Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April

< March 2019	Deletion review archives	May 2019 >

30 April 2019

USS Augustus Holly – Speedy deletion overturned. Sandstein 07:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Invalid A7. The Augustus Holly is not a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event. Deleting admin has refused to restore at WT:SHIPS. [1] There is also some discussion there that the article meets the bar for a credible claim of significance, if somehow a ship is one of the items listed in A7. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:A7 indicates the list is exhaustive, and there is plenty there to indicate that it's in fact illustrative (for instance, the numerous exceptions for things that don't fall into the enumerated categories); further, a strict reading of the list flies in the face of WP:BURO. In any event, I don't see a credible claim of significance in the article or submitted by other editors in the talk page discussion. Simply having been bought by the US Navy does not pass that bar. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. CSD have explicitly and unambiguously defined scope, and the scope of A7 explicitly excludes things not mentioned in the criteria. For that matter, I have no idea what kind of category other than "everything" would be illustrated the list of things that A7 covers. Educational institutions are excluded because they're organizations, "the stuff they made" were explicitly excluded because presumably people frequently assumed otherwise and the same goes for "type of animal". I'm still confused why ships would be assumed to fall into the criteria, maybe it'll be clearer after I sleep on it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Of course the list in WP:A7 is exhaustive, by simple English comprehension as well as by long standing practice. Whatever could possibly have given anyone any idea that it is not? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. I've always assumed the list of applicable things enumerated in WP:A7 to be exhaustive.

side-rant about A7

Personally, I think that's stupid, and A7 should apply to an article about anything that makes no claim of importance. It applies to an article about a YouTube video because that's web content, but not an article about an episode of a TV show, because it's not web content? Absurd. It applies to The dog I had as a kid because that's an animal, but not to The big tree that was in my yard because it's not an animal? It applies to My best friend when I was growing up because that's a real person, but not My pretend friend when I was growing up because that's a made-up person? But, regardless,

strict interpretation of that list has been accepted practice for as long as I've been watching AfD and DRV. I expect the AfD will get closed as Merge to Stone Fleet. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, historically, the bar for a "credible claim of significance", has been pretty low. A reasonable argument could be made that being scuttled as part of a blockade is good enough to avoid A7. I don't think it's enough (by a long shot) to meet WP:N, but that's something to be decided at AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I was just on my way over to WP:CSD to propose modifying A7 to be more inclusive, when I discovered A7 scope is specifically called out in WP:NOTCSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Due to premature deletion have not seen the article, but if it contained something like the current form of the DANFS article it meets the credible claim of significance as "a vessel purchased by the USN for operational purpose". WP:CCS is clear that, as a consequence, WP:SPEEDY cannot be used, and that the correct process is WP:AFD. Davidships (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7 does not apply to ships and the wording of A7 does exclude categories which aren't explicitly listed. If there's any doubt then please see WP:NOTCSD point 6. Even if A7 did apply to ships the article said the subject was a US Navy warship and I think that's an assertion of significance. Note WP:SHIPOUTCOMES says Named warships...are generally treated as presumptively notable. Hut 8.5 20:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple points of fact: this was not a warship, nor was it ever commissioned. Therefore the presumption of notability doesn’t apply. Parsecboy (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't matter. A7 is supposed to be a lower bar than notability, and notability is suppose to be evaluated through PROD and AfD rather than speedy deletion. Therefore if there's even a possibility that the subject is notable it shouldn't be an A7. If you have to start nitpicking about whether it was commissioned or not in order to justify deleting it then it shouldn't be handled through speedy deletion. And again A7 simply doesn't apply to ships of any kind. Hut 8.5 17:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not splitting hairs - you asserted it was a warship, it wasn't. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The A7 list is absolutely meant to be exhaustive. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The A7 list is exclusive. If you don't know how to use A7, don't review A7 nominations. If the community had meant for other types of objects, even if they have grammatical gender, to be included, they would have been included. Shinps have grammatical gender, but they are not persons or animals. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - A7 is inapplicable per those above. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason why the list of things that can be deleted at A7 is so limited is not arbitrary, but rather our accumulated experience, as shown bythe exhaustive archive of the CSD talk page. Speedy is only for unquestionably clear deletions, such as no reasonable person who understands WP would object to. It therefore has to be limited to those cases where the deleting admin can be sure they are not making a mistake. The total lack of importance of people can often be judged by any admin--that many attempted articles will be about people who cannot conceivably merit a WP article is easy to tell. This is also true for many attempted articles on organizations, and individual animals, and by experience this is also true of many attempted articles on web content. By experience , it is not true of such things as buildings or commercial products, or computer software, or films, or books, or groups of animals--the factors for notability here can be complicated and hard to judge--it is too easy to confuse the totally unfamiliar with the totally insignificant. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find that particularly compelling; if I were deleting articles on subjects with which I have no familiarity, sure, but I know a thing or two about this particular subject area. And to undelete the article only to then delete it via AfD seems overly bureaucratic and a waste of the community's time. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the point of rules like this is that having some definite rules avoids the waste of community time when someone else does something wrong. I'm very good at judging books, but I do not speedy them, because then someone who is a little less knowledgable might do so also. And it's also the reason we don't usually delete via A7 unless there's a nomination by someone else, as I think you did here: even on the basic categories people make errors, and having two people makes the frequency much lower if an ordinary non-admin NPP has a 5% error rate, and I have a 2% error rate, that gives only a 0.1% error rate. Had you followed that general practice, this wouldn't have happenned. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in avoiding a waste of the community's time then why not accept the unanimous opinion that your interpretation of WP:A7 was mistaken and restore the article now, rather than let this discussion continue to its inevitable result in a few days time? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list of subjects deletable by A7 have always been meant to be exhaustive, all the way back to when it was first passed and included only real persons. Parsecboy is right, though, that because it also enumerates a list of things that aren't included, it can reasonably be read by someone unfamiliar with its history as meaning "generally these things, and never these other things" instead of "only these things, and (redundantly) never these other things". That's reason to fix the wording of A7, which I'm going to go do right now, not to allow this deletion. —Cryptic 18:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I can't see any way that anyone with a reasonable comprehension of English could possibly have interpreted this speedy deletion criterion as anything other than exhaustive. It's absolutely clear in that, and administrators of the English Wikipedia are supposed to have a reasonable comprehension of English. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Easy there. We don't need to get into questions of competence here. --Izno (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith and competence are different things. We can assume the former even when the evidence is clear that someone doesn't have the latter. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence in this case is unclear, however. :) --Izno (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Unquestionably done in good faith, but I agree with virtually all of the comments above. CSD A7 is not open ended. Beyond which I am somewhat disconcerted by the necessity and length of this discussion. When pretty much everybody is telling me that I am wrong about something; I typically treat that as an indicator that I probably am, in fact, wrong. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'm pretty sure that ever since I became an admin (2007), A7 has been written to say basically that it applies to nothing except a few categories of concepts (of none of which are ships a part), and the only substantial changes I can remember are the introduction of new categories, e.g. individual animals. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Ellipsis – Overturn the G4, endorse the previous deletion. It seems like the G4 was invalid due to differences between the templates. Users of the restored template should probably be mindful of Izno's caveats, but that is not really discussion for deletion review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

To summarize, my goal is to have a convenient template for rendering Unicode ellipsis using a Latin-script keyboard, and have it available under an easy-to-remember name.

In my original filing of this DRV, I disputed the original deletion discussion, but the actual reason I ended up coming to DRV was that the template was G4 speedy deleted after I recreated it.

I dispute the validity of this G4, because I had no knowledge of the exact original contents of the template, so I am unsure how my version is substantially identical. I did read the TfD, and assumed my version of the template would be different enough (but as a non-admin I cannot see the original template's contents, so I cannot know how different it was). More substantially, I dispute the G4 because it appears to disregard the pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies requirement of G4; the TfD centered on the template's lack of usefulness (read the TfD and see my quotes from it below in the collapsed section), but I created this template to use it for a specific purpose (detailed in my initial reply to Reyk).

In the end, I do not see the purpose of deleting a purely functional template with no credible claim of harm under a CSD. If the template was controversial (e.g. it insulted other editors, or it contained text contradicting existing policy), I would understand, but all this template does is allows Unicode to be rendered from a Latin-script keyboard. This is not to say I consider this template "undeletable" on my mere word, but I consider a TfD after recreation to be a more legitimate deletion mechanism than a CSD in this case.

My verbose request that I initially ended up with; I've now summarized this better above. e^πi (talk | contribs) 02:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the length of this request and the number of edits I have done here. After some thought, I've realized the previous collapsed structure wastes other editors time, so I've decided to restructure it so all the details of my deletion review can be considered fully. I have two main points I want to make here:

1. I'm here because I attempted to create a new version of Template:Ellipsis without having knowledge of the exact original contents, but it was redeleted shortly after under G4, which requires a "sufficiently identical" page. As I've noted here, I think the speedy redeletion was done on invalid grounds. Since I do not know what the original contents were, I cannot really comment on how close my version was to the original contents, or to the appropriateness of the original version, but I can note that I recreated the template to make use of its technical function.

If my arguments against the speedy deletion are unconvincing, then I would like those commenting in the discussion to also consider my use-oriented grounds addressing the original deletion rationale; I've detailed this argument below.

2. The TfD closed in 2013 with a unanimous delete !vote... of three !votes (counting the proposer, and one of which lacked rationale). One strong delete !vote would have shifted the balance, and as I was not there for the original discussion, I would like to make my case here. I strenuously object to the deletion of this template, as I it serves a useful purpose: allowing the typing of unicode characters that are inaccessible on the standard Latin keyboard. But most of all, I would like to make a pragmatic appeal: I have an actual intended use for this template. In the TfD, all of arguments against were based on the template's lack of usefulness:

(the nominator's rationale) Seems to be a generally pointless template. Typing "{{ellipsis}}" generates exactly the same as typing "..." and uses 9 more keystrokes than the method recommended by WP:ELLIPSIS.
I don't know if it is really very useful even with its new features
Adding features nobody requested to a template nobody uses is not a productive use of editors' time.
(the third delete !vote) Do we really need a template for ellipsis and other standard typographical punctuation?

Meanwhile, I see the following point I agree with made in comments: typing ⋮ is rather difficult without hunting for the Unicode codepoint. And while ⋯ is used in math, it isn't a standard ellipsis.

I think the burden falls on the dissenter to argue what harm this template causes. It can easily be removed if it's used on articles, and my newer version provides instructions discouraging use in articles. MOS:ELLIPSIS is a guideline for one specific type of ellipsis; it does not discuss the use of ellipsis in other contexts. Even if this template never ends up getting used on articles, there's no reason not to have it around. e^πi (talk | contribs) 09:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (significant edits: 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)) (edited for conciseness 18:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (3rd edit 19:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

First of all, endorse the original deletion just to be clear that nobody's criticising the deleting admin. I'd have no objection to allowing recreation in principle. What do you intend to do with it? Reyk _YO! 10:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk I'm going to be using it in userspace for some tables soon for demonstrating missing rows in tables as part of a larger project to evaluate the use of tooltips on the wiki. But my main argument above is that even if this template doesn't get used in article space, it doesn't have potential to cause harm in article space. It's a purely functional template, so all deletion is doing is depriving the function of easily typing Unicode ellipsis. e^πi (talk | contribs) 10:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that all seems reasonable to me. Reyk _YO! 10:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing my own ineptness in following procedures when creating this DRV. e^πi (talk | contribs) 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: Re-reading the deletion review instructions, I'm getting the striking impression that I mistakenly added the deletion review template to the template I'm requesting undeletion for, when the template's only supposed to be added here (see this edit). I'm having a bit of trouble interpreting how to carry out step 5 for a template, as the steps seem to be addressing AfDs for step 5, could you clarify?

I assume the page should be redeleted again because I gather I recreated it in error (and I've nominated it for speedy deletion under U1 (it was deleted under G7, which is the proper speedy deletion criteria for non-userspace author-requested deletions)). Is <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 22}}</noinclude> supposed to be added at the original TfD? I was confused because TfD operates as sections, not as subpages, but the deletion review steps only mention subpages. e^πi (talk | contribs) 10:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (edited 11:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, you seem to be right about the TfD organisation, so I wouldn't worry about linking to here from there. As for accidentally re-creating the page that is no big deal either. I'm sure an administrator will fix all that before long. Reyk _YO! 11:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: I've revised this DRV significantly to discuss this on different grounds, so I've collapsed the previous comments. You are welcome to revert if you feel it is appropriate. e^πi (talk | contribs) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I have a better organizational idea. e^πi (talk | contribs) 19:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What is the appellant requesting? If to allow re-creation, why? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I've just now summarized my current thoughts at the top of the request. Hopefully, that will make for easier reading than my original mess.

I am requesting reversal of the recent G4 speedy deletion. e^πi (talk | contribs) 02:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC) (edited 02:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Overturn the G4, without prejudice to another TFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS doesn't allow the use of the Unicode ellipses. What use do you intend for the template? --Izno (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I assume you're referring to MOS:ELLIPSIS? I had no specific plans to use the template in mainspace, and actually included a mention of MOS:ELLIPSIS in the docs to discourage using Unicode ellipsis to replace the MOS-approved .... I wanted to use the vertical and diagonal version in some userspace tables to indicate missing rows in the table; the tables will show the context in which tooltips are used (I'm currently strategizing the replacement and organization of tooltips). e^πi (talk | contribs) 13:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just user-space things, why not just create your own template in your user space? --Izno (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Mainly name convenience (typing {{User:E to the Pi times i/Ellipsis}} or {{User:{{ROOTPAGENAME}}/Ellipsis}} would be inideal). But I also think the template's existence is beneficial in general to give people the opportunity to use nonstandard ellipsis in appropriate contexts.

If any misuse in mainspace occurred, it could easily be replaced. I imagine the amount of misuse will be minimal if existent; I don't think many people randomly add templates to articles if they aren't copying them from other articles. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) e^πi (talk | contribs) 19:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E to the Pi times i: If it were to be recreated, it would need to emit a warning in mainspace instead of ellipses. I think that's non-negotiable. As for your subpages, {{/ellipsis}} will transclude the subpage named "ellipsis". You can set up redirects as necessary if you have multiple pages you want to use it on. --Izno (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Your ping fix attempt failed because both the target username link and your signature need to be on a new line. But that's alright.

I would prefer a warning that only displays if the page is previewed. I'll also note that I had the default use with no parameters displays the MOS-recommended ... to minimize the risk of inconsistency if it was used in articles. There could also be a maintenance category.

My rationale for preview-only warnings is that bothering the casual reader seems unnecessary, particularly for something subtle like this. Also, the casual reader may lack the wiki-context to know the most appropriate way to handle it; we could have an error message that says to always replace with ..., but then an easier way to handle that would be to make it conditionally always display ... in mainspace, regardless of parameters. But I suspect anyone using this template with parameters in mainspace intends other things, so it should be handled with nuance by a more experienced Wikipedia editor.

But having said all that, I can certainly defer to your greater experience if you feel strongly about a reader-facing warning.

That subpage redirect idea is a good idea; I would still prefer this template to be restored, but that is certainly an alternative if that doesn't work out, and it could be useful for future templates.

Side-question: I notice you added * to the beginning of my posts here. Was that for functional purposes or aesthetic ones? e^πi (talk | contribs) 02:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Functional; please review WP:LISTGAP and surrounding material.

I'm not holding up a restoration (this is not a TFD), but just making sure you understand what you're doing. :^)

It would be an editor-facing warning too, which is the point. Preview-only warnings can be missed or ignored. This template would not be the first, were it restored, to have warnings in place when used in an inappropriate place.

I strongly don't want to have to deal with this template in mainspace besides, because of things like bots and new users getting hung on a Yet Another Template when they really should just use ... (which is also why I will resist a default output by the template of the same). --Izno (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I don't want this template to be used in mainspace either. But I think the messiness of a reader-visible warning outweighs the benefit of fixing the "mistake", whether it be in terms of the wrong ellipsis or extra wikitext complexity. Yes, templates add complexity to wikitext, but one more will barely add a splash in the pond in terms of complexity.

But since I also don't think this template will be used in mainspace, I have no practical objections to a userspace-facing warning, merely philosophical ones.

Your point about bots is interesting though, and it makes me consider something I didn't realize before: it seems bots are one of the reasons certain templates are subst-only. e^πi (talk | contribs) 03:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC) (Word fix 03:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@Izno: ...but on second thought it's all a matter of degrees; the messiness is relatively trivial as well, as it's not like it will disturb the general page layout. And I think my philosophical leanings are proved wrong by the wiki interface's choice to have {{nonexistent template}} display a red link. That can hardly be described as "less messy" by my definition of messy, so I now favor your suggestion of an error message. e^πi (talk | contribs) 03:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A side-note; it's not just per MOS:ELLIPSIS, but also MOS:NOSYMBOLS. e^πi (talk | contribs) 13:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. G4 is for reposts, and the content deleted on 26 April 2013 is significantly different from the content deleted on 30 April 2019. They do the same thing, but G4 does not apply to new pages on identical topics if the content is different. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 April 2019

Marisha Ray – Endorse. The title has already been redirected, per WP:BOLD, which is not inconsistent with the XfD close. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two comments do not feel like a consensus. The comments appear biased with personal knowledge. For significance, there are multiple non-primary sources. The voice acting work seems non-trivial. Please review, something seems off with this page; notability seems clear and it can be improved as a live page through WikiProjects. 68.33.74.157 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the best three sources for this topic? Hobit (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Participation was low, but I think the close was squarely within discretion. An explicitly "soft delete" might have been preferred by some, but I think that's a moot point since REFUND to a draft is available on request. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I offer no criticism of Spartaz' close. I've redirected the title to Critical Role which is where any coverage of this lady belongs.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What does the appellant want? To allow creation of a draft, to allow a redirection, which has been done, to relist? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were 3 comments including the nom..The analysis was detailed. Why was this not discussed with me first? Why was not notified of the DRV? Rude. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kirshenbaum – The amended closure of the AfD (as "no consensus") is endorsed. Sandstein 08:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The rationale for the nomination (lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources) was not adequately addressed by the participants. Nardog (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn and delete~~ – although there were two keep !votes and one delete !vote (the nom), the three sources put forward for GNG each have only one mention of Kirshenbaum. These three passing mentions don't amount to significant coverage to meet GNG. All other sourcing in the article appears to be Kirshenbaum himself. While these sources may meet WP:V, they don't meet WP:GNG. If this is all the sourcing that's out there (and after two relists, it appears that it is), then this article should be deleted, despite the numeric !votes. Leviv ich 17:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess after the nom consulted with the closer, the closer has changed the close to no consensus without prejudice to speedy renomination, which basically moots this DRV. I now think this should be closed/withdrawn and the article can be renominated for deletion. Leviv ich 01:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Nardog Per WP:DRVPURPOSE Deletion review should not be used ... (2) ... can you explain why this was not discussed (or attempted to be discussed) with the closing administrator first nor a reason for not having that discussion or results thereof presented at this DRV nomination. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: You're right, I've started a discussion with the closer. Nardog (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The result has been revised from "keep" to "no consensus". According to the statement, the closer does "not believe these sources represent significant coverage". Nardog (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse discussion really could only be closed as NC or keep. Given book references etc (https://www.google.com/search?q=kirshenbaum+ipa), this seems like a notable, if not deeply discussed in independent sources, topic. Basically everyone just describes it and references the website. Seems like a reasonable topic for an article. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: Can you provide examples of the independent sources which you think discuss the topic deeply? Nardog (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, my point was that I couldn't find such a thing. But I am finding a number of quality sources that briefly describe it and then refer others to the website. Maybe all the ASCII transcriptions of IPA should be merged into one article, but frankly, I don't think that would help our readers. I agree notability, in terms of sources, is low. But A) the discussion didn't move toward delete and B) to me, this feels like the type of thing Wikipedia should be covering (rather than actors or random comic characters). Hobit (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Withdrawn~~ I will renominate it as advised above. Nardog (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Stricken for the time being. Nardog (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object to withdraw now its here~~ Comment (See !vote below): I have issues with the closer and with this DRV so request remains open. I will detail issues in course. I would suggest the closer checks things with extreme care and says what he need to say here. The issue actual results from what I think is an error on my part. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: So what is your objection? It's not clear here or on User talk:Scott Burley. Nardog (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to. If I'm misreading you then I apologize for the tone, but you need to actually make an argument if you want it to be considered. If I've missed something, please bring it up at the renominated AfD. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I observe two people who I believe may have made good faith errors in procedures are now rushing me. More seemly is whether or how WP:RENOM applies or whether a relist from this DRV would be endorsed. I think people who have a positive attitiude to the content and who might have to put in the volunteer effort to save what appears at first glance to be a good faith article. And this is not yet my argument I came across the WP:RENOM in passing for something else 10 minutes ago. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right: I've had a change to look round at thing. I had a bad doi link in a cite and added and no-one seemed to pick it up. Ultimately that ref was essentially a passing reference but i've now fixed it. I've also cast my mind back 3 weeks ago .. it takes 8 hours to get stuff from long term memory ... when I'd look at that nom. in detail. I think at the time I noted the article had at most one (if any) primary references and I added 2 or 3 to it, of which one all but one were passing references however they supported the text, and I may have mistaken one for slightly more than passing due to fact IPA is not my geek scene .... its just something that get put and occasionally argued about at the start of articles ... (to me frankly IPA is first and foremost a drink). I remember at the time noting Nardog's contributions there seemed to be a great understanding of and passion about IPA. If I understand correctly the article in question here is one of the set of systems about International Phonetic Alphabet#ASCII and keyboard transliterations. It was not the first in this set, but its development through Usenet and its connection to eSpeak have some significance. But it is perhaps the availability of the document [2] on the HP website led to it being ab easy goto reference for maybe about 15 years. But while many were likely to give it a passing reference I suspect few would do it at the document was likely self sufficient. So while the article may be nice and verifiable it may ultimately not be able to satisfy the Wikt:Pharisees (figuratively but meaning no offence) so blood is to be had. Now there may be a clever defence, or there may be a reference appear out of nowhere or offline, but the fallback will likely be merge or re-purpose which will possibly be more ugly but the only method to retain content. Which is all a bit of a pain in the butt to look forward to in 6 or some might argue 2 months times at per WP:RENOM. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its a solid keep as there is plenty of sources if a proper search is made using the real name of the technology as opposed to the person who is associated with it, Kirshenbaum . It is a genuine keep. The three sources represent the use of Kirshenbaum by two separate technologies and the are not related except through the use Kirshenbaum, and there is more there. scope_creep^Talk 17:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@scope_creep I anticipate this this will be likely be renominated for deletion and I observer this DRV is out of procedure. As the other involved in the AfD I will support your preferred course of either accepting the withdraw of voiding of this DRV, endorsing the revised closer keep as no consensus, relisting or even endorsing the original straight keep and overturning the closer's revision as it was performed out of procedure. The reason for supporting in this manner is to let scope_creep have the lead over influencing of the timing of any future AfD nomination per WP:RENOM which may involve further input of scope_creep's time resource. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: I wouldn't reopen it or recast a new Afd in future. As far as I'm concerned I think it is established technology and endorse for keep or NC. scope_creep^Talk 18:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

