Bitcoin SV (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Bitcoin Cash has hard forked again in May, making the differences between it and Bitcoin SV even bigger and hence a redirect to Bitcoin Cash should not be used anymore.

Bitcoin SV has a vibrant ecosystem with new applications created weekly. Bitcoin SV is a coin in the top 10 by market cap.

There exists articles dedicated to SV in notable media (Bloomberg) and a recent interview on Bloomberg TV.

Bloomberg: Bitcoin Offshoot Slumps After Crypto Exchange Delisting

Bloomberg: Man Who Claims To Be Bitcoin’s Inventor Registers Copyright for Its Code

Bloomberg: Interview with Calvin Ayre about Bitcoin SV
torusJKL (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not convinced - the second is not about BSV but about Craig Wright and his copyright claim (and is I believe in Craig Steven Wright, where it belongs); the third is a puff piece - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as not a deletion review. Where an AfD found a consensus to redirect, future appeals to reverse that amount to a proposal to WP:SPINOUT from the target article. The proper thing is to establish a consensus for this at the talk page of the target. Make the proposal at Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see there was a limp attempt at one at Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#Should_Bitcoin_SV_have_its_own_article?. Go back there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of scope. Discussions about non-deletion outcomes at AFD can be taken up on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivacious (drag queen) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no reason to delete the entire article history. I am not looking to overturn the AfD result, but seek to have the article's history restored for possible future expansion. I acknowledge, there is an IP editor/sockpuppet who keeps turning redirects into articles after AfD discussions, but we should keep the article history and simply protect the page from being turned into an article by the IP editor or others. There were plenty of keep votes in the AfD discussion, and the problematic editor has been blocked from creating new pages. I'm asking to have the article history restored, but keep the page protected as a redirect. The closing/deleting admin does not wish to comply. See related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_RuPaul's_Drag_Race#Vivacious. (Sorry for going about this the wrong way initially, I was just seeking help from editors who I knew could point me in the right direction. Thanks!) --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I'm satisfied the discussion's "delete and redirect" is appropriate, and I don't see any problem with the closing admin's refusal to restore the history. However, I wouldn't have any problem restoring the most recent version to userspace, though I suspect this person faces barriers to becoming notable in the Wikipedia-sense. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, yeah I'm just asking for the markup and I'm willing to have copied into the draft space or whatever. I didn't think this would be a controversial ask. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was a perfectly good reading of the discussion, and the nominator has given no policy-based reason for overturning that close. (He says "I am not looking to overturn the AfD result", but that makes no sense at all: the AfD result was deletion, and the nominator wishes to have the deletion reversed, so that is precisely overturning the AfD result.) The suggestion of "restoring the most recent version to userspace" is out of the question, because restoring one version without the editing history would infringe copyright. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I can't find any serious discussion of sources in the AfD, and RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6) has multiple mentions of this person but way short of enough to justify a spinout. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - If/when Vivacious becomes notable if the created article about them uses the old version as a basis then by all means let's restore the history. But several !voters were quite clear that they thought it should be delete and then redirect, not just a redirect which is not the norm in my experience even for AfDs that end up being redirected (e.g. this recent one I participated in). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I tried to discuss this with the closer @Patar knight: on his talk page over a month ago, but he has not responded despite being active on his talk page. I believe that this deletion discussion had several procedural errors, and the consensus was not interpreted accurately.

This article is about the same subject as an existing article, Zakarid Armenia, and contains many copyright violations in every revision, which are pointed out in the deletion discussion. This was almost completely ignored in the discussion. The article meets two criteria for deletion (WP:G12 and WP:A10), yet this was largely ignored in the discussion.

The majority vote tally cannot be considered a fair consensus, because there was blatant canvassing by a new IP that was later Checkuser confirmed to be Georgiano. All of the users that the canvassing IP invited voted keep.

Here is some background on this article's creator, who was soon after permanently banned by @Diannaa: for repeated copyright violations. Georgiano wanted the "Zakarids" in Zakarids–Mkhargrdzeli to be dropped, so he created a new article of the exact same subject over the Mkhargrdzeli redirect. After being reverted several times, he kept claiming the Zakarids were actually a "cadet branch of Mkhargrdzeli" despite the article having sources saying they are the same family in different languages. He then tried to rename Zakarid Armenia to Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia, but was reverted for having no consensus. The "Georgian Armenia" article is the exact same situation as the Mkhargrdzeli article: Since he couldn't move the page himself anymore, he simply created a new page of the exact same subject with the title he wanted and filled it with copyright violations and unsourced claims. The Georgian Armenia article has even since been renamed "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia".

Both "Georgian Armenia" and "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia" fail all the naming conventions of WP:TITLE. They both fail WP:VER and WP:OR because no reliable sources of either of these titles being used exist; Georgiano made them both up. They are both also not WP:NPOV because it is a biased interpretation (academics sources were provided in the discussion that proved Zakarid Armenia to be largely independent). So both of these titles should be deleted with the article and not turned into redirects. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've verified that (at least the first 5 or 6) of the copyvios listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian Armenia are indeed, exact copies of text taken from other sources, and thus copyvios. These go back to the version of 08:57, 3 March 2019‎ (the first version by Georgiano). I took a look at just cutting out those specific passages. Not only would that be more work than I was willing to invest, it would also leave some sections jumbled and out of context. Whatever else happens, it's clear that the copyvios cannot remain, so I went ahead and WP:REVDEL'd all the affected versions, and restored the redirect, as a temporary measure. I have no strong opinion on the final outcome of this debate. I suspect Patar knight's AfD close will stand in principle, since that looks like it was clearly the consensus of the discussants in that AfD. But, if we do go back to restoring the text, it will have to be with the copyvio's cleared.

  In short, WP:CV is bright-line policy, so I fixed that, but the rest of this is really a content dispute, which WP:DRV doesn't involve itself in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest listing it at WP:CP, which is our main process for handling complex or otherwise non-blatant copyright violations. The article would remain in a blanked state until it can be reviewed by an admin or other experienced copyright editor and it could be deleted if that's necessary to get rid of the copyright violations. There was a consensus in the AfD against the other arguments for deletion. Hut 8.5 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 May 30. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On a quick skim, this looks not OK. If a deletion discussion full of copyright allegations was closed with a consensus to "keep", then it is extraordinary that it will soon later be CSD#G12-ed. If the AfD did not agree that they were copyright violations, then they are most certainly not "blatant" copyright violations. I note in passing that Wikipedia is ultraconservative in practice about copyright, going way beyond legal requirements, and sometimes wandering into WP:Copyright paranoia. All in the name of best practice, though. I think this is a rare G12 worthy of tempt-undeletion. It is reasonable to list, behind a blacked page, alleged copyright infringement, for us to make a quick decision. My money is on RoySmith being right, but I think a better process is a fair review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I totally sympathize with you on all of these points, but I'm afraid I'm going to play it conservatively and decline to undelete. My suggestion is to ask at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 May 30. The folks who hang out there are better versed in our copyright policies than I am; they may be willing to temp-undelete it for you, to which I would have no objection.

I don't think m:Avoid copyright paranoia really applies here. That talks about 1) a few copied phrases, 2) Quotation, even without attribution, and 3) single sentences. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian Armenia itemizes multiple passages that are several sentences long, and aren't used as quotations.

Lastly, while this may be wikilawyering, I didn't WP:G12 the article. I redacted the specific infringing revisions, per WP:CRD, item 1 (Blatant violations of the copyright policy). Unfortunately, since the copyvios went back to the earliest revision, that effectively removed the entire text. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (delete). Deletion rationale was strong, including severe copyright issues to which the keep rationales didn’t even respond. Make a list of the references (this list is uncopyrightable) to assist with recreation. WP:TNT. This is effectively the status quo, but it cleans the edit history. If the bulk of the article and edit history is rev-deleted, it should all be deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References attached to talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @EtienneDolet: where is the IP confirmed to be Georgiano? T. Canens (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Timotheus Canens: I'm quite certain the IP was previously globally locked by a Checkuser for being a confirmed sock. It locates to the exact same place as another IP of his that is still blocked. --Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deo Block (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The template was nominated for discussion at TfD, where the nominator argued for deletion and the only other !vote – mine – was "keep". Two weeks later, Bbb23 speedy-deleted it per WP:G5, effectively ending the discussion. The TfD was then speedy closed by another editor, but I'm not challenging their close here even though I disagree with its premise: at TfD, if the template is deleted while the discussion is ongoing, the discussion will be automatically closed by a bot anyway. It's the preceding speedy deletion that I would like to question. I'm not sure G5 was applicable to begin with – it requires that the page was not substantially edited by anyone other than the blocked user, and I remember having worked on the links in this template (that's a navbox, so that's as substantial an edit as it can get). More importantly though, the template was already at TfD, where there was a valid "keep" !vote. G5 is there to help with clean up efforts, not to override and undermine the consensus building of a deletion discussion. I argue that the page should be restored and the TfD reopened. I've asked as much of the deleting admin on two separate occasions, but have not received any reply. – Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have temporarily restored the template, with the {{tempundelete}} template, so that non-admins can see the page history. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The navbox has dozens of items in it but only five links to articles, thus, it does not meet any of the criteria at Navigation template#Properties especially WP:EXISTING. It is just clutter at the bottom of any of the five articles that it could be added to. I would say turn it into a list article if anyone is so inclined. MarnetteD|Talk 16:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Overturn speedy unless the evidence of sockng is presented. Apologies for my previous post. In all my years here I had somehow missed posting on a deletion review before. MarnetteD|Talk 21:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was a CheckUser block, so the evidence can't be presented here. I don't doubt the validity of the block and I don't think anyone else would. – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for clarifying that Uanfala. MarnetteD|Talk 21:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion and return to TfD. Uanfala is correct that G5 excludes pages that have substantial contributions by other users, this template had a very significant contribution from Uanfala and significant contributions from an IP user who may or may not be the same person as the blocked creator (the user talk page suggests its an IP that is frequently dynamically allocated to a large number of users by a large ISP). Speedy deletion of pages being discussed at XfD that have good faith recommendations for keep should be done only when strictly necessary. Such deletions should always be accompanied by an explanation of why it was necessary to speedy delete despite that recommendation. G12 (copyvio) deletions are almost always necessary, but I struggle to think of any occasion where G5 is not optional (even if desirable). I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or not at TfD, but I see no reason to prevent the arguments being evaluated. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn speedy pretty much per Thryduulf. I'm also unclear why the deleting admin never responded. There may well be a good reason to have this speedy, but nothing has been explained. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I think this is borderline for a G5. The template was created by an abusive sock and we can safely say that 103.93.201.2 is a sock of the same person given their edits were made minutes later and the IP has also been blocked based on CheckUser evidence. MarnetteD wanted the template deleted. That leaves this as the only edit by anyone else. That edit moves each item in a list onto a separate line, adds a few links and deletes some stuff. In mainspace I don't think that would constitute a significant edit but the OP has a fair point that we should be more generous for navboxes. I don't see much harm in allowing the discussion to continue. Hut 8.5 21:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at TfD. I'm not entirely convinced that Uanfala's edit is a "substantial contribution", but it's a marginal enough G5 that sending it back for a full discussion seems reasonable. I'm actually more concerned about why this had to be speedied at all, when there was already a discussion going on, with the only comment to date being an argument to keep. I'm also kind of concerned why Bbb23 has been silent in all of this, not responding to the reasonable query on your talk page, and not providing an explanation at the TfD why you were short-cutting the discussion. Maybe the speedy was OK, but without any feedback, everybody's left in the dark about the reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh for pete's sake. I deleted the article because it was created by a sock. I didn't find Uanfala's contribution to be substantial, but I can see now that I may have been wrong about that part. As for the deletion discussion, those would never stop me from deleting a page created by a sock. As for not responding to Uanfala, that was wrong of me and I apologize for it (Uanfala has done everything by the book here and should be commended for it), but I wasn't being intentionally difficult. It was an unusual request (for me). I'm occasionally asked to restore a deleted page, even of a sock, because an experienced editor believes it's notable and will take responsibility for it. This kind of request was novel to me and, frankly, I wasn't sure how to respond, so I didn't. Fast forwarding to now: by all means, keep it restored, and reopen the deletion discussion. It's fine with me, to the extent that matters (doing that doesn't require my permission).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: As for the deletion discussion, those would never stop me from deleting a page created by a sock. Frankly it should. There is no requirement to delete anything per G5, you should always defer to an ongoing deletion discussion unless you would be happy to snow-close that as delete. Indeed unambiguous copyright violations and office actions are the only times speedy deletion should override good faith recommendations to keep in an ongoing XfD. Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, I agree with the above. Although I'm neutral, leaning delete, on this particular template - given that it lacks any context and its main article is a red link - I think we're sometimes overzealous in deleting material created by socks or banned users. Presumably the letter of policy encourages it but if the content in question is otherwise neutral, well-written, verifiable, encyclopedic and useful, then it seems distinctly WP:POINTy to go around deleting it. All IMHO of course.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Panther (owarai) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

See AfD page here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Panther_(owarai)

The article was deleted because it lacked notability. However, from the AfD, I believe there is not enough evidence to warrant a deletion, see deletion discussion for this page, all claims for deletion have little to no substantial reason for deletion while all claims to keep have given more reason for non-deletion. For example, why are the source provided for them by Natalie (website) not considered a reliable source independent of the subject? Natalie is one of Japan's largest entertainment website and company and details the subject in depth with their profile, news and television appearances. This was posted in AfD discussion which I believe is reliable evidence for notability. There are many other Japanese entertainment and news sites with details on the subject, some example links are here:[1] - All Night Nippon, [2] - GQ Japan, [3] - Oricon News, [4] - Abema Times. Just a few examples out of the numerous articles that I believe is enough evidence to show notability for the entertainer. FreshUdon (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, but send to draft space for incubation. I see no flaws in the closure of the AfD. However, if there are concerns that there are now sources that show the notability of the subject, I think the best option is to restore the article (and its edit history) and move it to draft space. If a revised page is then shown to meet WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG, then we can restore to mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This would be a good option, I can improve upon the article to meet the notability guidelines and adding more secondary citation sources and a filmography section to show the subject's notability. -FreshUdon (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dremo (Musician) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I recently created the above article, but it was deleted almost immediately, simply because some other article on the same topic has been previously deleted. This is an unfair reason, since I took time to create this article and cited it properly. I believe it should be assessed on its own right and not just speedily deleted based on some precedence by other accounts. Thank you. Haylad (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous article was more detailed and much better referenced (to news articles rather than youtube/itunes links); yet it was deleted in 2016. I do not see anything notable added after 2016. Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I looked at:

Deleted revision of Dremo (as of 13 October 2016, at 20:41) by Filedelinkerbot

Deleted revision of Dremo (Musician) (as of 18 May 2019, at 23:48) by Wgolf

It's a close call, but I think substantially identical applies here. It's not word-for-word identical, or even sentence-for-sentence, but the gist is the same, as is much of the text. If there was any doubt, the generally crappy collection of references certainly tips the balance. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: Materialscientist is being dishonest by saying that the only sources cited in the created article was "youtube/itunes links". The only itunes link on that article was used to cite the discography. Meanwhile, the article cited 2 major interviews. One published by a major national newspaper and another by a major entertainment magazine. Furthermore, the subject has been featured by other major entertainment magazines like BellaNaija and Pulse. All of these establish notability and were cited in the article which he deleted. A simple search online shows good coverage as well. The 3 "youtube links" in the article, were links to shows featuring/focusing on the artiste, and were published by the offical youtube channels of major TV stations. The speedy deletion of this article was clearly rushed and truly unfair.

Materialscientist is also being dishonest about the old article. I just checked, and the "news articles" were not in-depth coverage, but mostly mentions. Moreover, the article had other issues like COI. I don't see any similarities with that one and the new article. This new article, though not near perfect, deserves to stay, certainly not speedily deleted.

Disclaimer: The creator of this article is a member of my community. After he informed me about his article being deleted and I checked it, I reached out to Materialscientist. He completely ignored my request for better explanation and review, and went on to delete my message from his talkpage. Then I advised Haylad to take this to DRV.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I haven't seen either of the two deleted articles, but I have seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dremo. This has the usual signs of a case of undisclosed paid editing, but that isn't the issue here. This has the usual signs of meatpuppetry, but the rule against meatpuppetry is incomprehensible, and that isn't the issue here anyway. This is a very clear case of gaming the system by disambiguating a title in order to try to wash away the rock salt and freeze the highway. The disambiguation was clearly done in order to game the system, because the time to have come here to Deletion Review was as soon as the title was salted, not after the end run via disambiguation was stopped. Even if the two articles are not substantially identical, and I trust the deleting admin that they are, the author should have been requesting this review on the up-and-up rather than after getting caught. Endorse, and create-protect in draft space also. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Personal attacks on an administrator are not a sign of a strong case. It is not useful to accuse another editor of being dishonest, even if the other editor is being dishonest. This looks like tag teaming, possibly by a paid editing shop. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In one breathe, you accused me of personal attacks (for clarifying that the admin was skewing the truth), but then went on to accuse the article creator of gaming the system and for paid editing, and then me for meat-puppetry. Perhaps you should look in the mirror first. Like I stated here already, I am a community leader and I mentor several new users, trying to protect them from wiki predators and improper article deletions based on the known systemic bias that exists on this platform. He contacted me because he didn't understand how his article disappeared, without a discussion. I initially assumed good faith and reached out to the admin, but clearing my message without bothering to reply screams bad faith. The user didn't know about DRV or all of these "complicated process", until I directed him here. Trying to accuse me of meat-puppetry after I declared my relationship with the user is a very cheap shot.

