Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia (1944–1977) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed by King of Hearts as no consensus, with the rationale The sources from German Wikipedia may indicate notability, but there has been insufficient discussion in this AfD to decide for certain. It seems to me that the AfD close is a supervote that elevates an argument not offered in the AfD over the efforts of its participants. Several editors in the discussion evaluated the sourcing in the article, as well as other sources not in the article: Devonian Wombat, Red Rock Canyon, and myself. None of us found evidence that the sourcing on the German Wikipedia (or elsewhere) indicated notability, and between us we had two !votes for redirect and one to delete. Meanwhile none of the keep !voters put forward the argument that the sources on the German Wikipedia indicate notability: the only comment that came close was DWC LR, who wrote Keep and look to German Wikipedia article to improve which looks better sourced; like the other keep !votes, this contains no argument that any of these sources indicate notability. In contrast, my !vote contains a specific refutation of merit of the sources on de for establishing notability, and it was unchallenged by other participants in the week after it was posted. In summary, I feel that King of Hearts's comment would have been a completely appropriate contribution to the discussion (where I or other editors might have had the opportunity to respond to it), but that it is inappropriate in a well-attended AfD to base the close on an argument that was not defended by any participants. I request that either the conclusion be overturned to Delete/Redirect (to reflect the strength of the arguments offered), or that the discussion be re-opened and re-listed, with King of Hearts's comment included as part of the discussion, so that other editors may respond to it. I have discussed my concerns with the closer on their talk page; I appreciate their willingness to talk it over with me, and I apologize that this is probably an annoyance to them. JBL (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we can re-close as"delete" because there wasn't a "delete" consensus, even if the deletes get a lot of extra weight. And if envisage reopening with King of Hearts as a vote rather than a close, and then re-evaluate it, I still get "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If one restricts attention to comments that made any attempt to evaluate sources or apply a notability guideline (what I would call an appropriate weighting), you eliminate all the keeps, so. However, I understand that it feels like going out on a limb to disregard that many !votes, content-free as they may be. The point of adding King of Hearts's comment to the discussion is that it would allow others to respond to it, as I would have done if even one participant had suggested that a more detailed analysis of those sources would be relevant -- it's rather rough on participants to ask not only that they refute points raised in the discussion but also that they pre-emptively refute points raised by the closer. --JBL (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability does not depend on whether sources are used in an article, but whether they are presumed to exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you, but I don't understand what you are responding to. (The sources I analyzed, which analysis King of Hearts found insufficiently detailed (but this view is not expressed by any participants in the discussion), are mostly not in the article here on en.wiki.) --JBL (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Delete per WP:NOTAVOTE, as the vast majority of the keep votes made no attempt to even claim sources existed, just saying “He is notable because” and the few that did claim sources were in German Wikipedia were outnumbered by the ones who said that they did not cause a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or relist: On the balance of it, the policy/guideline-based consensus was fairly clearly towards delete/redirect. Furthermore, the cited close reason about German Wikipedia is insufficient since it was barely mentioned by one keep !vote but thoroughly rejected by a delete argument.
  The sole !keep mention about the German Wikipedia (look to German Wikipedia article to improve which looks better sourced) only used it as a suggestion of improvement rather than a WP:GNG argument. Meanwhile, JBL explicitly refuted the German Wikipedia sources being GNG-worthy (I don't believe that any of the sources on that article simultaneously (1) are reliable and (2) include anything more substantive than passing mention of the subject.).
  The only deletion policy/guideline cited as a direct argument by any of the keep !votes was GNG, but not one of the 8 keep !votes actually point a single GNG source. On the other hand, 8 editors each clearly stated that none of the known sources were sufficient to meet GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The result was No Consensus, and the close accurately reflects the lack of a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• weak overturn to delete I really hate overturning a NC outcome when the !vote is close--it's hard to fault such a close in general. But frankly here I'm not seeing a single policy/guideline-based argument that holds water for keeping. NC was just on the edge of discretion IMO, but not quite there. To the folks that want to confirm automatic inclusion for people like this, you really need to get a wider consensus behind that. Also, it's not impossible that the sources in the article meet the GNG (I'm having a hard time being sure either way given how little I know about the general topic here). But the keep !votes didn't make that claim in any clear way. Hobit (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make things harder on the closer, I'm fine with a merge too if there is a good merge target. I'm not sure there is, but again, I don't know the area well enough to know how unreasonable it would be to have this at some relative's article or something. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. The majority of keep arguments are based entirely on inheritance. There are insufficient sources even to validate his real name, so the authors have made the common error of translating the German surname Prinz von Preußen to the English "Prince of Prussia" (a title that ceased to exist before he was born). This is the problem with many articles on members of former noble families. Guy (help!) 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. No sources were given that this person had any notability, except that he inherited a position that was abolished before he was even born, an absurd reason to have an encyclopedia article about someone. Smeat75 (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. It could not have been justifiably deleted due to the complete failure of WP:BEFORE. There are obvious merge targets, including House of Hohenzollern. There is a talk page proposal to merge to Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia. The content is not inherently unsuitable for Wikipedia. Failing WP:Notability does not mandate deletion if there is a merge target. Given the merge possibilities, AfD should be forbidden until there is a serious proposal for merging rejected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody in the AfD (which this DR is about) suggested a merge, and the talk page proposal was a single IP comment from 2011. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BEFORE was the neglected responsibility of the nominator. The nominator needs to introduce the obvious possibility of merges, and the 2011 talk page suggestion is as valid today as it was then. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I had considered the WP:BEFORE alternatives when nominating. I didn’t think that there was any referenced content in the pre-nomination version worth merging. It was almost entirely unsourced. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That may well be true. Possibly acceptable outcomes could include "merge and redirect", "smerge and redirect", plain "redirect", or "stubify". I think the nominator should mention these possibilities and "why not". I recommend WP:RENOM with a more comprehensive nomination, if you still think it should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue there is that the redirect is still from a title that is incorrect. Guy (help!) 08:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The complaint about BEFORE and the nomination is bizarre given the multiple discussions of sources that took place during the AfD discussion itself. This is not AfD! --JBL (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The BEFORE failure was by the nominator of the AfD failing to introduce obvious merge targets to the AfD discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete pet SmokeyJoe. Two obvious, relevant merger targets (father/son). His death was also briefly covered by the New York Times, so a short merger of this content somewhere would not be unjustified by the sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally am fine with this; moreover, it can be done even if the conclusion of this discussion is "delete". --JBL (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sort of. For attribution reasons, if we merge text from this article into another, this article shouldn't be deleted for attribution reasons. A redirect without deletion would be ideal (there are other ways to manage this, but ideal is the right word). Hobit (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete per the consensus of the AFD. The closer erred in not recognizing that many of the keep !voters asserted incorrectly that being an heir to the throne conferred notability. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was a no consensus. It clearly was a no consensus. The "my arguments are better than your arguments and any argument that disagrees with mine should be ignored" claim is a tiresome one that tends to be made by editors who are convinced that they are clearly right and anyone who disagrees with them is clearly wrong. The close was entirely correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  a tiresome [claim] that tends to be made by editors who are convinced that they are clearly right and anyone who disagrees with them is clearly wrong Here was your contribution at the AfD: ... Clearly notable. ... This has nothing to do with WP:NOTINHERITED and everything to do with common sense. So. --JBL (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete or redirect. Most of the keep !votes are based on the fact that the subject was the heir to a defunct throne. As that doesn't seem to be codified anywhere I don't think that argument should be given as much weight than the concerns of the other side, which were rooted in notability guidelines. Only two keep !voters brought up sourcing-based arguments: ClearBreeze, who posted a count of Google News hits, and DWC LR, who said that the German Wikipedia had better sources. Neither gave specifics and at least one of the delete commenters reviewed the German Wikipedia sources and didn't think they were enough. I'm happy with a merge to some similar article. Hut 8.5 17:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete looking through one news archive online the Hamburger Abendblatt, they reported on his engagement, marriage, accident right up till his death weeks later and then funeral, his death was reported in the New York Times as noted above, that does not happen to an average person. He was the heir to the Royal House of Prussia that is why he was notable and of interest to the media, notability can be inherited rather than achieved by doing something. Was he the most famous person in the world, no, but neither are most of the people we have biographies of here. We could merge to another article but what’s the point, there is clear evidence of notability through significant coverage which extended even to the USA and we are not a paper encyclopaedia struggling for space. -dwc lr (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, and then my AfD vote would be merge and redirect to Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia#Family, the family section of his son's article. Little of the info in the article besides his death is sourced. He doesn't meet the WP:GNG requirements of having coverage in multiple sources, unlike his son. Despite the objections, seems to be WP:NOTINHERITED - the idea that he sounds notable so he must be isn't an argument, but does influence votes. Sorta like Canadian Who's Who. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Not seeing a lot of consensus here, although we have more !votes than the deletion discussion (and a lot more text that the article itself). original close therefore seems reasonable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse arguments from precedent at AfD are valid, so are arguments saying it’s bad precedent. The additional fact that the German Wikipedia has an article makes NPOSSIBLE a valid consideration. Just as the views of those wanting to delete had some basis in policy. Endorse as no consensus existed. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete There are three types of votes in that discussion - that he is automatically notable, that he's not notable, and a couple !votes which actually discuss whether he's Wikipedia-notable, specifically Red Rock Canyon's. Though mathematically the vote is about even, the strongest votes are the ones which actually discuss the sourcing, and there's not enough souring here for a standalone article based on the discussion. I've selected "overturn to delete" in the bold, but I'm fine with any result that moves this away from no consensus grounds into not-a-standalone-page grounds, especially if there's any possibility any sourced information can be included elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 07:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion clearly reached no consensus. The "overturn" arguments would require the closer to resolve a policy dispute on which the community has not reached a supporting consensus, which would be an abusive supervote. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: What policy dispute? --JBL (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete or redirect. The keeps are so weak that I do not see how "no consensus" is within discretion when the strength of argument is taken into account (per Hobit, Hut 8.5, SportingFlyer, et al.). No objection to a merge. T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. That's how I would have closed the AfD, and although closers do not always need to be of one mind about how to close an AfD, they do need to take the strength of arguments into account. Here, most "keep" arguments were in the vein of "but he's a royal". These arguments should have been discounted because community consensus is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and in particular not when the supposed royal house is a mere fiction. See also WP:OUTCOMES#Monarchs and nobility. Sandstein 06:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb Education Television (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a non-admin closure of no-consensus for which I am requesting an overturn to delete. The discussion was lightly attended however, I do believe the discussion was sufficient to arrive at a consensus of delete. The only "keep" came from the article creator who provided no policy based arguments for keeping and the rebuttal to lack of notability amounts to WP:ITEXISTS, and WP:OLDARTICLE. The one "Redirect" put forward acknowledged that there is almost no sources found. I and the nominator make for two "delete" and the "redirect" commentary actually supports deletion given the paucity of sources. Whpq (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my decision. I do not believe there was sufficient discussion to choose an appropriate outcome at the time. The page was already on its second relisting, and as per guidance I was not prepared to do so a third time. (The second relist garnered 0 discussion). OP seems to lean on the side of this being because of 'votes', not because of discussion - which there was very little to make a consensus.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My DRV nomination is not about vote counting. My nomination statement makes it very clear I am contesting this because of the discussion. As for the brevityof discussion, there's not a whole lot to actually discuss because there is almost nothing in the way of sources to actually discuss. -- Whpq (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and have an administrator close this one per BADNAC #2 - there's a number of ways in which this could be closed, and given the discussion I think redirect is probably the strongest, but the very fact there's a number of ways this could have been closed combined with the fact the close is controversial means it should be re-closed by an administrator. SportingFlyer T·C 17:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It's to Wikipedia's credit that we don't do credentialism. It doesn't matter whether Kadzi has a sysop flag. What matters is if his close was right. I've considered that, and I think it's rather unfortunate that Kadzi describes his close as "my decision". That betrays a lack of clarity about the role of the closer which I find a bit troubling.
  Netoholic's contribution to that debate is clearly the strongest. He's considered the lack of sources, come to the (correct) conclusion that there shouldn't be an article in that space, and then followed ATD to see if there's a valid redirect target. He's identified one. Deletion is only an appropriate outcome if all the alternatives have been exhausted.
  It follows that Netoholic's vote deserves far more weight than either the "keeps" or the "deletes". To my eyes, the closes that would be within discretion are "no consensus" and "redirect". Weighing the votes per policy, you can't get to "keep" or "delete" from there.—S Marshall T/C 21:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I appreciate your concern regarding the usage of the term ‘my decision’, I understand how it could be seen to lack clarity on the role of the closer - rest assured this is just my vernacular, and in closing this discussion I attempted to interpret the discussion as accurately as possible. The decision ‘’was’’ made by me as to close it, however my decision making used the discussion as the forethought. This very page (2.2) uses the very same vocabulary “ Endorse the original closing decision; or”, and I was simply mimicking this. Apologies for any confusion.   Kadzi   (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree we don't do credentialism and I agree that benefits the site, but we also have a rule that non-administrators should not close close discussions, and I define this discussion, with multiple possible outcomes and redirect the strongest outcome, a close discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 07:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn seems like a lightly attended discussion but with the not-keep arguments clearly better than the keep argument; since redirects are cheap and this one would be appropriate, it's hard not to see "redirect" as the consensus outcome. --JBL (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect- although it wasn't the best attended debate of all time, when one considers keep v not it's clear that consensus was for the latter. Redirect seems reasonable, although it's a bit off that there is no mention at all of the subject at the proposed redirect target. Reyk _YO! 22:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn to redirect. My general rule of thumb is that one or two !votes to delete (including the nominator) are insufficient to constitute a quorum regardless of the strength of the arguments, so I will either relist for a third time if something about the discussion suggests that doing so might be beneficial, close as soft delete if there is no opposition, or close as no consensus WP:NPASR if there is even token opposition (with the intent to undo my close and relist a third time if challenged, since that is more productive than the nominator starting a new AfD from scratch). I am sympathetic to arguments over where the line should be, but for me three is enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the result. It should have been closed as No Consensus. I would have preferred an admin close, but I see no need to get someone else to sign off. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with S Marshall here in all the particulars. overturn to redirect until better sources surface. Hobit (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect; the nominator and two others would not have had an article at that title and only one suggested keeping it. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. The numbers were in favour of getting rid of the standalone article and the lone Keep comment didn't address the arguments for deletion. The fact that the article has no third party reliable sources by itself should be decisive, as this is a requirement of WP:V. I can't see any point in a redirect as the subject isn't mentioned in the target article, and since there are no meaningful sources I don't think a merge is a great idea either. Hut 8.5 18:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as NC. There was no consensus in the discussion, and the close correctly said so. The article could be converted to a redirect as an ordinary editorial action, an AfD is not needed for that. I would tend to favor that outcome, but there was not consensus for it in the AfD. Or the article can be renominated after a reasonable delay, which need not be terribly long for an NC close, if any editor chooses to do so. An admin, had one undertaken the close, should have closed this in the same way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because there wasn’t a consensus. No prejudice against a speedy renom if people want to argue for a redirect that would be contested that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Just as an aside, even though I respect them, I think the editors who claim there's no consensus here are clearly wrong to the point where I need to mention it. There were two !votes to delete, one to redirect, one vote to keep. The !votes to delete and redirect all specifically mentioned the lack of sources, and at least two voters did a source search - the redirect simply found a place it could be redirected to. The keep !voter (the article creator) only offered the "we've had the article for 16 years," which is not a valid argument. I have no idea why people think this one's a no consensus, and while it's fine to have an opinion, opinions can indeed be wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the number of !votes does matter, in a lightly attended AfD. If there were just one fewer !vote to delete/redirect, then it's a pretty clear NC result for me. I would pretty much never close an AfD with only two editors supporting delete (or redirect) as hard delete, regardless of the strength of the arguments, because there is WP:NOQUORUM, unless the article somehow met WP:CSD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse outcome. No real consensus here; the nom provided no reasoned analysis, and redirecting topics to articles which do not even mention them is generally unhelpful. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Chauvin (police officer) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I request a HISTMERGE of the deleted revisions of Derek Chauvin (police officer) and Derek Chauvin.