endorse: (original closer keep). Will also accept revised keep no consensus with concerns. This DRV may be striken but is to remain recorded on talk page record.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep or no consensus are the two acceptable outcomes, and no consensus makes more sense to me due to the limited participation in this AfD and the nominator's concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 08:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as SportingFlyer says, either Keep or No Consensus, or a Relist. No need to overturn. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Void close. I'm concerned about the comment by the closing admin, I do not believe these sources represent significant coverage. That's a really strange thing to read in an AfD closing statement. It's not the job of the closer to evaluate the quality of the sources. The job of the closer is to summarize the discussion. If you want to offer an opinion on the quality of the sources, join the discussion, and leave it to somebody else to close. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out the state of the closing discussion on original close was Old revision of Kirshenbaum and at that time that comment was not present. The DRV nom. raised the DRV and when challenged about not consulting the AfD closer the nom. then conversed with the closed outside of DRV the changes to the AfD result occurred with the comment given on the AfD. So all a bit mucky and out of procedure really.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 April 2019

List of British monarchy records – Endorse. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

A no-consensus closure, effectively a decision to keep the article, can hardly be justified considering the strength of arguments or even the mere number of votes. While the seven people arguing for deletion (and two suggesting a merger) pointed to policies, guidelines, severe WP:OR issues and lack of coverage in reliable sources, the five people who favored keeping the article merely said things like: "some trivia is useful and interesting." In fact, one of the five who favored keeping the article, a significant contributor to the said article, admitted that the article consisted of original research, said he or she would continue to violate OR across Wikipedia, and was indefinitely blocked for it. Simply put, I do not see which keep arguments outweighed the delete arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As closing admin, I felt this was a borderline case. While I agree that the balance of the discussion favored deletion I don't think there was a clear consensus. I don't see a compelling reason to overturn the close, but would not object to another admin doing so. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close is within discretion. Keep arguments aren't great, but trivia issues isn't either. IMO this is pretty much a straight up-and-down "is this a good article to have around" given it meets WP:N. There isn't consensus on that issue. Hobit (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close is within discretion. Some of the Keep arguments are actually decent, including the ones that cut through the WP:OR issue by finding sources, and many of the delete !voters don't go into any depth, but rather categorise the article as trivia or crufty. The policy's clearly not on one side here (disregarding for that one strong keep !voter, joj!) SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse to be honest the arguments for keeping are deleting are both rather subjective, deciding whether something is trivia or indiscriminate information involves a large amount of judgement, even though there is support in policies and guidelines for deleting those. Given that opinion was pretty evenly divided I don't see a consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 20:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not only as a valid exercise of closer discretion but as the most reasonable close, with good arguments both ways. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discworld geography – Undelete history, as a redirect has already been created Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to properly merge it into Discworld (world), but I would rather have the original information. Serendipodous (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The gist of the AfD discussion was that the content, while not suitable as an encyclopedia article, would certainly be valuable reused in some other context. So, I can't see any reason not to restore the history under the current redirect and let it be reused. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, if you re-use the material in another wikipedia page, see WP:COPYWITHIN for how to provide proper attribution. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect with an undelete seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect lightly contested AfD, not enough for an article but no problem on my end with a redirect/history restoration. SportingFlyer T·C 07:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to do anything? Serendi ^podous 19:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to wait for the listing to be up for a week and an admin to close it. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Redirect - No reason to prevent redirect or merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and redirect to Discworld (world) per the reasonable request of the nominator. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 April 2019

Jessica (spider) – Unprotected to allow the creation of a bona fide article. Sandstein 16:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purpose #3 and possibly #4. From what I can tell, it looks like a lot of people tried to create this page with patent nonsense often enough that it made its way onto a list of pages to be deleted and protected. There actually is a spider with the name "Jessica" and the title of its page should be on is "Jessica (spider)" by WP:Spiders naming conventions. There is an article for every other genus in its family so I believe it is notable enough, but I haven't found the original reason it was protected yet. I left a message on the talk page of the most recent user to delete this page, but I haven't received a response yet. Sesame honey tart 03:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of the two deleted versions were, respectively, "this is a type of poisonus spider that will kill you if you totch it!!" and "[name] is queer and incestn84rj9bgtvy71". I don't think anybody here is going to think those were wrongly deleted. It was protected to stop people writing more in that vein. If you have a draft article about the spider genus which is even vaguely encyclopedic then I'd be happy to move it to mainspace. Hut 8.5 10:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Hut's solution is the way forward here. WP:RFPP might have been a better place to go? But if you want an article here, just create a stub with some sources as a draft and ping Hut 8.5. Hobit (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and unprotected the title, so you can just create your new article in-place. If it gets vandalized again, we can worry about it later. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, that works too :-). Hobit (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Areca (company) – Restore to draft. Once the draft is ready, submit it for review through the normal AfC submission process. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Areca is a major vendor of RAID hardware; there has been plentiful of open-source software device drivers written for their controllers from plentiful of operating systems and monitoring vendors, which should qualify as independent in-depth coverage of their products (OpenBSD and NetBSD drivers were written by volunteers unaffiliated with Areca); there's also recent reviews of their products as well, e.g., one by Tom's Hardware about a year ago on 2018-03-04. A Google Search for ARECA RAID supposedly returns 3M results, including hits on reputable retailers like B&H Photo Video. I'm not sure about 2014, but I fail to see how this could not be a notable manufacturer today in 2019. MureninC (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MureninC. It's usually recommended to contact the closing administrator (Sandstein in this case) before you open a DRV. Considering discussion 4 years ago and you believe the company is notable now, I don't think there'd be objection to restoring the article to a draft, where you can add your best sources, touch things up a bit, and an experienced editor can perform a more detailed review to determine whether it meets our guidelines or not. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with restoring it to draft space for improvement, I believe Sandstein has a policy of not doing this on request. There honestly isn't much in the deleted version though, it was a one short paragraph stub, the only source cited was [3], and since it's five years old it would need updating anyway (it talked about something happening "recently", for example). You could just write another article about them, which you don't need anyone's permission for. As long as it's a significant improvement on the old one it won't be deleted without another AfD. Hut 8.5 10:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation as draft to be reviewed by a qualified neutral reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 April 2019

25 April 2019

24 April 2019

Template:Use ymd dates – Endorse but relist Seems like there are two points here, whether the original close was correct and whether there is a reason to reopen the discussion and possibly recreating the template. Regarding the first point, Frietjes appears to be the most in-depth analysis that has gone mostly uncontested so that it probably the consensus here. Regarding the second point, however the nominator (and later on Cunard) has made detailed arguments in favour of reconsidering the original discussion, and some more editors have endorsed a re-discussion. Thus endorse but also relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted on 2011-12-18 even though there was no consensus (2011-12-07 voting: 2 keep, 1 delete), nominated only a couple of months after a prior XfD was closed by the same admin as a "no consensus" (2011-09-08 voting: 7 keep + 2 strong keep = 9 total keep; 4 delete — doesn't seem like "no consensus" to me); deleted again on 2017-01-01 under WP:CSD § G4.

As for the rationale, whilst it may have been true that ISO 8601 dates may have been uncommon in English in 2011, I think it is very common nowadays in 2019, especially in International English and in open-source software-related articles where English is often used as a lingua franca amongst participants from all around the world. Recently (in the last couple of weeks), the Template:Use mdy dates and Template:Use dmy dates templates have started being used by the Template:Cite web et al for formatting the dates used in the references; I think this makes it necessary to have the full collection of acceptable date formats that could be specified for use when dmy or mdy don't cut it. Additionally, just as an example, nowadays, ISO 8601 is the standard way of expressing dates on gc.ca websites by Government Canada, e.g., see travel.gc.ca, weather.gc.ca (Date modified: 2019-04-24), and in news lists like on www.fin.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/nr-nc-eng.asp, agr.gc.ca/eng/news/… etc. MureninC (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion, the prior discussion was for three templates, including the very commonly used dmy and mdy dates templates, so I don't think you can extrapolate. the follow up discussion on 7 December 2011 had 5 participants, with The Evil IP address/Frietjes !voting to delete, Thumperward saying that the template "is probably actually harmful" which equates to delete in my reading, and Nsaa/76.65.128.198 !voting to keep. so, that would be 3 delete + 2 keep, not the count indicated above. finally, and most importantly, MOS:DATE lists what is acceptable in prose. you should probably have that changed first if we are going to start saying that ymd is generally acceptable. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mention MOS:DATES is required to be changed first, but it already lists "2007-04-15" as being acceptable. Am I missing something? Also, I don't understand why you equate thumperward comment to a delete vote, when they explicitly didn't vote as such, especially as they wrongly suggest that this format wouldn't be familiar to most readers, which simply isn't the case and conflicts with MOS:DATES today, as ISO 8601 is very common nowadays. Additionally, the original nomination by The Evil IP address mentions that ISO 8601 format is, in fact, acceptable in References, but right now there's no template to enforce this, whereas the other two templates are automatically picked-up to format the citations in references as of a few weeks ago, and I think there must be one for ISO-8601 as well, to allow proper choice and consistency as per MOS:DATES. MureninC (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DATE says that there is "No equivalent for general use" and that ymd is only to be used in refs, tables, and infoboxes. which means, it is not acceptable in prose. and, Thumperward doesn't bold votes to encourage the closer to read the comments and not simply count votes. saying that a template "is probably actually harmful" means it should be deleted. if you want a template for enforcing ymd in references, and not in prose, then that would be called {{use ymd dates in references}}. editors may find Template:Use dmy dates#Usage informative where it states the "dmy and mdy templates have almost always been used to indicate date styles in the body of the articles". since ymd is not acceptable for the body of articles, having a non-reference-specific ymd template would be harmful. Frietjes (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I didn't "explicitly vote" because this isn't a vote, but generally if someone describes something as "probably actually harmful", they probably don't want it to be kept around? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment: the new support in cs1|2 does allow for ymd publication and access-/archive-dates ({{use xxx dates|cs1-dates=yy}}) but this directive is problematic for the general case where dates in a citation are ranges of any type or have month / season precision (commonly used by journals and magazines). This is why that 'feature' is not documented. cs1|2 does not convert those dates to numeric form because MOS:DATES does not support YYYY-MM, YYYY-MM-DD/YYYY-MM-DD. In cs1|2, access-/archive-dates are never ranges and are required to have day-precision; publication dates can be any of the accepted date types. Still, because MOS:DATES allows YYYY-MM-DD in citations, cs1|2 will attempt to comply with the |cs1-dates=yy directive. You can also explicitly set |df=ymd-all to do the same thing on an individual cs1|2 template basis (with the same conversion limitations). — Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: Thank you for clarification. I personally don't like the way that this has been done behind the back of editors of the articles, especially as there has been absolutely no usage of these templates for actual date formatting by any prior macros until this very recent change. I envision that in the future tables could possibly pick up the format as well, and then do they pick up the format from |cs-dates=yy, or would a new parameter be introduced, breaking everyone again? I think it should be possible to specify the |df=ymd option on the Template:Reflist level; I don't see it making any sense to have |df within Template:Cite web instead, as that seems like too-narrow of a context. I also really don't like the idea that this change is being introduced for references which causes ISO8601 references to be mangled into non-readable prose against the desires of the editors; please advise for a better venue to discuss this, if applicable; but I would like you to move the change from being applied automatically to be on an opt-in basis (at least in-so-far as a short compatible format is used in the references — I don't have an objection against automatically interchanging and correcting dmy/mdy otherwise). MureninC (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment here was an attempt to explain what is available, not to be a distraction from the purpose of this deletion review. If you wish to rise in opposition to cs1|2 auto date formatting, this should not be the venue. Perhaps Help talk:Citation Style 1 or WT:Citing sources are better venues. —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion, per Frietjes. User scripts for semi-automatic maintenance of dates do indeed call and write {{Use XXX dates}}} templates. Although there is a general tolerance for yymmdddd dates within the reference sections (and their use is independent of the existence or otherwise of those templates), en.wp is not big-endian, and MOSNUM does not approve of the use of yymmdddd dates in the body of articles. There is therefore no reason to use this template anywhere. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it shouldn't have been deleted in 2011 - should have been a no consensus. I haven't familiarised myself much with whether there's a need for this, but I have absolutely no problem with recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist the deletion history shows there was never actually consistent consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, are you still here? And still pretending to misunderstand what consensus is as part of some weird game to stop things getting deleted? The original argument to delete was that nobody writes dates in ISO 8601 format in the general body of articles, that enforcing this is therefore pointless, and that a template which is designed to enforce it is therefore completely counterproductive. Other than a couple of gainsayers (such as the author of this review request), nobody has actually argued against those points, so the close was correct. If MureninC (talk · contribs) can provide evidence that in general article prose, real-world editors are finding a problem whereby they are writing dates in ISO 8601 format and this is being ignored (instead of coming up with theoretical use cases), then that would be something, but as that hasn't happened there's no case to be made here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Templates are a bit of a specialized technology, and I'd hate to see a close call be made at DRV, where most people are not template experts. My reading of the XfD discussion is that it should have been closed as NC, but as I said, tossing it back to the folks who work with templates all the time makes more sense than relying on my judgement. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closure was the best reading of the discussion. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I support relisting because MureninC, the DRV nominator, has raised new arguments that were not discussed in the previous TfDs that took place over seven years ago. The new arguments should be evaluated by the template experts at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion instead of at DRV.
Another reason to relist is that the two "keep" arguments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 7#Template:Use ymd dates were not particularly strong. The first "keep" participant pointed to the previous "no consensus" 8 September 2011 TfD that nominated three different templates and had a different deletion rationale from the 7 December 2011 TfD. The second "keep" participant said why not have this template because "presumably some bots can autocorrect some errors in tables/list".
MureninC's rationale for restoration is far more detailed and persuasive than those "keep" arguments and they deserve to be discussed in a new TfD.
Cunard (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 April 2019

Tom Del Beccaro – Endorse. Redirects and drafts at editorial discretion, although people writing a draft may want to take Hut 8.5's point about election candidates into account. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:BEFORE did not appear to have been conducted. I have found several articles that give the subject significant coverage, including the Sacramento Bee, KNTV hosting an article written by the Associated Press, Mercury News, KFMB-AM, etc. While most of the coverage about the subject revolves around the 2016 United States Senate election in California, that means the subject at least falls under WP:BLP1E, and as such per WP:POLOUTCOMES, should be preserved as a redirect to 2016 United States Senate election in California#Republican Party. Subject also has received some coverage as the CA GOP Chairman, and has written for Forbes, and Fox Business. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed the AfD as delete simply because nobody expressed any desire to keep the article and all the arguments looked well reasoned and within policy; I wouldn't judge an argument simply on who made it per se but I've seen E.M.Gregory consistently talk a good argument over numerous AfD nominations, often as "keep", so I'm not surprised to see a "delete" !vote from him gathers consensus. I can't really put it much simpler than that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:RightCowLeftCoast about purpose of this DRV. Was this an error by the closer, an error by the nominator (which is not in the scope of DRV), or significant new information? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation in Draft Space if the issue is new information. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse if the issue is an error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Robert McClenon:The closure Ritchie333 looks like they followed consensus, which is fine. That said I am presenting new information that was not mentioned in the AfD. Additionally, I have no way of knowing what was in the previous article, to see whether it contains content which shows that the subject is notable beyond BLP1E. And yes, IMHO the nominator made an error.
- @Robert McClenon: If I was closing this discussion, I would find your two comments, above, to be confusing. Consider making life easier on whoever closes this and striking whichever one doesn't apply, so the closer need not have to guess what you really meant. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The confusion is the result of the filer having confused the DRV observers as to what the basis of the DRV request is, but I have struck the Endorse, not because I think that there is an error by the closer, which there isn't, but because that doesn't seem to be the issue here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance, I have not been involved in AfD in quiet some time, so I maybe a bit rusty.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - Then my recommendation is to allow re-creation in draft space followed by review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A lightly attended AfD, but one where the consensus was clear, and I don't see any articles presented here which talk about him significantly outside from his candidacy. Running for office does not entitle you to a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm confused about the arguments citing WP:BLP1E and WP:POLOUTCOMES, as both of those argue for deletion. There's no new information presented here; just more routine coverage of the same thing. A google search for Tom Del Beccaro senate yields 46,600 results. Adding a date restriction of 2017 to the present gives 62 results. Nuff said. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse perfectly valid close and I think any attempt a recreation would need to have more than just coverage of the 2016 Senate race. Unelected candidates for office are not usually notable unless they have some other source of notability. In this particular election the candidates from both parties all competed in a single primary and the top two proceeded to the general election, and the subject came fifth, behind two other Republicans. I don't think there's any point in restoring the article to turn it into a redirect to the election given that the subject didn't play a huge role in it and the deleted article barely even mentions the election (it was mostly about the subject's role as the chair of the California Republican Party). Hut 8.5 21:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5:, would there be opposition for Tom Del Beccaro to be recreated as a redirect to the campaign article?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't object to it being recreated as a redirect. You wouldn't need to come to DRV to do that by the way, there isn't anything stopping you from just doing it. Hut 8.5 06:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then it would be best if I withdraw this review, recreate the article as a redirect, and request the history of the old article to be included in the history of the redirect? --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's one way; the other would be to recreate in Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about this then. Let's recreate the article, reduce it down to a redirect, and leave it at that? If the subject gets significant coverage for more than the one event (the election)(subject was chairman of CA GOP, but most of that content was about the party and not the chairman), then the article can be changed back to a normal biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persian Medium Fiona – Closed early per WP:SNOW. It doesn't take a medium to predict that there is no chance that we will restore this promotional content. Sandstein 15:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This deletion was done in error. Fiona, like many accepted psychics & mediums is a network television guest, radio show host and a social media star who has over 1.2 million followers on Instagram, 1/2 million on YouTube and thousands more via other media. She broadcasts a show on FCC licensed radio stations (WZWK, Greenville, SC & CIRR, Toronto, Canada) She has worked over 20 years at her craft and is a well respected member of the metaphysical field. Some of the psychics you have accepted have been inspired by her. Deleting her article does not speak well to Wikipedia's credibility. Please reinstate this article. Thank you. Markiemark123 (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for this page state "Deletion review should not be used when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this". Can you explain why you chose not to follow this instruction? Stifle (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin comment: (edit conflict) The page was deleted per WP:G11 because its language was purely promotional in tone and served no other purpose but to promote the subject in question. Her (potential) notability was not a considering factor and anyone believing her to meet the notability guidelines is welcome to create a new article that is neutral in tone. That said, judging from googling her name and the lack of reliable sources in the deleted page, it's doubtful that this person is indeed notable, so I foresee that any such article, even if not promotional in tone, will be deleted. Regards So Why 08:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the deleted article to tell if G11 was met, but my psychic powers would lead me to believe it was, so endorse on that basis. As to wikipedia's credibility I guess I'm someone who would believe wikipedia's credibility is damaged supremely by including such nonsense as psychics, if it damages credibility with those gullible enough to buy in to this should be of no real concern. That said wikipedia is concerned with what the world at large deems notable, not what your or I think of the topic, so there should be no more to evaluating if the person meets the required standards and inclusion if they do. This would (a) require a NPOV article and (b) meet the inclusion standards, these standards are not based on big numbers (though big numbers can be an indicator that suitable evidence is available), nor on assertions about being well respected etc. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of promotional material helps to maintain Wikipedia's credibility, rather than call it into question. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. While the article was tagged with both A7 and G11, the deletion was (correctly) performed under G11 only. The promotional language makes the content unsuitable for an encyclopedia and that isn't changed even if the subject meets our notability criteria. I advise the nominator to seek some form of review to ensure their article is neutral before attempting to publish it, or publish it somewhere that has less strict policies on promotional content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Obvious G11. Promotional language ("While in Sweden, she discovered her gifts and real purpose, to use her gifts to help people"), crap sources (facebook, instagram, youtube), etc. I can't help but be amused by the sentence, Fiona still covets the gifts she has to reach people one on one . The author should look up the definition of covet. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Probably should be salted, since there's virtually no chance any rewrite could make this worth having. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 April 2019

