Wikipedia:Long-term Abuse/Cyberpunk2077JohnnySilverhand – Clear consensus to overturn, with probably more support for overturn to no consensus rather than overturn to relist. Any editor is free to renominate this at MfD immediately if they so wish. Any renaming can be done by any editor also. Daniel (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This user has created many, many more socks since August. (Note: The page should be created with a lowercase 'a' in 'abuse'). Partofthemachine (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC as a better reading of a 2-2ish discussion, even if those arguing against deletion didn't bold their opinions. Obviously, if this is still an issue, then new opinions and outcomes are entirely appropriate, so no prejudice against speedy renomination. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & move. I interpret that MfD as 2 keep !votes and 1 delete, even if the keeps weren't explicit. Since it seems more input might be needed (which isn't really DRV's job), I don't object to a 2nd MfD.Clyde!Franklin! 10:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The guidelines for Long-term abuse say that long-term abuse files are normally not needed for vandals whose sock accounts will be blocked as vandalism-only accounts. Is this such a case? Pinging the nominator, User:Praxidicae, who appears to have been making that argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to Relist - This MFD was poorly participated in and could use more input. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus basically per Jclemens. Ordinarily I wouldn't have a problem with relisting, but since this is a four-month-old discussion I'd prefer to just allow a new MfD, especially given the argument that things have changed since September. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus Agreeing with Jclemens and Extraordinary Writ. I don't see a good case for endorsing given the split in the discussion. Relisting at this point doesn't make much sense, but of course a new MfD could be made, if needed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Many reasons. The 'crisis' actually occurred during a much shortened time period, between December 2019 and January 2020. Second, many languages, such as Spanish have the article. Multiple sources, including reliable ones, have documented of such crisis/confrontation/conflict occurring in which Iran and the US were brought to the brink of war
PS I have seen what happened to sockpuppets of some rando who tried to sock or whatever you call it. I am not affiliated, am I just doing this because I found the pirated version of this article in some pirated wiki. I believe that this article should have not been deleted genuinely. European Inca (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked this user as a sock of Mausebru. I think this report should be closed please. I would do it myself but it's rather mangled in the header so not sure how to fix it. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Mainframe (band) – Recreation permitted, with a recommendation to do it via the WP:AFC process. I have undeleted the old article and moved to draft space — Draft:Mainframe (band) — to allow editorial processes to move it forward as usual. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I got a message on my talk page to say there could be a conflict of interest, but I am not associated with this band at all. They stopped making music in the 80s. Kowaika (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as correct reading of consensus. However, as the AFD occurred almost nine years ago, a lot could have changed with coverage of this band (even as the band disbanded in the 80s). Therefore I have no issue with the page being restored to draftspace or userspace to allow the appellant to modify it and add appropriate sources, should they exist, and submit to WP:AFC when appropriate. FrankAnchor 21:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modified per User:S Marshall’s assessment. This particular discussion is more about restoring than questioning the AFD process. I can get caught up in having to endorse or overturn on DRVs. FrankAnchor 15:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not waste any time endorsing or otherwise that AfD from Wikipedia's equivalent of the late Jurassic. Let's permit creation of a fresh article, preferably via AfC.—S MarshallT/C 01:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep: userify, improve, reintroduce to mainspace, and deal with future issues via a new AfD if they arise. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Creation either of draft for review or in article space subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. I would note that the articles archived by www.muzines.co.uk are the best sources. Simple directory stuff by others, even MTV, isn't going to help much with meeting WP:N. I'll also note that muzines.co.uk is very cool indeed. I wish other fields did something like that. Hobit (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921 – Speedy re-opening this non-administrator close per WP:NACD - "Deletion-related closes may only be reopened ... [point 2] by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning". This discussion clearly qualifies as a "close call [or] controversial decision" after even a cursory reading over the debate, and therefore should not have been closed by a non-administrator per NACD and the below comments here at DRV. Daniel (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The AFD result did not reflect the discussion, and the closure was also done by a non-admin despite being a WP:BADNAC, as pointed out by Suriname0 and Liz.[1][2] During the AFD discussion, it was established that this article is a combination of a hoax based on original research and a Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. Much of the articles content is not verified by the citations attached, and there is also several WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY sources that have been debunked by modern sources, such as Taner Akçam. I have also since discovered that a lot of the article content, including the year range and thesis statement ("Azerbaijanis in Armenia were ethnically cleansed on a large scale throughout 1917–1921") come from the very unreliable source Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821–1922 by Justin McCarthy, a historical negationist. Although the McCarthy source was removed, the article is still built on it's undue claims, only instead cited to authors that only write about mutual clashes/persecutions. Please do not just count the amount of users voting one way or the other, there is not a single reliable source for the article topic or that uses the terminology "Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921". Dallavid (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate NAC, allow an admin to close its generally a bad idea to have an NAC after a relist as consensus is usually not clear and obvious and the discussion would liwlely be at least somewhat controversial. Personally, I think “no consensus” is most appropriate as there are solid policy-based arguments on both sides despite the “keep” side having a numerical advantage of 10-6. I oppose a second relist in this case as the discussion was well attended and I don’t see consensus forming. FrankAnchor 04:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn NAC and allow administrative close. While the vote count appears to have been 11 Keep and 6 Delete including the nominator, which is a rough consensus, the AFD was contentious, with too much back-and-forth, and assessment of strength of arguments by an admin is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per WP:BADNAC. Not such an overwhelming keep and likely to be controversial due to subject matter. —Alalch E. 08:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn NAC and I'll note this is an area under discretionary sanctions. Do we not have a "Do not try and close a discussion in a discretionary sanctions topic area as a NAC, or even an Admin if you value your sanity." because of WP:BURO or WP:BEANS? Regardless, this needs to be carefully closed by an admin versed in the surrounding controversies. Jclemens (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
User:.usarnamechoice/sandbox – The consensus below is to overturn and send to MfD, albeit with a general feel of disquiet about the lede paragraph's content. I will procedurally nominate for MfD as a result of this discussion. Per Hut 8.5, a review and amendment of the lede is encouraged per our policies on BLP/V - either parallel with, or following (depending on outcome), the MfD. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
the user who has deleted my sand box alleges that i made unsourced claims in the lead paragraph, but the sources for the lead paragraph are included lower down in the draft, per wp:lede. i believe the user, @AdOrientum has made a mistake. the claims are long standing and persistent, and i deny that it is an attack article. i found that at least two drafts of this subject have been deleted (included at the bottom of the draft) and so i was very careful to phrase the statements in a neutral, sourceable way. .usarnamechoice (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand by my deletion. See my comment here. No issues with requesting community review. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have temporarily restored the page in order to facilitate discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy and send to MFD it doesn’t appear that this is exclusively an attack page as it does not threaten or disparage President Biden. It is simple criticism substantiated by reliable sources. I don’t think such content should be on Wikipedia (even in userspace), but WP:G10 and other WP:CSD simply do not apply. FrankAnchor 04:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy Deletion and send to MFD. Not a case for G10 or other speedy criterion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you intend to do with this content, .usarnamechoice?—S MarshallT/C 01:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The correct venue for this question is at a subsequent MFD discussion and not at deletion review. The sole purpose of this discussion is to determine if the WP:CSD were correctly applied (which I personally believe was not the case based on my above comments). FrankAnchor 23:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you about all those points. I think the sole purpose of this discussion is, in fact, to decide whether to restore deleted content. I think Ad Orientem's view, that this was an attack article might be a stretch, but I also think Ad Orientem has an arguable case. US politics are toxic and there are Arbcom discretionary sanctions active in the topic area. Arbcom's special rules here both empower Ad Orientem and constrain him to take action. So I think the decision needed here is finely balanced and I feel it's right for us to ask questions.
I also think whether this content is appropriate might depend where it's going to be used. If it's meant for a userspace essay or RFC question then that's one thing, and if it's meant for the mainspace that's another.—S MarshallT/C 00:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, for lack of response by complainant.—S MarshallT/C 11:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G10 is a stretch, but the deleting admin has a point that a large part of the page was unsourced and that part is very problematic from a BLP standpoint. Certainly a statement that a living person has been evaluated by medical professionals for cognitive problems absolutely must have a source. The OP justified this by saying that the lead doesn't need citations for statements which are made in the article body, but most of these statements aren't made in the page body, so this doesn't apply. I suggest restoring the page and removing everything which doesn't have an explicit citation. Hut 8.5 10:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of response from the respondent? Over a holiday weekend when they haven't edited at all? I'd suggest that this comment be ignored, if there's any imminent closure. Nfitz (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy - attack page seems to be an exaggeration - especially for a sandbox that was being actively edited. Politician not keeping promises is hardly a controversial statement. Surely a better approach would be to simply removing the offending sentence - perhaps with a revdel (though both seem unnecessary to me. Nfitz (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
the closer of the deletion discussion claimed that there was a "strong consensus" for deletion referring to the number of voters, but a consensus is not a vote count.
In the deletion closure they said: the only editors advocating Keeping this article are the article creator [...] implying that the closure was based on the number of voters not on arguments. And also implying that my argument was not counted nor taken into consideration only because I am the article creator.
The arguments of those who were in favor of deleting the article were baseless. They kept claiming things without backing their claims. Like saying that the article is violating WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS without describing how or where. Or saying that "this article is sourced from WP:INDEPENDENT-violating sources" without specifying which sources are being referred to. Such arguments should not be counted.
