Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 May

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 2023 Deletion review archives June 2023 >

31 May 2023[edit]

30 May 2023[edit]

  • Santiago Fonacier – Restored by deleting admin. Possibly give them more than 7 minutes to respond next time. Hut 8.5 16:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Santiago Fonacier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I had already made the necessary changes needed to reduce the probability of copyright violations before someone decided to completely delete the article. Furthermore Philippine government works, which was cited by @Uncle Bash007 as a justification in removing the article (to which @GB fan concurred), belong in the Public Domain. Both of you should have seen the updated Earwig result before you arbitrarily decided to delete it Borgenland (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was a since-reversed speedy deletion. What remains to be done here? Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The review request was logged 7 minutes after asking the deleting admin to reconsider, and 2 minutes before the deleting admin undeleted it, so nothing remains to be done, other than perhaps remind the nominator that giving people a little more time can help. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 May 2023[edit]

28 May 2023[edit]

27 May 2023[edit]

26 May 2023[edit]

  • List of Syrian Air destinations – Consensus to endorse delete closure, though it is noted that some participants feel the information is useful. It may be possible to request the deleted content be sent via email to be used elsewhere, though requesters should keep in mind any copyright considerations (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Syrian Air destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. Consensus was misinterpreted. No consideration was given to the now hundreds of dead links to the deleted pages. Also, these pages are more than likely to be recreated sooner rather than later by somebody who is unaware of the discussion. The information in the deleted pages can be merged back into the respective main articles, and never should have been deleted entirely. SurferSquall (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant for this to link to all pages deleted from that discussion. None of those should’ve been deleted. SurferSquall (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you succeeded in pointing to none of them. Sorry if that wasn't what you wanted, but you can go ahead and add the rest in manually. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse First off, this discussion was numerically 15 delete to 4 keep, which would require a pretty strong keep argument to not have consensus to delete. Instead we had nothing more than WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:HARDWORK running up against an explicit RfC determining consensus against having these articles, which is nowhere near sufficient. This nomination is itself a relitigation of the AfD rather than a valid DRV argument, and fails even at that.
    No consideration was given to the now hundreds of dead links to the deleted pages - So? If the red links bother you, you are welcome to remove them
    Also, these pages are more than likely to be recreated sooner rather than later by somebody who is unaware of the discussion - and new page patrol will see the recreation and tag it for speedy deletion per WP:G4 - the process will work as intended.
    The information in the deleted pages can be merged back into the respective main articles - no it can't, because much of the concerns raised in the discussion were about the existence of the information at all, not being a separate article. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to see the deleted page - but what's the issue in listing where the airline currently flies to in the article; especially for smaller scheduled airlines. It only looks to be about a dozen or so countries. I'd have thought the closing statement would have explained why merge was not an option. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Users claimed it was support of a corporate entity and thus didn’t belong; a strange argument- see List of Braathens destinations, a featured article! SurferSquall (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who said the issue was with the content itself? SurferSquall (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was pondering what we do with major airlines I'm more familiar with ... but I notice that Air Canada, British Airways, American Airways, United Airlines, Qantas, Air New Zealand, and pretty much every other "English-speaking" airline have multiple clear keeps at AFD. And I think to myself ... WTF? Nfitz (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts as well! Wikipedia can have some pretty crazy and pretty obvious bias occasionally SurferSquall (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? No-one is talking about deleting the airline articles. FOARP (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - First off, I actually agree that Explicit (the closing admin) should have provided a detailed close. AFD closers should not be providing no close rationale at all simply to avoid giving people who request review anything to argue against. It gives the (no doubt unfair) impression of just counting the votes without assessing the strengths of individual arguments. I am very sympathetic to there just not being enough people working on closing AFDs, but it is bad if this has led to drive-by closures being made as a matter of course.
That said, there is no evidence at all that this DELREV was discussed with Explicit before it was raised, so this review fails before it even gets over the very first hurdle. If mergers were wanted, SurferSquall could have just asked Explicit to give them access to the data in the deleted articles - and can still ask Explicit for that! This review is therefore totally unnecessary and would have been avoided if the DELREV process had been followed properly.
I agree with Pppery that the lists as such couldn’t have been merged directly into their parent articles given the concerns raised about them. However, multiple experienced editors gave advice on what would be acceptable (a brief summary of major destinations served) for SurferSquall to follow.
However, since we are here, it would be good to establish a clear assessment of what the consensus in this AFD was so that it can be accurately recorded. For the record, it was that these articles failed WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:NCORP. In human terms that means they aren’t encyclopaedic content, and lack any references that are independent of the airlines providing the services that are the subject of the articles. FOARP (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:FOARP; if this is the U-Z airlines, where's United Airlines, US Airways, and Virgin; or are those notable? Nfitz (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nfitz. In order to have a more focused discussion, the articles were selected from the worst, and thus easiest to assess, articles of the lists of airline destinations category. This approach (bundling in smaller groups by quality) was the approach suggested in the 2018 AN discussion I linked to in the original nomination.
    Regarding the articles you mention, are you saying they should have been nominated? I have to say it is somewhat Catch-22-esque to see clean-up of these articles repeatedly blocked over the years by people saying that these articles cannot all be AFD’d in one go due to WP:TRAINWRECK, but then be told that other articles need to be included when a more focused set is proposed! FOARP (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm simply concerned that we are going to see huge BIAS, where we'll see such articles eliminated for some flag carriers, but not flag carriers for countries with advanced economies. I see no indication that the previous discussions were done with an equity lens. Nfitz (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please rest assured that I’m an equal-opportunity deletionist when it comes to these non-notable, free advertising, business-service-directory, WP:LISTCRUFT articles. However, if you’re anxious to even the score against the advanced economies, you can always go and nominate those articles for deletion yourself. FOARP (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't the motive, or nominator, that concerns me. It's the likely outcome - even with the best of intentions. Nfitz (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help what was decided under the 2018 AN discussion, and ultimately, these were the worst ones. Many others (e.g., List of British Airways destinations) are simply WP:REFBOMBS cited ultimately only to the airline and its website (as far as I can see every link for an active flight goes to the website) but its way more work to show this (you have to explore every link and source). Again, if you want to even the score, go and nominate them yourself. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Nfitz - of these 14 nominations:
  • 2 were for lists of services offered by American companies
  • 2 were for lists of services offered by Belgian companies
  • 2 were for lists of services offered by British companies
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a Chinese company
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a Danish company
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a Dutch company
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a German company
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a Philippines company
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a Portuguese company
  • 1 was for a list of the services offered by a Syrian company
  • 1 was for a list of the services offered by a Yemeni company
For anyone counting that's 10 out of the 14 from Western Europe/North America. I'm honestly not seeing any basis for your equity concerns here. Perhaps you can explain? FOARP (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the airlines most commonly known to the public (American, British, Air Canada, Virgin, etc) are ever deleted- because why? their lists are hardly better than the one deleted. SurferSquall (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think there was BIAS in this nomination. I can see why you went for the low-hanging (low-flying?) fruit. The British/American ones seem to be for minor airlines - I wasn't aware Cook was still around. But I'm concerned that there's BIAS. Really (at least for flag carriers rather than chartered unknowns) this needs to be all or nothing. But that's not the process we are now in. Nfitz (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Unlike the DRV starter who says that consensus was misinterpreted, but doesn't say how or why, I find it implausible that it could have been misinterpreted and can't identify any such reason. Clearly, No consideration was given to the now hundreds of dead links to the deleted pages. is not an argument for how consensus was misinterpreted. There was consensus to delete the pages based around policy reasons for how this content is not suitable.—Alalch E. 17:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer misinterpreted it by simply reading the number of delete v. keep and hardly reading the arguments for or against. The closer is an admin known for similar occurrences. SurferSquall (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not there's a history - what's the policy-based justification to Keep? Nfitz (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SurferSquall: The closer is an admin known for similar occurrences. Excuse me? Please provide evidence of this claim. ✗plicit 23:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    there are six separate topics on your talk page regarding the issue. SurferSquall (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SurferSquall: And you've manged to completely ignore the context of every single one of them. Considering the endorsements of my closure above, I'd comfortably say I'm doing alright. ✗plicit 00:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion has nothing to do with personal matters SurferSquall (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's keep it constructive. The closer is an admin known for similar occurrences, even if hypothetically true, is not an argument for how consensus was misinterpreted either.—Alalch E. 16:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The appellant doesn't explain how consensus was misinterpreted, and it appears to have been interpreted correctly. Insulting the closer is not useful. Either discuss any issue about their closes at WP:AN, or ... don't discuss them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - "I didn't agree with the outcome" is not a valid DRV rationale. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this was a terrible decision by the AFD, as this information is not available in anything approaching a similarly well-structured way anywhere else, and is highly suitable for an encyclopedia as a collection of knowledge. But the AFD consensus was clear and with the highest reluctance I must endorse it. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you could consider a RFC on this topic because tbh I don't understand your position and I don't really see a reason why we should consider the consensus has changed since the discussion in 2018 referred to above. JMWt (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stifle is referring to the fact that the pages deleted were the best-organized form of that information anywhere on the Internet. SurferSquall (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same was true of all the plot-summaries we used to host before they got moved off-wiki. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not expedia.com or Skyscanner. FOARP (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes we should accept that having things that are useful to people, like potentially hugely useful, we should host even if it doesn't meet our general inclusion criteria. I think this is such a case. That said, everything about this met our rules and we are no where near an IAR keep. So endorse. But yeah, what Stifle said. Hobit (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should we accept articles that are simply lists of company services created entirely from company publications? FOARP (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, as WP:IAR says, when a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we are improving Wikipedia by including lists of company services on a random date at some point in the past sourced entirely to company publications. Stripped of the "wow, aeroplanes!" factor, this is the equivalent of maintaining a list of Blockbuster Video outlets accurate as of 24 October 1997 (including, for some inexplicable reason, the ones that were already closed on that date) sourced to a Blockbuster company prospectus.
IAR is out of place here, since your proposal is not a specific exception to a general rule. Instead you are simply saying that a specific policy just shouldn't be applied to the things it specifically applies to. If you believe this position to be correct, then go and start a discussion at VPP to overturn the 2018 RFC. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I endorse this, I just think the underlying arguments get us to a less useful-and-good encyclopedia. If I were King of Wikipedia, things would be different. But I'm not and this outcome is consistent with where we are. Hobit (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 May 2023[edit]