Gradeup – Administratively closed as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. There's really nothing to do here. There's already a draft, and the WP:AfC review process can handle that in the normal fashion. Should it pass review, there's nothing preventing it from being moved to mainspace. DRV does not review drafts. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason for deletion last time was a WP:SOCK user who created the page, the way it was written as an advertisement, and poor references in the form of press releases. The company has now been covered by more news publications and has grown in terms of its consumer market. It is no longer a startup. The Indian media industry operates differently and what may seem as press releases are actually the best coverage that a brand can get, as long as the same information is not present (copy-pasted) in multiple publications and is published by an independent author instead of news wires and agencies. RajkGuj (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A draft exists at Draft:Gradeup. Also, the article was not deleted because of the sock, but because the company did not meet WP:NCORP looking at the AfD. I am confused about the purpose of this deletion review entry. The subject has not been WP:SALT-ed, more than a year since the article was deleted has passed, the consensus was strong and the closer did not make any mistakes here, and neither should the AfC reviewer decline the draft due to AfD because of what I just said. So....just submit the draft and wait for someone to review it? I can notice majority of the draft references are from before the AfD, which had resulted in a non-notable consensus. This new source from Yahoo India should also be added [4]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced that the sources meet NCORP, one even says This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed, but that's what AfC is for. If and when the nominator truly feels that the new sources are good enough, the AfC reviewers can perform a more detailed review and give some pointers as to how to proceed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jayanta Roy – Speedy deletion endorsed, article draftified. Sandstein 05:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

In 2017 a page on the topic was created by a different user which was deleted after discussion as the artist was not notable according to wikipedia guidline that time. But now the artist is notable and I have recreated the page which is speedy deleted under WP:G4. WP:G4 says clearly "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"...And this recreated page is not substantially identical to the deleted version and the reason for the deletion no longer applies. So WP:G4 deletion doesn't go with this one .This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources (The Asian Age, News18-CNN News, The Deccan Chronicle) that are independent of the subject. So it passes WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV.'O Bandhobi'(a song composed and written by the artist) has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it WP:NALBUM.So, that song itseft passes notability and thats why he has the credit for writing lyrics and music for a notable composition. So, the topic passes WP:COMPOSER. I have been unable to convince the (re)deleter. Thats why here I want review from uninvolved administrators and request undeletion of the recreated page. Davidwarner (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I offered to move the text to Draft space as the new version is so obviously promotional, but the creator was not satisfied with that and continues to insist that it contains no promotional wording. I tried to explain that the references he has included do not demonstrate notability but I don't think he understands. Deb (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Technically, this isn't a valid WP:G4, but WP:G11 would be perfectly justified and the nom would have been well advised to accept Deb's offer. Wording like, "brilliant academic career", "huge appreciations", and "massive popularity" are what G11 is made for. I suppose an argument to Overturn G4 and reclose as G11 would be justified, but that would just be a waste of electrons and excessive WP:WIKILAWYERING. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.@RoySmith I am ready to change those wordings which can be any kind of praising. Thanks. Davidwarner (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The filing editor hasn't addressed the questions that have been raised over the last few months about conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, but only if the issues as to conflict of interest are properly labeled. Articles for Creation should not be used as a device for finding an other parent to approve undisclosed paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Robert McClenon "brilliant academic career", "huge appreciations", and "massive popularity" - use of these words always don't imply conflict of interest. I regularly try to input new articles to wikipedia if I find a new topic notable enough to get into wikipedia. I believe these wording issues or other issues can be solved easily by discussion or by help of admins and other users rather than biting newcomers or random deleting. And the way it was convinced to me by RoySmith I'd like to work on the article so that it doesn't make anyone's promotion.Davidwarner (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Davidwarner - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to be familiar enough with the guideline against biting newcomers to use it as a cudgel in your own defense, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough that you are no longer a newcomer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is a very interesting hand wave that fails to answer the question of conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Robert McClenon Regular bias of language may remain without COI. While writing article, the belief (created from studying different sources ) sometimes leads to unintentional bias. Anyways, keeping aside burdens of reasonings, I am neither involved in any paid editing nor any promotional activity. Davidwarner (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would counsel User:Davidwarner to read through WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would request @Deb to draftify it.Davidwarner (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, done. @Davidwarner Please don't move to article space until independent review has been carried out. Deb (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft here -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any new sources? They have been alluded to, but I don’t see any linked. My own searches turn up false hits and nothing impressive on the artist. Therefore, the leaning “Endorse”. AfC is an option, but I don’t foresee this person getting back to mainspace, not without WP:THREE sources, which should be presented without the verbiage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 April 2019

20 April 2019

19 April 2019

18 April 2019

17 April 2019

List of political parties in North Korea – Recreation allowed. Sandstein 15:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consensus at AfD was to redirect to Politics of North Korea. That AfD proceeded from the nominator's unchallenged premise that "[t]he 'list' contains 3 elements and will always contain 3 elements". Not a single source was brought up during the course of discussion. As with any deficient AfD from 9 years ago, I challenged it by simply returning, significantly expanding, and sourcing the article. This revision shows that the list can contain at least 11 entries, with sources (i.e. "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page"). But since I've been reverted on the grounds of the prior consensus at AfD, I now seek for a wider opinion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation – This diff compares Finnusertop's version with the one that was deleted in 2010. Plainly, there is a lot of new content, sourced, and encyclopedic (well done, Finn). Leviv ich 04:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. This is clearly a different article, with more content and sources, from the one that was redirected in 2010, so it should be judged on its own merits rather than the outcome of that discussion continuing to be enforced. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation naturally. Decisions should be taken on present status, not on stale afds on defective earlier versions. Oculi (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation as noted by nominator and commenting editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. per Phil Bridger. SD0001 (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a list with only three possible entries; if it were a standalone thing, maybe a problem, but "list of political parties in COUNTRY" pages ought to exist for many countries, and since DPRK officially has three separate parties, we ought to have a short list of them. See List of counties in Delaware for a three-item list that has been designated a GA. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation with 3 parties only. i removed the article back to the afd because the problem with that page was that it presested parties which were not parties or did not exist anymore Johansweden27 (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre suggestion. Encyclopedias cover history as well as current affairs. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i did not phrase it right, what about having diffrent sections in the article regarding the matter (first section "current parties" and second section "former parties" while removing organisations which are not political parties Johansweden27 (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, such comments about the precise content of the article should go on its talk page, not here. This discussion is about whether the article should be recreated in any form, and it's pretty clear that it is heading that way against your previous disruption. Secondly, any content about groups that have held seats in a parliament, whether those groups are officially described as parties or not, obviously belongs in such an article. Just admit that you were wrong rather than make such ridiculous spurious claims that there was any benefit to your actions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 April 2019

Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen – Recreate deleted redirects. I'm not sure I understood all the nuances of the discussion here, but this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to recreate the following titles:

Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen

all as redirects to Job's tears. I'm going to leave their histories deleted. I'll also state as part of this consensus that if additional deleted redirects to Job's tears are discovered, they can be recreated as well. I'm not sure how to perform the audit of deleted redirects that was suggested, but I suspect somebody with better SQL-fu than I have might be able to do it with Quarry. Addressing changes to Twinkle's behaviour is outside DRV's remit, so that should be taken up elsewhere (which it apparently already as been). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm taking the extraordinary step of raising a DRV for a set of WP:G5 and consequent WP:G8 speedy deletions without discussing with the deleting admins first. This is because multiple deletions and multiple admins are involved, so it would unnecessarily burden someone's talk page if I tried to have this centralised discussion in user talk space.

This morning, I found that a series of piped links on ching bo leung have turned red. On further investigation I found this locus of events:

On 1st April, User:-revi filed an WP:SPI against User:Yujeo.
User:Bbb23 blocked Yujeo the next day as a sock.
-revi, User:Cabayi, and User:DannyS712 then tagged all of this user's creations for WP:G5 deletion, including Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen.
Bbb23 deleted Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen.
Later that day, ~~User:Anthony Appleyard~~(Wrong Anthony. Sorry Anthony Appleyard. Thanks Thincat for the correction. Deryck C. 10:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)) User:Anthony Bradbury (and perhaps other admins) WP:G8 deleted all redirects to the articles deleted per WP:G5 above, including Yi mai.[reply]

Here's the problem: Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen is a valid subtopic fork with valid interwikis (d:Q24885820). Because this article stayed at this location for a month, various redirects from common names to Job's tears (a related plant) have been retargeted to Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen in the meantime. The bulk deletion of redirects created a bunch of redlinks, many of which are no longer traceable because they were performed by other admins under WP:G8 despite the fact that the redirects used to point to another article that still exists.

I propose the following plan of action, which potentially requires server-side technical support:

Restore Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen as a valid article (and maybe move to the more common name Chinese pearl barley).
Perform an audit of deleted redirects that pointed to Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen and restore them.
Perform a thorough audit of redirects that have been deleted by WP:G5 or WP:G8 in relation to the Yujeo SPI. If any of those redirects pointed to a different article in the past and any of those target articles still exist, restore each redirect to its most recent extant target.

--Deryck C. 14:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping also User:Plantdrew who tagged some of Yujeo's redirects. Deryck C. 14:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping also User:DannyS712 who tagged Yi mai for speedy. ~~Do you remember what other redirects you have tagged for deletion as a result of the same SPI case?~~ Deryck C. 15:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of relevant redirects that have been deleted from DannyS712's batch: Yi mai, Yulmu, Hatomugi, Hato mugi.

User:Cabayi/CSD_log#April_2019 includes a list of redirects created by Yujeo which have been speedied. Deryck C. 17:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping User:Cabayi who tagged most of Yujeo's creations for WP:G5. Deryck C. 10:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These pages are creations of a globally locked, banned at en.wiki user. If there is a spectrum of abusive, in this case cross-wiki abusive, socking, this one lies on the more evil end. Although I know a G5ed article can be resurrected based on a bona fide user saying that the article is productive, this one sticks in my craw a bit more than usual for the reasons I've just stated. On the merits, however, Deryck no doubt knows more than I do about whether this article and related pages should be restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the details of the content of the deleted article, but it struck me as a bit of a headache. Sources that talk about Job's tears as a food plant often don't specify a variety, although presumably var. ma-yuen is what is being discussed. IIRC, there was a merge discussion in progress on the talk page. I'm not convinced that a separate article on the edible variety is necessary. However, if there were redirects referring to the food plant that previously pointed to Job's tears that were retargeted (probably by me) to Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen and then deleted following deletion of that article, they should be restored. Plantdrew (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I shall happily defer to your advice on whether var ma-yuen should have a separate article from Job's tears. But in both options we need to search for the deleted redirects and check each deleted redirect manually to see if they should be restored. As a simplified criterion, I would suggest that any redirect that either had incoming links or had been edited by a human editor other than Yujeo should be restored. Deryck C. 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Just leaving aside for the moment, if I may, the matter of a discretionary "resurrection", were the articles deleted under G5 created by Yujeo before or after their block 1 April 2019[5] or before or after the block of the sockmaster, 6 February 2019?[6]. WP:G5 only applies to creations after the creator has been blocked but it makes sense to me to also apply it back to when the sockmaster was blocked, if they were, because we have decided they were the same person. Does some policy say that somewhere? To Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen (and others), were there any substantial edits by others? Thincat (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been thinking of a move discussion rather than a merger discussion (although I kind of think there may have been both). At any rate, there was a move request made on March 16th, so the article existed before then. Plantdrew (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: Well, one clearly cannot create an article using an account that's already blocked, so WP:G5 applies to creations by a sock account while the sockmaster account is blocked. I can confirm from the deleted page history that Yujeo created Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen after Brett Cox was blocked. Deryck C. 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I got a bit tangled up. From a DRV perspective the G5s were (probably) valid and (some of?) the G8s as well. But all that is water under the bridge. A while back 500 articles were recklessly moved to draft space leading to at least 130 redirects being G8 deleted by one admin (we hoped it was onl;y one). See User talk:Malcolmxl5/Archive 10#Deleted redirects. Maybe, hopefully, User:Anthony Bradbury (not Anthony Appleyard) deleted all of this lot. Thincat (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the Brett Cox block date, it is Nov 6, 2018 when this sockfarm was found. Bbb23 later discovered that Brett was the oldest existing sock, so the casename was moved to that. (I don't much care about whether this should be live again or not.) — regards, Revi 18:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And one factual correction for Deryck's initial statement; I only nominated this article in discussion for G5, not everything he created. I exclusively use Twinkle for CSD on enwiki, and User:-revi/CSD log confirms this. — regards, Revi 18:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're heading towards a consensus here:
- Recreate redirects Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen, Yi mai, Yulmu, Hatomugi, and Hato mugi as redirects to Job's tears, {{R from subtopic}} and {{R from other language}} (la, yue, ko, ja, ja respectively).
- There's a wider issue at play, which is that Twinkle doesn't check page history when it nominates redirects for WP:G8 deletion, and any mistakes it makes in this process is untraceable because MediaWiki doesn't allow keyword-searches on deleted page history. I have started this discussion on WT:Twinkle on this matter.
- @Bbb23, Plantdrew, Thincat, and -revi: If there are no objections then this discussion can be closed. Deryck C. 14:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I don't mind this being undeleted if you believe it is useful and needed. — regards, Revi 09:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Portal:Australian cricket team in England in 1948 – Endorse. Clear consensus that the discussion, while lightly attended, was correctly closed. The two arguments for ~~keeping~~ overturning are both essentially, The people discussing this at the MfD didn't understand the significance of the subject, but that didn't convince most of the people here that the result was invalid. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I strongly contest the delete votes here on narrow/obscure topic grounds. I understand reading the title may lead one to jump to conclusions that it's narrow, but this portal was for one of the most important tours in cricket history (it was the best attended and was the final tour of England by Don Bradman, who if you haven't heard of him is famous for being the greatest outlier in sports history), was not created in bulk, and was quite well done. The topic itself currently has over 40 articles of good or better quality on Wikipedia, including several featured articles on individual players in the test.

Per WP:POG, portals should "not cover too narrow a scope." There's no bright line test on what's too narrow, but I fail to see how a topic with more than 40 good articles would be too narrow for a portal, and per DRVPURPOSE #5 I believe the closer should have given this more weight. (I also want to note the closer and three delete !voters are all North American, where, the Caribbean excepted, the sport of cricket itself is generally obscure.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse where I live is irrelevant, but a single season of any sport for any team anywhere is a narrow topic. Good on whoever went nuts and built and nominated pages to GA and FA but it is still a very narrow topic few people care about. SportingFlyer should look at the portal topics recemtly rejected during MFDs and he will see this is perhaps the narrowest topic we handled. Legacypac (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The MFD nomination claimed "They were supposed to clear out some of the narrow focus portals after WP:ENDPORTALS" but that RFC was closed "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time" and in the discussion where narrow focus is mentioned it seems only to be suggested (and not agreed) that it is one criterion amongst others which might justify merging or deprecation. Are there pointers to some clearer policy or guideline concerning narrow-focus portals? What are the criteria for "narrow focus"? Are they purely personal opinion? I think this portal could sensibly be reconsidered but maybe only after the present holy war has ended. Thincat (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While you quote the WP:ENDPORTALS close, many of even the keep voters supported a rationalization of portal space. It was not, as several have claimed, a decision on individual portals. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The MfD nomination, and the deletion discussions, were based on the language of the portals guideline: "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers . . ." The subject area of this portal is not broad enough; compare it with Portal:Mathematics, which has about 17,000 articles in its scope, and is an ongoing subject so can support an "In the News" section in the Portal. There is no evidence that any readers (let alone "large numbers") preferred the Portal navigation to the excellent navigation provided by the article, navbox and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Australian cricket team in England in 1948. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I see that has been in the guideline for a long time. As you will have guessed, I know nothing much about the guidelines for portals and that may also apply to other people who interest themselves in DRV. Thincat (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the discussion is whether 40+ quality articles is "broad enough." I think it is, and other portals with fewer have been kept recently during the massive portal purge. The "In general" section states "A portal helps to browse on a particular subject, hence the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content. The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section," and this clearly qualifies: it allows for diversified content and has more than enough quality content articles. There's no "17,000 articles" rule. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of featured articles is not a factor in WP:POG as far as I know, except maybe to exclude some topics without enough quality content in their scope. Could you provide some examples of portals with a narrower scope that have been kept [7]? Even if this was the most awe inspiring season for any team in any sport in history, I'm concerned that having a portal on it will create a precedent for the Toledo Mud Hens 1974 season portal and one for every other sports team season by season. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This doesn't appear to be within the scope of Deletion Review. It appears to be an argument that the closer should have supervoted, or an argument to re-debate the closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the filer saying that the closer should have supervoted to Keep the portal, or that the closer should have relisted the discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not expressing an opinion at this time on the merits of the close because it isn't clear what the filer's argument is, other than disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse- I think there was a good working consensus to delete this portal. It's not clear what the filer's case for overturning is, beyond repeating their MfD vote and asserting that other peoples' votes should be chucked in the trash because of their geographical location. None of that is what DRV is for. Reyk _YO! 11:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: The closer themselves on the talk page mentioned the MfD was poorly attended, and there was a comment which didn't !vote keep because they don't use portals. This is a valid use of DRV - this is a topic that is broad enough to sustain a portal, and none of the delete !voters appeared to consider the breadth of the topic. Discussions like Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Aretha_Franklin, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Santana, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:RuPaul's_Drag_Race show you don't need 10,000 articles to create a portal for. SportingFlyer T·C 15:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Properly run MfD discussion, and a very fair reading of the discussion. Rough consensus involves discarding outlier positions, and yes it hurts when that happens to you. NB. It was not just one year of one game. See Category:The Invincibles (cricket). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I am satisfied that there isn't a valid argument to overturn, only to re-argue the MFD. I will note:
- - I knew who Don Bradman is, the greatest cricketer of all time. I don't know much about cricket, although I can understand it because a related game, baseball, is played in the United States. I learned more about him, which is interesting, but his greatness isn't relevant to whether a team on which he played should have a portal for a particular season. We are not debating deletion of an article.
  - I don't see an error in the procedure for the MFD or in the close for the MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
overturn the discussion 1948 tour is simply the most significant cricket tour ever and it stands alone on its own. That the voters in the discussion do not recognise the importance of the tour demonstrates the discussion was flawed by the wider war over portals. Relist this and give a wider range of editors a chance to assess the importance of the portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I do not see any defects in the closing of this MFD. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 April 2019