The argument that the deletion decision was mostly based on is because this article is a content fork and any sourced content is better placed in other, existing articles on the subject of governance in the U.S. The problem with this argument is that there was no consensus on this matter. I kept arguing that the bureaucracy is not the same as the Executive Branch as the concept of bureaucracy can be expanded to include congress and other things but those who disagreed kept repeating themselves. I hope you take a look on this issue. Thank you! The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is clear consensus for deletion. The delete side has a substantial numerical advantage and is equal or stronger policy-wise as well, given that one of the keep votes has no explanation whatsoever. Contrary to the DRV filer, the closer wrote Additionally, the only editors advocating Keeping this article are the article creator and an editor who provided no Keep rationale and considered the strength of the arguments. VickKiang(talk) 00:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The participants are not required to elaborate on their views when they say things such as the article being WP:SYNTH etc, especially not when it's reasonably clear what they mean from the context. There doesn't have to be agreement between all participants around a specific keep or delete !vote in order for that comment to be contributive to forming of consensus. The nominator's !vote was not discounted. It doesn't affect the outcome that one keep !vote was discounted. Close is based on a reasonable reading of consensus. —Alalch E. 13:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes they are required to explain their own POV in order for it to be counted. A claim that is unfounded or is not based on facts cannot be an accurate claim. When you claim that an article is violating OR then you need to explain how or else you're claim is not sufficient. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on context, and here the context is pretty clear. There is a lengthy tread involving a view that original synthesis is involved, and when someone subsequently says "Delete. WP:SYNTH." it's clear that they join the argument. But in general, even when it's less clear from context than it is now, the reality is that there isn't a hard requirement that the closer discount such !votes; the closer needs to figure out if they contribute to a consensus or not, and unless it looks like that what the closer came up with is pretty unreasonable, i.e. the opposite of what a reasonable closer would find, it will not be a factor in overturning. —Alalch E. 16:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there isn't a hard requirement that the closer discount such !votes first, conesnsus is not calculated solely by number of votes. second, yes there is a requirement which is the strength of an argument. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer assessed consensus correctly. Length of arguments, by disagreeing with every contrary argument, does not count as strength of arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And when did I say that lengthy arguments are strong arguments? The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, accurate close. I'd discourage any attempt to name an article "bureaucracy in $country" because of the immense difficulty of finding scholarly or academic sources and the high likelihood of attracting axe-grinders.—S MarshallT/C 10:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you're endorsing the closure because you don't agree with the name of the article then you're deviating the discussion. This is not a 2nd round of AfD, it's a deletion review. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining to me how DRV works! :)—S MarshallT/C 22:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was sarcastic - S Marshall has spent a lot of time at DRV and must be very familiar with how it works. Hut 8.5 15:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was a consensus in the discussion that the topic is or should be covered in other articles. The Keep arguments focused on the fact that the information was sourced and that the term is used in sources, which doesn't exactly refute this. It is entirely possible to have an article which is well sourced but which consists of information which should be covered elsewhere. The article does also read like the work of someone who strongly dislikes the subject matter and isn't remotely neutral (it's a POV fork). Hut 8.5 15:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This topic is also sometimes referred to as BIP in the press, and if you add the search term "BIP" Bitcoin you will get some results. I often look for fortune.com, wsj.com, and bloomberg.com as we will get too many results in non-RS (we are not using cryptoblogs and other junk sources for RS on crypto articles). I did find three hits in fortune. There would also be plenty in google books as well which yields 10 pages of results. Please also note that these articles spawned from a disagree relating to a BIP: Bitcoin Cash launched a result of a disagreement relating to a BIP that merged SegWit which allowed for creation of Lightning Network. Thus while BIP is maybe not as notable as the others, it is somewhat of a linking article and couldnt be merged with any of them, as Segwit is only one of many many BIPs. We could try to merge some of the BIP content to Bitcoin, but Bitcoin article is WP:TOOLONG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, the AFD isn't linked here but you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. I thought there was a rough consensus among participants to delete this article and in my deletion rationale, I mentioned that I'd be willing to restore it to Draft space if an editor was interested in trying to improve the article as one participant argued to Draftify the article. That option isn't always stated so I thought my closure was fair. Deleting articles that some people care about will often bring discontented content creators here to Deletion review. Merry Christmas! LizRead!Talk! 03:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that would be ok to move it back to draft and I can try to add some sources to it so next time it doesnt result at AfD again. Last time I looked at the article it was having WP:NOTDIR problems, but that has been a while. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I've fixed the link (at least for my browser). VickKiang(talk) 06:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. IMO User:Liz's close is accurate. There is one keep/draftify and six deletes, which is numerically solid consensus for delete. A no consensus or draftify would be preferable if the lone keep/draftify vote is substantially stronger, which IMHO is not the case. No objections towards a restoration in draftspace and submission via AfC. VickKiang(talk) 04:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the close accurately reflected the discussion, and this isn't supposed to be a second round of AfD. Draftification is the obvious way forward here, if nothing else the large table listing every Bitcoin Improvement Proposal should probably be removed. Hut 8.5 11:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse discussion clearly conveyed by the close: subject lacks notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (speedy close). The nomination doesn't say that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly (and there's no reason for me to think so), nor does the challenge rest on any of the other WP:DRVPURPOSE reasons. The part about merging options is interesting but doesn't connect with what can be done here seeing how there's no prospect of success at challenging the close. —Alalch E. 20:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close no objection to draftification, consensus on what was there was clear. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer correctly assessed community consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Consensus was not reached, all references check out. Editors confirmed international notability. JazzAficionado22 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After 3 relistings, this AFD didn't have much participation. But I while there were editors confirming some facts about this artist's touring schedule, I saw no one arguing that this article should be Kept so I closed it as Delete. No Consensus would not have been appropriate with no editors arguing to Keep the article. If those editors who commented wanted the article to be Kept, I believe they would have stated this explicitly as they were all veteran editors. FYI, the first AFD was closed as No consensus although there was some support in that discussion to Keep the article that was absent here. LizRead!Talk! 20:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is relevant but until last week, JazzAficionado22's username was Kalilw so there might be a COI involved here. But I understand the primary purpose of this review is to examine the closure of the AFD and assess whether or not it was properly done. LizRead!Talk! 20:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Unlike what is claimed by the DRV nom, a sufficient level of consensus to delete was reached in this WP:UNOPPOSED AfD. —Alalch E. 21:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Three delete votes and two non-voting comments (one said Kalil was more than a local singer but did not contend notability being met) is clear consensus for a regular delete, it is impractical for this to be closed otherwise and what the DRV filer is asking is unclear. VickKiang(talk) 22:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as accurate reading of consensus. FrankAnchor 23:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There was a rough consensus for deletion, and a rough consensus is a consensus. There was no error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“rough consensus is a consensus” is not a helpful statement for anyone unsure of the meaning of consensus. Read more at rough consensus and consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I also agree, the closer took the right decision with the AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Correct call of a consensus to delete. There are some very non-independent and very promotional sources, and I can’t find any that would meet the WP:GNG. I think this page was an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. Proponents for the article should read WP:COI. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proponents of which there are/were none except for ex-Kalilw. —Alalch E. 14:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD was an unanimous delete and was correctly closed. Dougal18 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Dozen Doughnut Company – The close is endorsed. While there might be some information worth adding to another article, editors mostly agree that the closer arrived to a reasonable result after thorough analysis of the discussion. As pointed by some editors, it is still possible to merge some of the article's content into another one. Having said that, I'll also be restoring the article to draft space as requested, allowing editors to view its content so that it can more easily be merged, and the article possibly improved. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈 22:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
A "clear majority" did not emerge from the discussion. There were 12 votes for Delete and 10 for Keep by my count: the discussion should have been relisted at the very least, also considering that the article was significantly changed over the course of the discussion. KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬 21:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close contains a reasonable finding of consensus based around a prevailing policy-based view that the coverage isn't significant. All of the delete !votes were centered on this argument and translate to a cohesive collective will that the article be deleted, while the minority delete /meant to say keep/ arguments are more fragmented, comprising various unresolved objections, or are attempts to gloss over the key problem that is SIGCOV. Semantics of the close regarding "clear majority" (an observable 50% + 1 majority is also a "clear majority") are irrelevant. Considering the number of participants and the volume of what was written, the discussion had more than (more than more than) a sufficient degree of resolution not to require relisting. —Alalch E. 22:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin comment. Because of the amount of discussion, I created a spreadsheet to track the positions taken and how they were supported, so I think I have more accurate numbers. There were 13 editors explicitly supporting deletion, all citing policy-based reasons (typically WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:NCORP). Four editors supported merge as their primary position; three of these also said the subject lacked notability, giving the same reasons as the pro-delete editors. There were 10 editors who supported keeping, although two of these did not cite policy-based reasons and one argued that notability guidelines are "advisory". Even without discounting any of the non-policy arguments, there were 16 editors saying the subject did not have enough significant coverage to support notability. That's what I meant by "clear majority" – apologies that I wasn't more clear about that specifically. I considered relisting, but in reading the later comments, it was clear that the frequent participants had solidified positions and the discussion was becoming personalized. (Also, an AfD that has its own talk page discussion is usually a bad sign.) Contra the comment about the article changing during the discussion, there were multiple comments reaffirming previous positions, and final day comments were trending for deletion. So a relist did not seem necessary or beneficial. --RL0919 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge or no consensus Firstly, the article shouldn't have been nominated for a second time only six weeks after the first. Now that the discussion has happened though I think it would be beneficial to preserve the content in the page history and allow a merge as many editors argued for. Garuda3 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the only logical conclusion based on the discussion and our policies and guidelines. An admin could easily provide the history of the article in draft or userspace if someone wants to merge; that's a non-argument. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Disclosure: I voted "Delete" in the AfD. Some of the Keep votes were truly off-the-wall. We've got one argument (which I see was eventually struck), Weak Keep for the simple fact that it was a DYK article. Another one is Please keep this nice article. It's well-written and has lots of sources. Deletion would be pointless and silly after all the work that went into it. Then there's Strong keep: has long-lasting notable coverage in reliable publications. Nobody's arguing that the sources aren't reliable. The arguments are that they're not WP:SIGCOV. Those are different things. And, Strong keep: Based on the whole discussion. Enough words are said already, which doesn't even attempt to make a policy-based argument. Neither does Keep What a mess. This article was kept at AfD six weeks ago. You don't get to just keep nominating until you get the result you want. I'm not saying all the Keep !votes are that bad; there were some cogent arguments made which discussed specific sources with respect to the notability guidelines. But if we're going to go down the !vote-counting path, let's at least acknowledge that some of the keeps deserve to be zero-weighted. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: article was renominated a short time after a previous keep vote, and was the beginning and middle of a string of hounding attacks, with canvassing editors to participate to delete. On these bases alone, not to mention the unclear consensus, a new vote needs to be held in a few months. ɱ(talk) 23:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to article was renominated a short time after a previous keep vote is that the first AfD was so obviously defective that my first thought was that I was going to bring it to DRV. Once the new AfD got going, that was no longer necessary. But here we are anyway. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'd consider this AfD the most defective vote or discussion I've ever seen, anywhere. That is why we are here. ɱ(talk) 23:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, this one takes the cake. ɱ(talk) 19:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as a delete !voter in the AfD). Obviously I believe that the closer correctly interpreted the consensus, not only in simple numeric terms but also in giving less weight to those who argued from a non-policy based position. I actually fully support throwing away the rules sometimes when it makes sense; but this is an ordinary doughnut shop with no significant coverage at all - not the hill I would personally choose to die on. Thparkth (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without commenting on the closure, I just wanted to thank RL0919 for taking on the close. I read through the entire discussion yesterday and it was clear to me that no matter what the closure decision was, it would end up at DRV. Both sides were pretty entrenched. No admin likes being summoned here so I am grateful for your willingness to assess the discussion and render a verdict on the status of this article. LizRead!Talk! 00:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very brave indeed. And I'm taking up a collection for his burial after he's torn limb from limb. EEng 00:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I didn't express an opinion in the AfD discussion. My first reaction was surprise that the article wasn't relisted as it appeared to be a close call rather than a clear majority. However, I accept the AfD closer's more detailed explanation for the close and for not relisting. I don't see a convincing reason, so far, to overturn. Rupples (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge a "delete as non-notable" vote and a merge or redirect vote are essentially the same (especially considering the closer admitted to including ATD votes when considering the “delete” crowd was a “clear majority”), with the only difference being that there is a suitable target identified in the latter case. Here a suitable target was identified (Pike Place Market) and the delete voters did not oppose merging. Due to the length of the identified target, the best course of action in my opinion is a redirect with a selective merge of content. FrankAnchor 03:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor. Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding your comment, but are you saying something along the lines of: if one's opinion in an AfD discussion is Delete, one should always give a reason why Merge is unacceptable where a target article has been suggested, otherwise a Delete !vote should be interpreted as Merge?Rupples (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ATDs such as merge and redirect should always be given strong consideration when a suitable target is identified. In this case a target was suggested and nobody objected to it. I believe User:Jclemens put it best by saying anti-consensus is needed to reject an ATD and that simply wasn’t there. FrankAnchor 23:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three deletes were added after the merge recommendations. One interpretation is that those participants saw, considered, and rejected that outcome. I responded to Jclemens below. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can not be assumed that the three late delete voters considered and rejected the idea of a merge. Most voters do not read an entire AFD (especially one of this length with so many side-discussions going on). They simply add their opinion and move on. What is known is the voters did not explicitly reject the idea of a merge in their votes. Further, as the closer stated already, the delete and ATD votes were considered together as consensus to not keep, implying that there was little difference in the two outcomes. FrankAnchor 14:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. If a merge was raised, and no one said "delete and don't merge" (or redirect), then that is the policy-based consensus per WP:ATD, regardless of the number of people opining delete without addressing the possibilities of ATDs raised. Of course, this presumes no speedy deletion criterion (attack, copyvio, promo, etc.) applies, which is not the case here. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... I missed that the closer had lumped in merges with the deletes. Is that correct, RL0919, that you compiled !votes to merge along with !votes to delete to come to a delete conclusion? Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete had the most support and the stronger policy-based arguments, and merge was distinctly a minority – it had fewer supporters than delete or keep or even neutral comments. So deletion had the rough consensus regardless. What I referred to in my initial response to the DRV is that 3 of the 4 editors who preferred merge also specifically said that the subject did not have significant coverage to show notability which is also what all the delete editors were arguing. So there was a clear majority saying that. I had mentioned this in my closing without sufficient explanation. And since I'm posting again here (which I've generally avoided), I will point out that while several of the AfD participants who supported keeping are now here supporting a merge, exactly 0 of them gave any support for merging during the AfD. Assuming there was support for merging among the keep commenters would have been an act of imagination (and could justifiably have led to a DRV from the opposition direction). RL0919 (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying again RL0919. I appreciate your characterization and explanation of what you were going through, but would direct you to the key lines in WP:DEL(subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page) and If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. That is, if there is a valid alternative to deletion, such as redirection or merging, you are not granted the authority to find consensus to delete the page, because that alternative exists. The numerical consensus to redirect or merge doesn't matter, unless editors have successfully demonstrated that the choice to merge or redirect is wrong--the policies do say "if practical" and "should," so it's clear that like other Wikipedia policies none is absolute. But what isn't required is consensus to merge or redirect. Those alternatives are policy-privileged options, while deletion is policy-deprecated as a last resort if no regular editing option (such as redirect, merge, stubbifying, etc.) can suffice and an admin must step in to delete the article. There are multiple editors who don't agree with this perspective, but policy and logic are really clear on this: if a merge or redirect is possible and reasonable (that is, not demonstrated to be a bad idea during the discussion), then merge or redirect is the policy-based rough consensus, because the assumption that deletion is a last resort is baked into our deletion policies. Thus, if there is one or more redirect or merge votes and no consensus to keep, then a merger or redirection should have been selected, absent a rebuttal of those merge or redirect options, which did not happen in this case. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I have at least two problems with what you are saying here. 1) When you quote the deletion policy and say, "That is ...", the position that you then present is something the deletion policy does not clearly state and is IMO a strained interpretation. The phrases "improvement or deletion of an offending section" and "improve the page" would normally be understood to refer to editing the content inside an article, not to redirecting or merging it. The former phrase is followed by a list of reasons that a page could be deleted, including "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". The latter phrase appears in a subsection on "Editing and discussion" that is parallel to separate subsections about merging and redirection. 2) The approach you are suggesting is not the dominant practice. Preferring an ATD works in some situations, especially low-volume discussions or some common, near-canonical scenarios (e.g., redirecting to lists for fictional characters, merging content about an artistic work into the article about the artist), but if I routinely followed your interpretation for every well-attended AfD where the discussion as a whole indicates deletion, I would also routinely be at DRV for accusations of supervoting. --RL0919 (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are still available at the AfD, and there was an incentive to post the best ones there.
Writing a sentence or two using a few of the best sources would probably be easier than trimming the article and its many sources. Alalch E. made a similar comment at the closer's talk page.
Rewriting avoids a WP:Merge and delete (essay) situation. If consensus decides to remove the text, the incoming redirect is allowed to be deleted based on the common WP:Redirects for discussion rationale "not mentioned at/in target" and WP:RDELETE 2 (confusing).
Overturn to merge per 1) Frank Anchor's cogent argument: ATD's don't need consensus, they need anti-consensus to be rejected, and no one seriously argued that other than a comment that all of Pike Place Market needed an overhaul. and 2) per RENOM not being followed. The entire AfD is tainted by a failure to follow best practices. This isn't a G10-11-12 situation here--this is an organization that pretty clearly met the GNG, but is being held to a stricter standard just because it is a business. There's no pressing reason to ignore the prior AfD result. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jclemens, this is the part I still don't get: that it "pretty clearly met the GNG", but somehow that doesn't cut it. I have been admonished for suggesting that GNG should take precedence over the more specific notability guidelines, and I guess rightly so, since others have alluded to a recent major decision. Is there any chance you (or anyone else) could link me to 'that discussion so I can be brought up to speed? Thanks, KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬 12:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kingoflettuce, I may be able to answer that: The SNG section of WP:N was significantly changed last year after an RfC (the change). AFAICT this didn't significantly affect how WP:NCORP is applied. NCORP has been seen as different from other SNGs for a while because it's just a hardened version of GNG, designed to prevent an uncontrollable accumulatation of low quality content about organizations (These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.). When companies are concerned, GNG effectively applies through NCORP, instead of NCORP primarily providing objective scenarios where existence of appropriate sourcing can be presumed, which is in practical terms seen as an alternative route. The extra layer of strictness within NCORP can not be eschewed. There is no alternative route for organizations. —Alalch E. 13:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch E. Thanx! The "passing GNG" but still being deleted is new to me, guess F&B and NCORP weren't too in my wheelhouse to begin with. I personally find this bar much too strict for most F&B outlets (like this one!), and I do wish we could just use our collective common sense to weed out those gaming the rules. How often do you get articles on independent doughnut stands with close to 8000 quality characters and some 40 painstakingly-assembled sources? Meanwhile some random secondary school in the middle of nowhere must get its own article no matter how poor the prose or sourcing is, just because. Oh well! 😂 KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬 13:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, please support your ATD rationale with citations. "Anti-consensus" seems to be novel phrasing in this context. Searching for "anti-consensus" (without quotes matched anti- or consensus alone) in the User:, User talk:, Wikipedia:, and Wikipedia talk: spaces returned 355 results. Skimming them, the most common occurrences were objectionable anti-consensus behavior being reported at noticeboards or warned at user talk pages. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Flatscan: I believe I can answer that, because it's perfectly clear to me. By saying "anti-consensus" he simply meant consensus. A consensus that is not a consensus to do as proposed but a consensus not to do as proposed (for example a consensus to keep is an "anti-consensus" WRT deletion; that is different from there not being a consensus to delete, but also there not being a consensus to keep, which renders "no consensus"). Regards —Alalch E. 10:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly that. Flatscan, I'm sorry if the terminology was unclear or confusing. There are times where a consensus that "this should be deleted and not merged anywhere" is the result of a discussion--an anti-consensus to merge, which is a default ATD once raised. But a "delete" !vote and a "delete and don't merge" !vote are two different critters. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flatscan, thank you for not linking to your own contributions in that case yet again--and I really do mean that sincerely. However, the fact that you don't grant that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. prioritizes ATDs in policy is an unfortunate example of your, and others, failing to understand the basics of Wikipedia Deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the Chicago Tribune and Seattle Gay News clearly do... but I see nothing wrong with the one-paragraph foodie entries about the place, either. I'm sorry that some other people don't, but this is exactly the sort of coverage a notable eatery should attract. I get that some people intend to Right Great Wrongs by making criteria for business inclusion ridiculously strict, but I'd say this application is Procrustean in its inflexibility: It's an iconic donut stand, and apparently the article said as much. Never able to look at the article, so I can't comment any more than what's in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Trib contains three sentences about the subject. The Seattle Gay News contains two sentences that discuss the subject only tangentially. But okay, if you believe 2-3 sentences "clearly do" constitute sigcov, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree what sigcov means. Valereee (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not suprised that this dreadful article has come to DRV. Real questions must be asked why this passed GA, why it was created in the first place. It was simply one the worst articles I've ever came across. scope_creepTalk 08:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issues aside, surely you jest when you say it's "one of the worst articles" you've seen. You musn't have seen a lot of articles here then (and I thought you did 1000s of AfDs...) KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬 12:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This would have been best closed as either merge or no consensus. I saw no !votes that made a case why a merge is wrong. Relisting was also possible, but I don't think it would help. I just don't see this reaching consensus for deletion. And there is certainly enough material for a paragraph in another article. Hobit (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nominator has a point. There wasn't a clear majority. We should strike the words "a clear majority" and replace them with "a rough consensus". With that amendment I would endorse.