Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 June 2}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 June 2}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 June 2|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Recent discussions

24 May 2024

List of IMAX venues

List of IMAX venues (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(Note, this refers to the 4th nomination from April 28, 2024.) The nomination for deleting the article made a claim of WP:NOTDIRECTORY but didn't include any explanations to back up the claim (and multiple previous nominations already rejected that claim). This goes against WP:AFDFORMAT: "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." In addition, most of the comments were a combination of WP:PERNOM and/or WP:JUSTAPOLICY. This also goes against WP:AFDFORMAT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." Of the few arguments that were made, most referred erroneously to digital IMAX theaters, which weren't even part of the list and were actually called out in the intro paragraph as being excluded from the article (making it clear the commenters didn't even know what was in it). Therefore, the deletion was based on a flawed nomination, flawed votes, no real debate, and arguments against something that wasn't even in the article. Which means per Wikipedia's own guidelines, there was no solid basis for deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonovitch (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I forgot to sign -- thanks for adding that. Jonovitch (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse There was a very clear consensus to delete there, and this couldn't have been closed any other way. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  The consensus was entirely WP:PERNOM and/or WP:JUSTAPOLICY, which clearly go against Wikipedia's guidelines. Should those votes not be discarded? And if they are discarded, what's left? I'm sincerely asking; I don't understand why a decision can be made based on those votes. Jonovitch (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse my own close, which was essentially also endorsed again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors when the article was re-created. cc @OwenX: as closer there. I understand Jonovitch and others would like this article to exist, but they have provided no policy based reason it meets Wikipedia requirements and guidelines. Star Mississippi 03:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  @OwenX: backed up that decision with this one, and now this decision is being backed up with that one -- circular logic. And both of those decisions ignored the multiple previous "keep" decisions where the same arguments were repeatedly considered and rejected. Why were the many previous "keep" decisions ignored while the single "delete" decision gets reinforced (even though it's full of problematic WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY votes)?

  I understand some people don't want this article to exist, but I and others did provide several policy-based reasons why it meets Wikipedia requirements and guidelines. Here are a few of them again:

  1. WP:NOTDATABASE says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." The article's intro paragraphs provided context for the data in the list, plus explanations and definitions, with references to independent sources.

  2. WP:N says, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." IMAX 15/70 film theaters have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources for decades (also the new laser variants more recently). In the last year they have become even more notable, due to Oppenheimer and Dune 2. Countless news stories across the globe pointed out how these theaters are notable because of their technical superiority to regular theaters, immense size, unique aspect ratio, and rarity. The many citations in the article were from verifiable sources -- some from news articles, some from theater websites (for raw data purposes, not editorializing), and only a very small handful from the IMAX corporate website (again for data, not editorializing).

  3. WP:USEFUL says, "a cogent argument must be more specific: who is the content useful for, and why?" The different types of "IMAX" theaters (and the IMAX Corporation's lack of clarity) leads to a lot of confusion among moviegoers. The article was useful because it helped confused moviegoers understand the differences between the types of IMAX-branded theaters, it showed them the technical specifications of why one type of IMAX is superior (or inferior) than another, and it included this information in a list sorted by geography, so moviegoers could find which (if any) of the superior theater formats was near them.

  4. WP:LISTPURP says, "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list." Point 3 above explained why/how the structured list was a valuable source of information for moviegoers.

  5. WP:NLIST says, "a list topic is considered notable ... if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The topic of IMAX 15/70 film theaters (and the newer laser formats) have been discussed in many independent news articles; a couple of specific examples were linked to in the other discussion (but apparently were ignored). Because the group is notable, the list of items in that group is valid.

  6. Whenever WP:NOTDIRECTORY came up, commenters asked the person who made the claim to explain how the article fit that guideline. Nobody was able to do so. But commenters repeatedly explained how the article isn't a directory. The arguments for deletion based on this point (which are most of them) seem to be a case of proof by assertion.

  (Note, none of the above falls under WP:MUSTBESOURCES -- there are independent sources. The article cited many of them, and more could have been added if it hadn't been deleted. Because there are plenty in existence to choose from, this falls under WP:NEXIST.)

  Sincere question: The votes to delete were WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY, which go against the policies and guidelines. The article itself did meet the policies and guidelines. So what else is needed? Or what am I missing? Jonovitch (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  What's needed is for this DRV to be closed as out of process because you have erroneously nominated the wrong deletion for discussion, when you should have nominated the deletion from the last AfD (which is not the AfD here discussed), as it is the only close which can actionably be challeged. Nothing can happen out of this DRV, it's a big nothing. —Alalch E. 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  I may be partially to blame for this – at the most recent AfD, I suggested that DRV was more appropriate than recreating the article under a new title. Sorry if that led to confusion over which AfD should be the basis of a deletion review. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse The close was correct and reflected consensus. I haven't seen the article, but I do think the deletion rationale is potentially wrong - I think it meets WP:LISTN after a very cursory before search, and I'm not sure WP:NOTDIRECTORY actually applies if it could be fixed with contextual editing - but I can't fault the deletion discussion here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would normally temp undelete, but it had so many revisions it needed a steward to delete, so I'm not sure it's possible. If someone else knows that it is, please do so. Star Mississippi 12:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't need a steward to undelete, but you do need to repeatedly partial undelete it in chunks of only a couple hundred revisions at once or it times out. The real problem is that it would need a steward to delete again once it exceeded 5000 undeleted revisions. It's a significant hassle on both ends. —Cryptic 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse - The correct close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse as the only possible outcome. (involved as the closing admin of the subsequent AfD for essentially the same article.) A closing admin may discard a !vote when a participant relies on an irrelevant policy or guideline, e.g., "Delete per IDONTLIKEIT". The closer may not discard an otherwise valid !vote when they disagree on a factual assessment, which is what the appellant is asking us to do here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is, prima facie, a relevant policy. Whether the article falls under this category or not is a question of fact, where the closing admin may not overrule a unanimous consensus with a supervote.

I also see no merit in appealing an AfD that was already relitigated the very next day, under a slightly different title, in a failed attempt to game the system. The appellant, who participated in the subsequent AfD ("AfD5"), is a "sleeper account", created in 2008 but with a total of nine edits before being awakened by a Reddit call to arms.

Contrary to the appellant's claim, I did not "back up" AfD5 based on the closing of AfD4. I mentioned AfD4 in my lengthy closing rationale, but AfD5 was closed on its own merits. Similarly, Star Mississippi isn't backing up her decision with the result of the subsequent AfD, but merely pointing out the futility of appealing a decision that has already been relitigated. There is no "circular logic" here, just a clear, consistent, correct application of AfD policy. Owen× ☎ 11:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the back and forth, I know this has gotten messy. I'm trying to raise the right questions in the right place.

1. Here and in the other discussion, I showed how the votes of WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY clearly violated the guidelines in WP:AFDFORMAT, and how the votes introduced arguments that were irrelevant to the article being debated. Because of this, per your explanation above, shouldn't those votes have been discarded by the closing admin? I have yet to hear an explanation why those votes were valid. So I ask again sincerely, if they went against policy, why were they not discarded?