  • Aqua:_The_Hits_VCD_Karaoke – Endorse, allow recreation. Non admin, but per WP:DRV#Closing reviews, Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Both apply here. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aqua:_The_Hits_VCD_Karaoke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The reasonings given for deletion were not adequate. 81blazko92 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - not one person spoke up against the deletion in the AFD - almost 15 years ago. The close looks like the only possible choice. A complete lack of good references appears to be the reason. I'm not sure why User:81blazko92 is here. If they think there should be an article, refund it to draft or something, and make a good article. But there's zero chance the closure is being overturned here without providing any new information. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this earlier in the day, and it seems like 81blazko92 requested a refund of that along with Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01, which was accepted as it was a soft deletion. I can't say I'm too surprised this one was rejected, given the rationale is somewhat difficult to decipher in relation to DELPOL, though a restoration to draft should be possible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct interpretation of consensus, albeit consensus among four participants. With the deletion having taken place over 14 years ago, I have no issue with it being WP:REFUNDed to draft space if there are more references to create a good article. Frank Anchor 13:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse since this appears to be an appeal of a 14-year-old deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the deleted article to draft or user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow review of draft Robert McClenon (talk)
  • Submit Draft for Review The deletion decision taken at that time was right. To recreate the page, one has to share a draft with proper sources.Jimandjam (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Unlike the DRV starter who considers the reasons for deletion not to be adequate, I find that they are perfectly adequate, and that there was consensus to delete. Nothing needs to be done.—Alalch E. 17:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are the search results. 81blazko92 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Based on the appeal it seems that this seems to be going for criteria 1 of DRV by stating vaguely that the reasoning in a 14-year old deletion discussion is inadequate, despite the participants raising policy-based concerns of significant coverage and independence. If this is appealing to criteria 3, recreation is of course allowed given the age of the discussion if it significantly differs from the original version, but judging from the unconvincing sources the DRV filer linked via the Google search, submitting through AfC seems like a better path. VickKiang (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - No reason for overturning has been given. If the nom has new sourcing to restore the article, they can go ahead and attempt a new draft of it - this AFD discussion does not prevent that (and should not be interpreted as preventing that). FOARP (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 May 2023[edit]

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

I saw a request under the Psychology topics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Psychology) for a page on Brainspotting. I wrote up a draft article, but I saw that it was protected the article from creation in 2018 due to recurrent attempts to make the article and recurrent deletions. However, the user who deleted and protected the article is no longer an admin. It seems like past attempts to make the article were not well-sourced. My draft is better-researched. I think that even though there's basically no quality evidence that Brainspotting works, the fact that it is so trendy in certain mental health circles warrants a re-creation of this page. I'm a psychologist who is concerned about the amount of inaccurate information out there about certain treatments, including Brainspotting, and I want the public to have a page to read about it from a source that isn't trying to sell them something. PenguinyPenguiny (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can't spot the draft in your contributions, please could you link to it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft - The redirect should be unprotected if a reviewer states that they are ready to accept the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submit Draft for Review Please create a draft with proper sources to show notability. Thank You.Jimandjam (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brainspotting PenguinyPenguiny (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert, but the draft looks solid to me. Hobit (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Hobit I'm not a subject expert, but that draft looks to be neutral and have good referencing. There isn't any reason I can see not to approve it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft appears notable, compliant with policies and guidelines. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publish. Now that multiple editors have seen and have commented on the draft, and as no critical issues were found, it's time to conclude this DRV by moving to mainspace per WP:NOTBURO, as this has already been a more exhaustive process than a single AfC reviewer's review.—Alalch E. 12:58, 9 June 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I have re-written the article in a draft, with more reliable sources that cover on this song in particular. Click here to read. MC-123 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • MC-123 it would have been better if you asked me about this before filing a DRV. For a deletion discussion from 6 years ago, with a new draft written with more reliable sources, it's a no-brainer that it can be recreated. No need to get DRV involved. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith thank you for letting me know. That's what I had in mind as well, but when I requested for my draft to be moved to article status (since the page is protected), I was told to make a case in a DRV that the redirect should be moved. MC-123 (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I see I wrote way back when, I'm not going to protect the page; that can always be done later if it turns out to be necessary when I closed the AfD. And I see that Spartaz added page protection after a second AfD. So, I guess I can see why the folks at AfC might have been hesitant to do anything. In any case, here we are. Let's just see how this plays out. A week isn't going to kill anybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the protection. Time passes Spartaz Humbug! 18:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much! MC-123 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submit Draft for Review - The redirect has been unprotected as requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submit Draft for Review Please create a draft with proper sources to show notability. Kindly, let me know if you need help.Jimandjam (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 May 2023[edit]

22 May 2023[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Australian Survivor contestants (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category should not have been deleted as not all of the contestants on the series were celebrities when appearing on the show. Therefore, it would be inaccurate and incorrect to delete it as it is clearly not a WP:PERFCAT and the appearance is WP:DEFINING for some contestants and their articles. Happily888 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't watch reality TV, but as I understand it most folks won't be notable before the show. So yeah, I'm not getting the !votes here. Leaning overturn or relist, but I'm also more than willing to be better educated. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from closer: I'd like to think I made no error on my part (unanimous consensus to delete), but given this info, we should probably relist for more input. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 17:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse I sympathise with the closer of the CFD. There is a difficulty when the nomination and all the arguments are wholly irrational or based on a severe mistake. However, I think it probably best to take them at face value and just move on. Thincat (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a problem with "yeah, it was wrong, but it's where we are". If we agree the !votes were just plain wrong, we should relist, not just move forward. Here it's a very minor thing. But as a way of handling issues like this, I think it's important. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but relist. There was a clear consensus to delete but there was very little discussion in the CfD. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says: "Deletion review may be used: ... 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".