14 April 2019

Kst (software) – Relisted. Sandstein 12:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe consensus was interpreted incorrectly. With only four participants and (if we include the nominator) a split decision and otherwise a leaning in favour of keep, if I had been attending this, I would have relisted. Closer was contacted but not receptive to criticism.[8] Samsara 19:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Void close and relist. I'm not particularly impressed by the strength of the keep arguments, but it's really hard to see how this could be called a consensus to delete. Relisting it for another week seems like the obvious call. I'd back out the close and relist the existing debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist - As RoySmith says, the Keep arguments are not persuasive, but the Delete arguments are not so persuasive as to justify a supervote by the closer. A No Consensus call would have been in order after two or more weeks of listing. A doubtful case should not end in deletion. Relist. I have no idea how I would have !voted, because I haven't read the delete article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Woefully inadequate closing explanation for a close that does not reflect the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect at closer's discretion per the conversation on the closer's talk page. I don't see any need to reopen this, but my understanding is the closer is fine with a redirect negotiated by the weak keep !voter, and that seems like an outcome consistent with the arguments here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I am considering a WP:RESCUE. It may not happen or be successful - but I am seriously considering it. If not rescue'd it will likely be redirect to the place already indicated but I'd like some sort of reference there if the redirect occurs. A appreciate the negotiation with the closer and his cordiality however to a degree I've been at AfD and DRV a lot recently and the pain/gain of me opening this to DRV when I am not reasonably confident of an overturn and even if overturn'd not sufficiently confident of a WP:RESCUE without full commitment to do it meant negotiating a redirect was a pragmatic decision. If I went WP:BOLD and placed the redirect without consulting the closer I could of been open to circumventing the result of the AfD. Given concerns expressed above about the nature of the close I respectfully suggest without prejudice it is not returned to closers discretion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion about XFDcloser and minor edits

Comment. Not directly related to the AfD, but as part of the closure process, [9] with this summary, marked as WP:MINOR, Removing link(s): .... which removed the complete line: Kst - a plotting and data viewing program ... which is more than a wikilink and does not qualify to be marked as minor per WP:MINOR. The closer implied this was done as part of automated process and I am wondering if so if the process should be challenged as incorrect. There is some question of WP:LISTCRITERIA on the list it was removed from, however I feel removal from the list on a minor edit was certainly wrong in my opinion; deletion of the content on non-minor edit or if the list requirement was strict notability would also be OK, as would be simply removal of the wikilink. I hope this is within scope of the deletion review to consider this ... it is a separate procedural matter than the result of the deletion review. Thankyou.

Most XfDs these days (including the one in question) are closed using XFDcloser. That script performs multiple edits on the closer's behalf, such as the removal of backlinks, which it marks as minor edits. The place to suggest changing that would be on the XFD talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance, I've raised points on the XDFcloser talk page. Not having used the script (I have an associate helper installed but not used it, certanly not in delete close mode), I observe from the XDFcloser documentation: (1) the script is interactive; (2) the user is responsible for any actions; (3) To quote the documentation: Unlinking backlinks - For AfD and FfD discussions, there is an option to unlink backlinks (including file usage). For links within list items, it is sometimes more appropriate to remove the list item rather than unlinking it – in such cases, the script will ask whether to keep the unlinked item or remove it: (and I regard sometimes meaning retention on the list would be the more normal course). From this I can only assume the Closer opted to remove the item from the list rather than unlinking it. I therefore respectfully suggest given the above the decision of the closer to remove from this particular list in this circumstance rather than unlinking was inappropriate and within the process of deletion and I therefore challenge it (NB: I have already manually re-entered the item on the list ... but this happened because I spotted it as the page was already on my watchlist and I was specifically looking to organise citing of the item). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, the removal of back-links is the part of closing an AfD that I probably do the poorest at. I'll spend a lot of time dissecting the arguments to reach a keep/delete/whatever decision, but once I've gotten to delete, I tend to just accept all the unlink and remove-from-list suggestions without much thought. I'm not saying that's best practice, but it's what I tend to do. Perhaps I should just leave the redlinks behind? At least that way, it's obvious that something's broken and the people who watch those articles will come along and fix it? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We also perhaps should not have been at AfD or here at all. The redirect used on Talk:KImageMapEditor should have indicated that was a possibility at WP:PRODNOM and WP:BEFORE and at a minimum identified and summarized as options and Kst could have followed the same pathway Perhaps its me, cos I know I'm weird, but the If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." simply WP:BAITs me and possibly did the dePRODer in this instance. I appreciate it can be a difficult if people dePROD without explanation or significant article improvement but it would be better if improvements were made to Template:Proposed deletion so PRODers feel comfortable using the standard templates and dePRODers are guided appropriately ... actually I've just think I've noticed the PROD template does not lead people to WP:CONTESTED and in fact may lead them from searching for it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - I believe in rescuing articles with potential. I will add that after reviewing the xfd, I agree that it doesn't quite meet GNG. Perhaps the rescue effort will be convincing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (AfD nominator). The main fault is with the closer lack or rationale. Two delete, one countered keep, and a week keep - it could be argued as delete IF the closer made any argument. They didn't, so it is reasonable to call it a bad close and overturn and see if another week or so changes anything. As the closer has not commented here yet, despite 24h or so elapsing, I'd also respectfully suggest that the closer may need more practice before closing future debates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closer rightfully ignored both the keep votes. One said lots of ghits, so it's notable with no further evidence. The other provided an article in a non-reliable serial (per Ulrichsweb, it's just a magazine, not a refereed publication), and non-reliable sources should be ignored when closing discussions. And finally, the second voter also provided a scholarly publication (DOI 10.1117/12.790006), but it provides no significant information; it just makes a few passing references on the eighth page (PDF page 9) without covering kst significantly. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one minor correction - the reference was to Google Scholar hits, so most of those should be peer-reviewed publications. Samsara 13:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draft:Lee Dae-hwi – The consensus is "allow review", whatever that means - I guess it means that recreation is allowed. Sandstein 12:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe Lee Dae-hwi is now independently notable to get his own article in Wikipedia. He is now independently active as a songwriter, emcee and entertainer. Please kindly re-review my article. Thank you. Otterlyhwi (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - the AFD for Lee Dae-hwi in 2017 had only three participants, who erred in failing to recognize criterion #9 of WP:MUSICBIO: Lee was notable for winning the third place in a major music competition. Since then his band Wanna One has disbanded, and Lee has had significant careers in television and songwriting, and launched a second band. I believe the article should be restored (either from article history or the new draft article). -Zanhe (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation, suggest draft. There's no need to go through DRV if the situation has changed since the AfD. This is particularly true if the AfD was two years ago, and even more so given how sparsely attended it was. However, I (strongly) suggest that the new article be started in draft space; this will give time for it to be developed without risk of being re-deleted, and the review of the new drafts will be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Psst. The new article was in draft space. Hence the "Draft:" in the section title here. I'm betting that it was this edit that prompted the DRV. —Cryptic 14:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Duh. How did I not notice that? Insufficient caffeine titer, perhaps? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Review - I declined this draft because there had been a deletion discussion that redirected the article to the band. There has been enough change so that the draft should be reviewed without the Redirect being a negative factor. This isn't an overturn in the usual sense, because there was no error by the closer, but a case of time having passed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Review, AFD optional not my field, but 1/consensus can change and 2/musicians frequently become more notable with time. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow review which I think means dropping the stick as to whether he was notable in 2017 or not - it might be helpful to temp-undelete the article that was deleted to make sure this isn't in WP:G4 space, but if he's notable now, we should be able to accept the article. (I have absolutely no idea if he is considering the sources are almost exclusively Korean.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow review - I looked at the draft before coming here but wasn't convinced he's notable on his own - perhaps in time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geometry of roots of real polynomials – No restoration required to preserve article history since no copyrightable content was copied into Quadratic equation#Graphical solution Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted but the nominator said content was merged into Quadratic equation#Graphical solution (see merge here[10]). The closing admin should have denied the consensus and redirected the page, merged the page, or listed every contributor of the merged content by a dummy edit. See also: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia Christian75 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I added mathematical content to the page in question and made relevant comments on its talk page iirc. Deletion has removed all record of this good faith activity which was in no way controversial or otherwise requiring suppression. There's more to be done with this topic but deletion like this is disruptive because it discourages good faith activity and forces editors to rely upon their memory. Such disruption is contrary to WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete". And it appears that the closer made the deletion decision based upon their own opinion of the matter -- a blatant supervote. Andrew D. (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever leads you to believe Xymmax was in doubt? —Cryptic 15:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Andrew Davidson: This doesn't detract from your argument at all, but I don't see any edits from you on this article. I can't see the talk page history though. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was many years ago, when I used a different account name. For example, in this edit, I added a long list of relevant sources and such material would helpful for further work. Andrew D. (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out the irony of Andrew opposing copyright infringement when it's his copyright being infringed upon.[11] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is overturned in some way and there is a redirect to preserve edit history, then the target of the redirect at Geometry of roots of real polynomials should be algebraic geometry or something similar. The content of the article was that of Quadratic equation#Graphical solution, but the title did not reflect that. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Having not read the deleted article, I don't know what article the redirect should be to. As noted in the AFD, the title suggests roots on the complex plane. That's intermediate algebra. I have forgotten all of the math that I learned in college, but that is high school math. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The deleted article suggested roots on the complex plane, but the title does not suggest anything about the complex plane. The polynomials can have any number of variables (just one polynomial in two variables would give an plane algebraic curve) and there could be more than one polynomial equation (i.e. a system of polynomial equations). "The geometry of roots of polynomials" is pretty much the definition of algebraic geometry. Indeed, if we consider complex roots then it is classical algebraic geometry (covered in the algebraic geometry article). If we consider only real roots then it is real algebraic geometry. Since only the field of polynomial coefficients is specified in the title (and not the field of definition of the roots), the redirect should point to just algebraic geometry. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any need for restoration to preserve edit history. Despite the edit summary the edit cited above does not appear to have actually copied any material from the deleted article. Instead it's a different treatment of the some of the same subject matter, with rewritten text. If you do want to redirect it somewhere then Algebraic geometry is probably best, since although Quadratic equation covers some of the subject matter of the deleted page the scope of the title of the deleted page is all polynomials rather than just quadratics. Hut 8.5 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn attribution is a legal requirement if the content is used, so nominators and deleters are contributing to copyright infringement if the writer's names are removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content hasn't been used though. Hut 8.5 22:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the article has been temporarily undeleted for the purpose of this deletion review.. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems pretty clear looking at the article pre-deletion that none of the material was really copied over to Quadratic equation#Graphical solution, except perhaps the example in the image that is currently attributed to Michael Hardy (talk · contribs) anyways. Otherwise it's a rewrite of the same mathematical content.
  It is interesting to see now that there was previous AfD for the article that was never mentioned in the most recent one (although the old article title was mentioned). That part of the history is not terribly relevant now though, as no content was preserved from the article then so none of that history needs to be preserved. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse An accurate reading of consensus, and no merge attribution needed per the final comment in the discussion by D.Lazard. Cheers to DGG for the temp undelete. SportingFlyer T·C 04:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: apply merged templates; possibly redirect as above or elsewhere (e.g. Polynomial). D.Lazard indicated on summary on 14 February he had indicated a merge process from Geometry of roots of real polynomials. The established practice is WP:MERGETEXT and if that procedure was performed we would not be here. I also observe D.Lazard who was also the AfD nom. mentioned the merge and used the word merge at the AfD but did not explicitly mention they were the person who performed that merge not provide an explicit diff pointer to the merge. While none of this wrong it leaves D.Lazard slightly open the concern the purpose may have been to concern his purpose may have been remove others content in preference to own content. We must WP:AGF this is not the case and no attempt have been made to do that covertly; I would have preferred that information explicitly mentioned on the AfD. Unless this was a clear later WP:CFORK the unattributed discard of work has implications and issues. Surprising evidence for proof for copy violations can reside in the audit trail of old revisions. So I am with both Andrew Davidson and Graeme Bartlett. There is little issue in overturning and ensuring best practice, there can be dangers in endorsement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This accusation of bad faith is a personal attack. Also this editor accuses me of pushing "my own content" against other's content. Moreover, These accusations are based on a blatant deformation of what I have written. I have clearly established that no text has been merged, and thus that the procedure WP:MERGETEXT does no apply, and this has been confirmed by the closing administrator. Also, the end of the post contains an accusation of possible copyvio. This is simply not acceptable. D.Lazard (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to say those actions leave you vunerable to an accusation of bad faith ... not that I am accusing you of bad faith. But as my wife often says to me it is not what you say but how you say it ... or something like that. I am fundamentally suggesting contest including previous references and sources that can possibly be re-used elsewhere may be lost. Please accept by apologies for any offence etc. etc. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and restore history. I haven't examined the AfD in full, but the general rule is that we prefer a redirect to delete if there's a reasonable redirect target and there's no good reason to hide the history (i.e. problems with WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc). That no actual text was copied (I haven't examined this myself; I'm going on the analysis of others, above) just means we're not obligated to redirect to comply with licensing requirements. It doesn't mean we're obligated not to redirect, and WP:CHEAP argues that we should. Unclear why this is such a point of contention; it seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't see that the nom had contacted the deleting admin before opening this DRV. My guess is if they had, this could have all been settled a lot faster and with less drama. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, There's several plausible redirect targets mentioned above. I have no opinion about which is the best. Pick one. It can always be changed later, by anybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We prefer a redirect to delete": I agree for titles that are not confusing and not ambiguous. But the AfD discussion shows clearly that the title may have several interpretations. So, whichever a reader is searching, there is a good probability that the redirect leads it to the wrong article, and, in this case a redirect must be avoided. D.Lazard (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a reasonable argument, and re-reading WP:R#DELETE, especially item 2 ("The redirect might cause confusion"), I've come to agree. I've struck my comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no reasonable redirect available where substantial page history can be retained I believe restoring the page history of Geometry of roots of real polynomials to the talk page of Quadratic equation keeps is an alternative way retaining the page history I believe. That might satisfy everybody.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, the consensus seems to be clear for deletion. I agree with others above who have concluded that no actual merge occurred, so there is no need to retain the history. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 April 2019

Fanya Ismail – No consensus; "delete" closure unchanged. Opinions are divided, with a slight majority endorsing the "delete" closure. Because there is no consensus to overturn it, the AfD's outcome remains unchanged. Sandstein 16:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have been asked to look into this close by a user and having done so I do not believe that this close was within process. (Edit: Uninvolved third-party administrator.)

The AFD was relisted on 12 April 2019. Following the relisting, one user argued for keep, one user argued for weak keep, and one user argued for delete. The user that relisted the AFD then, only ~~two~~ one day after relisting, closed it as a delete, citing issues with the sources all being "copies of the same press release". Whether this reason is true or not, the AFD had just been relisted and more users had argued to keep the article than delete it since that action. AFD is, of course, not a vote, but I fail to see what transpired after the relisting for this user to close it just ~~two hours~~ one day later.

