redirect closure is unreasonable. Like Star Mississippi, I skipped closing this discussion because I guessed it would end up here no matter what the closure was. And I don't the introduction of how LLMs would have closed this discussion helps the the argument for why this closure should be overturned or relisted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse: There was rough consensus for not keeping the article and a "no consensus" close would not have been very helpful in this case. The LLM is right in that "there was no clear consensus", but controversial topics like this will never have "clear" consensus or be easy closes. Some of the delete/redirect votes were nothing more than WP:NOTNOTABLE in my opinion, but that doesn't allow the closer to Supervote the other way instead when it has the majority. Maybe it should've been left alone for a bit or relisted to attract further opinion, but that's not a requirement and there was no error in the close. C F A 💬 05:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - reasonable close, even if I would have preferred something else. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - not enough sources to back undeletion of the article. MSM should wait for Vivian's side of her background. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closure was a reasonable conclusion. I don't give a stuff what LLMs say. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I don't see how this is close. The arguments for redirecting and/or deleting are basically "Doesn't meet GNG" (which I find to be false and no attempt was made to explain why the sources don't count). "Only known because of who her dad is" (which at best is a misunderstanding of WP:INHERIT). And "The topic is better covered by a merged article" (which is a fair argument, though I disagree with it). The keep arguments are largely "Meets GNG" and "Meets BLP inclusion guidelines". GNG is clearly met and subject likely doesn't qualify as a low-profile individual (as we define it) and it's not clear what the "event" is, so BLP1E restrictions are conquered. Given the strength of arguments keep is a much more accurate outcome than redirect. NC is probably the right outcome however. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Jclemens. WP:BLP absolutely was a consideration in where and how in depth to cover a dispute between two living people, so the closing admin was correct to evaluate whether there was consensus to keep the article. I haven't seen LLMs used to evaluate consensus like this before, but I'd like to recommend against it in the future. hinnk (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm a bit too rules-based, but I've no idea where we document that coverage of a dispute between two living people is handled differently than normal BLP issues. Is the GNG met? Is there a BLP issue? We have sources that go over the GNG bar by a fair bit and I'm not seeing anything in WP:BLP that isn't met. Do you disagree? WP:IAR is a fine thing, and I'm a big fan. But it's a weak argument that needs serious numbers. I'm seriously not seeing a guideline or policy-based argument for a redirect. Could you cite what you think are the guidelines or policies that support the redirection? Hobit (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to avoid derailing the deletion review, but you're welcome to look at the original discussion for my thoughts on whether WP:GNG is met and how it relates to the decision to keep or redirect. The number of WP:BLP arguments presented (on either side), as well as the closing admin's comments, indicates to me that the standard Jclemens describes is appropriate. hinnk (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm stuck with why?. I've read the discussion. I'm seeing claims that because they are related she shouldn't have an article. That's not what WP:INHERT says. I'm seeing claims the GNG isn't met, but that's laughable given the provided sourcing. So what guideline or policy gets us to a redirect? I'm sorry to be picking on you, but you're the one that !voted after me and I thought I laid out a pretty clear argument that there is no specific policy or guideline that supports the redirect/delete side. So those arguments are weak and there is no way a closer should get to "redirect" from here. If no one can explain what text of the GNG or BLP (or BLP1e) that the article violates, we really shouldn't get to a redirect outcome without numbers that support invoking WP:IAR. And we aren't close there. Help a guy out, what am I missing? Hobit (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think you missed anything. I think you disagreed with it and are trying to relitigate it in the replies of a comment addressing a different topic. I'd like to suggest more firmly that you consider why that's not constructive. hinnk (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure I'm relitigating. I'm asking for exactly what policy or guideline you feel the discussion concluded wasn't met. You're endorsing the outcome but, AFAICT, not explaining how the outcome aligns with our rules. I don't think you've done so and frankly I'm fine if you are arguing IAR or something (which is how I would characterize Jclemens's argument (which you cited)). Hobit (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the evidence for SUSTAINED is nearly enough to justify a coatrack article. I didn't mention it in my !vote, but I was thoroughly unimpressed with the "coverage" from 2022 and 2023, which centered entirely around tabloidy repetition of comments by Vivian or Musk regarding transitioning. Media that simply regurgitates tweets is not secondary analysis, which leaves us with only the recent attention she has received. On balance, the lack of sustained significant coverage, the fact that all coverage is wholly in the context of her relationship with her father, and the fact that she only participated publicly to address lies Musk was claiming about her all reinforce the NOPAGE argument against a standalone. JoelleJay (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closure seems like a reasonable reading of consensus based on the strength of arguments, and also roughly aligns with the numbers. The BLP/NOPAGE/NPF arguments were not adequately refuted by the Keeps, who were primarily focused on WP:GNG which is not in dispute. Since this is a BLP-related discussion, we need to be extra careful to get it right and err on the side of not including material. While the burden of proof isn't quite reversed at AFD like it is with other BLP discussions (though there was a time when no consensus, default to delete was a valid outcome for BLPs), I think the level of consensus reached was more than adequate for this result. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I would have come to the same outcome. There was a consensus not to keep the article, and simply meeting GNG does not guarantee an article will be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 02:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:YouTubers of Jewish descent (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The specific intersection no longer fails WP:BEFORE for the WP:OCEGRS guideline mentioned in the original discussion, see potential sources below all from the first page or so of search results.

• Krishner, Yonah. 10 Jewish YouTube Channels for Teaching Judaic Studies, Jewish Education Project.
• Lakritz, Talia. 5 ‘JewTubers’ To Watch, Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
• Miller, Jason. Jews in the Digital Age: The Off-the-Derech YouTuber, Detroit Jewish News. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Was recreated and G4'd as Category:Jewish YouTubers, which I think would make more sense to undelete than the original. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This also specifically came to my attention as a result of my work on Jacob Geller, an article which actually goes into some detail on the relationship between Jewish culture and the very medium of video essays, so I believe the 'specific context' of OCEGRS is met as well in addition to RS. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the CFD considered both Category:Jewish YouTubers and Category:YouTubers of Jewish descent. I still think that this is a non-defining intersection under EGRS. It requires that the combination is "itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established (in reliable sources showing substantial existing research specific to the topic), as academically or culturally significant in its own right. The mere fact that such people happen to exist is not a valid criterion for determining the legitimacy of a category."

  The evidence I see here is that Jewish Youtubers happen to exist. Mason (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OCEGRS doesn't really define what it means by "research" but it does note that how the guideline treats sources should be modeled after GNG, in which case the fact that it was this easy to find multiple non-trivial mentions of the intersection (to the point where one source goes as far as to give them a cute nickname) should indicate a reasonable amount of 'cultural or academic significance'. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore non-defining intersection or non-encyclopedic cross-categorization means RS'es haven't commented on it. If RS'es have, it's defining enough. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist – seems reasonable to kick this back to CfD for these newly presented sources to be discussed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per Jclemens. The sources listed above by Orchastrattor make a prima facie case that a category is appropriate that would need to be reubbtted in a new CSD if it is to remain deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the sources seem to be enough. As noted, this can be brought to CfD if folks feel otherwise. To be clear I'm 100% fine with this being restored and someone immediately sending it to CfD. Hobit (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]