Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2021 Deletion review archives July 2021 >

30 June 2021

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

Deletion was too quick - one week from the first warning. I did not manage to react, as I was very busy that time. Let allow the discussion to last longer and allow people to discuss and improve the article. Please, open again the deletion discussion and recreate the article. I have found new 3rd party sources (e.g. https://gloswielkopolski.pl/jazz-klasyka-organy-i-koncert-fizykow/ar/12211999 ) and also have some arguments in favor of the article, but cannot introduce them, as the article has been deleted. In fact the article referred to two kinds of sources: the web page of the conference (which is the primary source) and the conference proceedings which have been published by different external journals and thus cannot be considered as primary sources. No scientific journal will publish proceedings of non-existent conference. Besides, hardly any conference series in the category "physics conferences" has so many well documented sources. Pkozl (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse 1 week is standard for deletion discussions. Arguments were exclusively for deletion and policy based. This is the only way this could have been closed. As for the new sources, I can't really evaluate them without seeing them.
I will also point out that DRV is to review the closure, not introduce or rehash arguments that belong in the AfD. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either relist or draftify so the OP can work on it. The AfD hadn't been relisted and it got two partipants other than the nominator, which is about the bare minimum required for a close other than soft deletion or no consensus. I think it's reasonable to reopen the discussion so the OP can take part. Hut 8.5 19:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse and relist close was reasonable (though the delete !votes were weak), but I'd much rather have this article, if it can meet our inclusion guidelines, than not. WP:IAR is here in spades IMO. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not fair to raise false hopes here, folks. In fact, it's cruel. I've been unable to find the kind of sources that would change the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. In fact nearly all use of the draft namespace raises false hopes. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. DRV can look at new arguments not voiced in the AfD, to see if they are valid and might have made a difference. The DRV nomination statement does not contain an argument that could have made a difference. Independent coverage in reliable sources is required. If you think you have found such sources, make a draft and detail these sources on the draft talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I could recover the page, since after deletion I cannot find it. Pkozl (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can request the deleting admin, or at WP:REFUND, for the deleted article to be draftified. Or, now that we are here, you can ask here and now. Or, you can use google cache, but better to get a refund to preserve attribution records. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked the deleting admin, but he does not answer. So, maybe I ask "here and now" if you are still here? Pkozl (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the downside of coming prematurely to DRV. You have to wait for this DRV discussion to be closed before anyone will do anything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I too have been unable to find any sources attesting to notability. The article in GƂos Wielkopolski linked by the nominator is simply an announcement of some concerts held on the occasion of this conference. That it is a recycled press release is shown by the inclusion of the sentence "Na dwa niezwykƂe koncerty z okazji międzynarodowej konferencji „Physics Of Magnetism” zapraszają Instytut Fizyki Molekularnej PAN oraz WydziaƂ Fizyki UAM." Independent journalists don't have the authority to extend invitations. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a statement is just referring to what happens in the city and has nothing to do with being a not independent journalist. To justify such a claim you need a proof and not just a guess. If the article appeared in the journal it means that the author considered the subject important enough. Besides, the issue of the conference is in no way controversial and this press article is just confirming that the conference makes also a cultural impact on the city life. There are also other press releases, e.g: https://gloswielkopolski.pl/laureat-nagrody-nobla-na-uam/ar/419098 reporting a presence of the Nobel laureate at the conference. Pkozl (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I don't have mathematical proof but it's much better than a guess. It is based on my knowledge of Polish and the fact that I spent several years at UAM, and have often read GƂos Wielkopolski. If we needed such "proof" we would never get anywhere. We make judgement calls about sources all the time. The article is pretty obviously a "what's on" piece based on a press release, not independent journalism, and says nothing about this conference other than that its sponsors also put on some concerts. We need much better than this to show notability. You are welcome to spend some time on this in draft space if you so wish, but I fear that you will fall foul of the hope-raising referred to above. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the very Wikipedia definition the content of the article should be verifiable, also through the independent sources. This was the case with the article that has been deleted. The sources it referred to were: 1. web page of the conference, 2. proceedings published in different external journals. 3. Press articles mentioning the conference 4. References to the conference found in other sources, like European Physical Society, Web pages of other universities, etc. Points 3 and 4 not yet implemented before the article was deleted. Calling the press article not independent only because it could be based on a press release is not fair, because these press articles were not advertisements, and this is the very author of the press article which decides whether the subject is worth mentioning, that is notable or not. Thus, the facts presented in the deleted article were surely verifiable through different sources. Please notice that the articles in the category "physics conferences" have most of the time no references, but the web page of the conference, or proceedings, and many of them are dead links. The most advanced contain also references to the press articles based certainly on press releases. Some examples are e.g.: European Conference on the Dynamics of Molecular Systems, Middle European Cooperation in Statistical Physics, International Conference on the Physics of Semiconductors, International Congress on Mathematical Physics, Soft Magnetic Materials Conference, ... Strangely, nobody wants to delete them... I think that notability should be understood in the specific context of the article subject. If we assume that the scientific conferences can be notable in a sense that they attract many scientist, also the best ones like Noble laureates, that they are important events for scientific community and produce substantial scientific material (proceedings) and that they are noticed by non-scientist as influencing the environment (social events and open lectures), then one should accept the appropriate sources such as proceedings, web pages of conferences and press articles. We should not expect that an "independent" (whatever it means) journalist will write a book on a series of conferences and that this book will be a bestseller... Pkozl (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not strange at all that nobody has nominated some other articles for deletion. We are all volunteers here, like you, and so edit only what we see, have time to do, and takes our fancy. It seems simply that nobody has thought to nominate those other articles for deletion. You are welcome to do so if their subjects don't meet our standards for source availability. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I shall certainly look at the other articles. There are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. We may get to them, but it would take another 20 years! Most of us prefer working to write the millions of articles we ought to have but do not, and especially the hundreds of thousand or so more that arise every year from new developments. My rough criterion for a conference is that it be the major international one in its field, and so important that it's covered not just by the specialist press. If you're interested in going on, I suggest the best route is to work on scientific societies, there is usually more coverage to be found, and information about their conferences(s) can & should be included--after all, ever since 1660 the two main purposes of scientific societies has been holding conferences and publishing journals. And as the easiest way to start, is to work on bios of scientists--there are special criteria at WP:PROF, and they are not difficult to meet. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC) ·[reply]
Your criterion is indeed very rough, especially in the second part. The point is how extensive the coverage in the non-specialist press should be? Most important scientific conferences have good quality (peer reviewed) proceedings, attract many renowned scientists, are organized be scientist and not by profit-oriented professional conference organizers and are usually hardly mentioned in the non-specialist press. I reviewed all 32 articles in the category "physics conferences". Only 4 meet your rough criterion, 3 are close to it and 25 are far away from it. I think that the discussed article on the magnetic conference in PoznaƄ after some improvements would be in the first or second group depending on the interpretation of the sources. Pkozl (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 June 2021

[edit]
  • Tejas Networks – Unsalted and moved to mainspace by others (see below). We as a group really need to nut out on the DRV talk page how this situation should work generally, per SmokeyJoe please everyone go contribute to that! Daniel (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tejas Networks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was blocked in 2018 because of repeated recreation and deletion. But they were all PROD, speedy and copyright deletes. No discussion took place that could have allowed a WP:Before to actually check the notability. I have created a draft Draft: Tejas Networks that I think meets notability guidelines and hence I am requesting that this should be unblocked. Some sources below for your consideration

  1. There is a Times of India article from 2011 titled Tejas Networks: Building global network that covers the journey of company and also giving independent opinion on the company. For example, Still, the early years were a challenge, specially to convince customers that an Indian company had one of the best and most cost-efficient products. Now with its reputation established, and more and more network links moving to optic fiber as data usage explodes by the way of smartphones and tablets, Tejas looks to be sitting on a goldmine.
  2. There exists a case study by Harvard Business School that analyses their business decisions and options. Tejas Networks India Pte. - A Venture in India
  3. A report by ICRA Limited titled Tejas Networks Limited: Ratings downgraded to [ICRA]A-(Stable)/ [ICRA]A2+, that discusses their finance situation and comments on their business position. For example TNL will continue to benefit from its extensive track record in the industry, established market share in the domestic optical transmission products market and the reasonably diversified product profile, which has received global recognition in the recent past
  4. As a case study and being discussed in the book Title of Book is Financial Systems, Corporate Investment in Innovation, and Venture Capital

There might be more similar sources also but I feel this should be enough to make a case for unsalting. Thank you. Diamondchandelier (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Diamondchandelier (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 June 2021

[edit]
  • P2P_Foundation – Deletion endorsed, but recreation allowed; draftified. Draft:P2P Foundation is now up (see also WP:DRAFT). I'm closing this early because, coupled with the canvassing (to whom I say: no one here is trying to cancel anyone), it seems rather straight-forward. My own sense is that this foundation likely meets the notability threshold, but that additional reliable sources (new participants: click and closely review, please) are still needed. Work toward this end can now proceed immediately. HTH! El_C 13:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
P2P_Foundation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is an organization with quite long tradition and very active in the P2P space. Its https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/ wiki is an important source of information with 38k wiki pages. Even a reviewer of the deletion request noted that "I do wonder why so much of their work (from their websites) is on Google Scholar." No shit, Sherlock. Mitar (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is terrible. An organisation which has done so much work and for so long? See [1] There should be some justice in the Wikipedia's decision over deletion of articles into which so much work has gone! Fredericknoronha (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't know what the original article looked like, but I believe it passes WP:JOURNALCRIT, being a widely recognized source by various academic journals that reference it. ~

Shushugah (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and allow recreation Given the consensus of deletes and based on reasonable policy arguments, the close was right. I do think this should be an article, but recreating it, either with 2 or more notable articles per WP:GNG or recognizing its status as a publisher per WP:JOURNALCRIT. The focus on the motivations of the authors is a distraction, and I have no opinion on that. Shushugah (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 June 2021

[edit]

26 June 2021

[edit]
  • MacDonnell Road – Overturn to NC. The only other conceivable way to close this would be to relist it, and I was somewhat tempted to do that, despite the numerical superiority of the NC camp. The nom noted that they would not be adverse to a relist, and my personal feeling is that it's always better to have deletion decisions be made at AfD rather than here. Often a DRV will draw attention to a discussion and a post-DRV relist will end up being productive. However, we've been down that road before, to no avail. There's some feeling here that a merge would be the right thing; if anybody wants to go that route, you know where the talk page is. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I haven't worked AfD for a while, and it looks like the oldAfD template stuff is different than I remember. I would appreciate if somebody who's up on current usage would fix up Talk:MacDonnell Road for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
MacDonnell Road (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was no consensus that the sources I provided did not provide significant coverage of the subject of the road. "Delete" is not an accurate assessment of the consensus. A "delete" close is unreasonable as the closing admin did not give proper weight to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion arguments regarding a merge to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.

The closing admin wrote, "A small amount of coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject about the subject a itself was found but it falls far short of significant coverage." There was no consensus among the AfD participants that the sources I provided "falls far short of significant coverage".