There is concern in the case of this AFD that it demonstrates issues with systematic bias and I also note that the page was created as part of work by Wikimedia UK on increasing both diversity and coverage of women. While I do not feel this should cloud the Deletion Review judgement, I do feel that the least we can do is offer it a correct and by process AFD outcome. I, for one, cannot see a clear consensus in that debate, but I do see a lot of users aggressively arguing their reasons for deletion. Relisting was the correct course of action and this AFD should be reopened. KaisaL (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a point of fact, the discussion was actually closed more than 24 hours after relisting. I think the nominator misread the date. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. I have corrected this but the difference between two and fourteen hours doesn't change my arguments in the case of this DRV. KaisaL (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's still best to get the facts right, which are that it was not 14 hours but between 25 and 26 hours. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, OK. I think that's a distraction from the actual issue here, however. Even if it was seven days I would still see this as an incorrect closure because clearly there is no clear consensus formed after the relisting. KaisaL (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The closing rationale was unusually focused on my single Keep !vote (with the Arab sources).. many of those are PR copies but the point was to show there is wide attention being paid to it in the Arab world. And not all are PR copies, see this source. Is dwarosh.net reliable? We use it throughout Wikipedia. These Arab sources do not detract the existence of many other English-language sources which the closer gave no reason for ignoring, or the !votes that cited them. -- GreenC 16:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned that we had some unusual activity in this AfD with Deleters. One involving a newbie to AfD (this is only their 5th or 6th AfD) yet who displayed a high level of confidence and knowledge about the nuances of Notability and Policy that is not typical of someone new to AfD. And another sock-like account that has since been blocked. And another account that shows up only occasionally to participate in a few AfDs then goes offline again. There is not evidence to sanction but I think it is a factor to weigh. -- GreenC 16:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved, nominator). Note no one discussed this with the closing admin prior to DRVing. As for the AfD - the Keep votes were not policy based - a combination of ILIKEIT, RGW, and throwing 17 copies (lightly edited) of the same Arabic PR release in various online sites. The subject is far off from SIGCOV or NPROF - PR following a minor award is not sufficient to establish notability for a bio.Icewhiz (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how these arguments relate to a deletion review. The fact that a significant number of people argued contrary to deletion, leading to a relist, and then the situation was clouded more by a lack of consensus thereafter, followed by a deletion close when no clear consensus had been further established, is what this DRV is about. Your arguments would make more sense had the relisting not occurred, but it's difficult to argue a no consensus was turned into a deletion consensus from the activity after the relisting. Just listing buzzword type phrases against every argument, and writing off everyone that disagrees with you as "not policy based", is a problem with AFD but it's not the reason for this DRV. The argument is, in fact, that the close was not policy based. Time should have been given to form a consensus, and if a clearer consensus was not reached then the convention would be to keep the article. KaisaL (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist (involved, !voted keep after relisting). *Ahem* not based on policy? I posted four English-language sources after the relisting which I contend are SIGCOV. One of them, from The Manufacturer magazine, a delete !voter had earlier described as "one solid source". So I thought if one of the remaining three would be seen as significant, that'd be enough to get over GNG. However, the AfD was closed less than a day after I posted (which was after the earlier relist). I can't see the deleted article, but I think at least one of the sources I posted was entirely new and not in the article or AfD discussion (and possibly more than one, I just can't remember). I think the discussion would benefit from remaining open a while longer. Also, it's not entirely accurate that no one went to the closer's talk page; GreenC posted a message which GreenC removed after this DRV was posted. Ironically, just as I believe the AfD was closed too soon after relisting, I think this DRV was posted too soon after GreenC's talk page post. 24 hour rule should apply for message responses, as there is no deadline, etc. Leviv ich 17:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily undeleted for people to look at during this deletion review--the last version is in the page history DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A tough AfD to process because Randykitty wasn't able to elaborate on their close, but I think delete is an acceptable outcome for that discussion. While it appears to be about a 50-50 !vote, many of the keep votes were not grounded in policy, including one of the weakest weak keep !votes I've seen. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematically it is about 60% keep, out of 12 !votes. Given the closers singular-focus on a single !vote. Even delete that and it's still over 50% keep. Plus other issues like the unusual speed with which it was closed. -- GreenC 19:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote count, it's an evaluation of the quality of the arguments. The keep arguments were weak, and it is a waste of time to re-litigate this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of this as a non-participant is that the closer didn't "focus on a single !vote" but rather acknowledged the argument none of the foreign language articles were useful for WP:GNG, meaning "delete" is a valid outcome. Also as a note to the closer, I also recognise many of the participants here from the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic sources didn't come into the AfD until late, the previous Keeps didn't know about them. Only myself and one other editor mentioned the Arabic sources. Yet they dominated the closer's rationale and attention. Even in my !vote, the Arabic source were supplementary to other existing sources. The closer cherry picked some weaker sources to prop up as a rationale, like a strawman. -- GreenC 02:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closer As nobody even tried to communicate with me before opening this DRV, I assume there's no interest for me to expand on my "delete" closure. --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator may have omitted to communicate with you, which I find rather surprising from an administrator, but I, and I am sure others, would welcome your input. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: I concur with Phil Bridger, an elaboration would be welcome from those of us not involved in the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Phil Bridger and SportingFlyer. Some points in more or less random order about my closure. 1/ AfDs should generally not be closed before they have run for 7 days (except rather rare SNOW closes or withdrawn noms). A relist does not mean that another 7 days must elapse before a debate can be closed. 2/ After the debate had run for 7 days, I already was on the sup of closing this "delete". Several of the "delete" !votes were very well argued (the one by DGG, for example), whereas many of the "keep" !votes were very weak (the one directly above DGG's !vote, for example). However, a list of 18 sources in Arabic had been posted just before and I had no time at that point to look into that !vote, so I decided to relist. 3/ After the relist there was a very weak "weak keep" !vote and as it had been asserted that the Arabic language sources were basically just press releases, I decided to check this and agreed with that. I don't think that means my closure was a "supervote", all I did was checking whether one of the arguments given in the debate was correct or not. 4/ I mentioned especially the Arabic sources in my close, because they were presented late in the debate and there were an unusual large number. 5/ Perhaps I should have mentioned in my close that the 4 English sources listed by Levivich again were all the same press release (using the same language and the same photographs). 6/ Taken together, I thought that the case for "delete" had the stronger arguments and as the debate had already gone for more than 7 days, I saw no reason to draw it out any longer. 7/ As for the mathematical !vote count, possible unsavory motives, or even socking, I don't care much, because I don't count !votes but go by the strenght of arguments presented. There's a comment above about an "account that shows up only occasionally to participate in a few AfDs then goes offline again". I note that this also goes for the admin who opened this DRV, but that doesn't mean that their DRV nom should be discounted out of hand. The same standard should be applied to AfD !votes. 8/ Concerning the arguments about systemic bias, I don't think that is an issue here. Systemic bias would be if we were to hold a woman, or a person of Kurdish descent, to higher standards than the proverbial "dead white male". Systemic bias should be countered by putting in an effort to create more articles on notable women or notable minority persons, not by lowering our standards for these persons. 9/ Hope this sufficiently explaiins my reasoning in closing this AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation, it is appreciated as this looks like it will get contentious. I stand by my endorse vote as a result. SportingFlyer T·C 03:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The close was clearly correct; there were no policy-based arguments that demonstrated notability. --Tataral (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor was involved, they !voted delete. -- GreenC 23:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist the close was too quick for me have a chance to look at this before it was deleted. --mikeu ^talk 22:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved, !vote delete) The issues of "systemic bias" are contrived and irrelevant in this context. There was no evidence that the subject satisfied either WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. This is a big, disruptive waste of time, and WP:SNOW applies. I also have concerns about WP:MEATPUPPETs affecting the vote tally. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved, !vote weak keep) While I'm still uncertain about the article, the decision to delete seemed fair even if the process of relisting and closing happened too quickly. Since the page for the minor award covered in the article (Innovate UK) is currently without sources, interested Wikipedia users might first improve that article before reconsidering this one. Userqio (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist - The issue is not whether the article should be kept or deleted, but whether the closer acted properly. The closer made a good-faith error in casting a supervote based on checking the Arabic sources, when that should have been a valid argument for a Keep !vote. The closer should have !voted to Delete and let the AFD run for another week. This isn't so much systemic bias as a good-faith error in acting in two roles at once, !voter and closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) There was no error. The link dump Arabic sources, which were basically regurgitations of a press release on the subject being awarded a minor grant, contributed nothing to notability, which requires in-depth, WP:SUSTAINED coverage from multiple sources. The Consider reading WP:SNOW. 2) Reopening the AfD because of a supposed technicality, even though the closure was proper, is the type of WP:WIKILAWYERING that we should absolutely not be engaging in. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about the Arab sources! Only two users mentioned them, and even they only as part of the rationale. Those sources are a strawman. The closer made a WP:SUPERVOTE based on a minor aspect of the AfD blown out of proportion. The extension saw many new participants arriving that was handicapped by the unusually rapid closure. -- GreenC 13:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there was no other rationale. The subject neither meets WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:GNG. It's time to WP:DTS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there were rationales you just didn't agree with them is all. You are "re-litigating" at this point (as you call it). -- GreenC 14:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who requested the relisting, which is what I was referring to by calling this relitigating. I'm not sure what other arguments you would expect me to make beyond those I initially made on the deletion page. The evidence presented was essentially a widely circulated press release for a minor award accompanied by a grant and passing coverage in one or two other sources. I and other editors were not convinced this met the notability threshold under WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG and accordingly voted delete—the closer assessed those arguments and offered a thorough explanation of their process in the discussion closure. I do not see a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I don't think it's appropriate to try and read a negative or malicious motivation into a discussion closer's action because one didn't like the result. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This contentious and active AfD was closed too soon. 3 or 4 new !votes showed up just in the ~24h period between the extension and the close, with some of the keeps bringing in new sources! Who knows what else might have appeared with more time? I stated I was still researching sources in the Kurdish language. The closer assumed the only sources were a single PR, they assumed 7 days was sufficient to research multiple languages and sources. It was not. -- GreenC 18:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closer properly read the consensus of policy-based arguments. DGG ( talk ) 10:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A blatant supervote. The closer was clearly involved, engaging in their own OR and expressing their own opinion of the matter, without any regard to the discussion or the views of its particpants. Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is patent nonsense. The closer directly addressed the substantive arguments made on the discussion page and indicated they were more persuasive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they didn't. I found a perfectly good source, said so, listed several applicable policies and this was all completely ignored. That's pretty much SOP for this closer. To understand this, consider their closes for this month. There have been many of these and almost all of them are to delete the article in question. There seems to be only one close with a keep result and it is instructive to compare this with the case in question. That case was also a question of notability but that article didn't have any sources – just one dubious external reference. But even though the sourcing and content of that article was comparatively pathetic, it was kept. In other words, the article about a man was kept and the article about the woman was deleted, even though it had better sources. The woman was clearly being held to a higher standard and so it's blatant bias which should be overturned. Andrew D. (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting case study in relisting in the AfD Andrew brings up here, Yue Safy. Safy had one NFOOTY-qualifying game and no coverage for GNG. At the same time, an article about his teammate was also up for AfD, Narong Kakada, with the same profile: 1 NFOOTY game, no GNG. After one week, both discussions looked the same in terms of !votes. Safy was closed as keep without relisting, but Kakada was relisted, and closed as delete after the source supporting the 1 NFOOTY game was examined a bit closer and determined to be unreliable. (Disclosure: I !voted in both of these.) Leviv ich 00:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, reading sexism into this discrepancy, when you know as well as I do that the problem is the discrepancy between the overly inclusive NFOOTY and the relatively stringent NPROF is inappropriate. I am not sure if you were heavily involved in the push to make NFOOTY as easy to pass as it is, but given some of the other notability and deletion policy discussions in which you and I crossed paths, I wouldn't be surprised. Additionally, you listed the AFD at ARS without disclosing as much at the AFD itself (violating ARS's rules), and in the same listing you made a personal attack against the nominator for which you have yet to apologize. So I would ask you to please refrain from attacking more editors over this issue, as you have done here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore him. Reyk _YO! 18:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. I think the sources presented by Levivich could use some evaluation. Also, {{closing}} or a note instead of relisting may have caused less surprise when a close is intended after the presented sources are checked. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the same press release. I appreciate Randykitty's thorough and thoughtful explanation, and it's Exhibit A why I believe this could have been resolved at their talk page instead of DRV. I disagree, however, that the four sources I posted are "all the same press release (using the same language and the same photographs)". With one exception, these four sources contain different content, using different language, with different quotes, published under different bylines, on different dates in March 2019, in different reliable, independent publications. While they do use the same picture, that is common and doesn't detract from the journalism in any way. And while they all appear to use a press release as a source, that is also common and doesn't make them "all the same press release". Compare: March 8, 2019 by Katie Nelson, Kent Online and March 25, 2019 by Maddy White, The Manufacturer magazine. If you put them both in to the Copyscape comparison tool, it's only a 2% match, and for phrases like "Sol-Gel Coatings", "as part of" and "single use plastic". The one exception is that the eppm magazine source copies a lot from The Manufacturer magazine article, but that doesn't mean the Manufacturer article copied from a press release. Here's all four:

Copyscape.com comparison of sources posted by Levivich
	March 8, 2019 by Katie Nelson, Kent Online	March 10, 2019 by Kurdistan24 (no byline)	March 25, 2019 by Maddy White, The Manufacturer magazine	March 26, 2019 by Rob Coker, eppm magazine
March 8, 2019 by Katie Nelson, Kent Online	n/a	5%	2%	4%
March 10, 2019 by Kurdistan24 (no byline)	5%	n/a	0%	3%
March 25, 2019 by Maddy White, The Manufacturer magazine	2%	0%	n/a	13%
March 26, 2019 by Rob Coker, eppm magazine	4%	3%	24%	n/a

Knock out eppm and you still have WP:THREE. I don't speak Arabic so I'm in no position to judge the Arabic sources' distinctiveness from each other (Google Translate cannot help in such matters), but take it as a given that they're all copies, and they still count as "one source", bringing the total SIGCOV count to four. Final thought: a relist doesn't have to stay open for 7 days, but if you get three !votes in 24hrs after a relist, that's a very good reason to keep it open longer. Leviv ich 18:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misleading argument. All of the sources are conveying the same content, and unless you can establish their reliability, these do not count towards WP:SIGCOV. In addition, there's no WP:SUSTAINED. This kind of tedious arguing is why we have WP:SNOW. We had a deletion discussion, it was procedurally sound, and the consensus was delete. If the subject garners additional coverage in a few months that establishes notability, we'll all be in agreement. Until then, there is no reason to overturn this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding "the consensus was delete" is a really unfortunate tool to be using here to draw attention to a statement that clearly everyone does not agree with. I would in fact, to take a page out of your book, say there was no consensus at the time of the close and it should have stayed relisted for further assessment. All of the people hyperanalysing a list of sources are sort of missing the point that fundamentally a relisting had took place and after that relisting nothing had happened to generate a consensus (if anything, it should have been closer to a keep after the relisting). The closing admin re-read things or changed their mind, cast their supervote and deleted the article. That single list should not have informed that later decision so heavily nor negated other comments that argued against the views of other users. This isn't sound procedurally. Half of the debate here honestly belongs on the AFD page that should still be open. KaisaL (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same content. The Manufacturer piece has a section about cross-sector applications of the technology that is not included in the Kent Online piece. The Kent Online piece quotes a government official, who is not quoted in The Manufacturer piece. The Manufacturer goes into more detail about plastic refuse and how the technology was developed than the Kent Online piece. The Kent Online piece mentions that she's a mother of three, which is not mentioned in The Manufacturer piece. Kent Online is owned by KM Group, which had ABC audited circulation and is a member [12] of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the largest press regulator in the UK. The Manufacturer magazine has 158,000 readers and editorial oversight [13]. Kurdistan 24 I don't need to defend as an RS; it's a worldwide satellite and television station with foreign bureaus in the US and Germany. This is the kind of discussion we could have been having in the AfD. Leviv ich 20:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the link dump of sources in Arabic. The majority of those were recycled content based on translates and offered nothing new. The other two English sources may be reliable, but two minor pieces do not make someone notable. This is not WP:SUSTAINED. This is the problem; the relist proposal has essential turned into an extension of the deletion discussion, with the same participants and the same arguments (or slightly altered positions and arguments). This is a waste of time and should be closed; there was nothing improper about the disclosure. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fluent in Arabic? It would be very useful to hear from an Arabic-speaking editor about those sources–another reason the relist should have been kept open. Leviv ich 20:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, nor do I need to be — a Google translate indicates that they are all substantively communicating the same information and drawing from the same sources, and none stand out as notable or authoritative. I'm also not interested in prolonging the deletion discussion, where these exact same points were made.

If users cannot succinctly point out an actual error committed by the closing user other than alleging WP:SUPERVOTE without evidence or a persuasive argument (other than they don't like the result), this conversation should be closed with no further action. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Arabic source really is different from all the rest, substantially so, not PR. Very much an original piece. The others are not copies of a PR, but wire copies of a BBC article similar to how papers subscribe to Reuters. You can see it says "BBC" at the bottom of each. -- GreenC 22:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic sources were posted on April 12 and the discussion closed on April 13. One day is just not enough time to go through 16 Arabic-language sources and discuss them. Otherwise, things like "hey it's a BBC wire" would have come to light. A BBC wire is SIGCOV. Leviv ich 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was syndicated by BBC, why aren't there more outlets picking it up? Continuing to discuss these sources is a waste of time, because we've demonstrated neither WP:SIGCOV nor WP:SUSTAINED. This is why it was ideal for the discussion to be closed when it was - otherwise this filibustering, contrary to consensus, never ends. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was a Press Release but never provided evidence. By all appearances you may have got it wrong, the pages have a "BBC" byline. We are here to improve Wikipedia and get it right. -- GreenC 04:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely at the 4 items, the first two are actually very close-- they include exactly the same things, and are almost certainly based upon the same press release. The coverage in the Manufacturer is different, much more technical and avoiding the absurdities of the newspaper accounts that say she invented sol-gel chemistry, Eppm 's coverage is similar to that--and in factthe article says that some of it is based on her interview with the Manufacturer. The Manufacturer's coverage is at least partly based on an interview with her, and those are not reliable sources for notability , because the person can say whatever they like. But at least that one source is worth considering. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'd say there is a reasonable argument that this is a WP:BLP1E, where the award is the one event. That's what a lot of people effectively argued and it's reasonable. weak endorse as a reasonable close. I think NC would have been a somewhat better reading. But this isn't wrong given the discussion and the facts on the ground. FYI, I'd have probably !voted to keep based on the sources. Hobit (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse This situation could have been avoided had Randykitty specified the Arabic-language sources as a comment in the relisting template, and elaborated on her closure while closing as "delete". The closure was reasonable following her explanation at this DRV. The purpose of relisting a discussion is to seek more participation; it does not reset the timer, and the discussion can be closed at any time after the relisting. Whether the explanation too late is another matter. feminist (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the person that brought it to DRV, I'd like to reiterate that I haven't in fact even commented on which way I would have hypothetically !voted in an AFD, I'm only arguing the case that the procedure was wrong, as per the purpose of the DRV process. A lot of comments here are heavily emotionally involved and are focused more on the subject's notability than whether the AFD was closed correctly. KaisaL (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could you clarify who asked you to open the DRV and what the basis of their complaint was? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- Other editors had mentioned that most of the new sources were regurgitations of the same press release. Randykitty merely confirmed that was true, and did not introduce that as a new argument. There's nothing wrong with that. Reyk _YO! 08:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Void AfD close and relist. I was in the process of closing this, but after reading it all, I've decided I'd rather comment. My practice is to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of impropriety. One way I do that is to limit myself to a single administrative act in a given discussion. If I relist something, I don't later close it. Leave it for another admin to do. Just like we want WP:INDEPENDENT sources, having independent administrative actions is a good thing. And, while WP:RELIST says you don't have to wait a full seven days on a relist, it also says, may be closed once consensus is determined. It's really hard to see how adding two "keep" and one "delete" (after FIFAukr's comment is ignored due to my blocking them) to a discussion where there was no consensus, could push that over the edge to the consensus being "delete". And, lastly, it's not the job of the closer to evaluate the sources. It's the job of the closer to evaluate the arguments other people have made. I don't think any of these issues are, by themselves, sufficient to overturn the close. Taken together, however, I think the community would have more confidence in a new close by another, uninvolved, admin. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an eminently sensible idea, and I wish that it had happened earlier. There are good-faith comments made in this discussion by people who had looked at the sources provided and come to different conclusions from the closer. That evidence should be considered in an AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is forum-shopping at its worst. The deletion discussion resulted in consensus to delete, and "keep" proponents are now using deletion review to challenge the propriety of the close by arguing minute technicalities, accuse the closer of a WP:SUPERVOTE (without basis), and relitigate the original issue without presenting any new evidence. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fight the New Drug – Overturn, seems like the G4 was in error and there is also the suggestion that the new version would pass notability criteria. If someone wants to test this thesis, they can start a new deletion discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to revert an inappropriate WP:G4 speedy deletion. I've never seen the deleted version of the article so I cannot verify if my article were substantially identical to the deleted version. However, as far as I can see, the original reasons for deletion no longer apply: the article I created shows sustained coverage, is not focused on any particular event, lacks POV pushing or promotional content, relies entirely on secondary sources independent of the subject, and does not contain any mention of videos or Elizabeth Smart. I was unaware of the previous AfD discussion when creating the article because I (accidentally) created the article at Fight the new drug before moving it to the correct capitalization. I have already contacted the deleting administrator, who has not responded to my request despite having continued editing. feminist (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like a good G4 to me. There's no overlap in either text or refs, and none of the promotionalism or coatracking for Elizabeth Smart that the afd mentions. A recreation less than a month after the AFD of an article that had been around for almost five years before that is usually questionable, so I'm not going to fault either the tagger or deleting admin. (edited to add: well, not about the deletion, anyway. Salting it was uncalled for.) Overturn, and send it back to afd iff someone still wants it redeleted. —Cryptic 13:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC), 14:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is more context available in this discussion — User talk:Feminist#Speedy deletion nomination of Fight the New Drug. I have {{tempundelete}}'d the article for this process. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} ~~19:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)~~ 20:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: since that discussion refers to earlier discussions on the talk-page of the article, I've temporarily restored that as well; the last version before the AfD deletion of the page was this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I looked at the version deleted at AfD and the recreated article. Both the text and reference list are completely different. I have no opinion on whether the new article would pass a new AfD, but it's certainly not WP:G4 material. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- RoySmith, in this comment, Tgeorgescu says that the references were discussed on the talk page and rejected — [14]. After a cursory review, I am in general agreement with them about this claim, with the exception of the source from the Atlantic. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @RoySmith and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: Yup, I am not completely sure, but since the Atlantic source is from 2016, it could have been part of the article that did not survive AfD, at a certain point in its history. I would be amazed if it were never used in the article, i.e. before feminist cited it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Based on a quick reading of the talk page before the first deletion, it appears that these sources were removed not because they weren't reliable, but because they were used to support content that was poorly written. I don't see why they can't be used to establish notability if they are used appropriately as sources. I'd also note that on that talk page, Ian.thomson suggested a number of independent RS that can be used, including this Daily Dot article that covers the subject in-depth. feminist (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - An afd that was either unaware of the prior use of a source like this, or deliberately included it with those it characterized variously as "passing mentions", "nothing substantial", or "opinion-type hit pieces in student newspapers", would be deficient and overturnable on that basis alone anyway. —Cryptic 11:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yup, it wasn't my decision, it was a collective process which ended reducing the article to a promotional stub. The removal has been done by some editors I respect, so I saw no direct motivation for challenging their edits. My take is about WP:RULES and collective decisions, I have no dog in whether the article should be restored or deleted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn In no way is this a WP:G4, the new article is completely different. Obviously no comment on whether it'd survive a deletion discussion, but WP:G4 was improper here. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral or Confused - I haven't seen enough information to assess whether the two articles were similar enough to warrant a G4, and this appears to be an appeal of a G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon: It is a G4 appeal, so it's whether the old version here [15] is substantially similar to the new version here [16]. SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The concerns raised in the original AfD were that the article lacked in-depth coverage in reliable sources and was promotional. The new version appears to address these concerns, citing five reliable sources and lacking a promotional tone. Clearly WP:G4 was inappropriate. CataracticPlanets (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A key very reliable source was added (The Atlantic), and the promotional tone removed. (relist is possible, but I think it would be kept at a new afd) The deleting admin is extremely reliable and in my opinion quite conservative, but this was an error. I've made a few similar, and so has everyone else who is active in patrolling speedy. DGG ( talk ) 10:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Sources for the article seems in order in terms of notability. A cursory Google search results in some more sources. Juxlos (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 April 2019