1. Fuzheado closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer), justifying a speedy closure due to unspecified BLP concerns, and A10.
2. Derek Chauvin is part of the fast-moving cluster of topics related to the Killing of George Floyd, and a good faith contributor starts a (new?) article, at Derek Chauvin. It subsequently has a G4 placed on it.
3. A discussion begins, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4#Derek Chauvin, over Fuzheado's initial speedy closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer). Fuzheado's speedy delete is rapidly overturned.
4. An administrative AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin - is opened following the closure of the DRV - closed as keep
5. I requested a HISTMERGE at WP:REFUND - Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 348#Derek Chauvin (police officer). Administrator deepfriedokra turned down the request.

G4 is supposed to be used when an article is "substantially identical" to previously deleted material.

The contributor who placed the G4 was under the impression that an AFD closure permanently prohibited any contributor from ever trying to cover that topic, even if they did so with a brand new article.

I'd like to compare the deleted article with the new article, to see for myself the extent to which it merited a G4. Geo Swan (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what DRV is for. Requests for history merging can be made by using {{histmerge}} or at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Primefac, I'm not sure this should be so summarily closed. There is a refused REFUND[1] point to HISTMERGE, and a refused HISTMERGE[2] pointing to DRV. Refused REFUNDS are welcome at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Histmerge requests are not made at REFUND. Also, you have linked to the same discussion twice. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopened per WP:NOTBURO: It looks like the submitter has been bounced back and forth by people citing "incorrect venue" rather than substantive reasons for denying the request, and summarily closing it would simply perpetuate this Catch-22. While decisions made at WP:REFUND are not mentioned at WP:DRVPURPOSE (as either an example of something appropriate or something inappropriate for DRV), I believe they fall within the scope here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I closed this is because it's patently not a DRV request, it's a histmerge request (and a "I want to review the G4 decline" request, which is just silly). You want to talk about NOTBURO, it's dragging this out when it's clear there's nothing to be done. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ultimately, all admin decisions are appealable at WP:ANI. It's just that we've taken a certain subset of them and dedicated DRV to them. In choosing between these two venues, I think DRV is a more appropriate place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline histmerge; the two histories are completely different, both in content and in contributing editors. There is nothing to histmerge. The decline of the G4 was perfectly acceptable, as (to repeat myself) the two articles were/are substantially different. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, decline restoration. I said below somewhere that I didn't particularly care if the revisions were restored (because I was only looking at this from a histmerge perspective), but after looking at DFO's request for an OSer to go through the revisions for suppressible content I agree with Ivanvector's assessment of the diffs - there is really nothing to restore that a non-admin could see, which means there's no reason to do so. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from admin who declined at REFUND I believe I was correct in declining to unilaterally reverse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) at WP:REFUND. The highlighted-in-green banner at the top of that page states Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page. I also stated in my earlier linked decline that I was not averse to a HISTMERGE. I went on to say, on the other hand, that as the deletion was via AfD, that undeleting for a HISTMERGE might be problematical Those problems being best addressed here. I am, of course surprised that an editor of OP's tenure should be unaware that WP:REFUND was the wrong venue. However, and despite the highlighted-in-green banner at the top, people do make requests there that are not suited to that venue. After-all, we are all fallible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @King of Hearts: Of course declines at REFUND because DRV is the correct venue are reviewable here. So much so that it is in at least one of the templated REFUND declines. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this now the scope of DRV? Asking for a friend. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Deepfriedokra gave their reasons above. I think we are getting way way too bureaucratic here. Admin says you need to go to place A. Place A says "no you don't". So IMO the answer DRV seems to be creating is that this is at the discretion of any admin. I think that's reasonable. We just need to be sure there is a way forward to request the merge. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I honestly think the declining admin got it wrong. Nothing requires the history of a deleted article come to DRV. I appreciate the abundance of caution, but in this case it was the wrong call. As far as I can see each admin can make that decision on their own. If we conclude that DRV is needed then allow HISTMERGE as in general more stuff in the history is useful unless the time periods of the article greatly overlap. They are clearly about the same subject. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:HISTMERGE is for copy/paste page moves. This was not that. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If the article were deleted, created in the same place, and then renominated at AfD with a result of "keep", I think it's valid to request for the old revisions to be undeleted. This is just doing the same thing, but at two different places. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also not convinced that DRV is necessary based on the merits of the case, but the fact that multiple admins are disagreeing in multiple directions on the correct way to handle this case is ipso facto justification of its existence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So, there are lots of facets to this. Firstly, on venue:-

1. This is a contested administrative decision. The community has, in fact, three venues for reviewing contested administrative decisions: deletion review, move review, and the administrator's noticeboard. (There's also Arbcom, but that's not a place for community review.)
2. Of those three, you could make an arguable case for MR, and an excellent case for DRV or AN. It's custom and practice, and to be fair it's also pretty bloody obvious, that DRV has a supervisory relationship with REFUND. All three venues are competent to review contested administrative decisions.
3. If there's no one clear place to talk about it, then any place will do; that's policy.
4. So it's in order to discuss it here.

Secondly, on HISTMERGE:-

1. The purpose of HISTMERGE is to comply with the terms of use. People are entitled to credit for their contributions.
2. Therefore it's not needful to perform a HISTMERGE unless some of the text from the deleted article appears in the new article.

Thirdly, on G4:-

1. G4 is generally endorsed at DRV where the new version doesn't contain any plausible sources that weren't in the old version.
2. We generally want a fresh discussion if there's a plausible source that wasn't analyzed in the previous XfD.

Fourthly, on restoring deleted articles for DRV:-

1. This is normally done where there isn't a copyvio or other overhelming reason why not.
2. It would be surprising to refuse, in this case. It behoves administrators to be transparent.
3. Any revisions that raise BLP concerns can be removed, and the disputed content can be restored to an unindexed space, if necessary.

Finally, I'll be refraining from using a word in bold as I've edited quite a bit in this topic area.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyways, here's my take. There are two reasons to delete revisions of an article: 1) the article does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion, and there is no other suitable place for the revisions to go; and/or 2) the revisions themselves are problematic. To illustrate the first example, if an AfD has 5 !votes for "delete" and only one for "redirect", and the redirect seems sensible to the closing admin and the "delete" !voters have not advanced an argument for why redirecting is inappropriate, then the page should be redirected and the history should not be deleted without a good reason. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) people have raised BLP concerns, but it's mostly in the context of BLP1E, which is more about not having an article on otherwise low-profile people notable for only one event rather than discussing the nature of BLP-related prose. While the deleted article was indeed more negative than the current article, the content appears to be referenced and true, so there is no justification for keeping it hidden under WP:CRD #2. Allow HISTMERGE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really care if the deleted content of the redirect is restored, but I vehemently object to everyone saying that a histmerge should proceed. This is NOT a copy/paste page move and is not the reason histmerges are designed. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC) struck now-invalid point, see my !vote above. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see what you mean, I was so fixated on the deleted content that I conflated the two. Restore history, neutral on histmerge. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, and apologies if I'm coming across as a slavering fool, I've just declined a ton of histmerge requests like this in the last few weeks and it's starting to bug me. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyways, I still maintain that Deepfriedokra's refusal to restore the history at REFUND makes this a valid DRV filing, even though I would have restored the history on request myself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Originator of this request here. I did not realize this discussion had been re-opened.
• Please let me make a point I consider important. The original AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) was rapidly overturned. An administrative AFD was started on Derek Chauvin, and that closed as keep. I think these closures not only mean Derek Chauvin should not be deleted, but that none of the versions of Derek Chauvin (police officer) ever deserved deletion.
• It sounded like deepfriedokra, the closer of my refund request, and Primefac, the original closer of this request, thought it was their role to apply their judgement and experience as to whether the deleted versions Derek Chauvin (police officer) merited being undeleted. Maybe some other people here think this. I am not an administrator, but I really don't understand why they didn't see the decision being made by the community at the first DRV combined with the second AFD.
• If Primefac is only objecting to merging the histories of Derek Chauvin (police officer) and Derek Chauvin, and is not objecting to restoring the full revision history of Derek Chauvin (police officer), I wish they had said that, so someone could have gone ahead and restored Derek Chauvin (police officer). I can live with that.
• As to why I wanted to see Derek Chauvin (police officer)... If the conclusions of the first DRV and the second AFD count, are administrators really authorized to require a further argument for undeletion of the deleted versions of the first article? Shouldn't undeletion have been pro forma?

At Talk:Derek_Chauvin/Archive_1#Contested_deletion you can see comments from two administrators, who seem to claim that any AFD prohibited anyone from ever working on second, improved versions of articles that had been deleted at an AFD. They claimed all attempts to draft improved versions of articles were subject to G4 speedy deletion. So, yes, I think I can benefit from comparing the last version of the first article, and the early versions of the second article.

As I wrote on Primefac's user talk page, I've requested userification of dozens of deleted articles, updated them with additional references, new developments, and restored them to article space. Every time i face the question "Have I improved this article enough it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion under G4, if I were to restore it to article space now." I think comparing the deleted revisions in this case is obviously going to be helpful with those decisions. Geo Swan (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I keep saying this, but no one on this discussion seems to understand. WP:REFUND is not for pages deleted via AfD. WP:DRV is. Where, at last, we finally are. REFUND is for ProDs and G13's. BTW, has anyone asked the admin who closed the AfD? It seems to me that would be the first step. Am I to understand that an WP:IAR undeletion of content deleted at AfD is in anyway acceptable? A deletion undertaken via WP:CONSENSUS that can only be reversed by a consensus discussion? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy @Fuzheado:. And, by the way, if anyone feels I erred in declining at REFUND, please feel free to accept now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If the deletion has already been overturned at DRV, why is the page now deleted as an outcome of the AfD? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Best I can tell, i did not take part in Talk:Derek_Chauvin/Archive_1#Contested_deletion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) was overturned. Two separate articles. How could the DRV of one apply to the other? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many words above and linked that I haven’t digested, and I don’t think are relevant. The HISTMERGE aspects are irrelevant to DRV. What makes this relevant to DRV is a declined request to undelete some revisions behind a redirect. I think there is a BLPNAME reason to not undelete, but I don’t know, and think we have to trusts some admins who can see these deleted revisions to explain. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think HISTMERGE can occasionally be relevant to DRV, when we have to consider how to credit people for contributions that were originally made to an article that's now been deleted. In the past we've often seen history-merging as a relatively laborious procedure and preferred one of the alternative solutions in WP:RIA that finesse around the need to perform one. In this case it would only ne necessary to worry about that if any of the text from the deleted article appears in any of the revisions of the current one.—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification please. When a passage too long to be overlooked as de minimis is copied from one article to another the contributor who made the paste is supposed to leave a note on the new article's talk page, correct? But our lawyers say it need only say, material was copied from old article to this article, correct? Are fully compliant contributors supposed to add a diff?

    Well, in this particular case, if the contributor who started Derek Chauvin had copied passages from Derek Chauvin (police officer), and any passages remain in the article today, they should be attributed.

  1. Does that attribution need to be anything more than a note on Talk:Derek Chauvin?
  2. If the histories were merged that would eliminate the need for further attribution, correct?
  3. If the deleted revisions of Derek Chauvin (police officer) remain invisible, a note on Talk:Derek Chauvin, saying it included passages originally found in Derek Chauvin (police officer), would be effectively useless to anyone who wasn't an administrator, correct? Geo Swan (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     • Geo Swan, the relevant part of the Terms of Use says that people will be credited for their contributions: in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.)
       So in other words, they key point is that we have to be able to tell who wrote the content, not that we have to be able to identify exactly which person wrote exactly which bit by way of diffs. If text has been moved from one article to another, it's sufficient to add a dummy edit with an edit summary that says something like: This article contains content written by usernames X, Y and Z.
       But in this particular case, that isn't necessary because of the timeline. I (personally) created the redirect from Derek Chauvin (police officer) after it was deleted, so the sequence is completely clean; a sysop could restore all the history prior to my redirect without performing a history merge at all.
       History merges are only normally needed for content that's been written on Wikipedia and then reused on Wikipedia without attribution, such as when someone copy/pastes article content into their sandbox during an AfD and then moves their sandbox into the mainspace after the AfD closes. The only examples I've ever seen were the result of inexperience or bad faith.—S Marshall T/C 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I may have missed it in the great wall of text above, but it sounds like an "undelete history and maintain redirect" would meet the needs of everyone and be a lot simpler? Is that where we are now? Hobit (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I made the request, and indicated above this outcome would answer my needs. Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse declined HISTMERG for the reasons Primefac said a few times (not eligible for HISTMERG), but allow a new refund request for the redirect's history if someone wants to make that request. I can't see the deleted content so I'm not sure if there is any problem with restoring the history, but seems like it should be processed as any other request for a history restoration. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong decline restoration of the history per Johnuniq's post below and BLP policy, if the restoration would restore the material referred to in the links below, which should not be restored. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Background to this issue can be seen at ANI permalink, 30 June 2020. Following that and some other discussions, I left a warning here. The history of the redirect contains material referred to in these links. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Welp, given the BLP issues, I'm glad I did not WP:IAR auto-restore out of process. Wikipeddia is not a bureaucracy, but sometimes we find policies and guiidelines exist for a reason-- to stop overly enthusiastic admins from doing the wrong thing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This means the restoring sysop will need to make selective revision deletions to remove the person's new name. It doesn't mean the history shouldn't be restored.—S Marshall T/C 09:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Could an oversighter go through and OS the selected revisions before restoring to prevent accidental revelation of that which is not to be revealed? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This is now at WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose restoration, oppose histmerge - I had a look at the deleted revisions in the redirect, and I see two (the most recent two, out of 66) which would not need to be revdeleted under criterion WP:RD2, for either inappropriately publishing living persons' names, or stating in Wikipedia's voice that living persons committed crimes for which they have not been tried. It's not worth anyone's time to restore two revisions that don't contribute to any current article content anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I trust Ivanvector‘s statement. Decline the requests. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Orignal requester here I am withdrawing my request.
• As i said in the ANI discussion that followed this opening - I had never seen the deleted revisions. It was not until it was asserted here that I had any idea the deleted revisions contained a name that it has been decided not to include, and I would not have made this request if I knew that.
• Black Kite assured everyone, at ANI, that (1) Derek Chauvin (police officer) did contain that name; (2) Derek Chauvin shares essentially no content with the earlier article.
• On June 4th two administrator endorsed a claim that Derek Chauvin qualified for G4, which should only have been applied when the content of a later article was essentially identical to the content of a deleted article. I was skeptical of this claim, at the time, and I am going to place my trust in Black Kite's review. Thanks everyone. Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The B*tchelor (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion centred around notability which has clearly not been established. The majority of the discussion centred around draftifying the article. The closing editor decided to keep the article on the basis that most draft articles get deleted anyway. That decision makes no sense. If the consensus was unclear, it should have been relisted. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. The article was kept despite only receiving 1 keep vote and multiple votes to draftify/delete; the community clearly did not vote to keep this article in main space, IMO. The page is entirely unsourced and should have been moved into draft space for further development and to demonstrate notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing issue remains a red herring as all RPDR episodes have at least a dozen sources adequate for sourcing and building a Reception section. Plus sourcing was shown to exist. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? Someone provided a few sources in the AfD discussion, and even he voted to draftify. No shade to Kbabej whatsoever, but sharing a few sources in a discussion does not help w/ article development or clearly demonstrate notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment I respect the feedback given and have relisted the discussion (it had been my intention to do so, I just hadn't gotten around to it yet this morning but Lil-unique obviously had no way of knowing that). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I’ve asked at Refdesk and at The Signpost if anyone has statistics on the percentage of articles Draftified from AfD that become articles vs being deleted. I feel people wouldn’t!vote to Draftify if they knew it was a default delete. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a huge red herring and a distraction from the fact that in its present form, this topic is not notable. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abandoned articles should be deleted. I understand where you're coming from, but the fact that abandoned drafts are eventually deleted is not a reason to keep unsourced and non-notable topics in the main space. Pages can easily be moved, so if editors really want to keep this entry, they can improve in draft space then move back to main space once appropriate. Put the onus on the article creator to actually follow rules. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors have to get out of the habit of insisting everything in popular media needs to have its own article. A few passing mentions in reliable sources that comment on synopsis does not make a topic notable. I worry that although the publications are notable, subjective reviews alone do not qualify as extensive 3rd party coverage. Additionally, some of the sources quote/comment on synopsis of what happened in the episode. On the basis that notability hasn't been demonstrated the article should have been draftified if not redirected. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay nevagi (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This speedy deletion was based on a deletion discussion for a previous page. The content on both the pages are not the same at all. I contested the speedy deletion for which there was no response too. Zaim0113 (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: To save everyone having to do the same detective work: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay Nevagi led to the article's original deletion. Then Abhay negavi was speedied G4 (log), discussion User talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#Deletion of Abhay Nevagi Page (the talk page was archived later the same day as the reply[3]), nominator's current sandbox User:Zaim0113/sandbox. Thincat (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that - what I'd like to know as a non-admin is whether WP:G4 was properly applied, though I shall leave this to others to determine. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored the page, to allow more time for discussion. — Maile (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Maile, but we still can't see if it was a valid G4, because to do that we'd need to compare Abhay nevagi with Abhay Nevagi and the latter remains deleted.—S Marshall T/C 18:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Echoing S Marshall again. @RoySmith: could you consider undeleting this the original one please? Hobit (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Roy. This contains marginally plausible sources that weren't considered at the AfD, so I suppose the most cautious approach is to list it there; but I want to note that I'm not thrilled to see re-creations after AfD that use clearly the wrong capitalization in the article title, and my AGF is being stretched quite thin because of that. I'd prefer a closing summary of "list at AfD" rather than "overturn".—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong capitalisation was not intentional at all. It was a typo. -- Zaim0113 (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not a suicide pact. I see this was created by a sock and your early edits are to create another article where you had undisclosed paid editing and this. Both display good markup skills for a noob. So, have you been paid to put this up and have you edited under any previous accounts. Absent satisfactory answers to this I endorse because volunteer time should noy be wasted to help grifters make money with no objection to an established editor with manifestly no COI having a go at this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

