Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2024 Deletion review archives July 2024 >

30 June 2024

[edit]

29 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Salva Marjan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article- First female Formula 4 driver from Kerala India [1] [2], which was not proven in the deletion discussion of removing the article at the time, is now passed WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, and the discussion at that time ended immediately, and now the woman who is the subject of this article has participated in many notable events as a formula. A female driver. This article should be moved back to the main space, and this request was communicated to a closed editor who participated in the discussion of its deletion. ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. There was a consensus to delete.
    Oppose undeletion. In the AfD it was said that there is false information about a living person (full of wrong information, full of lies) and this was not contested in the AfD, and a page with such problems should not be undeleted. Interested editors can create the article.—Alalch E. 11:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The wrong information may be some technical error from the reference, but she is the first woman racing driver from Kerala India. Participated in notable events [3] [4][5] [6]Spworld2 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and reject draftification. The two sources cited by the appellant were already included in the deleted version, and were deemed insufficient. I'd normally recommend starting a fresh draft, but if no new sources were found, that would be an exercise in futility. Owen× ☎ 12:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. Clearly the correct conclusion by the closer. DRV is not AFD round 2. Submission of a draft for review is permitted because the title has not been salted. However, there is no reason to think that submission of a draft is likely to be useful, and there is no reason why the article should be refunded to draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the discussion. I have no problem at this point if a draft is created using new and recent sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse However, the sources don't really assert anything special--she's trained to compete, not that she actually has any sports accomplishments. Charitably, this is WP:TOOSOON, even without the other concerns raised above. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Disidrose (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted as an WP:R3, despite being too old to be eligible under that criterion. As an WP:RFOR from a language without a clear connection to its target of Dyshidrosis its retention at RFD is highly questionable. Nonetheless it was marked as reviewed by an experienced editor and the community has made its desire to weigh in on redirects more than a few months old at RFD clear. Deleting admin is largely inactive and archived the request for undeletion without comment, as such I am beinging this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95CE:1437:1591:A9E6 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. R3 specifically only applies to recently created redirects. This was deleted almost two years after creation. This can be sent to RFD if desired. Frank Anchor 12:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While the R3 itself isn't particularly egregious, I found the admin's conduct after the fact to be inappropriate. WP:ADMINACCT is a policy, and it lists, among other things, failure to communicate as improper admin conduct. This admin not only ignored a valid question/petition by a user, but then went on to archive that question away from his Talk page. If you are unable or unwilling to respond to legitimate questions and requests, then hang up the mop and step away from admin actions until you are ready to be accountable for your actions. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to RFD if someone feels it's necessary. This was not a valid speedy. Star Mississippi 13:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Definitely not recent as required by R3. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Incorrect application of R3. No biggie. Should have replied to the IP though.—Alalch E. 22:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • R3 is tediously out of date and should have been reformed years ago to split out foreign language redirects to their own criterion. The average lifecycle of those is: get created, get forgotten instantly, lurk around doing nothing for years on end, finally get slam-dunk deleted at RfD when somebody notices them. It's a colossal waste of everyone involved's time. WP:IAR is still a policy on this project, although most people seem to have forgotten that. Honestly, I do not care at all whether this redirect lives or dies. This is pure meaningless bureaucracy on the basis of a bad rule blindly applied.  — Scott • talk 22:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like many of the elements of WP:NEWCSD are met. We've gone through and tweaked or eliminated several in the past year or so, no reason to not do another... my only concern is whether this situation is frequent enough to be worth documenting as a new/revised CSD. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't get much traction when last discussed at WT:CSD, this past March. —Cryptic 05:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really not a popular enough venue for discussion, going by the fact that only 6 people commented. RFOR itself originated from a centralized discussion in 2008 and the recent discussion deserved to be similarly publicized.
    I see the very obvious point of what the basic criterion for the need to retain a foreign-language redirect should be, that the target article demonstrates a connection to the foreign language, was completely missed. This is hardly a new idea - it just synthesizes this part of WP:R#DELETE #8 (added in 2011):

    If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created.