BTW, if you haven't checked through both articles, you shouldn't be making endorsements. Your vote is essentially not based on anything. Talk about tag teaming....Now, you sound more like the one sucking up to an admin just for the sake of it. Another need to look in the mirror.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment - User:Jamie Tubers - You didn't say that the administrator was skewing the truth. You said that the administrator was being dishonest. And why did you name the second article Dremo (Musician) when there isn't another Dremo? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the G4 speedy but I have no idea whether we should have this article. I'll accept on trust Roy's analysis but I can't follow his conclusion – if a recreated article is "... not word-for-word identical, or even sentence-for-sentence, but the gist is the same, as is much of the text" then it is not substantially identical to the original. Thincat (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would need a temp undelete to judge these articles (and don't really care that much) but assuming RoySmith's analysis is correct, I have no problem deleting on WP:G4. I don't read "sufficiently identical" to mean an article is immune from G4 just because the text was changed around. SportingFlyer T·C 06:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the criterion is extraordinarily contorted. For deletion the new article must be "sufficiently identical" and also it must not be "not substantially identical". Years ago I tried (and failed) to get the wording made less strict.[5] Thincat (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, it's not really clear what sufficiently identical means. In any case, I've tempundeleted both articles, so people can draw their own conclusions. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) @Thincat: The consensus of that 2013 discussion was very clearly that G4 should be interpreted strictly (as all CSD criteria are intended to be) and that making it less strict would not benefit the encyclopaedia. I'm not aware of any consensus to the contrary since. It's been six years so if you want to see if consensus has changed feel free, but I recommend reading WP:NEWCSD before doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dremo. When re-creating an AfD-deleted article, you have to overcome the reasons for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much per Amakuru below. G4 has to be a little more broad than an unaltered repost. A rewording shuffle of basically the same sources can't be sufficient to overcome an AfD and restart the process. I think the requirement should point to WP:THREE. We don't have the patience to examine so many poor sources, show us the best three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy. I have looked at the two revisions prior to deletion and they were not substantially identical. They were similar, but there will always be a degree of similarity between two short biographies of the same person, and the standard required for G4 is much stricter than merely similarity. The most recent creation also clearly asserted significance so it's well above the A7 threshold. I'm not certain that the subject is notable, but there are sources that were not considered in the discussion three years ago, so this is a question that should be determined at AfD not through speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I suspect it will be deleted at AfD, but given the time elapsed and the fact it sounds like it isn't a clear G4, I'd rather we overturn the speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The silly thing is, the original deletion discussion says "Mainly advertorial, cited sources are mostly videos" and yet the recreated article basically fell down the same holes. It looks to me like this guy is probably a household name in Nigeria, and as such should be fairly easy to write a neutral and properly sourced article about. But neither the original, nor the recreated version are it, and the admin was right to delete. Don't salt, though, because it hasn't been proven that he is not notable.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I have struck my original pro forma Endorse and am endorsing the G4 based on a comparison of the two articles. The content of the two article is sufficiently similar that a reasonable person could characterize either article as a close paraphrase of the other article. This is the sort of case that G4 was intended to deal with, to avoid multiple duplicative deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse- Unfortunately, we have had to de facto loosen the "substantially identical" criterion of G4 to avoid people cynically re-creating deleted articles with only cosmetic changes and no attempt to address the original reason for deletion. I can't really fault RoySmith's actions here but it wouldn't faze me at all if it was undeleted and sent to AfD. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse thank you for undeleting - the two most recent substantial drafts are, IMO, substantially identical, making the WP:G4 valid. I generally agree with Amakuru that notability may be present. SportingFlyer T·C 03:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Entirely valid G4. T. Canens (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shuchir Suri (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Article Shuchir Suri was neutral and completely based on the reliable sources which are fair enough as per Wikipedia Policy. There was no promotional word in Article and also there was a Criticism Section added which shows that the Article was completely neutral, not promotional Article. Being an experienced Wikipedian, I also don't understand why this article was deleted. By respecting Wikipedia Policy, I strongly believe that each and every detail should be checked before deleting an article as many editors have worked for each article. some time reviewer also makes the mistakes. (( My best understanding of what Radadiyageet attempted to raise at 16:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC) ... Please note I am instating a DRV raised by Radadiyageet incorrectly on this page (see history) and cleared by a BOT Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Requesting temp undelete. If Radadiyageet wishes at this point that this DRV should not continue I am most happy also to go with that decision at this point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This appeal doesn't state a reason based on purpose of DRV, because it appears to be an effort to re-argue the original merits of the article, rather than any error on the part of the closer. However, if the filer is claiming an error by the closer, either Delete or No Consensus would have been valid closes, so the Delete can be sustained. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a correct reading of the discussion. I'm not even sure no consensus is a viable outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (Please note I assume I am the filer). My minor grumblings would be I dont have a temp undelete and the closer did not give an explanation). I note Radadiyageet has been active but has neither supported nor withdrawn this filing. I observe there appeared to be no attempt to discuss the outcome with the closer before rather a message to closer indicating a DRV had been raised and an attempt to do the same. I tend to agree broadly with RCs' reasoning of the closer action above. I also noted when partaking of a notification to those involved in the AfD there had been canvasing for the keep !vote in the final round. I cannot comment on this example in particular but on glance of scans of Radadiyageet's other works I have concerns about failure to understand WP:RS in particular interviews and press releases; this is particularly important if relying on non English language sources and particularly non Latin alphabet sources where trans-title and language parameters are not being utilitised; and a failure to clearly present the WP:THREE best sources by the AfD defendants. I also note concerns about arguably possible WP:COI and promotionalism within other articles but I cannot viewpoint this here due to no temp undelete. Given unsurprising overwhelming endorsement so far and lack of participation by Radadiyageet I withdraw my call for a temp undelete. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I apologise for hijacking this discussion, but since we're in grumbling mode, I'd like to grumble about the quality of the AfD discussion. It was relisted with the comment, "This needs a more detailed discussion of the sources to see if any of them satisfies WP:GNG". What that means is the relisting admin looked at the existing discussion and decided there wasn't enough there to make a valid close. He left explicit instructions for what kind of future discussions would make it possible for the next admin to come along to do a better job. Sadly, that didn't happen. We got three almost meaningless comments. All of which failed to discuss the sources, as requested in the relist.

  So, for people who participate in these discussions, the strongest argument (on either side) you can make is to list some sources, and go through each one explaining how it supports or doesn't support WP:N. Now you have the secret to winning AfDs. Go forth and argue with strength. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get a temp undelete please? Based purely on the discussion and not looking at the article, this should have been an NC outcome IMO. The arguments for keeping and deletion were both poor and there wasn't a clear numeric consensus either. So unless the sources were clearly great or horrible, this really should have been an NC outcome. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, and neither relist was necessary. Sourcing is not not not the only valid reason to delete an article; being irreparably promotional - which this was, despite the "Criticism" section which was really a coatrack for PR damage control - is another, even if it's not quite horrible enough for an administrator to speedy G11 on sight. —Cryptic 15:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Having now seen the article I am having a self debate if I understand it correctly that as far as I can tell the photographic image taken on 1 February 2019 by the creator of the article which seems to have incarnated on 1 February 2019 may have indicated too close a relationship between the creator and the subject for it not to be declared as it appears consensual. I guess this point is arguable and anyway it wasn't raised at AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse I'd still claim that NC was probably the better outcome, but yeah, delete was within discretion. Hobit (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am not sure what the reason was for the temp undeletion. I didn't !vote in the AFD and don't plan to express an opinion on the original AFD, but the Delete !votes outnumbered the Keep !votes, and Delete was a valid consensus. The article does read like a typical vanity article on a marginal person. My Endorse is unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I tempundeleted the article because it was requested. In general, articles under deletion review get tempundeleted upon request, unless there's some good reason not to, which typically means WP:BLP issues or copyright violations, but possibly other reasons. None of those seemed to apply here, so I complied with the request. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Okay. Thank you for answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I do not see anything remarkable about this closure other than this being routine afd closure. The consensus to delete appears to be reasonable. I standby my reasons for nomination, the subject has not been covered in-depth in reliable or independent sources. Hitro talk 07:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An additional reason to Endorse the closure is sockpuppetry by Keep !voters. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Irvoas (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In the previous deletion discussion, the following reasons for deletion were already mentioned:

• The individual is not notable.
• Wikipedia is not a memorial.

Some of the arguments for keeping or merging the article included:

• The article will be expanded as the media gains and releases new information.
  • This never happened. In fact, the original and only citation in the article is to a web-page which now returns a 404 error.
• The article should be merged with 2005 French riots since the man was a victim.
  • The information on him listed at 2005 French riots#Murders of Jean-Claude Irvoas and Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec is already more descriptive than what's currently in the article.

On top of these reasons for deletion is all the things I listed in the very large "cleanup" template I left on the page a little bit ago.

After having sat in limbo for 14 years, I think it's time the article go. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K2 Intelligence (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

hi, found this after reading a lot of pages. So, this page was speedy deleted G-11 something that says promotion which leads to the tone of content. I believe I carefully checked the tone and tried to cover all the instructions in the guidelines but it was deleted. If there were problem areas it was better if the page was edited or allowed me to clean up the problem areas. I believe the subject is notable and willing to edit the promotional factor if any but I am unable too find the page. The person who placed a speedy delete seems like a person who is software engineer and may not have a close look at the references. Please guide thanks Sandy Fluffy (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I haven't seen the original, but this appeal is difficult to read, and it appears that the author is having difficulty with English. I would advise the author to request assistance at the Teahouse in editing a draft in draft space rather than pursue this here. Have you tried discussing with either the tagging New Page Patrol reviewer, User:creffett, or the deleting administrator, User:Justlettersandnumbers? It appears that this page was originally nominated as G11 and A7, and was deleted as G11 and G12, copyright violation, so it seems unlikely that the page will be restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks like a pretty marginal case for G11 to me, and the G12 URL seems to point to the wrong place (I'm not seeing any duplication of that news article). The lead section seems to be at least partially copied from their about page, but I'm not sure about the rest of the page, and if not all of the substantial content is copyrighted it isn't G12 eligible either. I'm reserving judgement on whether it meets the criteria for inclusion, but it might be better to have draftified or listed it at AfD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing lifted from that article is the second 2013 entry, about Thacher. On the other hand, several of the other referenced timeline entries (the other 2013, the 2015, the second 2016, the first 2018) are also lifted verbatim from their references, and much of the lede is taken from K2's site. —Cryptic 12:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as failing sniff test. The appeal above and the text of the deleted article, while ostensibly from the same account, are clearly not written by the same person. Sentence structure, diction, and grammar show radically differing mastery of English. I'm not sure what's going on, but it's obvious we're being played. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fellowship_of_Friends (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