per this edit the argument this was unintentional is a clear lie as you admit you knew of the deletion discussion.. That's an unshakable endorse from me now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, let me present my entire position on this. I am not lying when I said the capitalisation was a typo. I was aware that the page was existent earlier, however, I honestly thought that the person requires notability and I had not seen the earlier draft. I have not edited as part of any previous account. I understand that Wikipedia allows recreation of a page when the references are valid. An earlier page I also created while declaring the paid status. Even for this article, I disclosed the same. However, if everyone thinks the notability is not there, then I will accept the decision. -- Zaim0113 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm offended that you are using my volunteer time to make money. Where is my cut? If you are the noob you claim how did you know about our notability rules two articles in. I simply do not believe you. By the way you are required to disclose who paid you to write this article. Please do so. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More of my time wasted dealing with crap Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivkrupanand Swami Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the sources cited in this version have the same problem as the sources cited in the AfDed version: they don't do much more than namecheck the subject in the context of a news event where he was representing someone, and therefore don't show that the subject meets WP:GNG. (Except #1 which was written by the subject.) Sure, they're different sources, but that doesn't solve the problem. The AfD took place only a few months ago, the participants should have searched for sources which weren't in the article, and if these sources had been in the article they wouldn't have made any difference. I don't see a good reason to reopen the issue. Hut 8.5 17:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4 explicitly 'excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version'. I don't see any similarities between the two versions one two , let alone sufficiently or substantially identical! The AFD itself was very poorly attended, with User:Johnpacklambert having a long history of making lots of very frequent delete comments in quick succession without doing any WP:BEFORE and only possibly User:Shivkarandholiya12's comment having any weight - though even then, I question how much BEFORE they did, having only seconds to comment at that AFD, after their comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudy Abboud ... on a mobile. The AFD was little-better than a soft delete. There certainly may be issues with the article - and the editors. But there's no way this was a G4. Nfitz (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NextDNS Logo.png (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Deleted too quick, discussion was not finished and there was no consensus. DeliciousInternetSpeeds 08:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This, after filing of this DRV, is highly misleading and casts significant doubt on whether this is a good faith nomination (I wouldn't be surprised if the nominator, a SPA and the article creator, has an undisclosed COI or is UPE). Comments after relisting (which excludes the "deleted too quick" scenario) show the sources you provided do not establish notability, therefore it was deleted. You, yourself, admitted the page was non-notable ("this type of article seems particularly tricky to me due to the lack of actual press"). MER-C 12:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse "deleted too quick" is clearly not the case, the debate was open for over two weeks and AfDs only have to be open for one week. "Discussion was not finished" is also wrong, the debate hasn't received a new comment in the best part of a week when it was closed. Regarding the debate itself, the Delete side reviewed the provided sources and didn't think they were sufficient, and they gave reasonable justification. Superastig's comment says that the subject meets the GNG because it has coverage in reliable sources, the GNG is actually stricter than that. I don't think that debate could have been closed any other way. Hut 8.5 18:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse. This could not have been closed any other way. Consensus for deletion was clear, and the time allotted for discussion was generous. BD2412 T 19:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Plenty of time was allowed. Consensus was clear. Some details ...

DeliciousInternetSpeeds listed six sources. Naypta 11:10, 22 June 2020, correctly rebutted them. None support notability.

Analysing each:

1. a guide for best dns servers, Does not mention NextDNS

2. a German article that describes cname cloaking (that I will now add to the article), mentioned as making a company announcement.

3. a linux news site, Discussion site, development announcement, not useful for notability.

4. a guide incorporating NextDNS, A mention in a HOWTO.

5. a guide for adding encrypted dns on android that lists NextDNS, Another mention in a HOWTO.

6. an informative piece that describes some functionality of NextDNS by comparing it to another service. Does not mention NextDNS.

ASTIG 10:39, 22 June 2020 dropped a very weak !vote, discountable. Driveby !voting that sources exist, without detailing any sources, is not helpful.

Naypta and HighKing were convincing, DeliciousInternetSpeeds and ASTIG were not.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The reasonable conclusion by the closer. As to not allowing enough time, one relisting is enough time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closure adequately reflects consensus. Discussion was open for 17 days; the minimum is seven. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was a consensus and there was plenty of time for the discussion since it was relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obada Adnan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted before months , and I understand why(because Obada Adnan wasn’t notable) , But now I’m sure he is notable ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse this is a baseless and frivolous request. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the process or deletion and I highly doubt anything has changed in 2 months in terms of credits given most productions are shut down due to covid. See also this history on arwiki. Praxidicae (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure. None of those are reliable sources that establish notability. Baby names? Seriously. Praxidicae (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google play isn’t reliable? I’m sure there are some reliable sources.. AND!! You didn’t read the whole page ,so you said baby names, If you scrolled down, you would see them saying that there are actors who’s name is Obada , and one of them is Obada Adnan , Please read the whole thing and think logically before saying anything.

Greetings,Alex1981march (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Praxidicae (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your time , And by the way, you should explain for what is the “No” and I think you need to answer the questions more professionally and read the whole linked sources instead of saying things that are wrong

Practice more to reach the profession level that is accepted by people

MAYBE SOMEONE WHO HAS JOINED BEFORE 10+ YEARS SHOULD HAS TAKEN THIS CASE Best, Alex1981march (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD was closed correctly based on the discussion. As to the new information, I randomly check 4 of the links above, and none had significant coverage of Obada Adnan. If you want any chance of a positive response here, Alex1981march, please find and present three to five sources (no more!), each of which includes significant coverage, say multiple paragraphs about Obada Adnan, and each of which is independent and reliable. This means nothing which is or is largely based upon a press release or an interview, nor any fan sites or directory entries or other trivial coverage. A few good sources is much better than many poor ones -- good sources get lost among poor ones. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh and Alex1981march, please do not post in ALL CAPS, nor attack the editors who post here. No one editor "takes" a "case", each page brought to deletion review (DRV) is discussed by whatever editors choose to participate, and a consensus is formed.RV is not for reqarguing points discussed in the AfD. It is for correcting errors of procedure, or bringing forward new information that was not raised in the AfD. Dumping large numbers of mostly poor sources tends to convince people that the page is not worth considering. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal from the original close. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an effort to re-litigate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is a request to submit a draft for review, I will take a very unusual position, which is a Weak Oppose to even allowing re-creation in draft by the current appellant, who appears to be ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Interested editors may wish to read the post-close discussion at my talk page, which is basically more of the same from Alex1981march. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to raise issues of the deletion process not being properly followed. It is not a "second bite at the cherry" if the AFD doesn't go your way. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, I told Alex1981march I wouldn't unsalt unless he brought this here. —Cryptic 10:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and decline unsalting. Alex1981march, most of the sources you provided are not WP:SIGCOV, and a quick research trip on google finds nothing at all about him. The Draft is also not informative at all. I would advise you not to bring the matter again, until you can present a good draft of the article . Techie3 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techie3 Techie3 , I’m sure you will find a lot of results if searched for “Obada Adnan” on google, you may have spelled it wrongly , if you don’t believe me, please use this link :

https://g.co/kgs/rKtGhq

Note:- please scroll down to see al the results - The sites that says Obada Adnan is a singer , are not completely honest , And the LinkedIn account is not his account as I believe

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

• • @Alex1981march: , I pose a challenge for you. If you can find three facts about Obada Adnan, that are not his birth or personal details, or his films, and you can source them, I will try to start clean up your draft and might reverse my position. Techie3 (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, the draft as it is, does not look good on this kind of encyclopedia. Techie3 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Techie3   Ok, here are some facts about him :

(Food Habit Non-Vegetarian ,

Does Obada Adnan know cooking? Yes,

Does Obada Adnan go to the gym? Yes,

What are the hobbies of Obada Adnan? Reading, photography, learning, traveling, internet surfing and to name a few.) Source for above ;

https://www.filmifeed.com/celebrity/obada-adnan/amp/

(He studied at King Abdullah Second School For Excellence in Jordan) source:

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm10921122/

https://limaomecanico.com.br/celebridade/obada-adnan/?amp

https://www.filmifeed.com/celebrity/obada-adnan/amp/

Height: 5' 9¾" (1.77 m) , source: https://m.imdb.com/name/nm10921122/ Alex1981march (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obada Adnan loves Reading Quotes from Albert Einstein , source: https://Instagram.com/obada.adnan (In the bio)

Alex1981march (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • @Alex1981march: Ok, you have found a few facts, but only one fact I think could be added, that beingstudying at King Abdullah Second School For Excellence. I am pleased you are willing to commit to this draft. I challenge you again to find at least 2 news sources, (not IMDB or a film database website or actor database website , or social media accounts), 2 actual news sources, that talk about him in detail. Techie3 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitit (French company) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The sources are not unreliable as claimed. There are more sources available. The news were published by editors, not contributors or PR person. Freaintanl (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the sources presented at the AFD were discussed pretty thoroughly, there is no evidence that they were ignored by voters and I see nothing wrong with the close. Praxidicae (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The discussioin was fine and could not have been closed in any other way. The analysis by HighKing was particularly persuasive. The comment above by Freaintanl is very similar to comments by the same editor in the AfD, which did not persuade the others in this discussion. However, the title was not protected against creation. If there truly are better sources, a new version could be created using them. But from the discussion, Freaintanl does not seem to understand the kind of sources needed to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and thus WP:NCORP. I would strongly suggest that any recreation be as a draft subject to the articles for creation review process. Otherwise a 2nd deletion followed by protection against creation are not unlikely, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid close. I think that either Delete or No Consensus would have been valid. The question is whether the close was valid, and it was. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a place to address concerns about deletion process not being correctly followed. It is not an opportunity to re-argue the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is a permissible interpretation of consensus in the discussion. I agree with DES that the objector's best route is to have the article restored to draft and work on it there. BD2412 T 19:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Public Party (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Notability status has changed. Page was deleted for lack of notability. Since deletion party has joined an electoral alliance with the (soon-to-be) registered Advance New Zealand party and clarified that it will be running candidates. This has received significant coverage in local media.^[1][2][3] In addition, there has been coverage in second-tier NZ media of party positions.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} While a merger / alliance might seem to make it less notable, a feature of the Electoral system of New Zealand is that parties can have "component parties" (e.g. see Alliance (New Zealand political party)). There will thus be NZPP candidates, distinguishable from those of Advance New Zealand, on the ballot. Running candidates has historically established notability for an NZ political party. IdiotSavant (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but permit restoratiuon as a draft. The AfD was correctly closed at that time, and a major point was the lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage at that time. New sou7rces may be the start of sustained coverage, but do not seem to have clearly achieved itm yet, in my view. But there is no objection to starting a draft on this topic, and I for one see no objection to restoring the deleted article as such a draft, to be improved until it clearly meets notability criteria. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but permit restoration of draft, as per DES. (Unlike another request here.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and allow recreation New sources are enough to overcome a speedy. The rest belongs at AfD. (Plus, it's already been recreated). Hobit (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Notability was the issue for deletion last year. We have since found citations and sources to create a notable wikipedia page for this subject. Like to request undeletion for an improved and acceptable page for wikipedia on this subject. LennyBernstein (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is "we"? —Cryptic 11:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• First of all endorse the original deletion from February last year. There's no way that discussion could have been closed with any other result. As for allowing re-creation, we'd need to see the sources first. Given that the draft was deleted under G4, ie substantially identical to the original delete article, it doesn't seem as though it contained more or better sources than last time. So I'd say no on re-creation for now, at least until we see the promised sources. Reyk _YO! 12:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I deleted Draft:Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky under WP:G4, and it was essentially identical to the deleted original article. The Draft had a "References" section in plain text as follows...

"Siddiky, Kazemuddin Ahmad". banglapedia.org.

Taifur, Muhammad, "A History of Dhaka", Dhaka, University Press Ltd, 1994, pp. 76

Dr. Viraj P. Thacker. "The Darjeeling District: A Standing Legacy!". gms81.blogspot.nl.

"St pauls school darjeeling :: Educationworld.in". Educationworld.in.

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. "9843207830, 9789843207830: The Compromised Republic An Inquiry into the Development of Underdevelopment 1st Edition: - 洋書 : Printsasia.co.jp". printsasia.co.jp.

"The Daily Janakantha". dailyjanakantha.com.

"Annisul Huq ahead in Dhaka North". bdnews24.com.

"Court orders Irad's arrest in Tk 50cr case". bdnews24.com.

"BBCBangla - খবর - বিএনপি নেতার মানহানি মামলা". bbc.co.uk."

No links, no actual URLs, no inline attribution, mostly just names of publications. So essentially no sources at all, and no demonstration that the lack of notability has been addressed. In fact, the original article had all of these same references, properly formatted and linked, plus several extras. So even if the references in the Draft had been linked and checkable, they would still be weaker than in the original article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources I tried were easy to find [4] and [5] - this is a non_issue. They were in the AfD deleted article, so G4 certainly applies. Indeed, it looks like the draft was probably a copy-paste from a mirror or the like. CSD#G4 explicitly excludes draft/sandboxed articles that someone is intending to improve; it's not obvious to me there's some reason to believe that isn't the case. WilyD 13:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've no problem with reverting the speedy deletion if LennyBernstein has some improvements to make, but it just looked like a badly formatted copy of the original. And WP:G4 specifically excludes "content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement ". This had not been moved or converted to Draft space and there was no explicit indication of improvement to come. If LennyBernstein had just come to me and asked, and convinced me he had improvements to make, rather than starting a deletion review of the original, it would already be undeleted. In fact, I would have been (and still am) prepared to make a Draft copy of the original article to retain the formatting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the draft restored, I don't think there's anything else to do now, G4 certainly applies to the current version if it's in the mainspace. Lenny got sent here by the person who nominated it for AfD the first time around, so I don't think they're being unreasonable for an inexperienced user. But now, I think this is resolved. WilyD 10:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Drafts, as a rule, should not be speedy deleted for being "substantively identical" to deleted articles — because draftspace is meant for creating and working on content that isn't ready for prime time yet, our rules don't work the same way in draftspace as they do in mainspace. Drafts are allowed to have problems that wouldn't be tolerated in mainspace, precisely because fixing problems with content is part of what draftspace is for. And since the creator had not submitted it for WP:AFC review yet, I see no reason to assume that they're acting in bad faith. So I have no objection to restoring the draft so that the creator can work on it some more — and if anybody believes there's a risk that the creator intends to just move the draft into mainspace themselves without submitting it for AFC review, we have the option of applying page move protection to it — but as the draft definitely wasn't ready for restoration to mainspace yet, there's no need for DRV to overturn the original AFD discussion on the original mainspace article. The draft will also, obviously, be deleted again at a later date if it hasn't actually been worked on. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking some time to collect citations to validate every piece of information that is written on the subject, so that the draft once ready for the mainspace will not have the notability issues or any other issue like before. Therefore, I only look forward to the restoration of the draft on draftspace, as clarified by Bearcat and only if it is found to meet the standards and rules of the Wikipedia, it can be decided whether or not to put it in the mainspace. I am still working on it. May I ask how much time is allowed to work on draftspace? Thank you. LennyBernstein —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In draftspace, unless you behave really problematically your "deadline" should normally be six months. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OK folks, I've restored the original deleted article and moved it to Draft:Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky, as that was better formatted and to preserve the original attribution history. @LennyBernstein: It's all yours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Who is "We"? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:NuggetAreFood/sandbox (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

History currently at User:NuggetAreFood/sandbox/temp (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was tagged for U5 speedy deletion. I declined it, and a different editor re-tagged it, and Fastily deleted it without consulting me. The page included some slight information about the user, and links to several (5) social media sites. If this was intended as promotion, it was singularly ineffective, as user pages in general and sandboxes in particular are not indexed. If cut down to a single social media link, this would not IMO be inappropriate as a main user page. I was attempting to educate NuggetAreFood about user pages The user account was only created today, and it is a bit early to be expecting mainspace contributions. A sandbox is intended for experimenting, which is what this user is doing.