2. Additionally, I and others asked many times how the article fails under WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the primary claim in both discussions. That question was never answered; the claims were only repeated (which goes against WP:JUSTAPOLICY). I and others rebutted those (and other) claims using Wikipedia's own guidelines to back up the rebuttals. Further, we used the policies and guidelines to positively show how the article did meet requirements (see the direct quotes from the policies above). So how was the article just a directory? And why were the rebuttals and evidences ignored, even though they were based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

Both of the above issues appear to be proof by assertion, "in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation" and asserted as fact "solely due to a lack of challengers." But the claims were challenged and refuted using Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. What more is needed?

Lastly, attempts to dismiss arguments from a "sleeper account" (or other people making arguments, regardless of where they came from) goes against WP:ATTP. Please speak to the arguments and questions regarding the policies and guidelines, not to the people making the arguments. Thank you! Jonovitch (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you did not show those !votes were irrelevant to the article being debated". You are asserting that they are incorrect. The two are very different. As I explained above, one is a question of policy, while the other is a question of fact. It is perfectly valid to argue whether or not the article met WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Both for- and against- arguments are relevant to a discussion about an article that at least at first blush looks like little more than a directory. Neither argument may be discarded in such a discussion. The WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY arguments you keep bringing up are a part of an essay, not a policy. They provide excellent advice on how to conduct oneself in an AfD, but you cannot use this essay to demand an otherwise valid !vote be discarded. You have yet to present a policy-based justification for discarding all !votes in that AfD.

I join you in lamenting that no one made the effort to educate you and others on why the article fails under WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but that is not the purpose of AfD. Had you and your fellow Keep voters been here for the bona fide purpose of writing an encyclopedia, I'm sure you would have found the answer by now. Alas, it is very clear from your contribution history that you are not here to write an encyclopedia, which is why I brought up your record as a dormant, now-single-purpose account. Wikipedia has a low tolerance for people trying to use it as a free web hosting service, not to mention for people engaging in off-wiki canvassing to sway the result of discussions. If you have a legal background, I'm sure you're familiar with the unclean hands doctrine. This type of behaviour will make it very difficult to find a sympathetic ear here. At this point, you are not only wasting everyone's time in an appeal that has already been identified as moot, but you are also squandering the little goodwill we may have had towards your cause. Owen× ☎ 19:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You're mixing up my words, and making up a few others. To clarify, I showed how most of the votes were WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. In addition to that, I pointed out that three of the nine votes referred to digital IMAX venues (which were never part of the list!) -- those were the irrelevant arguments I referred to. I then asked (not demanded) why the votes weren't discarded, because you stated above that a closing admin may discard votes that don't align with policies and guidelines.

It's true, I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia (though I have been registered for a long time and I use the site frequently). The few edits I've made were mostly to practice how to do it, and I've been trying to follow the directions I've been given and go through the correct processes here. So while I might not get everything right, you're completely wrong about me not being here to write an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNOTHERE

I learned about this article's deletion by chance. I'm not a regular contributor to Reddit and only a sporadic visitor there. When I happened to see the post, I ignored it at first and didn't read it until a few days later. Then I took the time to understand the situation here before finally joining the discussion, doing my best to follow the rules, and pointing out where it appeared others failed to do so.

My motivation is simply this: I've used the information in this article in the past, I found it very helpful to research the technical differences and geographic locations of the different types of IMAX venues, and I'd like to help others who have the same questions and confusion that I did.

As a side note, I've been critical of IMAX as often as I have praised it. I'm not a fanboy, and I don't get anything out of this. I ask you again to refrain from speculating about my (and others') intentions. I'm trying to play by the rules here, and your hostility isn't helping. WP:AGF Jonovitch (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close as moot. The challenged deletion is not from the last AfD. The last AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors. When there has been a later AfD for a given topic, DRV can not produce any outcome other than a declaratory outcome. For this reason, there is no chance of success, as overturning the close of the here challenged DRV can not result in undeletion of the page—being that the outcome of the later AfD is determinative and can not be bypassed—and therefore, the DRV should be closed.—Alalch E. 17:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• To be honest, when viewing both AfDs together, there's not really a consensus to delete. Simply endorsing the close here is going to lead to an awkward result, as even though it looks like the community has definitively said we shouldn't have an article on this topic in the second-to-last AfD, the most recent AfD is a clear "no consensus," even with the canvassing, as clearly non-canvassed participants have noted the NOTDIR reason doesn't necessarily apply (and I could make a valid LISTN argument had I cared enough to participate, as was done in the second discussion). I'd argue there needs to be some sort of path to allow something on this topic to get back to mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think part of the issue is the group that came from Reddit - no judgement, just stating the origin - wants this to be in index of either kind of IMAX and seem to be under the impression that more "X Theatre has an Imax" helps, when we know that coverage of the kind of IMAX and maybe why they're predominant would be better to make the case. Aside from WP:ITSUSEFUL, I'm not actually sure this list as constructed is useful to anyone because neither the article under discussion at AfD4 nor 5 wasn navigable nor well organized. It probably needs to be chunked and re scoped. I think this could be incubated in draft space if @Jonovitch or others are willing to. That unfortunately does not seem clear right now. Star Mississippi 02:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm totally willing to rework the list, since I agree it was a bit unwieldy in it's most recent format. I also agree that adding more IMAX types/venues doesn't necessarily improve the list, and can actually reduce its value. Here are my thoughts, if I were to rebuild it (whether from scratch or from a restored article):

  • I'd definitely include the Grand Theater format venues (15/70 film and dual 4K laser, in 1.43:1 aspect ratio on massive screens, often standalone locations). These are the rarest and most notable.
  • I lean toward including IMAX Dome theaters, since those are also rare and unique.
  • I'd of course exclude the crappy digital "LieIMAX" venues (dual 2K digital xenon projectors in multiplexes).
  • If only to avoid the arguments that the list is just a directory, I kind of lean toward excluding the "IMAX with Laser" venues (single 4K laser projectors in multiplexes). I might experiment with putting these in a separate section, so as to more easily distinguish between the types of venues.
  • I'd of course include an intro with definitions and an explanation of which types of venues are included and excluded.
  • I'd experiment with listing the venues first by type (15/70 film, dual 4K laser, dome, maybe single laser?) and then by geography.

  I'm not sure what the next step for this would be, and I might need some help with Wikipedia's editing syntax (I'm learning as I go), but I'm definitely willing to try this route.

  For what it's worth, as I stated elsewhere I'm not an IMAX fanboy (and I only sporadically visit Reddit), I just found this article to be very helpful and I'd like to help others.