the page shows significant coverage in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see external links to SF Chronicle and LA Times articles). Originally inserted by User:UltraEdit 22:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Deletion review was suggested at AfC, but considering this was last deleted almost a decade ago, I fail to see how deletion review is relevant to the discussion, or what exactly we're supposed to be reviewing here. Just because an article was deleted doesn't mean we have to go through a deletion review process when it's at AfC. Furthermore the LA Times and SF Chronicle articles go a long way towards demonstrating notability. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I want to emphatically agree with SportingFlyer. AfC is designed to be a lightweight process and making an editor go through a DRV to recreate is poor form, as is having one editor decline multiple consecutive submissions especially when there was, looking at the edit history, work done after the first decline. If this topic is not ready for mainspace so be it. If it is ready then it should just be accepted, no DRV necessary. There is sometime after an AfD when a recreation with substantially changed material should be allowed, no bureaucracy necessary. Generally that time would be 6 months. It's certainly some amount of time shorter than 8+ years. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There wasn't much of a consensus in the AfD – only one delete !vote. The discussion was closed early by Cirt who was subsequently banned from this sort of topic and is not now an editor in good standing. The draft should be moved to mainspace and the edit history from the earlier version merged into it. Ordinary editing and deletion processes can then resume without the procedural overhead of AfC. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly oppose a history merge, which, to be clear, no one has asked for until now. The page was properly deleted ten years ago. SportingFlyer T·C 11:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We can start by undeleting the history for the DRV, per usual practise, so that the discussion can be informed by it. Andrew D. (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I understand the comment that AFC is supposed to be a "lightweight" process, but am not sure that I agree. In my experience, AFC is frequently used as an attempted way around deletion in order to game the system, and AFC reviewers need to be careful when asked to approve a title that has already been deleted (or a sandbox whose subject has already been deleted, or a variant name of a title that has been deleted and/or salted). I realize that this is not one of the cases; if I am not supposed to use my judgment in cases of past deletion, I would appreciate knowing what rules I should follow instead. It appears that this is becoming as much an appeal of my decline of a draft as a request to re-create. I have no objection to that review, since DRV is one of the highest-level content forums that Wikipedia has. I will note that I advised the author either to request Deletion Review or to make a Request for Undeletion so that I could compare the draft with the deleted article. If I should ignore a history of deletion at AFC, I would appreciate guidance to that effect. I do not consider AFC to be "lightweight" in the sense of being meant to Ignore All Rules about past deletion. Maybe other editors disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation - I am willing to approve the draft, understanding that what has changed is the increased negative publicity, or someone else can approve the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Badnam Song (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page was speedily deleted despite not meeting any criteria; likely to be a harmful deletion as it was a redirect from a page move. Geolodus (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- why didn't you raise this with the deleting admin before bringing it here? Reyk _YO! 15:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a better option? Geolodus (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's required before opening up a DRV, though it's moot at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 07:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh. I was not aware of that. Geolodus (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my deletion of Badnam Song and Badnaam Song. Recently created implausible redirect is valid for both. A search for "badnam song" returns the relevant page and an hatnote on Badnaam would be appropriate. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Speedy deletion was valid per R3. Both redirects were implausible. --MrClog (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to RfD. In no way is "Badnam Song" an speedily implausible redirect to "Badnam (song)", and a google search for "Badnaam" song returns results clearly about the target using the double A spelling. These may or may not be useful redirects, but they are not R3 candidates. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Send to RFD. As per Thryduulf, these look like plausible errors, and R3 is for implausible errors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as noted above these redirects were not implausible. Hut 8.5 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not plausible at all. If so, we should have a redirect "Foo Song" for every disambiguated song on the Wiki. This was created at the incorrect title, and then moved on the very same day to the correct one, so R3 is exactly what it is. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that is even remotely relevant. Creation at an incorrect title and moving to the correct one happens regularly, what matters for R3 is solely whether the incorrect title is plausible or not and "Foo Song" → "Foo (song)" is extremely plausible, especially given that there are songs named this way (Galaxy Song is the first to come to mind). Note that plausibility is not the same as usefulness and whether other redirects like this do or should exist is not mentioned (and should not be mentioned) in R3 which is only about whether the individual redirect is plausible or not. Additionally there is no consensus that redirects of this nature should never exist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:R3. The article was created on May 16, moved on May 16, and the redirect deleted on May 16, so the "post page move" criteria which has been invoked really isn't applicable here. SportingFlyer T·C 07:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post page move isn't relevant in this case, but in all cases an R3 candidate must be unquestionably implausible. Foo disamiguator → Foo (disambiguator) is always going to be plausible - whether it is useful will depend on several factors meaning that it is not suitable for speedy deletion and needs to be discussed at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a recently created redirect from an implausible misnomer in which the page move should not apply. Textbook WP:R3. Looking up other famous disambiguated songs such as Respect (song), Hallelujah (song), and Yellow Submarine (song) don't have redirects from the word (song) sans parentheses, which convinces me it's implausible. SportingFlyer T·C 11:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a recently created redirect, but it is one from a very plausible title - nowhere near R3 as both aspects of the criterion must be satisfied. Remember if there is any doubt about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies it does not - and there are at least three people here saying this is a plausible redirect so it very clearly isn't obviously implausible. Whether other redirects exist is, as previously mentioned, not relevant to speedy deletion (that's an argument that can be made at RfD). Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's fine if others disagree with me, but I've already walked through whether WP:R3 applies above, and I think it's crystal clear WP:R3 applies. I also checked the songs after you responded to my endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 11:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I've explained in detail why R3 does not apply: This title is not implausible because it is an entirely reasonable title for someone not familiar with English Wikipedia article titling conventions to think the article might be at. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think you're correct here, though. We don't have redirects based on the word song/(song). I suspect this will probably be relisted at RfD, but I would have speedied this myself. SportingFlyer T·C 12:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thinking that something would probably be deleted at XfD is not a valid reason to speedy delete anything. The only vlaid reason for speedy deleting any page is that it meets the letter of one or more speedy deletion criteria. Literally everything else is explicitly against policy so if you are speedy deleting things like this you'd better stop right now. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've never said this would "probably be deleted at XfD." I'm reviewing whether the speedy deletion was appropriate. It's a valid R3, and I've said all I have to say on that. Please stop putting words in my mouth just because you happen to disagree. SportingFlyer T·C 14:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The article Badnam (song) has a close enough title for searching and doesn't seem notable (in English). The redirect title in question doesn't have correct case and so we wouldn't want to keep it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are all considerations about utility and are things that need discussion at RfD, they are not evidence of implausibility (different capitalisation is the perfect example of a plausible redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it is a simple matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. The article was created at the wrong title, it was moved to the correct title, and the redirect from the previous incorrect title is cleaned up as if it never existed. That is routine, and sending it on to RFD is a complete waste of everyone's time. As indeed is this thread. In the unlikely event that anyone does type "Badnam Song" into the search bar, we have a perfectly good search functionality that will lead them straight to where they want to go. See [6] for a similar example with the "Ecuador Song".  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this sort of thing is routine then there is a hell of a lot of abuse of R3 going on. R3 is explicitly only for implausible typos and minsnomers - titles like "Badnam osng", "Badnam )song)", "Wikipedia article about Badnam song", "Bandamsong", "Nsmame (song)" or (to this target) "Butterfly (soup)" would be R3 candidates (if recently created). Simply omiting brackets from the disambiguation is not implausible and is not even close to meeting the criteria. Speedy deleting something in any situation not explicitly permitted by the speedy deletion policy is one of the most harmful things an admin can do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and list at RFD. If we're having an extended argument here over whether the redirect was plausible with experienced users supporting the claim, it's plausible enough to be ineligible for speedy deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to RfD Eh, perhaps a reasonable speedy, but as HW says above, reasonable experienced users disagree, so off it goes to an actual discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to RfD. Speedy deletion assumes no reasonable objection. Reasonable objection? Speedy send to RfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The objection is not reasonable. The deletion was entirely within normal practice for R3, as well as the judgement of the admin who did the deletion. Making a song and dance of it like this is Wikilawyering and nothing more. It stands no chance of surviving an RFD.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  R3 notes that it is for "implausible typos or misnomers". "Badnam Song" is certainly a reasonable misnomer for "Badnam (Song)". In fact I can't think of a more reasonable misnomer for it. Can you? Hobit (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether it is deleted at RfD is irrelevant. Incorrect speedy deletions are one of the most harmful things an administrator can do, correcting them is never inappropriate or wikilawyering. And As Hobit notes, "Badnam Song" is not a typo and it's not an implausible misnomer so it's nowhere near being covered by R3. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Amakuru, I disagree, the objection is reasonable. An editor in good standing think a speedy deletion was overzealous and wants to make a case. That calls for a "speedy list at XfD". XfD is the place for the making of the case. Not DRV. We have established that no consensus here will result in the speedy being sent to XfD. What is the point of this DRV discussion? Did User:RHaworth breach deletion policy? No, I don't there is anything egregious here, its a borderline case that someone wants to talk about. User:RHaworth should have immediately listed the redirect at RfD on receiving the notice of objection. If R3 produces contestable deletions, then CSD#R3 has to be reworded, tightened, so that every R3 deletion is objective and uncontestable. I do not agree that this redirect deletion was uncontestable. Send it to RfD, let Geolodus attempt to make his case there, and all in that place it will be revealed whether he is rebuffed or sustained, as well as the final decision made. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I see User:Geolodus didn't give User:RHaworth notice of objection before this DRV started. WP:SLAP User:Geolodus for that, but the way to fix this is to speedy list at RfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I'm usually a stickler for by-the-letter WP:CSD enforcement, but it's hard to get upset about this one. Redirects exist as navigation tools, to help a reader find an article even if they don't know the correct title. In this case, typing "Badnam Song" into the wiki search box returns Badnam (song) as the first result, so we serve the needs of our readers. And, as mentioned elsewhere, generating a Foo Song redirect for every Foo (song) article would be absurd. It wouldn't be the end of the world if this sat in WP:RfD for a week, but it would be pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a very minor nit, it comes up as the second result for me. That said, with what appears to be improved search results, it's not clear that new redirects (such as this one) are hardly ever needed. But I'd call that more of a policy issue than a DRV issue. It's probably time to update the rules for speedy redirect deletion... Hobit (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Roy Smith: The internal search box is not the only way to search/browse Wikipedia and search suggestions are only available for some of those methods. When you search for a title that doesn't exist what you see depends on many factors (whether a page was previously deleted, what search method/utility you are using, what device you are using, whether your account has privileges to create articles, possibly whether you have javascript available and enabled, etc). What you see might be search results, an invitation to search, an invitation to start a page, an edit window to being a new article and/or (an excerpt of) the deletion log. For all these reasons it is important to remember that redirects serve far more uses than just populating the search box and can have value even if similar ones exist - e.g. just because Foo (disambiguator) exists doesn't mean that Fooo (disambiguator) or Foo (similar disambiguator) are redundant (they may or may not be, but as several factors need to be considered it's not something that is suitable for speedy deletion at all. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried searching for Badnam Song in Google, Bing, Yahoo, and DuckDuckGo. All of them were smart enough to return Badnam (song) is the top en.wikipedia.org result for that. In fact, most of them didn't even put Badnam Song on the first results page. Only Google showed me both; in fact, it showed me all of Badnam (song), Badnam Song, and Badnaam Song, so if anything, having those redirects reduced the quality of my search, since it just cluttered up the results with duplicates. Any reasonable search engine will make mechanical mappings like returning Badnam (song) for Badnam Song without the need for us to create an explicit redirect. Redirects are useful when the mapping is something that a search engine is unlikely to be able to do automatically. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is an argument in favour of deletion at RfD, it is not a justification for speedy deletion - indeed it's rather evidence that this is a very plausible redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – per Roy and the other endorse !votes and WP:R3. There is no reason we would keep Badnam Song or Badnaam Song–the search engines handle that. People disagreeing doesn't mean there is a meaningful disagreement (one worthy of discussion). RFDing this would be a waste of time, and the backlogs are full enough already – Levivich 15:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fundamental misunderstanding of speedy deletion. Speedy deletion criteria apply only when there are no reasonable objections that the letter and spirit of one or more specific criteria apply. Speedy deletion is not simply for cases when a few people think an XfD would be a waste of time. Also, there are no significant backlogs at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not misunderstanding. (And I wish you would generally stop characterizing people who disagree with you as "misunderstanding", or in other words, being ignorant or stupid.) I am saying there are no reasonable objections. Yes, that means I'm calling your objections unreasonable. It's unreasonable to suggest we should have a "Badnam Song" redirect to "Bandnam (song)" because search engines already handle it, as explained by Roy (hence my "per Roy" comment). "The backlogs", plural, refers to more than just RFD . – Levivich 16:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You claim not to misunderstand and then go on to demonstrate that you have misunderstood the speedy deletion criteria. Is it plausible someone will search for "Badnam (song)" using the search term "Badnam song"? Yes, obviously. Therefore the redirect is not implausible. Whether it is "necessary" does not form part of the criterion. Whether it will or will not be found by the search engine is not part of the criteria. I'm trying extremely hard to assume good faith, but given you have the reading comprehension skill of an adult and the speedy deletion criterion does not require even that level of interpretation, that assumption is very difficult to maintain. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:R3 says: recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers (bold mine). This is a misnomer. (I'd also say it qualifies under G8, "unambiguously created in error"). It meets the "obvious" requirement of CSD. This is obviously, and unambiguously, a redirect created in error with a misnomer for a title, because we would never have a redirect called Foo Song that points to Foo (song). As with the portals issue, your opinion is that we should have an XfD discussion even though we all know how it will end. You are welcome to hold that opinion, but I do not share it; I believe in WP:NOTBURO. – Levivich 00:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, this is not a misnomer (read the article), there has never been a consensus that Foo Song to Foo (song) redirects will always be inappropriate (and even if that was the case we would not and could not expect everybody to be aware of it), and it was not obviously created in error (it was created by an inexperienced user at a plausible title and moved by someone else). NOTBURO is never relevant to challenging incorrect speedy deletions for reasons I've already explained (although without explicitly citing that shortcut). Portals are also completely irrelevant here because this is not a portal. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The link in WP:R3 under the word "misnomer" does not go to our article misnomer, but rather points to WP:AT. Our article misnomer is incomplete and has a {{refimprove}} tag. Read the definition of misnomer instead and you'll see why this is a misnomer, specifically, it's an incorrect or inappropriate name for a redirect title. Because that's obvious, it's an R3 candidate. CSDing the redirect after the page move was the right thing to do, it saved the community from needlessly using up resources in a pointless RfD. I'm not going to reply to your next comment, so have the last word. – Levivich 02:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since we're wikilawyering, I just took another look at WP:CSD. I don't see anywhere that it talks about "reasonable objections". What it does talk about is, "most obvious cases", which fits here. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try reading it again. The first paragraph begins: "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here." the second paragraph begins "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.". If there is disagreement about whether a criterion applies then it cannot be one of the most obvious cases. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • RoySmith, CSDs are supposed to be objective and uncontestable. That has always been their basis, understood by everyone, so much so did we forget to write it down somewhere? Debatable borderline deletions should be discussed at an XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @SmokeyJoe: It seems to me this discussion is between editors who think the redirect should be deleted, and editors who think the redirect should be deleted but we should have an RfD first. Nobody here (so far) is arguing that a redirect Foo Song to Foo (song) should actually be kept. For that reason, though there is disagreement, I don't view this is a borderline case, because the disagreement is about procedure and not substance. – Levivich 02:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there is a good argument that the term is a reasonable and acceptable redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just by counting noses I see 1 editor (the nominator) who has clearly expressed that they believe this is a good redirect and should not be deletd all, 1 editor (SmokeyJoe) who has implied it shouldn't be deleted at all, 7 who clearly say it should be deleted regardless (including RHaworth, the deleting admin), 1 (Hobit) who said it shouldn't be speedy deleted but implied they'd recommend deletion at RfD, and 7 or 8 (depending whether you count SmokeyJoe in this) who have not expressed any clear opinion about whether it should be kept or not if nominated at RfD. That completely refutes your (Levivich's) argument that everyone thinks it should be deleted anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • We seem to have gotten off the track a bit. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term wikilawyering. That has more negative connotations than I intended. @Thryduulf and SmokeyJoe: I do respect your opinions, even if I disagree with your stance on this particular issue. I'll just leave it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Deleting anything with the deletion summary of Wrong Redirect! Not Useful! is inappropriate. Come on RHaworth, you should know better than that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: I'm not dragging RHaworth off to ANI again, especially since he was only there a few weeks ago. It sounds too much like organising a lynch mob. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent ANI, the next step would be an Arbcom case. I laid out some examples below demonstrating that RHaworth still hasn't improved since then, but are we at that point now? -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to RfD - doesn't meet the R3 criteria. No opinion on the value of the redirect is needed to reach that conclusion. ansh666 17:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As per Thryduulf. doesn't meet the R3 criteria Lubbad85 (☎) 22:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, send page to RfD and send RHaworth to ANI, Arbcom, the naughty step .... anything. Frankly, "Wrong Redirect! Not Useful!" sounds like a Trump tweet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. Desysop him for doing what's been routinely done without controversy for years, when pages are accidentally moved to the wrong location. I agreed with the complaints about RHaworth's excessive WP:BITEness but it's not very helpful to hang him out to dry when he does the right thing.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Except this isn't an isolated incident. These issues have been ongoing for years, and despite promises from multiple ANIs now, he still doesn't get it. To demonstrate, here are some examples of his recent deletions: By-name by-name is an improper R3 because it does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects. Draft:Neyamat Ullah Bhuiyan and at least 44 others were deleted because they were "not written in English", which is explicitly not a criterion (WP:NOTCSD #16), Graduation (Kero Kero Bonito song) was deleted because "it is a redirect that was left from being moved", but that's not a criterion—quite the opposite because redirects from a page move are routinely kept anyway unless there is a different issue (which would be the reason for deletion, not because it is an R from move). Draft:Jaiveer Singh and at least five others were deleted as a "cross namespace redirect", but WP:R2 only covers WP:CNRs from the main namespace to certain others, and these redirects are explicitly kept per WP:RDRAFT. I'm sure there are plenty of others, I just grabbed a few obvious ones from skimming through his deletions over the last couple days. I stayed away from any that may be a judgement call because reasonable people may disagree on those. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru: he hasn't been doing it uncontroversially for years - look at the history of his talk page and the number of ANI, etc. discussions, and most fundamentally there are far too many times when he isn't doing the right thing. I don't know if the next step is ANI again, or Arbcom but the assurances he gave last time that the behaviour would change have not been upheld. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of whether other speedies have been problematic, this was accurate and isn't the right one to get the knives out for. SportingFlyer T·C 00:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, your opinion is that despite not coming close to meeting the wording of the CSD criterion this was a valid speedy deletion, despite speedy deletions explicitly being valid only when they meet the wording of at least one CSD criterion and only in the most obvious of those cases. Regardless of whether discussing what the appropriate response is to an administrator who has failed (for years) to act in accordance with one of the most importnt policies, and has failed to change their behaviour despite repeated assertions that they will change, is "getting the knives out", any action will not be a result of this single inccorecct speedy deletion but about the pattern of them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV is for reviewing whether specific deletions were appropriate. If there's a pattern of behaviour, take it to ANI, don't let it muddy the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 03:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Clearly does not meet the requirements of being "implausible typos or misnomers" which is probably why RHaworth did not even attempt to claim it was WP:R3 in their summary. Whether other such redirects do (not) exist is not a valid argument at any deletion discussion, so saying "if we have that one, we must have similar redirects for all X song => X (song) articles" is cleary not a valid argument (although we could have a discussion whether all recently created redirects that fit this pattern should be removed because the search engine can handle it). This might not be the most glaring example of RHaworth's disregard for speedy deletion policy but it's also unfortunately not a surprise. Regards SoWhy 10:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. R3 doesn't apply as the redirect isn't implausible at all. Sure, we can probably do without it, but that's a different parameter altogether. Personally, I would discourage the creation of such redirects, and would probably support deletion at RfD, but if an RfD discussion is opened, it is unlikely to result in deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Does not meet the speedy deletion criteria because it is not implausible or a misnomer.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn not only plausible redirect but perfectly legitimate. Ridiculous speedy. Smartyllama (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Meighen (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No WP:CONSENSUS should result in a Keep or even a relist. I posted comments on the closer's talk page, I have not heard from the closer. There is no policy reason to delete based on the participation on the afd. There is a policy reason to Keep. The article could be renominated after a time. Lubbad85 (☎) 01:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closing admin's assessment of consensus is consistent with policy. AFD is not about counting votes, even if sometimes some closers give the impression that that is what they are doing. It's about the strength of the arguments, not getting a supermajority of !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while it's not a matter for deletion review, I do have to wonder why Lubbad would previously complain about the AFD being relisted rather than "no consensus; default to keep"[7] and then complain here that the AFD wasn't relisted now that it's turned out that the solution would have been to delete all along. @Lubbad85: Do you understand the concept of WP:RELISTBIAS and how it tends to happen when the consensus is in favour of deletion and/or redirecting, as opposed to keeping? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus was that the article and its subject do not meet the significant coverage requirements of the general notability guideline, which also constitutes the basic criteria for the inclusion of a biographical article. If "likely notable" and "not notable" are both correct, then this is one of the unfortunate exceptions, not somehow Notable despite not meeting guidelines. The AfD does not argue that offline or otherwise difficult to find sources may exist. I will also note that 7 DRVs resulted in an overturn last month, so perhaps whether a closure is beyond reproach actually depends on the merits of the case. There was no other way the AfD could have been closed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alpha3031: Just to play devil's advocate, There was no other way the AfD could have been closed. is probably not true from Lubbad's point of view; simply counting the bolded !votes, it was split 5-5 and so a "no consensus" result would not have been beyond the pale, and certainly a lot of admins who are either sympathetic to the cause of, or afraid of backlash from, the ARS-types would have likely interpreted it that way.

  That said, this is now the second time that Lubbad has tried to creatively interpret "consensus" (or the supposed lack thereof) in relation to this particular AFD.[8] Combined with the recent copyvio concerns over his attempts to "rescue" another article that was at AFD[9] (and the fact that that was not an isolated incident[10][11][12]), I suspect this might be a user conduct issue with the OP more than a difference of interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS...

  Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There really isn't a policy reason to keep based on the discussion. There are fewer delete votes on a count of numbers, but they all explain why the article fails our policies, mostly in depth. There aren't any keep !votes which discuss sources. SportingFlyer T·C 06:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A supervote in which the closer picked their own argument, rather than assessing the consensus of the participants or lack of same. This was contrary to WP:DGFA, "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete." Also, there was a large elephant in the room which nobody addressed: she's the wife of Michael Meighen and the president of the philanthropic foundation created by Theodore Meighen. There are therefore obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger to one of these articles, which we should prefer per our policy WP:PRESERVE. As there was no consensus and the elephant had not yet been spotted, the discussion should be relisted rather than closed in this way. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, redirecting a woman's article to the article of her husband or her father in law sends a bad message to our readers, similar to titling her article Mrs. Michael Meighen. Merging the content with articles about the organizations she is involved in was something I discussing in my delete !vote, so it was touched upon. (The Foundation does not yet have an article, and I'm not sure if it's notable enough for one yet.) Leviv ich 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Andrew is so far the only "overturn" !vote not to have already !voted "keep" in the original AFD, and in the past year he has, by my count, commented in 15 AFDs besides this one, of which 11 were to overturn delete closes (most of them including the same reflexive accusation of supervoting), two were to endorse keep closes, one was to endorse a "no consensus" close, and one was to overturn a "redirect and protect" close. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn for reasons cited by Andrew D..