The social links do not appear to have any significant commercial purpose, if any at all, and there is really no meaningful self-promotion here, and no significant content was being "hosted" here.

U5 was intended, as I see it, for people storing personal essays, online games, and other similar extensive content unrelated to Wikipedia. It was not aimed at what are basically user pages with somewhat more social media links than we prefer.

Ther is no way to know yet if this user intended, ort still intends, to become a significantly contributing user. I would day it is now less likely than nit was. This kind of very quick deletion of a page that was not, in facrt promoting anything or doing harm seems to me to go against WP:BITE, and to be ill-judged. Also, when reversing a previous decline of a speedy deletion tag, it is usual to consult with the declining editor.

I ask that the deletion be overturned. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As I just explained to DESiegel, this is an obvious attempt at self-promotion; the user clearly intended to use the page as a form of CV/resume/personal site/social media which, as per WP:NOTWEBHOST, Wikipedia does not allow. Upon examining the user's edits (noting that the they have made no edits outside of this sandbox and the Teahouse), I'm skeptical they were planning to contribute in a meaningful capacity. Also, I see no problems with deleting what I believe to be an inappropriately declined CSD. -FASTILY 02:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, courtesy pings for @NotTheFakeJTP & @John from Idegon. For non-admins, here is a copy of the text at time of deletion -FASTILY 02:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NOTWEBHOST says, in significant part Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you want to post your résumé or make a personal webpage, please use one of the many free providers on the Internet ... I do not think this page could reasonably be called a "personal webpage" or "blog", and it surely did not contain "large amounts of material". Nor was it a resume or CV. I do not see how Fastily or anyone else can plausible devine whether or not a 1-day old user intends to make significant and useful contributions. Many new users start out with a sandbox and a Teahouse post. Some go on to be significant contributors, others do not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would add that the users pinged above are the editors who tagged the page for U5, so their opinion that it is in fact a U5 would hardly be surprising. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Completely disagree with your (erroneous) interpretation of NOTWEBHOST. Ironically, the very quote you highlighted (especially the latter portion) strongly supports my position. I think you should pause and take a moment to examine the edits/content you are defending; they're simply not aligned with the goals of the encyclopedia. And yes, of course I'm going to ping all the editors involved; it's only fair that they have the opportunity to opine. -FASTILY 03:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I am sorry you disagree, but this is indeed something I have considered at length, and I find that U5 is far overused. CSDs should be strictly and narrowly applied, always. Some others here seem to agree. As to the pings, I will leave it to others to consider if WP:CANVASS applies. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  DESiegel, that's ridiculous, even for you. You're obviously entitled to your own opinions, but hang on, reality check: your opinions do not magically ascend to policy just because you said so lol. And since you're now casting aspersions, I'd love to see you back up that canvassing claim with some actual evidence. Frankly, I find it troubling I have to explain this elementary concept to a (tenured?) admin: notifying editors who previously participated in a prior deletion process is acceptable practice. -FASTILY 00:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Fastily explained it well. Commercial encroachment on Wikipedia is our single biggest problem. If this new editor finds us removing his Facebook page on Wikipedia so objectionable he leaves, I highly doubt we needed him anyway. John from Idegon (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  While I would agree that Commercial encroachment on Wikipedia is a serious problem, do you really think any of those links or that page is "commercial"? I would add that I think editor retention is a rather more serious problem, n this sort of thing does not help. A polite explanation of why social media links are not usually appropriate would be one thing, but that isn't what was done here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed that editor retention is a problem, but I disagree that this is the solution. Thus far nobody has explained how letting random people on the internet post spam and/or create low quality vanity pages on Wikipedia is supposed to further our cause. -FASTILY 00:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per DESiegel. I have no issue with a user setting up their userspace first. U5 is there to deal with people treating Wikipedia as a free webhost and adding personal stuff, fake reality gameshows, and deleted content and having no mainspace work. The user hasn't been around a wet week and we can and should assume an intent to contribute in a constructive way. The userpage was not promotional, doing any material harm, or otherwise disruptive, and all we have done is created a detractor who will not only leave Wikipedia but tell their friends how nasty we are. Classic WP:BITE. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is struggling to recruit and retain volunteers, and there are several reasons why; but one of the key changes we need to make is, except in the case of clearly promotional or agenda-driven stuff, the userspace police need to slacken the hell off.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at MfD- I checked the links and it doesn't seem as though this person is promoting themselves, or anything else, unduly. There's nothing spammy about anything I've seen in them. This person seems to just be crosslinking and unifying their whole online profile. The purpose of CSD U5 has been to stop people dumping garble about fantasy sports leagues and fake game shows- I think banning a link to your own facebook with U5 is overreach. At any rate this is something for MfD rather than a unilateral speedy. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Request temp undeletion. Administrators holding very different opinions on supposedly object CSD criteria deserves thorough review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fastily pasted the source of the last revision to an external site above, but there's a bit more to the matter in the history. I've restored it to User:NuggetAreFood/sandbox/temp; on the slim chance this user returns, having a scary "This page was deleted from Wikipedia" notice in the middle of their sandbox while we wonk away for a week won't help matters. —Cryptic 13:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page is squarely within scope of CSD#U5. DES’ detagging isn’t supposed to mean it can’t be retagged. There is no “inappropriately detagged” rule. Applying CSD#U5 to a newcomers sandbox under one day old does seem BITEY, and in CSD#U5 implementation discussions I argued for a minimum age for U5, but consensus as explicitly said in the close was that there is no minimum time. It is easy to see that consensus view, that many drive-by non-contributors post self promotion like that, and it is obviously self promotion, and it is easiest detected and responded to immediately. Pages like this should be deleted per U5. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe WT:CSD says (in the 5th paragraph of the lead section): If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. That is the "detagging rule", and I think it has general consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop cherry picking CSD and quoting it out of context. What if I de-tag some copyright violations? How about some spam? And yes, let's assume it was "in good faith". Are you going to speedy the pages anyways? Because I certainly hope you would. Long story short, you made a poor judgement call, so I cleaned up your mess. (You're welcome.) -FASTILY 00:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not cherry picking, nor quoting out of context, I quoted the relevant sentence. I also described exactly where I quoted from so that anyone else could read the surrounding text, which is too long to quote here. I quoted this in response to SmokeyJoe who wrote DES’ detagging isn’t supposed to mean it can’t be retagged. There is no “inappropriately detagged” rule. to show exactly what "rule" I had in mind. I will grant that a copyright infringement might be an exception, as that is a comparatively objective policy issue. Even on that, if an experienced editor detags, it might be better to list on Copyright problems than to retag. As to spam, if an experienced editor detags in good faith, I would expect a PROD or an XfD, not a re-tagging. O stand by my decline/detag, and do not consider it an error of judgement, nor your action in any way helpful on this point. I accept that you thought and think that it was, in good faith, and that some agree with you. It should be clear that some others (besides me) do not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant to imply criticism of Fastily's 02:31, 22 July 2020 I see no problems with deleting what I believe to be an inappropriately declined CSD. I don't know why I typed and saved "DES’ detagging isn’t supposed to mean it can’t be retagged", because that is not true. A declined speedy should go to MfD. Even a decline G10 and G12 should go to XfD to decide whether it is really and attack or a violation. When I wrote "There is no “inappropriately detagged” rule", I should have written "There is no “inappropriately declined CSD rule". Sorry for the confusion. I can see both sides here, and I think it is best called a clash of perspectives. My offered solution is to make CSD#U5 delayed for newcomers' borderline U5 violations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This was at worst borderline - a mix of harmless nonsense, which we tolerate in sandboxes, and harmless social media links, which we tolerate on user pages. I'll sometimes delete pages like these if there's a monetized youtube link or similar, or if the user hasn't edited in a long time (and thus proved that there was never any intent except to drive traffic), but this was neither: deletion gained us nothing and cost us a user. There's no reason to think this user would have been more likely than usual to stick around and become productive, but now we'll never know. Not much point in restoring this now, though, unless the user asks for it; the damage is done. In particular, listing at MFD would be worse than not undeleting at all. —Cryptic 14:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Cryptic we don't know if it has cost us a user yet. We don't even know if this user has seen the deletion yet. There have certainly been no edits by this user since the Teahosue post, and that was before the deletion, although it may have been in reaction to the first U5 tagging. Not all new editors log in every day. You are, of course, correct that we don't know if this user would, in any case, have become productive -- that is possible but far from assured. But an undeletion will help, to some degree, to define consensus on what is and what is not a valid U5, even if this user never returns. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the teahouse post was clearly a response to the U5 tag. It's completely unrealistic to think they'd return, between the second U5 tag and the even bitier teahouse response. (Seriously, calling them a self-promoting sockpuppet? When their post had all the hallmarks of being caught in the middle of an account-creation-blocked rangeblock?) We're perfectly capable of calling this deletion wrong by means other than undeleting it, a full week later, and maybe having someone generate even more unnecessary ill-will by dragging it to MFD for another week, or two weeks, or three, or however backlogged it currently is. —Cryptic 15:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. A clumsy and adolescent page, I suppose, but listing one's own social media links, without more, is not proscribed self-promotion. And since this speedy was previously declined by an experienced user, it should have been declined when reinstated. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- as HW just said, this is too minor to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, per HW, or if someone really wants, send to MFD per Reyk. I empathize with admins protecting the 'pedia from commercial and other self-promotion. But in this context speedying this is excessive. Doing so after a declined speedy, with even that warning flag leading to little apparent consideration of the WP:BITE tradeoff for a <1 day old account, feels like tunnel vision. Then deleting admin digging in their heels combatively, rather than a "oops, I see this is controversial and I can see why, even though I don't agree, let's send it to MFD for a proper look", does not further help matters. Martinp (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We created CSD#U5 so that worthless stuff like this wouldn't be sent to MfD. It is not worth a closer look. My preference would be for CSD#U5 to have a seven delay when the author's first edit was less then seven days previous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree this page is hardly worth a closer look in and of itself. But I agree with DE Siegel and HW that this feels much more like a clumsy userpage than "writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals" as at WP:CSD#u5, and if that criterion is being interpreted too expansively, that is worth a closer look, especially with the WP:BITE implications. I like your seven-day-delay preference which would lessen the fog in divining intent in situations like this. As a partial aside, I think we forget how arcane our WP norms and habits are to the outside world: there are so many other contexts where just somehow wanting to introduce yourself when you're new is very natural. And so many instances in the outside world where those ' self introductions end up just a bit too long and out of place. Martinp (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not read it as a "clumsy userpage", but as a blatant post of his five social media pages: Reddit, Facebook, YouTube, Twitch and GD. It is blatant promotion of his external personal sites. There is only additionally a couple of mentions of game platforms he plays. That is textbook U5 material, completely unrelated to Wikipedia's goals. In the U5 implementation discussions, we discussed that a new user may first like to introduce themselves before contributing, and so I looked deeply into the archives of the many vanity drive-by posted userpages like this, and found, just like this, that driveby promotional leaflet drops like this are always just driveby promotional material drops, the user never returns to contribute. The same applies for kids posting their social media as recent graduate academics posting their CVs. A delay would remove the bitiness of rapid deletion in error, while not subjecting the new page reviewer to the burden of having to return to the bad new page. However, I do not agree that the U5 criterion is here being interpreted too expansively. It was being interpreted exactly as intended. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn you are allowed to have limited information about yourself on your user page (see WP:UPYES). Linking to social media profiles is a pretty common thing for people to do when writing a profile of themselves. This is a very new user who has now had their head bitten off, which more than outweighs any tiny benefit to the encyclopedia from deleting this. Hut 8.5 12:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Hut 8.5, but, the information about yourself on your user page has always been held to be limited in proportion to your contributions to the project. While the balance of the limit or proportion has never been defined, it is trivial to conclude that zero total contributions entitles you to zero social media profile links. A blurb about oneself is harmless, but welcoming driveby visitors to post their social media profile links is damaging to Wikipedia. Wikipedia userspace is for Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, new editors get less leeway than experienced editors, but zero total contributions does still entitle you to a user page with some personal information, and if it didn't there would be far less chance of the person making some contributions. I don't have a problem with social media profile links, I certainly don't think they're promotional as people claim. Hut 8.5 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - declined speedies shouldn't be unilaterally overturned (except G12, maybe), and a small amount of personal information is appropriate for a userpage. If it were spammy, G11 might apply, but there's no evidence of that. Just a terrible action for multiple reasons. As mentioned, flagrant violations of WP:BITE are a serious problem for editor retention (and really, having a collegial atmosphere at all) WilyD 13:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Should we at this point snow overturn? I mean that sincerely as a question, being unsure when we snow close DRV's. Unsurprisingly, the deleter and the person who (re)tagged as U5 feel the deletion was sound. But all 9 (by my count, including myself above) other commenters since then think the deletion was wrong; 7 suggest an overturn and the other 2 merely criticize it but say the damage is done (Cryptic) or a policy change should be made to delay such deletions (SmokeyJoe). Consensus seems pretty clear, and waiting another x days just augments the WP:BITE and spilling of words over a user page just not worth it. Martinp (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There are good-faith users endorsing, so we wouldn't speedily-close a DRV unless the closer voluntarily self-reverted.—S Marshall T/C 13:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per HW and DE. Don't MfD it, that would be a waste of time. I'm most surprised by this logic: Upon examining the user's edits (noting that the they have made no edits outside of this sandbox and the Teahouse), I'm skeptical they were planning to contribute in a meaningful capacity. Seriously? Because their first six edits are in a sandbox and the Teahouse, you don't think they're planning to contribute in a meaningful capacity? We can't fault users for "jumping in to controversial areas too quickly" and then also fault users for "staying in their sandbox and at the Teahouse". Come on. What I would like is this: admin should never judge whether a new user is "planning to contribute in a meaningful capacity" because administrators, though experienced and trusted users, are neither mind readers nor clairvoyant. No one has the skills, knowledge, or experience to accurately assess a new user's (or any user's) intentions, over the internet, without ever having met the person or even knowing their identity, based on viewing some edits. (Especially when it's just six edits on the account's first day.) Admin get this wrong all the time (in both directions). Just enforce policy based on past actions; don't try to predict the future. None of us are qualified to "sort" editors into categories like "good user" and "bad user", except in the most extreme cases (like spamming racist propaganda), and self-promotion, even when it actually happens, is not an extreme case. Anyway, a CSD tag removed by an experienced editor shouldn't be replaced. If someone really wants to delete this page, it should be through MfD, but ultimately the user should just be allowed to practice in their sandbox, even if they're making promotional edits. New editors messing around in their sandboxes is not a problem that needs addressing. Frankly I never understand the editors who "patrol" sandboxes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse pointless to restore even if there were issues with the deletion and it links to PII of a minor. Praxidicae (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. I hadn't clicked through the links previously, but have done so now. I fail to see any clear personally identifying info of a minor at first glance, though based on the communication style throughout a young age is a reasonable inference, and as other have said, some friendly feedback that this was not an ideal user page, and even removing say the fb link as an editorial action might have been appropriate. Frankly, I suspect this user is long gone after his experience here, and who knows if that is a great loss or not. So I'm not particularly concerned what happens now to this specific page. But I still hope that the discussion here is felt to strongly not endorse the speedy deletion as it happened here. Martinp (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gianno Caldwell (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted four years ago. I'd like to work on the subject in draftspace. Deleting admin doesn't do restorations. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franzen (cyclist) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Pouget (cyclist) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

L. Dumont (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Dubourdieu (cyclist) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

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

Guilio Vianzino (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

L. Boyer (cyclist) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A. Roger (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

L. Saunière (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Purpose number 3: "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" --> This list of cyclists were put of for deletion because of the reasoning:

"We only have a surname, no indication of anything else, which after 120 years and quite a few people researching Olympic athletes seems to indicate that nothing more is available about him (usually we have at least a first name, and a date or year of birth, which allows some further research). Even if we do find a "Franzen" in old newspapers, there would be no way of knowing if it is the same man unless it would explicitly include his Olympic participation. Official sources know nothing further[1]. Even for his one participation, all we know if the event and heat he participated in: we don't know his eventual position, his time, ... nothing at all."