—S MarshallT/C 09:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to change it while the DRV is open, but I have no problem making that wording adjustment after, assuming it isn't moot due to DRV changing the result anyway. --RL0919 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the arguments made, there actually is a clear majority of participants who made policy-based contributions. It's only if you're vote-counting that it doesn't look like a clear majority. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD discussion was absolutely maddening and there were so many side discussions, mischaracterizations, and editor behavior issues (bludgeoning, canvassing). I think I'm following a dozen or so discussions about issues which emerged from this debate. Honestly, feels like an unfair trial (yes, I realize this just comes across as me whining about the result). I was surprised to see the discussion closed when there was no natural stall and votes were still coming in right up to the end. I'd prefer to see the page at least restored and redirected because the article history/markup should be preserved. Overturning to merge seems way more appropriate to me than outright deletion of a Good article. ---Another Believer(Talk) 15:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I think the sourcing was inadequate to support a stand-alone article, I agree that a redirect to Pike Place Market makes sense. It's standard practice to redirect with the history intact when a logical target exists. The history should only be hidden when something like WP:BLP or WP:COPYRIGHT violations require it, and that's not the case here. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Flatscan I guess WP:ATD-R. But mostly I based my statement on my personal experience of working WP:AFD and WP:DRV for many years, before I drifted off into other areas. On rare occasion you see people at AFD specifically arguing "Delete, do not redirect", but in the face of a reasonable redirect target and lack of a compelling reason (such as COPYVIO or BLP) which requires the previous content to be hidden, that's a difficult argument to advance. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there it is--you touting a linguistically improbable interpretation of what policy says should happen. I guess I have to take back the praise I gave you above this point in the discussion, but the same argument I made there applies: I point to what policy says and you point to your treatise about why policy doesn't mean what it says. I admire your persistence, but I still believe you're entirely wrong. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:RoySmith, you write “I agree that a redirect to Pike Place Market makes sense”. How? Pike Place Market doesn’t mention donuts. Mentions of tenant businesses are only illustrative, no tenant business is seriously covered. Such a redirect would only frustrate a reader, and would be deleted at RfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I didn't read all of Pike Place Market when I wrote that. I just assumed it was mentioned there. If not, then you're probably right that it doesn't make sense. I don't have any strong feeling about that either way per WP:CHEAP. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible targets could be Pike_Place_Market#Dining_and_drinking, which needs an overhaul, or Economy Market. Again, my preference would be to see the Daily Dozen article history restored and redirected appropriately (vs page deletion altogether). ---Another Believer(Talk) 22:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical possible you mean? The topic has to be mentioned at the target for the redirect to be justified. Some would say the topic has to be a section title. At the moment there is no place to even add a mere mention. I think you’re best advised to get the history restored in userspace. If restored as a redirect, it might be deleted as a redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to either "no consensus" or "merge", but give the closer a medal for finally putting this miserable "discussion" to an end. Actual outcome aside, it's not sitting well with me that inexcusable conduct during deletion discussions is allowed to stand or is indirectly rewarded. (Thanks to those who did try to intervene, but it seemed too little too late, with little to deter editors from reverting to the same type of behavior in the future.) Per the Arb Com discussion in July, "no bludgeoning" is a principle we should be adhering to; there was also canvassing, not to mention walls of text and personal attacks that deterred others from joining the discussion in the first place. If each !vote in the discussion were weighted based on civility, it seems like the end result would look quite different. Merging the content seems like a fair outcome; from what I recall, the few !merge voters were also the most conciliatory in tone and seemed most inclined to help drive consensus, which ultimately is the point of AfD. If we really want to increase participation at AfD, it's not ok to keep pretending that these out-of-control discussions are just a "normal" part of Wikipedia editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Because restoring the article is in fact promoting "playing rough and on the person" in AfDs. And that is not what we need. The Bannertalk 19:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closer clearly weighed this carefully, and a "clear majority" can easily emerge from a simple majority when multiple !voters don't actually make arguments supported by policy. I do think this could be merged into Pike Place Market, and an AfD closing as delete in no way prevents that. Like others I thank RL0919 for stepping up. Valereee (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn When !vote counts are that close and the majority direction is established by 2 votes at the end of the discussion, the conversation is not close. Respect to the admin, and respect to the process, but this is not a discussion outcome that I would call either "clear" or "majority". This discussion raised several interesting conversation directions that could have been explored more. Here are some issues that I saw raised and unresolved in this discussion:
Complaints about the source table. AfD discussions are supposed to examine reasons for keeping an article, not highlighting reasons to delete. If an article meets inclusion criteria then it is kept, regardless of how long someone's list of complaints are.
No outreach for comment to WikiProject LGBT. There were multiple sources about this venue's involvement in a gay rights activism event which led to policy change in a city center. The conversation would have been less tangled to refer this to a subject matter community with experience and stake in evaluating these sources.
There were new and unusual arguments made for special inclusion criteria. We had citations to sources from notable experts with Wikipedia articles. While these sources were not conventional, I found the novel argument compelling. My view of the situation was that it had 1 in 1000 media coverage, and I said as much. This was not a run of the mill case with commonplace evaluation.
Conduct issues were raised about hounding and personal attacks. There was no urgent reason to nominate a related set of articles for deletion all at the same time to divide attention when obviously a group of people had interest in commenting on this case. Calling for a little crowd control and moderation could have been helpful.
Lack of respect and acknowledgement to the established Good Article status. This article went through a quality control process and got a respected designation of WP:GA. When sending GA articles to deletion then GA reviewers should get invited to the discussion, either to defend their review process or to check out what went wrong. GA and AfD should rarely meet, and when they do, there should be some exploration as to why.
Merge does not work. There is a lot of content here which is WP:UNDUE everywhere except in this article. If there is to be a merge, then there needs to be some discussion about how that looks because I do not have faith that people suggesting this have thought it through. Most likely a merge would be a redirect and a one-line mention in the proposed parent article, which is a sad fate for an article which previously passed GA.
@Bluerasberry, GA doesn't assess notability. (AFAIK neither does FA, but it's likely anything with enough RS for FA would pass GNG, so that's likely moot.) GA reviewers do not check notability, so why we would ask them to defend their review process?
Ditto DYK, but the reason this article ended up at AfD is because it was nominated for DYK and someone during the review process looked at it and serendipitously thought...wait, are we sure this is notable? Valereee (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GA, FA, and DYK should assess notability. If they do not, then we should take this article to those boards as a case study for establishing a rule that they start checking notability. Passing GA, FA, or DYK should be evidence of notability - our various review processes should align and not be at odds. If they are at odds then the Wikipedia quality control process has a problematic inefficiency which needs addressing. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking purely as a regular at DYK, assessing notability is beyond many reviewers, some of whom have 100 edits or fewer. DYK noms are assessed in many cases by some of the most callow reviewers on the project. We are the intro to peer review. I do not think we want DYK reviewers' assessments of notability to be seen as evidence of notability.
If you think promoters and movers-to-queue need to be responsible for assessing notability for each of 8 entries per set (8-16 per day), you can certainly propose that at WT:DYK. I'll warn you that the average promoter has been depressed over their workload for a couple of years, now, and that admins usually need to be begged in, so adding a possibly hourslong assessment into each of 8 hook checks every 12-24 hours? Not likely to be popular. Valereee (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, though I think it is also worth asking, if we are able to write an article that reaches good or featured status about a subject, is it actually beneficial to our readers to be strict about notability criteria? After all, notability guidelines are just that - guidelines - and there is always WP:IAR. Garuda3 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're suggesting we should include non-notable subjects? Because there are 7 billion people in the world. Valereee (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You woudn't be able to write more than a stub on most people (if you avoided WP:SPSs), let alone a good or featured article. Garuda3 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once we don't require multiple instances of sigcov in independent RS, which is how we currently assess notability? I assure you, I have multiple mentions -- HS yearbook, local papers, alma mater, etc. Let's IAR that. I'll upload an image to commons. Valereee (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing against requiring reliable independent sources. My point is that if you can write a "good" or "featured" article on a subject, using the stricter NCORP guideline or some other argument like ROUTINE is perhaps not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. If someone else writes an article on you and it includes reliable independent sources, you won't see me arguing to delete it. Garuda3 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So Ms. X is a big deal in her hometown of West Union, Ohio. She was a cheerleader in high school, she's the organizer of the local July 4 parade, she's been on the school board for 20 years, several times as chair, and she's run for town council twice. She runs a local insurance agency that sponsors the annual Festival of Lights. Her apple pie has taken a blue ribbon at the county fair three times over the past 30 years. Over the years she's received a ton of coverage in the Adams County Informer, an independent reliable source with a circulation of 5000. Multiple instances of significant coverage in that source. I can write an article that details her early life and education, career, and personal life, and I could totally write it to GA standards. Valereee (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing a good job of demonstrating this hypothetical article subject meets WP:SUSTAINED. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Request: I don't know who I'm appealing to here (User:RL0919?), but something about this AfD is just not sitting well with me and I'd like to put forth a request which I hope my fellow editors will consider a reasonable compromise. I can accept the community's rejection of a standalone Wikipedia article. What bothers me is how the community rejected the article and completely disregarded the time and effort many editors put into the entry via outright deletion. I'm not asking for article restoration, but I'm politely insisting the article history and talk page history be restored for future reference. In my opinion, a merge vote would have rid the project of a standalone page yet conceded that at least some of the content actually had value for Wikipedia. Can we not all agree that some of the content could be useful at Pike Place Market and/or Economy Market? Can we not all agree that preserving the markup, article history, and talk page might actually benefit the project? Can we not agree Daily Dozen might qualify for an entry in the future? Additionally, I want to note that the Daily Dozen article and AfD discussion has been referenced in many other discussions throughout Wikipedia. Editors who didn't follow very closely may not realize how discussions splintered across dozens of pages, including article talk pages, user talk pages, other AfD discussions, project pages related to editor behavior, etc. I'm clearly not alone in noting how problematic the AfD discussion was. I think article history restoration is necessary for the sake of future reference and transparency. I don't often put my foot down or advocate for myself, but I feel strongly that a consensus of merge would be the best compromise here. I don't expect any action here but I figured I'd submit a formal request and see if any editors support. Thanks. ---Another Believer(Talk) 00:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure TDD will qualify in the future, preservation of the history via a redirect makes sense to me and is I believe what @RoySmith also is discussing above. Full disclosure: merge !voter who isn't particularly fussed about the outcome, but the tone of that discussion left a lot to be desired. StarMississippi 03:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this DRV is closed without restoring the history, you may file at WP:Requests for undeletion to receive it outside of article space. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AB, you know I respect your work, so I say this as a friend: if you want to spend your free time writing about a doughnut shop, that's entirely on you. It's not reasonable to expect that an article be valued by the community simply because it was written. I'm not sure that this doughnut shop is WP:DUE for inclusion in any other article, but if it is, nothing in the AFD process prevents that from happening. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I understand, but that's not the point. I'm asking about article history restoration, not content restoration. ---Another Believer(Talk) 15:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can request userspace restoration and thereby get the article history. But should it be a redirect so others can get the history? No. In my opinion, a merge vote would have rid the project of a standalone page yet conceded that at least some of the content actually had value for Wikipedia. I'm not saying this to be mean, but in the hopes you will "take it on board" as they say: the consensus here is that the content did not have value for Wikipedia. Can we not all agree that some of the content could be useful at Pike Place Market and/or Economy Market? Can we not all agree that preserving the markup, article history, and talk page might actually benefit the project? Can we not agree Daily Dozen might qualify for an entry in the future? The consensus answer is no, no, and no. Look: I can write an article about every pizza shop in my hometown using local coverage and brief mentions. It'll pass V and be well written and contain accurate information. But it's not a proper topic for an encyclopedia. Just because someone wrote it doesn't mean we should keep it. Doughnut shops are no different than athletes in this regard. The outcome here should be that you learn from the experience: that you recognize your own notability standards are lower than the community's consensus, and that you risk spending time on work that will end up deleted. There are so many Portland and food-related topics that could use your attention, but this doughnut shop wasn't one of them. I'm sorry that your time spent on this article was wasted, but you're the one who wasted it. The fact that someone wrote something doesn't make it inherently valuable; the history isn't valuable; many of the sources cited basically aren't valuable to Wikipedia, they're not independent RS SIGCOV of anything encyclopedic. IMO, every article should start with two (three is better) GNG sources; that's how an author knows the article won't later be deleted. If the two or three best sources about a business are all local coverage, if there is no non-local independent RS SIGCOV, then we shouldn't write an article about that business. Levivich (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I've submitted a request to have the article history and talk page restored to draft space. ---Another Believer(Talk) 17:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy basis for these statements; they demonstrate nothing but intransigence. WP:ATD expects that a merge or redirection will be done if there's a valid target. There is, so there is no policy-based reason to not have the pre-merge or pre-redirect content visible to non-admins. Any AfD which came to that conclusion--and this one did not--would have to have ignored deletion policy to do so. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The issue at DRV is whether the closer came to a reasonable assessment of the consensus of the community. Sometimes there are two or more possible closes by the closer that would be reasonable. This was such a case. The closer has explained how they interpreted the input from the community, and what their thinking was. We don't usually get as clear an explanation as we did here. Delete was a valid conclusion, and so should be endorsed. No Consensus might have been a valid conclusion also, but that isn't what we are reviewing. I agree that the AFD is a mess, and sometimes messes need closing. No error by the closer; a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (consensus to delete). Claims of significant coverage in 2 or 3 sources were overwhelmed by source analysis showing that SIGCOV was not met. On the ATD to merge, this is undermined by the fact that the topic is not mentioned at the target. On WP:RENOM being not followed, I reconcile that AfD2 is strong evidence that AfD1 should be declared Overturned (note, NAC-er User:Coolperson177, you declared a consensus on the basis of many very poor !votes, understandable, but something to learn from). Allow draftification, requiring that WP:THREE is followed on any attempt to have it returned to mainspace, and not before six months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jclemens, I follow you with interest, because I usually completely agree, but this time, your approach to ATD-R is correct except for one condition, and that’s the requirement that the target is a suitable target. In this case it is not because the topic is not covered at the target, and is not easily added. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
End this drama. I agree with SmokeyJoe's analysis. For all the discussion, there were not two sources that met GNG, and that's the end of it. The source analysis wasn't rebutted by those voting to keep the article, neither by the numbers nor by the arguments. In any AFD, when keep !voters can't say "[1] and [2] are independent RS SIGCOV", they've lost the argument, and that's when you see all the other arguments start being made, often focused on the quality of the article or the conduct of delete !voters, rather than on identifying two GNG sources. Relisting would have been pointless considering this was already the 2nd AFD in as many months: if there were two GNG sources, they'd have been posted by now. Time to bring this to an end. Endorse. Levivich (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for a relist. I'm asking for article history and talk page restoration. ---Another Believer(Talk) 15:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, my request was denied, at least for now. Looks like I have to wait until this discussion ends (not sure why but ok!). ---Another Believer(Talk) 18:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, yes, userfication or draftification, with the full history, will be uncontroversial, but not while this DRV is still running. To keep things all in one place, eg not spilling onto the draft_talk page or a premature AfC submission, everything else has to wait for this DRV to be formally closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - for the record, I did not take part in the original AfD. There was nothing wrong with the admin's analysis and reasoning for their close.Onel5969TT me 22:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Completely uninvolved here, but that's how I would close it. The arguments to keep are substantively weaker, and a few in particular should be given no weight at all. I confess I'm at a loss as to why a donut stand should be this contentious. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a local attraction mentioned in national press? Because WP:5P1 includes specialized encyclopedias and this might arguably fit someplace like here? Because policy (ATD) was ignored? Because some editors in the AfD were overly belligerent and some of us don't like seeing such tactics succeed? Because SIGCOV is a poorly defined term that's fungible to the will of the individual editor ("If I want it deleted, there's no SIGCOV, but if I want it kept, there's plenty.") Because regardless of whether it was notable or not, it was a decently written article that wasn't hurting anything or bothering anyone? Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone needs to look fungible up in a dictionary. EEng 05:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should have said malleable. I'm now corrected. Are you going to become less inexplicably pugnacious? Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each of those arguments (aside from policy being ignored; it wasn't) could be applied to at least 30% of what's deleted at AfD every day. Why this one? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Of course it was, else I wouldn't have said it was. If you want, try explaining why ATD wasn't ignored). Maybe because all of those things happen to crop up at once, in a perfectly pleasant an innocuous AfD, and the reasonable editors are crying, Have you no sense of decency? Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Vanamonde93, may we not drop this? We know it's just a donut stand with a donut machine like every other donut machine in every other donut stand in every city and town in America, and two-sentence listicle coverage and the occasional three-sentence "review", and whose owner asked for and received permission to put up a rainbow flag ... Let us not assassinate this donut stand further, Vanamonde; you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency? [3]EEng 05:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and I note no attempt by either EEng or Vanamonde93 to more fully explain why bypassing a proposed ATD was policy-supported. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Kudos for the closer's attempt here, but the right close is no consensus. Looking atn the AfD I dislike the wikilawyering which resulted in the enormous un-collapsed chart takeover. Far too much time has been invested in this subject. The closer did their best, but ultimately they picked a side and supervoted rather than judging this as a no consensus. RoySmith discounted the keep participants but I have been involved in many AfDs where the delete ivotes are equally weak in rationale but not discounted. Keeping this article does not harm the project, instead it makes it better. Lightburst (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those pesky delete voters, actually looking at sources, like that matters or something. Bummer. EEng 05:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Messy discussion but separating the wheat from the chaff, the delete voters are pretty consistent that there is breadth but not depth of coverage and the keep voters never really refute that. No objection whatsoever to a merge though, including undeletion of the history, and it's entirely possible that somebody might write about the company in more detail in the future so there is merit in preserving the history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As per SmokeyJoe's reasoning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DR is not AfD 2.0 and the overturns seem to be moving in that direction. The close was reasonable due to the strength of the arguments presented. --GuerilleroParlez Moi 09:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge per Jclemens. While there is a rough consensus not to have a stand alone article there is not a consensus to prefer deletion to merger. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
It's usual to discuss your concerns with the administrator who deleted the article before coming here, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Can you explain why? Stifle (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own close. No policy based argument was made to keep. Long history of COI, UPE. Should probably be salted. StarMississippi 14:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further desire for SALT. This editor with No payments or loyalties also created Al Mashhad, Al Mashhad Channel which had hallmarks of UPE. I've given a final warning. StarMississippi 15:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse in absence of material objections. An in-blanco statement about the reading of consensus with no specific fault being found has no bearing here. Based on the discussion, the reading of consensus that was made seems very reasonable to me. —Alalch E. 19:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but with a few comments:
The closer did correctly note that there was a rough consensus.
The minimal response really called for a Soft Delete, and the close should be changed to one, which will only permit the appellant to submit a draft for review, or create another article that will be deleted a third time.
I disagree with User:Star Mississippi only as to whether to salt at this time. Give the appellant one more change, but only if they answer forthrightly whether they have conflict of interest.
Does the appellant have a conflict of interest? If no answer, close this and salt it. If the answer is yes, close this and salt it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first AFD closed as Soft Delete (which are essentially PRODs) so that wasn't an option here. LizRead!Talk! 00:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I think we need SALT is creator refuses to accept/use draft space. Besides the deletions, it has been draftified twice. There is rough consensus that this isn't appropriate right now. It can go through AfC and if an experienced editor feels it ready, it can be unSALTED. Otherwise I agree. StarMississippi 01:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Either the appellant is a paid editor, or they are acting like a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a neutral Wikipedia editor. No payments or loyalties. I had previously repeatedly stated this in my talk page Sir (Yubabaogino (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Comment to appellant - Stop acting like a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and salt mainspace title only almost exactly per User:Star Mississippi. This gives the appellant has the opportunity to develop an article in draftspace and answer to any COI concerns while removing the cycle of creating and deleting this article. FrankAnchor 16:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reasonable close with appropriate weight given to the strength of the arguments. The keep vote claims huge credibility and notability and The page is immensely notable in Arabic and English with credible sources in Arabic and English . It is a notable entity in the non English and Arabic speaking world as well as English without providing sources, and should be given less weight. Given that two participants opined, IMO both deletion and soft deletion are reasonable, so overall the closure is accurate. VickKiang(talk) 00:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Copying the comment I left on the closing admin's talk page:
I disagree with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buck Saunders. So, there were three "keep"s and five "redirect"s. 3/5 of the redirect votes were just "per [other user]," and so those should not be given a ton of weight; one (Therapyisgood) was among a spree of "redirect" votes made seconds apart. The comments by keep voters were well-reasoned and were saying that the coverage is sufficient for GNG; the main arguments against were that because the SIGCOV sources didn't discuss a certain point of his life, they should not count, which is completely non-policy based; and that because they are obituaries and/or local coverage, they are not SIGCOV, which is also non-policy based. Additionally, nobody had any kind of argument against my NBIO point: that the other sources could be combined to provide an additional piece of SIGCOV if the others were not enough ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"). So, "redirect" was not the correct closure.