  As to the personal attacks above, these are (1) without factual foundation (the alleged copyvio was minimal and in good faith and was quickly corrected and that particular article was both a Keep over the objections of the above editor (who wanted to delete it) and will be a DYK over the objections of the above editor); and (2) it is an Argumentum ad hominem that is fallacious and irrelevant to this discussion. Indeed, similar attacks are part of the AFD discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: this editor !voted keep in the AfD. Leviv ich 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thirteen, please drop these accusations. Aside from the very real copyright problem (believe me -- pretending these are fake accusations drummed up to win arguments is not a good idea), the fact that the OP has been "creatively interpreting" consensus in relation to this AFD (in a flip-floppy, self-contradictory way) is very much relevant, and claiming I am making an "argumentum ad hominem" is a bit weird, since the only comments I made "about" the OP were (a) a devil's advocate remark in his defense or (b) a question directly addressed at said OP regarding something argument. You, on the other hand, excepting the "I agree with Andrew" prologue, wrote a comment that is literally nothing but off-topic remarks about how you don't like one of the "endorse" commenters, including bizarrely accusing me of making similar personnal attacks [as] part of the AFD discussion when I didn't even comment on the original AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  [13] I'm going to give you another chance to retract your baseless remark without factual foundation (the alleged copyvio was minimal and in good faith and was quickly corrected and that particular article was both a Keep and will be a DYK over the objections of the above editor) [...] Indeed, similar attacks are part of the AFD discussion.. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I see you struck the single least offensive part of the above remark. Now what about the rest? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hijiri88: User:7&6=thirteen you promised to stay away from each other, and yet here you are sniping again. I think unless something miraculous happens, this is going to have to end up at ANI and perhaps with a formal IBAN and blocks forthcoming if it's broken. Just cut it out, both of you.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: I reaffirm my "delete" closure. The review request here was made 80 minutes after Lubbad85 left me a talk page message, so they should not be surprised about not hearing from me in the interim. The review request makes no intelligible argument about what exactly is supposed to be wrong with the reason for the closure. Sandstein 12:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The article was improved during the afd - this is the case when an article resucue is attempted. The afd was extended to allow more participation after the majority of editors voted keep, and the arguments were still tilted in favor of a keep. In these situations the Wikipedia policy/guidance advises keep, and yet the closer chose delete. The question before the closer was: Is there consensus to delete or keep? An unbiased reading of the arguments on the Afd reveal no consensus. The closer appears to have entered a Supervote which cancels the will of all other editors participating on the afd. If the closer wanted to vote on the afd then another administrator should close the afd. I understand that the work of an administrator is tedious, and difficult. I know this closer works tirelessly because I see the signature everywhere on the boards and afds. The administrators have significant power on wikipedia, and this is why wikipedia has policies. Wikipedia has a no consensus keep policy for a reason and it should be followed. Lubbad85 (☎) 12:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: this editor !voted keep in the AfD, and is the nominator of this DRV. Leviv ich 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) @Lubbad85: Your opening comment is considered to be an "overturn" !vote unless you specify otherwise (such as if you were opening this discussion as a formality because you saw other editors complaining, but you were yourself neutral), so you don't need to cast a separate !vote. As for the substance of your comment, I think you should probably not lecture other editors on "policy on wikipedia" and how "it should be followed". You're still a relatively new editor, so it's okay for you to make mistakes like The afd was extended to allow more participation after the majority of editors voted keep. I'll explain it again, with clearer reference to this particular AFD -- the first relisting was to avoid a "soft delete" when there was one clear delete !vote and one comment that was kinda wishy-washy but seemed to be in disagreement; by the time you came along it was still 3-0 in favour of deletion; after you there was a slight shift in favour of keeping, such that by the time of the second relisting it was either 5-3 or 4-3 in favour of keeping (I still don't know when EMG retracted his !vote); then by the time of the close it was an even 5-5; but none of these !vote counts matter, since Wikipedia is not a democracy -- the only important thing is the weight of the arguments based on policy, and most of the "keep" !votes in this case were drive-by "meets GNG"-type remarks that failed to stand up under the scrutiny they were given by the "delete" !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Lubbad, if someone has already responded to specific text in your comment, please do not simply alter it without noting that you have done so, either by striking it through or by appending an extra time-stamp to your signature to indicate that the comment has been altered. Anyway, "no consensus keep" is not a policy, and the AFD still looks very much, to everyone except you and some members of the ARS crowd, like a consensus to delete, so even if that was a policy it wouldn't apply here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC) (edited 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  Hijiri 88 I have attempted to avoid responding to your WP:Tendentious behavior on this and other articles for deletion. Your many condescending comments have been noted and registered; perhaps you can now move on. I am not married to this article. In my experience administrators need no help from you to have their decisions endorsed. Your multiple responses and attacks are not needed after each and every comment. My point in this deletion review is that a reading of this afd reveals no consensus to delete or keep. The administrator could state that and also state that there is not an objection to placing another afd after some time has passed. But Hijiri 88 and I worked it out. If a Supervote which cancels votes exists, as has been noted by Andrew D. perhaps that is codified somewhere in wikipedia policy? I do not think it is, and that is why we have a no consensus keep policy: instead this article received the death penalty. You will see the Endorse comments registered now, and they do not need your help. Admins get the benefit of the doubt, which is exactly my point in asking for a review. Admins should follow policy - eventually the correct result would be achieved even if the no consensus keep happened. Andrew D. correctly cites WP:DGFA Lubbad85 (☎) 14:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Good close, good reading of consensus as weighted by strength of arguments. Exactly as stated by the closer. The nomination was comprehensive and excellent. The delete !votes spoke to the details, the keep !votes were vaguewaves. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- The keep votes were effectively refuted. I'll always back those who analyse sources over those who just dump them into an AfD. Reyk _YO! 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The delete !voters made discussion of the thinking provided by keep !voters and even when asked specifically to do so the keep !voters did not do the reverse. This suggests that proper weight was given by the closer to all thinking offered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I !voted delete in the AfD so I'm not !voting here, but I want to say this: Over half a dozen uninvolved editors have now taken the time to read that AfD and !vote here, and I bet each of them spent more time on that than the nominator spent on this nomination. DRV nomination arguments like "...no policy reason to delete...policy reason to Keep..." are entirely formulaic–it takes like five seconds to draft a DRV nomination like that–and it spawns a whole bunch of work for a bunch of other editors. Just like most of the keep !votes in the AfD, such a statement asserts notability without even bothering to back it up with, e.g., a link to a policy or a link to a source. This is compounded by the nominator waiting less than an hour and a half between posting on the closer's talk page and filing this DRV–which basically is the same as skipping that step altogether–and yet having the gall to criticize the closer's supposed lack of response in their nomination statement. I hope in the future, nominator's DRV nominations will be much more thought out, and that they engage in good-faith discussion with the closer before even thinking about posting it to DRV. Leviv ich 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Levivich Thank you very much for the advice. I very much appreciate that you took the time to give helpful advice. You have demonstrated WP:AGF with your response to this DR and the nomination Lubbad85 (☎) 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Per SmokeyJoe & Reyk. --MrClog (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - There was no right answer here. The Keep arguments are largely of the form Sources Exist, also references to minor awards (whose purpose is sometimes to create the appearance of notability). The right answer on Week 1 or Week 2 would have been a Relist, and that had already been done. Many AFDs drag on for weeks because there are sources, but the sources aren't much, and this was such a case. Either No Consensus or Delete would have been a valid closure. No right answer, but this was not a wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenonThanks for coming here. I am asking for a review based on the procedure. If the procedure is to "no consensus keep". Since clearly there is not a consensus.... on that we have perfect agreement. Essentially the closer is able to vote with a Supervote by deleting the article in spite of the participating editors. It is a subjective decision. As Andrew D has stated, This was contrary to WP:DGFA, "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete." There is time...WP:RUSHDELETE Lubbad85 (☎) 18:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The Delete arguments are stronger than the Keep arguments. Whether this was a consensus was a valid judgment call by the closer. There was no right answer, and this was not a wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Solid call. ∯WBG^converse 11:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse I'd also have endorsed NC, but delete is the proper outcome of that discussion IMO. The arguments for deletion appear on-point and stronger. On the plus side, it was a well attended AfD that appears to have addressed the relevant points well. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Folks !voting Keep were asked to point out the WP:THREE best sources but declined to do so. Delete !votes were analyzing the sources as all being bare mentions, affiliated, etc. I'm not sure how we can argue that Deletes shouldn't carry more weight in such a case. When I'm trying to rescue an article and someone asks me which three sources I feel prove notability, I feel like my best move is to call those three sources out, linking to them within the AfD and maybe even saying, "longish piece, 90% about article subject" or whatever. I want to make it easy for people to agree with me! --valereee (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but with no prejudice against recreation with the right sources. The primary reason for the deletion nomination is that the article was basically a breach of WP:NOTADVERTISING. On notability it was borderline - some argued there were sources, while others argued there were not. So it was kind of no consensus on that front. But given that the article was basically a promotional puff piece, it was entirely legitimate to delete it. On whether she meets GNG, I would argue she probably just about does. She gets some quite significant coverage in this book, an executive profile on Bloomberg and the family interview for me would constitute three references which could be used. Such a recreation would have to be judged on its own merits though, not the merits of the previous deleted article.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would caution anyone recreating the article that the book appears to be from a vanity press and thus not an WP:RS, and the Globe & Mail piece only mentions Kelly once and might not be SIGCOV of her (as opposed to her husband, the family, or the foundation). Leviv ich 19:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, you make a good point. I hadn't noticed that the book was self-published. I've struck the part about allowing recreation. Endorse on both promotional and lack of notability grounds.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It was clear that there were not substantive sources to establish notability. The argument that receiving a medal given to hundreds of thousands of people creates notability is laughable. Reywas92^Talk 16:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Castro (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

To affirm that he is not notable outside of Toto (band), I decided to create a redirect outside of said article. It was deleted twice for WP:G4 even though I had no intention whatsoever to recreate the article. Was I within my right to WP:ATD-R and is the redirect valid, as I ask @Liz, Ponyo, El C, Jéské Couriano, Doomsdayer520, DannyS712, and Randykitty:? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think its fine to create the redirect --DannyS712 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I forgot to mention... it's now WP:SALT. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw - the reason for the salting was that it was repeatedly recreated, but I think that refers to created as an article, so a redirect should be okay --DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder if any admin can look into the page history and if this evidence is useful. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether it should be a redirect is to be determined here. I have no immediate objection. El_C 23:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Seriously? WP:G4 only applies to, sufficiently identical copies. A redirect is not sufficiently identical to what was deleted. The problem seems to be that every time the redirect is recreated, somebody comes along and turns it back into an article. So, Recreate redirect and protect that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow redirect and protect that – The redirect is a good search term. Protecting it will stop it from being turned into an article. Leviv ich 03:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, I have created the redirect. El_C 03:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Do I get two more wishes? :-) Leviv ich 03:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this out I'm happy with the redirect - think we're solved here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Read (executive) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/magazines-will-be-around-for-many-years-yet-the-world-needs-editing-9hsvhcbzd https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/05/05/albert-read-uk-boss-conde-nast-dont-think-magazines-doomed/ CondeNastBritain (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete the following sentence: I believe the AfD was closed incorrectly because _______, and want to see _______ happen instead. See WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AfD obviously, there was nothing wrong with the closure or consensus, and no attempt was done to contact the admin (while admittedly is irregular on Wikipedia, but still). I am actually shocked RoySmith didn't close this already as it fails WP:DRVPURPOSE completely. My advice: create the new article, no ban/salt on the subject has happened and the AfD happened in mid-2018 (and the new sources you posted would surely prevent any G4). On the other side, there are also WP:COI issues here per the username (Albert Read is the executive of Conde Nast UK). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - bad faith nomination. Nominator blocked for commercial editing and username violation. MER-C 21:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It would seem difficult to judge a consensus of delete result from the AfD and in this circumstance an explanation would be expected. And I would note we have lost content in contravention of the WP:PRESERVE policy plus references and attributions all when a suitable merge target existed Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, mostly. You yourself argued there was no good merge target. And the 'content lost' was like 3 sentences, 1 referenced. As I said, I am ok with soft delete and redirect, however - the problem is that nobody else, including you, supported any of the proposed merge targets. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Piotrus ... yes mostly ... I somewhat sense a a bit of a turd in the mouth in this close. I suspect anyone applying for adminship might be given a 3rd degree over it. I think I always support good merges, but they can be hard. I don'd support merge's that reduce content to triviality to avoid undue weight. I do have problems resourcing merge target identified on the talk page 6 months ago to do at least a middling job. I like to think I have a good eye for content that helps build Wikipedia and preserving it, and I admit to being a bit obsessive about plagarism, copyvio's and maintaining attribution of work, however little. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I'm not seeing anything serious to worry about. No merge target, consensus to delete. I suggest listing the references in case he wants to start again, at the target article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well how about the AfD of Letterwise that the nom. now can't find refs for mainly perhaps references have been destroyed with WordWise. Oh can some blighter take me to WP:ANI again before I give reason to! These processes are cack! Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The decision to Delete was a valid judgment by the closer, and that is all that needs to be considered. As to merge to Letterwise, the would-be target is itself being nominated for deletion, which further implies that the original delete may have been wise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• At a minimum an explanation would be best practice to avoid possibilities of a !supervote and that is relevant. Openness on decision making has value. I guess everyone used T9 predictive text. We do so much on video games and footballers but so little on predictive text. Perhaps no-one used it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - There was consensus to delete the page and there was no clear consensus for any merge. The closing administrator was correct in their judgement. --MrClog (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but move to draft might have been a good option if anyone had suggested it. It's a pity draft isn't invoked more often from AfD but, although individual editors can do this without discussion, it'd be a brave admin to close by moving to draft without any hint from the AfD. Thincat (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DUD. Draftspace is just a quarantine for holding and waylaying spammers and the inept, COI editors, and collateral damage to newcomers. Rescuing something already decided unwanted is a challenging task. If anyone really feels up to that, they should be an experienced Wikipedian, and are better to use their userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I'd never use draft (it's a dangerously hostile area). I was suggesting it as a approach for a potential merge of two articles being separately deleted. On reflection userfy for Djm-leighpark would have been a better suggestion. Thincat (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thincat thanks for the suggestion but Piotrus's WP:BAITing has finally irrationalised me so I circumvented the AfD result by copying from the Russian Wikipedia to LetterWise. Its a kludge of a mash of a job but it sort of works. Perhaps someone ought to back it out though. Think I've missed the RIM sueing but whatever. I note Piotrus may be feeling a wee guilty he did prompt me for a merge in the first placed and currently has a Weak Keep on it. As its not a sporting event, video game or settlement I think I add a delete !vote to put it out of its misery though. I'd comment the last time I requested a userify it was put in draft . Enough said. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't think there is enough chance of an article to use DRAFT, but Draft is not quite as bad as it used to be: what may strike a submitter as hostile is more likely to reflect incompetent reviewing, and many of the worst have either been educated or removed. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Cornel (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Eric Cornel was recently speedily deleted because the page had been previously deleted per a deletion discussion. At that time Cornel did not pass NHOCKEY. However, Eric Cornel now passes the WP:NHOCKEY guidelines with playing over 200 American Hockey League games.[14] Joeykai (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Speedy deletion criteria G4 "excludes pages [...] to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". The reason for deletion was that the article failed both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG (see here). Cornel has now played 200 American Hockey League games (see here) and therefore passes WP:NHOCKEY #2. The original reason for deletion therefore no longer applies and thus G4 does not apply. --MrClog (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• XfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Cornel (2nd nomination) in December 2015.

The new source is directory information?