  What are your recommendations? What's the next step? What pitfalls should I avoid and what concerns should I address? Jonovitch (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think all of that makes sense @Jonovitch. I'm sure there are sources that explain why Grand are the most notable and preferred as they sound like something that would be covered in a journal. The journal may or may not have independence issues, but would be 100% better than endless links to XYZ's imax location. Re I might experiment with putting these in a separate section, is essentially what I thought re:scoping & chunking it. Because if it's not manageable, it's not going to be particularly useful. Now that DRVs are open on both AfD4 & 5, I'd wait for them to close and would support draftification. How that happens with the large revisions is another story Star Mississippi 13:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  As the nom on AfD4 and a delete voter on 5, I also support this plan and would support draftification once the DRVs close. Let'srun (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, from my research when I !voted at AfD 5, I think only the 15/70 theaters are clearly covered as a group (thanks mainly to their coverage in the wake of Oppenheimer's release). I don't see enough coverage of 4K laser locations (single or double) to justify inclusion – there is basic coverage about the systems that could go in a different article, but not coverage of the group of locations that would form a list. From a quick look for IMAX Dome info, I think it's in the same boat as the 4K laser locations ("rare and unique" ≠ inherently notable). I would prefer to see any stricter list started as a new draft as opposed to undeleting the old list and cutting it down; this would solidify the distinction between the old, overly broad list and the new list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. Editors !voting "PERNOM" etc. is not a policy-based reason to reject those !votes. The canvassing and SPA activity, on the other hand, are valid reasons to reject certain !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse, although I can’t find a reason why it wasn’t redirected to IMAX#Theatres. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse, concurring with the closing statement of User:OwenX, that the strength of arguments for Delete was far stronger than the strength of arguments for Keep:
  • • I thank User:Hobit for requesting temp undeletion, and User:Cryptic for temp undeleting.
    • I concur with User:Hobit that this is a useful list, although it is not an encyclopedic list. It should be hosted somewhere, but not in Wikipedia. It may be kept in draft space, but there should be no guarantee that it can be promoted back to article space via AFC or otherwise.
    • DRV is not a conduct forum. That is, DRV is not ANI round 0. However, there are conduct violations going on, including in these lists, in AFD, and in DRV. The creation of this article with this disambiguated title was disruptive, an intentional attempt to game the system, and the rule against gaming the system identifies it as disruptive editing. Any future conduct violations should be taken to ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sangerpedia (closed)

Sangerpedia – Speedy deletion overturned and listed at RfD. Daniel (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sangerpedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Initially deleted as an WP:R3, despite clearly not being eligible under that criterion, subsequently undeleted and redeleted under WP:G6 which it likewise does not qualify for, a rather clear WP:!G6 actually. As an Template:R without mention its retention at RFD is highly questionable, but the community should have the chance to weigh in on this one. Deleting admin has not responded to the request for undeletion in some time, as such I am bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Overturn and send to RfD. I correctly guessed who the deleting admin was before I clicked the link. Her out-of-process speedy deletions, as well as her brusque, dismissive responses to being questioned about them, make regular appearances here at DRV. G6 is not a catch-all "I think this doesn't belong here and I have a Delete button" tool. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Speedy overturn as we don't need 7 days here, just the 7 days at RfD, which is where it belongs as this is clearly not uncontested. Disappointed with the deleting admin's response to the IP's reasonable request. Star Mississippi 21:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Questions - What was this a redirect to? But why isn't the appellant logging on? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Dynamic IP who frequently participates around here if this is the editor I think it is. Citizendium, to which it pointed for 16 years. Star Mississippi 21:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Because I don't have an account. I would not call myself a DRV regular by any stretch, but when admins refuse to overturn improper speedy deletions after being given reasonable time I list therm here per procedure. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Speedy overturn another out-of-process deletion. Support sending to RfD procedurally from DRV.—Alalch E. 21:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Undelete all the history and send to RfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Undelete and send to RfD as above. And are we really seeing a deletion by Deb here again? They've shown up here far more than they should. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Speedy overturn grossly out of process G6. Send to RFD if desired. Frank Anchor 02:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Comment - I don't see a statement by the closer, User:Deb (but she has been properly notified). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Comment - I think the redirect should be restored and kept, because I think that the subject should be known as that. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Send to RfD I might have done this myself. Probably worth updating what G6 is not to make it clear G6 shouldn't be used for this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC) The essay WP:!G6 already includes a bullet point "Redirects asserted to be implausible that don't technically meet the R3 criteria". But I don't think these people care at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Overturn and list at RfD. Yet another example of G6 being grossly incorrectly applied. We should have deprecated the criterion years ago and replaced it with a set of narrowly-focused, objectively written criteria that are much less tempting to abuse. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Caroline Tran (closed)