For instance of Vianzino, his full name in now known: Guilio Vianzino see here and his cycling club was "CS Torino". This makes is likely information can be found (in old newspapers for instance) about this cyclist. Also for the other cyclist more is known than only the surname. Nominator wrote: "Even if we do find a "Franzen" in old newspapers, there would be no way of knowing if it is the same man unless it would explicitly include his Olympic participation." -> for this particilar person, Franzen was a member of "Union Vélocipédique de France", so it's likely information on him with this information can be found in old newspapers. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• These are biographies. You do need to provide reliable sources for each.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If one can find actual sources of coverage on the individual one should submit these to the Articles for creation process to create new articles. That is how new articles should be created, and we should not try to reverse the deletion process as done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a complete crock. "The Articles for Creation (AfC) process is intended to assist editors who cannot (e.g. non-registered or non-autoconfirmed users) or should not (e.g. people with a conflict of interest), create new articles directly into mainspace." Your repeated presentation of nonexistent policy terms to promote your own positions is disruptive and less than honest. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa, steady on HW! Coming on a bit strong there maybe?—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm curious; how do you get from knowing the fellow's full name and cycling club to your presumption that such now makes it likely information from old newspapers can be found for him? (But that being said, fine and dandy: you go find information from old newspapers that can credibly sustain an article on him, and with that information, feel free to create a properly-sourced article.) Ravenswing 06:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• With the former source, everybody with the name Vianzino in newspaper and results could have been this Olympian. Knowing his complete name, or surname with team name you can be sure it’s him.SportsOlympic (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mm, perhaps you're missing my meaning. This information does not, in fact, make it more likely that information will be found. It just makes it easier to winnow out false positives. If "Vianzino"+"cycling" isn't turning up substantive coverage, "Guilio Vianzino"+"CS Torino"+"cycling" won't. Ravenswing 15:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You’re talking about computer search. In today’s news you won’t find of course information about him. I’m talking about articles in Italian newspapers of the 1900s. And yes in a newspaper of his region he is named in at least 1 newspaper I found last week. And no, as I’m aware of, these newspapers are not findable via internet. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation of articles with new sources. We shouldn't need to go through DRV for that. Smartyllama (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)provided[reply]

• With decent sources, though, and only if notable. The OP has recreated Guilio Vianzino, which is a bio of a cyclist who was knocked out in the heats of the 1900 Olympics, and, er, that's it. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubs of Olympians can be created under WP:NOLYMPICS. Olympedia.org: is a decent source. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As the AfD closer, who has not been contacted before this DRV, I would decline restoration because no new sources beyond the already known Olympic statistics are being proposed for these people. Pending resolution of this DRV, I have also deleted Guilio Vianzino per WP:G4. Sandstein 14:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, not new sources, but new information. This discussion was about known information, not about sources. Olympedia.org is a decent source and enough for creating article per WP:NOLYMPICS. This discussion was bout Olympians with Only 1 name known, and because of that not meeting WP:NOLYMPICS. Vianzino is now meeting WP:OLYMPICS (this discussion was not about WP:OLYMPICS). And, yes it was a Wikipedia:Stub: "An article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject... ...A stub should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context" SportsOlympic (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Guilio Vianzino is clearly not a recreation of a previously deleted page, as the first name was not known before. The previous AfD was heavily based on not knowing the first names of the competitors list. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I just see now I wrote the article with another reference as in the AFD. And more information is in the article: fullname, I wrote about his team, where he lived and and training location. I found him in an old Italian newspaper now, but can’t add the information. Article shouldn’t have been speedy deleted under per WP:G4. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "We can find new sources" isn't the kind of "significant new information [that] has come to light since a deletion" that DRVPURPOSE is talking about. Actually finding those sources is. —Cryptic 15:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is. If the name is known, this is a mayor step. Now it's possible to search for this person. And still, the person is meeting WP:NOLYMPICS. What is the point of having specific notability guidelines and then ignoring them. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:NOLYMPICS#Applicable policies and guidelines: "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." The point of having specific notability guidelines is not to pick and choose the parts that support your position and ignore the parts that don't. Let us know when your search is successful. —Cryptic 15:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are showing me the general sports guideliness (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)). You can see there are that there is made consensus that all Olympians are presumed notable as they are highly liking meeting GNG. But these sources are not findable via the internet. You can even see it in the basics:

“A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).” 

SportsOlympic (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close This isn't the place to moan about your stuff being deleted; this is the place to demonstrate that the closing admin erred in their closure. Since the nom's opening statement does not even come close to doing this, I suggest a speedy close to save everyone some time. ——Serial 16:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator may be too polite to say this, but I will. I would submit than the closing admin, in ignoring the consensus at WP:NOLYMPICS (including multiple, including recent, efforts to change it) and numerous prior deletion discussions regarding Olympic competitors, as well as the relatively even balance of the comparatively few !votes of those who actually responded to this particular discussion, did err. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that SNGs are commonly misunderstood to stand in place of GNG  :) ——Serial 16:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be because WP:N itself says that "[a] topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (my emphasis). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't make it OK to put undersourced biographies in the mainspace!—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources are needed for a mainspace article? Please can you link to the policy which states this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, you could get away with one source if it's comprehensive enough to verify every fact in the article: WP:V. Custom and practice requires at least two, which is based on the plural word "sources" in the guideline (not policy) at WP:N; but at DRV, where almost everything we see is contentious, we normally ask for three because three is usually enough to stop people quibbling about whether a source is reliable enough to pass. Biographical articles are held to a higher standard. I think you know all this perfectly well.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we know well that starting a stub with 1 reliable good source is not a reason for deletion. If it’s not a policy, this is not the place to share your opinion. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm intrigued by this notion. How do you think deletion review could build a consensus if users didn't share their opinions?—S Marshall T/C 20:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the unspoken implication is that only contrary opinions are prohibited. Reyk _YO! 11:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There was no consensus in the AFD to delete; the !votes were equally divided. The closer simply cast a supervote, implementing their own policy preference on an issue where that position is not supported by consensus. While the closer alluded to "persuasive arguments that there are no sources" available, it is clear that no such "arguments" were made; instead, the delete !voters simply asserted that because they could not locate useful sources online, that proved that no useful print sources existed. That is hardly a "persuasive" argument; it is more accurately characterized as nonsensical. The closing admin may have an antipathy toward unfinished articles, but that is not policy. A substantial part of the community, potentially consensus-level, supports the practice of writing stub articles on historical figures who meet SNG requirements, so long as the information is accurate and includes no controversial elements, and expanding them as additional information is provided. Maintaining such articles, like the ones at issue here, is much more in keeping with Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- consensus to delete was reached at the AfD. If enough sourcing to sustain a biography turns up, the articles can be recreated. For now, it's probably enough to list them on a page like France_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics#Cycling since we lack any actual biographical information. People really need to stop pretending that subject-specific notability guidelines function as a permanent exemption to WP:V and WP:N. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That’s what this is about “If enough sourcing to sustain a biography turns up, the articles can be recreated.” As more info came available, and now meeting the basics of WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:NCYCLING. So please state what in policy “enough sources” is. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You found one database entry that seems to verify one cyclist's first name. We still lack any sort of biographical information on this man or any of the others in this DRV. People need to stop assuming that technically meeting some SNG is both a permanent exemption from our verifiability and notability requirements and an automatic entitlement to a shrine. In this case there is already a superior way to present this information is in a list covering the French cycling team of 1900, which literally already contains all the information these "articles" would. If your article amounts to three cells of an excel spreadsheet, it shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Anyway, this arguing not the purpose of DRV-- the purpose is to determine whether consensus was reached at the AfD (it was) and whether the closing administrator judged it correctly (he did). Reyk _YO! 21:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A supervote contrary to WP:DGFA as the closer did not "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants, inventing a consensus when there was clearly no agreement. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn WP:N itself says that "[a] topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (my emphasis). "These subject-specific notability guidelines are generally derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate (such as print works in libraries local to the topic) or that sourcing will likely be written ... These are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline. A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article." (my emphasis). Also, a supervote was contrary to WP:DGFA, as the closer did not respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants, inventing a consensus when there was clearly no agreement.Jeff in CA (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closer was correct that passing the SNG only creates a "presumption" of notability, not a guarantee. That presumption is not upheld if only bare statistics and not even a first name exists, failing GNG. Applying "automatic notability" is not consistent with good practices, and I do not feel that the NOLY SNG applies to the 1900 Olympics as it might today. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That presumption IS upheld. The SNG is the source of good practice, notwithstanding someone's individual opinion. NOLY SNG applies to all Olympic Games. Jeff in CA (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Notability was established for all the articles listed, and a WP:SUPERVOTE was used in closing the discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• OVERTURN Notability rules are quite clear, it has to pass the general notability guidelines OR a subject specific guideline. You can't just ignore the subject specific guidelines because you don't think everyone who participated in the Olympics is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, while every pop culture person who ever had a publicist get them written up in a couple of news sources does. Dream Focus 14:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if they pass a subject specific guideline (and the hint is in the word "guideline") they can still be deleted if they fail GNG, or in the case of some of these WP:V (which is a policy). Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On top of that, WP:SPORTCRIT clearly says trivial coverage and indiscriminate database scraping don't satisfy notability requirements. If one of the subordinate SNGs conflicts with that, then too bad for the SNG. Reyk _YO! 17:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no trivial coverage or indiscriminate database scraping here, so that's not applicable.Jeff in CA (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse We need reliable sources, WP:V is not an option. Trying to create an article on a person who there is so little information about that we don't even know their first name, is frankly ridiculous. I have no idea why people are trying to say that creating incomplete articles, based on incomplete or in some cases user-generated sources, is a good thing. Biographies need to be done properly. Doing them in this half-arsed way is wrong. Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Both NSPORT and the GNG are presumed forms of notability that allow a standalone article to be created based on miniminal sourcing or meeting a certain milestone (in the case of NSPORT), but that presumption can be challenge if the nominator shows that there does not exist any additional sourcing to build a reasonable full article about the topic, in which case deletion is appropriate. The original AFD nominator appears to have done that by showing that simply having a last name in the listings of a century-old sporting event does not lead to finding any further sources. The onus was one those wanting to keep to prove out these are verified people and find additional sources; that failed to happen. The closures as deletions were fully appropriate. If any editor wants to spend the time to research any specific person and write a more comprehensive article that surpasses just the fact some participation at one event happened, they can do so and get the article restored, but the deletion was in line with NSPORT and its relationship to WP:N and other policies. --Masem (t) 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion here is about that there is more information now about the people available: full name, teams the rode with. So now it’s possible to start searching for more information about these notable cyclists. This was not possible at the time of the AFD. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody is saying you can't write an article based on substantial sources when and if they can be found. You don't need the deleted articles to be restored to do that; they had no content. This is the best way forward. Everyone wins: the encyclopedia gets some credible biographies; those of us who care for quality over quantity don't get inclusion criteria watered down to irrelevance; and you get to write the articles you want. I'm 98% confident that, if the empty articles get restored, they'll just be left to languish and never get improved. Reyk _YO! 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m not asking the articles to be restored. And yes, I started writing an article with more information, but can’t continue adding more information I found in an old newspaper(!) If more information is found I don’t want that’s be deleted. I started the article of Guilio Vianzino, now with his fullname. I added information about the team he was riding for his training location and where he lived. I wanted to be sure the article is allowed to be kept, so I started this discussion. As I was afraid of, the article was deleted immediately. Sad to see this, as I found information in an Italian newspaper about a local race. Also now the teams of a few French people are known, I found some bits and peaces about 1 guy. As it’s possible to still find information on these guys, I want that’s possible to recreate the article when more information became available. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Which you can ask to USERIFY then, rather than challenge the deletion. But its not good for WP in the long run to have short stubby articles on persons - even with full names known - notable for only one sporting event from a century ago, compared to today. If you can add enough to show more than participation, then you're at least giving some reason to keep. Again, NSPORT is still a presumption of notability that can be challenged, it is not "this condition is met, the article must stay". --Masem (t) 19:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of recentism is the stuff that is routinely rejected by consensus when people try to change NOLY. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't recentism, it's a plain fact that Olympic athletes today are often professional atheletes well established to be among the world's best, while in 1900 they were amateurs who were excellent at their sport but did not necessarily meet the rigorous global qualification process there is now. NSPORT says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Note that "the inclusion critera" specifically links to GNG, which is not completely dismissed even if NOLY/another subcriterion is met, with this SNG overriding indefinitely. "Likely" does not mean "guaranteed", and there is very simply no basis to say that meeting NOLY means GNG and any expecation of sources beyond the (incomplete) statistics of a single event goes down the shitter even when such "sufficient sources" do not actually exist. NOLY doesn't necessarily need to be changed, rather there must be understanding that it's not an absolute guarantee. Not to mention that such statistics of the notable event including the name and perfomance are in fact preserved, so that a duplicative stand-alone article is not mandatory. Reywas92^Talk 23:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The SNG most certainly overrides GNG in the presumption of notability. WP:N says so in black and white. You have no knowledge that sufficient sources do not exist.Jeff in CA (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has consistently been that those "amateurs who were excellent at their sport" are notable enough to include. You want to override that longstanding general consensus, you should have to do better than an evenly divided !vote where the closer uses a WP:SUPERVOTE to ignore the people pointing to said longstanding general consensus to keep Olympic athletes--of all eras--as notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, though; as a number of people have already pointed out, regardless of whether they're notable or not, if insufficient RS are available to write the article, then there can be no article. Black Kite (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? "Regardless of whether they're notable or not"? The only reason given to delete is notability. There are plenty of reliable sources. The Official Reports, the IOC website, Mallon's books, Olympedia, etc. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and for notability we look at WP:GNG; "Significant coverage in reliable sources" is a long way from "a few statistical mentions on the Internet from which we can't even determine their full name". Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn close whcih misread the discussion (should have been no consensus) and IMO misinterpreted the SNG. But then draftify or userfy until somewhat better sources are found and added to the texts. Alternatively, permit recreation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse largely per Masem, WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG applied correctly, no error on closer's part. Zaathras (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: Oh for pity's sake. NSPORTS is bloody well clear: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." There is nothing in NSPORTS guaranteeing an automatic exemption from the GNG. Beyond that, the GNG is clear as well: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (emphasis in the original) The most reliable of sources, setting forth a trivial mention, does not satisfy the GNG.

