Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August

< July 2023	Deletion review archives	September 2023 >

Digital Law Asia – Deletion endorsed. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn to redirect and restoration of history. While maintaining previous arguments to keep, a redirect seems suitable for the moment. Proposed _target: the updated publication section at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law.

To the esteemed administrators and fellow editors, I humbly submit my perspective regarding the recent deletion of the article in question. While Wikipedia operates on a model of collaborative editing and consensus-building, it is worth noting the principle stating, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus."[1] In the discussion surrounding this article, a few editors kindly offered their insights. However, it appears that many comments were, with the utmost respect, more conclusory in nature rather than presenting substantive arguments. Such comments, while valid, might not fully capture the nuances and complexities of the subject matter at hand. On the other hand, there were multiple contributions from this editor presenting comprehensive and cogent arguments in favor of retaining the article. These arguments humbly offered a holistic view, shed light on overlooked aspects, and contributed significantly to the consensus-building process. In light of these considerations, I respectfully urge a reconsideration of the decision, placing emphasis on the depth and substance of arguments presented rather than their number.

Furthermore, as outlined in Wikipedia's deletion guidelines for administrators, a guiding principle states, "When in doubt, don't delete."[2] Indeed, this principle was emphasized in bold on Wikipedia's deletion guidelines for administrators page. Given the presence of reasonable doubt in this scenario, I believe it would have been more prudent to lean towards preservation. Given the shades of doubt that emerged from the deliberations, it appeared, at least to me, that the principle of being cautious in our decision-making held significant relevance.

A relevant Wikipedia information page states that if no consensus emerges "the article stays."[3] After reviewing the discussions and the points raised, I genuinely feel that a "rough consensus" was not clearly established. With this in mind, and in reiterating the arguments previously presented on the discussion page, I kindly propose that the article be reinstated. Because of these procedural problems, this editor humbly suggests to overturn the decision and ~~keep~~ redirect the article.

I am deeply appreciative of the time, effort, and dedication each administrator and editor has devoted to this process. It's discussions like these that uphold the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. I trust that our collective aim is to ensure the most accurate and comprehensive representation of information for our readers. In this spirit, I hope for a reconsideration of the decision to delete the article based on lack of consensus. Thank you for your understanding and consideration. Roclawfan (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken another look, I stand by my assessment that the consensus of this discussion was that this is not an appropriate article subject. I would also note to Roclawfan that, while it is not a strict requirement, it is generally expected that one will discuss the matter before going to DRV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect (with restoration of history). While there was consensus against keeping the page outright, there was not consensus to delete the page as opposed to redirecting it. Only the nominator raised points against a redirect, while no other delete voter objected to it. Even the closer opined that [c]reation of a redirect to an appropriate _target is at editorial discretion. While the proposed _target, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law, may not be perfect, a re_targeting discussion can take place on the article's talk page or at RFD. I also recommend that Roclawfan become familiar with WP:TLDR and WP:WALLSOFTEXT to avoid lengthy arguments that often are either not read or breezed over. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I would have opposed redirection for the reason mentioned by Randykitty:
I am not sure that merging/redirecting to the Law School is a good idea, given that this publication is not mention on its website (not even in the page dedicated to Law Journals)
JoelleJay (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, you chose not to oppose redirection at the time of the AFD, and DRV is not the place for you to relitigate the AFD discussion. Carson Wentz (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The possible outcomes of the discussion here were delete, redirect, or merge - not keep, not no consensus - and there was clear opposition to a redirect or merge. Good close. SportingFlyer T·C 09:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse everybody except the OP thought we shouldn't have a standalone article on this subject, and the Keep arguments were not very convincing as they mostly consisted of general statements that the journal is great, rather than providing supporting evidence. For example there was a claim that the subject meets the general notability guideline, but this wasn't accompanied with any references to actual sources. In fact the article did not cite any third-party sources and was entirely referenced to the journal's own website and listings maintained by the journal on other websites. This is a big problem because Wikipedia:Verifiability (one of our core policies) says that all article subjects should have at least one third-party reliable source available. While there was some support for a redirect, there was also some opposition and deletion doesn't preclude the creation of a redirect. Hut 8.5 12:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was consensus not to have a standalone page, no proposals what to with it apart from deleting or redirecting it as an alternative, and this alternative turned out to be controversial, no consensus formed for redirection, so the outcome defaulted to deletion. If someone wants the redirect, they can create the redirect.—Alalch E. 13:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Four editors (including nom) voted against keeping the article in mainspace, and just one (OP here) voted keep. Therefore, keep or NC is not reasonable because of the clear numerical majority and that the strength of the keep side is not strong, as the OP in the AfD posts walls of text and claims unsupported by P&Gs (e.g., in short, the platform's multifaceted approach and commitment to academic excellence make it suitable for a stand-alone article. Regarding overturning to redirect, I usually support closing as redirect even if it is the only vote as so if it is both P&G based rationale and unrebutted (e.g., see my views here). But in this case, 1) the ATD has been explicitly challenged and rebutted by two editors, these being the OP here and the nominator, and 2) the redirect/merge votes just said "redirect and merge to _target" without any further rationales or commentary. Therefore, this is not a case where redirect is significantly better than delete IMO. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect 1) Contrary to the above, there was no opposition to a merge/redirect, but there was a note by the nom that the site wasn't mentioned at the proposed _target (a surmountable problem), and a Keep'er arguing that keep was a better option than merge/redirect--to presume that !vote means deletion is preferable to merging is an interesting proposition. 2) ATDs don't need consensus; a reasonable ATD is to be implemented, as per deletion policy, unless there is no good option OR it's clear that there's consensus that deletion is better than the ATD(s). In this case, the issue is notability, so there is no harmful content (G10-11-12) reason to delete the content while doing a redirect. Again, this is pretty basic policy stuff: getting NN but un-harmful content out of mainspace should be simple to do, simple to revert if better sourcing is found later. Admins deleting NN stuff when a redirect leaving history intact is possible is not a policy-based outcome, regardless of LOCALCONSENSUS. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your second point, but I don't understand your first point. The problem of not being mentioned on the _target page is surmountable, but I wouldn't expect a closing admin to add a cited mention to a page; that seems like an unreasonable burden that would create more problems than it solves. In the future, I would think that at least one Redirect voter should ensure the suggested _target is a valid redirect _target (rather than the admin). Suriname0 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the only thing separating a close between a delete and a redirect is the mention at the _target, then yes, someone, including the closing admin, should insert a bare mention of the to-be-redirected-topic at the proposed _target. Remember WP:DGAF's "When in doubt, don't delete" expects admin efforts to solve problems without deletion, and while it might be a novel interpretation If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page doesn't preclude editing a _target page in order to make a redirect landing there a logical outcome. Again, I realize this is not something we've traditionally expected of closing admins, but it's logically consistent with the values we've conveyed in policy. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse on the primary issue. On the matter of redirection, I read no consensus for or against the proposed _target, even though against is slightly more persuasive (beyond the 3-2 count) which would make redirect preferable, but a delete result within discretion, especially as it's noted as soft with respect to the redirect. I'd thus endorse that also, only restore the history of anyone actually wants to create the redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect A !vote to redirect and one to delete as non-notable are one in the same, with the only difference being that there is a suitable _target in the former case. Any !votes for "delete" should be considered to implicitly support "redirect" given a suitable _target unless they contain a rationale for why the history needs to be erased. Only one delete !voter (the nom) raised any objection to a redirect and that was only to cite that this article was not mentioned in the _target page, which is an easily WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. The other objection to a redirect came from a keep voter and it would be absurd to believe this person would prefer deletion over redirect. Frank Anchor 13:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Only one delete !voter (the nom) raised any objection to a redirect and that was only to cite that this article was not mentioned in the _target page, which is an easily WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem, Randykitty wrote I am not sure that merging/redirecting to the Law School is a good idea, given that this publication is not mention on its website even in the page dedicated to Law Journals...(Emphasise mine). By saying "its website" and linking to the website's page on law journals, I read this as Randykitty meaning that they oppose because National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law's website does not mentions this journal in its website or lists. So this is completely different to opposing because the Wikipedia page does not mention it- am I misreading something? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's the closing administrator's role to determine whether the keep voter would prefer a redirection, and absurd as it may be, the case be made there that there be no appropriate redirect _target, that issue could be read either as consensus or no consensus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin's role is not to assess whether a keep voter would prefer redirection to deletion. However, a closer's role is to apply common sense where appropriate. In this case, common sense would indicate someone who wants the article kept would prefer having part of it kept (e.g. the history) than nothing at all, unless the voter explicitly stats a preference to deletion over redirect, which was not the case here. This became even clearer when the keep voter, who is also the appellant to this DRV, requested it be overturned to a redirect.Frank Anchor 18:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore history if a redirect is created. While there have been some objections to a redirect at the AfD, they are RfD-style arguments on why there shouldn't be a redirect rather than AfD-style arguments on why the content should be hidden from public view. Overall there is no consensus against the redirect, so one approach is to create a redirect, restore the history underneath it (since there was never a consensus to delete those revisions, only that the subject wasn't notable enough for a standalone article), and then anyone can send it to RfD to properly discuss the appropriateness of the redirect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (involved). The rebuttal to redirecting was strong and not adequately challenged. I !voted for delete at the very end of the AfD, well after the discussion on the merits of redirecting; it shouldn't have been necessary for me to state that I explicitly opposed redirection since that should have been evident from the fact that I !voted to delete.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 August 2023

Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui – Endorsed; no prejudice against recreation of the category and initiation of a new CfD discussion. DRV is as much a consensus-based process as any other, and despite some editors making good arguments for overturning the long-ago CfD here, the clear consensus is for endorsing that past outcome. However, there is also sufficient support for allowing recreation and a new discussion that any editor should feel free to restore the category and request cessation of bot-emptying pending a new consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 02:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Original CfD discussion was in 2016, on a spurious basis, in part because categories were poorly populated at the time (primarily with foreign dignitaries who already had pages). This led to conclusions that it was "automatically given to elected officials, are souvenirs for visiting foreign officials, or are too common to be defining" and that the recipients were all listed on the award's existing article.

The Order of Tahiti Nui is the primary national award of French Polynesia. Its recipients receive significant media coverage for having received the award. Its equivalent to the French Ordre national du Mérite or the New Zealand Order of Merit, and its appropriate for it to have similar categories (e.g. Category:Recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite). Like the French equivalent, it is a defining characteristic of its recipients. Contra the original CfD, it is not "automatically given to elected officials, [a] souvenirs for visiting foreign officials, [or] too common to be defining". A look at a list of recipients shows it to be an actual national award, given to French Polynesians who have distinguished themselves to various levels (plus the usual sucking up to foreign dignitaries that goes with all awards of this nature e.g. Prince Phillip's Order of Australia). A look at that list also makes it clear that the assumptions underlying the original CfD were false.