    Editors at the CfD were operating under the CfD nominator's statement that "As these people were already famous this is not WP:DEFINING and therefore nothing more than a WP:PERFCAT." But the DRV nominator has stated here that "not all of the contestants on the series were celebrities when appearing on the show" so "the appearance is WP:DEFINING for some contestants and their articles". This dissenting view was not discussed at the CfD, so I support relisting at CfD to allow for more discussion.

    Since the CfD closer said "given this info, we should probably relist for more input", it should be uncontroversial to relist this at CfD.

    Cunard (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist per Cunard - the consensus was interpreted correctly but there was a clear error in the reasoning applied as we know now. FOARP (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist no closer error, but the argument may have been flawed. No problem with letting it run for a bit longer. SportingFlyer T·C 17:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 May 2023[edit]

20 May 2023[edit]

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

Speedy Deletion as a result of pages created by a sock, however, the deleted page had been edited by other users too, therefore should be restored. It was a notable article with reliable resources. Thank you. Jockey456 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the deleting admin. The article had not edits of substance from other editors in my opinion. The article has also previously been deleted G5 in September 2022 by Ponyo. -- Whpq (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jockey456 are you another sock by any chance? You appear to share articles with the sock that created this article. Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jockey456 is a  Confirmed sock of ANASKHAN777.-- Ponyobons mots 21:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2023[edit]

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

It was deleted in 2009. As speech censorship becomes more and more, this is more appropriate as a search term. Q𝟤𝟪 06:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're contending this is a relevant search term now, when it wasn't 13.5 years ago? (shrug) Recreate it and see if anyone MfD's it again--there's nothing really for us to do or overturn here. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see why this is any more of a meaningful search term than it was in 2009, but there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from recreating it. There was no meaningful edit history, just creation as a redirect to Fuck and then the RfD nomination. Hut 8.5 15:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but allow recreation. There was nothing wrong with the 2009 RfD, but it's entirely possible for things to change in 13 years. If anyone thinks they have, then there is no reason not to create it again. This recreation would be without prejudice to a new RfD, but I would recommend anyone thinking of that to wait at least a few weeks before doing so as that way discussion will be aided by the existence of page view data uninfluenced by either recent creation or this DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The comment that no one will ever type this in search was correct in 2009 and is still correct. No need to allow recreation; no harm in allowing recreation. Stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. New information about how the 2009 reasons to delete this redirect are not relevant today could have come to light in the intervening years, but it didn't. —Alalch E. 23:07, 26 May 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion is closed based on votes, not reasoning. RPSkokie (Page Nom) itself accepted that the 2 sources shared are good enough, and that closes the discussion itself. Still, after that, I have shared so many international market reports. None of the Redirect vote users has counter-replied my sources, if they have shared the issue, I could have added sources accordingly. AdesamSA (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse What this discussion comes down to is the fact that people found TimothyBlue's interpretation of the sources more convincing than yours, so that was the consensus. There's doesn't need to be an endless series of point-by-point refutations needed for that view to carry. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I might well have !voted to keep, but the decision to redirect is reasonable given the facts and the numbers. Hobit (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure was reasonable all things considered. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response TimothyBlue has not given any interpretation of my sources. He simply said other users have already explained and 2 editors supported and discussion over. If you actually see then RPSkokie accepted that 2 sources shared are meeting the guidelines and he was the only one who discussed them. You have a Harvard case study. What else is required? Hobit Sorry, I genuinely don't understand your comment. I believe if independent, reliable, in-depth coverage exists then it is notable. What kind of facts and numbers are you looking for, please tell me I will try to find them? I shared so many case studies, and market reports who have done studies about the company, but there is negligible comment on them. That is what my concern is discussion is closed based on votes, not reasoning. It doesn't matter even if 100s of editors think it is "Redirect". Please discuss the sources also, logic is even more important.AdesamSA (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think RPSkokie's analysis is pretty solid. Beyond that, I'm not seeing where the authors of the international journal of economics and management article are from. Their language feels fairly promotional for an academic article and their source list is very limited. Something feels off. Hobit (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This is a case of a division of a company that already has an article, and there is often undisclosed paid editing in pushing to get the maximum number of articles for the different divisions of the company. The closer was right in giving weight to the nominator's case, and Merge was the stronger conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Let me reply in points so I can express myself better this time.
1. Hobit If you agree with RPSkokie, then he accepted that 2 sources shared by me are good for notability. For others, he is not sure. Rest, I have not shared any news because Indian Journalism is poor (150 Rank).
2. Robert McClenon There is no separate article on this. Nike has 10+ wiki pages, it doesn't mean they are promoting.
This appeal appears to be a request for a separate article. Nike's pages are an other stuff exists argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. I saw the history of the page, where a company employee accepted his relationship with the company. This is not called "Undisclosed"
4. I am sorry, but I feel a bit of racism here towards India-related Pages. Even my other pages were sent into the draft by giving me a notification that they are not notable.
5. Currently market reports, and news exist but there is no discussion on them. Despite asking multiple times, what is required in the source nothing is shrared. I guess there is no issue that's why it is not highlighted. I am assuming no matter what, even in future this will not get published, ever.
I will not invest my energy here anymore. Please do whatever you like and I am sorry to waste your time. AdesamSA (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AdesamSA You are getting defensive instead of putting yourself in other's shoes. Racism is a serious allegation, Previous Articles were sent in draft so that you can make it better, and improve the sources. You can ask for guidance and mentorship for further editing and page creation, it will help you.Jimandjam (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thank You Jimandjam for sharing insights. And sorry if my questions felt defensive but apart from RPSokie's reply, I felt my concern was unheard. I don't mean to use the word racism. But [1], [2], [3], [4] are actually good enough infact I can share more independent market reports if required. I again request admins to let me know the issues in these sources. Clarity on the same will help me to understand notability criteria better or if we should merge this page or not. Once I have some input, I will be able to contribute better.
    Hobit Currently, I am getting confused and having self-doubts about my understanding of notability. Robert_McClenon thanks for sharing WP:OSE part.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AdesamSA (talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Pppery.—Alalch E. 23:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 May 2023[edit]

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

While the subject may or may not be notable, the AFD had problems when looked retrospectively. The nominator is a CU confirmed sockpuppet, although not blocked at the time. Out of two delete and two keep votes, a keep vote was stricken off as a sockpuppet. Applying the same logic, the nomination itself could be nullified, not to mention the bludgeoning and personal attack. Additionally, the IP edit could potentially be the nominator editing while logged out. I would recommend reverting the deletion and instead tagging the article with Template:Notability or considering a draftification process. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist There are dozens of results about the subject on Wikipedia alone.[5] Relisting should happen again. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist - This AFD was corrupted by sockpuppetry, so that DRVPURPOSE 5, a serious procedural error through no fault of the closer (because the error was that of the sockmaster). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist due to tainted closure. No fault whatsoever should be ascribed to the closer who should not be expected to perform a deep-dive investigation for sock-puppetry. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. No closer error, but this AFD is tainted by socks. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 12:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The discussion should be unbiased and we should have more opinions to understand the notability of the page.Jimandjam (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 May 2023[edit]

  • Patiphat Chalardchaleam – Overturn to no consensus. It is not the role of the closer or the DRV participants to evaluate the sources from first principles; that is the job of the AfD participants, but no attempt was made to challenge Stvbastian's sources at AfD. Therefore, consensus at this DRV is that the AfD failed to achieve consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Patiphat Chalardchaleam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