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation The SNGs presume that there is sourcing out there to have an acceptable encyclopedic article. Given that this player now meets that criteria we should allow recreation - the change in the number of games played is a significant change in this case and thus not an identical recreation of an article deleted by discussion as G4 requires. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation - As specified in both of the AFDs, which said that it was WP:TOOSOON and that he might be notable later. If that means overturning the G4, overturn the G4. What is important is to allow re-creation in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. If nom wants to create a proper article, then please create a proper article with proper sourcing to demonstrate actual (not just barely-scraping-by "presumed") notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn speedy Not that the admin can be faulted given the arcana of the SNG, but G4 doesn't apply at this point per the quote from MrClog. So the only right answer is to overturn. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation Passes notability guidelines, WP:G4 was improper here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn most recent speedy. The last AFD was in 2015. The subject's professional career has advanced, and he has received nontrivial press coverage since that time. Assuming at least some of that was reflected in the most recently deleted version of the article, G4 would not have been appropriate, since new claims of notability postdating the AFD would have been asserted. No opinion as to whether those claims are sufficient, but they call for standard rather than speedy deletion processes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Whittall (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that Closer Jo-Jo Eumerus has erred in closing this article with delete. I see no WP:CONSENSUS for a delete of the article after 4 weeks of afd. After clear consensus to keep in week 3, the afd was extended a fourth week which produced one delete and one weak delete. In addition the original nominator was not confident in the rationale for nomination "Not sure he passes WP:GNG" I am requesting the undeletion of the article per Wikipedia policy no consensus keep (4 weeks of discussion yielded no consensus). I have questioned the closer on the closer's talk page and found the explanation not in accordance with wikipedia policy. Another user has also expressed concern on the closer's talk page. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this request and commented on my talk page about it. In my assessment, the delete consensus exist mainly by virtue of the uncontested claim by the delete camp that the coverage, even when it exists, is not about the subject and only mentions him in passing. As for the third relist, at that point we had one potentially detailed source by Dream Focus, a unsupported argument by Lubbad85, and the statements by the nominator and Comatmebro that the coverage did not appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (copied largely over from Jo-JO's talk page where I was unaware this had been opened) I think there's an article to be had on the topic of his company. However in terms of coverage that I would say that I didn't find anything which would support a BLP - it just wasn't there for me. The only thing that gave me pause at all, and led to the weak delete, is that he does seem to be famous with-in his area (Orlando if I recall). I'm not saying anything new that I didn't say there. The fact is that there are only so many sysops working at AfD and so Jo-Jo acted up on this more than once does not trouble me in the least especially as the second relist was done by a different sysop. As Jo-Jo knows I'm not a huge fan of third relists without explanation and I think it's possible to have closed it as keep after the second relist when there was no comment. However, it was relisted a third time and two delete comments came in which seemed to have carried the policy weight - correctly in my judgement (but then I would say that given my !vote) - and so I don't see how you unring that bell. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the original decision in accordance with Wikipedia's no consensus Keep policy. One weak nomination, one weak Delete and one delete. Two strong keep votes. A no consensus keep is the right closure action. There was ample time to gain consensus during the 4 weeks of afd Lubbad85 (☎) 19:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (I was a participant in the AfD, but I'm trying to leave opinions aside and look at this as if I were an admin evaluating the article.) Lubba has a pretty narrow view of what "consensus" is, and looking at his hectoring of other admins over closes and relisting it seems pretty much "consensus is what I want it to be." Two administrators decided to relist, and I see no reason to dispute that opinion. I would have done the same. My only issue with Sandstein and Jo-jo's relists is that they really should have added commentary on what needed consensus or clarification/debate per WP:RELIST. It's more useful than a straight relist with no commentary and helps ward off these sorts of accusations of 'abusive relisting.' @Lubbad85: You are fundamentally misunderstanding how consensus works. It's not a balancing equation of "weak" and "strong" votes but of arguments based in guidelines and policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Fuchs I am not sure I would characterize my communication as heckling. I was appropriate and measured, I disagreed and voiced that on the appropriate talk page...and I thanked the admin for response. It is very appropriate for me to question those actions that appear to be "not within Wikipedia policy". You are also characterizing my comments as saying there is consensus on the Afd - there is not. Which is why keep is the right course of action. The article can always be renominated. WP:RUSHDELETE instead the closer inflicted "wikipedia capital punishment" on this article. WP:Not paper. There is time to delete it later if that is consensus. The action was premature. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Maybe some would have preferred for another admin to close the discussion and maybe some would have preferred the AfD closed after the 1st or 2nd relist as no consensus, but I don't see how no consensus would be appropriate after the GNG challenge is well supported and not in any way countered. The relists and close were well within discretion, and I don't think a no consensus would be. As a side note, Lubbad85 I'm fairly sure the nomination counts as a !vote to overturn, like it counts as a delete by default in XfDs, so you don't really need to specify your !vote again. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- As mentioned above, it could have been closed as keep or no consensus before one of the two last relists. But after the last relist we got two substantial, well-argued posts that refuted the previous keep !votes. We can't chuck those in the trash just because some people would prefer it not to have been relisted so often. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse several people agreed with the nominator that the notability guidelines aren't satisfied and they effectively rebutted the arguments that they were. Relisting three times is the maximum that is usually permitted, but it is permitted and it did produce a consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 11:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Correct reading of the discussion. Support the closer’s position on his talk page. ANYBIO is not applicable, this is a businessman, look to WP:CORP first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A delete reading was reasonable here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Either Delete or No Consensus was valid. It had been Relisted enough times already, and the closer had to do something, and the closer did something. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Based on the !votes, it was very reasonable to close as delete. Filing party seems to treat AFD as if it is a vote instead of a !vote. --MrClog (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia Nelson (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While it is true that the nominator and two contributors who weighed in, did say they were basing their opinions on BLP, specifically BLP1E, those claims were transparently incorrect, as Nelson clearly had two events in her young life, separated by half a decade.

Note: the nominator and one of the two contributors who voiced delete were indefinitely blocked for long term disruptive editing, not long after this AFD closed.

I am requesting userification of the article, and its talk page too, please. Geo Swan (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't see the article as I don't have admin vision but reading over that AfD I have to say that numerous comments, both in response to others and unprompted, by the appellant shouldn't hide that the consensus was correctly assessed. If there are BLP issues, especially about someone who would have been a child in what was being written about, that would indeed argue against allowing the article to be userified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow userfication. The arguments about BLP1E seem to be that the first event (being a naked model) is notable but the second (being the author of an op-ed) isn't, and the first event should be covered on her mother's article - this seems to me to be an argument for a merge and redirect (or just a redirect if everything is covered there already) rather than deletion, and this would leave the history available for if/when she does something else that is clearly notable. If on the other hand we accept that the second event is also notable then BLP1E is not a reason for deletion. A large part of the motivation for nomination does seem to be "a creepy person was linking to this article", which is not a reason for deletion (if it was we'd be deleting large swathes of the encyclopaedia). Given all this, the poorly attended AfD (of the four users expressing opinions two have since been blocked, and both of them seem to have spent considerable energy hounding the article's principle contributor), that the discussion is 18 months old, and none of the comments seem to be alleging the article was a BLP violation (and I don't see anything obvious in a scan of the deleted article), I don't see a reason not to allow userfication if Geo Swan wants to work on improving it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google keeps tuning its search engine to make it more useful for general readers - which has meant seriously eroding its usefulness for serious users, like wikipedia contributors. When I worked on the article, in 2017, I found a relatively large number of both serious newspapers republishing her op-ed, or commenting on her op-ed, or both. And I found multiple scholars, writing about the peer-pressure teenage girls experienced, who quoted her - the only actual articulate teenage girl to write something really notable about this issue.

    My recollection is that I thought the op-ed was the more important event.

    When I approached Seraphimblade I looked for an email address for Ms Nelson, or reasonable equivalent. I found an online presence, told her I thought her article could be restored. When an individual's notability is near the cusp of our inclusion criteria, we generally agree to delete, as a courtesy, when the BLP subject requests deletion. I offered to email her the last version of the article, and told her I would not work to get it restored, if she was uncomfortable about being covered. I figure she is near enough to the cusp to offer this courtesy prior to doing more work on it.

    Of course I won't be able to follow through on this offer if I can't get access to a copy. Geo Swan (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a copy of the article on another wiki and recently edited it so clearly was aware of it so what are you talking aboutSpartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse An I the on!y one who thinks contacting the subject is a bit creepy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the deletion and User:Seraphimblade’s discretion to decline userfication. Perhaps a better forum for this is WP:BLPN. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and deny userfication. Maybe there's no harm in userfying this, but when the subject is a minor and the topic is controversial, the bar is higher than "maybe there's no harm". -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • RoySmith What controversy are you referring to? In 2005, when I was a newbie, another contributor challenged an article I had started on a Guantanamo captive, claiming that the topic of Guantanamo was "inherently biased", and "just an excuse for POV America-bashing".

    Topics, themselves, aren't inherently biased. The RS that cover notable topics can be biased, which is why we have rules and guidelines that help us prepare neutrally written summaries of what those RS say. When we follow our rules there is no topic so controversial it can't be covered here. If you are an administrator, who can read the article for yourself, I think you can see there never was anything controversial about the article. Ms Nelson was at the center of a controvery, which I think the article covered in a fair and neutral manner.

    RoySmith, there is a sad phenomenon I will warn you about. Some contributors WP:CRYBLP misleadingly, to promote their own POV. About a decade ago I came across an AFD of a woman who had made herself a public spokeperson for reform of her state's draconian laws on sex offenders. This grandmother was, technically, a sex offender, because she let the father of her pregnant daughter's child move in, so they could save money to get married, when her daughter was still a minor. This grandmother clearly measured up to GNG, having appeared on national TV, and having a profile in the Economist. Those arguing for deletion claimed that BLP required deletion, to protect her reputation, as it was damaging to her to describe her a sex offender. This argument was incredibly disrespectful to that grandmother, who had made a conscious choice to sacrifice her privacy to serve as a public spokesperson. In this particular case "protecting" her would have been damaging to her. Her state did reform its laws on sex crimes, and the grandmother was finally allowed to meet her grandchildren.

    I suggest that claiming BLP required deletion of Olympia Nelson was a similar instance where a claim that BLP was protecting someone actually served the opposite goal. Ms Nelson gave a very articulate defence of her late mother, when she was attacked by conservative politician, in 2008. She continues to hold those views now that she is an adult. RoySmith, if you thought the original AFD was over a genuine BLP controversy, I think you were misled.

    Please remember WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Geo Swan (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and deny userification Authoring an op-ed doesn't really grant anyone notability anywhere. The XfD discussion is badly bludgeoned, but consensus is clear, and there's really no other way to close that discussion. I would also deny userification for the reasons noted above. SportingFlyer T·C 23:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with a certain amount of disgust. I have the feeling that I have come in to the middle of something ugly, and I don't know what to say. Therefore in the absence of any indication that the closer made a mistake, I will assume that the closer either made the only possible close or made a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as I see no fatal flaw in the close and it is a reasonable read of this heavily bludgeoned discussion. Refuse userification as there is no need as it isn't likely the person will break out of BLP1E any time soon, and so the BLP ramifications take priority over the editor's desire to keep the page in user space. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• relist I hate to reward the bludgeoning, but I'd like to see a more meaningful discussion. There is a valid argument that there are two significant events here (though obviously one is based on the other) and the low-profile part is debatable. I suspect we'll end up in the same place, but with firmer footing. That said, GS needs to understand that bludgeoning like that hurts their cause a lot more than it helps it. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Hobit. The quality of the AFD is ghastly, both for the bludgeoning on one side and the formulaic invocation of BLP1E, without meaningfully applying the actual criteria of BLP1E, on the other. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and deny userfication. The deletion debate seems to cover the bases, nothing's really changed in the two years since, and whether or not the subject wants an article isn't really germane to the debate. It's classic WP:BLP1E and I don't see any potential for restoration that would even justify userfying.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

update

Sorry, not sorry. It's deeply creepy and you should find less marginal people to impose your articles on. You know where ani is I'm sure if you still want to disagree. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Spartaz. It's absolutely creepy. Take me to ANI as well if you wish. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification, Spartaz and SmokeyJoe, you do realize that neither one of gave a policy based reason for opposing userification? Don't our body of policies and procedures and long-standing conventions around civility and collegiality call upon all of us to refrain from attacking one another's character during editorial discussions? Don't they call upon us to restrict ourselves to arguments and counter-arguments that are based on our policies, and long-standing conventions? Since you haven't offered any policy based arguments should the closing administrator assume you don't have any? Geo Swan (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was deleted per the AfD, under WP:Deletion policy. Userfication of deleted content is not a right, and is within discretion for the request to be denied. Here we are proceeding under the policy WP:Consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reached out to BLP subjects before (authors, artists) in the hope that they had sources I didn't. I don't get the sense any of them felt I was being creepy. Given the nature of this BLP subject, I can understand the thought, but in general I personally don't see an issue. I'm curious what makes others see it as problematic. Is it the nature of this BLP or a more general thing? Hobit (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, I believe it's a combination of the specific nature of this BLP, exacerbated by the bludgeoning. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Contacting a subject about their Wikipedia biography is not in general creepy. The difference is this being after the AfD deletion, which many subjects take as an insult, where being contacted by a Wikipedia editor is in some form a negotiation with that editor bargaining to get the subjects page re-created. What does the Wikipedia editor want from the subject? Will the subject feel some subtle pressure to provide? Will the subject then be in the debt of that editor? And the controversy is their controversial nude childhood photography. Creepy is an ill-defined word, it speaks to how someone feels. I do not feel comfortable with editors contacting subjects of deleted articles soliciting information or permissions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some other instances, subjects have been contacted, to see if they possibly would be embarrassed. (in the only one I can immediately recall, the person said they'd have no objections) I know that I personally would be very reluctant to actively push to get an article for someone who is not really a public individual and of arguably borderline notability, such that their preference would be taken into account in an afd. It might be tricky how to ask, but I think it is both permissible and relevant. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a case like this, post-AfD-deletion, involving public controversy about sensitivities, and the subject involved in their own media, I think more care should be taken than in general. I think I would prefer anyone making contact to be at least OTRS registered meta:OTRS/Volunteering. I do not support the deleted page being hosted long term in either userspace or draftspace, and I support the denial of userfication. Any decision to re-create should be made on the basis of sourcing, and I repeat that a better forum for discussion of re-creation is WP:BLPN. If the subject is reading this, I would like to point out that she is most welcome to contribute directly in her own words, especially regarding issues of personal sensitivity and any independent sources that we may be unaware of, and I recommend WP:Registering for the purpose of doing this. I am not comfortable with making use of any information provided under an unclear expectation of privacy, such as by private email or conversation.
      I don't agree with asking a person who might be embarrassed if they are embarrassed, as that is a pressure-question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy, and how to cover it...

It is generally not our job to take sides in public controversies. When topics are well referenced, if we try hard enough, we should be able to agree on neutral wording in our coverage of controversies. Various wikidocuments provide guidance in how to use RS with a point of view, and summarize, paraphrase or quote them in ways that provides a neutral tone. For what it is worth I thought the Olympia Nelson article measured up to that standard when it was nominated, and when it was deleted.

So, the controversy was that Ms Nelson's mother was a prominent artist, who believed in free artistic expression. When Ms Nelson was 6 her mother, the artist, had her replicate a pose from a 19th Century photo Lewis Carroll/Charles Dodgson had one of his models pose for. As in Dodgson's original photo Ms Nelson is not wearing any clothes. As in Dodgson's original photo, her knees block her chest and groin area. In 2008, when Ms Nelson was 11 several Australian politicians denounced her mother over these photos, and Ms Nelson offered an articulate defence of her mother's artistic choices.

Note: there was nothing genuinely controversial about the Olympia Nelson article itself. The controversy was in question concerned different opinions as to whether her mother should have taken the photo, and having taken it, how she should have displayed it.

Now, if we were discussing whether to cover the photos, the politician's criticism of them, and Ms Nelson's defence of them, in 2008, when the politicians made their criticism, an argument could be made that Ms Nelson might have been brain-washed, that she was a victim, that her defence of her mother shouldn't be taken at face value. But she is 22 or 23 years old now, an artist and musician herself, who, it seems to me from a recent keynote address she gave at an art exhibition which included unclothed subjects, that she continues to support her late mother's artistic choices. Here is her keynote. The audio is muddy, I think the first 20-30 seconds are about her and her mom. The remainder of the video spends about 20-30 seconds on the half dozen artists with works at the exhibition. The title of the exhibition was "Skin Thing". I think the organizers asked her to give the keynote specifically because they knew people in Australia remembered her mother's stand. And I think Ms Nelson would not have agreed to deliver the keynote if she didn't still support her mother's stand.

My guess about the meaning of her delivering the keynote might be wrong. Which is why I told her I would not try to get the article restored, if she didn't want it restored.

In my opinion anyone who thinks we should censor coverage of the photos, to protect Ms Nelson, even though she voiced support of her mother's artistic choices, is not actually protecting her at all. Rather, isn't this a lapse from neutrality, and siding with her mother's critics? Geo Swan (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you've pinged me, show me exactly where I used the word controversy. All I have commented on are whether the deletion was proper (it was) and your conduct in terms of contacting a subject on a sensitive issue after a completed AfD. This is not a relitigation of the AfD, nor is this "censoring." It's a rather sensitive WP:BLP1E. You would do well to stop bludgeoning the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SportingFlyer, the WP:BLUDGEON essay is new to me. Are you going to consider it bludgeoning if I point out to you that the fact that you keep crying BLP1E, when, in both the original AFD, and here in the DRV, it was made very clear Ms Nelson had two significant events, in 2008 and 2013, seems to suggest you didn't read the discussions thoroughly? I suggest to you that, if you choose to leave an opinion in a discussion, you have an obligation to do your best to leave an informed opinion.

    As for protecting Ms Nelson, did you look at her most recent YouTube video, which I linked to above? She gave the keynote address at the 2018 opening of an art exhibit called "Skin Thing". I offered my interpretation of that video -- that she continues to support her mother's artistic choices. That would make protection an intrusive censoring of an articulate person. Geo Swan (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Considering you contributed a majority of the text in the AfD, you're on pace to contribute a majority of the text in this deletion review, and it's contributing to the difficulty of discussing the deletion in the context of whether delete was an appropriate outcome/whether userification should be granted by throwing out tangents on censoring, I would absolutely call it bludgeoning. I also am familiar with the discussion and, in my informed opinion, I disagree with you. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Good Lord, what an inappropriately personalised debate this has been. In the course of doing my background reading for this debate I've encountered nude pictures of a child, which to my relief were tasteful and appropriate.

  I think the community was right to decide not to have an article about this person.

  I've looked at DRVPURPOSE to see whether we should be reviewing the decision whether or not to userfy, and I'm not sure that that decision is strictly within scope for this page ---- but there should be a place, and if not here, then where? We might usefully have a discussion about expanding DRVPURPOSE a bit to cover this point.

  If we should be reviewing that decision, then I think it's unusual, and rather harsh, to refuse to userfy deleted content. It could possibly be justified under WP:BLPTALK if any of the material in the deleted article was potentially controversial or defamatory. The fact that this girl appeared in tasteful and appropriate nude photographs at a young age is uncontroversial and not defamatory.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be deeply dissatisfied by any closure of this DRV that echoes the frequently repeated but clearly bogus claim that the original closure of the AFD was correct, because Nelson was a BLP1E, when she was clearly known for multiple events.