I recreated the category and its subcategories (Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎, Category:Commanders of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎, Category:Officers of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎‎, Category:Knights of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎) a while ago, when building articles for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia/French Polynesia work group. Recipients seemed like good _targets for biographies, and like the NZOM, its a good first cut for notability. Since then I've added quite a number of people to these categories - at least 26 from my watchlist, plus other existing articles I had not watchlisted (examples: Maco Tevane, Jean-Marius Raapoto, John Mairai, Lucien Li, Michel Charleux, Matahi Brothers, Suzanne Chanteau, John Martin (Soldier), Andréa de Balmann, Raymond Bagnis). That work was undone by a bot-run based on a 7-year-old CfD today. --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Orders of chivalry or orders of merit are not defining characteristics. BrownHairedGirl closed the CFD discussion, and BrownHairedGirl was almost always right on the technical details, in particular about categories, and she was right that this order is not defining. She was the expert on a feature that more editors thought that they understood than actually understood, and she had no patience with editors who didn't try to understand guidelines that were not easily understood. She insulted editors who were wrong, but if BHG insulted someone, they were probably wrong; they just deserved to be treated with respect. BrownHairedGirl was almost always right about technical matters. Follow the advice given in the Overcategorization guideline and create lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly that is not the consensus with regard to the Ordre national du Mérite, Ordre des Palmes académiques, Order of Agricultural Merit, NZOM, or a bunch of British awards (down to the humble Queen's Service Medal or British Empire Medal). So what's different about this one? -- IdiotSavant (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Questions for User:IdiotSavant:
- - See Other Stuff Exists.
  - Has there been a Category Discussion that has found that these categories should exist, or are you simply stating that they exist? (I know that I haven't looked them up.)
  - If the latter, you or anyone else can nominate them for deletion as non-defining categories.
  - If the former, that is, if the categories have been nominated and kept, the conflict might be a basis for reviewing the non-defining category guideline. It appear that more editors don't understand it than do understand it, which may mean that it is too confusing.
  - BrownHairedGirl did understand it. She was almost always right about categories, and was often intolerant of editors who didn't understand. She was banned not for being wrong about categories but for attacking other editors when she was right about categories.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - The only two categories related to those awards that have been directly discussed at CFD (that I can find) are Category:Recipients of the Ordre des Palmes Académiques and Category:Recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite, both at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 30#Categories of recipients of orders of merit. Category:New Zealand Order of Merit and its subcategories were discussed tangentially at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 21#Category:Recipients of a New Zealand Knighthood, which deleted another category for being redundant to them. 2013 was of course a long time ago, but then, the 2016 discussion used as a basis for the current G4s is also well beyond what drv tends to endorse in any other namespace. —Cryptic 18:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do wish there were some clearly-defined standard as to when G4 applies to old discussions, but as opposed to in mainspace where article subjects can easily become more notable with the passage of time categories really don't become any more defining with the passage of time so there's no inherent reason there should be an age limit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - The consensus at CFD for quite a few years is that award categories should be considered individually or in small groups rather than in large group noms since similar sounding award may be very different. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 30#Categories of recipients of orders of merit for an example of this from this year. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For context, I speedy deleted this per a request at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Process for speedily deleting recreated categories, and then told the bot that does CfD implementation to empty it with a reference to the original CfD, and IdiotSavant made no attempt to discuss this with me. Not that it would have mattered, since I would have felt duty-bound by the past decision and told them to go to DRV. I don't actually have an opinion on the underlying dispute over whether the category should be recreated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a category geek (I prefer to write articles), and I wasn't tagged in, so I didn't know about that discussion. The first I saw of things was when a bunch of articles showed up on my watchlist as having the deleted categories removed. But at least its provided a spur for the deletion review.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and note I'm making no decisions on the merits here - this is an old category which was originally deleted with limited discussion, as is the case with CfD, and then re-deleted on an administrative technicality. Since this was functionally a contested speedy deletion - does G4 apply because any re-created category would be fundamentally the same as any previous deleted category? - it seems like the "proper" thing to do would be to undelete, and then anyone can take it to CfD for a new discussion, but perhaps I missed the correct rule on category re-creation... SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's workable if any cats deleted at CFD can be recreated without consensus and then a new nomination is required. Then why even have CFD? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle, but considering the discussion was six years old, poorly attended, attracted opposition, and is being challenged again with new information, the correct outcome, by my reckoning, in this specific instance, is to have another discussion about it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as nominator) WP:SMALLCAT was not the original criteria, WP:OCAWARD was and that's an editing guideline that has been made tougher since 2016 so that "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a #DEFINING characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." Take a look at the Order of Tahiti Nui#Selected recipients and judge for yourself if that high standard is met. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That list is rather out of date, as I've only been adding people to it to deorphan things. I guess I should do an update. Of course, that's rather harder now without the category to work from.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: are you able to share the original category contents with IdiotSavant? - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The categories' former contents can be found in JJMC89 bot III's contributions * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added the ones I'd missed into Category:Recipients of orders, decorations, and medals of French Polynesia and updated the recipients list. IdiotSavant (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but Relist anyway - We're kind of in the cracks in the middle of policy and process here. From what I can tell, technically, this was handled fine. However, categories do get re-created all the time, and end up back at CfD. Since there's often low participation at a particular CfD discussion sometimes, treating this situation like an opposed Prod, probably isn't the worst idea in the world. And, this DRV is likely to turn into CfD mark 2, if we don't just relist. All that said, I think RevelationDirect may be right that this may still end up deleted. But we should probably give it another go-round at CfD to make certain. - jc37 02:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I'd find it very hard to believe an order of merit awarded by a subnational collectivity of <300k people could ever be a "defining characteristic", regardless of whichever national awards it's modeled off of. This was correctly assessed as violating OCAWARD. Even the page for the award itself lacks citations to any secondary independent SIGCOV...

JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is the appellant requesting to overturn the closure of the previous CFD in 2017, or to overturn the G4? My previous !vote to Endorse was to endorse the 2017 closure.
Overturn the G4 as a matter of not keeping the category salted indefinitely. Allow Recreation of the category and allow a new CFD. The non-defining guideline needs review. Very few editors understand it. BHG understood it. A guideline that is normally misunderstood may be a guideline that should be reconsidered. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wanting to overturn the speedy deletion and restore the status quo ante. Obviously, that might then result in a new CfD. IdiotSavant (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here disputes that the G4 was fine as a matter of policy, so endorse. I'm sympathetic to the argument that editors should be able to "test" an old consensus every once in a while (along the lines of WP:CCC), but in this case it's very clear to me that a new CfD will lead to the same result, so I think !voting to restore would be an exercise in futility. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that, when considered together with the consensus reached at CfD, justifies even more strongly not having this category. That new information is that WP:OCAWARD has become stricter, and I don't see any relevant assertions that this stricter standard is now met. The category would just be deleted if recreated; restoring to see if it would maybe not be deleted after all while knowing that the consensus to delete it has gained extra substantiation relative to when the CfD was closed seems like a bit of an extravagant experiment, because the CfD leading to that outcome would have to be a really terrible CfD, and as such it might then need to be dissected at DRV to see what went wrong, and we're at DRV now.—Alalch E. 00:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and allow recreation without prejudice to a new CfD. I !vote this way mostly as a process thing. We have what appears to be a serious contributor who thinks a poorly attended CfD from 6 years ago should be rediscussed as it impacts his editing. I think that's reasonable. Yes, I think it will likely get deleted again given our current take on the matter. But I think such an editor should be afforded the opportunity to argue their case. And I specifically disagree with the notion that the size of the nation plays a role in if the award can be defining. My sense here is that it probably is not for many, if not most, of the recipients, but not because the nation is small... Hobit (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 August 2023

26 August 2023

25 August 2023

24 August 2023

Black Canary (Dinah Laurel Lance) – No consensus. It appears that this AfD could have reasonably been closed as either "merge" or "no consensus". However, in practice there is not much difference in this case; even in cases where there is a clear consensus at AfD to merge, there is no consensus at the _target page to consent to accepting the new material. The merger should be discussed at Talk:Black Canary and we can proceed from there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The nom commented there there is no consensus (one vote for each option: keep, delete, redirect, merge). I argue that is not correct, per User:Shooterwalker comment (final in the disussion, for redirect) about noting support for merge among delete and keep !votes.. Setting aside that my deletion nomination should count as a second keep vote, I also mentioned merge there. Given merge can be seen as a second preference by most folks who commented there, I think this should be reclosed as a merge. This also would co-exist well with the merge close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Canary (Dinah Drake), although I can't blame the closer for not being aware of that. I do, midly, blame them for ignoring all the references to merge peppered in comments, if not in bold votes, in that short discussion reported here for review. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - I think a no consensus result is within closer discretion on this. Incidentally, that I didn't comment further in the discussion is my own fault, and not that of the closer : ) - And besides, as we all know, DRV isn't XfD part deux : ) - jc37 04:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It's clear deletion isn't the outcome, and if there's a desire to merge, that can be done via a talk page discussion or WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge The closer was not wrong there was no consensus between Keeping, Deleting, Redirecting, and Merging in terms of bolded votes. However, I do think there was a clear consensus this should not be a stand-alone page on the site between the deletes, redirects, and merges, and if you read the votes closely, four out of the five voters explicitly supported a merge, the fifth was a keep !vote, and we also had a friendly commenter who was not against a merge. As a result, I would have closed this as a merge to Black Canary and I don't think no consensus was a valid choice for the closer, though I definitely understand how they came to that conclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - When there is no consensus, No Consensus is usually a valid conclusion by the closer, and it was a valid conclusion by the closer in this case. Some alternative might have also been a valid conclusion, but the question is whether the conclusion was valid, which it was, not whether each of us would have closed differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge along the same lines as SportingFlyer: there was a consensus to "not keep", so the closer should have closed in favor of the most status-quo–ish flavor of "not keep", which is merge. This is especially true when you look beyond the bolded !votes: I suggest this should be merged and I agree that the pages need to be merged and I think the two articles covering Black Canary should be merged and Merge to Black Canary and noting support for merge among delete and keep !votes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because, as the closer suggested, this discussion did not reach consensus. I do see the merge undercurrents in the arguments that have been raised here, and I would also have supported a merge close if one had been performed on that basis. However we insist our closers judge consensus without imposing a supervote, and I am not inclined to reverse a closer for failing to read tea leaves. Of course, there's no reason that consensus to merge couldn't be reached on the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia has a rather poor track record of dealing with complex fictional topics like this one. While I would generally prefer one fictional character article encompass everything about the character in one article, others cite SIZE as a rationale to remove citeable content they believe to be overly detailed, and hence limit coverage of the topic. When such topics (like this one) ARE broken out due to SIZE concerns, there is a set of editors who believe that the breakout article--again, cited content of a notable topic--must itself meet N for the facet of the larger, clearly notable topic it covers. If we solved this dilemma, then DRVs like this one will tend to solve themselves. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to merge: I'm pretty surprised this wasn't closed as a merge, since there is near unanimity in the comments, per WP:NOTVOTE. Rorschacma explicitly supported a merge. Rhishisikk commented supporting a merge (without !voting). Irimia florin supported a merge in their comments (while labeling their !vote as delete). I noted support for merge in my comment (while !voting to redirect). The nominator mentioned merge in their initial listing, as an WP:ATD. That means nearly every editor supported a merge in their comments. It can be tedious to read the actual comments at an AFD, but it's an essential part of looking for consensus and compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to merge which seems to be almost everyone's second choice and hence the consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD can’t effect a merge. Take the merge idea to the article talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can't? Practice seems to say otherwise. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it takes editors to actually do the merge. On doing the merge, editors at the _target may reject their efforts.

”Redirect, with the option to merge from the history”, is what AfD can actually do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, {{Afd-merge to}} begs to disagree. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s just a tag. It doesn’t complete the job. I see the template is used 114 times, and is backlogged weeks to months. Pretty poor practice. Is that what you want, the tag put on top?

Are you offering to do the merge? What if the merge is reverted? Are you going to claim there was a mandate at the AfD? That was not a mandate.

The viable options are to redirect, or refer it the talk page for a proposed merge. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NODEADLINE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know how that response relates to what I wrote. I don’t understand a few things:

1. “Plot summary unnecessarily split from Black Canary”, yeah, ok, but it was three years ago.

2. “where I suggest this should be merged as a SOFTDELETE option”. What does “merged as a SOFTDELETE option” mean?

I don’t see a consensus to mandate a merge, and I think “no consensus” was the right call for the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge per WP:BARTENDER. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oveturn to merge (or redirect) as a ATD agreed upon as second choices by four participants citing reasonable P&G rationales. I was planning to write a more detailed rationale, but SportingFlyer and Extraordinary Writ basically expressed what I wanted to say more clearly and concisely. VickKiang (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak endorse I think this is within the closer's discretion, but I think merge was the better close. Hobit (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge. There was a clear consensus not to keep this in mainspace, and merge had support among several !voters. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same thing? Consensus is clear to keep the content in mainspace. The question is structuring. “Merge” is a vague goal, how to merge a character split is nontrivial. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 August 2023

Portal:Eurovision Song Contest – There is no request to restore the deleted content, just permission to edit without fear of deletion. Consensus appears that the original deletion was sound, but there is no reason that Ktkvtsh cannot continue the new portal/work they're doing. So endorse but moot? Star Mississippi 00:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

When the Eurovision Song Contest Portal was deleted, the portal and WikiProject Eurovision had a major decrease in activity. I arrived in the project last month and have worked towards reviving the project. Now I would like to revive the portal. I assure you there will be no more inactivity/lack of up to date information on the portal. Please allow the Eurovision Song Contest Portal to live. Ktkvtsh (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore if someone's willing to work on it then I don't see a problem with giving them a chance. Hut 8.5 16:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I have no problem with this whatsoever. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - I don't think it should have been deleted in the first place, there were people willing to work on it back then too - but I'm glad more volunteers have arrived to do so now as well. Waggers TALK 20:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion of the portal in 2019. The appellant has already created a new version of the portal, and is welcome to continue expanding and developing the portal, which was not salted. If this is a request to restore the original portal, I will Oppose that. Most legacy portals that were deleted in 2019 had an unsound architecture in which partial copies of pages were created as content forks. This resulted in portal subpages that were not updated to reflect changes to pages due to normal editing or the course of events, such as showing formerly living persons to be living persons. There is no need to restore an unsound architecture. A portal using transclusion can be created. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want the old one restored. Just permission to keep the new one up. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – because of the way the old portal was put together, restoring it to its original state would require restoring as many as 57 different pages, subpages, etc. Now, I suppose we could do that, but since Ktkvtsh has already put together a perfectly fine new portal (and hasn't actually asked for the old version to be restored), I think it's be easier to just say "keep doing what you're doing, and if you ever need access to any deleted material, let any admin know". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want the old one restored. Just permission to keep the new one up. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:Ktkvtsh - Did someone tell you that you would need Deletion Review to create a new portal, or did you have a concern that someone would tag the new portal as G4? Why did you request Deletion Review?