How come this article be deleted? There were an article with SIGCOV that sufficient to satisfied GNG --> 1. I've provided that article in the discussion, but seems like no one read. Stvbastian (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn to NC I agree with the closer's reasoning, but I don't see a consensus to delete. Passing the SNG in this point is probably not enough, but WP:IAR still exists and it seems, in this case, that people feel the individual is over the bar. I suspect if brought back to AfD (per WP:RENOM) it will get deleted with a wider audience participating. Hobit (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion. The ongoing sports deletion wars of the past year and some have made it clear that passing sports notability guidelines does not suffice to have an article, only GNG, which was not met. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus It is the role of the closer to determine whether there is consensus that significant coverage exists or does not exist. Comments supporting keeping the article pointed to sources that they thought would meet SIGCOV. The two participants favoring delete thought otherwise. In this case, participants were evenly divided on that question about whether significant coverage exists (two keeps came after sources were added to the discussion). In nearly all AFD discussions, each discussion should stand alone and not rely on precedent (WP:OUTCOMES "previous outcomes do not bind future ones"). (Note, absent the sources provided in the discussion from Stvbastian, arguing "keep" for participation is not a sufficient policy reason for keeping an article). --Enos733 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. For a start there was not enough support for deletion to sustain a Delete closure, as only one person other than the nominator supported deletion. If the AfD had only attracted that one Delete !vote it would have been closed as soft delete or no consensus (probably the latter since a PROD was contested previously), so we're in the rather perverse position where a bunch of people who supported keeping the page in fact made it possible for the page to be deleted. The Delete !votes aren't exactly high quality as they didn't make any attempt to refute the sources provided as evidence of notability, and claims such as "The subject has absolutely zero coverage" should be assigned zero weight once some coverage was produced. Finally the idea that the arguments in the Delete !votes are some sort of binding precedent are incorrect, the GNG is a guideline and occasional exceptions can be made to it. Hut 8.5 18:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. In almost a month of being listed, there was only a single delete vote other than the nominator. That is very clearly not consensus to delete. There is enough strength in the keep votes to show the possibility that GNG was met. Frank Anchor 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That AfD turns on the sources that Stvbastian found, but it contains no detailed discussion of them at all. It's literally just one side saying "this is obviously significant coverage" and the other saying "this obviously isn't significant coverage" with no middle ground. So it's a very poor quality discussion. One sympathises with the closer. This is a biography of a living person, so by our rules we should not decide to restore the article without checking the sources for ourselves. It falls to DRV to do the job that AfD should have done.
    Are we meant to buy that this is significant coverage? Because, with the caveat that I don't speak Thai so I'm reduced to google translate, it certainly looks like a passing mention to me.
    On the other hand, I do buy that this is significant coverage: there are three paragraphs about him or her. But it contains no biographical information at all. It's a sports website's report about a sporting match. The biography that I could source from that article would read: Patiphat Chalardchaleam is a badminton player who, as part of a doubles team, qualified to take part in the Thai Super Series in 2011.
    If we stipulate that this is significant coverage, and I don't think it is but let's pretend for a moment -- all it adds to the previous article is that Chalardcheam is a mixed doubles player.
    I would conclude that there's so little reliably sourced information about Chalardcheam that we couldn't possibly produce a high quality biographical article, and therefore Wikipedia shouldn't host one. This reduces to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - The closer's statement reads like a supervote rather than a conclusion from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That I will disagree with. The closer felt the main issue was SNG vs. GNG because he felt the discussion clearly showed the GNG wasn't met. My first reading of the discussion was the same (though I reached a different conclusion). But I do agree the GNG issue wasn't fully settled in the discussion and so it's fair for folks to feel the close should be overturned on that basis. But I don't see a supervote here. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep - there certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus to delete. The basis of the nomination was that it didn't pass GNG. And when sources were offered to meet GNG, the nominator didn't challenge them - though did continue to question other's who wanted to keep. Then about a month later, the first delete appeared, simply claiming that GNG fails, but not addressing any of the sources provided to demonstrate GNG. Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 25 May 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
New Hampshire Administration Division (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I had several articles deleted when account was blocked, I was reinstated after making the standard offer, and I am now requesting that all articles deleted during the process of my account being blocked be restored to continue editing and improving them. The deleting admin, Liz is not present and has not participated in any discussion relating to the undeletion process. Other admins are unwilling to participate without Liz's comment. I do not believe the deletions were allowed under the G5 criterion, as it specifically states that any articles deleted must have been created AFTER the user in question was blocked, and that any articles specifically created by a sockpuppet account, regardless of the time it was created, must be deleted. None of these points apply to any articles which were speedily deleted by Liz under the G5 criterion, as this account was the sockmaster rather than a sockpuppet, and the articles were created prior to my block. Not only am I requesting review of the Administration Division article, but all of my articles and templates which were deleted by Liz, which are listed here at the RfU discussion. WhichUserAmI 15:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn pending any explanation from Liz. The article was deleted on they day of your ban, indicating that it existed prior to the ban, so it shouldn't have been deleted as G5. Requests for undeletion says it's the wrong place to request undeletion of speedy-deleted items, and should come here. Your ban was for sock-puppetry and I don't think connected to the creation of these articles (if you'd used sock-puppetry to get the articles created, I'd be unsympathetic). So their deletion looks like a mistake. Same logic applies to all other articles created prior to the ban. Elemimele (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per above. I don't think this was a valid G5, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn I'm missing something. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I did have the timing wrong. I'm good with endorse but restore per Frank. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WhichUserAmI was first blocked on September 27, 2022, under the username OvxzEkB7LEDOchm6tUzaMtqPOQVsYSYSPR9WGpC8IEReJ0Re6ZqJlZXC937VoqNRzrAqSuAWRvBo8w6kjmnTt (as he's admitted), so articles like this one, which was created on October 11, 2022, were indeed deleteable as block evasion. But since these articles seem to be completely unobjectionable, I don't have a problem with restoring them now that he's returned to the land of the living. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G5 per Extrordinary Writ, but explicitly restore as this appears to be a good-faith attempt of recreation by an editor now in good standing, and the subject seems to be at least borderline-notable. Frank Anchor 13:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but restore per Frank Anchor. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Not considering this an overturn, but since Liz has not responded on the matter with any new considerations, I just consider what is there in deleted history and logs. The block had nothing to do with content of articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. If there is good faith disagreement about whether a speedy deletion criterion does or should apply to a specific page then it does not, because speedy deletion is explicitly only for "the most obvious cases". Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 22 May 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:NY excelsior plate.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:NY2007Plate.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

License plate image was uploaded with the wrong tag. Please restore this and I'll replace it with the proper copyright tag. Shim119 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bose: The Untold Story of An Inconvenient Nationalist (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The book has been the subject of two newspaper articles, it is notable per WP:NBOOK. WP:NBOOK says "that the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."