Also, here is a link to what the article looked like before being redirected. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Redirect was the correct close, as a reasonable alternative to deletion. Playing one game in the NFL (the totality of the subject's pro career was just that, one game) is no longer a grounds for presumptive notability. The "Keep" argument was weak and based principally on two local obituary write-ups that focused on his untimely death while testifying as a county agricultural agent on the subject of squirrel poisons. Tellingly, neither of those local obits even mentioned his one-game pro football "career". IMO (at the AfD and now), two local obits about a county agricultural agent are not enough to pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Firstly, the DRV statement that no editor refuted a WP:NBIO intrepretation is inaccurate. If the filer presented more sources, then IMO their vote could hold more weight. But the full paragraph of WP:NBIO states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Both redirect and keep sides reasonably analysed the sources and drew different conclusions. Moreover, some redirect votes indeed were per other user or per above, but the last keep vote was similar in being a per other user vote: only adding Just because some sources don't mention his football career doesn't mean they don't count towards GNG. And while I might expect more for a recent subject, we know that most sources that were available 100 years ago are no longer available, and notability isn't temporary, so I am willing to accept BeanieFan's sources as adequate which presumes more sources and is not significantly more policy-based compared to some of the redirect votes. I'll also note that there was not a spree of "redirect" votes made seconds apart, three consecutive redirect votes were written at 04:23, 23 November 2022, 13:41, 23 November 2022, and 21:54, 23 November 2022, so I'm unsure how commenting eight hours apart could be considered as a spree... seconds apart- is it suggested that the redirect voters didn't complete a thorough WP:BEFORE? Moreover, many redirect voters who initially commented briefly, e..g., SPF12118 and GPL93, went into more detail, so I disagree that they were weak and should hold less weight compared to the keep side. Therefore, as numerically the redirect/delete to keep is 6 to 3 and IMO redirect and keep are equally strong, I endorse the close. VickKiang(talk) 00:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse we actually should include the nominator and their rationale so in that case we have 6 editors who wanted redirect. Bruxton (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close as Redirect, as a correct conclusion by the closer. I would have !voted to Keep, but, as is sometimes noted, DRV is not AFD Round 2. (I would have been in the minority if I had taken part in the AFD, and that sometimes happens.) The closer correctly assessed the rough consensus of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (argued for keep). I cannot fault the closer here, although a relist or a no consensus close would also be appropriate. The arguments for a redirect were strong and so were the arguments to keep the article. Where the participants differed was whether subjects who participate in a top-tier professional support should be afforded a bit of leeway in determining whether GNG is met ( a) real life notability plays a role in whether a subject should have an article in the first instance and b) sports databases still have value, even if they do not count towards notability). --Enos733 (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse I think resisting would have been most appropriate since there are valid arguments on both sides and there was not a strong numerical advantage to the redirect votes. However a redirect close was a reasonable option as the sources presented by the “keep” side are borderline-GNG at best. FrankAnchor 16:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the redirect closure. This seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion, as all the information is archived, so if notability can be established, a refund wouldn’t be necessary. I was a little troubled by the “3/5 redirect votes shouldn’t be given much weight” comment, as it’s more than reasonable to simply agree with other users’ rationale without repeating the information, but I’m sure nothing malicious was meant by it. This case seems like a redirect was a reasonable result. SPF121188(talk this way)(my edits) 22:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, not that another endorsement is likely needed at this point. The close gave appropriate weight to the arguments in the discussion based on their basis in policy and precedent. Thparkth (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the closer assessed the strength of the arguments and concluded the keep !votes were deficient in P&G-based reasoning on top of being in the minority. I'll note the (lack of) sourcing here is rather reminiscent of the first NFL one-gamer successfully deleted, who also had a local obit that failed to mention the subject's football career. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:AntonioMartin – Editors mostly agree that the use of U5 to speedy delete tha page was out of process, and it should be overturned. Although the page has already been recreated, its history, and the section containing BLP violations, remains deleted, something that some editors also see as out of process. Opinions seem divided on whether it's worth the trouble to undelete the revisions and go through them to see which ones to hide, though doing that has been strongly adviced to UtherSRG.Isabelle Belato🏳🌈 17:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Specifically, the history of the page. Because this user page had plenty of wiki-projects info that the user is a part of, and five barnstars and they were all deleted. Reason for speedy delete was the user's biography which was written on it but the user had not been made aware that user biographies are by policy not allowed or that their page was up for speedy deletion. user requested that the page be fully reinstated, and the user be given a couple of days at which point the biography and other information sections will be removed and placed in another website that allows for personal blogs. But so far that request has not been fulfilled either. Here is my originasl message to UTHER SRG: "Hi! I need to have my user page reinstated. I have several awards, wikiprojects, etc that need to be re-instated. Also, for at least a couple days, the biography, until I find some other website where I can put that. Thanks, and God bless!". Antonio De Tresss Martin (Que hubole?) 11:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and fully restore the page, including history. The user is active and entitled to a user page. The biography was a bit long-winded but in my view within the latitude allowed to an editor. Deleting it outright was out of process and inappropriate; even if it was excessive content I would have expected an attempt to engage with the user about trimming it down rather than just deleting it. The deleting admin compounded their error by refusing to adjust their action when asked. WP:TROUT should be issued. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware at the time of the prior post that there were concerns around BLP violations, and would agree those should have been/should be removed and revision-deleted. The page itself should be, and I believe has been, restored. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Overturn speedy. WP:U5 only applies "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages" and this user has, since 2002, made over 30,000 edits to main space[4] and has created over 2000 articles.[5] In carrying out this deletion the guidelines in WP:DELETEOTHER do not seem to have been followed to the slightest degree. The user should I'll gently suggest the user might edit their user page to make it more appropriate[6] but the way this matter has been handled is utterly unsuitable. Thincat (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome but not process. The pseudo-"biography" contained some very questionable material such as accusations that individuals whose full name was used committed criminal acts, including assault and drug use. So, the user page should have been deleted due to containing BLP violations. I would, however, have no objection to returning everything but that back to this editor, such as the awards and list of projects they're active on, but given the BLP issues the biography material should not be restored, even as page history. I don't, however, think that's why this deletion was actually done, and had those problems not been present, I'd be arguing to overturn, but given that, we've still got a case of "right outcome for the wrong reason". SeraphimbladeTalk to me 11:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that *is* why, though didn't think BLP applied in the userpage realm, so removed via U5. I have no problem returning all but the BLP tainted material. - UtherSRG(talk) 11:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've now restored all but the BLP-related material. I did not restore the history. With ~650 edits, redacting the BLP portions out is a high burden task. UtherSRG(talk) 11:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to correct the deletion log? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said more briefly... at ~650 edits to that page, the task to determine which edits can and can't be revdel'd is onerous. I think WP:IAR can apply here as which of the revisions are good or bad would take several hours of work. This wasn't a case of a short time period of one user putting up BLP tainted material. The 650 edits were made over a 20-year time period. UtherSRG(talk) 12:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IAR deletion of a very old userpage is not justified. Maybe it was G10 eligible. Otherwise it’s for MfD. U5, no. When we made U5, the laxity of the NOTWEBHOST component was importantly, necessarily, balanced by the user being not a project contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So? Laziness is not an excuse to violate deletion policy. It wouldn't be that hard to use a tool such as Wikiblame to find when the allegedly BLP-violating content was added and revdel everything since, although if it's truly been there for a long time that may indicate that the community disagrees it is objectionable at all. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SRG. I have a question. Can I at least post a link to my biography's new page for those interested (which, granted there might be no one)- joke aside, can I? Thanks, and God bless!". Antonio A Thousand Lovers Martin (Que hay?) 09:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your biography was highly probable. I see no purpose - joke or serious - in providing access to it. - UtherSRG(talk) 12:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... Comment - Does "Nancy Reagan apply"? "Just Say No"? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn / WP:SLAP the deleting admin, User:UtherSRG. WP:U5 objectively and obviously did not apply. Admins with the delete button must be expected to be able to read the CSD criteria. Blatantly misusing the criteria, even for an arguable right outcome, brings the entire admin corps into disrespect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I agree with Seraphimblade - while U5 wasn't applicable due to the user's large edit count, it is not acceptable to use your userpage to accuse named, presumably-living people of committing crimes, and I don't think the deleted history should be restored here. I'm sure we can email the deleted text to the OP if they want to rewrite it to remove these portions (and in general it's a bad idea to use your userpage to make any claims about other named people). Hut 8.5 13:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy and send to MFD if someone wishes to go that route. It is obvious that U5 does not apply and I don’t believe any other CSD apply. An argument could possibly be made for G10 but it appears that the user page was not exclusively an attack page so this wouldn’t apply either. With no CSD applying the page (and its history) must be restored. FrankAnchor 00:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn U5. The page is clearly questionable in some aspects, but U5 refers to Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, except for plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. The user has made around 40,000 edits in total with 90% in mainspace, so this criteria clearly doesn't apply. The inappropriate BLP violating material containing info on crimes by BLPs should not be added again, but otherwise the materials in the user page are not entirely an attack page qualifying WP:G10, so I would disagree with the CSD. If the page is otherwise still unacceptable, send it to WP:MFD. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 04:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn U5 - I didn't see the user page before its deletion and haven't seen it. However, U5 does not apply to the user page of a long-time editor. The reviewing admin did have an alternative to either deleting the user page, leaving the user page alone, or sending it to MFD, not another speedy deletion of the page, but deletion of the offensive material, which could have been redacted as RD2. However, we are here. Now that the page has been restored minus the BLP violations, I don't see that anything more needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There have been errors by two experienced editors. The less serious was by the deleting admin, who should not have used U5. The more serious was the BLP violations. Admins make mistakes. Experienced editors should not use their user pages to accuse other editors of misconduct. But DRV is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, technically speaking, I did not accuse other Wikipedians of wrongdoing. Everyone listed there is not a Wikipedian, and as far as people named there, there are probably a thousand people who share those names. Some of the others mentioned read the content and enjoyed it as well. Just a comment, because none of that will be back on my user-page, only on my new user-page at a blog site. Antonio Losing my Self Control Martin (Orale!) 09:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. WP:CSD#U5 requires the user to have "made few or no edits outside of user pages", which is meant to deter single-purpose accounts that are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It is never meant to be applied to userpages of long-time, experienced editors. ✗plicit 07:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The deleting admin has copy-paste restored a version of the user page lacking some material said to be offensive. I think that DRV has nothing more to do here. I would observe that there seem to have been some non-trivial edits in the original user-page history by users other than AntonioMartin, and if these are still in the current version, some form of crediting those editors is necessary to be CC/GFDL compliant. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that final comments to the author and to any future reviewing admin are in order. To the author: Any questionable material may result in the user page being deleted at MFD or in a block or both. To the reviewer: Any questionable material can be deleted as RD2. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, keep history deleted. It is a misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost to use one's user page, which is intended to assist in intra-project collaboration, to host lengthy autobiographies. This applies to all editors, longtime or not. Sandstein 09:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But U5 is not a mechanism allowing one admin to unilaterally decide for a long term user. If a long term user’s Userpage is not OK, MfD is the forum to discuss it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This is obviously not G5 U5 (or any CSD), so the only way this page and its history can be deleted is via MFD. For now everything MUST be restored. Carson Wentz (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for catching that. Carson Wentz (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Lee Ji-han (actor) – Snow endorse.No clear appeal being made. Consensus at AfD was clear and is here. StarMississippi 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Because his father became a leader of Bereaved families group of Itaewon disaster, KoreaTimes his role in the disaster is significant. Ghorosu (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is a WP:NOTINHERITED argument, and doesn't demonstrate that the closure was incorrect. With regret, I do not recommend even trying to draft this, because unless something very directly about his career prior to his tragic and untimely death emerges, this is the sort of article that is inappropriate for Wikipedia regardless of your enthusiasm. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but this does not appear to be an appeal of the close. The proponent should be allowed to develop and submit a draft, but, as Jclemens says, the draft is likely not to establish notability either. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the closure of the discussion was entirely reasonable. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 08:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The numerical consensus is 4-1 (delete to keep), with the delete side's argument of failing WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:VICTIM being IMO somewhat stronger than the lone keep vote from the article creator and DRV filer. It's also unclear what other outcome DRV filer is asking for. VickKiang(talk) 08:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review is for handling failure to follow deletion process; it is not round 2 of AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the consensus of the discussion was clear and I don't think that argument would have made any difference if it had been made in the AfD. Hut 8.5 13:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Policy requires that discussions are closed on the weight of arguments, rather than by vote counting. Discussions with the closer reveals that this discussion was closed on the basis of the latter, with them giving equal weight to !votes asserting that sources claiming a religious miracle actually occurred are reliable as to !votes holding that they are unreliable per WP:FRINGE.