Yes, I was advised to create this request.Ktkvtsh (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adjudicate as G4 immune based on the eyes here. Go forth and do awesome stuff that will be better than what was deleted. Of course, we can't actually keep an admin from G4'ing something if they're not paying attention, but this should speed up the trout-and-restore process in case of that unfortunate eventuality. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And four editors thought that this was a request to restore the portal, and automatically said to restore it. They may not have realized just how unsound the traditional portal architecture with its partially copied subpages was. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a request to restore the portal, or more precisely, permission to work on something without fear of it being deleted quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire – Closure endorsed, although some editors suggest that renomination may be appropriate at some point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closer seems to have based the close on a headcount ("This time, there is more advocacy for Keeping this article"), and did not weigh in on the keep or delete arguments, including the source analysis provided by the two sides. Keep voters consider that the GNG is met with in-depth coverage of two secondary sources, The Yorkshire Post and Debrett's Peerage, whereas delete voters do not consider Debrett's Peerage to be SIGCOV nor a secondary source.

A recent RSN discussion involving three uninvolved editors concluded that Debrett's was, in fact, a tertiary source, thus making it unsuitable for meeting the GNG. I believe this close should be overturned to redirect. Pilaz (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One should not close multiple AfDs on the same article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, especially if the outcome is clear or (as here) you're closing it differently. If you're making a close call and going the same way each time, that opens you up to accusations of bias, but that's not a reasonable argument in this case. —Cryptic 15:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same admin shouldn’t do repeat closes on the same thing. It’s in the path to problems with bias, even if only possible bias, or perceived bias. Even though I don’t see actual bias here, it’s bad precedent. Liz should have !voted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse If the extent of Debrett's Peerage (together with the rest) is enough with regard to notability has been viewed differently, therefore "No consensus" makes sense to me. It was also argued that Debrett's Peerage being a tertiary source prevents it from counting towards notability, but I believe that does not hold true in general: While the condensed form of WP:GNG states that sources "should be secondary sources" - which I think means as opposed to primary ones - the more extended WP:Original research guideline makes clear that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability". Daranios (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see how Debrett's being a tertiary source makes any difference here, while we do usually expect sources to be not primary a tertiary one would usually be acceptable. The Keep arguments made in the AfD were at least reasonable and not the kind of thing where the closer would be justified in downweighting them. Hut 8.5 17:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and overturn This is a difficult one. First, I agree tertiary sources are fine for WP:GNG as stated on WP:OR. As a closer, the discussion fizzled out after the first relist, and there's genuine disagreement as to whether the two identified sources are enough for WP:GNG. I also have absolutely no problem with closers closing different iterations from an AfD if they are as highly experienced as Liz. This leads to, in my opinion, an incorrect result that's completely not the fault of the closer. We only have two identified sources which count towards GNG. First, whether the DeBrett's is SIGCOV is unclear, as there's one assertion it's a database entry and another assertion it's half a page, but nobody found the source. Second, nobody in the discussion identified the Yorkshire Post article as an interview, and it's not the closer's job to do that. From a closer's perspective, you have to endorse this - you have two relatively equal arguments with two relatively equal !vote counts, even if the majority of the !votes were poor. From a participant's perspective - and, just to be clear, I reviewed sources out of curiosity only after reviewing whether the close was okay - this is a really badly sourced BLP, and I'd consider an overturn to delete on the grounds it is obvious we have a BLP who does not meet GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A BLP not meeting the GNG is not a policy line, but is Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!". WP:BLP policy does not require BLP articles to meet notability guidelines. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the policy sections in WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NPF trumps an essay that doesn't even mention sourcing... SportingFlyer T·C 18:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They do, if they apply. I don’t see a BLPSTYLE or NPF violation, and I don’t see claims of violations of these raised in the AfDs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a 2003 version of Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage which can be borrowed from the Internet Archive here. I couldn't locate a later version other than this one, and Nicholas Hill hadn't yet inherited the title from his father (who died the same year), but on page 484 (digital page 636) you can still get a fairly good idea of what the entry of the book for the current marquess could be, and whether it fulfills WP:SIGCOV:

Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage 2003

(ARTHUR) ROBIN IAN HILL, 8th Marquess; b 10 May 1929; s 1989; ed Eton; Hereditary Constable of Hillsborough Fort; hp to the Barony of Sandys: m lst, 1957, Hon Juliet Mary Weld-Forester, who d 1986, da of 7th Baron Forester; 2ndly, 1989, Mrs Diana Marion Hibbert, who d 1998, 2nd da of late Rt Hon Sir Ronald Hibbert Cross, 1st Bt, KCMG, KCVO, and has issue by 1st m.

[A description of the coat of arms follows]

SONS LIVING (By 1st Marriage)

(ARTHUR FRANCIS) NICHOLAS WILLS (Earl of Hillsborough), b 4 Feb 1959: m 1990, Diana (Jane), only da of Gerald Leeson Bunting, of Otterington House, Northallerton, Yorks, and has issue:——

[Continues with an indent with the sons and daughters of Nicholas Wills and their DOBs, then carries on with Nicholas Will's brother]

[Next, lists the daughter and sisters of the 8th marquess in the same fashion, under their respective headings; followed by two sentences under a heading titled "COLLATERAL BRANCHES LIVING"; and, finally, nine predecessors listed under a "PREDECESSORS" heading. The entry ends, and the coat of arms of the next peer in alphabetical order follows.]

Pilaz (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mindful of not wanting to turn DRV this into an extension of the AfD - perhaps I already have. Maybe relisting for further source discussion would be a decent alternative here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was relisted three times already. Given that the result was no consensus it would make more sense to just start a new AfD if someone wants to reopen the issue or add new arguments. Hut 8.5 07:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with that. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. While the source assessment table looks pretty strong, it did not persuade enough people that the answer is delete. There was too much a mix of keep and redirect, and so “no consensus” was correct, however, it should be noted that there was no good argument for “delete”. Therefore it is not a deletion discussion, as so forbid renomination at AfD, unless there is an unlikely very good new reason. There is no BLP problem with the article, it is merely WP:BIO. Allow the discussion to continue on the article talk page, as a WP:Proposed merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - No Consensus was a valid conclusion by the closer, after a low-quality AFD with too many editors just saying Keep or Redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No consensus was a valid reading of the debate, and we are not here to relitigate the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 August 2023

21 August 2023

20 August 2023

19 August 2023

18 August 2023

Poast – Speedy overturn. Out of process A7/human error doesn't need seven days of bureaucracy during summer holidays. Any editor who feels an AfD is merited may file. Star Mississippi 14:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

<REASON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Poast> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what you're asking for. If this is about the A7 deletion, it was very plainly improper - besides having survived afd less than two weeks ago, it has a ref to arguably significant coverage. If it's about the afd itself, then yeah, it's pretty low quality, but the solution to that is to renominate, not bring it here. —Cryptic 06:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think i started a wrong discussion page maybe Wikipedia:Administrative action review is a better choice.Baratiiman (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Baratiiman here (DRV) is the correct forum to review a deletion, the AARV discussion has been closed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The A7 was very clearly incorrect and the deleting admin needs a trout at least. Firstly, nothing that has had an AfD and was not deleted can ever be subject to A7. Secondly the article has a claim of significance in the prose (although this could be clearer). Thirdly the article has at least three references that are unquestionably potentially significant (the USA today and both Daily Dot references). I see no issues with the AfD - arguably it could have been closed as delete instead of being relisted a third time, but the two keep comments after that relist preclude such an outcome. I agree the article is very poor, but the correct course of action given the AfD outcome is to attempt to improve it - if you are successful then excellent, the encyclopaedia is better for it; if you failed to find sufficient information in reliable sources to improve it then renominate it at AfD detailing your efforts. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Baratiiman may be trying to get at is that the admin who deleted Poast did so incorrectly, and they were unsure whether that should be handled as a deletion review or an administrative action review. A quick look at the user talk for that admin shows a lot of speedies that have been questioned there, often with no response from that admin to those questions. Valereee (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy undelete. Not a valid A7. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Anthony Bradbury whether I can simply reverse the A7. I agree that it was invalid. firefly ( t · c ) 10:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs), averaging 30 edits per year, sometimes goes months between edits. WP:WHEEL allows for one revert. Or we can wait for consensus here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this discussion is happening, and seems likely to come to a consensus pretty quickly, I don't see a need to rush any action. Describing WP:WHEEL as "allowing" for one revert feels like saying WP:3RR "allows" for three reverts - technically true but really not something that should be encouraged or regarded as an allowance. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - clearly not eligible for speedy deletion as an article that survived its last AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 August 2023

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad – Delete closure is endorsed Stifle (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

~~The page was deleted in a hurry without proper analysis of the given 68 sources, I can prove the notibility of the article. 202.134.10.141 (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)~~ (IP sock blocked for block evasion)[reply]

The most recent discussion was open for nearly a month - 7 days is usually considered sufficient - and previous deletion discussions date all the way back to December 2014. There was nothing hurried about this. —Cryptic 20:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cryptic. I have to say, of all the AfDs I've seen, few have come with this much history, including four previous AfDs. I stand by my comments at the AfD: a bunch of people voted to keep, but none provided any evidence: "The discussion of the book is described in many sources", "because the article itself says it's passed WP:GNG" (speaking of cryptic), "Obviously this article passes WP:GNG according to above reference"--etc. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn due to admin’s failure to read the whole wall of text, especially the stuff posted after the 3rd relisting.

@Drmies, I can’t believe you wrote your comment above (20:09 17 August, 2023)
I don’t even care about this stupid book but because it had been relisted 3 times, because it was so contentious and because the last relisting admin requested a source review, I spent 2 hours on a detailed review which I said I posted at:
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
Did you even look at this??? I said in my comments on the AfD page that I had posted my source analysis on the talk page because it was so long.

I said the book was notable but recommended merge and delete (merge to author’s page.

I came to this page to support your decision even though I disagreed with it. In general, I support closing admins in tough cases even if I disagree with them.

Now that I see how cursory your decision was, I strongly oppose it.

This is so demoralizing. I just wanted to help and you stepped all over my work.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as 1) I'm not seeing anything improper in Drmies' close and 2) this nomination addresses none of the points at WP:DRVPURPOSE. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: the closing admin has said above he didn’t see any real source analysis. See my comments above. There was an extensive source analysis after the 3rd relisting. Agree with my specific assessments or not, it was detailed and so extensive I put it on the talk page to avoid overwhelming an AfD that was already a wall of text. In my AfD comment I specifically said to look at the talk page.

In light of this, Drmies’s comments above indicate his review was hasty and cursory.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., @The ed17 the irony is that I came here to support the admin since this was a big, difficult AfD and admins need support when dealing with these, even when I disagree with the outcome. I was an admin myself before a long wikibreak.

When I read User:Drmies’s comment above I realized this was actually a flawed, cursory close.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you gave me the deleted version, I could give a source analysis of 68 sources. I request you to give the most broad version of the article as draft page so that I could give a source analysis. In the afd source analysis, they avoided these points, one voter said reference of the Jordanian Journal of Islamic Studies of World Islamic Sciences and Education University can not be taken as it is a fringe Islamic university but it is a public govt. University of a state owned by Jordanian national prince Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad and the Jordanian Journal of Islamic Studies is many times cited by google scholar [4]. ref 14 was reliable when it is in Noormags and Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi of source 2 was former high comissioner of pakistan see here many estalished publishers used "Center for Global and Strategic Studies, Islamabad" as reliable source. And as for source 12, one voter said that undergraduate phd thesis is not acceptable but WP:RS says: "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.". and that's what the ref 12 meets. And ref 13's author Hafiz Muhammad Naeem is in scopus.com. see here. And the writer for the ref 14 (Sayed Mohammad Rouhani) is an assistant professor of University of Religions and Denominations (see it), it, it, it and [article_86920_5c7cc43d6110a9... https://www.entizar.ir/article_86920_5c7cc43d6110a9a5d6975f2add71f6c8.pdf it] by google lens translate). I can give analysis of all the other sources too. See here in Daily Jang and here in Urdu Point by google translate, and here in English in The Nation (Pakistan) and here in Turkish in OdaTV, the book has been discussed there broadly.Also there is media coverage of being converted to muslim by reading this book.^[1] 202.134.10.141 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (IP sock blocked for block evasion)[reply]
- I'm not willing to temp restore the article; the amount of quoting in it is so great - almost three quarters by length, with multiple passages of ten paragraphs or more from individual sources - that it constitutes copyright infringement. I may be convinced to paste the sources - just the links, not the absurdly excessive quotes from them - here, but before I do: are you the same person who previously edited the article from addresses 202.134.8.137, 202.134.10.138, and 202.134.13.130? —Cryptic 21:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  ~~No. 202.134.10.141 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)~~ (IP sock blocked for block evasion)[reply]
  The final revision of the article cited 65 (not 68) sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65. —Cryptic 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Not, btw, that anybody is going to be willing to wade through an analysis of all of those at this point. If you want any hope at all of convincing anybody, the way to do it is to pick the three (and only three) best sources that haven't already been rebutted at the afd. —Cryptic 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cryptic: I already did an extensive source review per Liz’s request in her 3rd relisting comment:
  Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
  
  I got through about 25% of them in 2 hours. I noted the talk page material in my AfD comment.
  