Subject of two or more non-trivial published works:

Special note: Nowhere in the criteria for notability of a book does it mention the need for a review or critical review. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Additionally, I do not believe the DRV nomination and presented sources sufficiently address the quality (i.e., sigcov vs trivial, and independence) issues raised at AFD, so I would advise against recreation per #3 at the present juncture, as it seems likely to be re-deleted. However, I may defer to a more detailed analysis of the sources if one is offered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The four references above address the book directly and in detail as a subject. Also, the four references are not advertisements and press releases. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not reached a conclusive opinion of the first two, which is why I'd defer even though I'm skeptical, but the latter two are definitely not suitable, either on depth or independence grounds. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, I suppose it's not like we have to do the source analysis here, so I would not be fussed if this was relisted specifically for comments on quality of the sources. I just don't think the close was wrong, even if I would have also endorsed a no consensus or NPASR. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC I'm not buying any of the arguments made that the reviews don't count toward WP:N. It's possible that they shouldn't, but the fact the reviewers have similar political leanings to the author of the book isn't a reason to not count them. Nor is the author holding beliefs that are probably wrong a reason. So basically, I don't see consensus to delete. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse You can find 2 - 4 reviews about just many many books these days but those sources were supposed to be WP:RS. Editorkamran (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle and The Statesman (India) are India's leading newspapers or mainstream newspapers. The Times of India is the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world. Deccan Chronicle is one of the leading newspapers of South India based in Hyderabad. The Statesman (India) is one of India's oldest English newspapers based in Kolkata. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I see no arguments the sources aren't RSes in the deletion discussion... Hobit (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep The deletes are not making any compelling arguments, one of them is contingent on the reviews being NN, ReaderofthePack posted a decent rebuttal to the arguments against sourcing without a bolded !vote, and probably most importantly of all, the author of a review being "a fringe pro-Hindutva writer" is an ad hominem attack, rather than a critique of notability. The whole mess seems to suggest that this evolution is a political disagreement disguised as a deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The deletion process appears to have been properly followed, and there is no argument here to suggest otherwise, just an attempt to re-argue the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. While the delete side enjoys a substantial numerical advantage, Reading Beans' "keep" vote references two reviews which were not successfully refuted. Another week of discussion will allow further analysis of these reviews. Also okay with an overturn to no consensus, but there clearly is not policy-based consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 13:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The last comment on the AfD,[6] was the fair analysis of all arguments that happened on the AfD. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it suggested a perfectly sensible ATD which was not implemented by the closer. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note from closer. Indeed, it was the analysis in that comment which swayed me to delete (despite that the commenter suggested redirecting). Redirect is certainly an option as well, and I would have been very open to discussing that post-AfD. I assumed good faith that the other contributers had considered ReaderofthePack's analysis (in which ReaderofthePack refrained from "making a judgment call" on the book's notability), and were not making ad hominems against the author/subject, but rather were exercising reasonable suspicion. At any rate, in my view it was clear enough to me (though not as clear as any closer would like) that I had best take the side of delete/redirect rather than keep/NC. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Jclemens and Hobit. Either no consensus or keep would have been appropriate outcomes of that discussion, depending whether you just down-weight the ad hominems or disregard them completely. Nobody attempted to refute ReaderofthePack's detailed rebuttal of the nomination statement, and it's unclear whether Oaktree b even read the article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it can be presumed that Oaktree b read the reviews based on his first comment on the 8th which was not a bolded !vote. I am not entirely clear on the reasoning behind the change in his assessment, though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. RotP's arguments to keep were strong and unrefuted, so more input is needed. An overturn to keep or no cons would also be fine by me. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 12:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Since the discussion was not long, we can have more active participants. There is not many counterpoints to keep votes and the vice versa.Jimandjam (talk) 10:51, 26 May 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:French Polynesian lawyers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After the CfD was closed, but before the category was merged into Category:French lawyers, two pages were added to the category, bringing the total count up to 5:

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

16 May 2023[edit]

15 May 2023[edit]

14 May 2023[edit]

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

Because he received two notable awards, he is notable per WP:Ipso facto and WP:ANYBIO. WP:ANYBIO says that the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times is notable. Because Human Rights Award of Korea and Talent Award of Korea are such significant awards or honors, he is notable regardless quality of source. That's why Korean Wikipedia decided that not to delete the article. Quality or indenpendence of sources were discussed in previous discussion, but quality of awards were not discussed. We should restore this article or confirm notability of this subject. 223.62.202.37 (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No we shouldn't. The AfD closer was quite clear here. You can likely have an article about Peter Park but you can't have an advert about him. Wikipedia isn't hosting his CV. We won't restore that but we would consider publishing something encyclopaedic.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why people ask for articles back that were deleted years ago. Even if this was restored it would need much updating, so why not just create a new article based on the sources that exist? You don't need to go through a discussion here to do that. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The count, after striking the sock comments, appears to be 4 Deletes plus the nominator for 5, and 4 Keeps, so that if all else were equal, Delete or No Consensus would be valid closures. All else was not equal. There was sockpuppetry. The participants referred to the article, which I have not seen, as vanispam, and as a CV. If the unregistered appellant is asking for the deleted article to be refunded, when it was deleted not so much because of notability issues as because it was an advertisement, the request is silly and sort of insulting, to retrieve an ancient deleted advertisement. User:Phil Bridger - I think I do understand why they are asking for it back. They forgot to keep their spam, and want to recycle it. That is a reason. It just isn't a reason that we will allow at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I was being a little disingenuous when I said I don't understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kudos to the original closer for using WP:TNT reference in a way that 1) actually engages with the essay's content, and 2) is consistent with the rest of our deletion and content policies. Oh, yeah, and Endorse but feel free to write something more neutral: Notability wasn't the issue that led to deletion, promotion was. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse largely per Robert McClenon. I have no issue with the article being WP:REFUNDed to draft/user space if any user wants to make a good-faith attempt at cleaning up the issues brought up in the AFD. Frank Anchor 12:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was no agrement around the awards argument; it was said that the award articles were created tendentiously by a sock, to make it look like the subject received significant awards, so that it would be harder to delete this promotional page, and no one refuted this. There was no strong argument that these are "well-known and significant awards". Keeps didn't put a lot of effort behind showing that there is significant coverage. There was an agreement among the majority of participants that the article is written like a CV, and there was some but little energy behind the idea that it can be fixed (which also implicitly accepts that the article is promotional). It was little disputed that the article is promotional. There was a rough consensus to delete. I oppose restoring.—Alalch E. 21:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 May 2023[edit]

12 May 2023[edit]

11 May 2023[edit]

10 May 2023[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
London Buses route 969 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Firstly, the nominator suggests that reference six, at the time of nomination this newspaper article, fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE. This is a complete misrepresentation of the source - NOTTIMETABLE redirects to an essay on railway stations and lines so is of no relevance here, and what does a newspaper article have to do with timetables?

Counting votes, we have one keep, two weak keeps, three redirects and two merges. While a merge or redirect outcome would be acceptable if we were merely counting votes, Timothy's redirect vote does not put forward any reasoning and CastJared's redirect vote is per Timothy. These votes should have been completely discounted. Thus we're left with the three keeps (two of them weak), one redirect, and two merges, one of which is a WP:PERX. Ajf773 suggests Sources are totally trivial mentions which is again misrepresenting a newspaper article entirely about the route.