Overturn to no consensus. Cunard (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note from closer I don't have much to add that is not already in my closure. I will say that I did consider the option to merge but found it did not reach consensus. I will also point out that Cunard's sources were very much considered by those seeking a delete both sides. Also worth noting prior to this second AfD this debate was previously taken to AfD and taken to DRV. I will leave the rest of this debate in the capable hands of the community. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cunard's sources were very much considered by those seeking a delete – those sources were very much considered by those seeking a keep too. There was no consensus among the AfD participants about whether the sources were sufficient to establish notability. A "delete" close is not an accurate assessment of the consensus. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not my intention to suggest that it was not considered by those seeking to keep, I took that as a given. I have updated my comment to reflect that both sides considered your argument. My point stands. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Not everyone on both sides took Cunard's sources into consideration. While, nearly every single delete vote (and one merge vote) took those sources into consideration and came to the conclusion that they were inadequate. It is actually some of the Keep votes that didn't comment on Cunard's sources. One of them instead argued that roads in Hong Kong should automatically be considered notable since there is a large population and important places on the road. Another argued that since GEOROAD isn't proscriptive, the road must be notable (I still fail to understand the logic there). Yet another simply stated that there was coverage without addressing any of the concerns about those sources. These are poor arguments that can rightly be discounted.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "every single delete vote (and one merge vote) took those [Cunard's] sources into consideration" is inaccurate: Reywas92 delete vote was cast before Cunard listed their sources. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I edited my comments to reflect this. It doesn't really change much though.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus Based on the numerical count, and contrary policy-based arguments, a Keep would have been reasonable, but a delete is not. That is, there is no substantive disagreement about which notability standard applies, just disagreement whether or not that standard is met. In such a case, it is problematic to close against numerical consensus; a no consensus close is appropriate when, in fact, there is no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to understand this. Are you saying that as long as people agree which policy is relevant that I should not consider if the policy actually applies but instead just count votes? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Essentially, yes. The assessment of sources, for example, is not your job. If editor A says sources suck and editors B,C,D, and E say they're fine, the closing admin can either 1) close per numerical consensus, or, if unable to do so in good conscience because they believe editor A is correct and the sources truly do suck, then the potential closing admin should become 'editor F' and opine rather than closing, because to side with editor A and close accordingly becomes a supervote. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I generally agree with your statement of this rule, I think it's actually an oversimplification, especially of this discussion. Assume an AfD, and ignore the fact the example I'm setting up would benefit from participation rather than closure. Editor A says an article meets GNG because of source 1 and source 2, and editor B says it doesn't because source 1 isn't independent of the subject and source 2 isn't from a reliable source. Let's assume no one else votes - do you close that no consensus? What if the closer sees editor B is clearly and absolutely right? What if the closer sees editor B is clearly and absolutely wrong? Obviously, the answer to these questions will vary based on who closes the discussion, but what I'm trying to suggest in my example is that it's not as easy as saying "oh, there's a roughly equal disagreement on sources, so no consensus." SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except I did not assess the sources, I looked at the discussion where the sources were assessed by multiple editors. I assessed what people thought of the sources. Serious policy based concerns about the sources were brought up and these were never properly addressed by those seeking to keep. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm obviously biased, but I thought the way in which HighInBC approached this close was excellent. I noticed they put a "this is in the process of being closed" tag up hours before it actually was closed, and the close reflects taking the time to engage with the number of arguments which were presented here. Whatever the community decides here, still a commendable close. SportingFlyer T·C 10:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I participated in the deletion discussion and voted to keep, I feel that HighInBC was entitled to close the discussion in the way they did. Many 'keep' votes were either 'per above' without adding much to the debate or based on personal opinion (in hindsight, including mine); WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS clearly states that finding consensus isn't a head-counting exercise but rather one based on strength of argument. One criticism I share with the nominator is the lack of consideration for merging under Richard Graves MacDonnell, but as HighInBC has mentioned on their talk page, there's nothing stopping a keen editor from incorporating new sources into that article. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or merge into Mid-Levels a suitable target article. It was definitely not an easy close, but in light of the recognized strong opinions on both sides, it seems that "no consensus" is a fair description of what happened in the discussion. Should the topic not deserve a standalone article, I believe that some of its content would still fit in this encyclopedia, and the best host article would be Mid-Levels, which is the (not so large) area where the street is located. Merging the content into the Richard Graves MacDonnell article would make much less sense, since there is no connection between the two apart from the name. (A similar logic would in fact suggest to have the content merged into the McDonald's article, since the Chinese name of the brand is derived from the Chinese name of the street). I would volunteer to perform the merge. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed merge target was never discussion in the AfD. Therefore, it is not a possible outcome.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss it now then. I did not discuss a merge target since I was advocating a "keep". Otherwise, let's merge into Richard Graves MacDonnell and I will then port the content to the most logical location, which is Mid-Levels. Sounds cumbersome, doesn't it? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how DRV works. It is not a place to negotiate a new outcome. All we're trying to do here is determine whether the closer acted correctly based on what was discussed in the AfD.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, let's wait and see what the outcome of this discussion is. If the outcome is a "merge" then we may want to discuss which target article is the most suitable. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not correct. DRV usually sticks to the considered options and discourages relitigating an XfD, but when there exists a new solution that was not considered by the participants or the closing admin, we may IAR and suggest it if it is indeed a better way to improve the encyclopedia. This is not an appellate court limited to reconsidering arguments properly raised at trial. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also have no issue if information that was in the article gets merged or rewritten into Mid-Levels and as I noted in the discussion, we probably should mention the naming of the road in the biography. I wasn't a strong merge because I didn't think there was a strong merge/redirect target for the topic as a whole, but there's information in the article which could easily be added elsewhere, and we shouldn't necessarily wait for this discussion to make those improvements. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - The closer's lengthy closing analysis, which states that no one will be happy with the close, would be a persuasive argument for a close of No Consensus. Neither the statements by the participating editors nor the closing analysis support a close of Delete, but they do support No Consensus (which will also leave no one happy, but will be an accurate non-consensus). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear I said it would draw complaints regardless of how it was closed, I did not say that no one would would be happy with this close. It was closed as keep and it went to DRV, it was closed as delete and it went to DRV. I dare say it would be here at DRV if it was closed as no consensus. This debate went on for 40 days and is still going. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC or redirect/merge there were a lot of outcomes that I feel were within the remit of the closer. No consensus and merge are the best two, relist followed it by some distance (unlikely that anything more will come from that discussion, but I've been wrong before). Keep isn't one of the outcomes I see as reachable from here, and delete is even farther. Neither numbers nor strength of argument stood on one side or the other enough to get to keep or delete IMO. While there wasn't a consensus for redirect/merge per se, the keep !votes can be assumed to prefer a merge over delete (just as the delete !votes can usually be assumed to prefer merge/redirect over keeping). Hobit (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (but open to a relist to continue discussing sources SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)).[reply]
    Could have been closed “no consensus”, or “delete”. Defer to the good closing statement and exercise of admin discretion. The “merge” suggestion was a bit weird, a few facts about this road in the target biography would be to the detriment of that article. Cunard presented a large number of weak sources (weak for attesting notability), and they were broadly criticised. Advise the proponents, and Cunard, that baboozling with WP:Reference bombing is rarely welcomed, unlike presenting WP:THREE good sources that demonstrate notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cunard presented a large number of weak sources (weak for attesting notability), and they were broadly criticised. – I provided links to three sources, not "a large number" of sources. Regarding the sources being "broadly criticised", the sources were criticised by several users but at least an equal number of users said the sources established notability. There was no consensus in the AfD that the sources I provided were "weak for attesting notability". Cunard (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. The 27 sources analysed by USer:SportingFlyer (11:48, 15 June 2021) were not yours. His analysis was damning, and your three sources were no better.
    • 1 This is real estate promotion of the houses on the road.
    • 2 This is a tiny mention of the road in real estate promotion of properties.
    • 3 "There is a McDonald’s Road in the Mid-Levels, but it has nothing to do with fast food brands. It was named in memory of Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell," That's basically it.
    All three woefully fail the GNG, just like the 27. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the AfD, I and half the AfD participants had a different assessment of these sources. Cunard (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have each participant limited to their own three best sources. I think that is fair, not limiting any participant by the bad selection or assessment of another. There are a lot of potential GNG-meeting sources, too many to assess. If you and any others would like to select your own WP:THREE best sources, that would fit very well with a relist.
    It would be ideal if people would comment on each others' sources and assessments in the AfD.
    Note that I would fail the above three sources for not being significant coverage. Define your own threshold of "significant". I like "two paragraphs of secondary source content" (in particular, adjectives are desired). Others point to Wikipedia:One hundred words. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Cunard in his last reply above admits that a 'no consensus' can only come about in this case by sheer number of votes, on which see WP:NOTAVOTE. The closer was correct in noting that the sources were repeatedly shown to be inadequate, and that appropriate counter-rebuttals were not offered. Aside from those which provided sources, the keep votes were unimpressive: the first and the last said basically nothing; one shifted to the nominator the burden of proving notability; one (IndentFirstParagraph's) showed such reluctance that it might be regarded as a delete vote instead; and the rest were simply perx. Nothing specific in the article was explicitly declared to be worth merging elsewhere, and support for merging was limited anyway, so deletion was the correct course of action. Avilich (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for merging vs deleting was certainly implicit in the keep votes. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merging comes after identifying suitable content that might be worth preserving. This is not something to be communicated by implicit gestures. The suitability of content is determined by the existence of reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. The discussion already makes clear whether or not these were provided. Avilich (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very incorrect statements in the above comment:
"The suitability of content is determined by the existence of reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject". Definitely not. Significant coverage of the subject is required for the eligibility of an article as a standalone article, and certainly not for the inclusion of content in existing articles (as would be the case in a merge).
"The discussion already makes clear whether or not these were provided". Actually not. The analysis of the 27 sources in the article (at the time of the analysis, more were added later, and not including Cunard's) shows that none of the sources provided in the article was single-handedly establishing SIGCOV for the article as a whole. However it does not, nor does any of the subsequent comments say that none of the content of the article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. On the contrary. In fact, the 27 sources analysed (all of them were supporting content) included: 1 book from Stanford University Press, 1 book from New York University Press, 5 books from Hong Kong University Press, 1 article from The British Medical Journal, 1 article from the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch. Moreover 2 sources from the South China Morning Post, among others, were added subsequently.
The deletion of the article has led to the erasure of content supported by very solid sources. A merger, which was suggested by several participants, would have prevented that. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The solidity of sources is relevant in an AfD, not in a deletion review. And just because content is supported it doesn't mean it's inherently worth preserving. The article's content was identified in the discussion as mundane factoids like, for example, a malaria outbreak. Such information would belong in the article if the subject were notable, but does not itself establish notability, and does not in principle belong anywhere else. With no obvious alternative in which a specific malaria outbreak (for example) could be mentioned, merger (with its meager explicit support in the discussion) must remain out of question. Avilich (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The solidity of the sources and the way they have been portrayed, analysed and discussed in the AfD is indeed very relevant in this deletion review. It has never been established, and it was never discussed, that nothing in the article was worthy of being included in Wikipedia. This statement is essentially yours here and now. Your portrayal of one single item of the article, a malaria outbreak mentioned in The British Medical Journal, as a 'mundane factoid', falls short of rebutting the relevance of the entire content of the article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy explicitly says verifiable content is not inherently worthy of preservation, and the burden of demonstrating otherwise falls on those in the positive side of the argument. No such content was explicitly identified by any keep voter, and a deletion review is not the place to do so. What was agreed (including by a keep voter), without significant opposition, is that the article's myriad of individual unrelated factoids, however well-attested they were, failed sigcov. That was all the closer had to go by, and, based on that, he wisely chose to delete the article. If you think the British Medical Journal (for exaple) has something worth mentioning in another article, you should just go ahead and do whatever changes you think need to be done on the article in question, but this deletion review has nothing to do with that. Avilich (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm quite concerned by the suggestion that objections need to be rebutted for a !vote to be counted. Consider:
    Editor A: Keep, I reviewed the sources
    Editor B: Actually, you're wrong, these sources suck.
    Editor A: (never edits XfD discussion again)
    Does the closer, then, get to discount editor A's position because Editor B raised an objection that went unrebutted? I think not, because if we were to allow or encourage such a thing, the badgerers would be rewarded. We've all seen AfDs where the nominator--or less frequently, another editor--objects to every single !vote contrary to their desired outcome. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the response was "Those sources suck" then I would not have given that weight. The response was more like "Those sources don't meet the standards of the policy because of these clear reasons" which I did give weight. There is no need to mischaracterize the opposition like that, there was extensive analysis of the sources and very clear comparison to the requirements of our guidelines and policy not just "they suck". To put it another way, they were policy based arguments. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, first an apology, in that my shorthand is not translating well. By "they suck" I mean any argument opposing the !vote of Editor A, which from any experienced Wikipedia editor would come in the form of "I am unconvinced these are sufficient to contribute to notability" or something equally policy-based. Policy-based does not imply correctness, simply that the argument is phrased in terms of a Wikipedia value as expressed in policy. Regardless, Wikipedia is already roundly criticized as governed by Byzantine rules, and rightly so. Allowing a !vote to be reduced by opposition would simply make it that much worse in that any badgering editor who knows Wikipedia policy well enough to argue on that basis gains substantial clout just by being willing to hang around and politely POV push the idea that their arguments have the upper hand in policy. That would be a Very Bad Thing... to the extent it isn't already a big problem. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep or NC. As with some of the contributors, the closer has misinterpreted WP:GEOROAD. This certainly says when roads are presumed to be notable. But what it does not do is say when roads are not presumed to be notable. The whole basis of the close was thus flawed and disregarded a clear consensus to keep. It effectively says "I'm going to overrule what everyone who voted keep said and decide unilaterally that it's not notable". So why did we bother having an AfD at all? AfDs are about discussion and consensus, and a closer should not simply impose their own opinion on the close. We had 9 keeps, 4 deletes, 1 delete or merge, and 2 merges. That should never in a million years be closed as a delete. Yes, we know it's not a vote, but neither is it a supervote. There was certainly no consensus to delete this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No less than 5 votes either said absolutely nothing or simply declared per x without any further explanation. A sixth keeper based his vote solely on a liberal interpretation of the guidelines while openly admitting that the sources provided were 'tangential and superfluous' and failed SIGCOV. You seem to have operated on the assumption that a negative (non-notability) needs to be actively rather than passively proven. This leaves the two keep voters whose sources were dissected by Rusf10 and SportingFlyer. The latter's analysis of the sources was worth more than all the keep votes combined. All that matters is adequate sourcing that establishes notability, and, since this wasn't provided, deletion, with 5 votes in its favor, was the default common sense action. Avilich (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necrothesp's vote is nonsense. How does one read GEOROAD (or any notability guidelines for that matter) and come to the conclusion that in addition to the types of roads that the guideline specifically states are presumed to be notable, that all other roads not mentioned must be presumed notable as well unless proven otherwise? That is not how our guidelines work, notability must be proven, not disproven. And this is why Necrothesp's vote deserves to be discounted. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how notability guidelines work.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, at a base, they are correct. There can be more than one guideline that a topic falls under. The GNG for example. If you don't meet one guideline's inclusion principles, you can meet another. Not meeting one, in general, isn't a reason not to keep a topic if it meets some other. This varies by SNG quite a bit... Hobit (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. My interpretation of that is that roads in the first sentence are notable. Those in the second sentence may be notable or may not be notable; they are presumed to be notable if they meet the listed requirements, but they are not not presumed to be notable just because they don't. So no, my vote is not "nonsense". It is based on my reading of the guideline. That may differ from yours, but it is not nonsense. In any case, the whole point of AfD is discussion and consensus. If guidelines are just imposed on the conclusion then why do we have AfDs at all? Why do we not just mandate admins to unilaterally delete anything that does not meet strict criteria without any discussion at all? The fact is, we don't do that. We do have AfDs. And this AfD very definitely did not come to a consensus that the article should be deleted. Therefore the close was, in my opinion, incorrect and imposing the closer's own views on the subject. Incidentally, there is nothing invalid about "per x". It is just shorthand for "I agree completely with what that editor said". To suggest that putting the same thing in a slightly different form of words just to avoid saying "per x" is valid but "per x" is not, is, I'm afraid, so much dogmatic nonsense designed to invalidate opinions with which the per-x-objector disagrees. "Look, five people said per x so their opinions should be discounted and only the ones I agree with should be considered valid". What a load of deletionist nonsense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having a little bit of trouble following your interpretation of GEOROAD: if we use your exact phrasing, that roads "are not not presumed to be notable just because they don't" meet the requirements of GEOROAD, that double negative suggests you think roads are notable unless proven otherwise (Rusf10's view on what you think). Although a valid interpretation of that sentence in the guideline itself out of context, once you consider fundamental policies such as WP:GNG and WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE) it's rather clear that notability has to be proven and not the other way around. I'm rather sceptical this interpretation is what you mean, given you've been mopping since 2005.
If your interpretation is that roads are not presumed to be non-notable just because they don't meet GEOROAD (Hobit's view on what you think), this can be reconciled with what everyone else is debating, and indeed I would agree with you. If the article doesn't meet GEOROAD but meets GNG, it can stay, as Hobit has said. But it has to meet something to be able to stay. Applying this to the deleted article in question — in the context of roads, GEOROAD and GNG are essentially identical (apart from raising the expectation of multiple secondary sources to a requirement of multiple secondary sources) so if it doesn't meet GEOROAD the article likely fails GNG. I'm not going to rehash the arguments for whether the article passes these criteria, I think everyone's had enough of that by now.
It would be clearer where you stand if you clarify what you mean. And do correct me if you think I'm wrong on policy, I am after all a newbie editor. Nothing I've said was groundbreaking and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. FYI, I was a keeper at AfD. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is based on my reading of the guideline. Wikipedia policy is clear in that notability must be actively demonstrated by reliable secondary sources. If your interpretation of what a specific guideline (GEOROAD) does not say is at variance with both general policy and common sense, then the problem most likely lies with you, not others.