  I’d be willing to look at more but only if I was assured that someone would read them. From comments elsewhere at this DRV about the lack of any source analysis, I don’t think they have.
  
  I have tried to help out by digging for and analyzing sources in tough AfDs, especially 3rd relistings, even if I don’t care for the topic. I am beginning to think this is a fool’s errand and not worth the time.
  
  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  ~~this, this and this. 202.134.10.141 (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)~~ (IP sock blocked for block evasion)[reply]
  If anything, it ought to be an IP sock of Lazy-restless, who originally created an article on the subject and seemed to use socks to recreate it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The ips I mentioned above are all currently blocked as open proxies, so, yeah, take it how you will. —Cryptic 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I was interested on that topic, that's why I noticed the matter, otherwise I don't know the user you mentioned above who it is. And thanks to cryptic for giving the references. 202.134.10.141 (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (IP sock blocked for block evasion)[reply]
Endorse Good close, nothing really to review here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with a formal warning to the appellant. I was about to say "with a trout", but a trout is normally for good-faith silly stuff. This appears to be a bad-faith use of DRV. User:Liz asked for a source analysis in the second relisting, and again in the third relisting. Why didn't the appellant provide a source analysis at that point? The article wasn't deleted in a hurry without proper analysis of the sources. It was deleted after the request for an analysis of the sources was unanswered for two weeks. As User:Cryptic says, the only recourse now is to provide three sources that haven't been refuted. This appears to be a bad-faith use of DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I don’t see how you can say this. See my comment above. In response to Liz’s request for a source analysis after the 3rd relisting, I spent 2 hours and got through about 25% of them. My write up was long enough that I posted it on the talk page so it wouldn’t overwhelm the AfD. I then noted in my AfD comment to refer to this.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct close. No prejudice against recreation (preferably via WP:AFC process). I oppose any formal warnings to the appellant. Carson Wentz (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the appellant was blocked for socking, so this point for not warning them is moot. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note the AfD’s initiator, Aman.kumar.goel, an involved party, has now speedy closed this DRV 3 times [5][6][7] and been reverted 3 times. The last time, he deleted my objections[8], then speedy closed, then told The ed17 he closed since there were no objections[9]. If you look at this AfD’s edit history, you’ll see further problems.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That user has now been blocked from editing the AfD or the DRVs on this day. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored WP:SOCKSTRIKE because it is necessary to preserve here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the close is within reason given the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD ran for more than 3 weeks. I don't see any reason to overturn the closure. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I had not initially read the explanation in the AFD by User:A. B. that there is a partial source analysis on the back side (talk page) of the AFD page. It appears that the closing administrator also had not taken note of that statement. I have struck part of my above statement, because there was a partial source analysis. However, because it was placed in an out-of-the-way place in order not to clutter the AFD, it was mostly not noticed. Putting the source analysis in an inconspicuous place was a good-faith error by A. B. I have a question for A. B., who has called for the close of the AFD to be overturned. What do they want it overturned to: a fourth Relist, or a Redirect to the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, thanks for asking.
Merge some of the book material to the author’s page, then redirect this book article to the author’s page:
- Ved Prakash Upadhyay
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay
This was my recommendation during the AfD. I demonstrated the book is clearly notable and in theory we could keep the book article.

However, there is a similar, later book by the author for which we don’t yet have an article but which the same reliable sources would support. We could thus end up with 2 articles about similar books plus one about the author. It’s better to consolidate all this into one article and reduce the opportunity for forking.

That’s if the author’s article survives AfD. My earlier analysis showed the author was notable; the 2 refs found for the book just further reinforce the author’s notability.

Otherwise, just keep this book article if the author’s article is deleted.

I suggest you look at that AfD for yourself and see what you think.

I’m ready for this Hydra-headed drama to resolve itself.

—04:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The author is also headed for a delete, he fails the notability standards. Merging the book wont help with that. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After that AfD closes, I’ll start a new, “clean start” version of the author’s article and use some the references from this AfD’s talk page and the author’s page to establish notability.

Thanks for giving me the heads up!

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CapnJackSp, I just looked at that AfD - it’s been relisted twice with a lot of keep !votes from non-involved editors.

There’s a chance it could be deleted or formally kept. My best guess is that it will be relisted a 3rd time then closed as no consensus.

We’ll see! In the meantime, I’ll start next week on a re-write of Ved Prakash Upadhyay in my user space “just-in-case”.

Thanks again,

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I struck part of my statement above endorsing the closure, but I am not striking my Endorse. The good-faith appellant, A. B., has failed to make a case that the closer was in error. The actions that the appellant says should be taken can be done through normal editing if the author article is kept. If the author article is deleted, the community has found that he lacks notability. There is no need to overturn the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "قصص من الحياة: قصة اسلام ارون كومار من عبادّ الأبقار (Stories from life: the story of self-submission (convertion to Islam) of Arun Kumar, a cow worshiper)". ar:دنيا الوطن (AlWatan Voice) (in Arabic). 8 July 2014. Retrieved 29 July 2023.

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

FC Zbrojovka Brno B – The deletion is endorsed. There isn't a consensus as to whether Draft:FC Zbrojovka Brno B is sufficient to address the issues raised at AfD and in this discussion, but that can be assessed as part of normal editing and review and doesn't necessitate continuation of this DRV. Star Mississippi 15:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The reasons listed in the discussion for deletion are not true. The reserve team FC Zbrojovka Brno B played in 3 consecutive seasons of fully professional Czech National Football League (2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06). Based on these facts, I find redirecting to FC Zbrojovka Brnoto be unjustified and propose the creation of a separate page as before. Thanks to all! Pospeak (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation of the page - new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.Pospeak (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close but potentially allow re-creation. Nothing wrong with the close. The nomination was probably technically mistaken considering the team did play in the second division in the 2000s. There's been a team name change since so this may not have been obvious. However the article was out of date and sourced only to the club's official webpage. I have absolutely no problem if a new article which passes WP:GNG is created here - alternatively information on the B team can be included on the main Zbrojovka Brno page. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. All of the participants agreed that this should be either deleted or redirected. While one of the claims by the nom might be technically incorrect per OP and SportingFlyer, the arguments that this fails GNG by the nom and another editor was not refuted. In this case, the AfD hence could reasonably be closed as delete or redirect; the latter being a reasonable and unrebutted ATD. If the OP demonstrates more sourcing to meet GNG, that may be grounds for recreation, but right now they do not present that significant new information justify a creation of a new page. VickKiang (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the only possible close of the AFD. The appellant may create and submit a draft, and is free to create a new article, but a new article may be tagged for G4, and, if that is declined, for AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft was created Draft:FC Zbrojovka Brno B according to the original page, information about competitions and references were added. Pospeak (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). First, I want to apologize for the false information in the original nomination for deletion. The information that the team played in the Czech National Football League was not included in the original team page or the club page, nor is it found by search engines when searching for "Zbrojovka Brno B" (perhaps because the club changed its name in the meantime). However, essential was the first argument in the proposal (does not meet WP:GNG criteria) and a consensus on deletion (redirect) was reached in the discussion.

Notability of the team is not proven even by the current draft. Two refs are from the website of the club (information about the roster and technical staff of the amateur team of the 4th league is redundant from an encyclopedic point of view anyway) and two sources do not deal with the team, only general changes in the Czech football system. I moved the only useful information regarding the history of the team in the CNFL to FC Zbrojovka Brno. Btw, judging by the history of the user, he is either a die-hard fan of the club or works in it (potential COI). He is not objectively able to assess notability according to GNG and prefers his own view. I'm sorry that he takes my efforts to maintain articles within Wiki rules personally. FromCzech (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the reason for deleting the original page, you incorrectly stated that the reserve team of Zbrojovka Brno, unlike Sparta B and Slavia B, has never played in a professional competition. Now you admit a mistake, but you still insist on the original decision. Taken from this point of view, the Sparta B and Slavia B pages should also not exist and be redirected because they have less references or are not currently playing a professional competition. This is clear evidence that you don't measure up to everyone.

Judging by your history, I'm not the only one who has a problem with your arrogant and reluctant behavior.

BTW accusing me of working for the club is just cheap talk. Unlike you, I don't brag about being a fan of a particular club.

I have nothing against anyone who works on Wikipedia, I respect everyone's work. But I am strongly opposed to immediately deleting articles instead of pointing out the lack of references or sources. Pospeak (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ad 1: It makes no sense to propose deletion of Sparta and Slavia's reserves, they often appear in the media. If I don't see the point in something or don't believe I can succeed with it, it's not worth proposing.

Ad 2: I don't understand. But again, please refrain from personal attacks.

Ad 3: Sorry if this offended you, but I see a clear case of advocacy in your relationship with Zbrojovka Brno. And everyone who is a fan of football also supports a particular club; there is nothing wrong with informing which one.

Ad 4: I am also opposed to immediately deleting articles. Therefore, before the deletion, we hold discussions where everyone can oppose the deletion and find new sources. All the pages you created that have AFDed in the last 6 months have been discussed, consensus reached, and no one has found new sources for any of them, not even you. If I can find reliable sources before suggesting deletion, then of course I won't even suggest it for deletion, but if there aren't any, AFD is the only way to go. I also respect other people's work, but if your work does not respect WP:GNG, you can't be mad at me or others that your pages are deleted. FromCzech (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pointless view to compare which team has or doesn't have more media coverage. Do you have any data for this? There are a lot of teams from the fourth or even fifth tier of Czech football that have their own pages (marked as Wikipedia:Stub). Slavia B plays in the third division, how much more watched is this than the fourth division? In Germany, it is quite common for reserve teams playing in the fourth division to have their own pages. I don't want to keep comparing things, but the principle is the same.

This discussion is about the redirected reserve team page, so don't run to the other pages that have been deleted (I don't have a problem with those). It is clear that if you write in the discussion about AFD that the team has never played in a professional competition and all evaluators know nothing about Czech football, they will vote for deletion or redirection. That can happen and that's why Deletion review is here. I was hoping you would approach this fairly, but unfortunately I was wrong. Pospeak (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot be assessed as a whole, each page is assessed individually. I don't know the history of the individual clubs; some are amateur today and play in the 5th league, but for example they have a long history and have appeared in literature. If you feel that there is a page here without jusitification, AFD it; I support this attitude. I don't understand German football into deep, I don't know to what level the competitions are professionalized and how the reserves appear in the media there. But each country is individual, for example Italy has only two reserves here on Wiki. The Czech Republic only has Sparta and Slavia here. You must have noticed that there is not even Olomouc, which has a much more significant reserve team than Brno.

I think you may have misunderstood the deletion discussion. The main argument was that it does not meet the GNG criteria. Usually, every responsible user participating in an AFD discussion does their own research on sources, etc., so my mistake could hardly have affected the outcome of the discussion. You also misunderstand that a discussion is a vote.

If you feel wronged, you can go work on your draft and convince us that Brno B is notable enough to have a separate page from FC Zbrojovka Brno. For the reasons stated in my first post, this is not the case yet. FromCzech (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pospeak: I've written a few articles about teams in lower divisions before and the best way to make sure they survive a deletion discussion is to make sure they have good sources, typically local and national media writing about the club. Some teams may have pages without this sourcing and they may be deleted if no good sources can be found. B teams are strange too because they need to show they are notable separate from their professional team which can be difficult! SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The mistake in whether the team played professionally is irrelevant, as the actual argument for deletion is the failure to meet GNG. No new sourcing has been presented here to justify overturning, therefore the close should stand.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The DRV nom points to some facts that were not mentioned in the deletion discussion, but this is not the type of information that would justify recreating the article.—Alalch E. 23:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 August 2023

15 August 2023

Draft:Move/Oppenheimer – Consensus is that nothing needs to be done here * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This page was deleted under a G6 speedy deletion, so I want someone to merge the history of this page with Oppenheimer. I also want Talk:Oppenheimer and Draft talk:Move/Oppenheimer to be undeleted and history merged by someone, as both talk pages were deleted under G2 and G8 speedy deletions, respectively. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging @Liz, because I want to leave her opinion on this page. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 10:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing in the deleted histories of any of these three pages besides redirects (and those mostly short-lived ones created from temporarily moving pages) is an empty edit request from a 6-edit blocked user at Talk:Oppenheimer. I can't see how they're worth the hassle. —Cryptic 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cryptic that there's nothing here worth restoring (i.e. no action, if we're counting !votes). I'm more concerned, though, by the fact that this is the nominator's seventh visit to DRV this year ([10][11][12][13][14][15] being the other six) over a trivial question that doesn't affect readers in any real way. Comments from other DRV editors and closers include This is a borderline uninteligible nomination, Honestly this looks like someone running a page through lots of different processes for fun, Nobody is convinced that there is any need to restore this very old template talk page, and Disruptive nomination. This needs to stop: DRV contributors' time matters, and using it repeatedly on this sort of thing is not OK. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is entirely meritless. I mean, there's two revisions in Draft:Move/Oppenheimer that are about substantive as redirects get and should have been left in the history of Oppenheimer, and it was sloppy for them to get deleted; but I'd still decline a request to history-merge them there even if they weren't currently deleted - they're not needed for attribution and separating them out from the round-robin-move remnants is error-prone. —Cryptic 00:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, and I certainly wouldn't have complained about one or two good-faith but ill-advised DRVs, but now that we're on take seven (in as many months) I think it's reasonable to say something needs to change. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These Move pages are leftover from round robin page moves and the content of this page was a redirect to Oppenheimer (surname). I'm not sure why you want it to be restored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I want these pages to be restored because they were deleted a month ago, and in the case of Talk:Oppenheimer, I will create a new version of the talk page. I will visit DRV less regularly from now on. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 05:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also want the redirect history as well. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now recreated Talk:Oppenheimer as a redirect. Can you please restore the history and email it to me? Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 00:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 August 2023

Ben Leeds Carson – Decision endorsed * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

In deletion discussion, an admin stated that the article "was sourced almost entirely to student newspapers and other unreliable sources." That is incorrect. The article was sourced almost entirely to reliable sources not mentioned in the deletion discussion: Public Radio International (cited to PRX b/c archived), Empirical Musicology Review, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, a flagship / peer-reviewed Oxford University Press book on experimental music concepts, a local public/professional newspaper in Santa Cruz (Good Times), and The Open Space Magazine, which is a leading high-circulation publication on experimental music. The sources in the article included *no* student newspapers, and the information sourced to UCSC Newsday (not a student newspaper) were not crucial to the article.