    Going by the RFOR talk page, the last time I engaged on this topic was a decade ago. I may have enough energy now to give it a better try.  — Scott • talk 15:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    finally get slam-dunk deleted at RfD when somebody notices them?
    How many such RfDs can you link. NEWCSDs need evidence to get people to agree. I reckon a dozen in a year would do it. If you can’t find them, generate them. IAR does not support CSD violations on cases that don’t matter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The A in IAR is for All! It doesn't come with criteria. More seriously though I'm sure I could pluck out a whole bunch of RFOR deletions, it's just a matter of having the wherewithal to go do that digging and be prepared to follow it up with a bunch of arguing. I'll put it on my to do list for the next time I have a burst of energy.  — Scott • talk 12:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    17:11, 17 May 2024 Scott talk contribs deleted page Disidrose (R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: Inappropriate foreign-language redirect)
    You were thinking IAR? So you knowingly made a false log entry?
    Do you assert that every admin is entitled to delete anything, regardless of WP:CSD, if they think the deletion improves Wikipedia? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first question has already been addressed in this discussion and I'm not going to rehash it. The answer to the second question is actually yes, according to IAR. But as you can see from the reaction to this unbelievably trivial deletion, nobody here actually follows the policy which makes the exact assertion that you're posing. I believe in our defined policies, do you? If not, why not? If you think IAR shouldn't be a policy, why don't you attempt to get it retired? Honest question.  — Scott • talk 13:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you “ archived the request for undeletion without comment”? That’s a failure of WP:ADMINACCT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His conduct here makes it clear Scott believes WP:ADMINACCT doesn't apply to him. Owen× ☎ 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolute bollocks and I think less of you as a colleague for having said it.  — Scott • talk 13:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide diffs of your engagement here that you believe satisfy WP:ADMINACCT, this is a serious request. The only one I can think of is this. Alternatively if you believe that one post satisfied ADMINACCT please so indicate, briefly if possible. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:ADA6:D3F1:7636:24EA (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed, correctly, that the anonymous editor would bring it here. I did have a mea culpa lined up to post if they didn't within a few days but it turned out not to be necessary.
    Why? Real talk: I looked at this unaccountable IP editor's full history, which is 50% dropping walls of castigating text and upper-case shortcuts on people's talk pages, and it gave me the creeps. I decided that I would much, much rather discuss this in a public forum than get that treatment directly. I also couldn't work out a way to say "take it to DRV" without getting a wall of text in reply. Is that off protocol? Yes. Am I a human being first, capable of being weirded out here and feeling awkward about replying, even after 21 years on the project? Also yes. It's very lucky for me that my instinct was on the mark.
    Can't wait for someone else to roll up and call me a liar now. Love how AGF has completely fallen by the wayside here, by the way.  — Scott • talk 13:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More WP:ASPERSIONS.
    Firstly, a few days is not true see request and and DRV. I have yet to call you a liar, but given your definition of a few days and this odd out of the blue claim only appearing just now and that you archived the message without comment, I'll admit the claim strains credulity. Perhaps though the archival was inadvertant and you lost track of time as sometimes happens.
    Secondly your claims WRT to my editing pattern are patently untrue and it should be obvious from a glance that I edit in articlespace more than any other, and indeed that the majority of my talkspace edits are merely tagging pages. As for user talk pages, edits to those are an even smaller fraction. A substantial number are leaving templates with consensus approved wording including links to information like this; sometimes I will instead type out a custom message like this. The information provided at the uppercase links in question is intended to improve editor skill if read.
    Thirdly the usual interaction when asking people to undelete pages looks like this which could hardly be described as castigation. or this; I can only recall one instance in which I had an extended back and forth regarding a deletion and while ultimately it had to be overturned at DRV, the evidence suggests the provided information was taken to heart. In many cases there is no interaction whatsoever, a request is made and the page is subsequently undeleted. There is no time ever in my entire history when someone has said "take it to DRV" or anything similarly direct, and I have not promptly done so. Go ahead try to diff it, you can't. Ergo either you have not reviewed history as claimed, or you are confusing me with someone else. In sum substantiate all of your claims with diffs, or strike them.
    Finally, "I don't think they would find any explanation satisfactory" even if true is not an exception to WP:ADMINACCT. Bluntly if you find yourself unable to deal with criticism of your action involving admin tools, even when the criticism is misguided, then you should refrain from using them. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:ADA6:D3F1:7636:24EA (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The above giant wall of defensive text littered with links is the exact demonstration of what I'm talking about.  — Scott • talk 14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe that diffs detract from rather than enhance the credibility of a statement, your views are well outside the mainstream of not only the Wikipedia community, but any body with reasonable standards of evidence. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:ADA6:D3F1:7636:24EA (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I can respect honest and forthright IAR deletions even if I may not agree with all of them; nothing prevents placement of WP:IAR in the deletion log. I have less respect for deletions where first an incorrect criterion is cited and once this is pointed out the under pressure explanation shifts to IAR.
    A more general concern is that the community tends to be uncomfortable in cases where someone cites IAR simply because they don't like policy as currently written especially when that part of policy has been previously discussed; WP:Ignore all rules is for uncommon situations, WP:DICC, and WP:IARxC already encapsulate those concerns in a rather general way, so I won't rehash them here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E966:F040:569C:CEDB (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really couldn't care less about the respect of someone who began this discussion by describing me as "largely inactive". Also I don't care for being called a liar in public, let alone by a nameless bureaucracy enthusiast with a paper-thin understanding of IAR who doesn't even have a consistent IP address.  — Scott • talk 17:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You edited 6 times over 14 days, and a bit over 200 in all of 2023, your activity has seen an uptick recently although I will admit I did not look at your full edit history in detail until just now as it is at most ancillary to any analysis. As a qualitative assessment without an agreed upon standard it is also fundamentally not worth quibbling over.
    No one has called you a liar in this discussion, and you should diff it or retract the WP:ASPERSION. Referring to your fellow editors as "bureaucracy enthusiasts" is unlikely to further either your case or discussion in general during a dispute. Even when emotion cannot be avoided its energy is best channeled to elucidating relevant details. To your last point, users do not in general have control over the dynamicity of their IP addresses, and the relevancy to the points under discussion is likewise not clear, I mean what is the weather like right now in London again? In sum, I would advise greater care in composing your comments in the future. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:98F8:F906:1ADD:EC70 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise you to go outside once in a while.  — Scott • talk 17:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently, actually I suspect that is quite common as a significant fraction of editing is done on mobile, note that as the mobile edit tags are not applied when one manually switches back to desktop mode the proportion is higher than one might surmise from simply glancing over page histories. But I confess myself once again at a loss to understand the relevancy of one of your comments. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:98F8:F906:1ADD:EC70 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this element of the conversation between you two, IP 2601 and @Scott should either cease or move to one of your Talk's. It's not helpful in determining the best course of action. Star Mississippi 22:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Someone should just collapse it, as I certainly have no interest in continuing.  — Scott • talk 23:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and trout (at least) the deleting admin. IAR is never a reason to speedy delete a page, especially when it is simply because one dislikes a policy that has an active consensus in support of it (as CSD does). Even if it were a valid reason to speedily delete a page then it must be cited as the reason for deleting the page, rather than lying in the deleting summary to hide your actions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh now you're accusing me of lying? I picked R3 because it was close enough. You also don't understand IAR, which doesn't surprise me in the least. In summary, get stuffed.  — Scott • talk 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Close enough" is simply not a thing with speedy deletion - the criteria are explicitly intended to be interpreted narrowly so if it is unclear whether a page meets a criterion or not it doesn't. If you deleted a page for any reason other than R3 and you put R3 in the deletion summary that is either an error or intentionally misleading (also known as lying). Given that my interpretation of IAR with regards to speedy deletion matches the consensus in every relevant discussion I've been a part of, and your view is getting no support in this one, I can confidently state that there is no need for me to get stuffed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your track record of misplaced confidence is truly a work of unparalleled dedication.  — Scott • talk 23:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The posture that everyone else but you does not understand IAR and that mere invective qualifies as argument is unlikely to advance the case you appear to be making. A thoughtful and intellectually honest analysis of the need for volume management as applied to foreign language redirects may be of value, however if this style is persisted in it will be more difficult to make that happen, and hence reduce the odds of consensus being found for a new CSD. I suppose it is possible your actual and stated preferences are at odds with each other, in which case I'll concede your rhetorical cleverness is greater then might be initially surmised, but the actual process of applied honest analysis will nonetheless be degraded. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F0D4:D1E3:653B:B44C (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone but me, but definitely you two.  — Scott • talk 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And everyone else who has so far participated on this page, or doubtless everyone else who disagrees with you, got it. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:596E:697B:FBFB:F73F (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per the clear consensus above. One administrator is not entitled to put their personal interpretation of policy above the community's, and if they do so regularly they should be prevent from deleting pages entirely. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott, the reason people get so upset about out-of-process deletions like this, compared to, say, unusual article content or page moves or even blocks, is that they can't see the same situation you did and verify that the deletion really did improve Wikipedia like WP:IAR requires. Even for admins who can look at what happened afterwards, deleted pages are deliberately made harder to find by many aspects of the software - they don't show up in categories, searches, etc - so unless an active editor happens to have the page watchlisted or see it get deleted as it's happening, it's likely to go unnoticed. It's worse when the deletion log comment is misleading: it's good that you labeled this as a WP:RFOREIGN deletion there, but not that you left the R3 boilerplate saying that the redirect was recently created; this is why multiple users above are accusing you of lying. This isn't about not having a redirect from the Portuguese word for dyshidrosis (or, for that matter, that its creator incorrectly labelled it as the Spanish word) - I'll be very much surprised if it gets anything but unanimous delete votes when it's restored and sent to RFD - but people will accept that, because they can go look at the RFD discussion, and see where it pointed, and see that there's broad agreement for this title to be red, and have some confidence that the next page to get quietly disappeared isn't one that they actually care about. —Cryptic 14:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cryptic and thanks for actually taking a collegiate tone. I don't disagree with your points at all. As I was saying above to some other folks, R3 and its definition of "recent" fail to adequately address the reality of unused foreign-language redirects, which are possibly the most obscure objects in our system (even more than portal talk pages). The likelihood of the research you describe happening is multiplied by the demonstrated utility value of those objects... in the case of a redirect, the realistic chance of their being found and followed to an article which doesn't involve that language at all. It's something like zero point several zeroes one percent. This one fell into that micro-niche and I decided on the basis of IAR that R3 was "close enough". For the other 99.999...% of speedy deletions, of course a precise rationale is essential, for exactly the reasons you've outlined. Nothing of that nature has quietly disappeared, or will, thanks to me.
    I can't speak for others of course. A bad actor who wanted to try sweeping something under the rug wouldn't use a quantified rationale like R3 which would show up at Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions.  — Scott • talk 15:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot of history at RfD of redirects being nominated for deletion that the nominator thinks will be slam-dunk deletes that end up being kept or retargetted, either because they've not understood something or because of some knowledge they didn't have. I'm not saying that this will happen to this redirect, but it happens enough that the speedy deletion criteria are deliberately written narrowly and interpreted strictly - i.e. it is not just to protect against bad actors but also mistakes from good actors.
    If you think that there are redirects that should be speedily deleted but which don't fit any existing criteria, then the only correct course of action is to start a discussion at WT:CSD proposing a new or modified criterion that matches the four WP:NEWCSD requirements. Out-of-process deletions make that much harder as they actively distort evidence of frequency. As for why just IARing it in those circumstances are bad - see WP:IARUNCOMMON and having to spend time at DRV discussions like this one. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding There is a lot of history at RfD of redirects being nominated for deletion that the nominator thinks will be slam-dunk deletes that end up being kept or retargetted... - are you specifically talking about unused foreign language redirects? If not, then that's irrelevant.