While Star Mississippi suggested I start a new article on mobility routes in London and I am not opposed to this, I do not want to let sources be misrepresented in this way as it sets a dangerous precedent. Overturn to no consensus. Garuda3 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse If you want to play this game I could easily say the second keep should be discounted as a WP:VAGUEWAVE. What this discussion comes down to in the end is a dispute over whether sourcing is suitable or not, and enough of the participants, either explicitly or implicitly, said it wasn't and thus that position carried. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Votes need to be backed up by at least some sort of reasoning. We can't go by what people say "implicitly" as that's subjective. A vote with no reasoning counts for nothing. Garuda3 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? Even if they give no further reasoning, it seems clear to me that if there's a lengthy discussion over source suitability, and then someone says the article should not be kept with no further explanation, it means they agreed that the sources are unsuitable. What else could it mean? * Pppery * it has begun... 21:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:JUSTAVOTE. This is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" Editors should put in the minimum amount of effort to explain why they feel Wikipedia would be better off without the article. Otherwise it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Garuda3 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AADD is an essay and its sections, though frequently cited as though they were a policy or guideline, are the opinion of a minority of editors and are not required to be followed. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer comment, Garuda3 and I discussed this and I support this DRV because while I believe I closed it correctly (see my comments there), happy to have review since we're all human. No fault with review, self endorse sounds like a bad legal command! Star Mississippi 02:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Merge was a valid conclusion by the closer. It is also the conclusion I would have reached if I had been closing, but that is not important. It is not the conclusion that the appellant would have reached, but that is also not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you not concerned about the poor quality of the redirect votes? Garuda3 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. If I were to assess the quality of the Keep and Redirect !votes and everything else, I would be performing another close. I am assuming that the closer has assessed the quality of the !votes. I am not demanding that the closer reach the same conclusion via the same rationale as I would. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. (!voted weak keep in the AfD). The AfD could have been closed as no consensus as there was no clear consensus for any single one of the main AfD options of keep, delete, redirect and merge. The article would then have been kept by default.
However, a no consensus default to keep is an unfair outcome as keep was a minority call. The majority opinion was split between merge and redirect. An invitation was made to coalesce around merge which attracted a bit of support but not a majority.
My initial reaction to this DRV was to overturn to no consensus. However, on reflection my opinion is the close is valid. Rough consensus is an option when a clear consensus for a single action cannot be agreed upon. The redirect with article history kept is an appropriate compromise and a fair reflection of the discussion. Rupples (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I would have !voted to keep in the circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the closure is incorrect and as such it must be endorsed. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there was no basis to keep in the AFD. That it barely meets GNG (which seems stretching it) is a good basis to merge. And I really wonder if that was necessary, given that there only two runs a week. Good grief, there are taxis that are more frequent! Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The frequency of the route is irrelevant to whether it has an article per GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't use the frequency to endorse. I don't see see a problem with the decision. But why not instead create an article on the history of TFL mobility bus routes in London? I don't think the spirit of the discussion at AFD precludes that possibility; and then this article could be redirected there. It makes reusing the material easier in such an article than in the list of bus routes. Nfitz (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I will do this when the AfD closes. My point was more regarding how editors have disregarded a properly good source. Reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my opinion Garuda3 (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, largely per Rupples. The majority was against keeping, even if they couldn't agree on what to do, so redirect is a reasonable close as per WP:BARTENDER. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 21:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC Sorry, but the redirect and deletion arguments are not policy-based. Or, IMO, even correct. An article solely on a topic cannot be a "trivial mention" of that topic--claims otherwise should require pretty high standards to be accepted and those just aren't found in this discussion. And we have three such articles (of which I have access to two). This meets factually meets the GNG and arguments that state otherwise without meaningful arguments should be discounted. Basically there were no guideline/policy-based arguments for redirecting or deleting and so the numeric superiority of those arguments should be discounted. Hobit (talk) 22:03, 17 May 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:ABC2 logo 2011.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:ABC 4 Kids logo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:Flytvlogo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:ABC Kids channel logo.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

These sets of Australian Broadcasting Corporation-related files were deleted under CSD F7 on various dates because it broke the policies. It doesn't break the policies if the former logos are mentioned in references on the article. File:ABC2 logo 2011.svg will once again replace File:ABC2 logo.svg as that file I mentioned did show the proper logo for ABC2 from 3 April 2011 until sometime in 2016. That logo was used from 1 April 2011 to 4 December 2017, while the second file is just the 2014 variant of that logo. Also, File:ABC 4 Kids logo.png will once again show the 2011 logo of ABC Kids (then ABC 4 Kids). File:Flytvlogo.png will hopefully once again show the logo used for Fly TV, for its entire existence. File:ABC Kids channel logo.svg, will also hopefully show the 2015 logo of ABC Kids once again. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. Per WP:NFCC#3a, multiple fair use images shouldn't be used in articles. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stifle, but these files were once used in the articles of ABC TV Plus and ABC Kids (Australia). Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laterthanyouthink, please leave your opinion on these files as you have worked on ABC articles before. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't quite understand the issue here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laterthanyouthink, the issue is the deleted files, deserve to be restored as they are former logos with mention in references. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 07:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is a borderline uninteligible nomination. I looked at all of the articles linked and they seemed to have suitable logos, and if anything too many non-free images as is. Redirects to sections don't deserve their own non-free images. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these files are possible for a logo history about ABC Kids. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse generally speaking historical logos aren't allowed under fair use rules (see here). The only exception is if the logo was the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article, which is a much higher bar than just "mentioned in references on the article". Hut 8.5 12:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is yet another case where Wikipedia's poorly-thought-out fair use rules prevent good faith users from improving the encyclopaedia. Using those logos to write articles would harm absolutely nobody at all. But those are the rules, stupid as they are, and it's DRV's role to enforce them, so I suppose I'd weakly endorse.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to echo S Marshall. The rules are (at best) poorly-thought-out. I have a lot harsher words for them. But they are the rules. Hobit (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 May 2023[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Soling class sailors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Five articles in Category:International 14 world champions were merged to Category:Soling class sailors, which I don't believe was the desire of any of the involved editors. May I 1) remove the five articles from the Category:Soling class sailors; 2) (re)create the Category:International 14 class world champions (proposed name for a move in the discussion). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 07:16, 9 May 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mohsin Hani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I felt the consensus was wrongly interpretted. Those editors who voiced their opinion for the page to be retained were not heeded. Also, the page was vanalized during the decision review process with many credible independent arabic and english sources removed which resulted in a faulty process. Hope a fair judement is made here considering the merits of the page and the plethora of independent credible english and arabic sources available for the subject matter. Thank you for your time. Khonsuhorus (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assume this is the same as Mohsin_Hani_Al_Bahrani, so may want to consider the general history of this. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mohsin_Hani_Al_Bahrani was a soft delete, with no votes at WP:Articles for deletion/Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani. As such, User:81.100.164.154 it is eligible to be restored at the request on any editor. I'm sure User:Explicit would happily do so if requested. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus as consensus to delete the article clearly never formed despite the fact that the AFD was listed for over a month. I do think the "delete" side posted a modestly stronger argument as the sources presented by the "keep" side appear to be borderline GNG at best, but it certainly did not sway consensus. Also, the "delete" argument is tainted by US-Verified's misrepresentation of WP:THREE (an essay) superseding WP:GNG. This user argued Wikipedia requires at least three in-depth articles in reliable sources to prove the notability in direct contradiction of GNG, which states multiple sources are generally expected. Frank Anchor 14:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll need some time to think about this. The discussion of the quality of the added sources being essentially non-existent doesn't really help much. In the meantime, I've popped the notifications as is procedurally required, maybe the input of the closer or AFD participants could offer a bit more information to be considered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having thought over it, I remain inclined to endorse the close, although no consensus due to lack of quorum would also have been valid. Considering both the entire discussion and limiting to comments made after the second relist, neither of the keep !voters at all addressed the issue of significance or depth of coverage, and while the opposing view was touched upon only lightly, it was touched upon. For both considered stages, there is weak and rough consensus that sources provided do not constitute significant coverage — the number of sources do not substantially factor into this, and a delete result is within discretion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closer, I thought the delete votes addressed the source quality to no significant rebuttal. I'll leave whether that was an accurate assessment to consensus here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - As Frank Anchor notes, there was no consensus, and consensus never developed in spite of the maximum number of relists. Consensus never developed because there was no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - I'm not seeing consensus in the discussions - and the sources mentioned, although borderline, seem passable - especially given the lack of press freedom in very restrictive dictatorship. Nfitz (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There is disagreement among the AfD participants about whether the sources are sufficient for the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I do not see a consensus to delete. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 May 2023[edit]