This was my first article, and I'm still learning! I propose creating a shorter Ben Leeds Carson article using mainly the sources above, and perhaps *without* the PRI source, because (I acknowledge) PRI's "The World" was not discussing Carson's field in that article, and Carson is not important enough for extensive biographical detail.

The admins also disliked my citation of the LA Times, correctly pointing out that only one sentence in the article was about Carson. But many highly important experimental composers (Karlton Hester, Franklin Cox, Richard Barrett, John Rahn, Hans Thomalla), never receive attention from such a high-profile writer (Mark Swed is one of the nation's most respected music critics, and a Pulitzer nominee), and have far *less* attention from *peer-reviewed* high-distribution sources like The Open Space Magazine (Open Space published *four detailed essays* about Carson, with responses from Carson, in its fifth issue). I argue the standard of high-profile sources in an experimental genre like Carson's should not require major discussion in mainstream newspapers. Carson, like the others mentioned above are notable because they are repeatedly subjects of discussion in more specialized respected sources (especially high-level peer-reviewed sources).

I will let this go if I'm way off base here, but I'm initiating this review partly because I'd also like to create other pages on experimental composers, and I consider myself an objective and expert source in this field. If my other interests: e.g. James Brandon Lewis, Robin Hayward are also considered unworthy, I hope I can learn why before setting out to write! Nadibautista (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, the person who stated that the sources were student newspapers was an editor, not an admin (not that this would have made a difference). Secondly, there were three editors arguing for Deletion and no one who participated in the discussion was advocating Keeping the article so I don't see any other possible closure. There were other approaches you could have chosen to restart this article, like coming to talk to the closer (me), but you chose a Deletion review so this discussion must proceed for the next week. If you were not aware, a deletion reivew examines my closure of the discussion, not the merits of the article. The time to do that was during the period of the AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD discussion was clearly correctly decided. Nadibautista, we have our rules regarding deletion and notability because we need to make sure we can write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a topic, and these require excellent sources. A mere mention in the LA Times isn't enough for that, though you can certainly use it in the article to verify a specific point. Newspapers are not the only places we can look for sources, either, though these are very good standard - peer reviewed publications are potentially good sources as well. There's also no reason why you can't create an article on Carson if there are enough sources. Are you familiar with draft space? We're a bit backed up at Articles for Creation at the moment, but restoring a draft there so you can work on it might be a good solution if you think you can source this better. You'd then submit it for review and someone would take a look at it, although it's taking a few months at this point unfortunately, but if it's accepted that means a reviewer thought it would be likely to pass a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 18:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as clearly the outcome of the AfD, but happy to draftify if editor wants to work on it there. Star Mississippi 02:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a discussion with three (including nom) P&G based delete votes could not reasonably be closed in another way. However, I would not object draftification if the user wants to work on this. However, if drafted, I would recommend submitting through AfC even though that is backlogged instead of quickly moving back to mainspace, which would result in either G4 if substantially identical or another AfD if no better sourcing are found. VickKiang (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Maybe guidance should be provided for filers whose article has been deleted and who want to create a new version of the article with better sources, advising them that the choices are article space and draft space, rather than DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and refund to draftspace. The AFD was correctly closed as delete as there was unanimous support for deletion. Relisting would have been a viable option as well due to limited participation, but that is not in any way required. Moving to draftspace will allow Nadibautista (or any other user with an interest in the subject) to improve the article before moving it back to mainspace so it will not be deleted again. Carson Wentz (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and close the feedback here, like that on the AfD, is unanimous: if no one speaks in defense of an article, it is getting deleted. You have admins willing to restore the article to draft for improvement and hopefully an eventual move back to mainspace once improved. You're not going to get a more favorable outcome here, and in fact have gotten some collegial and useful advice, so I would suggest that this be closed and implemented, and you follow-up individually with any of us for advice if needed. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 August 2023

12 August 2023

11 August 2023

Wenja language – There remains little appetite at DRV to overturn from keep to no-consensus, either in the general case or for this afd in particular. The closure is endorsed. A merge discussion can be started on the talk page as usual. —Cryptic 23:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Should have been a no consensus close, there was no clear numerical majority in favour of keep, and I do not agree with the reasoning only a small portion of the merge supporters indicat[ed]that it was "merge or bust", to me, this sentiment was not evident in the merge votes. "No consensus" represents a more accurate reading of the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I completely agree with you on your position regarding the article - it violates all sorts of WP:NOT - and probably would have closed this as no consensus myself, but it's a distinction without a difference. Wait a couple weeks and then start a merge discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looked like it was either a Keep or Merge closure and a Merge discussion can occur after a Keep closure. There was no support for Deletion. Also, can you place the appropriate tag on the AFD that directs editors to this discussion? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a participant, because the fundamental merge argument was not policy-supported: there's a lot of primary-sourced stuff here, so even though it has academic, independent, extensive coverage... it's still too reliant on that and violates DUE. That would be a reasonable argument if and only if there was another viewpoint on the language represented in secondary sources that was crowded out by reliance on primary sources. Even if there were a credible merge-not-keep argument, ties go to keep, so in order to overturn, we would have to find that keep wasn't even a credible outcome, which is clearly not obvious on the basis of either numbers or strength of argument. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of AfD participants just restating their vote? The whole point of deletion review is to get an outside perspective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't just restate my !vote. I assessed the sum of the opposing arguments. But I also disclosed (even though it's visible for all to see) that I participated in the AfD up front, because that's part of transparency: that even through anyone can comment here, Wikipedia runs better on full disclosure of prior involvement in any discussion. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment So, firstly, it would have been nice for @Hemiauchenia: to talk to me first, but anyway... my close hopefully covers most of it, but to clarify the "merge or bust", few of the policy-backed merge !votes read as if they were arguing for a "if not merge, then delete" position. While I went for Keep on its own merits, a no consensus would actually have had the same formal effect, except for encouraging a merge attempt through AfD rather than the proper portal - the article would have been retained and someone could have started a merge discussion which they could still do. Nosebagbear (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should have been brought to AfD in the first place, nor did it need to. Other XfD venues may be different, but AfD is specialised on deletion, which was not really even proposed here — there's even a case for closing this as SK1. Removal of primary-sourced content and/or merger can be done outside of the deletion process, and an AfD isn't really needed nor all that effective. This is a case where you could WP:JUSTDOIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think this is a confusing area in policy. This case could have been a WP:MERGEPROP, but could plausibly be framed as a WP:CONRED instead. Suriname0 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - No Consensus would have been a valid conclusion, and would have the same effect as Keep. There isn't a strong argument to Merge, and no argument to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as it matters especially little whether the outcome of this AfD was "keep" or "no consensus" given that the desired end result is merger. —Alalch E. 08:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 August 2023

9 August 2023

8 August 2023

7 August 2023

6 August 2023

5 August 2023

Zafar Mahmud – Overturn and relist. The numerical count here is close, but slightly in favor of overturning. The participants here are in general agreement that CT55555's relatively late !vote is strong, even if they do not agree with the conclusion. Discussion after that !vote has been sparse; only Visviva has attempted to refute CT55555's argument, while Indefensible has protested that they would have given a stronger response if they had thought there was any possibility of deletion. Therefore, my finding based on this DRV is that there is insufficient evidence to support a consensus of "delete" at the AfD, and more discussion of the sources would be beneficial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

It seems clear to me that there was no consensus to delete. CT55555(talk) 22:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus, it‘s clear that there was no consensus here whatsoever. It‘s a very odd close and hard to justify, in my opinion. ~~Relist may be more appropriate given what has been pointed out re sockpuppeting concerns. A good discussion with particular attention to this issue is probably warranted.~~ Note that there is relevant discussion on the closing admin‘s talk page, here. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC), edited 07:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC), re-edited 08:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say more about what the concerns are? I saw @Star Mississippi and you talk about that on the closer's talk page, but I found it confusing and also thought it was about a different discussion, so am confused about multiple elements of this. CT55555(talk) 07:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uff, I‘ll be honest: I‘m quite busy today, so I‘ve been following these discussions (and contributing) on my phone, and in the jungle of open tabs, I confused this with another issue raised somewhere else. Just disregard my previous edit. Sorry about the confusion. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Strength of argument is more important than numbers. The closer showed their work on the talk page, and this was a well-reasoned close. I have no problem with draftifying it if someone wants to try to fix it up, though, but it should probably go through AfC, even though we're behind there. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore for review, please I'd like to see the sourcing in the article at time of deletion. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto - please restore for review. In the meantime:
- I'd like to keep the article personally although I don't think I !voted. It's just that the subject sounds interesting.
- That said, I respect the process and I respect the closer, Spartaz. The only way I'd !vote overturn is if there were good refs added late in the process.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens and A. B.: I went to do a temp undelete as I don't think my relist makes me Involved, but saw Draft:Zafar Mahmud has the entire history so I don't think an undelete is needed here. Ping me if I'm missing something? Star Mississippi 01:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi I'm happy. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus the AFD was listed for a month and there were only two “weak” votes not to keep, plus the nom. The keep votes did not present a strong argument to keep, as the only policy or sourced based reasoning were some borderline-GNG material presented by CT55555 (thanks Star Mississippi for linking the draft with history). Nonetheless, there was very clearly not consensus to delete/draftify. Carson Wentz (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep it appears there are two newspaper articles outside his own country about him, although I can access neither. AGFing non-trivial coverage, that's a GNG pass, even if nobody bothered to say that in the discussion. It's not the best or most important biography, but it's not a BLP and passes notability. There's no reason to close against numerical consensus just because what I just articulated wasn't articulated by less AfD-familiar participants. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep: as far as AfD discussions goes “ An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus” and I don’t think that was done, as the admin ignored the discussion and decided to use their own opinion, making them self a prosecutor and judge. The discussion should have been closed as Keep

FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The closer clearly listed their closing process on their talk page and it's clear they did not ignore the discussion at all. SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if you refer to this, it came after the closing of the AfD not before FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And? What relevance does that have, just because they didn't write it out before hand doesn't mean it wasn't the rationale they followed. You on the other hand seem to suggest you have some mind reading ability and can determine exactly what they were doing, also with no written rationale. Last I check WP:AGF was still a thing on wikipedia. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

they need to write it then and there before they close. You closing an AfD with people participating there, the least you can do is explaining yourself, to them. Not close it and then justify what you did when asked, later. That is not how an admin should operate and it has nothing to do with assuming good faith.

and if the admin has an opinion, then they should participate in the AfD themselves, and not just upheld their opinion unilaterally. Admins are not owners of this place.