    I've seen many things over the years, but someone citing a two-sentence-long comment that they themselves wrote, using an uppercase shortcut? That really is a first. Just be straightforward and say "I think that..." rather than attempting to anonymize your personal opinion and give it a halo. It's also wrong, by the way.  — Scott • talk 17:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote that after the opinion had been explicitly endorsed and citied by someone else in a different context to where I'd expressed it originally. Both those uses then got multiple endorsements by others. It has since been cited multiple times by and independently of me, and this is the only time I'm aware anybody has disagreed with it - and you don't even have the courtesy to explain why in your opinion it is "wrong" (based on this discussion that is quite possibly because it doesn't allow you to speedily delete things in direct contradiction to consensus). You also completely ignore the entire rest of my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the direct equivalent of if we had a policy called WP:CATS which said "If in doubt, pet a cat." and you wrote an essay called WP:CATSACTUALLY which said "WP:CATS is intended for times when you are taking your second-year exam in algebra, or your elderly uncle is going to have surgery to remove a gallstone." Well, no. If that was the case the policy would have actually said so. You can't just make stuff up about when and where policies are applicable.
    The first half of your comment was whataboutery (as you've chosen to ignore the question rather than answer it, that's the most charitable interpretation) and the second half was a classic example of arguing from a false premise - there's nothing to be said that hasn't already been covered on this page.  — Scott • talk 18:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1794 in Ukraine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Relist. While not harbouring strong feelings about the outcome of this AFD, I believe that it was contentious and therefore should not have been closed after three days by a non-admin. Though it was "withdrawn by nominator", there was no consensus yet, and per WP:WITHDRAWN: "While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep [...], the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it". Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there's a better argument that this should have been closed as withdrawn instead, so that you could immediately start a new afd without the old one having any weight. —Cryptic 08:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the editor who closed the discussion, the sole delete !vote was cast after the nominator withdrew, the discussion should have been closed earlier. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 10:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, it "should" not have been closed earlier. Although it "may" have been closed, it never hurts to get more input. The nominator saying "withdraw" is not an automatic end to a discussion. Geschichte (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (to “Withdrawn”). WP:SLAP the AfD nominator for the inadequate nomination. Allow a fresh nomination of better quality. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse end result but this should have been closed as “withdrawn” or “procedural keep.” This is a valid withdrawal as there were no delete/ATD votes at the time the nominator withdrew. With the close being on procedural grounds, there is no prejudice against immediate re-nomination. Frank Anchor 12:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting is acceptable as well per OwenX, Alalch E, and others' interpretation of WP:WITHDRAWN, which I consider to be reasonable, though an optional new AFD with a better nomination statement is my first preference. Frank Anchor 12:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist - This was a bad non-admin close with both Keep and Delete votes and should have been allowed to run at least one week. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one's difficult because it was properly withdrawn before any delete !votes were posted and could have been closed as keep before then. I'll decline to bold any suggestion, but I think a new AfD is best. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Once the final Delete was cast, the AfD can no longer be speedy-closed as withdrawn, especially by a non-admin. The fact that it could have been speedy-closed earlier doesn't matter. Owen× ☎ 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this comment. It's important that everyone understands that when formal prerequisites for a "withdrawn" close are met, but the nominator does not close themselves as "withdrawn", the next editor who could do so can still make a comment supporting an outcome other than keeping, and if they do so, then the discussion can no longer be closed as "withdrawn". —Alalch E. 21:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on what subsequent means in this context. I've always taken it to mean that you can withdraw if someone has !voted delete, but it can't be closed as withdrawn. In this instance it should have been clear to the petitioner that this was a withdrawn AfD as opposed to someone who !votes and then the nom wishes to withdraw, and a new AfD started. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Subsequent there means subsequent to the nomination. If subsequent to the deletion nomination there are, say, two keep !votes, the nominator can withdraw and close as "withdrawn", or, if the nominator does not do so and instead only leaves a comment that they withdraw, anyone else can close as "withdrawn", but they are not compelled to do so and, subsequent to the withdrawal comment, can add their !vote with any recommendation, and if that recommendation is anything other than keep, then no one can close as withdrawn anymore as the matter has become contentious again (just as it had been prior to the nominator's withdrawal), and the AfD proceeds as normal. So this AfD's outcome as "keep" can not be understood as a proper (speedy) keep from withdrawal, and the comments in this DRV suggesting that are wrong. I see that the closer has commented here saying: As the editor who closed the discussion, the sole delete !vote was cast after the nominator withdrew, the discussion should have been closed earlier. And that is wrong. There are no such shoulds. Closing as "keep" as if due to withdrawal under these circumstances was a substantial procedural error, compounded by the bad NAC, which is a procedural error in itself. So this was a very bad close. —Alalch E. 22:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem mighty confident that you're correct there. If someone has withdrawn their nomination without opposition, but maybe doesn't know they can self-close, it's potentially tendentious to vote !delete afterwards. SportingFlyer T·C 16:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta WP:AGF. Where's the evidence, even hypothetically? —Alalch E. 22:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn bad non-admin close and relist.—Alalch E. 21:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per OwenX, Alalch E. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - Withdrawn nominations are closed when there are no outstanding delete !votes because they are viewed as non-contentious. The moment there is a delete !vote, then it is contentious and cannot be closed early. For those viewing this situation as a quirk of timing, consider the case of an AFD that is withdrawn and closed immediately, any editor coming across the article and thinking it should be deleted is free to nominate for deletion. End result is still an open AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
…which is exactly why I voted to endorse with the option of starting a new AFD (particularly given the very weak rationale of the nominating statement) Frank Anchor 16:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geschichte's comment can serve as the nomination after the relist. The relist comment can point to it and say to treat it as functionally equivalent to the nomination. —Alalch E. 20:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Racism in North America – I find there is no consensus in this deletion review discussion and as such the closure remains unchanged. I decline to exercise my discretion to relist the AFD, which was already live for the best part of a month. I would observe that there is no bar to editors performing many of the alternative outcomes suggested below, such as merging, converting to a list, editing, changing the redirect target, etc., either by gaining a consensus on a suitable talk page or being bold. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Racism in North America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'd like to request the reopening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in North America. All 4 commenters that supported delete mentioned that the topic isn't covered as a whole but rather individually by coutry (i.e. "no coverage of this subject as a whole", "Unable to find anything discussing this topic specifically", "This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole"). In my comment, among other things, I mentioned that Google Scholar has 867 hits for "racism in North America". Many, if not all of these sources deal with racism in North America as a whole and would be out of place inside each individual country's article. Here are a few: "Transnational Perspectives on the History of Racism in North America", "Imperialism and Settler Colonialism: Xenophobia and Racism in North America" (let's remember that California was Mexico a mere 200 years ago), "Racism and the mental health of East Asian diasporas in North America: a scoping review", and I could go on. The discussion was closed a few hours after I made my point and before anyone else had a chance to either counter it or to agree with it and review their positions. I feel a relist would have been more reasonable. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist This seems like a blatant failure of the AfD process and is making me rethink my "no, AfD is fine" comment at the does AfD need review. The first source which comes up in my search was a scholarly article which clearly looked at racism in the continent as a whole, the article's clearly a valid summary article, and the only failure I can see is that those advocating for the article to be kept didn't demonstrate the available sources clearly enough, so we've lost an article on a notable topic that has been in a relatively stable state since 2008. Being an "unnecessary conflagration" isn't really a deletion rationale, either. This needs to be relisted so more sources such as [7] can be reviewed. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Involved comment as nom - I was somewhat surprised by the close, and would not object to a relist. But comments like we've lost an article on a notable topic so badly miss the nomination argument that I must respond. None of the content was about "racism in North America" continent-wide, it was a series of vignettes about various countries in North America that were inferior to the per-country articles. The notable content is already included at other articles. It is about how to organize this information; the claim that "there are at least two scholarly articles that use this phrase" does not imply that we must organize this information in a specific way to maximize article-count. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the topic's history, the per country articles were valid splits of this parent topic, and the topic has been covered by sources. There wasn't really a proper reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid close. This Deletion Review asks the reviewers whether the close was a valid close, not whether it was the close that they would have done. Relist would have been valid, but not the only possible close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft for originator to submit draft that would involve splitting out some material. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: see, that's part of the problem. It wasn't a delete but a BLAR, so the history is still there. Reverting it and adding robust references that solve the "coverage of this subject as a whole" would be good editorial practice for all intents and purposes. But reverting a BLAR after consensus in AfD would certainly qualify as diruptive editing. So that's where we're at at this point: by ignoring an opinion that contradicted the central argument of those defending deletion, this closure keeps me from proceding with what, IMHO, would be good editorial practice even in the eyes of at least some of those who supported deletion ("This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole"). The one part that doesn't fit in all of this is the claim that there was consensus to close that AfD as it was. So here we are. Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was a very bold close. It happens to match what my !vote would have been.
    Unless overturned, and further discussion belongs at Talk:Racism by country. Do not authorise draftspace drafting from DRV, that is beyond the scope of DRV and is a bad thing. A fork to draftspace should NOT be allowed unless done by consensus established at Talk:Racism by country. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to see how there was a problem with the nominated version that could not have been corrected through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what you want. There was a discussion, which led to the article becoming a redirect, with the content not already in other articles being moved elsewhere. That is "regular editing" in my book. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The complaint was that this wasn't a comprehensive overview nor a set navigation list, to oversimplify things. It could have been edited into either one. You're absolutely correct that a redirect is regular editing in that it does not require admin tools, but it seems to me that in this case even a simpler solution was not contemplated. This is specifically a comment, rather than a !vote to overturn or anything else, because the outcome isn't terrible... I'm just wondering why these alternatives do not appear to have been considered. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just noting that this discussion was relisted twice and even though a third relisting is possible, many participants are irritated by relisting more than twice (and some are even irritated at one relisting!). So, I think this discussion was given plenty of time although I understand how the Rkieferbaum would have wanted to see a response to their opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s the comment-free pointless relisting that’s exasperating. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The decision to relist should be guided by the potential for building consensus. If there's a clear path forward, relisting could very well make sense regardless of the number of previous listings. After a couple of relistings, it may often become evident that consensus is unlikely, in which case closing with rough or no consensus could be preferable. But a third relisting may be warranted if new information emerges that could facilitate consensus, in which case this should be articulated when relisting. The aim for consensus (rather than voting or arbitrary closings) is what makes participating in AfDs constructive and enjoyable. Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Rkieferbaum, and of that I agree with, but it doesn’t go at all to my point. If there is a good reason to relist, include a relisting comment. A lot of relists are not good, but empty procedure, and diminishes the significance of relisting. If the discussion does not show a consensus, but the potential closer can see a pathway to consensus, that potential closer should relist with a comment that helps later participants contribute to moving along that pathway. The relister should articulate the reason for relisting on every relist. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I can't find a procedural fault here. I don't see sufficient grounds to relist a discussion that had already been relisted twice; and the close did fully reflect the consensus at the debate; so I have to agree that the deletion process was correctly followed. But I also agree with SportingFlyer that this was an extreme outlier from our normal range of outcomes about content that has this many academic sources, and I agree with JClemens that the problems would have been better solved with the edit button than with redirection. We don't normally let people take a mulligan on an AfD outcome, but in this case I can see good reasons why we should? I'm uncomfortable with leaving things how they are, in any case.—S Marshall T/C 08:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 June 2024