7 May 2023[edit]

6 May 2023[edit]

5 May 2023[edit]

4 May 2023[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel that this discussion should be relisted. It is a near-identical case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season (the only real difference is pretty much the year), which received much more participation and had a clear consensus to keep (FWIW, this one had six !votes, 2k-4d, while the other had thirteen !votes, 10k-3d - or 10k-2d if you exclude a sock). The 91-92 article included references and book sources for nearly every single game, many of which were of the same length and quality compared to the other (and if I remember correctly, the book sources were the same). Pinging those who have commented on both this and the 1987-88 discussion: @Onel5969, Hytrgpzxct, GiantSnowman, Spiderone, 4meter4, Phil Bridger, Cbl62, JoelleJay, BruceThomson, Das osmnezz, Alvaldi, TimothyBlue, Paradise Chronicle, Rupples, KatoKungLee, Stevie fae Scotland, and Frank Anchor: (minus one sock) BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - the other example given, if based on policy and not simple vote-counting would also have been delete. Nothing wrong with this close.Onel5969 TT me 01:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You think that all of the keeps in both discussions were non-policy based? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse sound reasoning from 4meter4 in the discussion. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The same "sound reasoning" that nearly everybody disagreed with in the other discussion... BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cry harder about it. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an appropriate comment for a discussion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - same reasoning as I gave in the discussion mentioned by BeanieFan11. I would encourage Onel to assume good faith of others as my arguments were entirely policy based and one policy based argument is enough for a closer to decide in favour of either side. SIGCOV can easily be shown with a quick look at the British Newspaper Archive website which has copies of both local and national newspapers which covered the season. Articles include routine match reports but also previews and reviews of the season as a whole. There are also David Ross's books which specifically explore this season in detail and it's context within the club's history. As a result the article easily meets GNG. Was the article when deleted in a good condition? No, it was just a list of results but AfD is not clean up. This was a case for improvement not deletion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - disagreeing with the close is not the same as the close being bad. The consensus was clear, and the close was good. GiantSnowman 10:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my close was a reasonable one based on the discussion and I hope reviewers see that. In general, the close of AfD Bravo has no bearing on the close of AfD Alpha and AfD Charlie. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the correct reading of consensus. I voted "keep" in the 87–88 AFD and likely would have voted "keep" in this one if the pages were similar as Beanie suggests. However, I did not see or comment on that AFD while it was open. The use of WP:OSE is not a great argument in AFD and an even worse one to be the foundation of a DRV. I have no prejudice against a relist (due to more visibility as a result of this DRV) or recreation, either via WP:REFUND or from scratch. Frank Anchor 13:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm not necessarily suggesting an overturn to keep, all I would like to see is this discussion simply relisted for a week to determine if the consensus really is to delete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid close of the AFD. Either Delete or Relist would have been appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The appellant may develop and submit a draft for review, preferably with additional sources. A new submission is a better approach to getting a season article than trying to overturn a valid AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The appellant may develop and submit a draft for review, preferably with additional sources – The article had over 50 valid sources from newspapers, books, etc. It would be way too hard for me to start the whole thing from scratch and add all new sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already found a few sources that weren't in the original article in the British Newspaper Archive that discuss the season in detail and should go towards GNG. I would appreciate a WP:REFUND to draft so I could work on it there. Alvaldi (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that we can view all of the Keep and Delete votes in both discussions as policy-based. We don't need to insult the participants or their arguments. We just have a complicated situation here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Allow recreation via WP:REFUND. This discussion occurred prior to the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season so the closer would not have known the other outcome. That all said, there are some cases, such as individual team seasons, where all similar pages should be treated alike. --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per this inappropriate comment. That is, the closing admin can disregard this if that inappropriate comment is also struck, or count both, whichever. I have no opinion on the merits of this specific issue, but do not believe that inappropriate behavior should be rewarded. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore the trolls, rather than casting silly !votes in response. GiantSnowman 15:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think expecting basic civility is silly, but I do want to be very transparent about why I said what. I get that others may differ in their approach, but that doesn't mean mine is necessarily improper. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Don't see anything wrong with the original closure. Is Deletion Review the correct procedure here? Not sure reason 3 under WP:DRVPURPOSE applies. As others have said, a request for recreation per WP:REFUND is a better option. Rupples (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer read the consensus correctly. WP:REFUND would be an appropriate option instead of WP:DRV.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess REFUND would work – in my mind I just envisioned it being declined because "it was deleted at AFD"; hence I brought it to DRV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Comment - I'd like to get a look at the article. If there are over 50 sources of information, plus others, it seems like there's more than enough sources to justify its existence.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I would have voted keep if I saw this AfD. The article can easily be fixed up, terrible way to kill a season article, breaking a chain of articles. If need be, please move REFUND too User:Govvy/1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season and I will gladly fix it up. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This AfD was closed based on the comments it got, not those of other AfDs, and those comments favored deletion, so the result was delete. There's a lot of AFD-round-2-ing going on here, but no clear arguments against recognition of the actual consensus presented. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 May 2023[edit]

2 May 2023[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Sony Exmor image sensors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This article was created after a very long discussion on the talk page for Exmor concerning a large table which had been repeatedly removed from the article, during which many people opposed its removal. While the talk page itself had some dozen editors arguing for its inclusion, a formal RfC afterwards drew seven against and one in favor. Thus, the table was moved to a standalone article, which seems to have been quickly nominated for deletion. This process drew only four !votes, none of which made an argument beyond citing WP:UPPERCASE (and some of which were copy-pasted from others). I don't think this reflects an honest account of consensus, and I would like the decision to be reviewed. jp×g 06:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Could not reasonably have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was a participant in this. If a topic does not merit inclusion as part of an article, it certainly doesn't merit a standalone article. That every person involved in the first discussion didn't participate in the second does not mean the consensus changed. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clear consensus not for a standalone article, which followed a clear RfC consensus that it does not belong in the parent article, is pretty clear. If you think the wrong decision was made, follow advice at WP:THREE and do it in draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There as unanimous consensus to delete here. AfD is superior to discussions elsewhere per WP:CONLEVEL. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I notice a lot of people in the initial talk page discussion, turn up as their one primary interaction with the encyclopaedia. The RFC concluded the table wasn't needed, not that it should be spun out (suggesting as it was in history it be taken to a different wiki which might like such content). The AFD was also pretty clear cut. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 May 2023[edit]

  • Air Milford – There is no consensus for any particular outcome here, but the general sentiment is that while recreating the article (preferably through AfC) is an option, it is not a good idea unless substantially better sources can be found. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Air Milford (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are now multiple reliable sources referencing this airline, and I think it would be beneficial to reinstate it. ThumperOP (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick google and of the results I've seen, I don't think any would count as non-trivial coverage in a reliable independent, secondary source. Since you apparently had more luck than I did, can you point me to the best three sources which satisfy that standard (Non-trivial, independent, secondary and reliable)? -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally sure what you mean by non-trivial, but I'm fairly sure most of these pass the other criteria you listed:
These are the sources I found from the Google Search, News and Books query ""Air Milford"". I am confident at least half of these sources are irrelevant to the actual writing of the article, but the original reason for its deletion was "(absence of) significant coverage in multiple reliable sources." Just from scouring Google I could find these and I'm sure someone with more experience could find more.
An important clarification is that I'm not from NZ, so I can't comment on the reliability of NZ newspapers/magazines. I don't know how reliable Stuff.co.nz is, but it gives me news.com.au vibes, which is a Murdoch owned content farm. Also on the books, there are newer versions of some of them, but they didn't provide Google Books previews so I can't be sure if Air Milford is mentioned. My main point is that there is probably a few sources in this list you can base a minimum start class article on, unlike what the deletion request says.
I'm gonna apologise in advance if there's something I've missed or misunderstood. I've been lurking for years on Wikipedia on various different accounts, but I only recently started editing so there's a lot of things I don't understand. I would write this article myself if I could, but I don't really have the confidence to yet. ThumperOP (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening this now I have added sources. I was writing the above reply when the request was closed (User:Sandstein). ThumperOP (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for the best 3 you had meeting the basic criteria of non-trivial, independent, secondary, reliable sources to narrow it down. I don't really think it's helpful for me to get into sifting through, saying this source is bad, then you revealing another one etc. It really helps to focus if you would help if you can pick out your best ones.
The discussion pointed to NCORP, this is WP:NCORP, then sections on that page WP:SIRS helps to further defined the terms I've used. So I've said non-trivial, the wording there is "significant", which doesn't mean the source has to be solely about this, but it has to be more than passing mentions, or as one of a list of providers (say). -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I take the 2nd and third item from the tourism sites list. I'd argue that they are both trivial coverage, they don't really tell me much if anything about the company. The third which states stuff like "Or choose from our fun, friendly and exclusive Queenstown Scenic Flight tours" would indicate to me a lack of independence. The independent and non-trivial part tend to be things which articles like this suffer from it your aren't careful, many such companies are going to show up in "directory" type listings for tourist, that doesn't make them notable. Likewise they are likely to be in partnership with out tourism companies, so won't be independent. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation either in draft, or in mainspace subject to AFD. We don't need to argue over the quality of the sources here at DRV. That is what AFC review or a second AFD are for. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go to WP:AFC. Follow advice at WP:THREE. If it’s notable, the best three sources will prove it. If the best three do not, no number of worse sources will make the difference. If you ask me to review 36 sources, I think you are wasting my time. You do the work at finding the best three and I’ll make time to read them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and I do not support recreation after looking at eight sources, none of which are good for NCORP, having stopped at the one that says "Stuff reporter Louisa Steyl was a guest of Milford Air on its first scenic flight out of Invercargill". It is possible to start a draft.—Alalch E. 01:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sabrina Dhowre – Restored and a new AFD will be procedurally started. The issue here is less the close of the discussion than the inadequacies of the discussion itself. So this close isn’t an overturn, there’s no argument advanced that Randykitty could have made another close based on the discussion. However, there’s enough discussion here to run the newer version through the process again. Courcelles (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sabrina Dhowre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are multiple reliable sources for Dhowre. In fact, I was in the middle of editing this page, improving and adding to it, when @User:JBW re-deleted it, citing the above noted discussion. Here are some of the sources for Dhowre:

I am fine with completely reconstructing the page from scratch, but I can only do that if I am sure that it won't be deleted the same day I work on it, ensuring my work goes down the drain. I would see if I could find more, but to even find these, my web browser crashed, and I almost lost ALL of the above, so I'm not going to try again, so I don't really want to try and search for more. I thought I'd at least give this a try and am only marginally hopeful this will be successful, as I've had bad experiences with AfDs before. And no, I am NOT related to ANY of the people that created this page before, I just saw it was re-created today, edited it, and then lo and behold, it was deleted again. I would think (and hope) that @User:QalasQalas and @User:Turktimex3 created these pages in good faith, as an aside. Anyway, I hope to have this matter resolved soon.Historyday01 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow Review of Draft - AFC review is probably the best way to prevent yet another G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is there some way that the author of an article that has been previously deleted after AFD can tag it to request that the admin reviewing a possible G4 do a detailed compare of the deleted article and the new article, or for the author to include a talk page explanation of why the new article is not the same as the deleted article? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, I think you'd have to ask User:QalasQalas for that, as they've reposted the article at least two times since the AfD in February. Historyday01 (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:THREE. Do three sources demonstrate notability? If the best three don’t, no number of worse sources will make the difference. Use WP:AfC if you’re not sure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the IFAD articles are pretty good, as are those in the "well-known magazines/publications" publication. I suppose I could use AfC. Historyday01 (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. /changed !vote, see later comments/ I've looked at around half of the sources (stopped at the skin care one), including all of the "pretty good" ones. The AfD arguments also apply to these sources (couple, interview, who got covid news, marriage, marriage, marriage, et cetera). Significant new information since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page has not come to light. It is possible to start a draft.—Alalch E. 01:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm fine with starting a draft, its just going to take some time to construct/write the draft. Historyday01 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist That was a pretty horrible AfD given the sources. [43] is purely about her (yes, it mentions her husband, so will every article about the first lady of the US...). Same with [44]. And tons of articles where she is covered in detail for fairly minor things. Yes, she's mostly covered because of her husband, but so what, the coverage is still about her. That there are non-trivial sources that cover her in-depth cannot be in debate--it's a fact. Hobit (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep as none of the delete arguments, including the nom, sensibly engage with NOTINHERITED. They all seem to expect an independent source of coverage, having nothing to do with a notable family member, rather than her own function as an independent target of coverage. The two articles Hobit links are compelling, but even absent their highlighting, the original AfD should not have been closed as delete without at least one policy-based argument in favor of deletion. It's been far too long to relist, however, so overturn to keep with NPASR. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The base argument was that the subject isn't notable (lack of in-depth coverage / puff pieces), and the NOTINHERITED argument was an unprovoked red herring, probably to preempt such a keep argument. No one then argued in the AfD the subject is notable, i.e. that there is suitable coverage or other factors relevant to a notability standard, so there was consensus to delete. Not a perfect AfD, but just a little worse than average at most.—Alalch E. 06:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you really feel she doesn't meet WP:N? If so, could you explain why? The coverage is quite in-depth. "puff pieces" is not a deletion argument, it's an "IDONTLIKEIT" argument. Is there anything about her that you would expect in a bio that isn't in these articles? I do get Jclemens' argument as to why a relist isn't an option, but just "list" I guess makes more sense. I don't think this could be closed as keep, but I just think it shouldn't have been closed as delete given how far the arguments are from the facts. Hobit (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we were to discus my stance on the subject's notability, would we really be reviewing the deletion? It would take something exceptional to overturn this AfD with no keeps as a "closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" case, and I am not seeing this exceptional reason. Seeing how the DRV nominator listed many sources that weren't explicitly discussed, a much more reasonable path to overturning could be arguing that significant new information has come to light. It's then a question of whether any new information that there is makes the consensus achieved in the AfD irrelevant. One of the two pieces which you identified as in-depth coverage was, already in the AfD, by the nominator, identified explicitly as containing in-depth coverage. It's kind of in-depth, yes. It didn't influence anyone to !vote keep. Indeed, editors want there to be multiple such sources. So what do we have that surpasses the information base of the AfD which the consensus to delete rests on? Have multiple good sources come up? I don't think that the other source you pulled, the Oprah Daily article, is sigcov. There is some raw volume in there, but it's incredibly superficial. For example, we can learn that she's a model. As such she was on a Harrods Magazine (the non-notable publication of the retailer) spread. She was at the Met Gala. When WP:SIGCOV talks about discussing the topic in detail, for me, this isn't detail. —Alalch E. 16:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Now that I've said this, I'll add that it's plausible that this could be a notable topic under WP:NBASIC, but it's more sane to follow the draft route than to overturn a unanimous delete in a mostly average AfD.—Alalch E. 16:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd encourage you to go re-read the nom. A bad reading of NOTINHERITED was indeed the primary argument: that she indeed had coverage, but if not for Idris' fame, she would not. If there was a fundamental N argument in there, it got lost. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        We're just reading it differently. There's subjectivity in play. But...okay, yes, despite my feeling that the base-level rationale was an appropriate lack-of-SIGCOV concern, the resulting discussion was influenced by the non-illuminating NOTINHERITED argument (which I still see as a gratuitous red herring) too much; more/better discussion is needed, and I am changing my !vote to relist. I appreciate how you said that It's been far too long to relist, but... whatever. Maybe a new AfD. Just don't overturn. Relist or new AfD, per DRV closer discretion.—Alalch E. 19:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Not striking my opinion here, but I agree that that is a reasonable and appropriate way forward. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. There's simply no policy- or guideline-based support for asking "would sources have covered this person but for her husband?", which is essentially what happened here. (Determining whether someone deserves to be notable is above our pay grade—we follow the sources.) Even NOTINHERITED, which is just an essay, is clear that as long as the GNG is met, people can have stand-alone articles even if "they are known solely for" their personal relationships. The closer thus should have given little or no weight to the delete !votes. Further discussion is needed to answer the question of whether the GNG is met (which got very short shrift); I don't really care whether we relist the old AfD or just restore the page and start a new one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • EW did a much better job of saying what I was trying to say above. Hobit (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May&oldid=1152392402"