It seems to me that when an administrator closes an AFD, or a DRV, good faith contributors should be able to read their closure, and be able to figure out if and when there are conditions the article can be recreated. Rarely an administrator will conclude the article should never be recreated, and they will SALT the name. In practically every other case possible recreation is implied, if conditions change. Every person who has claimed BLP1E is implying that the Olympia Nelson article could be recreated if she became known for a second event, or multiple events. And, these opinions are deeply bogus, as Ms Nelson is ALREADY KNOWN FOR MULTIPLE EVENTS. Geo Swan (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are really obsessed by this person aren't you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I replied to this implied attack on my mental health on User_talk:Spartaz. In my reply I suggested they read my essay User:Geo Swan/opinions/Are you NUTS... Geo Swan (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Life is already short enough reading your wall of text. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• it seems to me that this discussion is very much relating to censorship--censorship both on and off WP. It is possible that some things do need to be censored, or at least that our present society accepts that some things need to be censored, and the off-WP controversy around this picture is whether it is one of them. Saying that this is just about the neutral application of technical rules gives the impression of looking a little like arguing for censorship, while trying to avoid saying it explicitly--since almost nobody at WP would actually defend censorship, if called by its true name. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:XboxAvatarColorizingHair.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

File:XboxAvatarBrowsingStore.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

File:XboxOriginalAvatar.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

File:Xbox Avatars Changing Hair.png (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

File:Xbox Avatars Store.png (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

File:Xbox Avatars Take A Photo.png (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This image was tagged to be included as a screenshot. It was deleted without any explanation as to what was missing from the image and instead got tagged as "too excessive" which isn't really helpful, especially since the hosting article is about the applications the screenshot was describing. The images are already posted in the wild and would have been linked to directly but this is not support/viable for Wikipedia. Randy No Arms (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've combined all six of these into a single DRV discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The filer doesn't state an issue. The close appears on its face to be the correct close. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse OP has not addressed the concern raised in the FfD, and seems unwilling to acknowledge that WP:NFCC exists. Also of interest: this exchange. Courtesy pings for @Atomicdragon136, @JJMC89, @Whpq. -FASTILY 05:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the fact a non-free image is about the subject of the article doesn't mean it's OK to use it at all. Fair use images are only supposed to be used when they significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic, especially if the image itself is the subject of commentary in the article. They can't be used just for decoration purposes. I think you'd have a much stronger case for including a single fair use image in the article to show the reader what the article subject looks like, and possibly we could restore one to serve this purpose, but there isn't any justification for including this many. Hut 8.5 06:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The FFD was closed reflecting both consensus and policy. By FFD standards, it was well attended. -- Whpq (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Making sure we have correct licensing for all our content is a non-negotiable requirement, and WP:NFCC lays out some very narrow conditions for using content which isn't freely licensed. There was unanimous agreement at the XfD that those requirements were not met. This should be speedy closed as failing WP:DRVPURPOSE. The only real issue I can see with the close is that it was terse, but that's how these things usually are, and the above discussion explains the issue in greater detail. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, is there any recourse here? No disrespect meant to the WP:NFCC but there's often various and conflicting information in a lot of the guidance given in that document so while I did what I thought I was supposed to do, it's sounding like it wasn't enough or was the wrong thing. For people that have a history of posting here, they likely don't realize that the help pages guide you to at least four different pages that "help" but they often cross-reference other parts of the system that are often misleading. The worst one is the one that has you read a bunch of options that ends with "don't do that." That said, what are my options here? I am of the opinion that seeing screenshots of a software application is specifically enhancing the reader's understanding of the topic; one can show one scene but there are different generations of the tech, character, and platform. Similar to trying to describe yellow to a person that has never been able to see, describing a visual representation in a graphical application is richer and easier through pictures than words. If the consciousness is "no images" I still thank you for the detailed explanation as this is far better than anything else I've see on this topic. So, thank you! Randy No Arms (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's going to argue that the wikipedia policy and help pages are perfect. As you've discovered, they're overly verbose, often difficult to understand, and sometimes in conflict with each other. Just like the rest of the encyclopedia :-)

But, to answer your question about options, it looks like a foregone conclusion that you're not going to convince people that these images, as a group, comply with WP:NFCC. As Hut 8.5 mentioned above (and hinted at in the XfD), part of the problem is that including all of these images together violates WP:NFCCP, #3a. So, maybe pick one image, and see if you can convince people that's OK. Note that NFCCP includes a list of 10 things, and you have to comply with every one. So, you'll want to read that list carefully. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popular beat combo (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As WP:CLOSEAFD says, the closing admin's task is to decide consensus - and "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments".

Seven editors commented in the AfD. Two (myself and Epinoia) felt it should be deleted and gave policy-based reasons why. The remaining five editors !voted Keep but with no policy based reasons whatsoever:

• Andy Dingley's !vote was bsed on the term having been used in the media, but that is not what our notability standard requires. It requires significant coverage and Andy Dingley did not assert that this standard was met. In fact, he didn't even claim that the subject was notable. He just said that ITEXISTS. See also WP:NOT#DICT.
• Andrew D just said that "Commonplace concepts like this should be properly covered by the world's greatest encyclopedia". See above: no claim that it is notable.
• Mervyn said that it is "the job of an encyclopedia" to record and explain memes and tropes like this. Well, no it isn't: WP:NOT, WP:N.
• Laosilika's !vote is literally one of the examples used at WP:ITSNOTABLE. Literally.
• Narky Blert said that they found the article useful (so WP:ITSUSEFUL.) They said it was suppoted by the sources, but as with Andy Dingley abnove, all the sources do is demonstrate that the term exists, not that it is notable for Wikipedia.

I respectfully suggest that the clsoing admin should have assessed whether any of the Keep arguments were "reasonable, logical, policy-based" when closing, and there is no evidence that they did this assessment, and indeed they can't possibly have done that assessment because if they had they would obviously have realised that every single Keep argument was baseless in policy terms.

When I raised this with teh closing admin they suggested that I just disagree with the Keep !voters' reasoning. That is not so. I simply do not accept that they had any reasoning which is policy-based. If I made an article List of jokes told by Amisom and it was nominated for AfD and 5 editors !voted Keep with poor reasoning, I do not expect their !votes would carry much weight.This is not really so different. Amisom (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Maybe a relist would be in order, but...eh. looking at the article, Mervyn actually added new references to the article, which werent't discussed by anyone, including you. And maybe WP:RENOM is a better in this case (overturn to no consensus and do the 2nd AFD), with an updated rationale as to why the added references don't meet WP:GNG, or as to exactly what is WP:OR in the article (Andy Dingley made a good point about that), so you would be able to make your argument stand out more. But yeah, most of the Keep votes are the combination of WP:ITSNOTABLE from what I can see. I have to agree with SeraphimBlade's response on the talk page that a delete option would basically be a WP:SUPERVOTE (and the discussion did not reflect that), there was a no consensus option as well (though Keep and No consensus is literally a case of a "potayto, potahto"). Hard to say, to be honest. Kind of a "within admin's discretion" situation. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per common sense. There's only any need to appeal to the minutiae of guidelines when it is not obvious what should be done. As several people pointed out that it was obvious, there is no need to do so in this case. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The more "obvious" the outcome is, the easier it should be for policy-based reasons to be given. Yet nobody (including you) has managed to do so. Funny that. Amisom (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The Keep !voters did give arguments. A close of No Consensus is the close that could have been challenged. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say they didn't give arguemnts. I said they didn't give policy-based arguments. "I like it" is an argument. Amisom (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Amisom: I see you've responded to almost every !vote on the AfD and now here at DRV. My advice: let this go. Unwatch the DRV page, move on to other parts of the encyclopedia, forget about this one. I wouldn't call your editing disruptive but you're starting to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Having been there myself, I completely understand how frustrating it is consensus isn't on your side here, but it's highly unlikely the close will be overturned, and responding to everyone's analysis won't help your case. SportingFlyer T·C 09:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A consensus formed around the keep votes, and there's no other way to close this AfD. I'm relatively sympathetic to the nominator as reading through the discussion I myself would have been a delete !voter at AfD, but this isn't AfD, the keep !voters made arguments based in policy, there's no other way to close the discussion, and discussion was robust enough a relist would be improper. My advice would be to try again in a year or so. SportingFlyer T·C 07:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I am sympathetic to the frustration that the filer has here but the keep !votes were clearly based in policy and procedures - perhaps not my interpretation of them but a plausible interpretation of them. I don't see any possible outcome when looking consensus here, given the participation level, except keep. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Same as with Barkeep and SportingFlyer, I sympathize because the discussion was really unhelpful (well at least one person added something and Andy pointed something) in a way to establish notability, but the main purpose of this DRV was to overturn to delete, which is not going to happen. If it were more Delete supporters, yeah, but like this.... I suggest WP:RENOM with expanded rationale for the newly added sources and WP:OR content, after a month (after a year that was proposed above is a bit ridiculous in my opinion, especially with how the discussion was). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way. Advise to read WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roy below may be right, but I am not convinced, and that is not what the participants said. Such a close would have been a WP:Supervote. I read the arguments to keep as alluding to alternatives to deletion, including scope changes. Such !votes are valid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. I don't know if I could have found the courage to close this as delete, but it's really the correct close. The arguments to keep are terrible. There's claims of "broadsheet coverage in the Guardian and the Telegraph", but those are just passing mentions, as was explained in the AfD. Another argument is that it's our job to record memes and tropes. Hogwash. Another person says it meets WP:GNG without giving any explanation of how. And another is arguing that we should keep it because it's an urban legend. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with a relist, as suggested below. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It feels a bit too WP:IARy to me, hence my endorse, but I would support this plan of action. SportingFlyer T·C 07:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would a relist would be appropriate here? It seems there's a clear consensus the close couldn't have been done any other way - it would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE - but it's also clear the petitioner is on to something here regarding the strength of the arguments. Reopening the discussion could allow for a clearer consensus to form. SportingFlyer T·C 10:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus for delete had formed at the time of closure. There had been only two !votes, one of which was keep, the other was a less than entirely firm delete. The discussion had only been relisted once. It should either have been relisted for further development of the consensus (which might have been delete or keep) or closed with no consensus. No assessment of the consensus was given FOARP (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see WP:DELREVD #1 was done here. You should have discussed it with the closer first before doing this. This would be a Procedural close right away, no? On the other side, closing such an AfD without any notices explaining it (FOARP sources have not been refuted)... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I missed that part of the deletion review guide (my only excuse is that the brightly-coloured part drew my eye first). I've written a note on their talk page. All the same I'm not sure if I should withdraw the delete review since it's already posted and it seems a pretty straight-forward case for relisting. FOARP (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If the closing admin void his close and relists himself, it would be OK I guess? That is why DELREVD exists to avoid this being listed for 7 days for a trivial work like a second relist with low count of votes. Let's see the admins response I guess. In any case I agree with your deletion review completely. Not so much with you Keep vote though, sorry. :( The corporations and organizations guideline has been made tougher to pass with WP:CORPDEPTH, and I am not sure the sources you posted would be enough.) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed it with them. They don't agree that this should be relisted or no-consensus'ed. As such I think this DRV should go ahead. FOARP (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to either No Consensus or Relist. Good arguments were made both ways and it was close enough by headcount that we really really are not just voting. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I don't really have any problem with the delete close especially given the closer's rationale on their talk page but given the low discussion, contested close, and only one relist so far, I see no harm in giving this one another week. I don't think a delete close is unreasonable if no other comments are made, though. SportingFlyer T·C 09:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per SportingFlyer, the close was reasonable but it would have been better to leave open a bit longer. Note: I was the one who nominated the article for deletion _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist If this had been the case after two relists I'd have agreed with the close but given that FOAP made a substantive case and there wasn't any real discussion of why those sources didn't meet notability (even by the one subsequent !voter) a second relist seems appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per some of my thoughts on the comment I made above. FOARP's sources have not been discussed and thus I find it inappropriate that the discussion was closed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. FOARP's 12:44, 1 May 2019 !vote listed sources that are not ridiculous. His !vote demands reading and response before the closer can call it discounted by consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - already been relisted once, I don't think we can say that the community hasn't had an adequate chance to express itself. The discussion showed a tendency towards delete. Amisom (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• relist I'll go further and say that given sources were provided and no one addressed them, even a few more !votes to delete wouldn't get us to delete unless those sources are clearly horrid. That said, the sources certainly not great and I'll not be shocked if a relist gets us back to delete. Hobit (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Grudging relist. I don't think the close was terribly out of line, but relisting it for another week would have been better. There were a bunch of sources suggested, and they got no discussion. Yes, there was somebody who commented after the sources were presented that he looked and found nothing, but I don't see any indication that he specifically examined and rejected the sources suggested by the previous discussant. So, why grudging? Because I looked at the sources and agree that they're all worthless as far as WP:NCORP goes. Most are routine coverage of high-value business transactions (i.e. helicopter purchases) in extremely niche publications (Helicopter Investor, Corporate Jet Investor, Air Med & Rescue), so fail WP:AUD. The two references in books are just namedrops related to some lawsuit the company was involved in. But, that's the kind of judgement call that should be made at AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - There was no consensus to delete. The community should have some extra time to reconsider the AfD. --MrClog (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K-391 (music producer) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since this article was deleted, the subject has passed criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO for having releases that reached numerous chart positions in five different countries. A draft exists at Draft:K-391 that demonstrates such notability, and this venue was recommended by Robert McClenon as a means of getting the draft accepted. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While doing NPP I removed a G4 speedy delete with the edit summary "A redirect is a legitimate alternative to deletion. Not discussed at first AfD and was reason for speedy close at 2nd. Take to RfD if redirect is felt to be inappropriate." I have not looked at the draft but would have reacted quite differently to a G6. There was a 2017 AfD that closed as delete and a 2018 AfD which was speedy closed when it turned into a redirect. In either case enough time has passed that clearly it would be ripe for potential recreation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Please link the new post-AfD sources. I note the AfD was a very strong delete, and MUSICBIO is just a list of indicators of probably passing at AfD. Are there new independent secondary sources? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sources directly from the draft are here and here, both talking about singles that charted in Norway. An additional collaborative single with Alan Walker charted on Billboard's Dance/Electronic Songs chart, peaking at 12 on March 30. All other sources regarding chart positions can be found in the draft as well as on Alan Walker discography. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation and testing at AfD. The AfD is over 18 months ago, and new things have happened. I think it has a better than 50% chance for survival. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I did some work on it. Main problem was the grammar, general formatting and foreign-language sources. I think I fixed most issues and the article could maybe pass as a low class start-class article. The article does prove that he had charted multiple times in several charts, so he definitely criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Just a matter of whether or not it passes general notability. Micro (Talk) 06:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Both the original AFD and the brief second one were before the 2018 re-release of Ignite, which meets WP:NSONG. At a first glance he easily passes WP:CCOS and passes WP:MUSBIO. On a second glance, sigcov of K-391 is limited, Ignite may be more credited to Walker than Nilsson[15], Different World is primarily a Walker song, and Lily is questionably notable. Here's a possibility: Pivot to an article on the song. Provided that it includes sufficient sourced material on critical coverage, production/development, etc, it would be reasonable to briefly include K-391's background, the relationship of K-391 to Walker (the former was one of the inspirations for the latter), and their subsequent collaborations. Then Redirect to that ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting as the closing admin that I've been alerted to this discussion, but it seems like it's not my close that is being contested, but whether it is now outdated. I have no particular opinion on that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-creation in Draft - The filer should be allowed to submit a draft to review via Articles for Creation. There was no error by the closer. The previous delete may have been a matter of WP:TOOSOON. This does not imply that the draft will be accepted, but it does not imply that the draft will not be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments in New York City by year (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

CFD was closed as no consensus though it was 6 to 2 editors in favor of merging as to two opposing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• closer comment CfD is not a vote, and so my job as closure is to assess the arguments not count noses. As I explained in the closing summary and then again on my talk page, the arguments in favour of keeping were stronger than those preferring deletion/merging (particularly the slippery slope argument was fully refuted), despite the numerical superiority of the latter. The numbers were really what made this no a no consensus rather than keep closure. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm neutral on the DRV, but just want to echo what Thryduulf said in his closing statement; it really helps to be clear about your intentions, for the sake of whoever is going to do the close. Keep in mind that the closer may not be an expert in the subject or the particular discussion process. The more obvious people are, the easier it is for the closer to correctly summarize things. I saw this listed at WP:ANRFC, took a look at it, and decided I couldn't understand the discussion well enough to close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the closer is, as suggested, not be an expert in the subject or the particular discussion process, that makes their supervote all the more inappropriate.

The nomination was indeed malformed, and it is reprehensible that the nominator disregarded repeated requests to fix it. Unfortunately, in noting that in the close, Thryduulf makes no criticism of the nominator's dismissal of two civil requests by me to fix the problem[16][17], nor the civil request by @Marcocapelle that [18] this side discussion has taken long enough now, it is time for action. Please change the nomination from delete to merge. Instead, the closer chose to criticise my third response[19] as uncivil, without even noting that it was in response to Koavf's choice to dismiss my well-founded concerns as a character flaw in me: [20]: BHG will BHG.

I see unpleasant parallels with Thryduulf's misuse of an Arbcom case request to make unfounded allegations against me of misconduct and bad faith, the only substance of which turned out to be that I had in an RFC supported an option which he opposed (see my statement section "responses to Thryduulf unfounded criticisms"). I therefore concerned that Thryduulf's handling of this whole close may be tainted by the same counterfactual desire to smear BHG which Thryduulf repeatedly displayed at that case request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: This has got absolutely nothing to do with portals or any other matter which we're both involved with. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, I would be more easily persuaded to restore my assumption of your good faith if this close wasn't so far off the mark in two of the three issues you raised, and if your responses on your talk page had shown any regard for policy ... or indeed if you had taken any one of multiple opportunities offered to you withdraw the smears you made at the arbcom case request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I am not smearing you now and was not smearing you then, and have fully explained why this close was not a supervote. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the first two of those assertions are as implausible as the third. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needlessly making negative comments about the motivations or perceived personal attributes of those you disagree with is exactly what was suboptimal about your conduct in the CfD, and yet you are doing the exact same thing here and I'm getting rather sick of it and can fully understand why Koavf's responses to you were not great. If you need it spelled out again: Nothing about my comments or actions related to the CfD was influenced by any previous interactions between us. Nothing. Even if consensus says I misinterpreted the CfD (I don't claim perfection) that doesn't alter anything about my intentions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Thryduulf for confirming, probably unintentionally, that he is indeed motivated by personal animosity against me. That's a helpful clarification.