    A natural consequence of NOTAVOTE is that some votes should be disregarded, as you yourself acknowledged. AfDs exist to prevent unilateral action, not to count votes. Sourcing is all that matters. If you want your vote to be taken seriously, then do more than simply saying 'per X' when X comprises sources which have already been analyzed and dismissed. All the closer had to go by was a couple of delete voters successfully arguing that the sources in which the keep voters were basing themselves were inadequate. Delete was the reasonable course of action. Avilich (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • To quote WP:SUPERVOTE: Unless there are serious policy problems with the majority view, a consensus heavily skewed to one side should not be closed the other way. This was indeed "heavily skewed to one side" and there were no serious policy problems. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)-- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was not a SUPERVOTE. The argument you put forth actually did have serious policy problems. As myself and other have now discussed at length, notability must be proven, not disproven.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion was originally opened on 14 May, nearly two months ago, and was already relisted in another deletion review. The pace of the discussion was already low in the last week before the AfD was closed. The only point of disagreement now is whether or not a few excess keep votes without substance should be preferred over thought-out delete votes which discussed the available sources at length. Avilich (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mock my answer as you wish, but don't take my word for it, just read the discussion and the closer's rationale. As for this deletion review, both the votes here and the reduced pace of discussion in the AfD point to a unanimous agreement that this discussion should've been closed, not relisted yet again. The only point of divergence is how this should've been done. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the closer does read the discussion that way, it's not unanimous, because I've just dissented. It's my view that this would benefit from fresh eyes on it.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Half the persons involved would've been unhappy with whichever way the discussion was closed. The closer didn't repeat one person's opinion, he merely noted that nobody rebutted the argument that the sources failed SIGCOV. Sources are all that matter, and 'supervote' is an essay, not official policy. Avilich (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, WP:IAR is also official policy. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as you're improving the encyclopedia, whose aims are to make available information taken from reliable sources with significant coverage of any given subject. Gaming the system, which is also a policy, is more applicable here than IAR. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful if you could point to the policy mentioning the "significant coverage of any given subject" part of your sentence, as a criteria for general inclusion in the encyclopedia. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, WP:GNG. That is the aim of the encyclopedia. Gaming means "thwart[ing] the aims of Wikipedia". DOn't be purposely obtuse. Avilich (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG applies to the creation of articles, not to the inclusion of content in articles. On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article and The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. You are making the same mistake for the second time on this page. See my comment above "Very incorrect statements in the above comment", following your comment "The suitability of content is determined by the existence of reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject", which is an obvious misinterpretation of WP:GNG. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG applies to the creation of articles yes, the discussion was about whether or not the article in question should exist Avilich (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. But your comment "Insofar as you're improving the encyclopedia, whose aims are to make available information taken from reliable sources with significant coverage of any given subject." was about the inclusion of content in Wikipedia, not about the creation of article, and it was plain inaccurate. Hence my question about the policy underlying your statement. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
inclusion of content which would render the article in question notable. Avilich (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Policy isn't fixed. If a majority of editors oppose a deletion (as perhaps is the case here), should an article still be deleted? There is clearly no consensus that this article should have been deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially the spirit of WP:IAR, which I had in mind. I am assuming good faith and don't assume that anyone is trying to game the system. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: the above comment was a positive comment on NemesisAT's comment just before. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 June 2021

[edit]

24 June 2021

[edit]
  • KOAD-LP – Relist. I can't begin to cogently summarize everything that was said here, but there's clear consensus that this was a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back out the close and relist it. @Superastig: If you want to wade into closing the more controversial discussions, WP:RfA is always looking for new candidates, but if you don't want to go that route, I would encourage you to be more conservative with WP:NAC. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
KOAD-LP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A crystal clear WP:BADNAC. Not only was the discussion controversial and the closer a non-admin, the closer has a noted bias towards keeping radio station articles (see ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXFU, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXLJ, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYBK) and as such mis-applied policy (WP:NMEDIA does not even have the weight of an SNG and does not apply when an article fails GNG.) The closer also did not revert their close when asked. I am asking that this either be overturned and closed by an administrator, or re-listed (though it would be the third re-list.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk ‱ contribs) 17:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. As numerous closes have explained, arguments based on WP:NMEDIA (aka WP:BCAST), which is not endorsed by the community, are not policy-based because, to quote one closer, "The phrasing of GNG indicates it applies without explicit exemption, and an explanatory supplement just does not have capability to grant that." The NMEDIA-based keep !votes should thus have been heavily discounted or ignored altogether as being contrary to policy. See WP:NOTAVOTE. And regardless, these AfDs have been quite contentious, so this was indeed a WP:BADNAC. There are other issues (the close reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE, and, as the petitioner above notes, the closer was arguably INVOLVED) as well. I'd be tempted to just !vote overturn, but in this case I'd rather relist in case an alternative to deletion (e.g. a redirect to List of radio stations in California) or some GNG-qualifying coverage can be identified. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I agree with the assessment made by @Extraordinary Writ. Upon further reading NMEDIA, it isn't even a SNG so should not be considered to outweigh GNG. As I didn't feel it passed WP:BCAST anyway it should be relisted for additional feedback. There was no clear consensus reached and, as pointed out, the non-admin closer has a close affiliation with these type articles. They may not have been involved directly in this discussion but are an involved editor in similar cases and should have waited for an uninvolved admin to close a disputed AfD. --ARoseWolf 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom. BADNAC. WP:Supervote, and the closer’s response on their talk page reinforces the Supervote impression and is generally a very poor response by a closer. I do not have confidence in this editor closing discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This response], the "keep" arguments are stronger and do have merit whatsoever. So, you have no choice but to drop the stick and accept the consensus is incompatible with WP:ADMINACCT standards, and consequently User:Superastig should be at least chastised, and asked to not close contentious discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • PUT DOWN THE STICK SportingFlyer has made it very clear in that very AfD how they feel about radio station articles, this one in particular, and how they feel about NMEDIA. Constantly "moving the goalposts" (their words, not mine) on anything and not willing to compromise. When the final !vote was 3-1 to keep and they had beat what was a once good horse to death with a STICK, they come here. Wasting the community's time at best, FORUMSHOPPING at worst. Give it a rest. - Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 00:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: SportingFlyer's bias is relevant he is not willing, at all, to compromise, and "moves the goalposts" in the very AfD he wants us to relist. This is classic being a poor loser. His !vote lost and now he's complaining to the refs (DelRev) that the losing goal (his !vote) wasn't counted more times than the winning goals (the keep !votes). Sorry, that's not how AfDs or sports works. He lost the AfD...and the game. It's over, move on. His bias continues to show from his !vote at the RfC. - Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 11:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s over? You sound user like the closer. I don’t care about radio stations or any of the details, but that was plainly a bad close, and a worse response on their talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SmokeyJoe, correction. SBKSPP commented on that discussion only once and that was his vote (not an accusation), days before the discussion was relisted. I even checked its revision history. Therfore, SBKSPP never accused MBisanz for such. You must be hallucinating. ASTIG😎 (ICE T ‱ ICE CUBE) 05:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: You claimed we labled Mbisanz as a poor closer at the listed AfD. That's an accusation. Show your work. You are wandering around this DRV like you are in charge of it. You are arguing with an admin who is basically doing what you are wanting...to relist it. It's like you are out for blood. If anyone is showing bias, it's you and it's very worrying and it's very bad. Maybe take a step back. - Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 05:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Superastig, User:Neutralhomer, here, in the post to which I responded, User:SBKSPP wrote "... unlike the similar discussion which should've been closed as NC". Seven hours prior, User:MBisanz closed it as "Delete". This is a pretty plain accusation by User:SBKSPP that User:MBisanz mis-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYIK, and I strongly disagree with that accusation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: This is what SBKSPP said, verbatim: Neutralhomer's argument is spot on. The closing of this discussion is fair unlike the similar discussion which should've been closed as NC, but the nom insisted the closer to have it relisted. If there's an editor who has a bias, it's SportingFlyer, not Neutralhomer or Astig.
He's not accusing MBisanz of anything. He's accusing SportingFlyer of having a bias. You are reading something that isn't there. Now I am telling you to back away. Molehill meet Mountain. - Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 06:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should the similar discussion have been closed as NC? SBKSPP appears to say so in passing, in conflict with how it was closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: The point is moot. Because at this point, it doesn't matter. You are grasping at straws. SBKSPP never accused MBisanz of anything, so it doesn't matter if he "appears" to say he likes pineapple on his pizza. The point is moot. Either apologize to the three of us or step back, you are far too close you can't even see the leaves at this point, not alone the trees or the damned forest. - Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 06:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer: I did not vote in the discussion. I only provided a clear and fair explanation in closing the discussion. I closed the consensus based on how strong the arguments are and the "keep" votes seems to be stronger since they do have merits whatsoever. And Neutralhomer is right as he has demonstrated the use of NMEDIA in the previous AfDs. Therefore, I have no bias towards keeping radio station articles whatsoever. And it's true no matter how many times the nominator complains all day long. ASTIG😎 (ICE T ‱ ICE CUBE) 01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as BADNAC. This same notability discussion has played out in a few different venues, including these radio station AfDs and discussion over the status of WP:NMEDIA, and Superastig has participated in enough of that broader conversation that he probably should not have closed this discussion. The only way that we are going to resolve this problem is by bringing NMEDIA's status to RfC (and I'm about to do that, been a bit busy of late). Sammi Brie (she/her ‱ t ‱ c) 02:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as BADNAC. Relist and specify that the closer be an admin.
      • The close was contentious in both a quantitative way and a qualitative way. A close is quantitatively contentious if the numeric !vote counts for Keep and Delete (or some other combination of !vote choices) are roughly equal. In such a case, a non-admin really should let an admin close the XFD. The close was also qualitatively contentious in that there was vigorous back-and-forth debate. One of the functions of administrators is to be neutral when other editors are not being neutral. The closer meant well, but used poor judgment in closing this discussion.
      • The primary function of DRV is to resolve specific disputes about deletion. A secondary function of DRV should be to identify shortcomings or weak areas in the notability guidelines and other deletion guidelines. DRV will not resolve any such issues, but occasionally we will notice that particular topics come to DRV more often than they should, because the deletion guidelines are ambiguous, poorly written, or in need of clarification.
      • Media notability and the status of media notability are an area in which the notability guideline is contentious.
      • If User:Sammi Brie publishes an RFC on the status of NMEDIA, she will be doing Wikipedia a service that may facilitate future deletion discussions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The outcome's less obvious than it seems - while the vote count was 3-2 keep, there were two other users who commented on the GNG, the keep !votes aren't strong, and the discussion nuanced. No consensus isn't necessarily wrong here - it certainly wouldn't have led to a DRV - I wouldn't say it's obvious if a closer engages with the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked on my talk as an uninvolved admin to take a look; will do. —valereee (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to being asked by an involved participant, you are now involved.
    If the AfD is relister, and lingers and needs a closure request, the place to ask is Wikipedia:Closure requests. It is improper to select your own choice of closer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SJ, that is not true. Being asked to review does not make me involved. The requester said they chose me at random, and the way they chose me is completely believable as I'd indeed been editing heavily at ANI just prior to their request. I have limited interest in AfD and zero in radio station articles, and as far as I know have barely interacted with NH. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes you canvassed, sort of the same thing. It should not be done this way. There are some extraordinary allegations and denials of bias at play, and here someone claims to have done something “at random”. Technically, someone asserting a lack of bias and an ability at randomness is dubious. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking an uninvolved admin to come in is not canvassing. I'll note that my intent both here and at the AfD in question are the exact opposite of what NH would prefer, so if they're secretly trying to put a thumb on the scale, they're not doing it right. —valereee (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, here's what it looks like to me. The discussion could have been closed as no consensus, probably not as consensus to keep. I don't personally see the need for relisting, as it was relisted twice, but as that's the clear consensus here, I won't unclose and immediately reclose.
    I am not experienced in the reopening of AfD discussions (not even sure I've closed one myself, don't have an automated tool installed for that), and because of the DRV template added after the closing, I can't just undo the close. If someone here who does understand how this should be done will walk me through it, I'd be happy to close this as consensus to relist and try. Happy to install a gadget to make it easier for you to guide me, if you'll tell me which of the several AfD helpers I should install. —valereee (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How this should be done, is that nothing should be done until this DRV discussion is formally closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly what I'm offering to do: formally close this as clear consensus to unclose and relist. I discussed here instead of simply doing that because, as I've explained, I don't know how to reopen that AfD, and I don't want to close this and then just leave in the middle of the job. So before I did so, I wanted to ask if someone would help me figure out how to complete the process. —valereee (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please just respect the process and wait for the seven days to run, or for an experienced DRV closer to close this early. It's really not a good look to close a discussion because a participant asked you to, even if it's not technically canvassing. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will fully admit that I contacted Valereee as this is a SNOW Relist. This is clear. There is no "process" here. No need to drag this out further. It's a SNOW. So, even though I admittedly disagree with it and I admitted that, I asked Valereee if she would take a look. I even said if she would feel like not getting involved, that was OK as well. I chose her at random as she was the first admin who had edited in the "view history" on ANI when I clicked. So, clearly the definition of random. There is no secret agenda, nothing dubious. It's a SNOW relist with a couple Keeps. It is what it is. I am just moving the process along. If you feel I have overstepped my bounds, Valereee is an admin, she can act accordingly, I have no issues there. - Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 01:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ANI is not a random page, but a drama page. The last admin editor of the ANI drama page is not the definition of a random selection. That is NOT the way to request a SNOW closure at WP:DRV, a contemplative review page. This is not just a simple relist, some of us have voiced explicit criticism and lack of confidence in the closer as a closer, noting their word choice in the close and in their responses on their user_talk page, which is a proper use of DRV, and other participants may yet comment and then the DRV closer may comment. The last ANI admin editor may be quicker to act. The proper place to request a SNOW close is either here in the discussion or at WP:ANRFC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: Random admin, not random page. I knew there would be admins there. Also, admins I have never interacted with, like Valereee. :) - Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 01:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the weirdest thing I've seen in quite a while. I don't have any idea what's going on here, but I'm happy to step away. —valereee (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: You and me both. Feel free, my apologizes. - Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 01:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. It's like a horror movie in here lol...DON'T GO IN THERE! WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? —valereee (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Inviting a specific admin to close a specific discussion is a very old no no. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly are you implying,@SmokeyJoe? And can you please provide specific policy that discusses inviting an uninvolved admin in being somehow not good? —valereee (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, I imply nothing about you.
    I note that an involved editor cannot plausibly claim to make the random selection as they claimed. A bias in the stated method exists, it is NOT random. There is also the ANRFC proper method that Neutralhomer is now informed of. I note that you are an experience admin, and a recent regular at ANRFC, and I expected that you would agree that a closure request is better placed at ANRFC than delivered to a single pseudo-random admin.
    If anything is driving me here, it is the notion of ANI having purview over DRV, implicit in what Neutralhomer did.
    There is no need for rush here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So no specific policy you can answer me with? That's fine. I agree there's no rush. When I was requested to close a discussion that seemed SNOW, I figured why not? The general atmosphere here is pretty troubling. —valereee (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a two-sided dispute, we don't want one of the sides to hand-pick the closer. Even if the closer is completely innocent of bias, it matters that the closer is seen by all to be impartial. It really ought to have been possible for SmokeyJoe to say this without giving offence, but, despite his many excellent qualities, he isn't perfect and I think he has an opportunity here to reflect on his word choices. I hope that Valereee will come to feel comfortable here at DRV: it's a place that most active sysops end up visiting from time to time.
I agree that policy needs rewriting to say all this more clearly and I do not think that WP:INVOLVED is the policy to use; the correct process is set out most clearly in Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Requesting a close, and I think the issue of hand-picking discussion closers ought to be covered at WP:FORUMSHOP.—S Marshall T/C 16:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: As one can see here, Valereee was not a "hand-pick[ed]" discussion closer (and I really wish folks would stop saying that). In fact, she was picked at random, about at random as one could get here at Wikipedia. Once again, I clicked on ANI's "View History" and selected the first admin from the top. That happened to be Valereee. There was no "hand-pick[ing]" involved, it was random and it was done to facilitate the quick relisting of what then was and still is a SNOW relist. SmokeyJoe made it quite impossible for that to happen, so this DRV is playing out in real time and will wait until a closer gets around to it. Valereee (as she has explained) was going to close this discussion in his (and others) favor...against me. I was intentionally calling an admin to close a discussion in the favor of the opposing party. So...yeah. Why, if I was "FORUMSHOPPING", have an admin do that?
I would appreciate if everyone could, please, stop dragging Valereee's and I's names through the mud and distorting the truth to fit their own timelines and agendas. This is not what took place and it's very easy to source what did. - Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 19:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neither dragging your names through the mud nor distorting the truth. I'm simply saying that because you're a disputant, it's not OK for you to select a closer using any methodology. I fully accept that your intentions were pure and so were Valereee's, but surely you can understand why this is a problem.—S Marshall T/C 19:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little kindness goes a long way. I suggested a relist because I was concerned about previous discussions by the closer of this AfD in which they were explicitly for keeping all radio station articles because, in essence, they exist, as has been discussed in other places. This AfD and others have generated discussion at the talk page of NMedia about the need for clear and decisive inclusion directions. That is a positive thing. It isn't an easy process but it is getting there. I, personally, have no issue with @Neutralhomer inviting an uninvolved admin here to review and possibly close at the appropriate time. That is not canvassing so lets drop that please. I made a similar request once because a discussion was being drawn out too long. The key word is "appropriate". That is generally after seven days if it is a contentious discussion. Is there more to discuss though? I believe most of us have made the points we agree with or disagree with pretty clearly. If there isn't more to discuss then make a decision and close this DRV. There is no reason to extend it longer than it has to be. These discussions can be torturous for some involved, especially when they have invested so much time in a particular subject that is being disputed. I think we are being a little uptight about things and I get it and understand that it will happen but let's back away a little and not get so wound up. No one hand-picked a closer. No one broke a policy or rule and no one should admonished for something that hasn't happened yet. @Neutralhomer asked an independent admin to review and possibly close. I believe @valereee has enough experience to make the right decision at the right time and to voice concerns are ask for assistance if needed. I know it's difficult to read tones from text but it is possible and the tone here has been one of agitation and frustration from both sides at times. We need to pull back and remember we are all human and, from what I can tell, we are all here to make the encyclopedia better, even if we have a different idea of how to get there. --ARoseWolf 19:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, I don't see this at all as my name being dragged through the mud. I think it's a valid question that in what's clearly (though I didn't realize it when I came in here) a situation that is full of suspicion. Perhaps if I'd walked in and announced that I truly was completely uninvolved. NH made a random selection, but they could hardly have made a better one. I have (as far as I can easily recall) no involvement at DRV, none at radio stations (other than at DYK), and no history of either inclusionist nor deletionist bias. I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion at Media Notability questions, as far as I can recall. If someone wants to clarify at WP:Closing discussions that it's not okay to simply go post a request to an apparently-noninvolved admin's talk for help, I'd be interested seeing in that RfC. My own instinct is that what you should actively want here is someone like me. Other than the fact I don't actually know how to unclose an AfD, of course. Minor drawback. :D —valereee (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Honestly, no. I have never, in 16 years on this site, seen a discussion like this. Never. This is the most unusual and down-right weird discussion I have seen. To be honest, why there is such a push to not have this closed immediately as a SNOW relist is beyond me. It's like you all don't want it closed.
@Valereee: Just seemed to me, that everyone saying I "selected" or "hand-picked" you, it sounds unseemly. It was about as random as one could get. That's mud-draggin' to me. It's cool if you disagree, I felt you needed someone to stick up for you since you weren't here to defend yourself. :)
@ARoseWolf: Actually, I am going to take your advice and step away from this one. This is just insane. I've never seen anything like it. Personally, with the exception of Valeree and you, this entire thread needs to go to ANI or RfC. It's a gigantic and distrubing mess. Stepping back...Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 23:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't snow-close stuff very often because DRV's aren't very appealable. (On a tiny number of occasions there have been appeals on ANI, but in practice we don't get overturned there.) In matters of content, DRV is the "highest court", so to speak. So we're very careful about ensuring that everyone has the chance to make their case. There's provision to snow-close things that are totally obvious but it's only invoked when the nom is a sockpuppet or behaving disruptively. We want good faith users to have time and space to talk and we want a decision that everyone has confidence in. See Meatball:FairProcess for a lot of the thought that underlies DRV.
Discussions of this kind are commonplace here and this isn't weird or scary.—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall, what's troubling here is an uninvolved admin, called in by the person who is on the opposite side of what looks to be a clear snow close, offers to snow close it so everyone can just stop wasting their time, and gets falsely -- and baselessly -- accused of coming in "involved". If instead someone had said, "Yes, this looks like a snow close, but it's only been a couple of days, let's let it go the full seven since this is DRV," it wouldn't have been troubling at all. I'd have been like, "Oh, didn't realize snow closes were that unusual here even when it's the person the close is going against asking for one." And I'd have been off on my way. —valereee (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Oh, yes, I do take that point and I rather agree with it. SmokeyJoe referred to WP:INVOLVED and I don't think he should have done that: it wasn't the right shortcut and it's caused some needless raising of the hackles. I'm sure that was not his intent, and I want to assure you that SmokeyJoe is in fact a decent and kindly man whose input is, almost invariably, both helpful and well-thought-out.—S Marshall T/C 11:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have no doubt. Just a glitch, now behind us. —valereee (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhomer, I apologize, that wasn't meant as a criticism of you, and I appreciate you defending me. I just wanted to make it clear that I was fine. :) —valereee (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhomer, it's an art that is difficult to master, even for those most experienced. I don't just assume good faith, I give you that ground to call your own. Valereee, thank you for reviewing and watching over the process to the degree that you have. I think every person who has offered input here is an amazing editor, even if we disagree on certain points. --ARoseWolf 13:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: No offense taken there and no worries, I was just explaining. :) Mom and Dad taught me right, always defend those who can't defend themselves. :) Again, no worries, we're good. :)
@ARoseWolf: Yeah, this is just a wild discussion and I have definitely un-watchlisted it. I was pinged back, but this is one for the ages. I have other irons in the fire to work on, so I am going to do that. - Neutralhomer ‱ Talk ‱ 15:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 June 2021