[edit]

25 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wesley L. McDonald Distinguished Statesman and Stateswoman of Aviation Award (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:JUSTAPOLICY WP:JUSTA Nayyn (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Well attended discussion (for a CfD), policy-based reasoning, only the appellant disagreed with the outcome. I don't see how that could have been closed any other way, and specifically endorse this as a valid NAC. I'm sorry the outcome wasn't the way you would have liked Nayyn. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This was a valid close, and the most appropriate close. The argument that the appellant sort of gives is more applicable to this appeal than to the CFD. WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:JUSTA mean that an editor made a vague wave at a policy, but this is a vague wave at an essay on arguments to avoid. Also, this is not CFD round 2, but being one of the highest honors is not the same as being a defining characteristic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions essay, it says:

    Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.

    . Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a WP:1AM situation. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. WP:OCAWARD is the relevant guideline in this case. There was no need for the Delete !voters to add prose to what already was a coherent, if terse, argument. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. WP:ATA is WP:JUSTANESSAY and many "arguments to avoid" according to this nice and optimistic essay are quite far from being discountable when understood in the context of a whole actual discussion. And that essay fails to provide nuance in that respect, generalizing certain typical forms of expression as "unconvincing", "infirm" etc. But DRV is not primarily concerned with whether the arguments were "convincing": The arguments are analyzed for what they truly are, not as how they are likely to convince and whether the comments that carry them have a satisfying form. An argument packaged in a comment that is not convincing can be identical to the argument contained in a comment that is convincing. DRV is a post-mortem. In this post-mortem, stronger literature is needed than an optimistic essay. These WP:JUSTAPOLICY comments must be accepted as contributive to a consensus. The comments invoke a relevant guideline and are okay. There was a consensus.—Alalch E. 22:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Heer Da Hero (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AFD I initiated was closed with a "keep" decision, but I've concerns. Some IPs (WP:LOUTSOCK) voted "keep" based on some WP:ROTM coverage, which I countered. And just before closure, @Libraa2019 voted "keep" without adequate time for source assessment., @Libraa has a history of throwing 'keep' votes based on ROTM coverage. If possible, reopening the AFD would allow me to assess the sources provided by @Libraa. I've always understood AFD closures to be based on policy, not vote counts alone, and this closure is demotivating. Fwiw, the page was also created and heavily edited by UPE sock farms. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse: reopening the AFD would allow me to assess these sources properly - how so? What prevents the appellant from doing this source assessment now? If the sources provide only ROTM coverage, what difference does it make whether they were provided by anon IPs or established editors? I don't understand the basis for this appeal.
After being open for three weeks, the nomination failed to receive a single supporting !vote to delete. I don't see how relisting it for a fourth week will achieve anything beyond giving the appellant the opportunity to bludgeon that final Keep view. Even if all the Keep views are proven to have come from a single sock farm, this would still be closed as N/C. I'm okay with an early renomination. Owen× ☎ 10:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OwenX, OK, I'll do a source assessment here related to coverage provided by @Libraa. This also raises a question. If, due to a lack of participation, an AFD receives a few "keep" votes, who cite some coverage that doesn't easily satisfy GNG, should the decision be based on the vote counts and not on the source assessment and/or counter arguments? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed source assessment. But again, what would you have us do with it? Even if none of those sources provides SIGCOV, what are we to do - relitigate the AfD? Overturn to N/C? I've closed several AfDs where you were the nom or a participant. It's clear that you have the best interests of the project in mind, but your style often comes across as unnecessarily confrontational. Your request to reopen this AfD, after it was relisted three times, strikes me as an attempt to have the last word in it, without any reasonable expectation of changing the practical outcome. I know being right is important to you, but using your time constructively is often more important. Maybe start a merger discussion (to 7th Sky Entertainment?), get other editors involved, and if no consensus is reached there, at least the next AfD for it might be better attended. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OwenX, In the past, I used to nominate AFD and then disengage, only to find them kept due to non-policy-based reasons that I didn't challenge at the time. So after returning from a wikibreak, I decided to engage in AFDs more actively, particularly when I feel that non-policy-based arguments or keep votes based on ROTM coverage would influence outcomes unfairly. My intention is to simply to ensure that decisions align closely with WP:N. And I want to clarify that I've been lately working to avoid being confrontational in my AFD interactions. Regarding the DRV, my main concern is highlighting the issue of how low participation can allow some IPs to rescue some pages so easily. That being said, if you feel this DRV was unnecessary, I'll leave it at that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can acknowledge that you recently have, indeed, been more amenable to walking away from an AfD debate if it turns too acrimonious, and I commend you for that. But I can't recall cases where you were able to build consensus, or win over someone who disagreed with you. Suggesting a viable ATD is often a good way to sway things away from keeping a page that isn't independently notable. Very few pages actually violate policy to the point where they need to be deleted. I know you only strive to ensure decisions comply with WP:N, but I'm not sure you're always going about it the best way. I don't think it was wrong of you to bring this to DRV. The topic of anon IP participation in AfD is worth discussing. But I still think a merger discussion, or failing that, renomination in two months, per Frank Anchor, would be more fruitful in this case. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OwenX, Honestly, I also don't recall (maybe because I nominate too many pages for deletion) where I was able to build consensus, or win over someone who disagreed with me. But I think this might be an instance where an editor withdrew their keep vote after I countered it. Anyways, your comments were encouraging, and I appreciate that you acknowledged the topic of anonymous IP participation in AfD as worth discussing. I have no hard feelings about this page being kept, so this DRV can be closed now. No offense to @Doczilla: even though this comment was discouraging. I wasn't arguing with them; I was just providing counterarguments. P.S. I'm observing an AfD (where my !vote is neutral) where some editors are debating as if it's the end of the world. Cheers! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re: "Honestly, I also don't recall (maybe because I nominate too many pages for deletion)"
That might suggest one reason among many to not nominate so many pages. (Yeah, I split an infinitive.) AfDs need quality over quantity. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Doczilla, I don't nominate every page I dislike—only those that apparently fail to meet WP:N and there's nothing wrong with that. Right? By the way, since Liz advised me, I've definitely slowed down; you can see it in my AFD logs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've kept thinking about this because I do appreciate your enthusiasm and I do want to help you be effective, so it occurs to me that this might be worth pointing out: Fewer editors have participated in AfD lately. We're having some discussions trying to figure out what might be done to help with that. In the meantime, though, the fact that fewer are participating means AfDs are getting relisted more often and more are closing as no consensus. It's about both the sheer number of noms (which you've addressed above) and the quality of those noms. Concentrating efforts on making a smaller number of stronger AfD nominations might (1) give editors clearer AfDs to discuss in the first place and (2) be less daunting to people who feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of AfDs listed. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken! I'll definitely slow down more if you think I should. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.24newshd.tv/3-May-2023/nadia-khan-gets-crazy-as-mad-over-drama-serial-heer-da-hero ~ 24News is an independent source- but this particular coverage is based on an interview No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established - clearly falls under WP:RSNOI No The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2407480/ramazan-binge-list-five-shows-to-keep-you-entertained-post-iftar ~ Express Tribune is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG ✘ No
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1079637/amar-thanks-the-audience-for-loving-the-alpha-hero-she-has-penned-in-her-serial-heer-da-hero/ ~ Daily Times is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG ✘ No
https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/30-Mar-2023/amar-khan-s-punglish-skills-in-heer-da-hero-impresses-fans Yes Daily Pakistan is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line ~ CHURNALISM style coverage and falls under WP:RSNOI - Fwiw Daily Pakistan itself is not a RS No WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG ✘ No
https://www.independenturdu.com/node/133401 Yes Independent Urdu is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line No The coverage was published in the blog section (بلاگ) of Independent Urdu and was done by a blogger (بلاگر) so the expertise of its author has not been established. Yes The coverage discuss the subject in detail ✘ No
https://jang.com.pk/news/1211032 ~ Jang is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line but this particular coverage is based on an interview ~ How coverage based on interview can be reliable? No WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG ✘ No
https://www.aaj.tv/news/30323593 ~ Aaj is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
https://lahorenews.tv/index.php/news/61302/ ~ Lahore News is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1199328 ~ Dawn is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG ✘ No
https://www.easterneye.biz/amar-khan-being-her-own-hero/ ~ Eastern Eye is an independent source- but this particular coverage is based on an interview No How coverage based on interview can be reliable? No Amar Khan - the actor of TV series themselves talked about the subject ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Endorse this AFD was listed for three weeks and received no additional support for deletion and a single redirect vote. The keep votes are weak, but there is no WP:QUORUM to delete. No consensus would have probably been a reasonable close as well. Echoing OwenX, I do not object to an early re-nomination (including the above source assessment) no less than two months after the closure of the AFD (as if it were closed as NC) or a merge discussion that can take place at any time after this DRV closes. Frank Anchor 13:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A case can be made that the closer should have discounted the IP !votes, and the close should have been No Consensus. That would still leave the article in article space. Keep is also a valid closure, either before or after throwing out the IP votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus which will allow for an earlier re-nomination - I know it is not a hard and fast rule there, but there really was no consensus to delete here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, correct assessment of consensus, the consensus leaned toward keeping the page, and a NC close would not have really changed anything in practical terms. Side note, random IPs are often active in Pakistan-related AfDs and they often agree with nominator's arguments (recent examples [8], [9]), claiming in this case they are socks is a strong claim which would had needed strong evidence. Cavarrone 08:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When they can't justify keeping a page, they typically vote for deletion/redirection/merge etc. Otherwise, they simply vote to keep. Now, for example, there's this UK-based IP range calling for a t/ban on me (also see this and this), yet they're also casting delete votes in my AFD nomination. Strange, isn't it? @OwenX, fyi! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Junaid Khan (actor) brought me here, @OwenX, i would like to clarify, i am voting keep in only AFD's which are initiated by Saqib & that too with proper source presentation as i feel he may be dislike articles and nominate them without proper WP:Before. He has a strict policy regarding Pakistani articles which i respect but has a soft corner regarding his creations [10] [11] he contineously drafting new Pakistani articles despite of them meeting notability criteria. A current example is [12], that article had 29 sources but he draftified with a reason "No Source". Other examples are Draft:Na Baligh Afraad & Draft:Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning, both are feature films which received significant coverage on google and i respect his decision therefore did'nt touched that articles neither am i interested in such articles but using them as an example. You can check my history, he nominated all of my creations too. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Obviously. Read advice at WP:RENOM. Relisting is not a good idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nomination did not gain consensus after a rather long discussion period so the status quo of the article being retained is maintained, and DRV can not do anything about this. Relisting won't produce anything. It's much better to renominate in the future.—Alalch E. 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 June 2024