Thryduulf correctly noted that Koavf screwed up the nomination.

Thryduulf chose to comment on my conduct, claiming that the way I did it was almost never appropriate in a collegiate discussion.

So, look at what I did write:

1. My first comment, noting the problem[21]. That was civil and collegiate, wasn't it?
2. My second comment, replying to Koavf's dismissal of the problem: [22]. That was civil and collegiate, wasn't it?
3. Koavf's [23] response, dismissing the substantive points which Thryduulf endorsed, where Koavf wrote BHG will BHG, I guess. That was uncivil and uncollegiate, wasn't it?

So, the reality which Thryduulf inverts is that was actually the nominator's comments to me which amounted to making negative comments about the motivations or perceived personal attributes of those you disagree with. Yet Thryduulf attributed that to me, even tho the sequence of events is clearly of my civility being responded to with the sort of negative comments Thryduulf claims to deplore.

Thryduulf says that he can fully understand why Koavf's responses to you were not great. In other words, Thryduulf blames me for Koavf's choice to make a personal attack in response to my correct and civil explanation of a procedural problem.

There are two possible explanations for this. Either Thryduulf chose to ignore the sequence of comments in the discussion, in order to vent the personal animosity which led him to invert the reality ... or he simply didn't read the discussion properly before closing it ... or simply didn't check the facts before launching a personal attack. But Thryduulf insists lower down that he read the discussion carefully, so that leaves only a choice by Thryduulf to invert the reality.

This is all very similar to Thryduulf's conduct at rfar, where he accused me[24] of having declared a "war on portals". When challenged on why he applied that label to the fact that I had at the time MFDed 15 carefully-selected low-quality automated portals for deletion, Thryduulf's reply[25] was to shift the smear onto some sort of collective responsibility that he deemed me to share with the set of editors with whom I happened to agree on some points: claiming that I was a "meber" of some cabal and that his comments were directed at you specifically but the collective actions of a group of editors who share similar opinions of which you are a member ... and that I do find your actions against portals disproportionately excessive. And when challenged on what was, Thryduulf clarified that the disproportionately excessive conduct for which he close to allege misconduct was [26] that I supported a CSDoption which he opposed, demanding assessment of quality or alternatives to deletion ... and 11 days later when I did propose deletion based on an assessment of quality, Thryduulf opposed that too[27].

The only two consistent feature in all this are Thryduulf's sustained willingness to make unfounded attacks on me contrary to the evidence, and his determination to insist that I am bad and wrong. He claims to be I'm getting rather sick of it .. but the remedy is to stop doing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately or unfortunately I don't have time to read that wall of text in detail, so I shall just ask once again that you stop with the personalisation of disagreements. If you have a problem with me take it to ANI and back up your arguments with evidence not already refuted speculation. 10:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want to assure me that you will stop misrepesenting me in order to fabricate complaints about me, then I will will be happy to accept that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to stop doing something I have never done. You have my assurance that I will not intentionally misrepresent you (or anyone else) nor fabricate complaints about you (or anyone else) in the future, because it is not something I have ever done or ever intend to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge. This is an exceptionally bad close, in which the closer ignored WP:NHC and cast a personal WP:SUPERVOTE contrary to policy. Both @WilliamJE and I raised it on the closer's talk page at User talk:Thryduulf#Would_you_like_to_reconsider, where Thryduulf doubled down on his policy error, even after the policy was cited to him.

The core of the close is Thryduulf's assertion[28] that There are good arguments in favour of categories for some cities with a large number of establishments each year and those arguments much stronger than the "slippery slope" arguments in opposition.

However, policy at WP:NHC is very clear that it is not the closer's role to evaluate which arguments they believe to be stronger. The closer's role is narrower than that: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue".

In discussion on his talk page, I explicitly noted to Thryduulf that their assessment raised no policy issue[29]: I note that you do not suggest or imply that the oppose votes were better founded in policy. Given that lack of a policy distinction, your discarding of a 75% majority for merge amounts to a supervote

Thryduulf's reply was[30] that it was not a vote so I have to consider the substance of the comments not just the number, and the arguments in favour of splitting in some cases were stronger than those favouring deletion for the reasons I detailed: they were principally about a slippery slope, which I found to be fully refuted.

That policy section at WP:NHC closes with the words "If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument."

Thryduulf makes no claim or assertion that the arguments made for merge were unreasonable, and its very clear that "the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view". Instead of respecting the actual consensus, Thryduulf made his own personal assessment(s) of which arguments he personally preferred, and made his own judgement of the issue. On that basis ignored a clear 6:2 balance of views in favour of merge. This was a blatant WP:SUPERVOTE, and it is a clear breach of long-established policy on how to close discussions. It is the worst admin close I have seen in a long time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge. BHG puts it much better than I could why this was a supervote, so I will leave it at that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge. One of the 2 keepers (MainlyTwelve) created the categories and is hardly unbiased. The other keeper produced a 'LARGECAT' argument which appears to favour keeping any category with more than 5 articles. Oculi (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, @Oculi.
    WP:SMALLCAT sets a minimum, not a mandate or a maximum. Also note that the closer's supervote ignored my two numbered points:
    [31] 1/ the NY state categories are not big enough to need splitting. This is a solution in search of a problem
    2/ The NYC categories will have either a long thin tail or an arbitrary cutoff date.
    Not just a supervote, but a supervote based on inadequate reading of the discusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Supervote" strongly implies that I closed this discussion to favour my point of view. I did not do that - I do not have a view about whether such categories are good or bad. I closed it based on my reading of the arguments presented in the discussion. Consensus may say that I got that wrong, but if I did was not an error from inadequate reading or a desire for one outcome over another. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thryduulf, it's a supervote because you based your close on your personal evaluation of the arguments. That is contrary to WP:NHC's requirement that the close be based on the consensus of reasonable arguments", not on whether you agreed with those reasonable arguments. This is absolutely fundamental to closing a discussion. And if your close was not based on an inadequate reading, why did you misrepresent the arguments for merge as being only than the "slippery slope" arguments, when my two numbered points above are not slippery slope?

Neither your claim to policy adherence nor you claim to read bear much scrutiny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse As noted above, the discussion itself is hard to understand for a number of different reasons. I don't think this was a supervote based off the weighing of the arguments. I'm endorsing this since I think you can make a colourable argument for both a no consensus or a merge, especially given a very similar discussion with a slightly different result [[32]], which was unchallenged but could also have been a no consensus close. While merge may have been a stronger close, both options here are within discretion. SportingFlyer T·C 01:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge- That's very clearly what the consensus was. I wouldn't be as hasty as calling this a supervote, but the fact that after all the long-winded debating was done all the !votes were for merging suggests this is where the strength of argument was. Reyk _YO! 10:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think the close was a reasonable exercise of judgement. Firstly strength of argument is relevant when closing XfDs, see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. Strength of argument is not the same as the personal opinion of the closer, and it's not the case that strength of argument is only determined by adherence to policy, as claimed above. Arguments which are logically fallacious or which were convincingly rebutted can be discounted or downweighted as well. Here the major argument for the merge is that if a similar categorisation system were to be adopted for other cities then that would lead to undesirable results. That argument doesn't actually mean that these categories are inappropriate in themselves, so I think it is reasonable for the closer to downweight it as a result. Finally I do have to question why two longstanding editors thought it was OK to sling personal insults at each other over what looks like a minor issue with the nomination. Hut 8.5 19:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, either to Merge or to Relist. There was a consensus that something needed to be done, either deletion or merging or something. In looking over both the discussion in the MFD and the discussion in this DRV, it does appear that this has everything to do either with portals, or with some other reason for bad blood by Thryduulf toward BrownHairedGirl. (I was about to write bad blood between them, but I see that BHG is being patient and civil with an editor who is being impatient and uncivil.) The close cannot be justified from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse and refer to WP:RENOM. The discussion was leaning to merge, but there were counter points plus problems with the nomination clarity. This will be better solved by a renomination than by DRV. The close was close to a WP:Supervote, but there is also a good defence of the “no consensus”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It really takes exceptional arguments to overturn a non-consensus close. The above discussion echoes the CfD--there is very obviously no consensus. When the views are closely balanced between keep and delete, the only really reasonable way to close is no consensus, because otherwise the closer will inevitably to some degree use, even if unconsciously, their own opinion . Since CfD is not a widely watched process, a renomination with perhaps wider notice may get a clearer result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Yemen (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As you can see all of examples there are not countries except Yemen. The rationale was that they all have single navbox, I was not aware of the deletion I would have improve it. The reason this should be kept is that almost all of countries have their own portal I do believe that since there are a lot of articles that are related to Yemen (religion/food/culture) that a portal is needed SharabSalam (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse XFD (by default as DRV OP has not specified any errors in the close of the XFD) however possibly overturn CSD if the latest version was not a recreation of the single navbox version (although I don't find the "is needed" argument convincing). Note: the portal has now been deleted 6 times in total - it would be better to spend editing effort on pages that people actually use (e.g. articles). DexDor ^(talk) 08:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor, the re-created version was indeed a recreation of the single navbox version. See my notes below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as nominator. The discussion was open for the full seven days, and the portal was clearly tagged, so there was no flaw in nomination. The closer weighed the discussion correctly.

The DRV complainant is wrong to say that Yemen is the only country on the list: Bardbados and Eswatini are also countries. The type of entity was not the reason for deletion, and the fact that three are countries was noted in the discussion.

The actual reason for deletion is that this type of pseudo-portal is redundant to the navbox on which it is built. As noted in the nomination, that principle that a portal based on a single navbox is a redundant fork was established by overwhelming support of the exceptionally high turnout at the two WP:CENT-advertised mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two.

The nomination explicitly proposed in bold, that that these pages (and their subpages) be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal which is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.

If the DRV nominator wants to create an actual portal, rather than one-click piece of driveby portalspam, then they remain free to do so, so I don't see why they have chosen to waste the community's time with this DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also endorse speedy deletion of the re-creation. The version re-created was another piece of automated portalspam, created using {{subst:Basic portal start page}}. Like version deleted at MFD, it drew its article list from a single navbox:

1. Code in MFD-deleted version[33]: {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | limit=20 | more= | Template:Yemen topics | }}
2. Code in speedy-deleted re-creation[34]: {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | nostubs=no | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more= | Template:Yemen | }}.

The differences are that a) the version created by SharabSalam produced no article list, because Template:Yemen does not exist; b) SharabSalam chose to instruct their version to showcase stubs, which is a bizarre choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse clear consensus for deletion in that discussion. The argument for deletion was based on the portal being a duplicate of the navbox in the main article, and therefore adding no value beyond that in the main article. This doesn't stop a portal from being written about Yemen, as long as it isn't also based on a navbox. Hut 8.5 18:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorese close consensus was accurately and fairly judged and indeed the consensus is clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close - It isn't entirely clear whether the filer is (1) citing an error by the closer of the original MFD, (2) citing an error on the G4, (3) asking to re-open the deletion discussion due to new information, (4) asking to review the deletion for some other reason, or (5) asking to re-debate the deletion because they don't like it. If (1), there was no error. If (2), I didn't see the new portal but understand that it was a single-navbox portal and therefore substantially the same. If (3), there is no new information one day after the deletion. If (4), they haven't stated the other reason. If (5), that isn't what DRV is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise marketing management (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As AfD nom. I present to DRV due to concerns about the interpretation of the consensus and also information that has subsequently come to light. See also discussions on closers talk page. There may also have been not so much procedural errors but rather practices which may not have worked well. The AfD had little participation over relists on 11, 18 and 26 April 2019 by admins. Just prior to the 3rd relist on 25th April Marketing operations management (MOM) was redirected to Enterprise marketing management (EMM). On 29 April 2019 the EMM AfD was closed with the comment The result was delete. I note good faith by all concerned but my concerns are :
~ Interpretaion on consensus by the closer.
~ Lack of explanation on closing the AfD by the closer The result was delete and therefore being open to concerns of !Supervote.
~ No positive support for either my reasoning as nom. for the AfD or DGG's reasoning.
~ New information: DGG's !vote reasoning had issues (see talk on closer page).
~ New Information: The close of the MOM XfD with the redirect to EMM just 3 or 4 days before does not appear considered by the closer.
~ The close within 168 hours of a relist is permitted at WP:RELIST however people may care to hang back and consider arguments before presenting them.
~ Minor: There was no additional guidance given on the third relist (I believe this may be strongly suggested at WP:RELIST if I read that correctly).
There have been discussions on talk page albeit the closer initially took longer than 24 hours to respond but I totally WP:AGF.
There have been some good faith discussions on the talk page with some good inputs but uninvolved independent input is probably needed.
Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links:

• User talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management - Discussion on closer talk page
• Original good faith truncation of bundled AfD of MOM with EMM - that would have avoided some problems above but a reasonably suspected copyvio takes priority.
• MOM DRV review: result was to open a 2nd AfD for MOM
• 2nd AfD for MOM this closed 25 April 2018 with redirect to EMM.
• A DRV for Kst (software) which indicates the concerns of a lack of closing information - There are some perhaps significant differences to this AfD and in our case an explanation was given on closer talk albeit retrospectively

A temp undelete is requested. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist as a bundled nomination with Marketing operations management. This kind of split decision is why bundling is preferred in these cases and we're only here becuase of an unusual set of circumstances. I will note that MBisanz judged consensus correctly on the original nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm also very confused as to why the AfD nominator is taking a delete outcome to DRV. This seems a bit like process for processes sake, and I'm not a fan of that. The closure of that discussion was correct, and I don't see a reason to have this listed for even more time. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is peculiar, in that it appears that the nominator is requesting deletion review after a deletion. It is more typical for the nominator to request deletion review of a Keep, or the originator to request deletion review of a Delete. This is sufficiently unusual that I suggest the request be granted without any question about judgment by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as apparently requested by the nominator/filer, although there was no error by the closer, but to get a more solid consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation as a combined article with the material in MOM, under the title of MOM followed, optionally, by AfD. I think this may have been a case where there was justification to have one article, but not two, and the effect of the AfDs was to leave us with none. This doesn't actually require any action here, because nothing prevents a new article from being written. I don't think there is any point in relisting the previously existing article, because a better one would have a better chance. (What steps should be taken to bring this about is not obvious to me.) DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I typically am willing to grant a request at DRV if the original nominator believes there was an error in the process, but this seems to me to be an extreme case of wikilawyering. I've read all of the text and do not honestly understand why this is at DRV in the first place, and while the procedure for these articles is unusual, there's really nothing here to review. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - rather odd circumstances, I too am inclined to say that with the nom actually opposing against their desired course, a relist seems reasonable - likewise, no rebuke of closer. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't the energy to review the details, but in principle the fact of a nominator contesting a close which appears to give them what they want looks like the action of someone with a laudable respect for good consensus-formation. #MoreOfThisSortOfThing, please. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation on the terms suggested by DGG, seems like an eminently sensible outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd comment with respect EMM's content under MOM might likely be a right dog's dinner. I'd likely guess (note guess) DGG's main concern may be EMM may seem to be particularly pretentious and neologistic. In summary I am concerned those good faith terms might not be sensible; variations of them might a different kettle.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The "No consensus" close here does not appear to reflect the actual consensus in the discussion.