Allowing this close to stand will set a dangerous precedent; that regardless of how outrageous the claims a source makes, editors at AfD can claim that it is reliable and that claim will be accepted without question by the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So BilledMammal let me get this straight... an article on a religious topic, from one of the world's largest religions, citing religious writings referencing the beliefs about what transpired over a thousand years ago, somehow violates WP:FRINGE? Moreover, it violates FRINGE not because the article itself asserts miracles as factual, but because some of the religious sources which are used (added during the AfD, or before?) accept the historicity of miracles? Your argument is that all !votes that accepted religious sources as RS on religious figures are invalid because those sources also endorse past miracles as historical? Or am I missing something? Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument, per WP:FRINGE, is that sources that claim religious miracles actually occurred are unreliable. The issue with the close is that the closer gave undue weight to the opposite assertion, that sources that claim religious miracles actually occurred are reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be perfectly clear here:
1) Fringe doesn't address religious claims of religious events, certainly not by mainstream religions as part of their religious traditions. Supernatural events claimed to be supernatural aren't, by definition, scientifically provable and hence don't fall under FRINGE in the first place.
2) WP:FRINGE, even if it applied, is applied incorrectly in your argument. The topic is an Islamic topic, so the question is "Are the miracles in question FRINGE within Islam?" and while I'm not an Islamic scholar, I think it's fair to say that no, they are not FRINGE within Islam. Western science and skepticism doesn't get a privileged seat at the table allowing it to sit in judgment on others' religious traditions.
3) Sources that hold WP:FRINGE beliefs are not themselves unacceptable. As WP:BIASED was quoted to you in the AfD discussion, However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. No one has asserted that any of the material supporting the article in question is directly arguing for a miraculous interpretation of the person in question or his life. Rather, you've asserted that just because a religious work takes a traditional story of a miracle at face value, it cannot be reliable for anything it contains.
I'm sure you legitimately believe your perspective on religious sources is justified by Wikipedia policies, but it's really not. In fact, it looks rather Islamophobic and an attempt to impose Western rationalistic and skeptical norms on non-Western topics. That may not have been your intent, but it's certainly how it looks to me. So... Endorse with prejudice that the argument has sufficiently little merit that it should be rejected now, rejected in the future, and future attempts to make similar arguments (using FRINGE against major religions) be treated as disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your WP:AGF and WP:PA violation; the same criteria applies to all topics, including other religions like Christianity.
While the violation stands I am not willing to engage with you on this. BilledMammal (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, reasonable reading of consensus by the closer. The listing here appears to be based on a disagreement with the closure, which isn't an eligible reason to come to DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I would prefer it if the article more clearly gave in-text attribution to its sources. Also, if there are reliable sources claiming the legendary nature of the subject they should be included, if due. However, these are not reasons for deleting the article or for dismissing arguments favouring retaining the article. The AFD discussion and DRV nomination seem to me to be too polemical. Thincat (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus by !vote count would probably be keep. The closer clearly factored in the arguments for deletion. Srnec (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with a trout to the appellant, who appears to be claiming strength of arguments when what they are actually providing is length of arguments. No Consensus was a valid conclusion by the closer, and the best conclusion by the closer. The nominator/appellant has the length of arguments, but that isn't the same as strength. The nominator's reasoning that the source are fringe has already been refuted in the AFD.
I am in general disinclined to overturn a No Consensus. To overturn No Consensus requires a finding that the closer disregarded an established consensus. This is not a case where No Consensus should be overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Only counting the bolded votes, the discussion seems to be split between keep and merge/redirect/delete. Therefore, a no consensus outcome would IMO be reasonable unless the opposing keep votes (including merge/redirect/delete) are substantially stronger than the keep side as per WP:NOTAVOTE. However, I do not think that is the case here, keep voters reasonably disagreed with the opposing keep voters primarily on WP:FRINGE issues and reliability of specific sources, with the strength of the argument IMHO being similar. Therefore, I could not see a consensus that would push this to another outcome, such as delete (which is what the DRV nom suggested at User talk:Seraphimblade). VickKiang(talk) 21:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
qz.com was a notable source as per the AFD Discussion and another one is the Harvard Case study, which we missed before. https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/523019-PDF-ENG. Hence it is making it notable. Sorry, While scrolling through Twitter, I got this today and I am not well-versed in research. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Lordofhunter (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete closure The original discussion seems to have found that qz lacks WP:ORGIND because it includes quotes from boAt co-founders Gupta and Mehta, which you disagreed with but at least two others in the discussion agreed with. While the Harvard source may show notability, I think the best thing for you to do at this point would be to write a new draft that cites the source, and see how it's taken by AfC reviewers - but one source does not make notability, the standard is multiple. Additionally, it is a good idea to keep in mind how WP:NCORP demands a more rigorous standard be applied to the inclusion of articles on companies and corporations. casualdejekyll 12:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I am new. If Harvard source qualifies then do we need 1 more source or 2 more? Also, on qz.com independent research is there. If a journalist picks a quote of the ceo. Is that mean that that source is not independent? I don't want to create or put afc efforts, I just saw the source so I shared. If an expert will search, he might get more case study. Lordofhunter (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That really depends on the source. Deletion review is less about analyzing the sources and is more about analyzing the consensus of the discussion: it seems quite clear to me that the discussion had a consensus to delete, so instead of a deletion review the way to go forward (assuming the sources exist) is with a draft, such as improving Draft:BoAt Lifestyle. casualdejekyll 14:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Yes, deletion, at that point was correct. I totally agree. But could you help me with qz.com source? Is is good or not? Because one user was only thinking it is good while other was not. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it is your best bet if you find a third strong source (if there is one, which might be unlikely as numerous participants failed to find another), as two sources are borderline. But please also be careful of writing in a neutral tone (WP:NPOV), follow WP:V, and avoiding WP:REFBOMBING questionable or trivial sources, like the many sources analysed in the AfD discussion (those all might be reasons for an AfC draft be declined). However, otherwise, with the two sources notability is (very generously) borderline, it depends on if the article for creation reviewers accepts it or not. WP:NCORP has a higher standard compared to WP:GNG, additionally some reviewers require two solid sources whereas others require three (the latter apparently being not being satisfied for this topic). The reviewer will also factor in the AfD result, which had a few participants voting delete and questioning the existing sources, including the qz.com one (which makes your DRV rationale a bit unconvincing IMO). So even if you write a neutral, verifiable, non refbombed article, it might be accepted, or might be declined
I don't work in Article for Creation but I do WP:NPP work. Personally (as someone who voted delete, so keep in mind of my WP:INVOLVED status), if this is another similar article, I might not be comfortable in marking as reviewed an article with just two sources counting towards WP:NCORP, one of them questioned in a recent AfD or by an AfC reviewer while declining a draft. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 20:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lordofhunter- to clarify are you still requesting the AfD outcome to be overturned to NC/keep... or are you fine with working on the existing draft and submitting it through AfC? Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 05:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I count 6 Delete !votes including the nom and 4 Keep !votes. Any of No Consensus, Relist, or Delete would be reasonable conclusions of rough consensus by the closer, except that one of the Deletes was accompanied by a source analysis. That makes Delete the strongest policy-based conclusion from the input of the editors. The appellant may edit and improve the draft, and should be aware that an AFC reviewer will take the AFD into account. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation of Draft, Endorse as involved editor. While numerically the consensus is 6-4, the delete votes are IMO significantly stronger than the keep isde (note: I voted delete), as the first three keep votes vaguely asserted notability being met without getting into any details on the sources, therefore these should be given less weight. In contrast, one of the delete voters gave a detailed source analysis, with other delete voters also giving reasonable policy-based rationales. As such, while no consensus and delete are both valid closes IMO this leans to delete somewhat compared to NC. Moreover, even if a draft is recreated notability is borderline at best. The requirement of multiple sources makes two sources borderline, and that is not even factoring that thw QZ source is debatably WP:CORPDEPTH, with participants disagreeing on whether it is non-trivial. Nevertheless, IMHO the new Harvard ref appears to meet SIGCOV, so allowing a recreation seems reasonable, even though the draft might not be accepted. However, the close is ceetainly reasonable IMO so I endorse the outocme. VickKiang(talk) 20:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, The decision at that point was fine. And I assumed that Harvard and qz.com are good to go now, but if you think qz.com is debatable then I guess, it is 1.5 source. I will update if I can get one more source, or if someone can help in it. No need to change the decision of that delete vote. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. After the source analysis was posted by Beccaynr, consensus moved to delete, with five delete votes (including the vote posted by Beccaynr and a keep vote that was changed to delete specifically referencing the source analysis) to only one keep vote that only cites WP:ROUTINE coverage and does not establish significance. No issue with recreating in draft space if the appellant wishes to improve the article and eventually submit it to AFC. FrankAnchor 21:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
1994–95 Cruz Azul season – Relist. There's clear agreement here that the close was incorrect. Those who argued to endorse mostly talked about how wikiproject notification is not a requirement, but that isn't the only issue here; there's also the question of how much a batch of AfDs submitted together should influence each other.