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

Unsure of why it was listed for deletion and deleted, I was at the time unaware of the discussion. Tyree meets the notability standard for any biography for twice being awarded the Navy Cross (the nation's second highest award). He was also included in several articles about the USS Bowfin and their last reunions in Hawaii. As well as personal pages devoted to him. Jamesallain85 (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 June 2021

[edit]

21 June 2021

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

The keep !votes were all based on opinion. The delete and redirect were based on policy. I have no idea how this ended up as no consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The primary title, Regional at Best, has been a locked (salted) redirect to Twenty-One Pilots since 2017. The other forms of the name should have been redirected to the primary name, and the use of the other forms has been a device to evade the create-protection.
    • I declined one of the drafts (three times), and advised the submitters that, if they disagreed with the 2017 salting, they should request its unsalting at DRV. I did not take part in the AFD that is currently the subject of this appeal.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to Speedy Delete as G4. The nominator-appellant, User:Walter Görlitz, correctly observed that there had been previous deletion discussions, and that changing the capitalization is not a new title. The closer erred in failing to look into the previous deletion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The closer recommended that there should be a talk page discussion, and the closer was correct in making that recommendation, but the discussion should be about whether to unsalt the primary title, not about any circumvention of the deletion of the primary title. In particular, the proponents of the album, who appear to be working in collusion, should be advised how to establish album notability. My own opinion is that the contentious efforts to list the album are evidence that it has a cult following. The album notability guideline does not have a provision for cult following; it probably should. In the meantime, Use Common Sense applies, and name gaming should not be rewarded.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to redirect per Hut 8.5. The keeps had no policy basis whatsoever and thus should have been ignored. See WP:NOTAVOTE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or Relist - what those complaining about "flimsy" keep rationales appeared to have missed is that they also improved the article, which was not commented on by anyone else. I have also just reprimanded Walter Görlitz for edit-warring elsewhere, and mentioned that I would have relisted the AfD if asked nicely (note that Walter filed this DRV ten minutes after sending me a note on my talk page, which I didn't get round to reading until I logged back in 15 hours later). I don't understand why people are getting hot-headed over this, obscure articles by notable bands seem pretty standard around here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect or, alternatively, relist. The keep !votes were not grounded in policy, and while I think no consensus would have been a more appropriate outcome had those votes not been challenged by Doomsdayer520, the redirects had the much stronger argument here, and I don't think "no consensus" was an appropriate outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect. Or delete and then redirect. And then salt. Either way, there is no consensus, either currently or historically, to keep the article. An article that was improperly recreated in order to bypass pre-existing create-protection: an abuse of our procedures should not be rewarded. I note that it's also not up to the closer to decide, subjectively, whether the edits of one side or another "improve" the article. ——Serial 13:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there were a few people who wanted to delete the article! So it's not a clear consensus to redirect. I also note that Walter Görlitz tried to change this into a redirect (which is fine as it's one of the non-admin actions I recommended) and then edit-warred with Joe Roe over it, and called Joe a dick in response. I'm sorry to see a simple request for a relist has been turned into a silly dramafest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With a close respecting consensusd in the first place we would not be here. I think I'm well-known to be not on the Gorlitz-bandwagon (know ye of such a thing?), but per ATD, I note that none of the deletes challenged the redirects. And the fact that that it was recreated out of consensus does not give carte blanche to keep the bloody thing. ——Serial 13:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the bandwagon, check Reddit. I've been told there's one there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect (or relist as an alternative). Despite the OP's suboptimal behaviour (why come to Ritchie's talk page to announce "I am redirecting" without even having a discussion there, and then go straight to DRV after being reverted over the redirect without informing the closer?) I do think this is a case where the redirect arguments were much stronger than the keeps, and given the two prior AFDs and the recreation protection of the existing redirects, this should be redirected to match.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect. Not a good close at all. All three "Keep" stances are WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:ATAs. One was literally an unqualified "it's valid". While deleting seems like a viable route in the AFD, I can see how one wouldn't close as delete based on the discussion itself. But worst case scenario is a relist, which was never done. Giving up as a "no consensus" was entirely premature. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I realise today appears to be National Duff up Ritchie333 For Making One Mistake Day, I want to emphasise I would have done a relist by now, were it not for the fact this DRV was created almost immediately after leaving a note on my talk page with no possible time to react. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like yet another discussion that illustrates the point I have made before that deletion discussions should be about whether an admin presses the "delete" button. Things like redirection, merging or moving can be decided by non-admins on talk pages without deletion discussions or deletion reviews. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects and merges are forms of "this article should not be in mainspace" and while are not technically equivalent to deletion, function in the same way as a deletion to readers. There is no reason to bifurcate or trifurcate the process. SportingFlyer T·C 21:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a title is redirected the reader is taken somewhere that has content about the subject. If it is deleted the reader gets nothing. Those experiences are completely different. It is the concept of "this article should not be in mainspace" that is meaningless to our readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I have redirected non-notable content and had new users show up at my talk page asking why I deleted the content. From this I can assume that to a reader, it is the same thing as SportingFlyer claims. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also makes no sense for an admin to close an AfD with a redirect/merge consensus as an "I'm not going to delete this, redirect/merge as you please." It'd be very inefficient. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to either redirect or delete. The "Keep" arguments were all poor and not policy-based, and AfD closes should be based upon reading and evaluating the discussion, not just a simple nose count. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn to Delete as insignificant topic, with the closing not based on policy, but on arguments that should bediscounted. ; if a redirect is decided on, at least it shouldbe protected. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Redirect, look, this album is nice and all, but it doesn't warrant an article. Neither do many other stubs of EPs and albums by other bands warrant one either, just because they're there doesn't justify this one staying. It's somewhat referenced but hasn't charted or sold a significant amount to be considered notable for its own article. Their self-titled record has, at the very least, charted on the US Billboard 200 and made returns to the iTunes charts several times since its release. EthanRossie2000 09:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist At the least this is a good case for a redirect, but deletion makes no sense at all. A redirect of this to the band would easily withstand an RfD. That said, this is a fairly significant band and as bad as the keep !votes were, I suspect sources exist and I'd like to see it get another shot at the apple. But if nothing else turns up, redirect is the way to go. Hobit (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that the article has existed in many forms for many years, and no, there no better sources about the album itself. Several editors have tried to find them, but they just do not exist. Some of the songs that reappear in later works get mentioned in lists. Some other tangential content exists, but this is all in the band article already. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect as ATD (strong consensus this doesn't warrant a separate page), do not relist. This has been discussed 3 (!) times and in all three AFDs put together, zero policy-based rationales for keeping this as a separate article have been advanced. Unsure why the closer gave any weight to !votes of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSPOPULAR, and whatever "its valid" is suppose to mean. We've hashed this to death multiple times, and the consensus is getting pretty darn strong this isn't a notable album. Protect the redirect(s) to prevent ongoing disruption and dispense with the drafts. Three AFDs have determined that this isn't stand-alone article material, and the questions about if a redirect at this title is appropriate or not can be handled at WP:RFD as a redirect matter. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Regional at Best
To User:Ritchie333

You ask why people are getting "hot-headed" over this. I will try to explain. First, this is a music dispute, and music disputes are often bitter, between inclusionsists, and redirectionists, who want to redirect songs to albums, and sometimes albums to bands. This is a dispute over including an album or redirecting it to a band. That is a reason.

Second, you, the closer, made a mistake, and failed to take into account the strange and contentious history. Third, there really had been gaming of names, a conduct issue, by the proponents, to try to work around the 2017 salting, by changing the capitalization and disambiguation of the title, rather than by requesting that the title be unsalted. Fourth, the appellant, User:Walter Görlitz, really was edit-warring over the No Consensus or redirect. Fifth, there really is a gap in the musical notability criteria, which does not have a provision for albums with a cult following. Sixth, this is a music dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Phil Bridger

You say that the only purpose of XFD is to decide whether an administrator should hit the Delete button. I disagree, and I think that you are seriously mistaken in good faith. You write: "Things like redirection, merging or moving can be decided by non-admins on talk pages without deletion discussions or deletion reviews." Sometimes the non-admins disagree, and cannot reach consensus on talk pages. How are those disputes then to be resolved? Article content disputes are resolved by RFC. Should RFCs be used to resolve redirection disputes, or should AFD, which is an RFC-like consensus process, be used? I assume that you do not mean that such disputes should be resolved by edit-warring. Not all disputes can be resolved by discussion. In particular, music disputes are usually questions of whether to keep (a song or album) or redirect (to the album or band). This is an example of how AFD is needed even if Delete is not one of the choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Album with Cult following

The musical notability guidelines should be revised to refer to albums having a cult following. Also, the proponents of the album should provide documentation of that cult following, rather than just saying that the album is important. The guideline should be revised, but the proponents are not being constructive.