Caroline Tran – Closure endorsed. A draft (prepared by Cunard, who is described by Hobit below as "a Wikipedia treasure" - a sentiment it is hard to disagree with) was proposed late in the piece, and didn't receive explicit support to move to articlespace as a DRV action. However, there is no explicit opposition to it being moved to articlespace either, so any editor is free to move it to articlespace editorially at their own discretion. From there, if any other editor still thinks it doesn't meet GNG, they are welcome to nominate at AfD. (CD G4 is highly unlikely to apply given the dramatic changes to the article in the drafting stage.) Daniel (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Caroline Tran (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) afds are not popularity contests, they are not headcounts. they are based on the strength of policy based arguments. Yes the headcount here is very clearly on the delete side but a small local call does override long term wider policies. The first three delete comments here were based on the fact that this was an unreferenced blp. Once references were provided these three become moot. they are no longer valid and closers should dismiss them. After sources were provided we saw two delete comments. The first was a boilerplate comment from Tim the made a vague wave at wp:sirs which is a policy related to companies which is clearly irrelevant here. The next from Bearian was a vague wave at common outcomes where common outcomes do not actually mention nationally broadcast radio hosts. Neither is a valid policy based call for deletion and neither make any relevant comments on the sources provided. Since no one was made a relevant counter to the presentation of relevant sources claiming GNG pass there is no way this should have been closed delete. Uncomfortable based on headcount then relist asking for discussion of sources or close no consensus. Instead we have a close based on guessing what the previous voters may have thought if they had come back for another look [[1]]. Sorry but afds are not decided on what someone might have had in mind but did not say. They are not decided by guesses by closers. Lets actually look at evidence provided during discussions instead of ignoring the fundamental idea of afDs were the D stands for discussion not for dismissing sources without analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs) t12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse close per essentially User_talk:OwenX#Caroline_Tran_afd. The earlier comments don't become moot just because Duff declares them so. Editors could have returned to revise them following Duff's !vote, but they didn't. If you think you have a case, request the draft and improve it with the sources. It wouldn't be a G4 and you could bring it back to mainspace Star Mississippi 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse largely per StarMississipi. Adding that not only did any of the “delete” voters not change their mind after sources were presented, but two additional “delete” votes came in after the fact with one referencing the sources as not meeting WP:SIRS. Allow restoration as draft if Duff or any other user wants to improve upon it. Frank Anchor 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse discussion was clearly to delete, and the sources presented don't make me think an obvious mistake was made. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse as clearly the best closure even based on the case made by the appellant: Of the five Delete voters, two did their own searches, and two voted after the appellant provided their sources. Even if the one who said that it was an unsourced BLP (presumably because it was an unsourced BLP) is discounted, that leaves four. There was no need to Relist. There was a consensus to delete either after the appellant's sources or after searching for sources. Temporary undeletion is not necessary, but I would be interested in seeing a temporary undeletion. I might want to do a source analysis, but it isn't necessary. I am sure that occasionally, maybe very occasionally, when an appellant says that AFD is not a vote count, the appellant really has the stronger case than the majority of participants. However, when I see an appellant say that AFD is not a vote count, it usually means that they are saying that they wanted the closer to supervote. There was no need to Relist, and we would be overturning a Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Request temp undeletion. Was the nom misleading with “completely unsourced”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Y Done. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse. Allow userfication/draftification and recommend attempts to overcome the deletion reasons follow advice at WP:THREE. The sources listed in the AfD are worth looking at. The discussion could have been relisted for detailed examination of new sources, but deletion was well within admin discretion. I note that the article began as a 2004 stub, with a source. I also not that the article content did not contain information from the new sources listed at AfD, that the article never had good sources, and that WP:TNT applies in my opinion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - Good question. The nominator was correct in saying that the article was completely unsourced. The external link to the subject's web site was removed at the end of December 2023 as a dead link. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Comment to appellant - The references that you have added are malformed, and cannot be viewed by reviewers. So the version that you had updated still did not satisfy BLP guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) The references were not malformed. Offline sources are acceptable and usage of them does not violate the BLP policy. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Definition of published, "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Cunard (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Get real Robert. They are not malformed. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Comment - I am trying unsuccessfully to have discussion at the DRV talk page about Speedy Closes for troublesome nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC) This is not a troublesome nomination. If the proposal on the DRV talk page would have speedy closed this DRV, I strongly oppose the proposal. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) WP:G4 excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Guidelines on the notability of companies and organisations (WP:SIRS) are not relevant, user essays (WP:THREE) are not guidelines, and there is no requirement for sources to be linked or available online. Without access to the sources I don't know if they are enough, but the positions of the inline citations within the text suggests they don't verify much, and would not be enough for an article; when the article was deleted it still had no source cited for most of the content. Peter James (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse Peter James is quite correct. Even so, I did attempt to find these sources online without success. I know that DRV is not a second pass at AFD, but even so I did cast a wider net and went looking for other sources. Searches are complicated by the fact there is a Caroline Tran (born ~1986) in Australia involved in the fashion industry. What I did find are primary sources such as this. Maybe there is enough material out there on which to base a BLP, but I'm not finding it. Duffbeerforme, I think your best bet is to have this draftified, and work on it over time, trying to establish better sourcing to support this BLP. The article being deleted at AFD doesn't mean it's never going to exist. There's no deadline here. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse per Star Mississippi.—Alalch E. 17:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC) The sources listed appear to not be online (or at least I can't find them). That makes it difficult to evaluate the arguments. I'm good with this moving to draft and if the nom can get copies of the sources online (imgur, whatever) and link to them so we can evaluate the sources, I can imagine this being over the GNG bar. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) This, https://www.aftrs.edu.au/alumni/alumni-showcase/caroline-tran/, would be her. I agree, draftspace is suitable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Thee of the four sources Duffbeerforme provided in the AfD were available on Newspapers.com, which is available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Posting the sources on Imgur would violate WP:COPYLINK so would be inadvisable. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Defective AfD discussion. The AfD discussion was defective. Two of the "delete" participants wrote "this article has ZERO sources" and "unreferenced BLP". Once Duffbeerforme provided sources and added them to the article, these two comments became obsolete. It became clearly false that the article had zero sources and was an unreferenced BLP. For those editors' opinions to be taken into account, they must revisit the discussion to say why the sources are insufficient. The closing admin wrote, "I know for a fact that several of the participants there follow AfDs in which they !voted, and will respond or change their !vote if they see compelling evidence to do so. So your assumption that the four participants before your !vote didn't see it is likely baseless." I disagree with this statement. It is possible that the "delete" editors forgot to watchlist the AfD so never saw the new sources (I sometimes make this mistake in AfDs I participate in). It is also possible that they did see the new sources but did not have time to evaluate them. If they saw the sources and considered them insufficient, for their opinion to not be considered obsolete, they must respond in the AfD to explain why. This is basic courtesy to a good faith established editor who spend substantial time looking for sources. The last two "delete" comments are not policy-based: The first comment cites the guideline on the notability of companies and organisations (WP:SIRS), which is irrelevant to a biography. More importantly, the editor did not explain why Duffbeerforme's sources are not independent, reliable, or significant. This comment should be given very little weight. The second comment said "Besides no allegation of notability, we routinely delete articles about non-drive time radio DJs". This is just the editor's personal opinion about how similar subjects have been treated. This is not a policy-based rationale as it does not discuss why Duffbeerforme's sources are insufficient. This opinion should be given very little weight. None of the AfD participants explained why Duffbeerforme's sources were not independent, reliable, or significant, making this a defective AfD discussion. The best course of action would have to been to relist the discussion and ask the four previous "delete" participants to review the new sources. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Move Draft:Caroline Tran to Caroline Tran. I created a draft about Caroline Tran that incorporates Duffbeerforme's four sources and adds additional sources I found. The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) endorse deletion and move draft to article space Close was okay, though NC or a relist might have also been good choices. That said, Cunard's draft looks much much better. Sources 1, 3, and 4 meet WP:THREE quite nicely and the others I looked at are good. Cunard is a Wikipedia treasure. Hobit (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse deletion, and mainspace the new draft that is very different to the deleted page. WP:TNT has been done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Comments. Closers are meant to evaluate the quality of the arguments presented in the afd. Arguments that they guess !voters may have thought or considered are not presented in the afd so should not be part of the evaluation process. Adding their own imaginations (as the closer has told us they did) is essentially a supervote. AFDs are meant to be discussions. How are we meant to make counter discussion to points that have not been put. How are we meant to know what others are thinking if they don't put it in the discussion. Going by what is not presented in a discussion goes against the whole Idea of a discussion. Given most of the sources I presented are in also newspapers.com doesn't that really put a huge question mark next to the quality of any claimed and imagined searches that were or were not presented in the afd. To Quote Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant." The closer and multiple commentators are ignoring this obviousness and continuing to count those arguments as relevant. Many of the above talk about the current state of the article. Notability is a property of the subject, not of the current state of the article. Lesson learned, In future don't bother trying to find sources or improve articles because people routinely ignore sources found during afds and will push for deletion regardless. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC) I agree with a lot of that. I always hate people asking me "why didn't you improve the article with the sources you found at AfD?". Any my answer is A) per policy what's in the article isn't relevant and B) you are asking me to fix something you want deleted? Really? That said, links (to newspapers.com or the Internet Archive or something) to sources are important to provide in an AfD. I, in good faith, looked for some of these sources via Google and found nothing. And it's not just "reliable"--"in depth" plays a huge role. If I actually have a link to a source discussed in an AfD I always provide that. I think in this case it would have been enough to avoid this whole thing (or at least I'd hope and expect so). But yes, per IAR and some other things raw counts can sometimes overcome stronger arguments. And that's often a feature--sometimes the rules are wrong. But here it was, IMO, a lot of lazy !voting. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

• I accepted the draft and it is now in mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