  The bottom line was that the closing admin/s administered policy and the pertinent notability guidelines correctly, and were under no onus to slavishly obey a headcount. DRV is not for relitigating closes that you don't like. Ravenswing

06:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N: "in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate (such as print works in libraries local to the topic) or that sourcing will likely be written ... These are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline." I propose a 30-year limit from the day that an article is created in Wikipedia as being reasonable.Jeff in CA (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Serious proposals only, please. I suggest thirty days. Wikipedia hasn't even been around for 30 years yet. An exemption this long might as well be permanent. Reyk _YO! 10:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Truth be told, if you asked what I'd like to see enacted? That from three days after an article was created, it would be subject to immediate speedy deletion if the article didn't contain -- not "demonstrated to exist somewhere," not "seems like there are sources" -- multiple reliable sources with substantive information sufficient to meet the GNG ... that putting in such sources was a prerequisite to the article being in namespace. In short, if the editor writing an article can't be bothered to properly source it (and from where, pray, is that editor coming up with the information to write that article if not from reliable sources?), it shouldn't be in namespace until that happens. That would abolish the need for SNGs, all but abolish XfD, abolish a lot of hassle for admins and vandal fighters, make a lot of lives a lot simpler. Doesn't stand a chance in hell of ever happening, but even so. Ravenswing 11:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist Ugh. I think the closer is right on policy and right about the close. If there are no independent sources, the article must be deleted. That said, there is a recognition by all in the discussion that these athletes did participate in the Olympics and would meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Instead of a close of a delete, I think a better option would have been to relist with a specific question to evaluate the existing sources. --Enos733 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Ummm ... with respect, I would submit that asserting that the Endorse voters all believe that these cyclists meet WP's notability standards is dramatically in opposition to what we've actually said. Ravenswing 15:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would question inclusion if there was adequate independent sourcing of each subject - that is, no one is questioning WP:NOLYMPICS - only whether the sourcing is adequate. --Enos733 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope and trust none of us would. The fact is, though, that six of the seven ten of the eleven Endorse voters believe that there is no adequate sourcing for these articles, and suggesting that we feel otherwise is seriously mistaken. Ravenswing 00:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ravenswing. You're reading more into our words than we put there. Reyk _YO! 08:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closer properly applied the guidelines outlined in the very FAQ of NSPORTS and GNG, while not being swayed by a head count. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If there is so little written about a person that we cannot even discern his first name, there can be no question that WP:V is not met. The burden of proof sits on those seeking to include information. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:NOLYMPICS is badly flawed because we frequently ignore WP:GNG in interpreting the SNG, which is incorrect (everything must ultimately pass WP:GNG.) If more than a microstub can be written about any of these people, then we can have an article, but I don't see that being the case here yet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per BK, Masem, NOTAVOTE, and V policy being non optional. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn It has been shown there isadditional information. I don't think there is consensus about the relationships between the UNG and the SNG for sports We could decide that the SNG is an alternative, expanding notability in that area rather than a limitation decreasing it, or that it is a limitation, or even that both have an equal role and the relationship in any one case is to be determined individually. Personally I preferred it should be a limitation on being GNG but I also think that should be much narrower than it currently is. My !vote is therefor based on the principle which I think should be applied rather than the individual instances DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per many of the above (and as the original nominator), and seriously questioning the reliability of Olympedia. At the time of the AfD, no "Guilio Vianzino" existed at Olympedia as far as I can tell (as can be seen on the Internet Archive, in June he was still simply "Vianzino"[6]). Now suddenly this "name" appears, even though the first name "Guilio" didn't exist at all in Italy (for example, not a single person with that name is listed at it.wikipedia). The source for this change? Unknown. Verifiability? None at all. They probably meant to use the name "Giulio", which is a common Italian name, but that one as well is completely unverifiable. When a website suddenly posts new information right after an AfD ended in delete, and this information is then used to recreate an article and challenge the AfD outcome, but the new information turns out to be incorrect, then I get a rather bad feeling about all of this, and see this more as a stronger reason to delete this (as the one source that was used in these articles turns out to be less reliable than was thought), not a reason to overturn this at all. Fram (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (addendum), oh and the claim that "for this particilar person, Franzen was a member of "Union Vélocipédique de France", so it's likely information on him with this information can be found in old newspapers. " is not actually helpful either; the Union Velocipédique is simply the national cylists union, where every cyclist who competed in races in France was a member of. Basically, we had "Franzen was a French cyclist", and the info you add tells us "Franzen was a French cyclist". This helps nothing at all in finding information in old newspapers, the membership doesn't narrow things down one iota. Here as well, it looks as if this "new" information has been added to the site very recently, even though it is not an affiliation as used for other sporters (where a specific club is added) but a membership of the national cycling union. People seem to be adding random information (in one case wrong, in the other case trivial and wrong as well if intended as a club) and then others(?) are using that information to justify having articles on these people here. Instead of this DRV, it may be time to disqualify this source from being used, as people seem to be adding whatever they want to it. Fram (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Guilio is an existing first name (including in Italy) see here. Also nobody at the Italian wiki has surname “ Vianzino“; so that doesn’t say anything. The name can be found in old Italian newspapers. (And no, I don’t have access to the Olympic database and didn’t send the information.) SportsOlympic (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't use something like namespedia to support your claims. Their most common "Guilio" is "Guilio Meroni" (twice), which only exists in Namespedia.[7]. Their second result, Guilion Dallocchio, only at namespedia[8]. There is a Giulio Dallochio though[9]. The most common "Guilio" one can find are all in English-speaking countries, and are at first misspellings of Giulio (since then, it seems to have been used in the US a few times). No evidence of any Guilio in Italy, although there is plenty of evidence that Vianzino existed as an (uncommon) name. Fram (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not needed to investigate this here. The point is, it's an existing name and under this name he also appears in at least 1 old newspaper. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignoring for the moment how your first point is not supported by anything at all, how do you know that "he also appears in at least 1 old newspaper"? Perhaps you could then provide that information here (name and date of the newspaper, link if possible)? Fram (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to know that myself. You assert that the name appears in old newspapers. Which ones, and on what dates? Ravenswing 12:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1918 in Moldova (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Existing practice is to have years for modern countries in Europe, even at a time they were not independent countries, see e.g. Category:Years_of_the_20th_century_in_Poland, Category:18th_century_in_Romania, Category:18th_century_in_Italy, etc. Review is requested for all pages in the original CfD. I consider the nominator failed to inform interested users, as no user was personally notified: search results. There's no explicit notificaton of Wikiproject Moldova either: talk page. Thus, this goes against due process. Anonimu (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to raise failures to follow the deletion process. It is not a venue to raise matters that could have been raised during the deletion discussion or re-raise matters already raised there. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Consensus at the CfD was pretty clear to delete them. And AFAICT current practice is moving away from these overspecific and underpopulated categories. Reyk _YO! 10:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because that was the CFD consensus. What to do? Well, I can't think of any very good way of categorising areas under times of tumult, but that doesn't inhibit the categorisers (nor maybe should it). Why not do rather like like Renata3 and seek advice from those interested in Moldova leading here? The issue you raise here is a somewhat different one from that, I think. If there is consensus the matter could be re-raised at CfD (which is Categories for discussion, not just deletion) or simply implemented. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist CfDs are easy to miss. The Wikiproject in question wasn't notified. They also weren't notified of the June 15th CfD. It may well be this is the right outcome, but doing so without making those who care the most (and likely know the most) aware of the discussion seems problematic. I'd rather be right than rushed here. Hobit (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hobit, Which wikiproject? Are you talking WikiProject Years or WikiProject Russia? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sceptical of making WikiProject notifications mandatory. It seems to suggest that the community needs a project's permission to do anything, and these notifications often amount to canvassing for keep votes given the fanboyish nature of many wikiprojects. The latter concern might be less of an issue for categories than it would be for articles, but still. Reyk _YO! 14:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not so much a matter that the wikiproject wasn't notified, it's that nobody was, unless they happen to watchlist CFD or those particular categories - they don't have remotely the same visibility that an AFD tag on an article does. Previous practice at DRV (recentish examples: 1 (the file), 2, 3 (the template)) has been to relist in such cases so long as the person who missed the discussion has a rational argument that could have affected it. I haven't ever participated in category maintenance of any sort outside the occasional C1 speedy deletion, so I can't make an informed assessment of how likely Anonimu's participation would have been to change the CFD outcome (gut feeling: not very). But I know it's not reasonable to reflexively forbid further discussion because three users already quietly decided it amongst themselves in an obscure backwater of Wikipedia, complete with "Beware of the Leopard" sign. —Cryptic 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A dozen years on, CfD is still broken.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring to Wikiproject Moldova, but yeah, any of them. In general, with CfD, I'd prefer we by default relist low attendance ones where deletion sorting isn't used and there is a rational cases to be made that the wrong thing was done. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  They were notified of the June 15th discussion, which is great and maybe enough. Not sure. I'm not pushing for these to be mandatory by the way, but I do think the lack of notifications can be a good reason to believe a better discussion can be had. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Where exactly is the notification?Anonimu (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As for notification: Some of these categories were originally listed on 15 June, and a larger set was re-nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_9#Early_C20_in_Moldova. A good number of the nominated pages were tagged with WP Moldova, so the nominations were successfully reported on that project's Alerts page, see [10] and [11]. Automated alerts have been the main method of seeking participation from WikiProjects for several years now. IMHO, five weeks on the Alerts page is more than enough time for project members to notice the discussion.
• As for retaining the anachronistic categories for previous periods: decisions at CFD about this practice have been mixed. I did at least suggest at the 15 June discussion that the Moldova hierarchy should be kept, but no other editors supported it there, so I did not repeat that aspect in the re-nomination in July. Please note my comments in that CFD that all the former member pages of the deleted categories are still within the Moldova hierarchy as Moldovan political parties etc.
• One option for Anonimu/ WikiProject Moldova to consider would be to expand Category:History of Chișinău with at least a C20 category, and perhaps some decade categories if there would be enough content for them. – Fayenatic London 23:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn’t seem right for “cleanup” to start with small countries with a naturally smaller editor base (one editor above seems to think Moldova is just a region of Russia). I only became aware of this discussion as categories began to dissappear in articles, some time after the discussion was closed. While I don’t consider myself a WP expert, I have been here for 15 years, making more than 10,000 edits. If this was able to pass under my radar, it certainly didn’t reach the less experienced editors among an objectively smaller selection of editors actually contributing with content related to Moldova. Anonimu (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. DRV is for cases where the page was deleted and someone with a novel argument disagrees with the result. If someone disagreed with a keep result, they could simply renominate it for deletion. But what to do if a page is deleted? If they tried to recreate the category, it would just get WP:G4'd. They can't create a draft and submit it for review because there is no AfC process for categories, and it wouldn't make sense to have one anyways. If we disallow DRV, then there are literally no avenues of appeal left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This has been discussed in 2 CfD discussions (1, 2) and I see nothing wrong in either discussion (of which I was a participant). Granted, CFDs (or any discussion) are easy to miss, but this discussion happened, was open for longer than most discussions usually are and was the subject of debate, even if larger notification of the discussion could have happened (as for any discussion). I missed it is probably not a sufficient motivation to overturn the decision, especially as the stakes are quite low herefor a few scarcely populated chronology categories about interwar Moldova/Bessarabia that create more problems than they solve and do not form any coherent structure. Place Clichy (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There were only 3 participants in the discussion, including the nominator. A sloppy search in their edit history shows none of them ever edited on an article related to Moldova. Since I doubt CfD is watched by many content editors, refusing review means a small group can wreak havoc without any possibility of appeal.Anonimu (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The discussion wasn't great, but per the above discussion and the fact notification requirements are not strict there's no "due process violation" here, and the result, I think, is correct. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of League of Legends champions (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I attempted write an article on a similar topic (League of Legends champion), (now in draft-space here but content was immediately redirected by an admin due to being perceived as being a recreation of an article which had been deleted in the past. The reality is that it's not. Regardless it's been five years since the older article was deleted and it's since accumulated much media attention. @Salvidrim!: has declined to allow the link to be created so I've made a listing here.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Prisencolin (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a lot of issues going on with this, not the least of which is asking for a review of a 4 year old AFD, which has already been reviewed by DRV, though I believe he was instructed to do that. Prisencolin was given a copy of the original article after it was deleted by AFD as a user draft, under a restriction it must go through review at DRV and he could not move it to mainspace. As with the last DRV, he hasn't notified the deleting admin, so am pinging @Sandstein: and also @Cryptic: who restored the draft. He did not follow the agreed to instructions and submitted the draft to AFC in the last couple weeks, where it was declined on notability grounds by @AngusWOOF:. After that, Prisencolin began shopping around, including asking Salvidrim who had salted the article after the user draft was restored, and asking the AFC Helpdesk. When those avenues didn't get traction, he reformatted the article as being about the general "concept" of a LoL champion. This is a gamecruft subject that is in no way independent of the parent topic. Prisencolin has a history of attempting to make League of Legend cruft articles that are in my opinion becoming disruptive. Please see the page move and contribution history of Runeterra, another LoL in-universe topic he's trying to game past AFD by "redefining the scope" of the article after moving and round robining and splitting it during an active AFD discussion. Note that the new version of this article has been returned to draft space and submit to AFC again. -- ferret (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is ENTIRELY different in is content so I wouldn't even attempt to consider it the same article. I just listed it here in an attempt to assuage any concerns that it was a a recreated of previously deleted content.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we having a DRV on a 4-year-old AFD? Why not just propose it on the talk page and get consensus as to whether it's worth splitting off again? Has the list of champions become notable? Have characters been given merchandise? Been used in other media besides the game itself? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to take this to DRV if I wanted to recreate the content, so that's what I'm doing. I just waited this long as I believe now is the right time to recreate the content in partial. I didn't bother bringing it up on the talk page of the League of Legends article because I knew most of the other editors on that page would be irrationally opposed to this new article so I wanted to bring it here for a secondary perspective. The answer is yes to all of your other questions.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, pinging Cryptic, Sandstein admins involved. Also going to give notice on WP:VG AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Speaking of merchandise, Louis Vuitton made a t-shirt with a League of Legends character image.^[1] If that doesn't demonstrate cultural importance I don't know what does.--Prisencolin (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would decline the restoration request because it does not make clear how exactly the new draft addresses the issues identified in the AfD. Also, the content of the draft does not match its title: this is not in fact a list of all the game's characters. Instead, it covers various aspects of the game and gameplay. Such content (if it is relevant) belongs into the article about the game itself. Sandstein 06:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: The characters are also no longer just part of the game, the IP has expanded to other forms of media. This necessitates content to be on a separate article.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No - No. No ✉ 06:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't particularly helpful, so I'll answer the "why" before you even ask: after years of trying to get this list of LoL champions created, several AfDs, a userfication, talk page messages, helpdesk messages, AfC declines, you're now bringing a years-old AfD to DRV... to try and get greenlight to mainspace another deleted draft about, in essence, the same crufty topic? Prisencolin, you're not just beating a WP:DEADHORSE, you're perpetrating genocide on generations of equines with violence of a heretofore unseen magnitude. Stop . Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim: I'm not a fan of you using charged terminology like "genocide" here. Consider the connotation of what the analogies you use before making any more reductio ad absurdum arguments.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close Doing a DRV of a years-old deletion is probably not allowed, per WP:POINT. The original list got deleted for being fancruft, so I wouldn't oppose recreation - as a draft - and properly sourced. As for your current draft, I don't see how the concept of a champion in League is notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zxcvbnm: Have you seen the article? There are numerous reliable sources discussing the very topic of a "concept".--Prisencolin (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't appreciate the WP:BLUDGEONing here. I could explain why I don't think it's notable, but I don't think anything will ever convince you, so I won't even bother. That's a sign you already lost the argument, because nobody is willing to even engage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Zxcvbnm: I think you may want to look again, an AFC reviewer just commented on this thread and states that that not only does the the topic likely meet WP:GNG but also has "better sourcing than 90%" of articles.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I implore everyone to consider the circumstances which have led this topic to become more notable in the past few years since the last AFD in 2015:

League of Legends has expanded beyond a single game to become an entire franchise and with multimedia installments. Characters have been featured in other games, real life musical groups, comics, an soon a animated television series. Information existing on the page for just League of Legends is inadequate as the information also pertains to Legends of Runeterra and Teamfight Tactics.

In particular, the virtual K-Pop group K/DA, which has an article on Wikipedia, has been praised for one fictional character’s rapping ability, even by those who aren’t fans of the original game. Having a page on information on champions broad will provide necessary context for understanding the information on this article.