What Next
  • RELIST: This is the third AFD for the album, which is currently salted. The proponents should have made a request here, at DRV, to unsalt the title, rather than trying to sneak around the salting. Now that we are here, although we are here due to a combination of misconduct by the proponents and a good-faith error by an admin, we should consider whether the album should be considered notable in 2021.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 June 2021

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

Article already deleted 6 times on WP: es. Tomaatje12 (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2021 (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.
Nijat Rahimov (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I make this listing on behalf of User:Elshad Iman (ElƟad İman), who asked me to do so on my talk page; I expect that he did this because he needed support with the technical process of opening a DRV. The reasoning that Mr İman supplied was:

Trend.az says that the person is from the TOP-10 comedians of Azerbaijan. es-wiki, de-wiki, az-wiki, film-1, film-2, film-3, film-4, film-5, The Azerbaijani actor received the main role of a crime comedy.--Elshad Iman (ElƟad İman) (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ä°man asserts on my talk page that he has already contacted the deleting sysop. There were in fact several deleting sysops, but I can see from User_talk:BD2412#Nijat_Rahimov_(actor) that he has indeed made a good faith attempt to speak to them.

Although I have opened this DRV, I take no position on it. Please would the closer assess my view as neutral. —S Marshall T/C 09:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, If the page was restored, I would make major changes and edit it. If I'm not mistaken, the restoration should have been done by one of the admins, I have no right to restore.--Elshad Iman (ElƟad İman) (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:SportingFlyer or anyone else - The reason it was salted is straightforward, but is a slight error by the closer that can be corrected. It was salted because it was being repeatedly re-created, which is a good reason to salt. However, it could have been protected as ECP rather than as admin-only, and ECP allows a draft to be created, and reviewed by an AFC reviewer. Some editors routinely salt to admin-only when ECP is sufficient, and in the past that was the only way to salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downgrade protection, and allow re-creation in draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt this was salted because it has been repeatedly deleted. There are three deletions in the log, but two of them are purely housekeeping and shouldn't count for these purposes. The other deletion is a G5 deletion which leaves the possibility of someone who isn't banned recreating the article. This would allow the OP (or anyone else) to write a new article at this title. Hut 8.5 11:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt and restore/allow re-creation as a draft. I recently edited the Dutch article because it came to TBP (Dutch AfD) for being poorly translated. The subject seems to be notable with the above sources. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 June 2021

[edit]

18 June 2021

[edit]

17 June 2021

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

Subject is a well known former advisor to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and now a DC based political commentator on Fox News. Passes GNC.

Deletion seems to have happened immediately after the subject most recently appeared on the Tucker Carlson show discussing Joe Biden meeting the Queen in the UK. Therefore I imagine the deletion was something to do with him being on Fox News, rather than a legitimate reason for deletion. There was no discussion before deletion, the page was then salted, and "protected" to stop anyone from recreating it, which is madness and not how Wikipedia operates.

The fact that previous versions of the page and its sources cannot even be viewed anymore, means I do not see how we can have a fair and informed discussion about the legitimacy of this page.

The original page was well sourced with multiple links to reputable media articles about this subject including from The Times, The Telegraph and various others. The subject also makes regular appearances on Fox News, Sky News, BBC News and CNN, and there were multiple links to verify this.

He definitely passes the general notability guidelines. I understand the page was nominated for deletion in 2016, prior to his work with the Prime Minister. Now it doesn't make sense for him to not have a page, when he is clearly notable, whether you agree with him or not.

I also note the article included details about his previous career, he was a journalist at Sky News, again with multiple sourced articles and interviews focusing on him. He then advised multiple senior UK politicians, again well sourced, and there is a large amount of press around him being the first person in the UK to be tested for Covid-19 while he was working with the Prime Minister back in January 2020.

I call for the page to be reinstated and a nomination for deletion to be fairly debated, as is customary. T.corbett (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Ponyo: My apologies, I was not aware of the canvassing rule. I will remove. [[User talk:T.Corbett 1, 19.16 June 2021 (GMT)
  • Endorse an article on this person has been deleted at AfD three times now. Given that any attempt to recreate it should at least come with convincing evidence that the subject is notable. I've had a look at the last deleted version and I can't say I agree with the OP's claim that the subject clearly passes the GNG. The article was refbombed to try to shore up claims to notability. He is quoted or mentioned in numerous articles about how British politicans are using the internet, but they don't constitute significant coverage. Several sources are about a time he was interviewing a famous actor and the actor said something controversial. Several sources are about the fact that he was briefly quarantined in a hospital in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they just cover him as a normal person and scarcely mention any of the reasons this article claims he's well known. This source is a local UK newspaper talking about how a local teenager has got lots of views on YouTube. Hut 8.5 19:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in my opinion, these edits are still canvassing, given the filer does not contact everyone who !voted 'delete' but only those who !voted 'keep'. Further, endorse deletion and salt as closer, deletion was fairly debated over the appropriate period (despite what the nominator appears to be suggesting in the final line of their statement above), and for not the first time this "fair debate" reached the same end outcome of 'delete'. Daniel (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I wish the AfD had been better attended, but it seems to have come to the correct result. I would salt the article as well given the promotionalism, its number of times at AfD (even ignoring the first one), and canvassing. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: I understand there have been a few Afd, however the last one was over 4 years ago, and the subject has clearly increased his notoriety in that time, for example, he is the entire subject of this article from The Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/meet-millennials-helping-tory-leadership-hopefuls-go-viral/) about how he has been advising senior politicians including Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Here is another source for his recent appearance on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News - https://video.foxnews.com/v/6219746150001. As noted above, "He is quoted or mentioned in numerous articles about how British politicians are using the internet", with the majority of these articles being about him and his work advising these politicians. I think we are being misguided by some of his previous sources - the articles about YouTube and asking a question to Daniel Radcliffe. I agree these alone don't warrant a page, however given that he is regularly appearing on my TV, and with his past work advising Prime Minister Boris Johnson, we should have a page to document him. Maybe the case is that the article needed to be tidied up, but certainly not deleted and salted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by T.corbett (talk ‱ contribs)
  • Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't disagree with most of my colleagues above about this person's notability as an individual, but I would note that I think there is an encyclopaedic article to be written about the eclectic and motley colletion of individuals who have the honour or disgrace (depending on your point of view) to have been Boris Johnson's advisers. Dominic Cummings,Alex Allan and Jonathan Jones are independently notable, but there will be scope for an article that covers Jayne Ozanne, James Morton, Ellen Murray, and Samuel Kasumu. You could make an arguable case for covering Craig Dillon there.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a good merge availabel to his firm, Westminster Digital., which is ever weaker than this--or if this should be kept, vice versa. . The two put together might make an article. I dont wsee how the articles uggested ksu above could possible avoid POV/ DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's certainly true that each of the sources has a political point of view. But NPOV explains how to construct neutral articles from biased sources in its first sentence.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse:
      • The close of AFD 5, which is what is being appealed, was a good close, with no error by the closer.
      • Is the rule against canvassing sufficiently well-known, or do we need to publicize it more?
      • The decision by the closer to Salt after very limited discussion on AFD 5 is supported by the previous discussions, including previous recommendations to Salt.
      • The title has not been salted in draft space, so a draft can be reviewed, and the salt dissolved if appropriate.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 June 2021

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

The texts are backed with notable resources and citations. The content is not promotional and states merely facts. I doubt people are casually deleting pages and it definitely hurts the environment. Please bring the article back, thanks. Crazyharlem (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse if you genuinely don't think that was promotional then I suspect you may be too close to the subject to see the article objectively. I might as well have been reading the company website. Hut 8.5 07:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse having not seen the deleted draft, but having seen that multiple editors said that it was promotional, and having not seen a reply to the question about conflict of interest, and noting, as is noted elsewhere in DRV, that promotional material is deleted regardless of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The content was entirely promotional, e.g.: "Centered on the lifestyle of next generation esports enthusiasts, VSPN is on a mission to balance the dynamic of esports eco-system for brands, cities and the esports industry." The WP:G11 deletion was correct. Sandstein 08:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 June 2021

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Solita_(company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
A week ago I created an article about Solita company and it was speedy deleted on the same day. See an early version of the article on my sandbox. The article was deleted because of "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The documentation says that "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So even though some editors think the article was promotional it should not have been deleted as the subject is notable. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There were 42 references on the article and only 2 of them were company internal. On my talk page I asked two active Finnish editors, DoubleGrazing & Finnusertop, to comment my referencing and it seems to be ok. There's also a Wikipedia article about the company in Finnish, started on 2010. I've asked both the SD nominator and SD moderator to comment their decision (Athaenara[39] and GermanKity [40]) but as they've not answered I'm bringing the case forward. Jjanhone (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move sandbox version to mainspace, but stub and possibly send to AfD or incubate in Draft. While some of the writing isn't encyclopedic Solita’s company cultures highlights the company values, people-oriented approach, and self-management. For example, Solita has hired a coach to not only coach individuals and teams but also to develop and promote culture and management. there's a sandbox version that isn't as clear-cut a G11 as the article that was G11ed. The article as it existed for the tag was in no shape for mainspace: company culture, for example, is entirely unencyclopedic. Star Mississippi 14:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it is not true that having a notable subject exempts an article from G11. G11 does say that if an article can be improved through editing (short of a complete rewrite) then that should be done instead of deletion, but that's not the same thing. If a promotional article on a notable topic would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic then the article is a G11 candidate. This article was promotional and would have needed major surgery to make it neutral. The sources cited don't affect whether something is neutral or not. I'd be happy to support it being moved to a draft version for improvement but I don't think it's suitable for mainspace. Hut 8.5 17:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the speedy deletion. I don't know if the sandbox version is the same as the deleted article or an effort to neutralize the deleted article, but it is blatantly non-neutral. The Company Culture section is marketing buzzspeak, which is one of the two quick ways to get me to tag an article for G11. (I won't say what the other is.) I wouldn't have tagged the sandbox for G11, but I would have rejected it. The admin was justified in deleting it if it was as spammy as the sandbox or worse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (and thanks for asking): this is a situation frequently seen, where a paid advocate claims that their client is an important company, and yet no one who isn't paid by that company to do so has written an article about it on Wikipedia. The sandbox is no better. – Athaenara ✉ 04:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Reads like a pamphlet in the firm's waiting room. Yes it might be replaceable with NPOV text, but just finding out will take hours of volunteer time checking through sources in Finnish. The creator has a history of claiming significant coverage that completely evaporates when someone who hasn't been paid to find it looks more closely. She can't keep expecting others to clean up after her just so that she can collect her commission. – Joe (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a brochure or prospectus, not an encyclopaedia article. It focuses on developing IT services, e-services and knowledge management solutions... I mean, it literally reads like its content has been agreed with marketing.—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had worked on the article after I saved the version for myself so I'd like to get access to the latest version so I could continue working on that on a Draft space (?) paying attention to your comments. Jjanhone (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REFUND provides encyclopaedic refuse management solutions. – Joe (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Joe! As I've already started this process, should I wait for 6 days more to get a decision? Jjanhone (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the mainspace version is anything like the sandbox version, that's a clear G11. I don't mind restoring the content to draft space as it's possibly notable, but I agree it needs a lot of work to become neutral. SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Notability does not override WP:G11. If the overly promotional article needs a fundamental rewrite to function as a neutral article, then deletion is necessary. --MuZemike 16:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit history temporarily undeletedfor the purposes of deletion review}} DGG' ( talk ) 23:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. It can be immediately improved by removing the last two sections and the list of customers. The history section is a jumble, and needs to be sorted . But to see if any of the Finnish refs are usable fo NCORP will take some time. I don't know if it's possible--I doubt it, but it is reasonable to give a chance. G11 is for when the entirearticle is permeated by promotionalism --it's rare to find one which can be so easilly separated. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 June 2021

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

The result of the discussion was "speedy keep" yet the sources and the article itself was never paid attention to. The discussion should have carried out till due time. Looking at the history of the article, somehow at times saved by only removing tags/promoting, instead of looking at the issues that the article faces. These links are broken and promotional: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Wordpress link: 10. Black-listed links: 11 12. Press release: 13. Not only are the references not reliable and the page poorly written, but the votes for "keep"; no reasonable logic was provided. Would request someone to actually pay attention. The article should be deleted. A few Turkish links, do not make the article notable, the article does not fall under WP:NOTE; I think it falls under WP:G11. Nudgepath (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2021 (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.
Nana April Jun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The artist is released by one of the most influential publishers of the sound art genre (Touch). The artist albums has been reviewed in over 50 different magazines worldwide, as well as been performed on noteworthy genre specific festivals around the world. Here are a large collection of reviews on the publishers web site: https://touch33.net/catalogue/tone-37-nana-april-jun-the-ontology-of-noise.html 83.250.38.88 (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was deleted almost a year ago. If you can overcome the reasons for deletion, such as by presenting citations of reliable sources that prove the artist is notable, then you can look to recreate the article.
    To set that ball rolling, please provide the best three sources which cover this musician. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This appears to be one of those point 3 requests, where there is new information, in that time has passed and the artist may now be notable. The can't-be-wrong course is to submit a draft for review via AFC. You can alternatively create the article in article space. The disadvantage to creating it in article space is that a reviewer might tag it for G4, and the G4 should be declined by the admin (who can compare the deleted article and the article), which is an annoyance that can be avoided by submitting a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion, but I do not mind if the content gets restored to draft space for more reviews to be added. I do not think notability has been so clearly demonstrated to restore it directly to mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse and allow recreation sources described on the publisher's website seem well over the WP:N bar. But we'd need cites to the actual sources in the article. Deletion at the time seems correct. I see no reason to requite a stop through draft space. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and allow recreation (or, can we clear up DRVPURPOSE, please?) per what Hobit said. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close and the opinions of the Delete !voters, having seen the deleted article. The proponent will need to submit something better if they want a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Properly deleted. The sources in the deleted article appear useless. Encourage the IP to edit existing pages and get some experience first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 June 2021

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

Page has been updated and meets criteria to be a page, following previous deletion logs that are stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notorious_CHRIS_(2nd_nomination), you can see that at this time the article was clearly not ready to be made, however after the artist Notorious Chris changed to "BADVOID", you can see in this draft for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BADVOID) that the article is ready to be moved into mainspace so this can be built. The coverage of this artist is no longer on a local scale but now on a global scale, just by a simple google search of the artist "BADVOID" you can find over 50+ highly reliable and reputable sources. BADVOID meets multiple criteria for Wikipedia notablity including: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. 5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable. 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. (https://twitter.com/7newscq/status/1041778920314494977?lang=en