22 May 2024

Category:Baseball players from Monterrey

Category:Baseball players from Monterrey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This category was deleted for reasons I can't understand (and with no debate discussion at all) because dividing occupations up - particularly athletes - by populated is something normal. Request recreation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 8#Category:Professional wrestlers from Monterrey nine years ago we decided (via a small but not atypical presentation) that city-level per-sport sportspeople categories were too small to be useful in this case. I've no sense for whether that rationale still applies, not being a categories specialist myself. Jclemens (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  For smaller cities certainly. But Monterrey is not a small city. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again, not a category expert, but if it were re-created and populated, how many notable individuals would be covered? Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Baseball-Reference lists 7 major league players born in Monterrey here, so at least that many. There might be others who are notable despite not reaching that level, but I'm not sure how to find out. Hatman31 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Hatman31, that's current players. There are almost certainly more former players from there. There are also other baseball sites which list beyond MLB players too, like those who played before integration of MLB in the Mexican League as well as minor leaguers and so on. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  The link I posted includes both current and former MLB players. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good catch. I skimmed through it so my apologies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Jclemens, I would say that recent Cfds held would mean this particular Cfd would not have gone through as "delete". It would have been kept. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• It's a very old, poorly attended CfD, but my sense is that it would still be an WP:OVERCAT. SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  @SportingFlyer, there are at least 300 "Baseball players from *city*" categories and similar number for footballers, basketball players and so on... so deleting this particular one is rather strange. In fact, I was quite surprised there WASN'T a category for a major city where baseball is a popular sport. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Question - There were two DRVs a few days ago about categories (one of which has been dealt with), and I left them alone because I don't know enough about categories to take an informed part in a CFD discussion or a review of a CFD discussion. But I can see that this has to do with a discussion that took place nine years ago. If a DRV is about an AFD discussion that took place several years ago, we usually don't review the discussion, but advise the appellant to create a draft for review, or to create a new article subject to a new AFD. Do changes to categories that were discussed several years ago come to DRV, as this one has done? If an editor recreated a category that was deleted nine years ago, would it be tagged for G4? I know that categories have their own procedures and logic. Is DRV the review for a nine-year-old category discussion, or can that be reworked by category creation and a new CFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon, I'm not fully sure myself about Cfd procedures (I'm new to myself) but I was told this was the correct way for deletion review. If this Cfd were run today, it would have had more participation and, if recent Cfds are any indication, this category would have been kept. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

21 May 2024

Connecteam – Early renomination allowed. No consensus on a particular waiting period, so just use your judgment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Connecteam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I didn't particularly want to bring this here, since procedurally the close is sound. The AFD was left listed for the full 168 hours (and 9 minutes), and I'm sure, were I inclined to speculate, I could come up with a way a reasonable admin closer could have closed the discussion the same way. There were some last minute comments, but not being a stale discussion ordinarily would certainly not be grounds for an overturn or relist. My mistake for not nomming it on a weekend. That said, I believe the discussion I had with the closer patently does not meet the standards set out by WP:ADMINACCT, which non-administrator closers are also expected to adhere to. I won't tell you more than that I followed the rules and used the arguments raised in the discussion. is clearly not in any way, shape or form a justification, in my admittedly biased opinion. Additionally, while it is not the role of the closer (nor this review) to remedy a defective discussion, I believe (again, admitting my strong bias) any administrator exercising reasonable judgement would at least note the fact that a self-published book, as added by 扱. し. 侍. would not be considered a reliable source, and state whether they relied on that accordingly, if not instead relisted or left their own comment. That one of the others added a source that prominently displayed "Marketing Content" (תוכן שיווקי) at the top near the byline, is perhaps beyond the scope of a reasonable closer, applying an ordinary degree of scrutiny. In my opinion, at minimum, even if the result is endorsed, this should be re-closed by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, and the closer advised not to do so in future. I am instead seeking a relist, or leave for an immediate renomination. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Here we are. My closure was not based on the book or the Marker source, as the nominator might think, but on a deep coverage provided by other reliable sources (including VentureBeat, Forbes staff, Globes, etc.) which were added during the discussion. I don't see a big issue in closing the discussion by the administrator as the nominator is biased and for some reason always mentions the weakest sources on the page. WP:BEFORE is a good rule and it must be followed. Not long ago, I nominated a page without a thorough review of sources and I was ashamed by the community. So, I was super attentive and skeptical in evaluating the sources of the page. BoraVoro (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) removed from the page the self-published book and the Marker paid placement source (I didn't count on them while closing the discussion anyway). BoraVoro (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC) You are not required to analyse the sources, as the closer. You are, however, required to furnish an explanation of your process, as requested, and as you have done so now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I see your point. As I mentioned before, I followed the discussion and based my decision on it. The arguments seemed valid, but I did look at and analyze the sources to determine if they are reliable, though I was not required to do so. BoraVoro (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) That's fine. I'm happy to withdraw at this point, and have this closed per Owen's suggestion, provided you take to heart the feedback provided (which it appears you have) I think the explanation you provided here is meets the required standard, and if you chose to close XfDs again after a bit more experience, would be the type of thing we would look for, with a bit more back and forth to hash out the details, for example, on the appropriate level of scrutiny. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) @Alpha3031 thank you so much! I completely agree with you and please accept my apologies for my unprofessional response on my talk page. BoraVoro (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Allow early renomination. The Keep !votes carry very little weight, which isn't surprising, seeing as they come from inexperienced users. One Keep was made by an account now used primarily for voting on AfDs, with a grand total of 52 edits to their name. The lone "per nom if not A7" Delete was also weak. A competent admin could have discarded all but the nom, and relisted to get more meaningful participation. As it stands, this is essentially little more than a contested PROD. Both the closing rationale and the closer's response above reads very much like a supervote. The closer's job is to weigh consensus among legitimate participants, not carry out their own source analysis. Conduct aside, I can't fault the NAC for being duped by what superficially appears to be a clear consensus, so I don't think an outright overturn is called for. I also don't want to relist the same AfD, already tainted by weak !votes. A fresh AfD in a month, closed by an admin (or by an experienced, competent NAC, if applicable), is the way to go here. BoraVoro would be well advised to stay away from closing XfDs until they gain more experience, and perhaps just as importantly, learn how to interact with fellow editors. This type of dismissive tone in response to a legitimate query is incompatible with administrative actions. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) @OwenX thanks! BoraVoro (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Allow early/speedy renomination per OwenX. Relisting this is not going to give the best chance of achieving consensus so a new nomination in a few weeks would absolutely be a better choice, to start afresh so to speak. I also agree with Owen's comments that it was an inappropriate response to the talk page query about XfD by the closer, and support his advice regarding the closer staying away from XfD closes for a while. (While DRV is not a conduct forum, the nature of a response by a closer on a talk page is something that definitely falls within its purview.) Daniel (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your feedback. I have already admitted and apologized for my inappropriate response on my talk page. I hope my actions won't disrupt the Wikipedia community and guidelines anymore, and I will stay away from XfD for a while. It was a good lesson for me. BoraVoro (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Allow early renomination. This looks like a UPE spam infested AFD. The article itself has hallmarks of UPE and the keep voters have similarities in behavior too. The same happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteshield with basically the same users. I ended up blocking the users concerned as UPE sock/meatpuppets. MER-C 17:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Apologies I renominated this before noticing this DRV! Please feel free to close and bash me over the head with a wet sponge. HighKing++ 15:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Y Done, although since you alerted us before anyone noticed, I'll skip the requested TROUTing. :) Owen× ☎ 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Early/Speedy renomination candidate. As part of the AfD I'd looked at the sourcing, in case I miss it next time at AfD, I hope the following will be able to assist or be helpful. notes on sourcing in article This is a breakdown of the sourcing in the article. Note, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. Not reviews of a product. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In other words and in plain English, this means that references that rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified, fail the criteria. There are 25 references in the article which can be broken up into 4 categories as follows: Interviews/quotations with sources connected to the topic company or "profiles" that repeat/regurgitate information with zero independent content. This from Globes and this from Globes are "puff" profiles that rely entirely on interviews with the founder and execs. This is another profile this time in a "Top 50" list, also relying entirely on repeating company-provided information. Announcments that rely entirely on information provided by the company/execs. This from Calcalistech, this from Venturebeat, this from Unleash, this from Techcrunch, this from Jerusalem Post and this from Globes were all published either on the same date, 2 March 2022, or within a few days after and all rely entirely on a funding announcement (either by the company or by one of their investors) and regurgitate the exact same comments/info from the company about their $120m funding round. This from Forbes, this from calcalistech, this from Globes were all published on 28 April 2021 or within a couple of days after concerning an earlier funding round and also fail for the same reasons as the other funding announcement-related references above. This from calcalist is an early article from 2016 and is based entirely on a company announcement and comments from the founder and an early investor. None of these article contain an "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND and fail WP:NCORP criteria. Self Published material. This from walla relies entirely on a survey by the topic company and has no independent content, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. This is the pricing page from the topic company's website, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Review of a product. The topic is the company and we first need to establish notability of the company. Once that has been established, no problem including details about their product(s). But reviews like this in Business.com, USA news, Techradar, timeero, usnews, jibble.io, peoplemanagingpeople, Forbes, and fitsmallbusiness are of no use for establishing in-depth Independent Content about the company, which they don't. None of the references in the article meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Allow early or speedy renomination due to high presence of covert advertising at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecteam, where nearly all keep votes failed to provide policy-based rationale and are all blocked for sock/meatpuppetry, likely UPE, or spam/advertising. Agreed with source analysis above - the sources given don't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. jellyfish ✉ 18:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 May 2024