Nothing what the admin did fit the basic requirement for an AfD closure not even if you stretch it to a Supervote. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So your response is all about what you think an admin should so in closing a discussion, but that is nothing to do if their action constitutes a supervote. Fortunately the deletion process has this to say "It can sometimes be useful to provide a brief explanatory note, to make the rationale for the decision clear.", nothing about absolutely mandatory or that it's a supervote not to etvc. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was tainted by socking. Spartaz was right to discount the "keep" from WhyWeAll on socking grounds, and I'm afraid when there's socking you have to weight IP contributions lower as well, which near-nullifies the "keep" from 100.36.234.200. This leaves three deletes (US-Verified, Piotrus, Visiva), for those who understand that "draftify" means "remove from mainspace", and three keeps (Indefensible, NYC Guru, CT5555). Two of the deletes say they're "weak", but the arguments that support them are really really strong, and they come with detailed and credible source analysis. Two of the "keeps" are specifically asking for the benefit of the doubt, and that's not how this works. I'm afraid the way this works is WP:CHALLENGE, and core content policies overrule the benefit of the doubt. So when I count the votes that way and weight them that way, I get to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 13:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think disregarding an IP editor's contribution because someone else in the discussion violated WP:SOCK directly contradicts WP:AGF. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you know it was someone else because... ?—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but where is the evidence sock/meatpuppetry played into the AfD decision? Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WhyWeAll was blocked as a sock even before the discussion was closed. SportingFlyer T·C 17:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that wasn't obvious from the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because assuming good faith is the default. Innocent until proven guilty, WP:AGF, etc. I don't know it was someone else, but I assume that the IP editor is a good-faith editor until there is substantive evidence to the contrary. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the other editors above. Our default should be to assume good faith for IP editors. Discounting them, in the absence of evidence, creates a double standard between IP and registered users and every conversation I've seen on that topic to date leads me to believe that we have consensus against that. CT55555(talk) 17:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just to be clear, I did not discard the IP because of the socking. I just felt their argument was weak and lacked a strong policy basis so gave it less weight in my close. A couple of reviews down you will see me defending a different IP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

since I actually didn't do that and explained how I assessed the IP and made no mention of socking perhaps you can extend some of that AGF you keep spraying around to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I replied to S Marshall, I wasn't addressing your thought process, but theirs. I was responding to the argument they provided here. As I've said before, I'm sure your close was well-considered and reasoned. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus. The close is a supervote and the closer gives a good argument for Keep, but not a strong enough argument for why numerical consensus should be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Almost all the keep arguments acknowledged the sourcing was weak/non-existent. Unless they make a strong argument for IAR, there is no reason to give much or any weight to those !votes. Spartaz reasonably discounted them. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing pisses me off more than casual allegations of supervoting just because you disagree with my analysis of the weight to be given votes. The term has a really nasty connotation of authoritarian disregard of other users and policies that I find really distasteful. My response on my talkpage clearly demonstrates I took some time to think through the arguments, compare them against policy and consider how to assess the consensus. I could easily be wrong but don't you dare suggest I was callously disregarding the arguments that other users took time to offer or acting in anything other than good faith. Why do I bother? I really wonder that sometimes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don‘t think the term necessarily has the connotation you describe, at least not for me. A supervote can very well be accidental; an error in judgement, but not intentional authoritarianism. I can‘t speak for Robert above, but that‘s my interpretation.

That aside, I don’t think telling another editor „don‘t you dare“ make their argument is constructive, nor is it civil. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing an admin of a supervote is accusing them of substituting their opinion for the views expressed in the discussion. I appreciate that although your account has been around for a while you don't seem to have edited that much so maybe that connotation has passed you by. I have been active at drv for over a decade and my interpretation is precisely how it has been used as a shorthand to disparage the judgement of the closing admin. Maybe Robert didn't mean it that way, I don't know, but you have no right to decide how I should interpret comments directed at my judgement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Spartaz here on his interpretation. Accusations of "supervoting" is one of the worst things you can accuse an admin of doing. It's not a neutral term, there is no positive connotation. I'll never forget a Deletion review where I was accused of supervoting. It undermines the whole effort of being a fair and just administrator. In some cases, it might be an accurate assessment of what occurred but you can't blame an admin for being offended by the accusation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz In that case, I‘d like to apologise. It was never my intention to offend, and I wasn‘t aware that the term had such a strong negative connotation for most people. I‘ve changed the text on your talk page to better reflect what I intended to communicate. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 07:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Endorse. Firstly, I don't think this is a supervote. The close rationale was unclear, but they elaborated on how they weighed the votes in their UTP. Hence, for me the question is whether they weighted the votes accurately. IMO the quality of the keep votes were very weak except for CT55555's. The 1st keep vote was a sock, whereas the 2nd keep vote also is not P&G or sourcing-based, and is at best a weak IAR argument. Regarding sock concerns, the IP is a SPA, but I don' think their type of edits or language style to be similar to the blocked sock WhyWeAll (no ping). The 3rd keep likewise vaguely claims to trust the sourcing and give the benefit of the doubt given the historical background..., but also cites no policies or guidelines nor makes any clear sourcing-based arguments, and should be weighed much less. The 4th vote was PERX. I don't think PERX should automatically be given much less weight, but looking at the voter's AFD votes, basically all of their last 10 AfDs are drive-by votes (hand-waving or WP:PERX), with none actually analysing the sourcing, i.e., see their most recent votes at 1, 2, 3, and overall should be discounted. This only leaves CT55555's keep vote (which was not that detailed but is reasonably source-based) and three delete ordraftify votes being P&G or sourcing based. Ordinarily given the significant quality discrepancy, I would obviously endorse the close. However, in this case, two of the delete or draftify were explicitly labelled as having weak opinions despite being strong in quality. Overall, IMO this is between a NC and delete/draftify, but the latter is within admin discretion, so I am weakly endorsing. VickKiang (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, largely per VickKiang. While I normally am ok with PERK votes, in this case the comments supporting a keep position (at the time) did not address the sourcing of the article, so it is hard to understand which of the arguments that NYC Guru was supporting (the IAR argument or vague claim there are sources). The sources that were brought up in the discussion were considered by one participant of not being significant, and echoed by the IP. I do note there was no prohibition on restoring this page as draft and that draft page already exists. I hope that editors include additional significant sources and bring this back into mainspace --Enos733 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I find myself in agreement with Spartaz's analysis of all of the keep !votes other than CT5555's. CT5555's keep argument is per se reasonable, but the one person to actually analyze the sources they added found them to be be insufficient. A relist would have made sense there, except the discussion had already been relisted 3 times. So what it really comes down to is that the keep side failed to make a convincing case for notability, and hence the article was deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that ties go to "keep", not "delete" per WP:DGFA. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This was the point of my initial objection: there was no consensus to delete. I perceive that the only reasonable reading of the situation is neither consensus to keep nor delete, which should default to not-deleting. As per your link above When in doubt, don't delete CT55555(talk) 04:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep: I am not seeing any consensus to delete the article. Okoslavia (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain in the same detail I offered how you weighed the votes against policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Most of the article remains unsourced or poorly sourced after the addition of a 1956 Macon News article (which briefly notes Mahmud's service as one of two training officers in the Pakistan Air Force, his 1952 training in the US, and his work as an observer of trainings in the US) and the 1956 Albuquerque Journal source (briefly mentioning his attendance at a dinner party during his tour of US Air Force bases) during the discussion. Spartaz restored the article as a draft after a request, so there is further opportunity to verify the contents and support notability. The rough consensus guideline includes, "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted", so the close, as further explained by Spartaz, appears to be within admin discretion. Beccaynr (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - I requested the draftify after the deletion and voted keep in the AFD, no consensus should have been the correct outcome in my opinion. The discussion above with endorsement and overturn entries further shows the lack of consensus. Other arguments of varying strength are frankly subjective opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy of ROUGHCONSENSUS literally says votes should be weighed against their alignment of policy and that is precisely what I did. If you disagree at least have the courtesy of putting the same effort to assess the votes as I did and explain how you disagree with my weighting. Otherwise your vote implies that all votes are equal and we should just count them, which is contrary to NOTAVOTE Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give a quick summary of the case. At time of deletion, there were 5 keep votes, 1 WEAK delete, and 1 WEAK draftify. Wikipedia is based on consensus, how could there be any obvious indication with those results that a deletion was to be expected? I am not sure about socking but no discussion or concern was flagged. There had already been 3 relists, the participants likely had no idea that a deletion was likely to be coming based on the discussion, or at least I did not--had we realized, obviously a stronger response could have been given in the discussion.

Now I am not familiar with WP:SUPERVOTE or any historical connotations so I do not mean it as insult and this is not against good faith, but "supervote" is somewhat appropriate in my opinion to describe what happened where an overriding close outweighed a discussion of 5 keep participants, 1 weak delete, and 1 weak draftify. Saying that "votes are [not] equal" is exactly stating an unequal vote which is what a term like "supervote" implies, especially when this discussion again had only 1 weak delete and 1 weak draftify. The rationale was not explained or discussed at time of closure as discussed above, so there was no opportunity to review until now. Explaining after the close is retrospective and postfactual, it could be revisionist in some cases (not making that accusation here, just saying in general), while actual participants were not given the same opportunity--that seems like a double standard.

There are many articles of weaker quality on Wikipedia, I know that WP:WAX is a thing but still a degree of comparison is only natural, so it seems unfair. Yes we have the draft now, but certainly this article could have been stripped down to its references to at least meet the level of many stubs. Why did it get deleted? Not based on the discussion in the AFD in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I was fine leaving it as draft and moving on, but I merely appreciate the chance to revisit and discuss here per this deletion review. What I disagree with is the method of closure in which again (I probably sound repetitive) there was a 5-1-1 mix of the active participants so there was clearly no consensus in alignment with the result. Note it was not even close to consensus for deletion either.

Theoretically a justification that weak arguments can simply be discounted suggests that a 9-1 or even 99-1 discussion could be overruled based on the evaluation of a "weak" majority in favor of a "strong" minority or superminority. That is deeply troubling, and why "supervote" is not meant as insult but seems to be appropriate to describe a subjective ruling against basic numbers. - Indefensible (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, what's troubling to me is the degree you're willing to override policies and guidelines based on local consensus. IAR is for exceptional cases for a reason, and cognisance there is a certain, greater, level of consensus required is essential, otherwise this is just a vote. But I won't comment any more about this here, as it would probably be off topic. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So then a closer is allowed to overrule a 99-1 or any x-1 discussion based on personal interpretation? That does not seem to be refuting the point. - Indefensible (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the 1 is grounded in policy and the 99 total nonsense? Yes. I would immediately renominate or bring DR if there were severe content issues that were not addressed. Otherwise, I don't appreciate using an extreme case as a strawman against WP:CONLEVEL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for deletion in this case, I think it should be pretty clear. If the closer felt there should have been a deletion, they should have left a comment and then let another uninvolved admin make the close (for example, like TonyBallioni did on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Skallas). There is no consensus in this meta deletion review discussion either. - Indefensible (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically you are arguing that I should just count votes and ignore wider community consensus on inclusion when making decisions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is there is a gray area between "consensus" and "democracy," Wikipedia is not a democracy but is based on consensus. There was no consensus for deletion in that AFD. If you had argued for deletion instead of just closing as delete at time of close, then a stronger consensus for deletion may have formed which someone else could have judged. As FuzzyMagma wrote above, "the admin ignored the discussion and decided to use their own opinion, making them self a prosecutor and judge."

Regarding the 5-1-1 or hypothetical 9-1 or 99-1 counterfactuals, the point is not a "strawman" against what happened but a matter of principle. The 5-1-1 did in fact get overriden which might be called a "supervote" because the closing vote outweighed the 5-1-1 discussion.

The other point I want to make is the closing statement was merely: "The result was delete‎. Happy to userfy this for a restart but the majority of the keep votes underline the paucity of strong sources." As noted earlier, the full justification for closing was given retrospectively, but was not given at or before time of closing, whereas active participants were not given the same opportunity until now. Again, that creates a fundamental double standard or "supervote" where equal basis does not exist. Obviously there are differences in permission levels and strength of arguments, however we should not let "consensus" stray too far away from democracy because that can in fact become authoritarian. Who is to judge a 9-1 or 99-1 discussion in favor of the minority? Overturning a 5-1-1 discussion is the same principle. Also note that ArbCom uses democracy instead of consensus, which is an interesting exception. Maybe there is a good reason why.

In any case, my final point is the endorsements above basically come down to "the closer's justification was good, the keep participants' was bad." As a participant, I feel a little slighted frankly because this was clearly not on a fair basis. Now I openly acknowledge this is all my opinion, but just wish that others would acknowledge the same rather than questioning good faith of people with different interpretations as to policy, and FACTUALLY other editors above make similar arguments for overturning versus endorsement. Are their opinions similarly "weak" and the endorsements merely "strong"? No, I think clearly both here and in the original, there is no consensus. Thank you for the discussion and the draft earlier though. - Indefensible (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-script addition: Both "consensus" and "democracy" have tradeoffs between their pros and cons, but can you imagine countries or polities using consensus in the real world? It would be a disaster. There is a reason why votes are counted as closely to equal as possible, and we should try keeping as closely to equal here too rather than reinterpreting and discounting them as much as possible. Throwing out a 5-1-1 or 9-1 or 99-1 because of "weak" arguments is the same principle; there would be riots in the streets if that happened.

Note that VickKiang's endorsement is self-described as WEAK. Enos733' endorsement is based on their WEAK endorsement. Similarly, the votes in the AFD for deletion and draftification were both WEAK. Interpreting their arguments to STRONG and opponents' entries to WEAK is purely subjective. This cannot be done in the real world.

Interestingly Jimmy Wales reportedly has a clause to override ArbCom if needed with his own special founder's "supervote," which is why some people have expressed alarm here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Petition_(May_2023).