Therefore all reason outlined that got the article deleted in the first place has been fixed and has been over the course of a few years now. GenesisGSE (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new article that is proposed in draft, is not similar at all in any way to the previously deleted versions of the BADVOID / Notorious CHRIS article so it is not a copy of the old article but it is a new written draft on the artist, including all new sources that are independent, respected and reliable. This show's all previous concerns of deletion has been fixed GenesisGSE (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've looked at the article and am treating it like I would review a draft at our Articles for Creation - since there are a number of sources which all look specific to the music industry, which three or four sources do you think best demonstrate notability? (I'm not sure a Central Queensland local news story counts for #12, unfortunately.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since WP:MUSIC states "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", this draft article appears to meet multiple criteria stated by WP:Music. In terms of sources I think I would say these 4/5 [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , I would say all articles on the draft demonstrate notability as it is but I think those 5 may be the best. SportingFlyer GenesisGSE (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least one of those is a sponsored post (disclosed by the publication), and I'm not certain how many of those sources you presented are reliable per our guidelines unfortunately, several at least look like self published blogs. I would not pass this if I saw this at articles for creation, but I would not decline it either. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the likes of these [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , they are all highly reputable, independent & notable sources of the artist. I did not realise that one source you noted was a sponsored post but if you look at all the sources listed on the draft page for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BADVOID) at least 20+ of these are high reputable sources that meet the guidlines. This artist also meets more than one criteria for WP:MUSIC. Including WPMUSIC: 1, 5, 11 and arguably 12 (being featured on Australia's number one news broadcast Seven News [14]

SportingFlyer GenesisGSE (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, these are all industry publications, some are clearly sponsored, and the Seven News broadcast was regional. He may very well be notable based on these sources, but to me he's not clearly notable, since I'm not sure which industry sources are reliable and which aren't, and I have nothing more to add here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for replying and also your feedback SportingFlyer, I could only see one sponsored post that was brought to my attention from you but yes I agree with you in some aspects, the reputation of these sources may be unknown to someone who is not actively engaged in the music side of Wiki. GenesisGSE (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on the fence on this one. Looking at the article I don't see too much difference between this version and the earlier deleted ones, and A7/G4 deletion has been a constant issue here. In the spirit of AGF, I suppose we owe it to the article to try again, however I am uncertain if enough has changed between then and now to persuade the community to try again. On a related matter, in the event that the discussion comes own in favor of overturning and recreating the article, it should be noted that there are two other pages under which the artist's article was (re)created that were administratively locked and they should be released for redirection to wherever the article is to go (BADVOID I think?) so as to maintain consistency. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so I took ten minutes to look at it. I began with the credible claim of significance, and yes, there is one: He rose to fame in 2020 with the release of "I Would Never", featuring Myanmar based producer "Jerry Jay". The source is here, and the problems with it are (1) it doesn't say he rose to fame, and (2) this is a source that charges people to promote their music (here). I could literally write a track myself on my computer, pay my subscription, and get a rave review from this source. I'm afraid I have not bothered to check any further. Leave as draft until this article consists only and entirely of statements that I can verify from properly independent sources.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a minute read wont do it justice? If you have not bothered to check any further how can you discredit any further references? although the website "EDMSauce" say's they do sponsored posts (which I was unaware of), the article on EDMSauce does not state anywhere that it is a sponsored post which im sure it would if it was? Even if we are to remove this article/source from consideration, if you look at the two other articles on this song alone and do some research you will know these are two of the highest reputable sources in dance music today coming from highly respected writers with a portfolio that stretches back. [15][16] Not disagreeing with you on your whole statement but I feel a thorough read is at least needed before making your mind up User:S Marshall GenesisGSE (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the draft and removed He rose to fame in 2020 with the release of "I Would Never", featuring Myanmar based producer "Jerry Jay". The draft now states He first gained international recognition in 2020 with the release of "I Would Never", featuring Myanmar based producer "Jerry Jay"., This cant be argued with multiple international sources on the song "I Would Never" alone. User:S Marshall GenesisGSE (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Promotional content on Wikipedia is being written so prolifically that we've learned to be efficient and effective in how we deal with it. This is why editors get as far as the first unsupported statement or the first blatantly unreliable source and then stop: volunteer time is our only scarce resource, and we do not have enough of it to give promotional content the "thorough read" that you request. You have not even removed the unreliable source that I mentioned, let alone taken the time to run the article through a spellchecker, so I shan't spend any further time on it.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • S Marshall's approach is as charitable as you're going to get, and rightfully so. GenesisGSE If you're going to clean up the article for someone else to take a look at it, really clean it up, don't wait for the next volunteer to find the next egregiously inappropriate statement, fix it so the next editor finds nothing objectionable about it at all. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies to User:S Marshall & Jclemens, I did not mean to come off rude when posting that, I will have the draft fixed up in the next 24 hours, once again I'm sorry for that! GenesisGSE (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft has been updated, all the sources should be good now. GenesisGSE (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's certainly less bad. It now says that he "gained international recognition" based on this source; my problems with that are (1) the source doesn't say he gained international recognition, and (2) someone has added the title parameter to {{cite web}}, saying title=These Two Rising Artists Just Put Out A Massive Banger On Barong Family's New Compilation, when that's not the title and doesn't have anything to do with the content. In my opinion this draft, while improved, does still misrepresent the sources for promotional reasons.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with this discussion taking place here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. DRV doesn’t approve drafts, and if he boldly re-creates, DRV doesn’t AfD-proof it. This is just forum creep. It could just as easily been at WT:AfC. This is typical of a new account and the poor DRV instructions that you’re soft protecting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, the title is salted. Second, the page has been recently deleted, and restoring may be controversial. Those are two excellent reasons why this is a good forum for this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed the WP:SALT. The draft is referenced bombed, and the first three sources are not independent, and so I personally do not accept the draft. However, the draft overcomes G4, and looks worth a debate at AfD, so I support deSALTing. Desalt. Allow any editor to mainspace the draft, and for it to be AfD-ed, but advise the proponent to follow the advice at WP:THREE SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is a hard case. The subject is probably notable, but not surely. There is a huge amount of promotion at play, and it is hard to find independent comment amongst the non independent comment. DRV is not the right place to do source analysis, even though we sometimes do. Maybe if WP:THREE sources were presented, but they have not been, and the draft is littered with non independent sources. Short of de-SALTing, DRV should not be perceivable as the gatekeeper for acceptance of the draft. The details of sources should be discussed on the draft talk page. I recommend use of the table at WP:SIRS. The subject is promoting and for profit, and should be held to WP:CORP standards of sourcing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "BADVOID puts an incredible unique spin on Nero's 'Satisfy': Listen".
  2. ^ "LISTEN: Rising Producer BADVOID Shares Scorching Flip of Nero's 'Satisfy' Classic".
  3. ^ "BADVOID deploys menacing 'Paper Thin' remix".
  4. ^ "Notorious CHRIS & JerrĂż Jay Team Up For "I Would Never" On Barong Family Matters Vol. 7".
  5. ^ "Introducing Australia's next EDM star Notorious CHRIS".
  6. ^ https://labelsbase.net/barong-family/artists. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ https://labelsbase.net/buygore-records/artists. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. ^ https://weraveyou.com/2020/05/notorious-chris-jerry-jay-i-would-never/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. ^ https://www.edmsauce.com/2020/05/18/notorious-chris-jerry-jay-show-us-incredible-new-dub-track/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) ,
  10. ^ https://www.youredm.com/2020/05/16/notorious-chris-jerry-jay-team-up-for-i-would-never-on-barong-family-matters-vol-7/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  11. ^ https://www.cultr.com/news/bad-void-enter-the-void/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  12. ^ https://weraveyou.com/2021/01/badvoid-sing-me-to-sleep/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  13. ^ https://runthetrap.com/2021/06/09/listen-rising-producer-badvoid-shares-scorching-flip-of-neros-satisfy-classic/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  14. ^ https://twitter.com/i/status/1041778920314494977. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  15. ^ "These Two Rising Artists Just Put Out A Massive Banger On Barong Family's New Compilation [LISTEN]". Your EDM. 2020-05-16. Retrieved 2021-06-10.
  16. ^ Kassam, About the Author / Alshaan (2020-05-15). "Notorious CHRIS & Jerry Jay – I Would Never". We Rave You. Retrieved 2021-06-10. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 June 2021

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

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 2#Sacred Microdistillery. I discussed the "No consensus to take any action" close with Sandstein. I am creating a more succinct deletion review after Sandstein wrote "there was not so much disagreement as general confusion as to what happened and why - perhaps also because of your walls of text".

In 2010, Sacred Microdistillery was restored at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 20#Sacred microdistillery. Since deletion review concluded that a previous version of the article did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, Deb's 2021 speedy deletion under WP:G11 was incorrect.

Deb restored one revision of the deleted article to draft. I used that revision as the basis to add more sources to establish notability before restoring the article to mainspace at Sacred Spirits. The other revisions of Sacred Microdistillery, which have contributions by other editors, remain deleted. The current state violates Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Overturn the speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which really isn't that big of an issue, either - per my comments in that discussion, what we really need is for an uninvolved admin or two to come in and take a look at the history. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that we have a non-G11 article in place now, why would having G11 revisions in the history pose a problem such that we would want to keep those revisions deleted? G10 or G12 I could understand, but I'm not feeling the insurmountable tragedy if an old G11 revision exists in history. Am I missing something? Jclemens (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, the history of this thing along with the request is actually rather confusing especially to someone like myself who can't view exactly what the heck happened here. I don't really have any issue with restoring G11'd material to an article history - my concern comes from the fact this was deleted twice, DRV'd, et cetera, and wanting to make sure this isn't a request to undelete material which should remain deleted and providing copyright attribution through a dummy edit. Though since another uninvolved editor has tagged with this an advertisement tag in the meantime and NORG may not be met, maybe we should just see if it survives a fresh AfD? SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has explained why the article reads like an advertisement or is non-notable. I do not think the article reads like an advertisement. I do not think the article has notability concerns. I provided a list of three book sources at the previous deletion review that strongly establish notability. Notability concerns can be discussed at AfD. Advertisement concerns can be discussed on the article's talk page and through regular editing of the article. This DRV should be focused on evaluating whether the speedy deletion under WP:G11 was correct. My view is that it is incorrect because the deleted revisions were not "exclusively promotional" and did not "need to be fundamentally rewritten", and a 2010 deletion review concluded that a previous version of the article did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Cunard (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps I should clarify how I see the course of events:
  1. I deleted the article as G11, and I don't accept that there was anything wrong with that deletion.
  2. Cunard asked about the version he had produced in 2010 and questioned whether it was promotional.
  3. I checked the 2010 version - the only half-decent version I could find, and restored this version only to draft, in order that he could look at it and see if he could find material in it that could be used as a basis for a new article.
  4. Cunard made some amendments and moved the draft to article space, something I would not have done under the circumstances (the article having been created several times under different names and been the subject of deletion discussions).
I believe two things are being confused here:
  • Whether the article met the criteria for G11. This is where "deletion review" comes in. If the article didn't meet the criteria, then all versions subsequent to 2010 should also be restored, though presumably the later, more promotional versions would then be reverted.
  • Whether all versions that preceded Cunard's 2010 version should be restored. This is actually a request to restore other articles that were deleted, one as a result of this deletion discussion, a deletion that was later endorsed, and Sacred microdistillery, which was deleted in 2010 by User:Accounting4Taste with the summary "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion", referring to that same discussion. Deb (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t need to call the G11 incorrect to call for undeletion. G11, like most speedy criteria, is for things for which there is no conceivable discussion. Now that someone wants to discuss it, undelete it and allow the discussion, at AfD if someone thinks deletion is required. Cunard are more than good enough standing to be given this undeletion on request. It should be granted near automatically, and followed up by AfD or WP:REVDEL if required.
It just so happens to be now at AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Spirits. Let it all play out there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 June 2021

[edit]