Shane and Friends (closed)

Shane and Friends – Closure endorsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shane and Friends (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This podcast page definitely deserves to be restored. It was one of the biggest podcasts of the 2010s. How could it possible not meet notability standards? Nokia621 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Speedy endorse - no policy and guideline based argument has been provided. You could try to make an actual argument based on the availability of coverage in reliable sources. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Overturn Strike bolded !vote by nominator First of all, the original deletion had this argument: "Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return only passing mentions." If you want to talk about baseless arguments, start there. The podcast was deleted from all major platforms due to a major controversial comments made by Dawson in several episodes. This was discussed by Business Insider, The Evening Standard, The New Zealand Herald and many more. When the podcast did air from 2013 to 2017, it was incredibly popular. USA Today credited him for partially reviving the podcasting genre in 2013. In 2015, iTunes featured the show in their "Best of 2015" podcast list. It is definitely notable enough to be restored and the original deletion (with 3 people deciding) had completely baseless arguments. Nokia621 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC) That all appears to be coverage of Dawson himself primarily. Meanwhile, you seem to be misconstruing a Medium blog with 907 followers [2] for iTunes itself (and we generally don't report on single-vendor listings, WP:SINGLEVENDOR) signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) The Medium blog was copying what iTunes Podcasts put on their page. I'm not misconstruing. Nokia621 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 1) then why link the Medium source 2) moot per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Because the 2015 Best of iTunes list was in their iTunes app, never on a site. Nokia621 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC) In regards to single vendor, Spotify didn't even have podcasts until 2015, so there's few lists available. iTunes was one of the only providers and Soundcloud doesn't have lists. It was however on the Fullscreen app which is another platform, which he had an exclusive video deal with. Nokia621 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Speedy endorse. The minimally-attended AfD was closed as Redirect in July 2021. Since then, the appellant has been edit-warring, trying to restore the version prior to the AfD. The only reason they finally came here to DRV is that Rosguill correctly indef page-blocked them from that battle zone. Had they come here earlier, or presented new sources on the Talk page, I would have gladly considered a new discussion. But under the unclean hands legal doctrine, I refuse to entertain any petition coming from this disruptive editor relating to this or related pages. Not that they seem capable of mounting an argument better than, "But how can it not be notable?". Owen× ☎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC) You're factually incorrect. I had started this deletion review before he indefinitely page-blocked me. You can literally check the UTC timing. Also, you left this comment 1 minute after I gave a long explanation of why it is notable. So instead of insulting by calling me incapable of mounting arguments, why don't you fact-check your own lies? Nokia621 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC) No, Owen is correct about the timing. As you should know, and can be seen from your block log, you were blocked at 09:56, 20 May 2024 EDT. You opened this DRV at 15:02, 20 May 2024 EDT. I later corrected the block, which I had initially intended to be indefinite but was instead implemented as 24-hours (which would be silly, for an edit war spanning over 3 years). Arguing that the block post-dates your actions here is pretty transparent wikilawyering. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Thank you for admitting you did a temporary ban at first. Once again confirming that Owen was lying about this debate starting after being "indef page-blocked" (his words). How am I supposed to read your mind and know the 24 hour ban was an initial "mistake"? No offense, but you're gaslighting me to the max. And considering I don't read your mind, please don't read my mind saying my actions are "transparent", because you are way off-base. Nokia621 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Yet another DRV appellant who did not even bother discussing with the closer (me) before rushing to file here. I'm also going to speedy endorse (as closer) per Owen and Rosguill. Daniel (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse. Good close. No deletion has occurred, so unless you are challenging the close, this is out of scope of DRV. If you want to revisit the matter, essentially wanting to re-WP:SPINOUT the podcast, propose it and seek consensus on the talk page of the redirect target. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse OP hasn't said anything policy-based and seems unlikely to do so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse, except that this doesn't allege any error by the closer. Either Redirect or Relist would have been valid closes, and in 2021 a case could be made for overturning the Redirect to Relist. But, as per OwenX, the appellant has been edit-warring since then, and has passed up any chance to ask for a Relist. DRV is not AFD Round 2, but the sources are garbage, so that the article should not have been Kept. The redirect has not been locked. An editor in good standing may submit a draft with good sources for review to Articles for Creation. The appellant is not an editor in good standing with respect to this title. DRV is a content forum, but the appellant is engaging in personal attacks, for which a real block may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) User:Robert McClenon, regarding your 2nd dot point, it is irresponsible to advocate for any editor to create content forks in draftspace. This is not productive, much more likely will be a waste of time for all involved, and as with all content forking, it creates attribution hazards. Content on the Shane and Friends podcast is located at Shane Dawson, and per consensus evident in the AfD, that’s where it belongs. If new good sources are found, they should be added to Shane Dawson, and then, if a WP:SPINOUT is warranted, it should be proposed at Talk:Shane Dawson. Only then fork to draftspace if that’s the unlikely consensus on Talk:Shane Dawson. Do not just fork to draftspace alone and in silence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) User:SmokeyJoe - I have reread the guideline on content forks, and I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. I have requested opinions at Village Pump (policy). I don't think that a draft and content that has been replaced by a redirect are pages of the same type, but we shall see what other editors think. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Draft Content Fork Question SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse. No deletion to review, and spinning a page back out after a redirect does not need to come here; it can just be taken forward by building a consensus at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Estonian numismatists

Category:Estonian numismatists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as "merge all" but there was no actual consensus to merge all (as opposed to merging only the ones that still have one member). Discussion with the closer at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working has failed to resolve matters. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse I would have closed it the same way, to be honest. SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working/Archive 30#NAC requests 22–30 April 2024 for anyone interested.
  Honestly, looking at this again, there wasn't much in the way of arguments there, so I'd understand if this was overturned to no consensus for all, not just the >1 member categories. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Roman villas in Germany (closed)