Within the game itself, over 30 new champions released, with most of them receiving significant press coverage in the most widely read gaming publications like IGN, PC Gamer, Escapist, Polygon etc. (the following links are for each of the 30 releases:[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][ This coverage even transcends routine coverage such as controversies over the design of one character.[21]

--Prisencolin (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Riot Reveals New Champion Tahm Kench, The River King" is just a description of in-game abilities; no actual opinion or background information
• "Learn all about Aurelion Sol, League of Legend's new dragon champion" is the same. It's summed up by "Now we have a lot more details on how exactly this character will play."
• "Full details on new League of Legends champ Taliyah revealed" is the same, just about gameplay
• "League's newest champion rides a lizard and generally goes HAM" is more of the same. "Like a Thresh’s hook, Kled tosses a beartrap on a rope to snag the first champion it hits and deal damage to anything else in the way. The beartrap stays latched and and then the target is reeled in, slowed and damaged." Really, great stuff.
• "Camille guide: How to play League’s newest champion", more of the same.

Look, at this point I'm not going to copy-paste every link posted because it's all the same gameplay material. There is barely anything encyclopedic about the characters in the least. Creation, inspiration, development, reception. Like you said, "League of Legends Dev Responds to Complaints of Oversexualizing Its Newest Character" is the only item that "transcends routine coverage". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: Mashable did a story on a pair of champion releases in 2017, which was significant because no other champions had been A) Lovers in the story and B)able to give each other specific in-game buffs.^[2]

• • @Soetermans: It literally doesn't matter if the source was written as part of a game guide if it's been determined to be reliable. That's not what WP:GAMEGUIDE says. In any case, those are also related to character announcements. Besides, don't take it from me, another editor has literally said those kinds of articles are admissible for notability in this past discussion. Regardless you also have to consider the characters' notoriety from recent musical groups, comics, tv series and other media. --Prisencolin (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1, the draft article is essentially WP:SYNTH. It takes a large amount of minor mentions of various champions which do not prove that the concept of champions as shown in League of Legends was ever individually notable, the character select idea has been used throughout gaming history._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly disagree that it's synthesis. But to get another perspective I've posted the draft the OR noticeboard.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: As far as I can tell I’ve made no original statements in the article, with every statement being summarized from its sources. Juxtaposition is not synthesis either per WP:SYNTH, and there’s no concern of WP:FRANKENSTEIN being build since the League of Legends champions being discussed in the various sources are indisputably the same category of League of Legends champions.—-Prisencolin (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Salvidrim. Most of those articles Prisencolin linked to above are just announcement articles or skill explanation guides, nether of which really give a hero any real notability (and when you want to list every one of the 100+ heroes in the game in an article, that becomes a problem). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about League of Legends character appearances in other media like comic books and award winning K-pop groups and characters who had skins designed by Louis Vuitton.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - ferret just about sums it up. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sergecross73: Most of Ferret's post was an ad hominem attack on my recent edit history while making WP:VAGUEWAVES towards supposed unsuitability of the topic and ignoring new sources that have appeared.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close. AFD was over four years ago. If the subject is notable the article can be recreated. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stifle: I've been talking to the other editors who've commented here about recreating the article in some form, but they insist it shouldn't be. The link it also salted and requires admin privileges to be created. That's why I listed it here.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it's pretty clear how other people think about it, so let's WP:DROPTHESTICK, huh? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that's clear is that you clearly ignore legitimate evidence and sources for this topic's existence, especially for that information that has come out in the last five years. For what reason, either you don't like the topic, maybe you don't like me I can't care to speculate.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The process of designing of League of Legends champion was covered by NBC News.^[3][4]--Prisencolin (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, first of all, IMO, no one should be requiring AfC for anything. Yes I understand why it was here, I just think that's a really horrible thing to force someone to do. Secondly, yes the AfD is old and yes folks have been a pain in the rear about it. But this is way over the GNG bar with plenty of academic coverage (mainly on gender). Not having this article would be akin to not having an article on the various Pokemon or even the various positions in soccer (which I just assumed existed as I typed that and am glad to see does exist). I don't see how anyone can make an argument that the draft doesn't meet the GNG. And while I can see a WP:GAMEGUIDE argument, I don't think it applies here. In any case, I'm a AFC reviewer and I'll be happy to approve the draft--it's got more and better sources than 90% of our articles. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, I will add that the topic of champion selection in the context of Computer Science and Mathematics was written about in an academic research paper by university researchers. Not only is it of significant culture and academic interest, but it's also a multidisciplinary field. I didn't add this to the article because it's not my area of expertise.
    Lee, Choong-Soo; Ramler, Ivan (2015). "Investigating the Impact of Game Features on Champion Usage in League of Legends" (PDF). St. Lawrence University. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    Gao, Gege; Min, Aehong; Shih, Patrick C. (November 2017). "Gendered design bias: gender differences of in-game character choice and playing style in league of legends". OZCHI '17: Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not considering the actual notability of the article here, but addressing the replies above: As I understand, G4 doesn't have a time limit on it, so the AfD being 4 years ago doesn't really matter, it should still be possible to delete per G4. What does matter is if the article is substantially the same. If the argument here is correct, then the sourcing at least should be far better. If it isn't, G4 continues to apply. If it is, then recreation should probably be permitted, as we usually do, even if the new sources might still be unacceptable, and then sent off to AfD. I don't see how this DRV is POINTy either - the title is salted. This would seem the appropriate venue to have that reviewed (per WP:DRVPURPOSE). Yes, there's point 13 of the "DRV is not" criteria, but that applies for uncontroversial undeletions of very old articles, where new sourcing has arisen since. This clearly isn't uncontroversial, since there's still preferences expressed here for keeping that page deleted, so I think this falls into DRV's purview per #3 of what DRV is. Finally, I agree those moves by the editor requesting DRV, regarding Runeterra, are problematic. And I'm assuming Draft:League of Legends champion the article which is requested to be created at List of League of Legends champions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Ferret, Salvidrim, and Soetermans. There's a good reason this article was deleted before, as it lacks any notability. Game announcements and press releases don't automatically make something notable; Wikipedia is not a news outlet and none of them offer any critical analysis. Considering that this got deleted four years ago and nothing has changed regarding its notability, I see no reason why it needs an article. The BLUDGEONing and weird accusations coming from the nom is also nothing short of ridiculous, and shows how little they care for site policy and WP:GNG. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 19:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Namcokid47: Please see some of the academic writing on the subject I and another editor listed a few comments up as well. Also none of the those sources should considered press releases because they all came from news organizations, secondary sources.--Prisencolin (talk)
• Oppose I don't believe in being bureaucratic, and if someone picks a reasonable forum, we should discuss it. But now that we're discussing it, even the new draft runs into a lot of the same problems as the old one. There's already a good summary of this in League_of_Legends#Champions and I don't see what this new article adds. That probably explains why there isn't much secondary coverage that offers more detail than what we already have. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sandstein: Can you temporarily restore the deleted article from the time of its deletion so editors can view it please? Thanks.—-Prisencolin (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He can't. It was already restored and moved to your userspace, and then to draftspace, by you. It was already restored, under an agreement it would not go live without this review occurring. Consensus seems pretty clear. -- ferret (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • In this case would the content as of September 2015 be temporarily forked under the page title List of League of Legends champions? I believe it is this one.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would it need restored to mainspace? Anyone can view that diff. I think you're missing that many have already seen both forms. Content isn't the question, but the topic of LoL champions as an independent subject from LoL itself. -- ferret (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In regards whether it's an independent subject, that's a question for AFD not here. The burden of proof for article recreation is primarily whether it is significantly different or improved compared to before. As of now I don't see anyone here prove the opposite yet.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The concept of League of Legends champion design was covered by Tribeca News, an outlet that's only tangentially related to video games.^[1] I don't see how you can't consider this concept as independently notable from League of Legends itself.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If this isn't a G4 - I can't tell - it should be restored and taken to AfD. Many of the arguments here are AfD arguments, and my assumption is that it's not a G4. SportingFlyer T·C 22:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turki Almohsen (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to contest this speedy deletion and wants admin to review and if they think that the page is notable then restore it.

This page was first deleted by Mr RL0919 sir on 26 January 2020 due to low quality references but yesterday i asked Mr RL0919 to recreate this page as i have seen many notable links nin Google News, he suggested me to make draft which i did and the page was reviewed and moved to main space but today it is deleted again for recreating it, even though the references are fresh and from the notable newspaper such as Alkhaleej and Arab News including Al Bayan.

Article in ArabNews a notable website and newspaper of Saudi Arabia ^[2]

Article in Alkhaleej Today a news group of AlKhaleej. ^[3]

Article in Broadcast Pro a magazine of Middle East. ^[4]

Article in Dailytimes a Pakistani English Newspaper and website. ^[5]

Article in Oyeyeah a news website of Pakistan. ^[6]

Article in Mid-Day out of the box but still notable. ^[7]

These are the references of Arabic Newspaper aka Arabic News Website:

Article in AlKhaleej Arabic Newspaper and News Website. ^[8]

Article in Al Madina news website of Saudi Arabia. ^[9]

Article in Albayan one of the oldest news magazine of Arab Emirates. ^[10]

5 News References which i mentioned here has a Wikipedia Page as well such as these: Al Khaleej (newspaper) Daily Times (Pakistan) Mid Day Arab News Al Bayan (newspaper)

I also want to clarify that i create Wikipedia pages voluntarily and i am not involved in paid editing, neither anybody told me to create the page nor i know the public figure personally, but its hurt when the page get deleted even with having a solid references.

Hope to receive positive feedback from the Honorable Administrators.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4. The recently created version included a plausible claim of significance -- hosting a notworthy competition -- arising only in the last few weeks, which could not have been included in the version AFD'd in January. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Dishonorable admin here, the G4 was absolutely appropriate. The recently G4'd version looks nearly identical to the last deleted version. The only differences were one extra source, and a missing paragraph. The XfD close was also appropriate, seven delete votes and zero keep votes, and a finding that most of the extant sources were either paid for garbage or churnalism. The linked to sources here don't much change my mind on the issue, I see little of quality. The two ncbnews sites are fake virus sites. The ArabNews and alkhajeetoday source are the same, makes me think it was a press release. The translation of the arabic sites was too poor to be of much use :/ CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I now realize that the NBC sites were actually from the above DRV, which didn't properly contain them. Regardless, my conclusion stands. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @CaptainEek The NBC News is not of this article it is of someone else article which is posted above i.e League of Legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memon KutianaWala (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: While I can't see the G4'd version, based on the poor quality sources offered above, I can't see that this subject is notable. Lots of very obvious press releases, and publicity agent sponsored bios (hint: if it shows up in more than one place, is talking about an event in the future, and there's no by-line - it's guaranteed to be a press release). So even if the deleted version isn't G4'able, it was still the right outcome, IMHO. Waggie (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting admin comment - the old version of the text had more content, but what text was in the new article is identical to what was in the old. My G4 decision came down to sourcing, which was either spam, promotional, or unreliable; it didn't sufficiently overcome the concerns of the AFD. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion from mainspace. That was a very clear unanimous decision that the subject is not notable. A long list of sources have been presented, I looked at some. They are very weak, lacking sufficient material on the subject, even if they are independent. Allow a fresh draft, with strong advice to follow WP:THREE. Youtubers are rarely notable, and more than likely it will take a long time to explain notability-attesting sources to the proponent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naked and Funny (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

<Naked and Funny TV-show is famous all over the world. On talk page of administartor I've send all links that can prove this fact> Helena 6666 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) -->[reply]

• Neutral - On the one hand, this isn't a properly reasoned appeal. As stated, the appellant appears to be relitigating rather than pointing out any error by the closer. On the other hand, it really should be partially overturned to Soft Delete with only two delete !votes after relisting. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I declined to restore it was because the user could not provide enough sourcing to meet GNG at even a basic level. The user would eventually move it to namespace and we'd end up right back at AFD again. Please take a look at the sources they tried to provide which I noted why they failed to work. User_talk:AmandaNP/IP#Naked_and_Funny_undeleting -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Grudging userfy. At least Helena 6666 is upfront about their COI, so I'll give them a helping of AGF for that. I'd be OK with restoring this to userspace, but only with the understanding that Amanda's analysis of the sources is spot-on, and there's no way this is getting back into mainspace with sources anything like that. Remember, this is the encyclopedia anybody can edit, not the encyclopedia anybody can mis-use to promote their employer's TV show. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RoySmith ! Of course I understand that wiki is for information, not for promotion. And just because of popularity of Naked and Funny for over the world - it can't be for promotion. People from more than 40 countries love this show . And there are no needs to promote it on wiki cause we have another ways for that. According to links - I kindly ask to restore the article - and we will try to give more reliable sources. Thanks in advance!Helena 6666 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helena 6666, I said I would WP:AGF. It would be disingenuous for me to go back on that now, but this response makes it clear that you didn't get what I was talking about. In your very statement in which you claim to understand that this is not for promotion, you're touting how many people love the show. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Dance Singles Chart number ones of 1988 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