10 June 2021

[edit]
  • Christian Saunders – No consensus, endorsed by default, but allow recreation as a draft with better sourcing. If somebody wants to create this as a redirect, they can do that too.
Most of the people arguing to endorse noted that while various AfD participants asserted that there were good sources, nobody provided specific examples. On the other hand, most of the people arguing to overturn felt that sourcing was adequately demonstrated at the AfD.
One thread explored the limits of the closer's discretion. Should the closer be limited to determining which arguments are policy-based, or may they also weigh the relative strength of the arguments that they've determined are indeed policy-based? This question was raised both in the DRV itself and in a side-discussion on the closer's talk page. I don't see any consensus on that, but it's a fundamental enough question that I thought it worth noting here.
Finally, I urge everybody to avoid ad-hominien arguments. Discuss the close, not the closer. If you have problems specifically with the closer, there's better forums for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Christian Saunders (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The nomination argument was Gets some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Five editors participated in the discussion. Two !voted delete. Three !voted keep, two of whom said there was enough coverage to pass WP:GNG (this gentleman, incidentally, headed a major organ of the UN and has been described in one article cited on the page as one of the most senior British officials of the UN). The closer, however, went with "delete", with the comment The "keep" opinions are weaker because they do not address the sourcing problems. But they did. It is an opinion that sourcing is not sufficient; it is an opinion that it is. There was no reason to give less weight to the arguments of the keep !voters, who were in the majority, given they had addressed the concerns of the nominator (and did not agree with them). With all due respect to the closer, this appears to be a supervote. It should have been a no consensus at worst, a keep at best. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I think that was a reasonable close. The Keep comments focused on him being notable by virtue of holding certain positions. Two of them mentioned the GNG but they didn't provide any supporting evidence or argument ("Clearly enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG" and "Easily gets enough coverage in reliable independent sources to pass WP:GNG"). The debate was relisted with a request for the Keep side to point to specific sources, nobody did. And the OP seems to be ignoring the nominator in concluding the Keep side were in the majority (the debate was tied). Nor is it exactly obvious that the GNG is met based on the sources in the article. While the article did cite plenty of sources, almost all of them were published by the United Nations and therefore aren't independent. The only ones which don't originate with some part of the UN are [41] (doesn't mention him) and [42]. I'm not surprised the participants didn't think those constituted significant coverage. Hut 8.5 12:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Yet another Sandstein supervote. It's not the closer's job to frame the debate, decide what issues are or are not vital and then make a casting vote. The !voters were reasonably experienced and knowledgable editors and the purpose of the close is to establish whether the particpants arrived at a consensus or not. In this case, they did not and so the correct close is therefore no consensus or a relisting to get further input. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm clearly involved (and had I participated later in the discussion, probably would have made a more substantial argument to !delete, since I thought this was a pretty easy call) but considering the relist came with the note "are there any sources which show the GNG is met?", the delete !vote after that didn't think so, and the final keep !vote just made another "must be notable" argument, I don't think this was an unreasonable close - and I also think it's the correct result, based on the sources I've been able to identify. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As closer, I stand by my assessment and refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Saunders. Sandstein 19:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse one side making vague waves that the person must be notable and the sources meet the GNG without any description of how they do, on the other you have claims that the sources aren't upto the requirements of the GNG as being passing mentions. Given the keep opinions stated there was "easily enough coverage" and "clearly enough" I would seem absolutely trivial to refute the delete arguments so I don't see that a fault of the close that they didn't (particularly in light of the relist comment). Delete opinions cannot prove the negative (sources absolutely don't exist), keep opinions on the other hand can demonstrate the positive by citing those sources and how they meet the requirements of GNG. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The Keep !votes largely amounted to "he's a notable aid worker" which is not a qualification listed in the subject-specific notability guidelines. The Delete !votes were "does not pass GNG" which describes a WP policy or guideline. (Two Keep !votes referred to the GNG and suggested a multitude of sources existed, but didn't demonstrate such; the existence of sources must be demonstrated, not merely declared. Meanwhile, extant sources were rebutted by Delete !votes by pointing to WP:SIGCOV without challenge or surrebuttal by the Keep !voters.) Because "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (WP:CON), the close delete was an accurate application of our consensus-determining policy by weighting several quality arguments against several non-quality arguments. Chetsford (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus or to Relist - The error by the closer was in stating that the Keep entries had not addressed sourcing, but one of the Keeps had referred to sourcing, and had been made before the Relisting admin requested more input on sourcing. The closer should either have said that there was no consensus, or relisted again. Relisting again would have been the best option, but we do not ask whether the closer chose the best option, only a reasonable one. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The close states "do not address the sourcing problems" not just sourcing. None of the comments address the issue of depth raised by the nominator, none of them address that other than assertion about quantity - no mention of suitable depth. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC or relist per Robert McClenon. It's one thing to evaluate which !votes are policy based and which are not--that's a closer's job. It's something else entirely to judge the strength of opposite policy-based arguments. This would have been a perfectly fine relist or a textbook no consensus, but I agree--there should not have been enough difference accorded the !votes to swing this one to either a keep or a delete. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within discretion but I would have preferred no consensus. Worthwhile discussion now at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2021/June#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Saunders. Nomination: inadequate sources; keep adequate sources; delete inadequate sources with reason given for one source (the rest?); keep adequate sources; delete inadequate sources; keep topic important. I am unhappy when people !voting keep are expected to point to or demonstrate the sufficiency of sources when those !voting delete are not expected to itemise why none of the sources are adequate. I would let both sides take their individual subjective opinions and so would have closed no consensus. However I think closers should be entitled to take a sterner line. I have not seen the article (and I don't think I need to). Thincat (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view of this discussion changes depending on the height from which I look at it.
Seeing it from ground level, I note that the keep side of the debate made assertions about sources, whereas the delete side of the debate gave an analysis of the sources. With all due respect for Necrothesp's nomination statement, if there was a Masloe's Pyramid of AfD Arguments, the delete side would be higher up the pyramid. If more closers took the kind of view that Sandstein did there, then the quality of AfD would be improved.
Looking down on it from 5,000 feet up, it looks a bit different to me. By a strict application of our rules, we're not allowed to delete articles about people who once played professional-level cricket for 15 minutes in 1973. We're not allowed to delete articles about townships in Where the Hick, Idaho (pop. 80), or articles about individual episodes of Star Trek, or that article about the precognitive octopus. But the strict and careful application of our rules does require us to delete an article about this accomplished and successful man who rose to the top of his profession and whose decisions profoundly affected the lives of many.
Looking at it from 30,000 feet, I find that I would be unable to explain to a non-Wikipedian why we had to delete this article without making our rules sound pretty badly thought out.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with your conclusion. It's really not that hard to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, but the guidelines don't include being accomplished and successful. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But our guidelines advise us to allow for exceptions and use common sense. And our WP:NOTBUREAU policy (what a terrible shortcut) tells us no policies or guidelines should prevent us from improving the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense dictates that if you can't use reliable secondary sources to source an article, especially a BLP, then they shouldn't be eligible for an article. As soon as we start chipping away at that, we get into WP:ILIKEITisms and value judgements. SportingFlyer T·C 09:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's my exact position. This outcome is in accordance with the rules, and I don't like it.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have occasionally mentioned the concept of Wikipedia notability to non-Wikipedians, and they do usually appreciate the principle of "you're notable if people have written about you". In an ideal world there would be as many people writing about a senior UN aid worker as a Star Trek episode or an octopus predicting football matches, but that's a defect with the world in general, not just Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 16:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have asked to see the article (but I was assessing the AFD not the article). At the AfD no one mentioned reliable sources. It was entirely about significant coverage, even the close. Thincat (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For deletion, a strong argument would have been that our verifiability and BLP policies require reliable sources and without these no substantial material remains. Why were we wasting our time on notability? Thincat (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (involved) Comment The closer here presumed assertions of a lack of notability to be correct, while assertions of notability were denied ... at the very least the closer in justifying delete needed to provide analysis of *why* they presumed assertions of a lack of notability to be correct; as such, I concur with the nomination, the closure is a supervote and not an assessment of the discussion. I also respond to SportingFlyer's characterisation of my !vote as "another "must be notable" argument" ... I think a good faith assumption here would be that we're all capable of making qualitative judgments on a case by case basis regarding inherent notability (which is what I was calling for) and this case is a particularly useful demonstration of the peril in applying black letter law to the GNG. It's not as if we're discussing Bjarni Prior, the Mayor of VĂĄgar and former B36 TĂłrshavn player. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation as draft with better sourcing. Arguments for keeping seem primarily based on the presumption of sources existing, which can only go so far when sources aren't really provided. This can (and should) be recreated if someone turns up these presumed sources. Hog Farm Talk 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 June 2021

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

This page is deleted and moved to draft though citations are added from trusted sources. I can see there are enough citations added. There are other pages with similar citations and from similar sources. Even less citations. please clarify. It is deleted by Nomadicghumakkad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilian98 (talk ‱ contribs) 16:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 June 2021

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

Had I thought for a second that Wikipedia editors would subsequently be so determined to hold to their prejudices regarding tabloid reports, even in a case like this, where there is literally no reason why anyone would ever suspect these reports to be false (bar their deeply held prejudice), then I most definitely would have said the better outcome was for Wikipedia to choose not to be the official host of a ridiculously incomplete alleged biography. I suspect others would have too. This man's career is over. He was convicted of a serious crime. A crime that was majorly pertinent to his career. Pretending it never happened, is unconscionable, especially if the outcome is ironically to ensure that reading tabloid reports with loaded terms like vile and disturbing, now becomes necessary companion reading alongside this Wikipedia page. It didn't need to be that way, there is a low risk, high reward way forward, but to a man, Wikipedia editors refused to see reason. So be it. Their actions must have consequences. Wikipedia does not get to pretend here, that their supposed act of responsibility, hasn't led to a hugely irresponsible outcome. They have made a choice, on the presumption the original decision to keep it, was correct. There is a less damaging choice, once the presumption that the original decision was wrong, due to a lack of foresight, is seen. Simply delete it. I must share blame, I did not foresee this intransigence. I assumed Wikipedia editors were rational, and well able to deal with complicated scenarios where issues must be carefully balanced, with prejudices left at the door. Evidently they are not. There is a serious child safety issue here with regard to Wikipedia hosting an incomplete biography, one that I suspect was not properly foreseen in the debate. I hesitate to specifically lay it out, because it would rather unfairly suggest things about this man, who by those tabloid accounts, may well now be completely contrite and a model prisoner and indeed citizen, going forward. But to those with sufficient life experience, who read all the available material, the reliable Wikipedia biography and its unreliable companion reading, you should be able to see what the risk is, going forward. It might seem small, almost inconceivable, but do you want to take that chance? I don't. Deal me out. I officially disavow any part I might have had in any such future tragedy. I am not buying the claims that this risk is adequately covered by the disclaimer either, and I suspect others won't be too, especially when the overall reason given for this ridiculous prejudice holding sway here, is making people think Wikipedia really is all about being responsible. Children are certainly ill equipped to appreciate what most adults probably don't even realise is the horrific reality of that disclaimer, in scenarios like this. Which may well even be unique. Who knows. I doubt Wikipedia is keeping score. To sum up, it is the height of irresponsibility, to put a prejudice against tabloids, above the interests of child safety. If this page is deleted, who is harmed? Nobody that I can see. Do no harm. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close as a bad-faith purely disruptive nomination that is yet another attempt at forum shopping by this editor. There have already been threads at RSN, BPLN, AN, the article talk page and two user talk pages (1 2) where this editor has been repeatedly told that we cannot source information on crimes to unreliable tabloid journalism. Nothing in this deletion review is remotely relevant to the decision to keep the page - the page was kept on the basis that there were multiple reliable sources found that discussed this person in depth and in detail, the fact that there are no reliable sources discussing the content this editor wishes to include has no bearing on that. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs, and it is not our job to publish criminal allegations sourced to rubbish because "it is in the public interest". 192.76.8.73 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media" is a direct quote from "Right Great Wrongs". You should not try to so blatantly deceive people, while trying to claim other people are engaging in bad faith. It is not Wikipedia's job to pretend things haven't happened just because their editor's naked prejudice teaches them they can't have happened, they mustn't have happened, otherwise everything they hold dear about Wikipedia must be wrong. If Wikipedia can't accurately judge when a tabloid story is more likely to be true than false given a particular set of circumstances, then what is anybody even doing here pretending that they know anything at all about how the mainstream media works? I bet there are a good few people here who perhaps genuinely believe the broadhseets never make mistakes, which is about as believable as the idea the tabloids only ever write about celebrity gossip. Dogma is useless. Prejudice is useless. If of course, the goal is to write an encyclopedia. It is actually your job to do more than separate sources into good and bad, copy the good, and reject the bad, and divorce yourself from any and all consequence of such an unreal approach to the messy business of reality. You would know that, if you had read the relevant policies. You're not going to be able to blame this one on the BBC. Definitely not their job to tell you when you have screwed the pooch. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This particular request isn't in the purview of DRV, per the current "DRV is not" #1, #6, maybe #8. Suggest an RfC on the matter if it continues to be contentious. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was told by Missvain to request a deletion review. It seems to fit the "new circumstances" clause. Happy to put it up for deletion again, making my changed views known, if people think that is the more proper way forward. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't know what policy says, but it seems to me that this discussion should be speedily closed as there were no supporting statements from others. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The consensus to keep the article was pretty hefty, even though I initially opposed it. I actually had high hopes for the OP, whose efforts to track down sources and improve the article formed the proverbial straw for me, but a sock is a sock, and there's nothing to do but launder it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚ᚟ᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 June 2021