Category:Roman villas in Germany – Close reverted by closer and debate reopened, to be reclosed by another editor or administrator. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Roman villas in Germany (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was closed as "merge" but there was no actual consensus to merge. Neither side provided any clear guidelines to back up their position, and the numbers were equal. This should have been a "no consensus" * Pppery * it has begun... 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Pppery, for this one, the keep !votes referred (implicitly) to the deprecated WP:SMALLCAT guideline. The nom referred to Wikipedia:Categorization by saying it's not useful for navigation, which I felt was reasonable enough. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "Useful for navigation" seems like a wholly subjective term to me, not a basis in which one can declare one side or the other right. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Pppery, yes. This matter comes up fairly frequently at CfD; it would be nice to have some community consensus. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) It would indeed be nice to have such community consensus. But until that happens, would you be willing to revert your close and relist the CfD, so we can speedily close this DRV? Owen× ☎ 18:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) OwenX, I don't see how relisting will help here, that's just kicking the can down the road. A no consensus closure, I could agree to. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC) A different can down a different road. Reverting your own close will allow an admin to close it in a way that better reflects consensus, or let it run for more views. You're not compelled to self-revert, of course. But it looks like this DRV is headed that way anyway, so the dignified thing to do would be to allow an early close. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Overturn, bad close. Consensus was to Keep. Insufficient rational, with User:Smasongarrison’s “for now” and “can be recreated” rendering his her !vote very weak, begging the question of why is she creating this busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Please don't misgender me. Mason (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) My apologies. I originally misidentified you, and became befuddled. My advice for nominators is that they should make a strong case in starting an XfD discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Knowing SmokeyJoe, this would have been a total accident, and I'm sure it will be fixed once seen (ping @SmokeyJoe:) so we can focus on the review itself. Daniel (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Regardless, I don't see the point of calling me out for this argument. There is an entire essay on this WP:Merge for now.Mason (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the link to the essay. I had never seen it before. I participated in many CfDs long ago, and I think that it suffers from excessive fiddling, busywork, and that “for now” fits that impression. I suggest that you change “for now” to “until when”. Give your audience something objective to respond to. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC) SmokeyJoe, it's until there's enough articles to populate the category, which may well be never. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Overturn per Pppery. I will note that there's absolutely no reason to call out the nominator for this one, there just wasn't consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I think it proper to call out weak nominations. Weak nominations often lead to trainwrecks, even if there’s a good underlying case. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) The nomination was fine at the time it was made. The problem was the closure that didn't reflect consensus, not the nomination itself. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Although I'm clearly biased as the one called out, @SmokeyJoe, I think there were more constructive ways to say that the nomination could have been more compelling. However, I think that you made your argument less compelling by conflating two issues and implying that my efforts were pointless busywork. None of which was related to the closing itself.Mason (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think “for now” conveys confidence. I feel it conveys hesitation. I had no idea that it was a term-of-art. I have raised my thought at Wikipedia talk:Merge for now#For now. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Interesting. Your perspective is one that I hadn't considered. So I appreciate it. I was not aware that perceptions of confidence or hesitation were things to be considered in a CFD. Or that acknowledging that the facts may change is a bad thing. I think it merely acknowledges that this situation for the category could change and that the the nominator is not opposed to revisiting the facts. Mason (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) @SportingFlyer, @SmokeyJoe, @Pppery, @OwenX, @Smasongarrison, @Daniel, would you all be okay with me changing my closure to no consensus, and then starting an RfC on the matter? — Qwerfjkltalk 13:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There's at least one valid opinion in this DRV to overturn to Keep, so we can't just short-circuit the process unless SmokeyJoe changes their mind or this turns into a WP:SNOW situation. I appreciate you trying to build consensus here and close this sooner, but the best way to do that would be to revert your own close, and let an admin re-close or relist. There's no loss of face in taking your name off that CfD. On the contrary: the ability to admit one's mistake and promptly correct it is highly valued, and often comes up on the "Support" side at RfAs. As for an RfC, you are welcome to start one at any time. Owen× ☎ 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) “No consensus” is certainly defensible. An immediate RfC, no. SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Personally, I'm fine with non consensus, and agree with Owen that this reverting the close might be easier. I'm not sure what an RfC would do because we had one relatively recently one that ended in a snow for not reinstating small cat. Mason (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Smasongarrison, can you link to the RfC? I must have missed it. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) I'll try to dig it up; my recollection was that @Thinker78 made it. Mason (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) I've reverted my closure, per all the comments above. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Thank you. Owen× ☎ 14:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Is there some reason I shouldn't close this as no consensus now? Or have I become too heavily WP:INVOLVED to do so? The problem with CfD is that for a very long time there have been very few active admin closers so most discussions are closed by non-admins, and the discussion is now in limbo since the bot that processes old discussions doesn't deal with new discussions from months in the past being reopened. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC) No objection from me. Owen× ☎ 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Pppery, I don't think expressing an opinion on my closure should disqualify you from closing it yourself; I, at least, have no problems with it. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2024