What I would argue is this. The article for the charts in 1988 seems to have been deleted because the charts were not compiled by the Official Charts Company (OCC). However, what I would say is this: As an example, the The Official Big Top 40 is not compiled by the Official Charts Company, and therefore having the word "official" in the company name is by no means proof of de facto officiality, although OCC is clearly universally accepted as such by most people. Secondly, the deleted charts of 1988 were in fact compiled by the now defunct MRIB, who, were a rival to OCC (at the time called Gallup and then CIN) and were considered of equal importance and reliability to OCC. The OCC chart just so happened to be used by BBC Radio 1 and the now defunct Top of the Pops TV show. Pretty much every other TV and radio show of the day used the MRIB compiled singles chart. This may cause problems given that OCC is universally accepted as the "official" chart provider of the UK, however, I think on Wikipedia we have the opportunity to look into things in more detail and be more accurate. Also, I don't think OCC were compiling any rock or dance charts at this time, so MRIB's seem to be the accredited charts for them at the time. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the Official Big Top 40 probably isn't a good comparison, because it's a WP:SINGLENETWORK chart, broadcast only on radio stations that are part of the Global network, and presumably only including an airplay component from their own radio stations. And as a technicality, Gallup wasn't the former name of the OCC – Gallup was the company who had the contract to compile the official charts between 1983 and 1994, when they lost the contract to Millward Brown, who still compile the chart data to this day for the OCC. But that's by the by... it's true that the MRIB were the biggest rival to the official charts at the time, but I don't remember if anyone apart from Capital Radio carried their charts in the 1980s – I believe NME might have done, which would make a stronger case for its reinstatement. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Big Top 40 may well be a private Network chart but the point I am making is that just because the word "official" is used in the title does not necessarily make it the de facto official chart. I am aware that Gallup wasn't the former company name of OCC, but I was keeping it simple and they were the forerunner whose charts from 1983-1994 are still archived by OCC (then CIN). Melody Maker definitely carried MRIB's chart back in the 1980's. See external links: [22] and [23] . Both say: "Charts compiled by MRIB" at bottom of page. Certainly, MRIB's chart seems to have been most widely used in the 1990s but there seem to be a number of publications that published them in the 1980s too.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, thanks for clarifying your position. I knew Melody Maker had also carried MRIB charts, but as the least dance music-friendly publication of all the UK music magazines I don't remember them including MRIB's dance charts, so I thought NME was the better bet. The other place where MRIB was used was on ITV's The Chart Show, but of course this is no use for verifiability purposes. Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you confirming that NME used to include the MRIB dance chart ? I have a source that says that the MRIB charts were published by NME: Barrow, Tony; Newby, Julian (2003). Inside the Music Business p. 90. I also have what appears to be a reliable published source at JSTOR; It requires registration but is free to read: Parker, Martin (May, 1991). Reading the Charts - Making Sense with the Hit Parade, Popular Music, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 205-217. Page 206 states: At the present time there are two large independent charts produced within the UK, the Chart Information Network (CIN) and the Network/MRIB (Media Research Information Bureau). I note that it refers to CIN as also being "independent". Next on page 207, while not mentioning the dance chart specifically, it does say: The MRIB also compile many of the specialist charts featured in the music press, catering for particular genres of music that are unlikely to gain enough sales to put them into either of the other major charts. This would seem to confirm that MRIB was of major importance when it came to publishing genre charts in the music press. There is also this press release from 2002 about the Smash Hits chart: ....data from entertainment research consultants MRIB, radio airplay and request data from Emap's interactive music TV channels The Box and Smash Hits TV to determine the position of a track.. That is from over a decade later but still confirms relevance of MRIB.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could confirm it... however, I'm 5,500 miles away from my collection of NME magazines to be able to confirm they printed the MRIB charts. :-/ Richard3120 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not in scope of deletion review to argue over the substantive content and merits of an article deleted at AFD. DRV is limited in scope in such cases to discussing whether the deletion process has been properly followed.
  Here, we have the nomination and one comment vaguely supporting deletion. This is not a consensus to delete. The appropriate outcome of the debate was relist, or soft delete.
  As such, the deletion process has not been properly followed. Overturn deletion and substitute soft delete as the closure, and treat this nomination as a request for undeletion, so the overall outcome is that the page is restored with liberty for anyone to list at AFD again should they so wish. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, when will the page be restored ? It is still a red link. Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This process will remain open for a minimum of one week whilst editors come to a consensus as to the appropriate course of action. You need to be patient. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I can be patient. @Richard3120 there is this issue of Music & Media that attributes the Dance and Disco charts in 1984 to MRIB: [24]. QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually argued for deletion yet – my worry is that we would need a strict criterion for what would be considered a valid chart. I've already argued with one editor who believed that in the absence of an official chart at the time from BMRB/Gallup, the Blues & Soul charts in the magazine were valid charts for R&B/soul singles in the 1970s and 80s. Record Mirror used to publish the Club Chart, Black Dance Chart, Hi-NRG chart, 12" Singles and Cool Cuts charts in the 1980s... are these any more or less valid than the MRIB chart? I'm just asking, because I don't know how they were calculated. But seeing as Record Mirror was published by the same publishers as Music Week and also published the official charts from Gallup, I'd bet that DJs took more notice of their charts than MRIB's. Richard3120 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What DJ's took notice of after a song had charted is irrelevant. In its day MRIB's main Network Chart was used by pretty much every mainstream TV and radio show outside of the BBC. The MRIB chart was also very similar to the Gallup/CIN chart in terms of how individual songs charted and although there were often differences they tended to be small. I do not know who used to compile those Record Mirror charts, but unless it was a recognized chart provide, which MRIB was, then I think their inclusion on Wikipedia is questionable. I see MRIB as an established and reliable chart provider to the UK whose charts should therefore be acceptable on Wikipedia.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point – I'm not arguing for their inclusion, but I have no idea if they were any more or less official than the MRIB charts. Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Jones (footballer, born 1980)‎ (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although numerically the votes were for keep per NFOOTY, none of them addressed the fact that the NSPORTS guideline specifically states that, per this 2017 RfC, there is no consensus that sports SNGs supersede the GNG. This despite the fact that both myself and another editor brought it up and specifically asked the closer to take that into consideration. Naturally, as a result, no one bothered to presented any sources supporting notability, or even any indication that they thought there might be sources. The closing statement is essentially a supervote disregarding the legitimacy of that RFC, and in further discussion with the closer they stated that they believe the RfC does not reflect policy. I disagree; so here we are. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, process has properly been followed. Prior consensus from RFCs stands until a further RFC changes it; a local consensus at AFD/DRV should not interfere. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete or relist. On the contrary, process has precisely not been followed. The RFC linked above states clearly and unambiguously that "Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion", yet NFOOTY was the *only* reason given by the "keep" voters. The closer's statement ("If having played in a fully professional league doesn't count and WP:GNG is the only guideline that matters, then WP:NFOOTY is totally worthless and should be removed") looks like simply their own opinion, and disregards the fact that an RFC has already taken place on this. If the keep votes had included some extra nuance in addition to NFOOTY, or any other evidence whatsoever, then this might be less clear but right now there is no doubt that the close was incorrect.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This is really complicated and it comes with a lot of history and precedent. Although I haven't yet decided how I feel about that particular AfD, I'd like to offer some context.
  1) DRV has, in the past, decided that there are SNGs that it is not willing to enforce. I'm thinking of WP:PORNBIO.
  2) In the matter of PORNBIO, we found that it's possible for individual WikiProjects to make up their own SNGs, some of which are promoted to guidelines on the basis of a discussion among members of that WikiProject. Not all these discussions were advertised to the wider community on WP:CENT.
  3) This one's going to be controversial, but I personally don't feel it's right to enforce SNGs that weren't promoted to guideline by advertisement on WP:CENT.
  4) The community is very conflicted on sports SNGs. I think this discussion on WT:N (permalink), which at the time of typing has not yet been closed, needs to inform what we decide here.
  5) I think that it's for DRV to decide on this particular discussion, but I think the broader matter of whether SNGs can overrule the GNG is one that can only be evaluated by a sitewide RfC. I also feel that sitewide RfC is long overdue, because this is an old and thorny problem.
  I'm sorry for making such a long and intricate post without coming to any conclusions. My word in bold will follow after more reflection. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears that WP:NSPORT was promoted to a guideline via an RfC which was advertised at WP:CENT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. The closer is absolutely right. What is the point of having specific notability guidelines and then ignoring them (especially when they have been followed in countless other AfDs)? That renders them utterly pointless and their existence a complete nonsense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Statement from closing admin (adapted from what I said on my talk page): There are two types of criteria that might be found in SNGs: subjective criteria (e.g. WP:AUTHOR #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors") and objective criteria (e.g. WP:BAND #3 "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country"). The former can be thought of as a refinement of GNG, since determining what "significant coverage" and "independent of the subject" actually mean could differ by subject area. The latter, however, is clearly orthogonal to GNG. If the GNG had to be met no matter what, all objective SNG measures should be deprecated as useless. The fact that they are still standing is evidence that that is not the case (or that we have a ton of dumb laws on our books).
  The RfC closing statement that "no subject-specific notability guideline ... is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline" is simply not true, as time and time again consensus has confirmed WP:PROF as an explicit alternative to GNG, and even says so in the lead. There is a big difference between an RfC that has found consensus to make a specific change to a policy/guideline, and an RfC that is merely a survey. For the latter, the closing summary was written by two users and has not been audited by the community; there is no consensus of editors that have actually reviewed the 300+ word long close and agreed to adopt every bit of it, enough to be quoted as if it were policy at a later discussion.
  I support a sitewide RfC whose aim is, for every SNG criterion, to either 1) decide that it is a subjective refinement of GNG (i.e. it overrides GNG because it represents the canonical interpretation of GNG, as opposed to merely one or a few editors' interpretation of it at a particular discussion, which can be unreliable at determining what "significant", "independent", etc. mean in the context of a subject area); 2) accept it as an objective criterion which is explicitly an alternative to GNG; or 3) remove it entirely. Under no circumstance should there exist any portion of an official SNG guideline that has no weight in an AfD discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  King of Hearts, do you see any conflict between your close and point one of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ?—S Marshall T/C 13:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The initial version of the FAQ already contained the bit about SNG vs. GNG, and appears to have been supported by a sparsely attended post on the talk page. Given how controversial the topic of SNG vs. GNG is, this is nowhere near a quorum needed to officially adopt such a stance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Although that's true, I think that particular discussion needs to be read in context. NSPORTS was begun in 2007 by User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak904, a troubled person who Wikipedia's more vintage editors might remember as Jaranda. It was marked as a failed proposal for quite a while, and then revived. It was promoted to guideline by SoWhy in 2010 in this edit, on the basis of this discussion, and now that I look at it in more detail there may be scope for a separate conversation about whether SoWhy closed it correctly, although that horse has probably bolted. But in any case, my reading of that original RfC is that (a) it's clear that the participants envisaged NSPORTS as subordinate to the GNG, and (b) there was significant concern at that time that NSPORTS was too inclusive, and (c) that it wouldn't have passed if editors hadn't preferred it to the even more ludicrously inclusive WP:ATH.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, definitely worth revisiting. I have a multi-step plan:

  1. First hold a general pre-RfC to decide our course of action. The rest of the steps are what I would propose in this drafting phase.
  2. List all the SNG pages for evaluation. For each SNG, !voters must decide whether to: a) endorse it as an alternative to GNG in its entirety; b) downgrade it to an essay; or c) send it to a workshop.
  3. For any SNG sent to the workshop phase, !voters must evaluate each individual line item and decide whether to: a) endorse it as an alternative to GNG; or b) remove it from the SNG.

  After all this is complete, there will no longer be any portion of an SNG which is not capable of overriding or serving as an alternative to GNG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse In my opinion, if a guideline is as doubted as WP:NSPORT (namely NFOOTY, which has happened a lot in the past year, either through DRVs, or the talk pages), it shouldn't be a one. Also there is a huge conflict with FAQ of the guideline itself (!) Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ, which seems to have been ignored both by the closer (not really convinced by the reason why) and participants. Sadly, this AfD couldn't have been closed any other way. But it was also a terrible one, where nobody really tried to find anything that would also rebut WP:GNG argument. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The problem is that if we go with the GNG for sports figures, we'll get 3x as many articles as we do now. Having a nice, definitive line for this is really handy. But ignoring that, doing a DRV based on an SNG vs GNG argument is always tricky. I can't say the closer did anything wrong... NC would have also been within discretion IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, after reflection, Stifle's right. That's a reasonable attempt to weight the votes according to the closer's perfectly defensible understanding of what our policies and guidelines said at the time of the close. Endorse for the time being, but leave scope to revisit this after RfC.—S Marshall T/C 17:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - First, the close accurately reflects community input. Second, the appellant appears to be arguing that the closer should have supervoted, although in such appeals, the appellant argues that the community and the close was simply wrong on policy. Third, we do need to resolve the matter of the role of SNGs. As an AFC reviewer, I like objective SNGs, and I would like to be able to rely on them without having someone say that GNG is not met, so I would like to see SNGs be sufficient conditions. I support any effort to resolve things by a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I have to agree with the closer here: the only way you could close that with anything other than Keep is if arguments citing NFOOTY have no weight, and it is reasonable to argue that a subject should be kept because they meet the relevant subject-specific notability guideline. The partipants could have decided that the subject isn't notable because he doesn't meet the GNG, but they didn't. RfCs don't overrule guidelines. Hut 8.5 06:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse or overturn to "no consensus". All "keep" opinions in this AfD and the closer misapplied the SNG. As Premeditated Chaos correctly points out, there is at least no consensus that the SNG can override the GNG. In my view, the SNG only provides for a rebuttable presumption of notability, and it seems to me that this presumption has been successfully rebutted here: nobody has provided GNG-compliant sourcing. But that said, I can't really fault the closer for closing an unanimous "keep" AfD as "keep". And even if we were to discount all opinions in the AfD as being at odds with broader community consensus, this still doesn't give us the affirmative local consensus to delete an article that is required at AfD. Sandstein 09:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was correct and could not have been closed differently. As for a site wide RFC, I think we have to be careful about what we wish for. I do not believe there is a single standard that is going to resolve all disputes across all subject areas - and I believe it is OK to have these perennial discussions about the scope of the project. If we push too much toward GNG (or broadly interpreted as a couple independent news articles) as the sole standard, then we risk assigning notability to lots of amateur and prep athletes while simultaneously not assigning notability for academics, small (or lesser-known) geographies, or biological species that do not receive significant media coverage. The SNGs (including WP:NSPORT) also help to address some of the systematic biases of media coverage and who authors project entries. While the SNGs are not consistent (with each other or internally), they do help with understanding the big picture of importance (from a broader scale). --Enos733 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
• Endorse As should be obvious from this discussion, There is no real consensus about the relationship between the sports notability guideline and the general notable guideline. The balance of opinion has shifted both ways over the years and there is no stable result. Initiate you Asian my placeThe only way of handling things at Wikipedia is to go article by article , and rely upon local consensus. This will obviously yield inconsistent results, and not objectively make a great deal of sense. But that's the way Wikipedia deletion discussions are, and that's the way things are decided here. I think everybody wishes we have a clear rule; However everyone has a different preference for what that rule ought to be. As I've said many times I myself think that we should rely upon special notability guidelines in all fields and use the GNG only as a last resort back up. Possibly a few people agree with me but is has become pretty clear that consensus does not and is not likely to. So I don't actively go around on proposing this at every opportunity--But once in a while I mention that there is an alternative to discussions like this. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As Necrothesp points out, there is no point of having guidelines like NSPORTS if they can be readily ignored at AFD. Calidum 18:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Per Enos733, I failed to find how the close was incorrect?. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The fact that an RFC did not reach consensus either way on a disputed policy/guideline issue is not a justification for rejecting a clear community consensus on a particular article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You should better start a discussion about NFOOTY, not about the closure of this particular footballer. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created this draft and it was declined by a user, the argument gave being "Article has been create-protected due to multiple submissions by a now-blocked user." I've asked questions about what can I do to fix this problem and I've been told that I should request the community to unprotect it here. The page has five good sources and a match report, can someone help? (User:Sebi1990) (talk)

• Allow recreation, draft seems fine. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation - The create protection was imposed in 2016 as a result of sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexiulian25. This is a situation where we now have the tool of Extended-Confirmed Protection, which would permit creation by a reviewer. The create protection can be lifted because it was only needed because of the sockpuppetry, not because of any issue with the subject matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rankoshi, Hokkaido (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, this category (listed on 2 July) has been deleted with the erroneous comment "per discussion" or some such (mobile edit, hard to check, sorry). Three points were made, citing WP:SMALLCAT as if it mentioned not potential: (1) the category only has 2 pages, while at time of deletion there were 5; (2) the nominator couldn't find other relevant pages, when they are now in receipt of an explanation as to how to perform a Wikipedia search; (3) recreation were there ever five pages (which, as above, I believe there were when the category was deleted). Please reinstate (and also perhaps hold back from the trigger or provide better reasoning for why it might (have) be(en) squozen), thanks Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category contents at deletion. —Cryptic 01:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Too soon, Maculosae tegmine lyncis has not bothered to contact the closer of the discussion directly before listing a DRV request. And by the way, they also have not notified the closer about this DRV request. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't have to. There are two relevant discussion threads on WT:DRV, if you have a mind to read them?—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, admittedly I was not aware of the two threads. Nevertheless this is typically a situation in which a direct contact with the closer (about the fact that circumstances have changed since the last contribution to the discussion) would probably have made a formal DRV request unnecessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore category. I endorse the close, as it was in accordance with the unanimous consensus, but the pretext for deletion has been overcome as WP:SMALLCAT no longer applies.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Restore Category. The only comment in the XfD was, "no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 articles.". Unless I'm misinterpreting Cryptic's link, there were 5 articles in the cat at the time it was deleted. So why was this deleted in the first place? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, surely, because that was the consensus? I mean, when a discussion's unanimous, it seems harsh to give the closer a hard time for implementing it.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Clearly the wrong result, but I guess I can't lay that on the closer. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Greenfield (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was considered a month and a half ago. Since then (and even since the previous deletion reviews), the Iowa US Senate race has become far more high profile and has attracted significant press attention since then. While not all candidates for all races should have an article, Greenfield is clearly not a sacrificial lamb or an extreme long shot.

The previous deletion review, started by Oakshade, was closed with "There is substantial and well-argued support for the idea that we should have an article rather than a redirect here; but it falls short of a consensus to overturn" by S. Marshall. Since the race has become even more on national radar since then, I think it's fair to revisit restoring an article for Greenfield. KingForPA (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some additional notable source material released since the last review's conclusion include another poll from GQR Research showing Greenfield in the lead [1], widespread coverage of her recent fundraising hauls [2][3][4], a high-profile endorsement from Chuck Schumer [5], and most usefully for a potential article restoration, an in-depth profile from the Daily Beast [6]. These are all testament to the growing profile of the race in recent weeks (all of these are from the last week, even). KingForPA (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The relistings will continue until the article is restored, apparently.—S Marshall T/C 21:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do feel that conditions surrounding the election in question have changed noticeably enough in the month since that last review was opened to warrant re-visiting it, yes. KingForPA (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse again You are talking about the election being competitive, nothing about the candidate herself. Edit at 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The previous DRVs: June 4-11, June 15-24. —Cryptic 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the GNG-coverage goes well into Greenfield's background including The Daily Beast coverage from July 11 that goes very in-depth to her pre-politics career. [25]Oakshade (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]