[edit]
  • Feature Films for Families – Speedy moot. The deletion discussion is not being contested, nor is the 2022 speedy, but rather a case has been made that factors have changed due to source access. The article is now in draft space where it can be improved before a return to mainspace. If there are extant concerns about sourcing in the new article, the course of action is an AfD. Star Mississippi 23:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Feature Films for Families (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article on a Utah-based kidvid company, deleted back in early November 2017 for lack of WP:CORPDEPTH thanks to this AFD; an early July 2022 re-creation attempt was also shot down. After some 5–7 years, looks like WP:Library may be coming to the rescue. (What follows below may be enough for now to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG/WP:NMEDIA—lest we look a bit harder beyond lots of natter on their telemarketing practices?)

  • Bosha, Pat (2000-03-17). "Feature Films for Families Fills Need for Wholesome Fare". The Morning Call. p. D01. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — Discusses co-founder Forrest Baker III's early career (in an article on a regional release of theirs, Who Gets the House?, from their theatrical Visiplex label).
  • Jones, Lara (1996-02-05). "Film company building new distribution center". The Enterprise. Vol. 25, no. 31. Salt Lake City. p. 1. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — Mentions co-founder Baker III, the founding date (1988), and the inaugural year of operation (1990).
  • Rattle, Barbara (1993-05-10). "Wholesome films pay off for Murray's Feature Films". The Enterprise. Vol. 22, no. 47. Salt Lake City. p. 1. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — At original press time, the company's "president and executive producer [was] former KSL-TV sports anchor Don Judd". Also from this source:
    • "Feature Films for Families' goal is to strengthen traditional values through feature film entertainment produced and distributed directly to homes on videotape, [public information director Michael] Clapier explained."
    • "Feature Films for Families not only produces its own movies, but also carries 'G' rated films from other sources and re-edits or 'sanitizes' some Hollywood productions."

XPosted from WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 383#Feature Films for Families and User talk:Liz/Archive 47#Undeletion request: Feature Films for Families (both from February 2023).

As an added bonus since our last appeal attempt, here's what AVID Logos has to say on their recent fate (with relevant WP links added):

"In 2018, the company was fined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for $45.5 million (settled to $487,735 due to the company being unable to pay such a high fee). This is because it did more than 117 million illegal telemarketing calls to people in the Do Not Call Registry between 2007 and 2011, for the purposes of selling their DVDs and tickets to the 2009 theatrical release of The Velveteen Rabbit. They would often hide these calls under the guise of a charity called 'Kids First' that was looking to make a list of good family movies, and claim that they would donate the proceeds of their DVDs to police and fire departments when they didn't. Since the lawsuit closed, FFFF has been much quieter, with most of its activity being its own online 'streaming service' (actually a website with embedded and paywalled Vimeo uploads of their library)."

From here, perhaps the S.S. Cunard (talk · contribs) may give us an extra hand this time around?

Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse both the 2017 AfD and the 2022 G4, but no objection to draftify. Echoing the response Liz gave the appellant, nothing stops any editor in good standing from submitting a fresh draft to AfC, especially if new sources have emerged. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit the DRV instructions to tell people that if no one is trying to stop them, they should not come to DRV with requests like this. Go to REDUND and request REFUND *to draftspace* and improve it there. If the AfD reasons for deletion are overcome, you may restore it yourself. If you’re not sure, use AfC not DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd normally want an undeletion to compare the G4, but that's been a couple of years ago, and if anyone would have done a G4 correctly in 2022, I'm expecting Liz would have. Draftifying a new version either based on the old version or completely from scratch is fine. Obviously, make a good faith effort to demonstrate notability before putting it back into mainspace. That won't guarantee it won't be challenged or deleted, but it should preempt further speedy deletion attempts. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The version deleted at afd was a full article with 576 words of prose in its final revision. The 2022 recreation consisted entirely of an unreferenced tag (added by the creator), an infobox, "Feature Films for Families, or FFFF, is an privately-held entertainment company located in Murray, Utah. It was formed in 1986.", and categories. It was at least an A7. —Cryptic 21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, the telemarketing and fraud charges mentioned above, though not their ultimate conclusion (given that the page was deleted before that), made up 3/4 of both the text and references of the version deleted at afd. I don't know that I'd consider the exact size of the eventual fine and settlement as significant new information. —Cryptic 21:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as draft. This should have gone to WP:REFUND instead of DRV, but it didn't. And Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so it is reasonable to have the discussion at DRV as well. A sufficiently modified draft will not be subject to G4 when returned to mainspace, but still may be challenged at AFD. The original 2017 AFD was obviously correct interpretation of unanimous consensus to delete. As a non-admin with only access to the above summary, I have no formal comment on the G4 deletion, except that Liz is one of the better closing/deleting admins on the site (as is OwenX, who endorsed her decision). Frank Anchor 13:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as draft - When requests like this come to DRV, it is not clear whether the petitioner is asking us to:
  • 1. Overturn the AFD.
  • 2. Allow review of a draft.
  • 3. Restore the article to draft space.
  • 4. Something else.
Requests for 2 and 3 should not really come to DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 June 2024

[edit]

21 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Possible physical damages through anal sex (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

https://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324637 https://health.clevelandclinic.org/anal-sex-safety 202.134.11.238 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troll. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 June 2024

[edit]