We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to experiment with democracy. I must repeat an inclusionist motto from somewhere that "deletion will not serve the encyclopedia." There are many articles which come up related to ITN/RD which are of weaker quality than here, should they all be nominated and deleted? No, I will not do that because it would not serve the encyclopedia. The same benefit should have been applied here, especially given the discussion which took place where participants mostly voted to keep the article for inclusion. Yes, there must be standards, but reinterpreting and overriding consensus is mistaken.

- Indefensible (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot to read through so forgive me only skimming through it now but it does sound that you would prefer me to count participation rather than look at arguments against policy. I'm sorry that you feel slighted that your opinion hasn't swayed the outcome but there seems to wide support that the approach I have taken is defensible. Perhaps we will just need to agree to disagree with this one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the first participants to !vote to overturn, I have to agree that the closer’s approach is not in itself wrong. WP:CONSENSUS makes it clear that evaluating discussions is not just about numbers. I still don‘t see the consensus in the discussion, but it‘s not generally wrong to weigh !votes differently in accordance with their relevance and strength of argument. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying not to weigh, but my point is there should be a limit. And in this case being reviewed, it was decided beyond that limit in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This also ignores the other participants in this deletion review which are voting to overturn. There is no consensus here and there was no consensus in the AFD for deletion. Reinterpreting it to justify a deletion is a ridiculous outcome--yes, in my opinion, but not my opinion alone. - Indefensible (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its also not ridiculous to assert that my approach was policy based and defensible or why would there be the groundswell of support for the close.

there is ambiguity in every decision. There isn’t a case where that there is ambiguity that there is a 100% right or wrong answer. That’s what editors are referring to when they refer to as being within discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, there are some people who agree with you and some who do not. It was not a clear outcome though, if that were the case then you would have unanimous or near unanimous endorsement here. Interpretation of policy is also subjective, but I do not want to drag this argument out and have no special interest (or conflict) regarding this subject. Wikipedia is not perfect, there are parts that I do not like and parts that you do not like, which is just how life goes. There are just different views regarding encyclopedic coverage and we can agree to disagree as you noted. - Indefensible (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The reasoning given on the closer's talk page is more than sufficient. On my reading, I'd be willing to weigh our IP vote a little higher, and that means it could be closed as no consensus, but even with such a weighting it would still easily be plausible to judge it a rough consensus to delete. I can't see a way to read this as keep. I'd also bold a "restore", to draft or otherwise but since that's already been done... Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Two Niles – Deletion endorsed, recreation not allowed * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I have created Recipients of Order of the Two Niles category but then discovered a variant of this category was deleted after a discussion. As I think the reasons listed in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 20#Category:Recipients of the Order of the Two Niles are not longer valid, i.e.,

(1) WP:OCAWARD: there are several examples where this award is a defining characteristics, e.g., Ahmed Mohamed El Hassan, Akef El-Maghraby, Abdel Halim Mohamed and Mohamed Hamad Satti (to name few). There is also a huge list of people that are not Wikipedia but this award can help in make them pass the notability criteria. for example: Abdalah Grosh Sudanese Businessman. Although I have to confess that the majority of the recipients are diplomats but for example in the case of Yevgeny Prigozhin it shows Wagner involvement in Sudan, and Marta Ruedas, UN Resident and Humanitarian in Sudan, who received the award from Omer al-Bashir who was indicted by International Criminal Court for Darfur genocide. And many other examples

(2) no article exits, which I have created and appeared on the main page as part of a DYK, see Order of the Two Niles and Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/March#31 March 2023

By any means, I hope this is not taking as ignoring previous concensuses and I am happy to remove all people in the cat if a deletion verdict is reached.

@RevelationDirect, Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, and Johnpacklambert: who participated in the previous discussion.

@Good Olfactory: the admin who closed the discussion FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you examples of (1) are the best ones, I'm not sure I'd agree they are defining. Our article on Ahmed Mohamed El Hassan, doesn't even mention it, Abdel Halim Mohamed does mention in our article but it is a mention which would tend not to suggest it's defining - so I checked a few references the Royal College of Physician has a fair bio which doesn't mention it, and the couple of others I picked likewise... That said I'm really not sure what you are asking DRV to do, DRV doesn't have the power to Bless the category so it can't be deleted and reasonably the best place to discuss stuff like I just mention is a further CFD if someone nominates it (I only cover that stuff because I think if it does go to CFD that's the kind of stuff which would be looked at. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt from Ahmed Mohamed El Hassan#Awards and honours: The Government of Sudan awarded El Hassan the Gold Medal for Research and Science in 1977, El Neelain Order (First Class) in 1979, and the Order of Merit (First Class) in 1995. El Neelain Order is another name for the award

As I said "I have created Recipients of Order of the Two Niles category but then discovered a variant of this category was deleted" it is a DRV matter if article was deleted before. So it is at least polite to try to consult the people who deleted it as I also need to move the category to the correct/deleted name. Cheers FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well you'll excuse my confusion/ignorance on "El Neelain" since the article on the award makes no mention of that, (and doing a very simple google search just now also doesn't give an indication that they are the same thing, but it was very cursory). Your response on DRV doesn't really answer my question my point, which is "I'm really not sure what you are asking DRV to do", deletion discussion are not "never ever" results so subject to recreation if things change. I doubt anyone would question if you are acting in good faith. I also think DRV is very unlikely to overturn the original discussion etc. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (as original nominator) Thank you for the ping and for creating the DRV. When you linked to the article I was expecting to find a bare bones list but Order of the Two Niles looks great! I'm not in favor of recreating the category though. Even if I agreed the award was defining for your 3 examples (and I agree with the IP editor above), WP:OCAWARD was rewritten by consensus a few years ago so the guideline now reads "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a #DEFINING characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." Going through the list of recipients it's clear that, just like most awards, this one doesn't meet that tough standard. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original CfD and disallow recreation of the category - it still fails WP:OCAWARD. The new list is an excellent alternative. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 August 2023

Category:Assassinated heads of state by time – I find no consensus in this discussion to take any action. I decline to exercise my discretion to relist the CFD. As ever, recreation of the deleted category is not barred if the reason for deletion is overcome. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am not contesting consensus of the discussion at the time. I am listing this for review because of new information that the nominator and the rest of participants, closer, and administrator didn't know at the time of the discussion. Using now PetScan, I found out that there are more than 800 pages of assassinated heads of state and now it can be populated in a similar fashion as Category:Assassinated politicians by time. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Edited 23:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Consensus was crystal clear on that one, and it appears the policy was as well. SportingFlyer T·C 22:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer Sorry, I don't understand, what are you endorsing? Yes, consensus was clear when the category, per the nominator, had "only a single article in this tree". But a while after the discussion was closed as delete, I found it can have more than 800 entries, not just one. That's a very drastic change of information available about the discussion. Therefore, I started the deletion review for this newfound information that I was not aware of when the discussion to delete was open. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple participants noted the many other issues with these categories. SportingFlyer T·C 07:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Advice. CFD is fundamentally broken; and it always has been. The decisions you get there make very little objective sense. That happens because Wikipedia's category system is set and decided by the Wikipedians who care about categories --- which is not very many people. Don't fight it. Instead make a List of heads of state who were assassinated. Make it a sortable wikitable so you can organise it into the heads of state who were assassinated by century, or heads of state who were assassinated by continent, or heads of state who were assassinated by method of killing, or whatever other criteria you like. This is better than a category because (1) you can add references, which a category doesn't allow, and (2) the sort features are helpful, and (3) you can add a Wikipedia:Timeline, and (4) you won't get annoying intrusions by the category police.—S Marshall T/C 22:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. Although there is already a Category:Assassinated heads of state. Also, Category:Assassinated heads of state by continent. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But they don't want categories by time. That doesn't make sense, but you won't change it, because consensus is consensus. On Wikipedia, only fight the battles you have some chance of winning.—S Marshall T/C 12:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should be more defensive, but CFD is clearly struggling with low participation. I attribute the decline interest in not displaying categories on the mobile view but, whatever the cause, it's falling on a smaller group of fallible editors. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already have that list: List of assassinated and executed heads of state and government.—Alalch E. 22:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03, Marcocapelle, Liz, Brandmeister, Nederlandse Leeuw, Drdpw, Oculi, and RevelationDirect: Thinker78 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a FYI, pinging people who discussed a deletion isn't very helpful in a deletion discussion - the general point of this is to have uninvolved users judge the close of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 12:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to clarify the process for recreating/restoring categories with consensus. I've seen both new CFDs and coming here, even though DRV is meant to evaluate the close. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: more than 800 pages of assassinated heads of state is not "new information". It is a sort of number that anyone with some sense of history would expect. The point of the discussion is that there are only about a hundred of them who aren't already in Category:Murdered monarchs by century. Why would you want to create something that is largely duplicative of what already exists? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Marcocapelle, I don't see where in the deletion discussion is mentioned duplication or murdered monarchs. The nomination literally said, "There is only a single article in this tree, who is already in Category:Assassinated heads of state. All other branches of the category tree are empty and will therefore be speedy deleted per C1". I don't understand why you are saying that the 800 pages is not new information for the deletion discussion that was closed (not for editors private knowledge). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On further analysis, regardless of the above, you have a point about duplication. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted some of these categories in this category tree but only the categories that were empty or that had been emptied (so CSD C1s). I don't know if I'd call them the category police but there is a small group of editors who participate in each specific deletion discussion arena on Wikipedia, whether that is TFD, RFD, MFD or, in this case, CFD. Those handful of regular editors seem to have an encyclopedic memory of precedent and how previous CFD discussions were closed in a way that I'm impressed by but which makes it almost impossible for an editor new to this area to contest against in a deletion discussion. This extensive use of precedent would not be allowed in some other areas like AFD where each article is hopefully judged on its own merits (or lack thereof). But it's common with categories and it's even harder to create or expand an entirely new category branch or tree if there aren't preexisting examples you can point to that already exist. So, while I don't think you are trying to do the impossible, it wouldn't hurt to have a discussion or two on the user talk pages of editors who frequent CFD discussions to float your proposal and see how you could approach this subject. Most editors don't mind being asked for their opinion in areas they are expert in. Or you could take S Marshall's advice and create a list instead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before coming here I reached out to the closer, but my request to relist the discussion was denied implicitly. I pinged the nominator as well in the discussion in the User talk:Buidhe but didn't provide input. Then I was hoping to have more input here. Although Marcocapelle has cited duplication, which I agree is an important issue that might settle this review request. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how the CfD would justify deleting Category:Assassinated heads of state by time if it contained subcategories by century or possibly decade. The argument for deletion at CfD was that the categories provided excessively narrow precision, but a category of assassinated heads of state in the 20th century would have something like 96 entries and it might be worth breaking those down by decade. It would also mirror what we do with assassinated politicians (Category:Assassinated politicians by time), but since few politicians are heads of state and quite a few heads of state aren't politicians it wouldn't be a duplicate. Has the OP considered doing that? Hut 8.5 17:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have. I am currently categorizing assassinated presidents. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Some ostensibly new information has been brought to light but the path forward does not require overturning. We have a different organization that will make it possible to categorize assassinations / murders of monarchs by time without requiring "Assassinated heads of state by time". Heads of state are divided by type (monarchs and presidents) and only then by time. Some of the changes have happened during this DRV and are not controversial. For other types of heads of state such as popes, we currently have List of popes who died violently (and perhaps more such lists), but we can also probably have categories per WP:NOTDUP. I think that this is good to close.—Alalch E. 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 August 2023

Third Single – Speedy restore as closer has acknowledged the procedural error and consensus is clear. Any interested editor can take it to XfD Star Mississippi 01:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Out of process CSD as the redirect is too old, admin Anthony Bradbury has seen my message at his talk page and chose to do nothing. Lightoil (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. WP:CSD#R3 only applies to recently created redirects. Third Single had existed since November 2013. ✗plicit 01:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it was created by a page move, which R3 also excludes. The page had been there since November 2010. —Cryptic 03:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above comments.—Alalch E. 07:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our job is to see the deletion process is correctly followed so the "overturn" votes are understandable, but why oh why should Third Single redirect to some K-Pop album from 2006? If process requires an overturn, then we should list immediately at RFD.—S Marshall T/C 08:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concede my procural error; but it seems to me to be beyond question that this redirect should not be here. If my deletion is wrong, I would appreciate alternative suggestions. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, K-pop single albums were inconsistently referred to as various titles, like Third Single, Third Single Album 3rd Single BIGBANG (Third Single Album). It was not uncommon to simply be referred to releases by their chronological order [16]. The speedy deletion should have been declined and RFD should have been the natural next step. ✗plicit 01:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Restore, as discussed. Being a stupid redirect isn't one of the reasons for speedy deletion. Send it to RFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't have been speedily deleted, but I don't see anybody here arguing that the redirect should exist. Overturning and listing at RfD doesn't make sense unless there is a genuine debate about the existence of the redirect, otherwise it's process for the sake of process. Hut 8.5 11:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose a speedy restore and send to MfD immediately rather than leaving this open. Those advocating WP:NOTBURO takes on what is almost certainly going to be deleted at MfD have a point... but if we're going to have to leave this open for any length of time, let's end this process, send to MfD, and have almost the same overall time with an incontestable outcome. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 August 2023