Foo Conner – Consensus is that, after the block of various "keep" proponents, the outcome should be changed to "no consensus". Sandstein 06:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The discussion should probably have continued. There are 4 users involved in the AfD. The nominator (delete), the author (keep), a user since blocked as sock (keep) and a user only created today, who claims to be an existing wikipedian on his talk page (keep). The keep views should have been put into perspective. There is some merit to the delete view given the majority of sources are local news, blogs, youtube and/or mentions in passing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 22:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Continued discussion would have been pointless. Read WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow immediate renomination (I don’t mean to distinguish between consensus to keep or no consensus, rather that the AfD didn’t gain traction, and noting problems with the participants). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked one of the keep !voters. User:FIFAukr fits the vandalism pattern we've seen before of a brand new account popping up and immediately making numerous almost meaningless comments in random AfDs. Apparently this amuses somebody. Once you eliminate the sock/vandal accounts, all that's left is the nom and the author, who is suspected of having WP:COI. A reasonable argument could be made to delete this just on the nom's argument. I don't know if I'd actually close this as delete, but it's not as much of a slam-dunk keep as SmokeyJoe argues it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what I think I really mean, is that if someone thinks this should be deleted, a new nomination is by far the best way to go. RENOM advises a better nomination second time. The nomination first time wasn’t bad, but for a renomination, if the nominator would expand on how they judge the sources to be not reliable, or lacking significant coverage, that would be good. Given the age of the AfD, a renomination after a break is much better than a relist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any really good outcome here. A good outcome would be a clear consensus from experienced community members citing good policy-based arguments. Unfortunately, we don't have that. Calling this No Consensus and allowing it to be relisted after taking some time to research sources and formulating a more comprehensive argument for the renomination seems like the least bad alternative, as SmokeyJoe suggests. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Now that two of the three keep !voters have been indefinitely blocked there isn't a consensus for keeping the article. A renomination would also be a good idea but the fact the debate was closed as Keep will make this significantly harder. No consensus more accurately reflects the current state and leaves the issue more open to reconsideration. Hut 8.5 23:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - This is a case where the overturn does not indicate an error on the part of the closer. The fault was that of the blocked users. I don't like the general principle of Ignore All Rules, but this is a case where the rule should be ignored if it means being stuck with a questionable keep for several months. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus and no prejudice for renomination. The closer could not have closed this any other way based on the discussion, but as noted above, controlling for blocked users, this was the nominator versus the page creator. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment - I have absolutely no problems with this being overturned to no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reclose and close DRV. Since everyone seems to agree that reclosing the AfD as no consensus (NPASR) is a reasonable choice, I'd suggest a snow close. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above — NC seems the better close. Probably should have done it myself rather than go for #2 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Candace M. Smith – Snow Endorse. With a sprinkling of DRVPURPOSE thrown in. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion focused on WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTRESS, however, those categories do not apply to the subject and therefore the discussion is irrelevant to the issue (similarly, they don't qualify as WP:NWRITER, but that's not grounds to delete.) They are of this category, Models (profession), and many "models" have Wikipedia pages. Looking through those other examples, it seems it would be fair to evaluate again.--23.161.192.6 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)--73.134.86.177 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Properly run AfD and correctly closed. If you disagree with the result, or think something has changed, get a consensus at Talk:America's Next Top Model (season 18). This is not a deletion matter. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Case stated is nonsensical. If she isn't a model or an actress, and the appellant doesn't say how she is notable, then there is no credible claim of significance and that is more than enough reason to delete. This appeal appears to be filed by suckpoppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and close. Noting that WP:NMODEL covers Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: emphasis mine, this does not meet DRVPURPOSE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct close, fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The subject is a model and actress, and thus WP:NMODEL and WP:ACTRESS (which are the same guideline) are relevant to her. The request for deletion review even admits that she is a model. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The most charitable interpretation I've got is a misreading of the (admittedly unhelpful and largely redundant) "Criteria for pornographic actors and models was superseded by the above and the basic guidelines after a March 2019 request for comment." line. —Cryptic 11:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Music People – Speedy close. Nothing to review. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stub with no references flagged a decade ago - for a company that appears to no longer exist. synthfiend (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to review. You may take it to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 April 2019

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah – Endorse, but... Starting with the easy part, there's good consensus that the AfD close was correct, hence endorse. It's also policy (or at least standard practice) that an AfD decision is not binding for all time, and a new article can be created by anybody if events unfold to justify it. But, there's also agreement here that such unfolding has probably not happened to date. If somebody wants to try writing a new article, please do it in draft space and get it reviewed. If a copy of the existing article is used as the start of the draft, please read WP:COPYWITHIN and ensure that proper attribution is provided to comply with our licensing requirements. Lastly, please read WP:COI and make any required disclosures on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah was recently appointed President & CEO for one of the nation's largest refugee resettlement agencies, Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service (/Lutheran_Immigration_and_Refugee_Service). She is the first non-Lutheran to hold this position. Her work in the White House as Policy Director to Michelle Obama and Senior Advisor at the State Department under Secretary Clinton makes her a notable figure in the political sense. 216.59.110.18 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The agency in question has an article at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which I think the proposer was trying to link. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, the OP made no attempt to discuss this with me before opening this discussion. That said, after reviewing the AfD I am satisfied that there was a clear consensus against keeping the article. The only division was on the question of whether to delete or redirect the article. Assuming a viable argument for redirection and suitable target, and in the absence of a clear consensus one way or the other, redirection is my default close. I stand by my close of this AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sources in the AfD and that discussion, I find the whole thing unsatisfactory. Let's look at the sources. [17] is an amazing source. What the hell are we doing deleting an article with a source like that? [18] is from the Washington Post and has her as the focus. [19] is a bit more "run of the mill" and covers a single event, but still. [20] is a nice overview of her wedding etc. which has significant biographical information. Yes, she probably doesn't meet WP:POL. But some of this coverage isn't about her running for office. And the Marie Claire article, while focused on her candidacy, is in-depth and serious. But yeah, the !voters in the AfD clearly didn't feel the article belonged. So weak endorse of what I view as a consensus that seems at odds with WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering her new role at LIRS, I think this shifts the argument from whether she is a notable politician to whether she is a relevant influential figure in a subject area that is front and center for the public consciousness: immigration policy. Based on some of recent coverage I've seen from her, that answer is a clear yes. I say restore it. Naman.nepal (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Close looks fine to me, so that's a endorse, but the "recently appointed" bits make me think this is more a "allow recreation or not" DRV than a "overturn the close or endorse" DRV. The AfD is fairly recent. I'll probably have a look at the sources available tomorrow before saying anything, but it's probably easiest just to pass it through as a draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for this to go through deletion review. The deletion discussion was closed as "redirect" and the history kept, so if more sources and information have come to light since then it should be possible for anyone to revert the redirect and add this new stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the sources all come from before the AfD close. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - I've found one source that was published a month after the close. It looks like if there's anything else about the refugee resettlement agency may be after the close as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this doesn't really have anything to do with the DRV (I voted in the first deletion discussion) and would recommend restoring this to a draft if new sources can be demonstrated. SportingFlyer T·C 04:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation It might not have been necessary to ask here first, but it is not ab as idea, for it prevents an over-hastey speedy deletion without it being relaized there is additional information. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but Allow Re-Creation with review of draft, as stated by other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I stand by my close, that close was to redirect the page. I have no objection to restoring the page provided that there has been a significant change in the status of the subject that our guidelines recognize as conferring notability, and/or in depth reliable source coverage that either did not then exist or was not presented at the AfD has been found. While I am not generally a fan of speedy recreation or restoration of articles that the community just said "no" to, I do recognize that sometimes circumstances change. And sometimes that change can occur soon after an AfD discussion is closed. The bottom line is always what our policies and guidelines say and whether or not the subject meets those guidelines. Here I must note that neither of the positions the OP points to being held by the subject meet any of our guidelines for conferring presumptive notability. So this leaves us with whether or not there is enough in depth coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources, that was not discussed in the AfD to justify restoration of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to all editors who participated in the AfD... Bearcat, Johnpacklambert, RebeccaGreen, Bkissin, Enos733, Cheesesteak1, Rms125a@hotmail.com -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the notability test is not what the article says, it's how well the article references what it says — there is no job that any person can ever have that automatically guarantees them a Wikipedia article, just because they exist, in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about their work in that role to get them over WP:GNG. Being the president and CEO of any organization, for example, is not an instant notability freebie, and "first person of a non-Lutheran religious background to lead a Lutheran organization" is not a free pass to making her special either — her includability still depends on the depth and range and volume of media coverage she can or cannot be shown to have received for it.
But at the same time, an AFD deletion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article at all — we have lots of articles that once got deleted because the subject did not clear our notability standards at the time, but then circumstances changed later on. Sometimes the election candidate who tried to use Wikipedia to repost their campaign brochures when they were just a candidate, and got deleted on that basis, actually does win the election in the end. Sometimes the musician who tried to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform when they were just an aspiring wannabe actually does go on to clear NMUSIC months or years later. And on and so forth. And when that happens, the original deletion discussion does not ban the creation of a new article about that person — their basis for notability has changed from what it was the first time, so a new article can absolutely be created without needing to relitigate the original discussion. I can even point to examples on Wikipedia of people where I was simultaneously both the deletion nominator of the bad first version, and the creator of the new version once the notability basis had changed.
So if somebody thinks they can write and reference an article that makes a stronger notability case than the previous version did, then they're free to do that in a userspace or draftspace draft — and then if they actually do a good job, the article can be moved back into articlespace again. And the fact that the requester is effectively an SPA whose edit history pertains almost entirely to the Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service itself suggests a potential conflict of interest by an editor who may not actually understand our rules or processes or notability standards at all, and thus should almost certainly use the AFC process so that their work can be reviewed. But DRV does not have to overturn the previous deletion before anybody is allowed to even try writing a new article about her — an article will have to be better than the old version before it can be approved, but you do not require DRV's permission before you're allowed to try.
Go to draftspace, and have a ball — if you do a good job, the AFC reviewer will approve it, and if you don't do a good job, they won't. But she's not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she's been appointed president of an organization, or because she had civil service positions in the government bureaucracy — her includability still depends on the quality of the job you can do, and the quality of the sourcing you can show to support it. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Properly run and closed AfD. Discourage recreation unless she gets improved coverage in other articles, such as Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. She needs more coverage of what she is notable for, in existing articles, before it is appropriate to write an original biography highlighting her internship and covering the birth of her daughter. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 April 2019

Draft:Aqua Security – Consensus is that the article was correctly speedily deleted as WP:G11, and that the draft is likewise too promotional. I am accordingly re-deleting it per G11. Sandstein 10:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article underwent speedy deletion due to G11. As noted in my user page I have a COI as an employee of Aqua Security. However, I believe the article I authored is written from a neutral point of view, it does not promote or advertise Aqua Security's services. It describes the company and its products, its integrations which are a key part of the solution, and establishes notability, for example mentioned by Gartner as a central container security product and recognized by the World Economic Forum as a technology pioneer. The content is based on numerous reputable sources including O'Reilly, InfoWorld, NetworkWorld and Microsoft. I should note that the article included more information - additional integrations, open source software authored by Aqua Security, and a company timeline, which I think are valid and non-promotional, and I'd like the editors to consider reinstating some or all of the deleted info. Hedgehog10 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Endorse the deleted version was promotional, and if you can't see that I suspect you may be too close to the subject to be objective. The draft described the subject in promotional language ("Aqua protects applications from development to test and deployment", "The Aqua Container Security Platform aims to make container security easy") and most of the content consisted of the "popular container technologies" and "popular developer tools" supported by the subject, along with a list of awards they've received and nice sounding things they've done. Hut 8.5 18:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's basically too promotional. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. At this point, the draft has been recreated in exactly the same state as the version I deleted under G11. I could G11 it again, but since we're already here at DRV, let's just waste a week of everybody's time on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think sometimes WP:G11 can be overdone and applied to articles that could be reduced to (acceptable) stubs. In this case I can't see how it could be rewritten to be acceptable. My only positive thought is that if someone could achieve this then neither WP:G11 nor WP:G4 would apply. Thincat (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- as noted above, this is an advertising brochure and probably could not be written in a non-promotional manner based on the available sources. Reyk _YO! 09:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration, I think I understand the concerns. I reduced the article and removed all language that seems to be promotional or advertorial. Is this better? Hedgehog10 13:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehog10 (talk • contribs)

Endorse - To answer the question as to whether it is better, I would not tag the revised draft as G11 but would not accept it at AFC. I would note that it is written from the company's point of view without any significant third-party coverage and that it reads like a corporate information sheet (not containing puffery, but still a corporate fact sheet). Robert McClenon (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy list at MfD as a reasonably disputed G11. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me understand what "speedy list at MfD" means? Is there a decision to delete the article? Responding to Robert's comment, there are multiple third-party sources cited on the page such as NetworkWorld, Container Journal, O'Reilly, Red Herring and eWeek, so it's inaccurate to say there is no third party coverage. Should I add more of what these publications say about Aqua to make it more balanced? I'd really appreciate your help in improving this article so it is a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. I think I've established that the subject itself has notability and I'm willing to work with you to improve the content. Hedgehog10 09:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehog10 (talk • contribs)

It meant that I would prefer the substantive discussion to delete it to be at MfD. However, consensus is already abundantly clear. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Concord Orchestra – This is a complex result. Endorse as far as the original close is concerned, since it seems like nobody takes issue with Sandstein's assessment. Allow potential recreation through the draft process too since some people have been convinced that the new (?) sources proffered here may establish notability; this isn't an unanimous opinion although the pro camp seems to go into more detail than the anti arguments. The reviewer of the draft should probably check the sources carefully, based on the considerations given here about the previous draft of this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have got more information to add to the article and more sources. Dariakupila (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as an accurate determination of policy-based consensus at the discussion. If, Dariakupila, you have some independent reliable sources with significant coverage it will be possible to recreate this, but the only way that you're likely to get your desired outcome would be to list the sources here. The ticket sellers, videos and images that you linked in the AFD discussion don't meet any of the requirements of independent, reliable, and significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phil Bridger. Thank you for your reply. Here is the list of the sources from the third party.

www.antyradio.pl (In Polish)
www.ecodibergamo.it (News website in Italian)
www.bergamopost.it (News website in Italian)
businesspskov.ru (News website in Russian)
utro.ru (News website in Russian)

I have taken the liberty of reformatting the above list for readability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also a couple of questions. The videos from the concerts of Concord Orchestra with the artists mentioned in the article - Michel Legrand or Ken Hensley for example - should I add them as well? There are also the interview videos and reports on TV (Russia) - should I list them?

I have mentioned the ticket sellers, videos and images in the AFD discussion to demonstrate that the orchestra is active. There is also an article about Concord Orchestra in Russian and plans to translate it in Italian. If it helps. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closure. The proponent is a single-purpose account; do they have a conflict of interest? Any review of a re-created article or a draft should compare the draft or new article to the deleted article. If they are substantially the same, it is a G4 or Reject of the draft with possible SALTing. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Strongly advise newcomer editors to get experience by adding content to existing articles before attempting to write new articles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Quoting from there: "Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out." I have listed the facts about the orchestra in a neutral tone, people are looking it up - why am I doing wrong? Also I have seen articles in English with the sources in foreign languages - is it not allowed? And why no-one is answering my questions? Dariakupila (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. If Dariakupila wants to work on this, I see no reason to not let them. That's what draft is for. This started out in draftspace. It is unfortunate that it got promoted to mainspace before it was ready, but I can't really blame User:Kvng; it passes the draft promotion decision tree. AfC is meant to be a rough filter, and errs on the side of being too permissive. As for sources in foreign languages, yes, they are allowed, per WP:NONENG. But, you need to recognize that most reviewers here only read English, so reviewing articles which rely on non-English sources can be complicated. The automated translation services help, but they're not perfect. Review by native speakers of the source language is always preferable. So, once this is back in draft space (assuming that's where this ends up), you might want to solicit Russian, Polish, and/or Italian speakers (see WP:Translators available) to help with the review. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WP:NCORP is a high hurdle these days and it is now clear that it is unlikely to be cleared by this subject at this time. WP:BITE would actually be better respected by not dragging this out any further. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the applicable standard is WP:MUSIC, not WP:NCORP? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv mentions WP:NORG (a WP:NCORP alias) in their deletion nomination. The orchestra is music organization so either or both could apply I guess. ~Kvng (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me as if the sources presented above are just about enough to allow recreation. My Polish is fluent (I've been using it most days for over 40 years), I have an A level in Russian (but it's rather rusty because I passed it 43 years ago), and I know a little Italian (enough to get the gist of what the sources are saying). The sources all have this orchestra as their subject, and have several paragraphs of coverage each. The one in Polish is from Antyradio, the ones in Italian are from L'Eco di Bergamo and Bergamo Post, which looks like a reliable source, and the ones in Russian from Business Pskov, which appears to be a reliable source serving Pskov Oblast, and the rather more dodgy-looking Utro, which seems to be a publication published in Moscow that specialises in news about Ukraine (and Crimea in a separate section) from a very pro-Russian POV. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I offered my !vote before the requester insulted me on my talk page (and they insulted me because they don't like my !vote), so that my !vote is not affected by annoyance at their trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, I apologise if my comment on your page looks like trolling. Dariakupila (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, thank you for taking time and going carefully through the sources. Dariakupila (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question that should be answered by the filer before this DRV closes:
- - Does the filer have any conflict of interest such as an affiliation with the orchestra?
  - If the question is not answered by the time that this DRV closes, I suggest that the closer consider it to be a tacit acknowledgement of undisclosed paid editing.
  - The comments on my talk page do have the nature of trolling, which does not mean that the poster is or is not a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not object to allowing re-creation in draft space if the appropriate disclosure if any is made.
Answer
- - I am not paid by the orchestra for this article.
  - Robert McClenon, I apologise again for inappropriate behaviour and I will choose my words carefully in the future. I do not want to be taken for a troll neither I aim to insult or upset anybody. Dariakupila (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dariakupila:, I hate to sound cynical, but you didn't quite answer Robert McClenon's question. The question was if you had any conflict of interest. Your answer was that you are not paid for the article, but COI can include relationships other than being paid. Do you have any relationship with the orchestra of any kind? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:, I have been to their concert, I liked it. I've seen their videos online and I follow what they are up to. So yes I have interest in them. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. For what it's worth, I don't consider any of that a WP:COI. A COI would have been something like, "I'm a member of the orchestra", or even, "I have a relative who's a member of the orchestra", either of which makes "I am not paid by the orchestra for this article." a true statement, but still not full disclosure. My apologies for pushing this point, but we have a lot of COI editing and one learns to get sensitive to detecting it. And, once I get suspicious, anything which looks like an evasive answer just makes me more suspicious, which is why I pressed you for a more detailed response. I stand by my earlier comment; as this currently stands, the sourcing isn't good enough for mainspace, and it should be moved back to draftspace for further work finding better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:, thank you for the explanation. Appreciate it. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – the sources just aren't sufficient to pass WP:ORG (or WP:MUSIC for that matter). No amount of editing it in draftspace is going to solve that, per WP:NEXIST. – bradv🍁 15:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my drafify !vote, I'm not suggesting that editing will fix anything. I'm suggesting that this needs better sourcing and moving it back to draftspace will allow time for it to be found. If it turns out that better sourcing can't be found, because it doesn't exist, then eventually it'll time out of draft and get WP:G13'd. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-space really isn't for things that might become notable one day. – bradv🍁 03:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider the sources listed above to be insufficient? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Hi Phil Bridger, I have found another source www.afanasy.biz/news in Russian. It is a review of the concert in Tver in 2018. What is your opinion of it? Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the google auto-translation, this looks like a good source. It's certainly in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV, and sure looks like it's independent. I'm unable to form an opinion on the overall quality of the source; I can't tell if this is a major national publication, or just local. Nor can I tell if it's just a blog post or if there's editorial control behind it. In the US, a ".biz" domain name usually means a crappy source, but I have no idea of that's true worldwide. But, it's certainly a start and enough to justify keeping this in draft space for further improvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a reliable source serving Tver Oblast. Similar in acceptability to the two sources in Italian and the one in Russian serving Pskov Oblast listed above, as a regional publication rather than a national or local one. It adds a little to my conviction that we should allow recreation, but I'm rather confused by your characterisation of this one as a good source, but not the first four of those listed near the top of this discussion. Those are just as good or, in the case of Antyradio, better, because that is a national publication. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger thank you for the thorough analysis of the sources! The discussion seems to be drying up a little. What is going to happen to my article? To begin with I could replace all the "dodgy-looking" sources with reliable ones. Dariakupila (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, thank you for checking out the source! afanasy.biz is a regional publication as mentioned above by Phil Bridger. As for a "biz" domain, I guess it comes from the name of the newspaper the website is based on - "Afanasy-business", they concentrate on daily business news. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Allow recreation per sources presented. feminist (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:, would you please see if my article could be recreated? There are a few comments with "draftify" but no action has been taken. I still wish to add the sources and continue the article. Thank you. Best regards, Dariakupila (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this at WP:ANRFC#Deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 April 2019