[edit]
  • Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis – Endorse, but allow new draft. There's pretty good consensus here that the MfD close was procedurally correct, with a couple of people noting that many of the keep arguments were correctly discounted due to off-wiki canvassing, SPAs, socking, etc. I only see two people arguing for an outright overturn; one of those looks to me more like relitigating the MfD, and the other (in part) argues that what we know today is different from what we knew four months ago when the MfD ran.
On the other hand, even several of the people arguing to endorse the MfD close from a procedural point of view admit that a new attempt at an article would be permissible, even if this particular draft isn't worth restoring. There was a running thread about the proper use of mainspace vs draft vs userspace vs POVFORK for controversial new article; I don't see any particular consensus there, which in turn means I'm not going to make any statement about where such a new attempt should be written.
Finally, I'll just note that the Origins_of_COVID-19 Arbcom case was referenced in the discussion. I didn't read the case, but I do suggest that if somebody wants to write a new article on this topic, getting up to speed on the history there would probably be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This deletion discussion for Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis was roughly concurrent with some edit warring at COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, which ultimately was redirected to COVID-19 misinformation#Lab accident. The deletion discussion of the the draft looked to me to be a pretty clear no-consensus, but it was closed with what I would characterize as a supervote that left much to be desired in the way of explanation, particularly given the importance of the topic and the volume of participation in the discussion: "The result of the discussion was: delete. The arguments for delete outweigh the keep.". I had considered initiating a deletion review back in February on the weight of mainstream, reliable coverage of the lab leak hypothesis presented not as misinformation that existed at the time (e.g. [43] and [44]). Now, given a slew of additional mainstream coverage (e.g. [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]), I think we're compelled to review this matter. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd appreciate a temp-undelete. I'm also a bit curious as to why this is worth fighting over. Is there genuinely something in these pages that you want back, or is this simply a proxy for the broader debate over the lab-leak theory? If it's the latter, it would seem that your time would be better spent arguing over mainspace content (e.g. by participating in the pending talkpage discussions, RfCs, and ArbCom case) than relitigating the debate over these user- and draft-space pages. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ, The point of this review is that COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis should be its own article that presents the subject in a neutral fashion, rather than a redirect to COVID-19 misinformation. A starting point for this article would be either 1) a restoration of this version of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis or a similar version, 2) a restoration and publishing to the mainspace of the draft in question here, or some 3) some hybridization of the two. Rather than simply continuing the edit war in February, isn't the proper course of action to acknowledge the concurrent and related discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and reverse the decision that was made there? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But even if we give you everything you want here (by overturning the MfD to keep), you won't be any closer to getting that. All you'll have is a draft in draft-space; getting that draft into article-space would still require all sorts of additional discussions, probably including an RfC. My point is that you might as well go straight to the RfC, since this DRV won't make a difference one way or another. In other words, there's really nothing that we can do for you here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it will restore the draft if this review concludes in an overturn. At that point, it would make sense to review the draft and this version of "COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis" and see about pushing some combination of the two to the main space. If there's pushback on that, we then could do an RFC. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, thanks for noting. I was previously unaware of this arbitration request. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the deleting admin I really don't care if it's revived or not. The comment was not a "supervote" but an evaluation of what people had said in the discussion. The explanation of closing isn't mandatory, just customary. Nor is a longer explanation required just because the discussion is long. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While the participants were evenly divided numerically, a proper closure must discount !votes made by sockpuppets, canvassed users, SPAs, and those whose arguments are not policy-based. There are by my count at least a half-dozen keep !votes that fall into one or more of those categories, while the delete !votes do not appear to be similarly afflicted. While there were obviously plenty of reasonable, well-argued keep !votes, they seem to have been exceeded (both numerically and by weight of argument) by the number of reasonable, well-argued delete !votes. Additionally, the delete side's TNT argument – that this draft as written was useless for mainspace purposes regardless of the topic's merits more generally – seems to have never been rebutted at all. In light of these facts, as well as my careful review of the discussion, I believe the closer interpreted the consensus reasonably. (A more detailed closing statement, while not required, would have made everyone's job here a lot easier.) That being said, this MfD was obviously not a total or eternal prohibition against lab-leak-related drafts. Things have (to put it mildly) changed a lot since February, and I find it improbable that a well-written, well-sourced draft written today would be referred to MfD at all. I, of course, express no opinion on the merits of the content dispute here. But if a solution to that dispute exists, it won't be found by relitigating a months-old closure of a months-old discussion of months-old drafts written with months-old sources. It will be found by more talk-page discussions (perhaps in the form of an an RfC) about how we ought to cover this complex, multifaceted, controversial, and difficult topic. But we needn't resolve all that today. As explained above, this closure was the scope of the closer's discretion, and so it ought to be sustained. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation in draft of an article epitomizing the best of core Wikipedia policies. Draftspace is indeed the most proper place to deal with highly controversial political topics when there's no clear consensus to present them as standalone articles or not. Personally, as someone who had spent a career investigating people doing stupid things, the idea that the idea that "someone screwed up" would itself be labeled a conspiracy theory seems farcical. (shrug) But it is what it is. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftspace is far from a good place for challenging topics, because in draftspace individual editors work in isolation. Wikipedia's success on controversial topics depends on many editors, even readers, watching, and stepping in when it goes bad. I believe that FORKing to draftspace should be forbidden, unless done with consensus at the talk page of the article currently covering the topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Userspace sandboxes are where individual editors work in isolation. If draftspace is the same exact thing with a different name, why do we even have it? Seriously, even though I don't use draftspace, I do expect it to be a more collaborative space, and if I'm wrong, we're (Wikipedia as a whole) being stupid. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eg WP:DUD. Draftspace is sort of mandate for COI article writing, although they are perfectly welcome to use userspace. Apart from that, draftspace is a holding trap for junk. It is possible collaboration happens in draftspace, but I think it doesn’t, and the pretence that it does does harm, people drafting think they are contributing, but they may as well be working offline. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • temp undeleted for this discussion' WilyD 10:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Draftspace is not for POVFORKing. The topic is already covered in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for a start many of the Keep comments came from SPAs and the closer would have been entitled to downweight or disregard these. But even apart from that the strength of argument was on the side of those arguing for deletion. The justifications for keeping were largely based on the existence of sources about the topic, the topic passing notability guidelines, and the general topic being encyclopedic. None of that rebuts the arguments for deletion - that the draft was a POV fork and that it gives undue credibility to a fringe theory. Even if it is possible to write an appropriate article about the topic, that doesn't mean these particular drafts are worth keeping. Hut 8.5 11:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per JClemens. Also, given the fundamental change in circumstances, WP:IAR. The whole Wikipedia project looks ridiculous not giving this matter the substantive coverage that is widely available today on reliable sources. Loksmythe (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is WP:POVFORK even a reason to delete a draft? The arguments for deletion were largely applicable to articles, not to draft space. And given that there is a large contengent of serious scientists in the area who think this is worth looking into, I don't see how we can justify not having an article actually on this topic in mainspace. Overturn.Hobit (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    “ Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.” SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is working on a topic in draftspace even within the understanding of WP:CFORK? I suggest not, because that page both precedes its existence and doesn't appear to have been updated to engage with it. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The only acceptable FORK is WP:SPINOFF; take a large section from a large page, expand it as a spinoff, condense what is left behind, and put a section hatnote pointing to the spinout. This clearly can't with draftspace. Mainspace to draftpace links are forbidden. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and where is it said anywhere that part of that process cannot include copying the large section in question to draftspace, working on it there, and then later proceeding with the rest of the spinoff process? Again, the directions do not comment one way or another on draftspace and it seems to me to be because they haven't been meaningfully updated since draftspace was initiated. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    POVFORK is a reason to delete because in the mfd it was given as a reason to delete, and the closer found it was the consensus to delete. Looking over it all again, I think the draftspace and other forks are the wrong battle. Instead, the bold redirect should be reverted, per User:Peregrine Fisher. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RE. process cannot include copying the large section in question to draftspace, working on it there, and then later 
. Not everything is documented, and more detail would be needed. My problem with this sort of thing is if it happens unilaterally and in secret, not even a note on the relevant article talk page. Also, I don’t think it is normal, instead, redrafting editors prefer to use an article talk page subpage. I think, POVFORKS are always bad, and CFORKS are also bad but without bad intent, and that wholesale redrafting should only be done with article talk page discussion. However, we are in a difficult awkward position here due to a bad pseudo-delete redirect to a “misinformation” article. The answer is to revert that bold redirect in favour of an AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do all realize that this is one of the things that only Americans believe, right?—S Marshall T/C 22:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This seemed like a difficult one DRV at first, but after a couple rereads, the restoration of the draft should be declined per Hut 8.5 - this wasn't a supervote and we are in WP:FRINGE territory. SportingFlyer T·C 12:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Re-Creation of a new draft. I was mistaken in casting a Weak Delete, and should have said Weak Keep, although it is a content fork, but it was in draft space. No error by closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert the redirect of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. The redirect is a pseudo-deletion, to a POV article title, and it was edit warred when it should have been take to AfD. The MfD discussed here is a downstream problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert the redirect and return to mainspace; overturn the delete closure as a POV close. The classification as misinformation is patentently prejudicial, in ignorance of, or deliberate rejection, of all recent reliable sources, including the NYTimes and the CDSC. This is an unproven hyporthesis, not misinformation. I would classify the original right wing conspiracy theory that it was a deliberate release as misinformation, or worse, , but that it may have been an accidental lab leak is on the contrary perfectly possible by common sense, and the possibility is in full accord with what is known about laboratory accidents with dangerous biological agents. . It's just a possibility, and, I expect, it will be disproven by biolgoical analysis; but it will rmain notable , because it has been discussed seriously by major RSs. This is the way redirectw\s should not be used. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG. Why was my closure of the draft "POV"? What in my editing history leads you to think that I was against the draft and wanted it gone prior to my closing it? I know I made about 12 edits to COVID-19 pandemic in Nunavut but that was a while ago, and that was basically adding images and updating numbers, and I don't recall anything else, but there may have been something. I'd like to understand why this was a POV so I can avoid it in the future. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva
perhaps I should have said , emphasizing a particular POV. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV isn't the place to further a content dispute. That said, endorse (since I see no credible arguments that the closure of the discussion was wrong - which was heavily affected by off-wiki canvassing and single-purpose accounts, I assume rightfully ignored by the closing administrator) and allow recreation if there is consensus via the regular editing process for a spin-off (which I do not see at this moment). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't think any of the commenters here who have endorsed the original decision have addressed the myriad of new (newer than February), reliable sources that establish the lab leak hypothesis as a notable subject (i.e. point #3 in which deletion review is intended to be used). Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for creating a new version, ideally via the regular editing process (by demonstrating there is a need for a split). Not for recreating a dubious, slanted POVFORK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current redirect is the dubious, slanted POVFORK we're looking for as it simply buries a notable hypothesis and tars it as "misinformation" instead of treating it with a neutral POV. This draft needs some work for sure, but it contains many useful passages and sources that could be used to build the article that Wikipedia needs on this subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 June 2021

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

how can this be deleted? it is a major service, at one of the most active websites in the world. -Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 13:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 June 2021

[edit]

4 June 2021

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


ArĂ©at deleted some important content 3 times. Undid revision 1026479015 by ArĂ©at (talk) It's better in this way, divided in continents. ArĂ©at Claimed that : As discussed in the talk page this is in complete redundancies with the others pages content. However, this is a substantial amount of information needed. Especially for the old folk which might have inaccessibility to access other talk pages. Geshtaldt supported it which was a horrific idea.So ArĂ©at should seek permission and discussion before making edits prior with amendments of deleting useful information.This person deleted elections from all around the world, which is useful to some extend. (Sorry if i speculate or if this is false, i myself don’t know whats going on and why did that person delete that substantial amount if information that shows the elections all around the globe)

To Aréat, why do you delete this substantial amount of information that shows elections around the world?

To Geshtaldt, why do you support Aréat ? Evidence : (Undid revision 1027239597 by 95.249.239.231 (talk) Previous editing was a mistake.) If yall have good faith and reasoning, i have no further doubts and clarification more. If i accused wrongly, please forgive me, i am truly sorry and that i did not know whats going on and why must these people delete this page for.

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

3 June 2021

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:South Ossetia–United States relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm requesting this review of my draft on the relations between South Ossetia and the United States for the reason that from the recent AfD, it seemed there wasn't a discussion regarding the article I created, and aside from the one delete vote, redirecting to the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia was the most overwhelming choice and final decision. I don't understand why as to despite the fact the United States remains a global power, an article about the relations or the lack of in this case with South Ossetia doesn't meet the notability requirements. Whether or not there are formal relations between the two states, there is significant information regarding it. An article I created that was accepted about Abkhazia–United States relations and a large chunk of this article contains the same information in the Abkhazia article because both de-facto states relations with the U.S. intersect. In both articles, it's stated the ban on U.S. aid to both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I don't see why that part in this article is considered not notable, and yet in the Abkhazia article, it is. There are credible sources used here. Notability in my view is established, but for some reason not in the view of other editors. In the AfD, the nominator stated this was a recreation, it wasn't. I changed the original redirect to the international relations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia article to my draft version which I decided to no longer wait on the review process before I added this version to the original redirect. The original creation looked like this. That version had no sources or any real encyclopedic value. I would like to add the article isn't about something which it denies, which does exist for other articles about two countries with no relations whatsoever. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that what is important is that Wikipedia should be consistent with regard to these two limited-recognition states. Either both should have articles on their non-relations with the United States, or both should be redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging the two articles since both articles contain a vast majority of the same information? Both pages can be titled say United States relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 June 2021

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

I am also requesting restoration of these three talk pages and history merging with Talk:Sacred Gin if any of them contain substantive discussion:

Talk:Sacred Microdistillery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Talk:Sacred microdistillery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Talk:Sacred Gin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The related discussion is at User talk:Deb and User talk:Cunard.

Deb speedy deleted Sacred Microdistillery as "Unambiguous advertising". I wrote, "Based on the references' access dates from the Google cache of the article, I did work in the article around 2010. I think there is a non-promotional version in the article's history that can be reverted to, so {{db-spam}} does not apply. Would you restore the article?" Deb restored the single revision I worked on.

I added four book sources to the draft, which addressed the A7 part of Deb's statement when Deb restored the 2010 version: "restored version, not G11 but possibly A7 - for Cunard". I moved the draft back to mainspace at Sacred Microdistillery since there is no speedy deletion reason to keep this version of the article from mainspace since A7 now clearly does not apply. I moved the article from Sacred Microdistillery to Sacred Spirits because the company changed its name.

I asked Deb to restore all revisions of Sacred Microdistillery to Sacred Spirits. The earlier versions are needed to comply with Wikipedia:Copyright policy and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia since I did not write all of the content in the single restored revision of the article. The later versions are needed because I oppose deleting 11 years of an article's history when the only concern is that some editors introduced promotionalism. I would prefer to be working on the latest version of the article (which has no reference errors, additional content, categories, and a photo) as opposed to a 11-year-old version of the article where the references have errors. I said that I expected Wikipedia:Deletion review would support restoration since the deleted revisions did not have copyright violations or BLP violations. I also requested that Talk:Sacred Microdistillery is restored and moved to Talk:Sacred Spirits.

In response, Deb wrote, "Okay, do that. There are other admins who are willing to restore promotional content." I am therefore posting a deletion review to request restoration of the deleted revisions.

Deb also wrote:

The history is a bit mysterious because the article was created by User:Accounting4Taste, who is no longer with us, in January 2021, with the summary "creating a sandbox page with deleted material", and it took me a while to figure out that it was created as "Sacred microdistillery" and before that as "Sacred Gin". There were two deletion discussions: here and here and then it was redirected. Do you feel that these old versions are of any value?

To comply with the copyright policy, the content from Sacred microdistillery and Sacred Gin may also need to be restored. I am therefore requesting restoration of those revisions too. I am also requesting restoration of the associated talk pages if any of them contain substantive discussion. Cunard (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This whole thing looks like a complete mess. From what I can tell, this article was deleted twice twelve years ago, someone sandboxed the deleted material, restored it, which that was the basis for a G11 deletion? And now you want to restore the history of the deleted versions because you've incorporated some deleted content into the latest version? Is this correct? Is there any reason why a dummy edit wouldn't suffice here? (Also, I'm not convinced the article as written passes WP:NORG, but that's a different, albeit not irrelevant, tangent.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would it be OK use G11 on an article where there was a non-promotional version in the history? Why not just revert to the non-promotional version? That decision to G11 seems wrong to me, in which case DRV would surely remedy that by restoring the other revisions. To perform a complex history merge involving several pages may be disproportionate, in which case we might want to consider the alternatives.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't necessarily agree that the version I restored was entirely non-promotional, just that it wasn't unsalvageable. But you can see it in the history; judge for yourself. Deb (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there was a version that in your judgment was ok to restore, why not just revert to that? I'm really struggling to make sense of the G11 here.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I've given the idea that I was happy about restoring it, I wasn't. I agreed to restore it to draft primarily so that Cunard could see what his version looked like. I hoped that he would use it to create a fresh article without any promotional content. In retrospect, I don't think I should have restored it at all. Deb (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it would be okay to G11 an entire article, in fact I think G11 itself requires restoration: If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. However, there's a couple ways this could go depending on what the history looks like given the two AfDs, and an admin's going to have to dig into the history to figure out exactly what's going on here. I still have concerns about the article as it's currently written too - it looks like it has been discussed in some books so I may be wrong about the NORG, but it doesn't feel like an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 June 2021

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

I would ask that the Hungarian Testing Board (HTB) page is undeleted for 2 reasons:

1) If the HTB's parent organisation International Software Testing Qualifications Board is considered a notable organisation, it seems logical that affiliated national organisations such as the Hungarian Testing Board--like the neighbouring Austrian Testing Board--should also be considered notable.

2) The Hungarian Testing Board is a notable organization in its own right.

Let me expand on these 2 reasons:

Evidence for 1):

  • A search for the term 'ISTQB' in google books returns numerous hits:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=istqb

  • Looking on the websites of Stanford and MIT (two of the World's leading computer science institutions), returns many links from faculty and students to ISTQB materials:

Stanford: https://www.stanford.edu/search/?q=istqb&search_type=web&submit=

MIT: https://web.mit.edu/search/?q=istqb#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=istqb&gsc.page=1

Evidence for 2):

  • ISTQB software-testing course materials, written in both English and Hungarian, are taught in at least one Hungarian University:

https://www.sed.inf.u-szeged.hu/ISTQB_ATFL

https://books.google.hu/books?id=dnu5vAEACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Istvan+Forgacs%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

  • HTB organizes HUSTEF (Hungarian Testing Forum), which is one of Europe's most important software-testing conferences, featuring keynotes, presentations and workshops from leading figures in the software testing world (previous speakers have included: Janet Gregory, Rex Black, Emily Bache, Michael Bolton, and hosts of others). Hundreds of software-testing professionals attend this conference.

https://hustef.hu/speakers2020/

To conclude, I think the Hungarian Testing Board page should be undeleted because it is a notable organization both within Hungary and--through its work with the HUSTEF conference--around the World. Sldn37 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Astha Agarwal – Speedy vacate close & undelete due to the since-discovered abuse of multiple accounts that constitutes the entirety of this discussion. Any editor is free to renominate at their own discretion. Daniel (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Astha Agarwal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Both the AFD nominator and the only contributor to this AFD are sockpuppets of each other, and of another previous blocked user (as per this SPI). Therefore, neither of them should have been editing Wikipedia, and there was no discussion on this AFD from any legitimate Wikipedia users. I would suggest reopening this AFD and letting decent editors voice their opinions, or even overturning it to a speedy keep as per WP:DENY. I came across this from a discussion at the WP:Help desk, and although I have not seen the article before it was deleted, we shouldn't be letting sockpuppets get articles deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vacate per SportingFlyer, and endorse speedy close of this DRV if Daniel does so on his own initiative. Any NON SOCK user can go ahead and renominate for deletion if desired. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate, that is behave as if this deletion discussion never happened. It came to light after the close that nobody supporting deletion in the discussion should have been editing anyway, so it's clearly impossible that a consensus of good-faith editors to delete was reached there. I don't understand why this was relisted rather than speedily closed when the nominator had been identified as a blocked sockpuppet. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2021 (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/2021_June&oldid=1095779655"