1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash – Decision endorsed * Pppery * it has begun... 14:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Whilst not a contentious topic, I believe that the the non-admin closer closed the discussion with insufficient evidence and rationale. At first, the closer did not provide a rationale and upon asking for one [3], they stated "The noms contention that this was a "run of the mill event" is not accepted" [4]. Upon inquiring even further pointing out that I had cited multiple policy-based guidelines, they simply stated that they had nothing to else add. Whilst there were no votes supporting a delete, I believe that, either, at the very least, the discussion be relisted to provide a clearer consensus and be closed by a more experienced editor or admin, or the result be overturned as I believe that the closer did not correctly interpret the results. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse There is unanimous consensus to keep. Skyshiftertalk 10:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Per WP:CLOSEAFD, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. The strength of the arguments given depends more than the number of votes cast on either side. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Comment. I closed this. There were no delete votes in this second AfD nor the first AfD which can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RA-78804. Desertarun (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC) This is slightly misleading. Although there weren't any delete votes in the first AfD, there were merge votes. [1] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC) And you ignored the first AfD result and renominated it for deletion again...The first AfD closed less than a month ago. Desertarun (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC) I agree that that was my fault for renominating it as I didn't know that a renomination should normally take place after six months. At the same time, you closing the first discussion as keep with four in favour (including a sock) vs three favouring a merge is contentious as both sides provided strong arguments. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Overturn This AFD was not properly closed and the rationale for closing is not valid. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Weak endorse. Firstly, renominating within a month of the previous Keep AfD puts the appellant on weak footing here. I believe them when they say it was an honest mistake, but in cases of rapid renomination of a substantially identical page, I think a closer may look at the views in the previous XfD, and determine consensus based on both (or all, if more than two) AfDs combined. This is the natural and most effective way to discourage the type of tendentious litigation we see in some perennially nominated pages. In our case, this would lead to a clear consensus to keep. Secondly, while no policy forbids it, I find it in poor taste for the same closer, admin or not, to close two subsequent XfDs for the same page, especially in such rapid succession. I'm not saying Desertarun has any bias here, but the appearance of impartiality, and the opportunity to give another closer a chance to examine consensus, are also important. Looking at the second, appealed AfD by itself, I agree with the appellant that the Keep views are exceptionally weak, and do little to refute the nominator's P&G-based concern. I would advise the non-admin closer to either relist such marginal cases, or to leave them for an admin to close. Owen× ☎ 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Having closed a discussion, there will be a bias to close the same discussion repeated, the same way, especially if there is no substantial new information or arguments that make the second close a reevaluation of the first. This makes the closer INVOLVED forever, or at least for a long time, on similar questions on that topic. If WP:INVOLVED doesn’t say this, it should. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC) I fully agree, hence the weakness of my endorsement. Owen× ☎ 13:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC) It would be nigh on impossible for the admins that close many AfDs per week/month to remember everything they'd previously closed. So changing WP:Involved as mooted would be giving a stick to disgruntled users. Desertarun (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC) I think I'd remember if I closed an AfD about the same page three weeks earlier. And I do check the prior AfD links to make sure I haven't been involved in any recent ones about that page. Are you claiming you forgot you closed the the previous AfD? If so, admitting your mistake would be the honourable thing to do. "Giving a stick" to editors who find a flaw with the AfD process is exactly what DRV is all about. Owen× ☎ 20:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse. There was a clear consensus to keep. Everything was done correctly. The closer stated that the nominator's rationale was "not accepted" (by consensus), which is fine. This is not a BADNAC, as the non-admin closer has not demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, the outcome was not a close call or likely to be controversial, the non-admin has a lot of experience editing Wikipedia generally and has had much previous participation in deletion discussions, and the result did not require action by an administrator. Maybe something about this close could have been better but NACs don't have to be absolutely fabulous to stand, discussions don't have to be fabulous for NAC to be applicable when they're entirely one-sided and can't be closed any other way, and DRV is not about technicalities and not about through-expermentally workshopping could-have-been optimal closing statements and sharing thoughts about what ideal closes by which preferred closers would lead to our satisfaction.—Alalch E. 13:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) I don't understand how the given rationale is fine. Saying that the result depended on one of my arguments not being accepted doesn't exactly make sense. In the discussion, I provided multiple policy based guidelines demonstrating why the article should be deleted. But because one of my arguments which was that the event was a run-of-the-mill was not accepted means that my entire argument is now baseless? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC) An AfD is not a formal debate. As consensus, not merely being right is needed to delete, your initiative to delete the article failed through a lack of consensus to do so. Since no one even !voted delete, but multiple people !voted keep, the outcome can not be "no consensus" and can only be "keep". Relisting would have been inappropriate as there was a normal level of participation and the comments were not "lacking arguments based on policy". An argument that the page is not WP:NOT, for example, is not an argument not based in policy in an AfD. An editor can ignore complaints that notability isn't met and say that the page is suitable for inclusion as being within scope, citing NOT, and that is a perfectly policy-based argument to keep. If you cite a guideline that says that events about "common, everyday, ordinary items" may not be notable, and someone says "no, this is not a common, everyday, ordinary item", that's a policy-based argument. Try with a more complete nomination next time that in addition to WP:LASTING also includes WP:INDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE, and explain why some sources may be unreliable and why those that are reliable lack in-depth coverage etc., and also explain how WP:GNG isn't met. —Alalch E. 14:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Consensus isn't determined based on the tally votes and by counting heads, but by looking at the strength of arguments and cited recorded consensus and on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep. And just saying that the article should be kept because of the number of deaths is not a policy-based argument, nor is saying that an article should be kept because another one has less deaths. Arguing against someone saying that the article is not run-of-the-mill and demonstrating why it is run-of-the-mill is also a policy-based argument. If users do little to refute issues cited regarding policies and guidelines, where does that leave the result? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) You said, I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep. That is correct, and indeed, no one here is claiming that your arguments are not based on policy or guidelines. The fact that no one refuted your argument does not, by itself, automatically turn your legitimate view into a supervote. Here at DRV, we often get appeals that essentially boil down to, "Everyone except me was wrong!". The problem with that is that even if true, that still leaves your opinion alone. We do not delete an article based on a single, contested opinion, except in the clear cases spelled out in WP:CSD. Owen× ☎ 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC) I'm not trying to make my views equal to a supervote but the problem that I have is with the closing rationale since it is implying that the discussion was closed as keep because one of my arguments was not accepted even though there were plenty other of arguments. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC) The AfD was closed as a Keep because no one other than you suggested it not be kept. The fact that you're still arguing about it tells me you aren't clear on our basic principle of WP:CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse per Alalch E. Perfectly fine NAC, entirely obvious consensus. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse per Alalch E. No error in the close - also not a bad NAC. The nomination was based on WP:EVENT and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. While WP:EVENT is a guideline, it is not, by itself an exclusion criteria - as a subject can still pass GNG and merit an article. WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay. In this case, as GNG was not questioned. While passing GNG does not mean an article must be created, the question in an AFD is whether a stand-alone page should exist. Since the other participants all said that the subject was not an ordinary event (a policy-based argument), keep was the only appropriate outcome. --Enos733 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse completely normal AfD here, with complete consensus to keep. Furthermore I do not see any particular reason to delete which was ignored by the participants. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse as the correct reading of consensus to Keep. I would have !voted Keep on account of significant coverage of 23 lives lost, but DRV is not AFD round 3. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse. WP:SLAP User:Aviationwikiflight for renominating too soon after an AfD consensus to not delete, and doing so without a better nomination that last time, noting that they !voted in the first AfD and therefore were aware of it. Desertarun (talk · contribs) should not be closing an AfD on the same topic twice, after closing once you are forever WP:INVOLVED in that topic. I would have requested speedy closure at WP:ANRFC, and !voted “speedy close as too soon after the AfD1 consensus to keep”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Sorry, but per One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. if an admin would not have been INVOLVED based on a closure, a non-administrator cannot be presumed to be involved based on performing a NAC as a pseudo-administrative action which should, by virtue of what a NAC is, require less evaluation and opinion formation. Thus, not INVOLVED. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) NAC-ers are especially prone to unconscious bias. They should not repeatedly close AfDs on the same article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I think this is a reasonable opinion to hold. I don't think it's addressed, let alone required, by current policy. Have I missed something? If not, I'd certainly be up for saying INVOLVED should be construed exceptionally broadly for NACs, and would support that. I just don't think it's current P&G. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC) I'm with Jclemens on this. "Forever INVOLVED" seems a bit extreme. Involvement is a function of the depth and nature of interaction, and the time elapsed. We'd be running out of admins very quickly if closing one of the many WP:NSKATE AfDs would instantly and forever disqualify you from touching any of the others. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Forever, is extreme. Three weeks is short. I would have done as I said. If it remains unclosed after a week at ANRFC, and you address the notion of possible repeat bias, that would be ok. I reckon. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC) No action I can not go as far as endorsing an WP:INVOLVED NAC, but this is the correct result. There was unanimous consensus (outside the nominator) to keep this article. Frank Anchor 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse The appellant has acknowledged their error in renominating so quickly; the next step should be to drop the matter and move on. Also, whether or not it is prohibited by policy, I'm not comfortable with two NACs by the same editor on the same article in such rapid succession. But the close was technically correct. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I agree, it’s rather odd they’re still fighting to have it deleted even though vast majority have voted to keep it. Alex Hoe (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I still stand by my opinion but I accept the result of the AfD. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Endorse My opinion has not changed since the last two attempted deletion attempts, the value of the cargo plus the high number of fatalities due to accident. Alex Hoe (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Relist. When there are similar numbers of valid merge !votes and keep !votes, it's pretty safe to assume the AfD is not appropriate for a NAC, let alone an involved NAC. The close was improper, and the weakness of the keep !votes makes it especially important that the AfD be evaluated by a neutral admin. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.