8 April 2019

E. Michael Jones – Administratively closed. Let's not waste time on obvious sockism. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Wikipedia article on Dr. E. Michael Jones has been up for over ten years, and it was just deleted yesterday. One editor, Ad Orientem, made this decision, invoking "NOTAVOTE" to expedite the deletion, and attributing votes to the contrary as "fairly obvious sock votes." Given that his article was entirely factual and well-sourced, this appears to be a clear case of WP:BIAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritus Logos (talk • contribs) 21:50:05, 08 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Consensus seems to be that there is no significant mention of the article subject in independent reliable sources. The keep votes are not grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and I would second the COI/puppeting concerns raised by both the !voters and closer. Spiritus Logos, unless you present sources that meet the Wikipedia guidelines, specifically of being independent, reliable and a significant mention (at least a paragraph or so), it is very unlikely that the deletion will be overturned. Listing your best three would give the best chances. On the other hand, I see no reason why the deleted article can't be restored to draftspace, either replacing or in the history of the recently created draft. However, it will likely not be a mainspace article until it passes some form of review process, either by the AfC reviewers or by being listed again either here or at AfD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted to delete in the AfD, so entirely sure if I am allowed to endorse the decision. Many of the keep votes were most likely canvassed on social media, I raised those concerns in the AfD. In terms of bias, while the nominator did raise concerns about possible accusations of antisemitism, no editor based their vote on those accusations because political views aren't what determines notability at the end of the day. There are articles on many people with controversial views or have been accused of bigotry. At the end of the day, like many of the Academics and Authors that are deleted there hasn't been enough sourcing to establish notability and the keep votes did not provide enough evidence to prove Jones met Wikipedia's notability requirements. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Discounting the "fairly obvious sock votes" was a perfectly correct thing to do, and understated by the closer as these were in fact very obvious sock votes. The discussion couldn't possibly have been closed in any other way. And I don't see how the deletion of an article about a white man born in the United States is in any way related to WP:BIAS. Maybe the nominator didn't read that link before invoking it? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This DRV is vexatious litigation because it is itself being filed by an obvious sock vote. The closer used good judgment with regard to the socks. (Dirty socks are what you expect after a day's march by footsoldiers.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion was a good close. The constant trolling and sockpuppetry only makes this decision easier. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 April 2019

2019 Kashmir airstrikes – Overturn. There's clear consensus here that this should have been redirected instead of deleted, so I'm going to redirect this to India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2019). It's unclear from the discussion if the intent was to also undelete the history under the redirect, but I'm going to assume it was, and do that as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Indian air intrusion has an article i.e. 2019 Balakot airstrike but the article on retaliatory Pakistani airstrikes has been deleted. The highest point in the recent India-Pakistan tension i.e. the aerial dogfight, was a direct result of the Pakistani airstrikes which is why it deserves an article and it must be restored. Otherwise, this is just a blatant case of WP:BIAS. How is an article that's titled border skirmishes, being considered as a parent article of one regarding an airstrike that lead to an aerial dogfight which resulted in a confirmed downing of a fighter jet and capture of its pilot? If India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2019) is so much of a parent article, how about 2019 Balakot airstrike be meted with the same treatment? 110.93.250.2 (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn A10 as a plausible redirect. If there are content issues, it can be listed at AfD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm absolutely unconvinced by the OP's other-stuff-exists argument, and I don't have an opinion either way on the deleted content, but I can agree with this - this title should have been at most redirected, not speedy deleted. Overturn. —Cryptic 03:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per @Cryptic:'s reasoning, on both counts. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Redirect Poorly stated case, but it appears that the issue is whether to reverse an A10 and change it to a Redirect. That is a clear case of Redirects are Cheap. A redirect is often better than an A10. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 April 2019

Dagger (zine) – Closure endorsed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two delete votes, and two keep votes resulting in no-consensus. NorthPark1417 (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. There were 3 delete, 1 keep, and 1 weak keep !votes. (Some history: This was re-created immediately after a previous AfD was closed as "delete" and while a previous DRV was still ongoing.) --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - per the thread here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as AfD nom. Other than NorthPark1417 (the article's author), the only person arguing to keep was User:Ricksanchez. I certainly don't intend to dissuade new editors from taking part in AfDs, but with a grand total of 162 edits, I suspect they have limited experience evaluating articles. In any case, they wrote, ... if NorthPark1417 could give us a list of what has been updated and why those new updates increase notability, I am in favor. If NorthPark1417 cannot or does not, I will change my status to delete. The requested list of updates was never provided. Unfortunately, User:Ricksanchez never returned to the AfD, so we can't know for sure what they would have done. I'm pinging him to clarify his intentions one way or another. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is consensus in the first AfD that available sources were insufficient to establish notability and in the second that the concerns in the first AfD were not addressed. Unless the best three sources are significantly better than what was available the AfDers at the time, relitigating this is pointless, and having a 5th discussion next week won't change the result from what ut was a month ago. Strongly suggest that the nominator pass their best sources through a review process before trying to recreate a page on the subject, and also suggest that maybe Tim Hinely is the better topic to write an article on, as suggested in both AfDs. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 delete and 2 keep. It is no-consensus. Additional sources were added, including ones from notable industry journalists and musicians. The two nominators of the deletion are at the forefront of the discussions, in the AfD, the user talk discussion, and here as well. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article Tim Hinely has been created with most of the material on the zine merged into it. --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. NorthPark1417, this is the second time you've opened a DRV, then not had the patience to wait for it to be completed before running off and re-creating the article. When you open a DRV, you are requesting that your fellow editors invest time to evaluate your request. It is disrespectful of their efforts to not wait for them to finish their job. By just creating new articles, all you do is generate more work for other people. Please don't do that. It is considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. This is a collaborative project. The way to be productive is to work with your fellow editors to advance the goals of the encyclopedia, not to win battles by tiring out the opposition. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a closer look at Tim Hinely. It is virtually identical to the deleted Dagger (zine). The changes largely consist of swapping the order of some sections. The Bibliographies are almost identical. Rather than delete it myself, I've tagged it for WP:G4 to get a second opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing administrator I've given my opinion in User_talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#WP:Articles for deletion/Dagger (zine) (2nd nomination). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Unfortunately, this appears to be a case of vexatious litigation, including using an off-again-on-again approach to deletion review. We may need some sodium chloride. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Blurt (magazine)#Tim Hinely serves to fill the red links, from articles that use Dagger and Tim Hinely. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so well as removing those redlinks did. —Cryptic 08:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 April 2019

Cape May Brewing Company – "Delete" closure endorsed (as usual, without prejudice to recreation in a form that addresses the problems identified in the AfD). Sandstein 07:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adequate reliable sourcing proving notability. There were four deletes in the AFD; one said the article read like an advertisement, and three claim that it doesn't pass WP:NORG. However, there were sources from around the country and state. There were 35 references when the article was deleted, five more than when the AFD started. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The nom doesn't meet WP:DRVPURPOSE, but I took a look anyway. There's only two arguments to keep, neither of which impress me. One points out that WP:AUD is met, however, AUD is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement. The other points out that Notability asserted well enough, but that's an argument against WP:A7, nothing more. I also looked at WP:THREE of the sources mentioned in the AFD. Forbes is just a passing mention. It's about the NJ Brewer's Association, and uses a few quotes from the subject's CEO. Also, forbes.com contributor pieces are often given less weight per WP:PUS#News media. The NBC Los Angeles piece is minor coverage of what's essentially a publicity stunt by the brewery, with quotes from the brewery's sales rep. And NJ Dept of Agriculture is just a directory listing. Reading the article itself, I agree that it's promotional, and I probably would have WP:G11'd it had I seen it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any material in the article that can be kept? Surely the sources at least establish notability, being the 3rd largest brewery in New Jersey. The fact that a small brewery is able to get a publicity stunt in publications around the world shows some notability for the brewery, likewise that the brewery was the only one to be part of the Jersey Fresh program. Surely the fact that the head of this brewery leading the NJ Brewer's Association also lends notability to the brewery that he helped create. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from AfD closer. I am somewhat dismayed that there was no attempt to discuss this before I received the DRV notice on my talk page, the more so since the nom is a sysop themselves who should know better. RoySmith did an excellent job at summarizing the AfD and I don't think I have anything to add to that right now. --Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised the AFD was closed and the article deleted already. I wasn't sure whether the appropriate place to discuss would be on your user page, or a deletion review, so pardon for not knowing better. I responded to each of the deletion comments, asking how it felt like an advertisement, and I got nothing. I was disappointed by the quick nature of the deletion process, especially because I've worked on and off the article since 2014. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick?? It was relisted and the debate ran for 2 weeks. Aren't you familiar with how AfD works? When I hover my cursor over your username, it says "sysop"... And before you go to any noticeboard, it is always more polite to contact somebody first on their talk page. Not that I would have told you anything different than what RoySmith already said, but that's besides the point. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia since 2005, yep I'm familiar with AfD. I wouldn't have gone to the noticeboard, I thought that this was the proper place to take a deletion review, considering that I disagreed with the nature of the comments, namely how it felt like an advertisement, and how the many 35 sources in the article established notability. I would've assume that collectively, the 35 sources and the content provided were enough for the article to not be deleted. I don't mean to go all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the article for Cape May Brewing Company was longer than any other independent New Jersey brewery (save maybe Flying Fish Brewing). Since you're familiar with the article as the AfD closer, I was curious, is there anything salvageable in the article? I'd like to keep working on the article and republish it, but I want to do it properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed "delete" because of a lack of notability. WIthout notability it's not salveagable, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third-largest brewery in the state isn't notable? Awards from around the country? I dispute the assertion that the 35 sources (minus the self-references/blog posts) don't make it notable. If that doesn't, then what sort of sourcing would it need to be notable enough? This is my first brewery I've written on - normally I just write about hurricanes (hence my user name), but I wanted to branch out on the largest brewery in my area. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to, what sort of sourcing would it need to be notable enough?, is WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - article seems nice. Local sources would be normal for a local brewery? Maybe involving more editors or userfication with another editor. Disclaimer: I am new to delete discussion and trying to learn to evaluate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparebug (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vidyutblogger. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Sparebug. I'm afraid that you're in the wrong place. This is not a deletion discussion and we don't !vote "keep" or "delete" here. This is a deletion review to determine whether the consensus was correctly determined in a previous deletion discussion. Please read the guidelines that I have linked in the previous sentence. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I would have !voted Delete, but that isn't important. Closer used reasonable judgment. This appears to be a request to revote. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I can't see the deleted page, so I'm not sure if these sources were already in the article and considered by AfD voters and the closer, but from the AfD discussion, it seems there was too much focus on AUD and local/national coverage, and there wasn't discussion of some of the potential SIGCOV out there. Food & Wine magazine (national media) did a story when Cape May Brewery won a 2017 "Best Beer in America" award [21], as did New Jersey statewide media NJ.com (regional media) [22]. Other examples of regional-media coverage: [23] [24] [25]. I don't know if industry media "counts" but why not? I do not believe this is pay-to-play promotional coverage: [26] [27] [28] County/sub-regional: [29] [30] Local: [31] [32] [33]. I don't know if any of these are "new" or grounds to recreate post-deletion or relist for consideration, hence I'm not !voting, just bringing it to editors' attention in case these sources were "missed". Leviv ich 17:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of those sources look like they are likely pay-to-play to me (njbiz for example), but food and wine, nj.com and a few others look pretty good. An article can be written here. It sounds like the one that was here was too promotional. Hobit (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Portal:Friends – Overturn and relist. There is consensus that this closure was a WP:BADNAC and should be relisted to see if a (better) consensus can be reached due to ongoing interest in Portal discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three deletes and three keeps. One of the keeps was an unsubstantiated "Meets WP:POG. This should have been closed by an Admin as "no consensus" or relisted or even left for more votes before closing. A bad NAC close, sorry to say. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note: I am counting the comment by Espresso Addict as a keep vote. Then the !votes are more like 4 keeps, 1 delete and 1 weak delete. The argument "Meets POG" is only as unsubstantiated as your statement "Individual TV shows should not have portals." This could also have been closed as "no consensus" but that does not make much of a difference than a "keep" closure. SD0001 (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can't count because the nominator's voice counts too (that is three deletes) and User:Espresso Addict (an Admin) is perfectly capable of voting if they wanted to. There is a big difference between no consensus and keep in these portal debates. "Meets POG" without explanation is not helpful because all kinds of things that don't meet POG have been claimed to meet POG lately. TV shows don't need portals is an opinion based on POG (broad scope required) that drives toward setting precedent. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, my comment was intended as 'default to keep unless a valid deletion rationale is provided' but I agree that ideally this should have been closed by an admin. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

endorse though NC would have been within discretion also. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse as being a valid conclusion when Keep outnumbered Delete, although I think that No Consensus would have been better. (I !voted Delete. Legacypac and I are critical of portals.) The mention that this was a NAC is a red herring; it isn't invalidated for that reason. Legacypac: You don't need to select every portal as a hill to die on. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, this was a split decision - Keep and Delete were equal at three each, but the closer claims otherwise, which show this was a BADNAC. A relist would have been much better, or NC. This user is pretty inexperienced in MfD. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as within discretion. However, I have to note that I would have closed this as NC. I would probably not have relisted this, as the discussion seems to have ended a few days before the close. I also note that WP:NAC explicitly states "A non-admin closure is not appropriate (if) [...] The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." It would have been better not to NAC close this but leave this to an admin. --Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn BADNAC. Non-admins don’t get to enjoy admin discretion, they have not been vetted for understanding consensus and policy, allowing this sort of thing opens XfD up to supervoting games and a deterioration of respect afforded to the processes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC) prior involvement: I try to ignore Portal fuss at MfD[reply]
Overturn per SmokeyJoe and my reasoning above. --Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Void close and relist. Obvious WP:BADNAC. Relist this and leave it to an admin to re-close. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per WP:BADNAC; kind of a textbook example of "close call", "several valid outcomes", and "likely to be controversial". Even if it wasn't a NAC, I don't think there is keep consensus based on this discussion. Two keep !votes cited WP:POG without further rationale (IMO "no rule excludes this" = "per PAGs" = "per POG"); the third had rationale. That's balanced against two delete !votes with rationales and a third delete !vote that said the other delete !votes had better rationales than the keep !votes. So there are reasoned arguments on both sides. It could be relisted or closed as no consensus, but I don't think there's consensus for keep (or delete) with such an even split in numbers and arguments. (A margin of one or two !votes is not much in any discussion.) Given that this nomination received five !votes and a comment and had not been relisted yet, relisting would be preferable to a no consensus close, as it may get more participation. Leviv ich 03:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist - The last few arguments have persuaded me that this should have been Relisted. XFDs that appear to be No Consensus after one week are normally relisted, and that would have been more appropriate than Keep. Since interest in portal deletions has been recently increasing, a Relist is very likely to get a better consensus. If this had already been relisted once, it would be a judgment call between Keep and No Consensus, but Relist is the better judgment call here, and would have been the better judgment call. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist per WP:BADNAC. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 April 2019

Lady Rose Gilman – G4 speedy deletion endorsed. A redirect can be created. Sandstein 06:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was recreated successfully with more information. This admin deleted it again on a whim without any discussion. I wanted to, at least, have access to its contents before this surprising deletion. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request temporary undeletion, and restoration of revisions before the AfD for comparison purposes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: I already made this request for deletion. I don't know if it will work, at least for retrieving the history. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the current and previous versions of the page for this review. The last instance of the page was up for a year before tagging by user:DrKay and then deletion by User:Justlettersandnumbers. So it looks like the review should be on whether a G4 delete is justified. If this is closed as endorse, then the page should be redeleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion with caveats. Looking at the diff, there are only 3 added sentences about rather routine coverage, so I think the deletion is sufficently justified — there's very little chance of the article remaining if we relisted it at AfD. However, I do think it's worthwhile to consider what to do with the content. Redirection was not considered at the original AfD as an alternative, and seeing as there's already an appropriate mention that can be targeted, and in that case whether the article should be kept in history becomes a matter of weighing the usefulness of the current content against the trouble of keeping it — it's not much of either, really. I don't think it's worth bringing the matter back to AfD for a full 7 days to clarify that small point, but overall I'd say keep deleted, but allow redirect (either with history or without) and allow a copy to userify/draftify. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It's an almost exact recreation as shown by the diff between the previously deleted version and the new article[34]. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford: And why must it be complete deletion? If the article does not have sufficient content to survive on its own, why not redirect it to Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester? It is much easier to manage. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the article does not prevent creation of a redirect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Maybe, I'm not into the details of that. What I know is that last evening, when the article was deleted, I didn't have access to the history, so I couldn't use any of that content. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. "Anotherwikipedianuser" re-created the article virtually identically, and must be aware that he or she did so. Indeed, it was so closely identical that he or she must have had a copy of the original article. The reasons for deletion apply just as much now as they did at the time of the deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Like I explained to User:Justlettersandnumbers, I don't remember 100% sure how I did it, but I think I got access to at least most of the content via Wayback Machine and worked my way from there. Now, even with Wayback Machine, it would be harder to reconstruct the article. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I tagged the article for speedy deletion because it was the same as the deleted version, and therefore met the G4 criterion. The coverage of her in the press is no more substantial now than it was at the time of deletion, when she failed to meet notability requirements. I have no objection to a redirect. DrKay (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how many different discussions there have to be about this (my talk, WP:REFUND, now here), but no matter. Here's (most of) what I wrote earlier: "Just to be clear: I have no interest in the topic, nor opinion on the article. I deleted it because it was nominated for speedy deletion as G4 by DrKay, and because that nomination seemed valid. The page was not restored (as far as I can determine), but re-created with the identical text as before (still not clear how that was done). I'm happy for anybody restore it and start a new AfD". Anotherwikipedianuser, the page was not deleted "on a whim", but under a valid criterion for speedy deletion, in accordance with policy; of course, whether or not I applied that criterion correctly is open to discussion. Anyway, you might perhaps strike that phrase (but I'll live even if you don't). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: I admit it wasn't fair to say that you deleted the article "on a whim". As I couldn't have access to the article's history, I didn't know that it was User:DrKay who nominated the article for deletion, and not you. Anyway, I apologise to you. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Living British minor royals? Surely the answer is merge to somewhere?? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Rose Gilman completely failed to address the BEFORE requirement to consider merge options. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Create a redirect to Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester#Issue. Not sure if the history should be available. It is royals’ personal information tracking, no secondary source commentary, and some inaccurate commentary on the retrospectivity of the gender changes to the law of succession. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - By way of explanation, I recently accepted a draft on a minor member of the British royal family, and had it taken to AFD and deleted. I have learned that there are no consistent rules about minor members of the British royal family. We don't need to third-guess the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, but allow a redirect to Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Query on the endorses - I agree with the general trend for "endorse, add a redirect" - but are these interpreted in DRV as "treat it as if the AfD had been a redirect" or "delete it again, then add a redirect"? In effect, would the material now be accessible via page history? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, it doesn't make much difference to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorsing deletion means it should be deleted. Whether anyone then wishes to create a redirect is entirely up to them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think it makes much difference either way, since WP:REFUNDs are available to draftspace, userspace, or emailed to the user so it can be used elsewhere. I don't think the difference is significant enough to relist such an old discussion, and reclosing it as redirect or not really only makes a difference in whether a REFUND is needed. Redirect and delete are pretty much the same "not keep" at AfD, except when seriously problematic content like attack pages or copyvios are involved (in which case you have to "delete and redirect" or "delete") which is not the case here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request temporary undeletion and have the article go through an AFD. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 April 2019

Vidyut Kale – The "delete" closure remains unchanged. The discussion is somewhat on the border between consensus to endorse the closure and no consensus, but in either case the outcome remains unchanged, for lack of consensus to overturn it. From what I can gather, however, most here wouldn't oppose a recreation with better sourcing. Sandstein 16:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politically motivated deletion. Subject of article is a known dissenter of the government and several delete votes are by profiles with history that aligns with ruling party. User_talk:JamesBWatson

-Preethi 150.242.197.197 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to have posted her reasons on the user talk page for closer:

I am from India and found the article page through Google only to see that it was deleted and read the page for why it was deleted.