The closing admin has even acknowledged that there was consensus that the sourcing in the article was insufficient to meet GNG, and that their only concern was that the potential sources brought up by the one keep vote hadn't been discussed. An analysis of sources is not required to establish consensus, merely that participants explain the rationale for their positions, especially sources seemingly not available to the participants. Rationale was offered by all participants in the discussion on each side. Several weeks were allowed for discussion to take place. The bottom line is that four editors stated that the sources they saw did not meet required depth of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and one editor suggested that non-specific results in Google News were adequate to meet WP:GNG, one comment (by the page author) seems to suggest keep, but didn't vote that way and didn't offer any specific rationale to support that argument other than that they have been discussed by unspecified regional newspapers. I request that this close be overturned as delete and the article be deleted accordingly. Thank you for your time. Waggie (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin statement: I acknowledged a consensus that the existing sources are insufficient for GNG, not a consensus for deletion. The discussion ran so long because two other admins relisted it with specific requests for assessment of the potential sources brought up by Rsrikanth05. That didn't happen. -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misinterpreting your statement - I have modified my review request above to reflect this more accurately, it was not my intention to put words in your mouth. Your statement of "There does seem to be a consensus on the existing sources" seemed to me to suggest that you did feel there was consensus for deletion. To me, a consensus that available sources are insufficient to meet GNG, and with no other specific sources offered or seemingly available that might modify that consensus, is a defacto consensus for deletion. And I apologize for the frankness, but a request for assessment of sources that haven't been provided, by an admin, several admins, or even every last admin on Wikipedia, simply doesn't override community consensus - please see Wikipedia:Consensus#Decisions not subject to consensus of editors. Waggie (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete – we don't need to have a reply to every single dissenting vote in order to establish consensus. Instead, we can presume that those who voted delete all read the keep vote and were not convinced by the evidence or the arguments. That said, I did go through the Google News search results and I really can't find anything in any of those outlets that aren't interviews or mentions in passing. If the closer has evidence to the contrary he can reopen the discussion and vote. – bradv🍁 20:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and delete per Bradv and my original comment at the AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not going to overturn or endorse here. I've asked a few folks from the Malayalam community for additional sources. If they do add them to the page, well and good. If they don't, things will run their natural course thru consensus. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete consensus seemed clear on that one to me. In my view this was a good faith closure, but I believe simply one that was incorrect. Certainly no prejudice against re-creation in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was one of the Delete !voters. I don't see an error by the closer that warrants an Overturn and Delete. There has been a failure of the system, in that there is a very strong appearance of conflict of interest, Terms of Use violations, undisclosed paid editing, and meatpuppetry, but I do not see an error by the closer. (Besides, the rule against meatpuppetry is incomprehensible, although the rules on conflict of interest and paid editing are clear.) Something probably needs to be done, but I don't see the need to Overturn and Delete. This isn't a conduct forum to block Terms of Use violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse reluctantly. The system has been gamed, but the closer didn't make a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query I am not following your logic here. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are correct, so I'd like to understand it. Can you elaborate?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - User:Paulmcdonald - The clients of the paid editors managed to cheat in a way that isn't obviously cheating. The analogy in common law would be a criminal trial in which the defendant was acquitted due to perjured testimony. It looks very much like two editors were working in collusion to advance one copy of the article in article space while another had been pushed down to draft space. Wikipedia's procedures for dealing with undisclosed paid editing did not work. However, the fault was not that of the closer. There were arguments both for Keep and for Delete, so that No Consensus was a valid close. It just isn't the one that we (editors who want to keep Wikipedia honest) would like. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference is that common law doesn't recognize WP:IAR as a valid concept. We do. Even so, I'm having a hard time understand what you're getting at. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I confess I don't understand the argument either...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Delete - As one of the delete !voters at the discussion, I do not see the "no consensus" in this closure. I believe this may have been a good faith closure that just determined consensus/outcome wrong. -- Dane ^talk 23:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete Per Paulmcdonald. Good faith closure, but consensus was relatively clear, and after so many relists without substantial rebutting of the valid delete arguments, a delete outcome was most in line with current policy and practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete- It's not much use to assert that there's sources out there somewhere without producing them. And I see no reason to WP:ASSUME that the delete !voters haven't done due diligence. Reyk _YO! 08:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete Often there are multiple possible results for a deletion discussion, and a no consensus close is usually an acceptable outcome - however, in this particular case, the strength and number of the delete !votes clearly show a consensus to delete. SportingFlyer T·C 09:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete- If I am correct the deletion nom. was arguing on the issue of Wikipedia:Plagiarism which as far as I can tell was well founded and possibly ignored in the AfD discussion. Is there any way Mainspace article on creation on 3rd April was not a copy from the version in draft on 24 February 2019 (though with [35] additions. I see no attribution in Manpow's work on the duplicated article and the purpose would likely to have been to bypass AfC scrutiny. Feel free to correct me if I have got this wrong. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Allow recreation but suggest this should be by development of existing article through AfC scrutiny due to issue/potential issues.10:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. It's difficult to see how the AfD discussion could be interpreted as anything other than delete. Even without resorting to nose-counting, the sole keep argument makes a vague assertion that sources exist without being specific. At least, if you're going to make a bold close like that, you need to give a detailed explanation of why you went out on a limb. As for the failure to assess sources, even though prodded to do so by two different relisting admins, all I can say is, sigh. I often relist AfD's with similar pleading. It's very rare that it actually happens. Flash! Wikipedia deletion process is imperfect! Film at eleven! -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or renominate. If the closer believes that the delete voters all completely and spectacularly missed the point, no consensus is a fair reading, but it should be without prejudice against speedy renomination (provided a renom makes a clear GNG or NOT argument). However, I feel the NOT and GAMING concerns raised constitute sufficient reason to delete (or draftify and salt) even if the GNG argument was not addressed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Renominate If the discussion or close was inadequate or confusing, it's better to do it over--in the usual place, not here. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete It's hard to see how the AfD discussion could be interpreted as anything other than delete. a delete outcome was most in line with current policy and practice. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (delete). Bad call, consensus is to delete. User:Rsrikanth05’s “keep” !vote pointing to google news points only to mere mentions. Other !votes are strong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarice Phelps (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Ulrich quote-become-catch phrase "Well-behaved women seldom make history" observes that, historically and contemporarily speaking, patriarchical systemic bias grants notice to women as courtesans or else when considered outliers. With such sociological facets no doubt in mind, on the Wikipedia project there is an effort at the moment to, in the Katherine Maher tweet, find a ”more nuanced understanding of reliable sources, a more inclusive and flexible application of notability, more diverse contributors, and a more welcoming and inclusive editing culture”[36]. Despite the predominant gender make up of the Wikipedia community, a not insubstantial contingent agree, also believing there an effectual imbalance toward deletionism of blps perhaps for individuals traditionally thought mundanely providing "the silent work of ordinary people" (to borrow another phrase of Harvard's Laurel Thatcher Ulrich as culled from Wikipedia's biography of her) despite when such individuals achieved notability for being outliers in some fashion. Sexy second-tier women's tennis stars? Typically, substantial blps. Somewhat "unsung" women accomplices of men achieving feats--which women have nonetheless become well known? Often, deleted Wikipedia "biographies of living people" thought insufficiently deserving of what is their actual note. In the current case, coverage is no longer wp:TOO SOON owing new sourcing become available. Simultaneously a devoted contingent of conscientious Wikipedia volunteers are filling in a more-than-stub quality effort--all toward better achievment of the project's aspirations (in my offhandly presumed paraphrase) to provide accurately precise yet concise information about a quite-full panoply of topics of proven interest to people. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - This rationale seems to propose that we intentionally reduce our standards of WP:notability in order to meet some fantastical quota goal. The problem is not in how Wikipedia operates - its entirely dependent on what independent, secondary, and reliable sources choose to focus their attention on. The "new sourcing" is WP:CIRCULAR - in fact, intentionally circular because the story has been both written by and promoted by agenda-driven Wikipedians. Its a disgusting misuse and manipulation of this article's subject. -- Netoholic @ 02:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin statement I'll let the community sort this out for the most part, but I will comment as to why I do not think the salting should be lifted without community consensus (full arguments can be seen here.) There was a clear consensus at a previous AfD and DRV that Phelps does not meet the current notability guidelines. Since then the original author and someone who has blogged for the WikiEd program have written op-eds in what appears to be a blatant attempt to create notability for a subject who is not otherwise notable. In addition to gaming the system, it is in my view, morally reprehensible to do this to a living person and to use her for a political point on-wiki.
  At this time, Phelps is now more known for the fact that we deleted her than for anything she has done in her career. That is a travesty. It is an invitation to a massive BLP violation that will stay with Phelps for the rest of her life if we unsalt this now before the dust settles. In six months if she's still the subject of attention, then sure, but right now we basically have a WP:BLP1E, where the 1E was an on-wiki determination that she was not notable.
  That is not enough to change the status of the last AfD and I think we have a moral obligation not to let her be defined by an on-wiki fight. I won't be commenting on the rest of the DRV, as I feel the community as a whole should make this call, and I will gladly cede my view to the rest of the community if people feel it is wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarice Phelps promoted ("shared") the Washington Post article on her own LinkedIn page [37]. She was interviewed for the Undark piece. I don't think we need to worry that this media exposure will damage her reputation; obviously, she isn't worried about it. We don't need to protect Clarice Phelps from anything (other than maybe systemic bias on Wikipedia). Let's evaluate the article based on whether the subject is notable, not based on concerns that we need to protect the poor little girl from the big bad social justice warriors (my words, not Tony's). Leviv ich 02:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but we have an obligation to our subjects that goes beyond the moment. In ten years it is very likely that this will be what she is remembered for if a biography is created now. That is not fair to her, and it is using a human being as a mere means to an end, which is always wrong. That will be my last comment here, and I'd request that you address it in your eventual !vote so as to make things easier for the closer to read. Speaking from experience, long threads are hard to follow. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Tony, I can't hold my tongue here. You must recognize the very poor optics of a man telling a woman that he is salting her Wikipedia biography because he knows what will be best for her in 10 years. Leviv ich 03:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Better or worse than the "optics" of Wikipedia admitting that we will apply reduced scrutiny to a certain segment of articles. How insulting to every WIR article subject that they would never know if they were legitimately on Wikipedia for their own merits under a fair and consistent standard. And how insulting to every similar subject of equal caliber who is left off of Wikipedia just because they are male. -- Netoholic @ 04:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Female scholars need to achieve more for equal public recognition. In fact the unequal standards go in the opposite direction that you assume. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @TonyBallioni: - Even though I am against recreation, I have to agree with Levivich here, the idea that we have to specifically protect against a concern on appearance waved by the (adult) subject is not appropriate. There are other arguments, such as CIRCULAR, but this is not one. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Netoholic and per all of the things that have been said about this in so many places on Wikipedia already. The deletion was proper, and the reasons still apply. Natureium (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation (!Voted keep at first AfD.) – The article was deleted because she didn't meet any subject notability guideline nor the general notability guideline. Now new sources have been released, changing the "facts on the ground". Question: is it possible for a biography to be notable, while the subject of the biography is not notable? Answer: no. This Undark piece is independent significant coverage in a reliable source. That's one. This Daily Dot piece is two. That's significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Allow recreation, there is no longer any reason not to. At the very least, let it be recreated and someone can take it to AfD if they still think it should be deleted. Leviv ich 03:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also like to draw attention to Katherine Maher's interview in this month's Signpost in which she said: I like to point to the fact that on English Wikipedia [in the last three years], the percentage of articles about women has increased from 15 to nearly 18 percent. "Nearly" 18 percent! Leviv ich 03:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't give a flying fuck about what she thinks. Argument from authority and all that. ∯WBG^converse 07:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am gobsmacked by your language, Winged Blades of Godric. Please review WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY if you've forgotten how they apply. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't give a flying fuck is not a personal attack against Levivich or Katherin or anybody else. It is an emphatic form of We don't give a hoot or We don't care. And, there is nothing about assuming good faith or bad faith in the entire locus. We certainly don't care about what Katherine, (by the virtue of her chair), perceives about our content and accordingly don't bow down to an argument from authority.

  Was it rude? Yeah, probably. I ought to have left it at We don't give a damn or something like that. But, then rude sayings are not a subset of NPA.

  This is the third time, I am seeing this argument being forwarded by the WIR-folks in a content dispute. If something's not going your way, just point to Catherine (and it helps, that she has a good reputation than Jimbo). ∯WBG^converse 09:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  While you and I may see a nuanced policy discussion amongst a number of good-faith editors, outsiders skimming this might instead see, "I know what's best for this woman in the future" and "We don't give a flying fuck what that woman thinks" and "We're not here for social justice" and then "What systemic bias?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And while everyone means well, it looks bad. At best, it looks like we completely lack self-awareness, like we're amateurs who have no idea how to present ourselves to the outside world. Such a perception would be as unfortunate as it is inaccurate. Leviv ich 19:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse.Involved in Afd. Little has changed since last AfD less than month ago. Article creator wrote a few paragraphs on Phelps in an op-ed. Another op-ed on the deletion was written in Undark and republished elsewhere (the Daily dot being essentially a copy of this - having a "H/T Slate" at the bottom linking to a republication of Undark). The Undark oped purports to know the article creator's feelings and does not seem independent - and regardless is an op-ed. We also have serious WP:CITOGEN issues in relation to a "firstness" claim which first appeared on Wikipedia (unsupported by the citation reffing it). Op-eds do not establish notability and furthermore they are not on our subject but on Wikipedia deletion - Deletion on Wikipedia of Clarice Phelps - for which we do not have independent and WP:SUSTAINED coverage. All this could perhaps be evaluated in 6-12 months, but it is way too soon now.Icewhiz (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the discussions on draft-talk and all that. Nothing has changed apart from the authors writing shitty op-eds to influence our processes. ∯WBG^converse 07:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - In addition to what has been said already, I also find this drum beat about "male dominated", "gender bias" etc. quite off-putting. Plenty of us have written articles about women and fought for them too. The campaigners need to publish their original research elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. I don't see WP:GNG having been met, despite the new sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse^{Not involved in either AfD—is that a first?!} per TB, not so much this statement, but per his talk and the AfD close. "Sources" means something very specific on Wikipedia; by sources, we mean, implicitly, sources of a certain kind. That is, independent, reliable and third-party; this responsibility is all the weightier in a BLP:
  Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space).
  The additional sources "discovered", for the most part, do not fulfil the criteria; they are diminished as a result. As someone pointed out elsewhere, and paraphrased, if the WaPo, in its omniscient wisdom as to what's best for Wikipedia chooses to write independently on the subject without mentioning WP, then it might be a different matter... ——SerialNumber54129 08:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (been involved in this pretty much throughout) - as per the above endorsers. How condescending to suggest that we lower the notability bar for women and other supposed under-represented groups - "Wikipedia's male-dominated community will make it easier for you, dears". - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The AFD was closed early (after less than a day) so it looks to me that we are not here reviewing whether the close was in line with AFD2 consensus. I suppose we should be reviewing whether the WP:G4 was according to policy. For a valid G4 a prerequisite is that the versions were "substantially identical". I can't see the history to give an opinion on that but maybe Draft:Clarice Phelps has relevant information. Can anyone help me? The salting would also not be on grounds of consensus but would have been an administrative decision. I think salting is a matter sometimes reviewed at DRV. Thincat (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2 Although the nomination specifies AFD2 for review, everyone (including the nominator) seems to be considering AFD1 (or, frankly, conducting another AFD discussion). Provisionally, for AFD1 I would endorse as within discretion although no consensus would have been perhaps a better close. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC) I am belatedly declaring (late because I had forgotten and have only just realised!) I gave an opinion of AFD1 at DRV1. Thincat (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether 1, 2, the speedy of Clarice E. Phelps or the current Draft:Clarice Phelps, the rationale for a "delete" closure/action is fundamentally the same because the articles are fundamentally the same. The significant difference is the later introduction of sources written by Wikipedians involved in Women in Red etc and published/republished as op-eds etc in various media. Inter alia, those new sources contain the same fallacies discussed in the original AfD. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, that is helpful. I can only see the history of Draft:Clarice Phelps and the history is confusing me. Are there versions corresponding to the start and finish of AFD1 and the speedy? I obviously agree that material added subsequently to the AFDs is irrelevant to our discussion here, nor does the present discussion in any way prejudice such additions. Thincat (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a histmerge in the draft. The re-created version was substantially identical - this is the diff from the last version "live" during the AfD, though the April recreation was probably based on this version or round about there (the article was edited during the AfD). Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Haven't read through all of this so please excuse me if I've duplicated information here, but AFD1 has already been to deletion review as well where it was well endorsed. SportingFlyer T·C 08:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m curious as to why User:DGG approved and mainspaced the draft, did he compare with the deleted article? If there were no significant new sources attesting notability, the recent AfD must be respected, and that is what CSD#G4 is for. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the AfD and recent G4 as a reasonable decision. I have finally found DGG's comments at User talk:Iridescent#Curious question for you and stalkers. I read there that the justification for the recreation (AfC acceptance) was the removal of the worst promotionalism in the article, not the inclusion of new sources, which makes it an acceptable but arguable G4. BLP concerns are overstated, given that the subject is a public person, and recent reports of her statements mentioned in this discussion. SALTing should not be required, but neither can I believe that a bold re-creation is likely justifiable in the next six months, so I recommend that the SALTing expire in six months. Re-creation should not be allowed without WP:THREE substantial new sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC) I think I am completely uninvolved with anything relating to this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One two three four five new potential sources. They may not all be SIGCOV, but enough to avoid G4? Leviv ich 02:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One, paragraph 1, sentence 4 “The nuclear scientist is thought ... was created” meets the GNG. Is undark.org a reliable reputable source? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two is not about Clarice. It says nothing about her.

Three says nothing about her except “deemed not appropriate for Wikipedia”. Listing facts is not comment.

Leviv, I think you’ve missed an important part of WP:THREE. List the THREE best. Not more. Your two and three fail. If they are the best three, not notable. Clarice’s organisation has actively promoted her, this means the independent third party coverage test will be tested. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: There aren't THREE, and if there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, because three independent RSes providing significant coverage make notability more or less irrefutable around here. THREE isn't a requirement, though, and I think like half of our articles would fail the THREE test (including entire topic areas like pro wrestling, but that's another story). This – to me – is about G4 and salting... the question isn't whether these sources all count as THREE (I said they didn't in my initial reply), the question is whether these sources are enough to make the new draft sufficiently different from the old draft to get around G4. Do we have a two-step process–allow recreation, then AfD–or do we have a one-step process where we don't allow recreation until we're certain it'll pass an AfD? (BTW, what my sources numbered two and three have is the "Phelps is first" claim.) Oh and, yes, I think Undark Magazine (source one) is an RS, for more discussion about that particular source check out the RSN thread. Leviv ich 14:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When push comes to shove WP:THREE *IS* required. In the immediate aftermath of the AfD decision to "delete", push has come to shove. Just as one is not welcome to do an immediate deletion renomination after an AfD result to "keep" or "no consensus", of course one is not welcome to do an immediate re-creation following a formal "delete" decision, barring substantial new information, and this substantial new information amounts to WP:THREE now being met. Also, ideally, someone attempting a re-creation within six months of a deletion decision, will first contact the AfD closer for their opinion, even if they thing WP:THREE is met.