19 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Moruf Oseni (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was deleted under the G11 and A7 criteria. There was no communication before the deletion. The subject is the CEO of a top Bank in Nigeria (Wema Bank) and so qualifies to have a Wiki page. He is notable enough. I would like to be able to edit the article in a draft space to fix the G11 issue before seeking approval to move to mainspace Michael Ugbodu (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't see that this has been through a deletion discussion, but it certainly looks like multiple users and admins have been booting an article under this name back to Draftspace for months now. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    List of cognitive biases#Conformity at play? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • List. The sources are mostly routine or lists of executives. I don't think this would hold up to an AFD, but I probably would not have speedily deleted it. I'd support allowing recreation and listing it for a discussion at AFD. Then if it is deleted again, salt the page and be done with it. Malinaccier (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on the general principle that speedy deletions should be uncontentious, and this has become contentious. If there are multiple efforts to restore something that was deleted, it is better to have a Delete consensus before create-protecting the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is no requirement to consult or communicate before speedy-deleting an article, given the extensive history it seems sensible to send to AFD to come to a consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go to WP:REFUND and request draftification. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - WP:REFUND does not restore pages that have been deleted as A7 or WP:G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does if the request is for REFUND to draftspace, especially with the stated intent to contest the speedy. For A7, especially easily. Note that User:Michael Ugbodu is explicitly asking for draftification to improve it, and is not asking to go to AfD immediately. Those !voting “List” appear to have not read his statement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The instructions at REFUND say: Do not request that pages deleted under speedy deletion criteria F7, F9, F11, U5, A7, A9, A11, G3, G4, G10, G11 or G12 be undeleted here. If it is the practice of REFUND to store A7 and G11 pages, then the instructions should be changed.
    It may be pointless to draftify pages deleted under G11, because drafts can be tagged for deletion as G11 and sometimes are deleted as G11.
    It would be a good idea for editors, including promotional editors, to keep a copy of the page that they publish to Wikipedia, so that they don't have to request that we give them back their spam (or their non-spam). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors also have the option of refund by email, which has very few restrictions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary Undelete so that non-admins can see whether there is non-promotional content. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn. Bad G11. Bad A7. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn very clear misapplication of A7, as a claim to significance is made (CEO of a bank). Some of the content is G11 but there is enough non-promotional content in the article that it should not have been speedy deleted. It can be sent to AFD if desired. Frank Anchor 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A7 clearly wrong. The "achievements" section is quite bad, but the rest of the article isn't G11-worthy. Mach61 23:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. An understandable, humanly excusable partiality towards making this article go away is what I feel led to this fundamentally wrong speedy deletion. The article is not subject to speedy deletion under the cited criteria, and there is no evidence that any other criteria apply.—Alalch E. 23:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Clearly not A7, not promotional enough to be unambiguous/unfixable and so G11. Any editor can take it to AfD to hash out. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to draftspace A7 was wrong, G11 was probably correct, I can't see this getting kept at AfD and the petitioner has specifically requested draftification. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both A7 and G11. The Achievements section is spam, but G11 is for articles that are "exclusively promotional", not for articles that contain promotional sections. If the appellant wants it restored to draft space, that is even better than restoring it to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The achievements section paraphrases accurately the references. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • List so that we can finally SALT this page. Do not draftify, as it will be bounced right back to mainspace as soon as turn our head away. Owen× ☎ 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd not normally have G11'd this - that was prompted by the move out of draftspace by a now-undisclosed paid editor (since the only disclosure was on Talk:Moruf Oseni), which is something they are explicitly forbidden to do.
    On the other hand, calling this a "top bank" lies somewhere between wishful thinking and an outright lie; it's not in the world's top thousand largest, or the continent's top hundred, or even Nigeria's top thirteen (which is all I can readily find stats for, but it's well below the size of the thirteenth listed there). This is roughly the size of a branch office in a typical US city, so no, just being its CEO is not a statement that one would expect to turn up evidence for notability if searched for. So I dispute that the A7 was clearly wrong, but I see which way this is going, so there's no need to wait out the week. —Cryptic 00:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ”Explicitly forbidden to do”? But that’s just a “behavioural guideline”, and the community refuses to include PAID or UPE or COI at WP:Deletion policy as a reason for deletion, see the talk page archives. These pages NEED to go to AfD to get “the community” involved in this contradiction as an important step to solving it. Pseudo-deletion of UPE product via admins misuse of CSD AND SALTing policy perpetuates the problem of the contradiction between documented policy and practice on UPE generated promotional content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a proposal at Wikipedia:Quarantine of content created by undisclosed paid editors.
    The authors declaration should be posted at the top of their Userpage, not on a transient talk page. Personally I found favour the declaration needing to be in the username, eg User:Editor name (PAID). SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like to rake anyone over the coals on disagreements regarding what constitutes a WP:CCS as there some room for interpretation, and indeed is entirely the reason why A7 can be one of the more difficult CSDs to apply in practice. However, in general being the CEO of blue-linked company will preclude A7 WP:CCSI#BIZBIO. That is not ironclad, a common exception is when a user creates an organization article and related bios at the same time with no other CCS for any of them in which case they will usually be A7 deleted together, but it is a solid rule of thumb when applied with common sense.
    From the perspective of discouraging and dealing with COI/UPE editing, AFD is better in every way but volume management in that it creates a clearer consensus against the existence of the article, and even facilitates the speedy process because rather than dealing with a borderline A7 when reposted you now have an unambiguous G4.
    The quarantine of content proposal strikes me as trying to do too much, especially in its introduction of a new associated process. I think it would be easier to use an existing process and simply mandate AFC review of all UPE creations not in the mainspace longer than some specified cutoff with no substantive edits by others, and I would probably support something like that if proposed at an RFC, but that is off-topic for the present discussion. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:B492:F81A:745E:8E8D (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AFD. Overreach with G11 and A7, speedy deletion challenged (not only by the apparent paid(?) editor, so speedy is inappropriate, and a discussion before deletion is warranted. At a quick read, notability is at best unclear. However, given WP's developed-world bias I think it is good if this is discussed more thoroughly (and it is possible better sourcing and notability is available). It does seem there may be a paid-editor *conduct* issue here as well (insufficient disclosure? inappropriate conflicted-editor mainspace creation?) that can be dealt with separately. Ultimately, the article can be improved, or the sources evaluated and actually found sufficient, or punted back to draft, or deleted and salted, based on a proper discussion. Martinp (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Miskin_Abdal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, I noticed that deletion of this article was closed with no consensus. This is very surprising to me. I have spent three days to investigate it and came to conclusion that it was a hoax. Moreover, the statement in its first paragraph is completely wrong. Please reconsider your decision or provide reason(s) for keeping that article which is full of false statements. HeritageGuardian (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Endorse No consensus is really the only way to close that deletion discussion. Those who advocated for keeping made good arguments that the topic might meet GNG, even though it was sock-created, and most of the unsourced content has already been removed. This is not the second round of discussing whether an article should be deleted, but is rather reviewing whether the closer acted correctly. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even after the unsourced content was removed, the first paragraph contains false statement. By simple citing a book, which does not cite any other sources, the person in the article cannot be appointed as a head of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty. So, the article contains false information. Regarding GNG, the same content was published in multiple mediums to create notability. None of them cited any Safavid literature. Therefore, they cannot be considered as if the article met GNG. HeritageGuardian (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    One more thing. I noticed that en.wikipedia.org already has separate pages for persons who was in charge of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty starting with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_Najm_Zargar_Gilani. In there, there is a link to his successor and so on. Therefore, even if the person in the article for deletion was one of them, then there is no need to create duplicate pages for the same person. hth. thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I have checked condition for GNG one more time. One of the requirements is "Reliable-- means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. ..." I have already discussed this in the deletion page that this requirement was not met. Therefore GNG was not met for this article at all. I also asked and commented on suggestions of those users who stated that it meets GNG. I am not going to repeat them here. Please be objective and pay attention to arguments put forward. Please avoid simple counting votes. thx. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Hello @HistoryofIran I thought this discussion could be interesting to you since you created pages for persons who were in charge of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty. Please add your suggestions comments if any. thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Endorse no consensus was the correct close here. The vote was numerically split with three delete (including the nom and removing one of HeritageGuardian's two bolded delete votes). More importantly, the keep side reasonably responded to the delete side's arguments by cleaning up some of the unsourced material, posting sources which I will consider borderline-GNG at worst, and correctly pointing out that, while the article was created by a sock, substantial content was added by users in good standing. The delete side was given the illusion of additional support by HeritageGuardian's bludgeoning of the process and posting 15(!) times in this debate. A third relist would have been a reasonable outcome as well but was not in any way required. Frank Anchor 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you counted votes? I believe that is against the rules. None of the sources are reliable, so the article does not meet GNG. I posted 15 times in the debate, because responded to users who wanted to keep it, asking them for evidence. I do not see anything wrong with that. That article is a hoax and admins try to keep it by counting votes or avoiding the fact that citations are not reliable. I did not think Wikipedia was such a place. HeritageGuardian (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    AFD is not a vote, hence why I clarified the substance of the keep votes was more important than a numerical split. Frank Anchor 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see how keep votes were more important. For example the user @Psychastes voted to keep by pointing to a citation of the article that he found in google books. Presence of a citation in google book does not mean it meets GNG. I found pdf of that book, examined it and pointed out that it did not have any references to any sources related to Safavids. I spent a few hours on it. You considered my attempt as if I was bludgeoning. On the other hand, if we approach from credibility point of view of a vote, then we should not count vote to keep by Psychastes because it was not based on the content of the citation rather on observation that it existed in google books. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was no consensus reached among participants, and no additional comments after the second relisting, so this was the correct interpretation of the discussion result. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me now, that it is useless from my side to convince any admins, because they evaluate votes giving more weight to opinions of those users who has more edits in whole Wikipedia, rather than paying attention to arguments put forward. I believe it is against the rules, but that is the reality. Basically admins make decisions based on ego rather than on logic. The previous endorser wrote "substantial content was added by users in good standing". By good standing he means number of edits, although that user did not add any content, but deleted most of the content after my contribution to debate, which the same admin considered as if I was bludgeoning. HeritageGuardian (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By users in good standing, I meant users that are not socks, which successfully refuted argument that claimed the article should be deleted due to being created by a blocked sock. Frank Anchor 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that we going on circle here. There were two users who voted to delete including me. The main reason put forward was not that it was created by sock puppets. The main reason from my side was that none of the citations had any references, which means they are not reliable, which means article violates GNG. This was not refuted by any users who voted to keep. Instead, one of them gave the same or additional citations that had the same issue. HeritageGuardian (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Either No Consensus or another Relist were the best readings of a messy discussion. The nominator and appellant seems to make the mistake that I too often see at DRV, and at the AFDs that precede the DRVs, of mistaking length of argument for strength of argument. It is true that the nominator and appellant has had the longer argument, and that they think that is the stronger argument (but it isn't in this case). In this case, the nominator's bludgeoning of the AFD made it unlikely that there would be a consensus either to Keep or to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR Idea - Although the close is correct, an Ignore All Rules closure could be to Relist one more time, after this DRV has publicized the AFD to a new set of reviewers, but preferably with the appellant topic-banned from arguing with the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Anyone is welcome to renominate the page immediately. While WP:RENOM recommends waiting two months, we don't need IAR to ignore this recommendation, if there's reason to believe a new AfD will reach a different outcome. And as much as I despise the type of bludgeoning we see here, we shouldn't topic-ban without issuing a final warning. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kerakat railway station (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi folks. I wanted to clarify this deletion discussion, where both User:Mjroots and User:Balablitz stated that all railway stations are notable. This contradicts WP:NTRAINSTATION which states that train stations do not have any inherent notability. Can this be checked? I am an AfC reviewer and regularly decline articles of railway stations for not meeting GNG. Qcne (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read this as 2024, didn't realise this was a ten year old XfD! Qcne (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was nearly 10 years ago, we've moved on since then. Railway stations should generally be notable enough to sustain articles. That said, WP:GNG still needs to be met via WP:V by WP:RSs. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse nearly 10 year old discussion where all comments were to keep the article. --Enos733 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. The arguments made in the AfD do not matter as is always the case with closes due to nominator withdrawal when no one else recommends anything other than keeping. If all participants disagree with the nominator, but the nominator is right and everyone else is wrong, and the nominator yields to those wrong arguments and withdraws, two things can happen: (1) a new or "revived" deletion rationale appears (someone who could otherwise close as "withdrawn" believes that the nominator was correct after all and !votes delete, for example, leading to the AfD continuing normally); (2) the discussion is closed as "withdrawn". When the latter happens, it's always an appropriate thing to happen, as such a close is just a recording of an objective fact, and it is immune to challenge. Here, the nominator withdrew and the AfD was procedurally correctly speedily kept, consistent with WP:SKCRIT#1.3, and the outcome of the process has been appropriately recorded as "withdrawn". It is impossible to alter this outcome in any way now, and there is no prospect of success in a deletion review.—Alalch E. 15:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Qcne. You should withdraw here and start an AfD if you think the article should be deleted, because it is categorically impossible for this deletion review to produce anything. —Alalch E. 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my god that's embarassing @Alalch E. @Enos733 @Mjroots. I read the date as 30 March 2024, thinking it had been closed this year, which is obviously why I was wondering why train stations were notable in contradiction to the policy.
    Sorry. Qcne (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference, a DRV nomination such as this one, when the outcome was a procedurally valid "(speedy kept as) withdrawn", does not adhere to any of the five points in WP:DRVPURPOSE: (1) it can not be discussed here whether the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, because he did not interpret consensus, (2) a speedy deletion did not occur, (3) there was no deletion regarding which "significant new information" could have come to light, (4) the page was not deleted for it to potentially be wrongly deleted, (5) there were no procedural errors. So age doesn't matter. Whether this AfD happened ten years ago or today does not even matter.—Alalch E. 15:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qcne: - nothing to be sorry for, and there is nothing stopping a second AfD discussion, should any editor want to start one. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 June 2024