1 August 2023

Template:Computable knowledge – Decision endorsed * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hi, I'm trying to find somewhere discuss above. What was the issue? Ema--or (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the page Computable Knowledge nor the template Template:Computable Knowledge exist. There is a page computable knowledge (lower-case K) but it has not been deleted, and your template links to an irrelevant deletion discussion from 14½ years ago. Please can you clarify exactly which page you're referring to? Stifle (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the OP but I believe they meant this Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Template:Computable knowledge.--65.93.193.235 (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion by default due to nominator failing to identify what they are requesting or respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant where to talk about it. Is it here? Never mind other question. Ema--or (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, 'computable knowledge'. Ema--or (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've edited as per the comments of 65.93. The filer should explain what they are asking, but this is a guess. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if this is what is being discussed. The close of Delete was supported both by a numerical majority of editors and by the fact, noted by two of the editors, that the template was meant for use with a parent article but there isn't a parent article as such. An explanation by the closer would have been helpful, but was not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse. No problem with the close has been identified. The issue is stated in the discussion about whether to delete.—Alalch E. 21:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Endorse. It has been almost a week since the filing, yet the OP still provides no cohesive argument on why to overturn (if there are any updates please ping me). Thanks. Note that OP has posted again, and if they provide a valid reason I might amend this. VickKiang (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse as there having been no reason given. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the right place, or is it somewhere else? Ema--or (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to discuss here specifically? If it does not relate to the criteria here and is general discussion or questions about the AfD, this is the wrong forum. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hi, I've just posted on the templates page if this is right place for what I want to ask. I want to userfy the content. I'm not taking on the decision. Ema--or (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ema--or: I've restored this to User:Ema--or/Template:Computable knowledge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts – Endorse. WP:SNOW. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 21:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The decision does not align with the rationale provided by the closer. In the statement provided by the closer, they said that "it's impossible to make a policy based consensus because one side isn't arguing from a policy position but have a clear super majority." When asked for clarification on their User Talk page, they explained that their decision "reflect[ed] the strong non-policy based supermajority." "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments" so I am asking for a review of this close. ElKevbo (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This clearly wasn't the best AfD in terms of policy based discussion, but there was clearly no consensus to delete, and even if you discount the keep !voters who didn't discuss the sources, at least a couple of the keep !voters made policy based arguments, so at best you'd get a no consensus result here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. When the breakdown of responses is as significant as it was in this AfD, there is really no result other than consensus. If you want to overcome a >75% majority in a discussion the policy based arguments you're relying on better be rock solid and the other responses pure drivel. The single delete !vote (aside from the nomimation) claims The notability of the subject needs to be presented which is clearly not policy based, as WP:ARTN states if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. There's really no other way this could have been closed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I get the frustration the closer felt and the concerns of the nom here. But A) the arguments for inclusion based on component parts of the college make reasonable sense to me in this context (the "Whoville" argument in particular) and B) if nothing else, IAR gets us to this outcome (which is pretty much SportingFlyer's argument). Hobit (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I thought the discussion was very poor and the keep arguments included a lot of variations of wishful thinking and plain nonpolicy based argumentum but there was no basis I could have closed otherwise than following the very strong supermajority. Even NC would have been a supervote which I don’t believe is the place of the closing admin.

The last time I recall being taken to DRV for keeping an article was by the sadly passed on DGG. That’s got no relevance to this decision but for all his years of service at DRV and AFD I thought I should mention it in case anyone wants to join my moment of introspective reflection. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review request isn't personal, Spartaz. It was a weirdly contentious discussion. But I brought this request because I think that closers should be prepared to make unpopular decisions if the discussion requires it. And I think that is the case here. But given the number of editors who opposed the deletion and the endorsements here, it's clear that our notability guidelines are out of sync with our practices - as Enos733 suggests, I think I need to put forth an RfC to amend WP:NSCHOOL to make it explicit that constituent colleges of notable universities are themselves considered notable. I absolutely disagree with that and it makes for a very messy and unnecessary carve out - but it would be in line with these discussions. ElKevbo (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that this was personal. I was trying to show the difference between what I personally felt about the arguments and where policy took my assessment of consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I miss DGG greatly. He had a realistic attitude born out of years of editing experience but was also so optimistic. I'm still coming across Draft articles that he would postpone CSD G13 deletion on because he thought at some point he would have the time to turn them into reliably sourced articles that could be moved into main space. Unless they are AFC reviewers, most experienced editors pay little serious attention to draft articles because the majority of them are practice pages for new editors but David would find unpolished gems in Draft space that he'd try to preserve, knowing that once the draft was deleted, it was unlikely that another editor would take a stab at writing about these subjects. Sorry for this tangent, I came to look at this review but memories took over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Discussions are rarely perfect, but I don't think the closer had discretion to close the discussion any other way. A larger discussion of the notability of subunits of universities may be warranted, but unless or until that happens, the vast majority of comments advocating keep should be respected. --Enos733 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nomination failed to persuade. It could not be closed any other way. See advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – The appellant appears to be saying that the closer did not supervote, and should have supervoted. I mostly agree that schools and colleges in universities usually do not need separate articles. But the nominator failed to make the case, and the closer was correct that the consensus was Keep. Maybe a case can occasionally be made at DRV that a close should be overturned because the closer didn't supervote. Maybe. This is not such a case (and I don't recall ever having seen such a case). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think this should serve as a caution to those who want to apply SNGs in a Procrustean manner that defies common sense. Yes, it's a part of a notable organization... but at the same time, the part is larger and more impactful than many, many other clearly notable schools and universities. This wasn't just an answer, it was the right answer, and to the extent that it wasn't in accord with our understanding of our notability guidelines, that understanding or those guidelines needs to change. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally have closed as no-consensus as an acknowledgment of the poor quality of keep arguments, but there was really no way this was getting closed as delete. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse couldn't reasonably have been closed any other way. In particular if you are going to nominate an article with 59 citations (now over 100) for deletion I would expect the nomination to make some sort of analysis of these sources, rather than just asserting that the subject isn't notable. The phrase "policy based", which is getting thrown around a lot here, is being misused: the rationale for deletion was based on WP:N, which isn't a policy, and it doesn't look like anyone alleged that the article violates any actual policies. As a guideline WP:N does allow occasional exceptions, and it isn't unreasonable for an AfD to decide to keep an article based on it being a substantial part of an important topic. Hut 8.5 12:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Danielle Vasinova – There is a weak consensus here to endorse the article's deletion.

The way forward is unclear. AFDs are usually not meant to forever forbid the recreation of newly-policy-compliant articles, so I'm willing to convert the deleted page into a draft on request (or you can ask at WP:Requests for undeletion). However, I see that the second AFD was closed after the most recent article creator (the nominator here) moved the page into draft, and the third started after they moved it back into the main namespace; so I would advise against unilaterally mainspacing it yourself again.

Advice on such a draftified version from the users objecting to the sources here would be welcome, so that we don't just end up a fourth afd. My position as DRV closer doesn't allow me to mandate that - obviously - but it would be an admirable show of good faith. —Cryptic 00:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I feel this AFD should have at minimum closed as No Consensus. We had 4 deletes and 4 keeps. One Delete was very suspicious from an IP. I realize that the decision is note solely based on numbers, but also arguments. The delete voters claimed the publications were not good or not in depth. The Keep voters argued the opposite. The subject has many citations, some are in depth and also she meets WP:BASIC which states that if not enough in depth articles, they can be combined to meet notability. In addition, as a model the subject was on cover of 3-4 magazines with coverage within the magazines as well. Naomijeans (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to the magazines that she appeared on the covers with articles within them:

Additional coverage in: MAXIM, OK Magazine, Flaunt, Hardford Courant, Variaties. Naomijeans (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as participant The reality is that the keep arguments demonstrate a lack of understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. The disgraceful badgering of the IP for being an IP needs to stop.IPs are users too and this one appears to be long standing and knowledgeable about policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse AfD is not a democracy, and I believe the delete !voters had the stronger arguments after reading the discussion. And DRV is not AfD, but I've taken a look at the sources in the AfD - just to double check my endorse isn't keeping a good article off the site - and do not believe the delete !voters are mistaken in their arguments. Good close. SportingFlyer T·C 09:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak endorse I'm pretty mixed on this one. There are sources on the legal issues and plenty of interviews, but not much else. Contra @Spartaz: I do have concerns about the IP: All but one contribution is a delete vote at AfD of a female bio. And not just models. That feels pretty darn far into the SPA category IP or not. I'd have closed it as NC, but delete is within admin discretion IMO. Hobit (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the ip apparently edits a number of times under 3 different close addresses (claiming to be the same person each time), and does make more edits than just voting delete at AFDs(though there are plenty of those) I'm not sure you claim makes it. The lookup of IP ownership at at least some level ties in with who they claim to be (though of course they may have access to that IP range for other reasons). I'll not no one pointing out the named user who turns up just to vote keep other than one minor edit, but I guess signing up for an account guarantees no funny business. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To provide additional insight to my close-reasoning, I took into account that Oaktree b, WikiCleanerMan, and Spartaz all gave detailed rebuttals of keep arguments for the significance of the available coverage, and that no similarly detailed rebuttal was provided to delete arguments; Naomijeans' rebuttal to Oaktree presents an interview as if it were independent coverage, and makes some questionable arguments regarding the relative importance of cover modeling appearances. The IP's !vote didn't count much into my analysis their assertion regarding long complicated history isn't really borne out by the actual content of the prior AfDs they pointed to in their response to Naomijeans. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It is one thing to be cautious about unregistered editors, but wariness does not justify insulting them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – No Consensus would have been a valid conclusion, but Delete is a valid conclusion, and is consistent with the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Review of Draft – Sometimes an appellant throws a lot of links and references into a DRV. If the references weren't in the deleted article, new references are not a reason to overturn the deletion, but are a reason to permit re-creation. With this history, a recreated article is likely either to be tagged for G4 or sent to AFD again, so submitting a draft is a better idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If the references were all in the deleted article, then the appellant should request temporary undeletion. I am not requesting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep I see non-trivial coverage in multiple independent RS'es. I think being a model and an influencer is a vapid pursuit, but the coverage is there whether any of us like it or not. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which? Not to turn this into AfD part two, but the sourcing presented all has some sort of problem. SportingFlyer T·C 08:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The implication that editors are pushing for deletion due to a distaste for modeling isn't backed up by the arguments presented in the discussion. Specific criticisms of the quality of the sources listed in the AfD and again in this DRV were raised in the original AfD and never rebutted. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic bias against "non-encyclopedic" topics is as real as the debates over hotly contested political topics. One needn't accuse any specific editor(s), nor even any specific discussion, in order to call all participants to scrupulously follow our policies and guidelines. As far as GNG, I reviewed a couple of the sources, found them adequate, and therefore the criticisms uncompelling. If we have a topic covered at length in WaPo and NYT and 30 people come in and argue "insufficient RS coverage!" do we delete that article? Only in a world where reality doesn't matter. Obviously, that's not this case, but I am entirely unconvinced that the sourcing sucks enough to say it doesn't meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add a bit more: The AfD contained false statements (TMZ is NOT not a RS), and multiple statements deprecating interviews as primary. This is incorrect per WP:PSTS, as interviews do contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. A statement, speech, or writing by an article subject is a primary source. An interview of an article subject is a secondary source because it is edited and curated by the interviewer, and should be judged by the interviewer's affiliation: Interviewed by a blog? No. Interviewed by Wired? That's worth including. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to No Consensus. The Delete comments are stronger on balance with more detailed discussion of sources; but are they really strong enough to establish a consensus in the face of facially reasonable Keep arguments pointing to real (not just hypothetical) sources at least a couple of which appear to be reliable? I don't think they are, ultimately, though I admit that it is a close call. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm not actually sure how to read this as no consensus here, even if we knocked out one of the delete !votes for whatever reason. The connection between "being on the cover of a magazine" and "major contribution" to a field seems tenuous to me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree with the closer that the Delete arguments were stronger because there wasn't really any rebuttal to their analysis of the sources, just bald statements that the sources were good enough and that the subject has appeared on magazine covers (which AFAIK doesn't appear in any notability criteria). It wouldn't be reasonable to downweight an IP comment just for coming from an IP unless there was some evidence of sock/meatpuppetry, and it doesn't look like there is. Hut 8.5 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

[1] "قصص من الحياة: قصة اسلام ارون كومار من عبادّ الأبقار (Stories from life: the story of self-submission (convertion to Islam) of Arun Kumar, a cow worshiper)". ar:دنيا الوطن (AlWatan Voice) (in Arabic). 8 July 2014. Retrieved 29 July 2023.

[1]