Beyond the basic decision to void the close, it's less clear if relisting or just overturning to No Consensus is the right way forward; opinion is about split on those and I don't see any killer arguments one way or the other. My general opinion is that it's usually better send things back to AfD, where the merits of the article can be debated in isolation from the procedural questions, so that's what I'm going to do. I am sensitive to the fact that this has been discussed to death already, but I'm still going to go with the relist option. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Restore back to AfD I don't understand the close so soon after being returned after a DRV. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So soon – it was open for the standard 7 day period after relisting. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer. I thought there was a pretty obvious rough consensus here, especially read in concert with Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club Puebla season, Articles for deletion/1994–95 Tigres UANL season, & Articles for deletion/1994–95 Toros Neza season. Those discussion were virtually identical. The only thing that sets this one apart was a keep !vote from Govvy, which was not particularly strong, and still left the tally 2–1 in favour of deletion. Nfitz's primary objection seems to be that he didn't notice the relisted AfD, but as I have explained on my talk page, the standard procedure after a relist was followed. A third relist would be counter to our usual practice at AfD and given that this article has already been under discussion for more than two months (at AfD, ANI, DRV, AfD again, now DRV again), anyone who wants to make the case for keeping the article has had ample opportunity to do so. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion sorting and WikiProject tracking pages are optional and, as you say, it was listed there three days before the close. The consensus in this discussion stands alone, but it would be absurd for me not also have in mind the three near-identical discussions that I closed minutes before. There were no procedural errors here; your argument above for keep sounds sensible to me, as someone with no expertise in this area, but you had three weeks in which to put forward and didn't do so. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant 3 days, not 3 weeks - but perhaps I'm missing something (ah, yes 3 weeks with original period). Should I have spent more time at Wikipedia, and less time watching the World Cup ... yes ... uh no ... uh yes ... no ... hmm. Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus there is clearly not consensus to delete, particularly after the last relist/DRV (with one valid vote on each side). Further, the closer is basing the close on other AFDs, where the merits of this article need to be decided based on this AFD only. I oppose relisting as it was already relisted twice with no signs of consensus forming. FrankAnchor 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus was reasonably clear to me. Listing at deletion sorting/notifying of wikiprojects/etc. is not a required part of the deletion process. Nothing in the nomination convinces me that this is anything other than an impermissible attempt to get a second (or perhaps a third or fourth) bite at the cherry because the AFD didn't go your way. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - Here we go again. This one needs to be decoupled from the other AFDs that were closed as delete. When viewing this one separately, there is no consensus, and no reason for another relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, not because there was anything wrong with the close, but because this has been a two month saga and it's time to find final consensus so we can move forward. To do that, we need more input. Note, absolutely involved as closer of the first series, but don't think that's necessarily relevant. StarMississippi 17:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - let it run for another week, no harm. GiantSnowman 20:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note, that in the Santos Laguna AFD, the article has been improved by multiple editors and is heading to a keep, partially based on WP:HEY. There's no fundamental difference between the notability of the Santos Laguna and Cruz Azul seasons. If anything Cruz Azul's season was more significant, advancing to the play-off final, leading to the continental championship that they won. Nfitz (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or overturn to no consensus - This was closed without sufficient input after reopening. Jogurney (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to No Consensus or Relist. Numerically there are three delete votes and three keep votes, so numerically it should be NC but WP:CONSENSUS should be determined by the strength of the arguments. One keep voter is now indefinitely blocked (with double votes striked), another IP was also block-evading as per User talk:2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E, whereas the deleting nominator is topic-banned. Giving those votes less or no weight, there are otherwise two delete votes and one keep vote. I don't think the keep vote is especially strong, but the delete side, which raises valid points of WP:SIGCOV, might be slightly stronger than the keep side, but insufficient for a delete close. Therefore, IMHO an overturn to no consensus or a relist to gain more participation are reasonable. VickKiang(talk) 05:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus The AfD discussion is a mess, and probably irredeemably so. I am not sure how to treat contributions from the banned users, but what we have is a brief discussion about the quality of the sourcing (not that sources do not exist), with keep voters suggesting during the relisted period that the sources are from a pre-internet era (and would largely be composed of match reports). Neither of these keep statements is a reason to necessarily keep an article, but there is, or ought to be, the weight of WP:NSEASONS accorded to these statements, which suggests that "individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirement." (This guideline was also indirectly referenced in GiantSnowman's delete comment). --Enos733 (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No rule says that you have to canvass WikiProject Sports about everything sports-related. So there was no procedural error here.—S MarshallT/C 15:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
El Assico – This has now been open for over three weeks, and there is no firm consensus below as to whether the right outcome was reached by the wrong process, or was the process so critically flawed as to require being overturned. As per "Closing reviews" section of WP:DRV, in this situation, no consensus means the decision is endorsed by default. On the topic of process, point 1 of "Instructions" would have potentially been of assistance to the nominator here - "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." Secontly, and more critically, point 2 of "Steps to list a new deletion review" was seemingly not followed - "Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: [notification template]". Daniel (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I would have gotten round to objecting to the XFD if the PROD had not happened. 71.237.70.164 actions were irregular and compromised the decisions of those editors who didn't notice. jnestorius(talk) 05:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius: It seems you're not aware that this redirect has been recreated several times due to vandalism, so the IP's actions were correct in my opinion. It was initially deleted per consensus at RfD back in April at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_29#El_Assico, since there were no reliable sources to support its existence (only one outdated link from an obscure article). I also want to add that this redirect has now been salted, and only extended confirmed users can recreate it, thanks to this request posted yesterday at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2022/12#El_Assico. CycloneYoristalk! 07:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did find that one previous XFD alluded to by 71.237.70.164 which was also by 71.237.70.164 and did not conform to process. The text there does not support CycloneYoris's claim that the reason for deletion was there were no reliable sources to support its existence. While 71.237.70.164 offered three other reasons back then, the only one that was accepted by other commenters was that the name was not mentioned at the target, which was not the case this time round until 71.237.70.164 made it so. Maybe there were vandalism recreation/PROD cycles since then that I can't access, but KENGRIFFEY24FAN's did not seem like vandalism. Maybe Cyclone and Liz know hidden details, but for transparency they should have been stated explicitly on the XFD instead of just short circuiting the process via a fake PROD. jnestorius(talk) 10:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale made by the IP explicitly states that No one in popular media uses the term 'El Assico', except the SB Nation author and a handful of obscure social media commenters with grudges against Iowa or Iowa State. So, that obviously does support my claim that reliable sources were not found for keeping this redirect. I also want to clarify that I do not know any hidden details about this redirect (nor about anything on Wikipedia for that matter) as Jnestorius is implying, and have nothing to gain with its deletion. And the PROD wasn't fake, there was simply no target to be found on the recreated redirect. CycloneYoristalk! 11:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the end result (deletion), though I disagree with the methods that got to it. This is a textbook G4 speedy deletion as nothing has changed in regard to WP:RS since the RFD in April, and should have been deleted that way rather than prodding. I also endorse page protection that was applied on 1 December. If more reliable sources using this term are found, a discussion at Talk:Iowa–Iowa State football rivalry is the logical next step to see if inclusion of this nickname or possibly removing page protection is warranted.FrankAnchor 13:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My call for a deletion review was not intended to reverse the deletion but to criticise the shoddy process used to get here.
I disagree that nothing has changed since April, in that the reason given then by 3 of 4 commenters was "Not mentioned at target", which did not apply in December until 71.237.70.164's changes.
If a single user removes the mention in the old target, then changes the target to a nonexistent page, and then nominates the redirect for deletion, it seems to me that those participating in the RFD cannot simply rely on the ensuing lack of mention or nonexistent target as grounds for deletion.
I have no issue with the current salt situation and I agree that the article Talk: page is the place to build a consensus for change, or indeed a consensus for the status quo. (I will add a brief comment there now to facilitate navigating the multiple places with history of the discussion to date.) jnestorius(talk) 18:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(comment from involved editor) Yes, G8 was incorrect (although it was an easy mistake). Yes, G4 would have been correct. So... Why on Earth are we here? DRV is not a venue to criticise the shoddy process used to get to a deletion. You can leave the deleting admin a polite note about how G8 didn't apply but G4 did, but if no one's actually objecting to the deletion, this is out-of-scope for DRV. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is a forum for critiquing process. Process may not be #1, but it is still important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would opine the G8 was inapplicable. I've augmented the CSD G8 explanation to add "or retargeting" to the list of broken links excluded from its coverage, which is simply an implementation of "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." and a retargeting of a redirect is clearly retained within page history. I am unclear if CSD G4 applied, and would like to hear more detailed commentary on why it did--the "nothing has changed since the last AfD" is likely true but subject to debate, and I am unclear how a redirect would ever be anything other than a sufficiently identical copy of a prior deleted redirect. I'm leaning that a new discussion should have been held if a more clear CSD criterion (e.g., G10) did not apply. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G4 applied before it was retargeted. G8 applied after (as would others, G3 for instance). Neither were sufficient by themselves to delete the whole history. —Cryptic 20:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
jnestorius, it would have been nice to be notified if you are asking for a review of a deletion decision I made. Or you could have come to my talk page to discuss it. That's how it usually works here. DRV is typically the court of last resort, not the first. LizRead!Talk! 03:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No action. Right outcome if perhaps not exactly the right steps taken. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The way this was done is clearly inappropriate on multiple levels - retargeting a redirect to what appears to be an attack on another user is clearly inappropriate, and Liz should have checked the page history to catch a clear vandalism by the IP. We have at least some evidence that this nickname is used in certain contexts, and the fact that people are using it is by definition evidence that it is used regardless of the reliability of the people using it in other contexts. Notability is another issue, but nobody's suggesting creating a standalone article just talking about the nickname so that's irrelevant. In any case, there's enough here to save this from a speedy, so if people still want to delete it they can take it to RfD. Smartyllama (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