[edit]

15 June 2024

[edit]

14 June 2024

[edit]

13 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
PAR Technology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi there - for full disclosure, I'm a current PAR employee. I noticed that there currently isn't a page for PAR on Wikipedia and that it was deleted in Jan 2018. I would have tried to go on the talk page for those who discussed its deletion but those users don't seem to be active on Wikipedia anymore.

I would like to share that PAR Technology hired a new CEO, Savneet Singh, in Dec 2018, eleven months after the page was deleted. Since Savneet joined PAR, he raised capital and acquired several different business in the restaurant technology and hospitality space, including Restaurant Magic, Punchh, MENU Technologies, Stuzo, and TASK. Today PAR trades on the New York Stock Exchange with a Market Capitalization of $1.6 billion dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue.

I noticed that many of the comments in the deletion discussion were centered around PAR being a government contractor business; however, PAR has sold off its government businesses and is now a pure-play food service technology company. Among PAR's clients are Tier-1 restaurants like Burger King and Wendy's. Many of PAR's competitors in this restaurant & hospitality technology space, such as Olo and Toast, have pages on Wikipedia. PAR's acquisitions have made news on notable outlets like TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and CNBC.

To summarize: although PAR Technology as a company still carries the same name, under new leadership (hired after the page was initially deleted), it has been transformed from a USA government contractor into a food service technology business. I'd kindly like to request for review to see if opinions may have changed on if PAR Technology should have a page on Wikipedia. Thank you! LeLiPAR (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I'd like to firstly say thanks for all of the help from all of the folks here. In case it'd be helpful, I'd thought that this article belonged in Deletion review for reason #3 on when it should be used: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"
I'm happy to share that I've submitted my draft through AfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PAR_Technology
Thanks again everyone!! LeLiPAR (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Otago NORML – There is a very narrow consensus below that the close would be best as 'no consensus', although worth noting that there was plenty of sentiment that 'keep' was also within administrator discretion. (The majority of people who advocated 'endorse' also noted that no consensus was reasonable or indeed preferred.) The close will be changed to no consensus to allow for earlier renomination by any interested editor, per the sentiment below that allowing this is the best outcome. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Otago NORML (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of my closure following an inquiry on my talk page by Dclemens1971. I closed this as "keep" after determining that there was a consensus that coverage in the Otago Daily Times was sufficient to establish notability. I would appreciate feedback as to whether this was a reasonable decision. If it was not, would it have been better to close the discussion as "no consensus," or to relist it? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Overturn to no consensus, agnostic about whether to relist (involved). Thanks for flagging this. While there were more "keep" !votes than "delete," it was 5 to 3, so not a strong consensus and had only been relisted once. Four of the five "keep" supporters !voted before the applicable criteria for WP:BRANCH, which requires greater scope of sources beyond local news for a chapter of an organization, were brought into the discussion, and thus it would have been worthwhile to allow more discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: After the discussion below I am clarifying my !vote and I am now agnostic about whether the AfD is relisted. A N/C close is more closely aligned with the outcome of the discussion and allows a future nominator to write a better nomination statement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure WP:BRANCH applies. A branch of what exactly? I'm also not sure we have the GNG met. A school paper can be a good source (though I'd be leery of an article where that was the only reliable source of any depth...). Can someone who wants to keep this chime in with the WP:THREE best sources? [14] seems to not have significant coverage of the group. The school paper article is, of course, solid in terms of depth. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to have been established as a branch of NORML New Zealand, which is itself a branch of NORML. (The Otago organization appears to be inactive but see description on its old Facebook page.) Despite its depth, the school paper doesn't qualify for GNG under WP:RSSM. I don't want to relitigate the AfD though, I just thought it appeared that there was not a consensus formed and that a relist might have brought in additional perspective and a firm consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get not wanting to relitigate (that really isn't the point of DRV). But what I'm trying to do is gage the strength of arguments made in the AfD. An issue you raised here was WP:BRANCH not having time to be discussed in the AfD. Our article says "It is not affiliated to the national New Zealand cannabis law reform organisation NORML New Zealand". So I'm wondering if the WP:BRANCH argument made above is relevant. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources indicate it was founded as a chapter but at some point lost its affiliation (see its facebook page and archived website: https://web.archive.org/web/20101121002708/http://www.otagonorml.com/?q=node/13). Even if affiliation was removed at some indeterminate point, it still seems reasonable to apply the WP:BRANCH criteria to a group that appeared to operate as a chapter for most of its existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The school paper does not contribute to notability of a student organization. See the unanimous consensus recorded here (given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't see keep as a possible result here. It's clear from the keep !votes that coverage is very marginal. One delete !voter brings up WP:BRANCH, the other clearly discusses the coverage, these are the two strongest !votes in the discussion. Finally, the final keep !voter, and only post relist voter, both correctly (in terms of general policy) and incorrectly cites policy, if WP:BRANCH applies - the NORML New Zealand page says it is a branch and this page says it is not a branch and none of the sources, well, work, and in any case that's sort of beyond what a closer should be doing. I probably would have relisted this, but I think I might have endorsed a delete result and no consensus probably makes the most sense if someone has to close this, even though I think the delete !votes are stronger. SportingFlyer T·C 05:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I spot checked one of the ODT listings, which said it was indeed a branch of NORML NZ. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then those citing BRANCH were correct. SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or close as N/C and allow a renom in the short term future. While a keep isn't wrong per se, I don't see that the case being made strongly for GNG. Star Mississippi 16:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse I think merge (even though the !votes were mostly binary keep/delete) would have been the best policy-based outcome in light of that discussion, with no consensus also a strong contender. Keep would have been my third choice, but I see no reason to NOT relist an additional time. Some of our experienced closers will relist with a statement asking the participants to choose between two non-deletion arguments--merge or keep, in this case--and that might have been the best thing to do. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Merge” would have been a WP:Supervote. I would !vote to overturn it. A “no consensus” close with instructions to discuss a merge on the talk page. Interestingly, this was done fourteen years ago at Talk:Otago NORML#Merge proposal, but a call of an AfD consensus to merge requires much more than a few mentions of it and a single I replied comment fourteen years ago. One participant mentioned “Redirect” as a !vote. “Redirect” could be a better basis of a WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are to ferret out the rough consensus based on a discussion. That's not limited to counting noses, or even the options listed. Picking an outcome other than the obvious one getting the most !votes could be a supervote... but it can also be a correct reading of a policy-based consensus. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion does not show a rough consensus to merge. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion differs from mine. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins have the privilege of calling a rough consensus. If that prerogative were being used, I would expect a much better closing explanation, including use of the words “rough consensus”. Maybe a rough consensus call with a good closing statement would have been good, but then, who is going to merge what? The closer? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure speculating beyond this point is useful, but yes, a merge to NORML New Zealand, with an appropriate closing statement, to be done by whomever (I don't normally see closers doing merges themselves, but I'm sure it happens) would be a close I consider appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (noninvolved), seeing no reason to overturn or even relist, the close took into account the comments and reasoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus and do not relist. There is clearly no consensus to delete and there is no indication that consensus was “trending” in that direction. There was no additional support for delete after the AFD was relisted, only a single, well-reasoned keep vote which refuted some of the claims made by the delete/merge voters. I do think a better case was made for delete/merge, which is why NC is a better close than keep. However, clearly there is not consensus to not keep the page. Frank Anchor 14:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Assertions of meeting GNG were rebutted and/or plainly incorrect (e.g. The sustained ODT coverage brings this over the general notability line and For example, the Critic here, establish GNG are obviously problematic since all ODT articles are considered only one source, which is not sufficient for the relevant guideline, and The Critic, in addition to also only being one source, fails independence per the cited consensus at RSP). These !votes should have been heavily down-weighted. The argument The rationale for deletion being presented is that, while this is a subject of multiple pieces of significant, independent, published coverage of presumed reliability assumes either that the ODT sources are sufficient (they are not, as they don't count as "multiple") or that the One News source counts toward GNG (no: as noted in the discussion, there is no coverage of NORML, only a namedrop and mentions of Gray), and anyway fails to actually rebut the NORG requirement for non-local SIRS. The random drive-by comment on AUD was worthless as it falsely asserts coverage in national sources and argues the "regional" definition in AUD includes basically any newspaper extending past city limits, despite the requirement in BRANCH actually being "coverage beyond the local area" rather than "coverage in a newspaper designated 'regional'". JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Overturn (to “no consensus”) (uninvolved) SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Advise User:Dclemens1971 to read advice at WP:RENOM. The AfD nomination statement was weak, it did not make a case for deletion, and this routinely makes for a trainwreck of an AfD. WP:BRANCH, mentioned a few times at the AfD and here, is not a reason for deletion but for a merge and redirect, and as this was not couched in the nomination, a relist is not appropriate.
    While investigating, I noted that User:Jake Wartenberg has little experience at AfD, according to AfDstats. They should get some more experience at AfD before closing contested AfDs, but this does not amount to a reason to not endorse.
    Arguably, the discussion could have been closed as “no consensus”, but “delete” could not have been justified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A renomination should not be allowed for at least two months, taking the result as “no consensus”, or sox months per WP:RENOM, to allow sufficient reflection on why this AfD failed.
    Two or six months is not very long for a sixteen year old article with a very quiet talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there. @SmokeyJoe. I am familiar with RENOM; I was not the nominator and have no plans to renominate it. I raised my concern directly to the closer because the decision did not seem to align with the discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it matter that the nomination statement was weak when !voters provided strong rationales? BRANCH also doesn't mandate merging/redirecting--it explicitly says this is an option in some cases, not all. In some cases, a specific local chapter or sub-organization that is not considered notable enough for its own article may be significant enough to mention within the context of an article about the parent organization. [...] Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. [...] Information on sub-chapters of notable organizations might be included in either prose or a brief list in the main article on the organization. The "should" in "should normally be merged" is in reference to those subchapters that do qualify as "some cases", it doesn't mean merging is appropriate in every case--otherwise the preceding and succeeding bullets wouldn't make sense. JoelleJay (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “the nomination statement was weak” is intended as advice to the nominator for next time, and to other nominators. It doesn’t matter per se, it just tends to produce train wrecks. User:Carrite, for example, even arriving late in the discussion, gives a hard rebuttal to the weak nomination. Weak nominations make for a non-flowing poorly structure discussion for the next arriving participant, and according they tend to attract random drive-by comments that further derail the discussion from finding consensus.
    Re BRANCH. Did I say “mandate”? I would say that it is a reason to merge, unless there are better reasons to not merge, and when that happens, those reasons are the reason to delete or redirect, and mentioning BRANCH was probably unhelpful. These things weren’t thrashed out in the AfD, were they?
    Dclemens pushed the BRANCH argument, but nowhere do I see it being used alongside a reason to not merge.
    Maybe it should have been a no consensus close, yes maybe it should, but it couldn’t have been a “delete”. The case for deletion was not made. This being a review forum, it is appropriate to look for reasons for the discussion failing to find consensus. As I’ve seen in made cases brought to DRV, the root cause of the failure of the discussion was the weak nomination. My opinion on what the outcome should be is not appropriate to voice at DRV, just a review of the AfD and its close. The best way forward is a RENOM. A relist means the trainwreck stays at the top. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse pretty much per SmokeyJoe. I'd have probably closed as NC or relist, but keep was within discretion and I don't believe delete was. Redirect or merge might be the best outcome here but A) it wasn't really discussed much and B) it's not clear what the target would be. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I would have closed as no consensus or relisted (and perhaps providing some of the reasoning in the close would have helped as well). That said, I think this is a reasonable interpretation of the strengths of the arguments. Malinaccier (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As others here said, a N/C would have been acceptable as well, with the only practical difference between the two being the expected duration before renomination. The distinction isn't worth spending time on. Owen× ☎ 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 June 2024

[edit]

11 June 2024

[edit]

10 June 2024

[edit]

9 June 2024

[edit]

8 June 2024

[edit]

7 June 2024

[edit]

6 June 2024

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

That category was being used for Dominicans descended from United States citizens of European descent, aka White Americans (minus Middle Easterners), it wasn't used for "White Dominicans" as claimed by the deletion nominator. Even, there is still a separate category for Dominicans descended from African Americans, aka Black Americans (Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent) as anyone can see it in the parent category Dominican Republic people of American descent since that parent category was subcategorized into different recognized American ethnic groups. This category was deleted based on a misunderstanding, maybe it just needed some clarification in the cat page. ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (as participant to the discussion) It does not look like a misunderstanding. I noted in the discussion that articles are already in e.g. Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent when it is about someone with French (i.e. European) ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle what do you think about overturning this CfD and you nominating with the correct rationale, as only you made a relevant comment supporting deletion. Others simply did not get the facts right, so the DRV nominator is right that there was, predominantly, a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 09:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you discounting my comment so readily? SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I legitimately can not see how you made a relevant comment supporting deletion in the absence of an intelligible rationale coming from you and in the context of the erroneous nomination.—Alalch E. 12:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was nothing erroneous about the nomination as far as I can tell, and any good closer in the category space would understand I'm supporting the arguments which have been made before me. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguments were made about how the nomination was erroneous in this deletion review already prior to this thread, which arguments were then followed up by more arguments how it was erroneous (at this time: the DRV nominator's statement, my 09:55, 6 June comment, Extraordinary Writ's 19:27, 7 June comment). Marcocapelle clarified his !vote here distinguishing it from the erroneous nomination so that his comment can be understood not to rest on the nominator's objectively incorrect assertions, but you haven't distinguished your comment from the erroneous nomination, and as you, in your !vote, made a reference to White Dominicans, which is a reference to the nominator's incorrect assertions, and there's no other intelligible rationale contained in your comment, your comment can not be seen separately from the erroneous rationale. So, as I said, you did not get the facts right. It doesn't mean that this was a good category, but it means that it wasn't a good CfD. —Alalch E. 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The nomination was clearly and objectively erroneous and the comments followed this erroneous reasoning, with the exception of Marcocapelle's comment, but that is only one !vote.
    "European American descent" part in the category name clearly refers to European Americans, citizens of the United States of European descent, to this is a category for articles about Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. for whom their American ancestors are of European descent, i.e. European Americans. So when the nominator said it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. this was absolutely incorrect.
    In spite of this, Marcocapelle reasons that we should not have such a category and that the two layers of descent should be compressed into one, so if someone is Dominican with French American descent, the category should be Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent. This is a fine opinion to have, but consensus did not form around this view, as all of the remaining participation revolved around the erroneous rationale. So there was no consensus to delete. My suggestion would be to renominate with a valid rationale.—Alalch E. 09:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with relisting too, but starting a new discussion with a new nomination would be better. —Alalch E. 23:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were the articles in the category at the time of deletion. I think Alalch is right that Looking at the content of this category, it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. simply wasn't correct: the people in question did have white ancestors in the U.S., which is why they were added to the category. The real question is whether 1) residents of the Dominican Republic 2) whose ancestors are of European descent and 3) whose ancestors resided in the U.S. is one intersection too far, as Marcocapelle suggested. I suspect the answer is yes, but the CfD didn't really get into that, and since we have a good-faith request I'd probably just relist for further discussion. (Whatever arguments apply to this category probably also apply to the African-American category mentioned above.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in the same space as Extraordinary Writ. Relist to get a proper consensus, which I would hope will give weight to the overcategorization argument. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of it and all similar categories Why should Wikipedia categorize people based on their ancestry? We don't know the ancestry of 99% of BLP subjects. For example, Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent contains Max Puig who is also in the category Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent. But he is also in Dominican Republic people of Catalan descent, Dominican Republic people of Haitian descent, People of Ligurian descent, Dominican Republic people of Dutch descent and Dominican Republic people of Turks and Caicos Islands descent... Who gives a shit? We should remove this information about non-notable people. Do we really want to list everyone's ancestry for thousands of generations until everyone is from Africa? This obsession is unhealthy and insane. We have no reliable sources that give detailed information on the ancestry of anyone alive today, unless perhaps if you are a Habsburger or similar (and even in that case we only know a fragment). It is weird and potentially offensive to label people incorrectly based on flimsy evidence, notoriously unreliable amateur genealogical research and looks. Why do we not require sources for categorization? Just categorize people on their nationality/nationalities if there are reliable sources. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.". Polygnotus (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 June 2024

[edit]

4 June 2024

[edit]

3 June 2024

[edit]
  • Margaret Nichols (psychologist) – Speedy restore. We do not need six more days of bureaucracy. The original close was fine and the subsequent sock is more akin to sourcing factors having changed than a problematic closing action. I have restored to draft space in case YFNS wants to do work before mainspacing it. This should not be taken as suggesting it belongs in draft and any editor may mainspace as desired. Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Margaret Nichols (psychologist) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is requesting a review of my close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Nichols (psychologist) 8 years ago, due to sockpuppetry and there may be better sources available (now). Punting this to deletion review as I am no longer this familiar with the biography notability guidance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 June 2024

[edit]

1 June 2024

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_June&oldid=1226492395"