I think this deletion was political vandalism. Vidyut Kale is a public figure on digital rights in India and has participated in internet rights movements in the country. She is something of a lone wolf and polymath supporting many campaigns in public interest, but there won't be significant organization related coverage of her because she is careful to stay independent of organizations and political parties. Being a woman, and opposing ruling party that controls most media, you will not find coverage for activists opposing government.

She opposes the ruling BJP in India with a notorious IT cell and is the subject of several targeted attacks from them. They have organized workers on all social media as well as Wikipedia. Some of the delete recommendations are by users whose history reveals edits of interest to the ruling party.

Some of the analysis of references is also not correct. You can verify for yourself.

For example, this article, that is analyzed as only mentioning her is interviewing her as among the early founders of the group intending to form a Pirate Party in India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Activists-bemoan-absence-of-active-Pirate-Party-in-India/articleshow/34542968.cms

This article is analyzed as her being mentioned in a "non-substantive, transitory sense" while discussing laws used for censorship in India. This is not correct, her case is being analyzed because she got defamation notices due to an expose of a scam. https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/VViKHUnyEZzuxOSQumBhEL/Free-Speech--Virtual-empowerment.html Another user calls it an advocacy piece because its sources include three major digital rights related organizations in India!

This article in an award winning publication with its own Wikipedia page (as pointed out by another user) is called an unreliable source in the analysis https://www.thefridaytimes.com/peace-after-pathankot/ what is important here is that this is a Pakistani newspaper quoting her on a subject of tension between India and Pakistan.

I contacted her before messaging and she is not interested in pursuing this, but as administrator, you should care that Wikipedia is being used to refuse credibility to dissenters by the fascist party in rule.

~ Preethi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.78.165.21 (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A contentious AfD, started by a user now blocked for sockpuppetry, with a possible visit by the actual subject, brought to DRV by an IP whose first-ever edit was to a user talk page claiming they have talked with the subject about the page. Fortunately, while I also believe the closer did a commendable job, I also consider a "politically motivated deletion" to be outside the scope of WP:DRVPURPOSE. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist with allow recreation in all event: ~~Weak overturn~~ While I don't think I particular agree with the reasons (from a Wikipedia viewpoint) this was brought to DRV there may be good reason to be at DRV to oversight the complexity and suggest the closer possibly just may have misinterpreted the consensus. I do agree the commendable job of summing up, I don't think those trying to keep the article did themselves too many favours. I was going to say Weak endorse because the closer seemed to have summed up the situation accurately however I seem to observe that this source in the 2012 IT Act censorship in academic research (p 384) was introduced and does not seem countered within the chaos. And all also depends on what is WP:SIGCOV and what isn't and AfD regulars have an advantage here. Another option might have been to have brought the AfD to order with a relist and suggested there seemed to be consensus on one WP:RS and for the keepers present their top three other sources for consideration. In all events WP:SUSTAINED seems to apply and WP:TOOSOON may apply and draftification may be an option and further sources may emerge but those are AfD matters and not DRV matters.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded of Robert McClenon's comments below and observe the DRV nominator's additional information added since Robert's but bewail the manner in which it is put. I think the core point is the nominator is challenging the weight (or lack thereof) of weight applied to the Friday Times and the livemint was not given due weight. As far as I can tell both the keepers and deleters appear to have disrupted the AfD with content and presentation being changed I have some concerns. A relist may have been a better option; though it would likely have resulted in more contentiousness. I haven't seen the article but in general trashing the effort getting the existing references and content for a possible WP:TOOSOON should mean allow recreatation is a minimum and draftication should probably be permitted.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ignore your comment re: "[...] deleters appear to have disrupted the AFD with content and presentation being changed" since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. As far as your point regarding "source in the 2012 IT Act censorship in academic research" is concerned, this is an article by a final year undergrad law student in a no-name law journal, whose editorial board is populated by non-notable law lecturers and junior academics. It was produced after I had posted my analysis of the quality of the sources contained in the article, and even after I saw it, I did not see any reason as to how this could, ever so slightly, sway consensus in the direction of "keep". That being said, I believe that even this article does not cover the subject of the biography in a manner that could be described as "significant". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Love the duality Nearly Headless Nick/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and the which quite likely drove the person attempting to improve the article up the wall and likely escalated the contentiousness alone of someone trying to improve the article. Let alone the WP:WPA personal (you clearly have no idea what you're talking about). Are you absolutely totally sure you are fit to be sysop? Is your mind rind for it? Great points are made while subtly twisting others. While the closer may be technically correct most experienced closers might have considered a re-list at this point especially given the appearance of the obviously inexperienced COI editor who seemed to get very little WP:NEWBIES experience and I wonder why their edits weren't immediately backed out and pointers given on their talk page. Perhaps especially given the AfD nom. got blocked. This AfD must look awful to outsiders which may be why this DRV got raised as it did and is which is why we are still discussing it. I've read SmokeyJoe's comment including the WP:THREE and if the AfD had been guided in that direction it might have stood. A relist might also have enabled a WP:1E approach. Observing SmokeyJoe's comments I'll cede to allow recreation and take a userfication if no-one else will ... I'm not Wikipedia's greatest edtitor and somewhat tainted and don't do WP:BIO's much and hope my recent interactions with the COI editor will be seen as good faith newvbies advice and not giving me coi with the article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, WP:DRVPURPOSE #8. —Cryptic 03:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Reason for requesting an overturn is not clearly stated. As noted, the AFD was contentious, but without a clear statement of what was wrong with the close, I have to conclude that the closer used proper judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very strongly leaning endorse. Bent over backwards to read the DRV nomination with AGF. Outsider protests should be taken seriously. “Politically motivated deletion” is definitely reviewable. I didn’t for a second believe it, and on examination the allegation has no credibility. To be completely sure, I request a temp undelete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the temp-undeleted article and the XfD, and Hobit's 17:24, 4 April 2019 post below. The article has a lot of poor sources. These seems to have been collected every source that makes a mention of her. If Hobit has identified the best sources, I too would !vote delete, as these sources are not independent of the subject. You cannot interview someone about something and then claim that interview as an independent source for that someone. I know that some others have rejected this method of GNG-source-rejection, but it works, and every source rejected by this method can be rejected by other arguments as well. I am comfortable with deletion of this article on the basis that no third parties have published commentary on her. (WP:ATHLETE aside). Endorse the deletion and congratulate the closer on an excellent close. "Delete" was a good close, and is unquestionably within admin discretion. I recommend allowing userfication for any *experienced* editor, and recommend to them that they read WP:THREE, and remove all low-quality sources before seeking to test a new version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say those are the best sources, though perhaps not if you want to discard anything that even resembles an interview. But isn't the case that almost every bio we have (literally) comes from interviews of the person and a review of what they've done? She's published on-line and gotten very significant attention for doing so. She sees coverage in a massive number of places and he contributions in those sources are discussed in the context of something larger. We have a NYT article that covers her a bit. I think that the NYT would take the time to cover some blogger in India would indicate that she's notable in the English sense of the word. The other sources are significant sources in India. But what else other than interviews and reviews of her writing do you expect to see for a writer? Hobit (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia hosts a lot of biographies that are not Wikipedia-notable. Should Wikipedia host original research biographies? Wikipedia Biographies for people who have never has their biography, even two paragraphs, previously published in any reliable source? The deletion decision is entirely reasonable, the AfD has no systematic flaw or a result that is unreasonable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. IMO this clearly and easily meets the GNG. [35] is just about her in what appears to be a reliable and well-respected source. [36] is about 8 paragraphs just about her in a reliable source. [37] is solely about her in what the discussion seemed to conclude was a reliable source (I don't know much about it). [38] seems to be a reasonable article, though again I can't say much about the source. And there are lots of other sources that mention her, often a bit more than in-passing, but certainly not the focus of the article. So I'd be an easy keep !vote. That said, there were some pretty well-reasoned delete !votes, one of which walked the sources and concluded there were only two good sources. I tend to disagree with some of that reasoning (only half the article was on her so it doesn't count?!). The !vote numbers were strong and the arguments were occasionally good. But things like "doesn't meet the GNG" just don't count for much when the subject clearly does. weak overturn to NC. Delete wasn't unreasonable. But I just think many of the delete !votes need to be discounted. (Were I an admin looking to close this, I'd have !voted to keep rather than closing). In any case, I do wonder of politics, gender, or being a non-American/European caused some kind of a bias, because the outcome seems extraordinary given the sources. I'll admit I have to use a fair bit of IAR to even get to this point given the discussion. But that's what IAR is for. Hobit (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — the arguments for and against have been made through the AFD process itself. This is not a place to rehash those arguments and try to overturn the decision. The subject of discussion here is strictly whether the close was made within the ambit of the process or not. In my view, the closing administrator made a considered decision, carefully weighing the arguments on both sides before determining consensus. The article has been deleted without prejudice to re-creation. The issue of the notability of the subject of the biography may be revisited at a later date in case they achieve further coverage for their work, after reasonable time has elapsed. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Note: I participated in the AFD discussion.[reply]
Overturn. To me, the most significant part of the AFD debate was an analysis of the sourcing by one of the delete voters. In that analysis, two sources, Femina (India) and India Today, are admitted to be reliable and in-depth. I will pass over how it can be argued that that in itself does not meet GNG. A further source, in Times of India, is admitted to be reliable and in-depth, but is discounted because that publication and Femina have the same owner. These are two articles by different journalists in different publications at different dates. Another article in India Today is discounted for similar reasons. I don't believe that there is any basis in policy for such a rationale. If this were a scientific article, would there have been any comment on using two different articles from New Scientist or two articles in two different IEEE publications? The closer should have commented on this rationale and explained why he accepted it as a valid argument. In my opinion, this analysis by a delete voter is enough for keep voters to claim that GNG has been met without further evidence, and the closer was mistaken to dismiss their arguments as less "substantive". Having said that, a newly written article that doesn't use the trash sources would result in a better page. SpinningSpark 14:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." In this case, Femina and Times of India may not be counted twice for the purpose of establishing notability as they have the same publisher and owner - The Times Group. Same rationale applies for not counting the other article from India Today for the second time. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Same author" does not apply here and interpreting "same organization" as meaning "same journal" is a distortion of the intention of the guideline. SpinningSpark 21:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that this is a "distortion" of the guideline? I ask because based on your previous post, you appeared to have been unaware of the guideline cited in response, and seemed absolutely convinced that even India Today would be counted twice for the purpose of establishing notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am, and was, aware of the guideline. I am also aware that ad hominem attacks count for nothing in deletion debates. Please stick to the substantive issues. SpinningSpark 09:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Femina is an Indian magazine owned by Worldwide Media, a 50:50 joint venture between BBC Worldwide and The Times Group. - First line on the page for Femina Magazine. It is not solely owned by Times Group, but The Times of India is. To say they are the same source would be like India Today and Readers Digest India are the same source. But I don't know if it is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparebug (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) — Sparebug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The page must not have been updated, as BBC Media offloaded its stake and quit the joint venture in 2011 — [39], [40], [41]. Femina is now wholly-owned by the Times Group. But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that this were not true, the publishing organization (the Times Group) would still be seen as having a substantive stake in both publications, thereby bringing us back to the same position that Femina and Times of India may not be counted twice for the purpose of establishing notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Femina isn't owned by Times Group technically. It is owned by a subsidiary (as opposed to division) of Times Group. A subsidiary is a separate legal entity that may be controlled by another company through ownership of majority (or all) shares. For example, good luck including Times Group on a defamation notice to Femina as those influencing editorial policy. So, the argument you are making isn't about "same organization" - you have unilaterally extended "same organization" to mean "organization and any other organization it controls". As for your allegation of editorial control, both Times Now and Mirror Now are owned by BCCL (Times Group). Both news channels. Good luck finding editorial congruence in content. One serves almost as a mouthpiece of the govt, the other routinely explores dissent. Times of India is a newspaper. Femina is a fortnightly magazine for women. I am trying to imagine what an editorial directive to cover one obscure stay at home mom by India's biggest publishing giant would look like to have an impact two years apart as single articles on different platforms in the umbrella. Creative writing challenge. 'Disclosure: I have CoI with the article - it is about me. Yes, I am aware participating in the discussion could get the article deleted. I don't particularly care. The arguments are fascinating. Vidyutblogger (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vidyutblogger: You are welcome to participate here, there is absolutely no rule against it, nor will that in itself cause the article to be deleted. You have declared your COI so everything is good in wikiworld. SpinningSpark 09:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Femina isn't owned by Times Group technically. It is owned by a subsidiary (as opposed to division) of Times Group. A subsidiary is a separate legal entity that may be controlled by another company through ownership of majority (or all) shares. For example, good luck including Times Group on a defamation notice to Femina as those influencing editorial policy. — The distinction between direct or indirect legal ownership does not make a difference in this argument, as those are fundamentally corporate governance decisions made due to the need of minimizing exposure to legal and tax liabilities. The crux of the matter is that the Times Group is still the beneficial owner, and as the publishing organization/publisher, is deemed to exert control (including editorial control) over its publications. Such sources are also regarded as a "single source" for the purpose of establishing notability as provided in Wikipedia's general notability guideline. You are certainly welcome to participate in this discussion, however, and if you don't mind me saying, I must note that for an individual who claims to be generally disinterested in whether your article is kept or deleted, you are sure showing a lot of personal interest in these discussions as is demonstrated through your enthusiastic participation in them. Again, by all means feel free to participate. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a novelty. Not everyday you get an article in Wikipedia. And then to discover the utter chaos behind the scenes, to discover sources about yourself you had no idea... it is quite intriguing. Never got around to it, but one of the research sources I discovered here is factually incorrect too (not the citation, the research itself). Initially I thought it was interesting to see myself from the lens of a third person. Then, seeing the wrong name, references that don't really matter to me... thought it isn't really an advantage to have the first answer in search results for my name to be things I don't consider important pushing down results that matter. Not to mention promoting a surname I'm trying hard to leave behind - given that I left the man attached to it due to domestic violence. At this point I frankly don't have a dog in this fight. I replied to your "same source" thing because you seem quite active all through contradicting anyone who wanted to keep the article, and I found your argument quite like using a technicality, so couldn't resist commenting to see how far you carry that interpretation. The answer appears to be "as far as it takes" :D That said, I don't know what counts as "a lot of" given that that was my only comment on this deletion review so far. Vidyutblogger (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: The other reason I'm participating, particularly now that I no longer care about the fate of the page is that I felt bad for that fellow who made so much effort to line up references. No one else made any effort to improve the article, only to criticize his efforts. Or there wouldn't be a three ring circus about only the sources he was able to find, not knowing that I am often covered without a surname or with the surname Gore. So I suppose I feel an urge to question discrediting of his work. About "Such sources are also regarded as a "single source" for the purpose of establishing notability as provided in Wikipedia's general notability guideline." I was not actually able to find anything about legally separate entities being same source if editorial control is present (and how presence of editorial control is established or assumed in such an instance - other than confident assertions, that is) in the notability guidelines you linked to.. Vidyutblogger (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The independence of Femina from The Times of India is being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN § Sources from the same organisation. — Newslinger talk 01:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have determined a possible concern in the process of the AfD with regards to the actions following the strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. The good faith strike of the nominator AfD reasoning but with no followup by someone else left the AfD nomination in an arguably invalid state and with no requirement for anyone to take responsibility to perform WP:BEFORE. Per WP:BEFORE C.2 If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. would surely have been the best practice pathway. A WP:SPEEDY at this point by someone else would possibly have been best practice. This happened for this similar nom. which had the AfD struck albeit not a WP:BIO with its associated issues. Here an acrimonious AfD resulted with this possible result(they do now seem to be back) for someone attempting a good faith (albeit seemingly with content issues) article rescue. The closer summary of the AfD if not technically wrong could be read as somewhat smug (its actually amazing how AfD is all about arguments and not about positive article content!) ... perhaps not helped by the signature .... and in totality one might understand how reading the AfD might lead to concerns to possible concerns of politics, gender non-American/European bias which seem to have been raised (albeit in an inappropriate manner) by the DRV nom. and why there have been some good faith scrutiny here to confirm the technical validity of the AfD decision. Pragmatically because even if removing the COI editors last two edits from the article there appear to be at a minimum need to address some cleanup issues in the article and makes immediate return to mainspace probably inadvisable and therefore the key outcome to me remains allow recreation via WP:REFUND to non mainspace.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marketing operations management – List at AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like to self-refer my G12 deletion of this page. I'm starting to doubt my decision and would like more eyes on it. The deleted article was an almost identical copy of text from this book. It comes from an apparently reputable publisher, but a WP:BACKWARDSCOPY is possible. The article was created (with the suspect text) in 2005, the book was published in 2009 and I can locate no earlier editions. Further, Product management has the same problem wrt to this book, but it is somewhat clearer in that article that the text developed organically rather than bulk copying. Since my deletion cut short the AFD, if restored, it should be returned to AFD to complete that process. SpinningSpark 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google books won't show me the page you link to. Was it everything in the first revision, or something else? (I also see that text in a 2006 patent.) —Cryptic 03:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides some ENGVAR changes, the original is identical except for the last sentence. By this version in 2007, the last sentence is also aligned with the book, which is even stronger evidence that this is a BACKWARDCOPY and I made a mistake. SpinningSpark 12:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak List: From the noms comments it seems most probable the good faith G12 was in erroneous against the compared book isbn:978-93-80228-55-6 due to BACKWARDCOPY therefore list or overturn looks appropriate. However I am minded there may be strong risk of WP:COPYVIO from another source X due to lack of references (at least on the last version of the article where the only reference was all about marketing performance measurement if I recall correctly) so I will accept if DRV chooses to endorse. I make a weak request for a temp undelete and wonder if a COPYVIO expert might help? Also note I am able to see relevant contents of isbn:978-93-80228-55-6 from UK via google chrome (possibly auto logged in by a gmail account). (Note: I was the AfD nom and had discussions with AfD closer post close and commend willingness to review actions) Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The original article had a different reference (later deleted) which is now a deadlink. This archive copy is from immediately prior to article creation. Basically, it is a trailer for a symposium on the subject and the article may have been created to promote the symposium. You may be right that this is still copyvio, but from a different source, and the most likely being one of these symposium papers/speeches. Unfortunately, I can't find any online record of these to verify either way. SpinningSpark 17:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well found. I'd suggest that source does is likely to be considered inadequate to cover the article content and the community might want to endorse ... my problem is as AfD nom I am not neutral in this discussion.... I can't really call it either way.... now am more interested in how the outcome is chosen rather than what the outcome is.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not looked closely, but if the deleting admin feels it would be better discussed, it should be listed. Reasonable mistake, good call asking for a discussion if you later have doubts. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List - If the deleting admin thinks that a listing is a good idea, a listing is a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, at this point, that we should go ahead and list at AFD and see whether it should be deleted based on its content. Investigating a 15-year-old copyvio is hard; no reason to go to the trouble if we'd just delete it anyway. If it survives, then we can look into this a bit more. —Cryptic 04:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Love You Two – There is consensus not to restore this article, and that, as usual, another article on the same subject can be written so long as it overcomes the reasons for deletion. There's also general agreement that the sources presented here aren't sufficient for that. I personally advise that any recreation be as a draft and submitted for review through the articles for creation process, so as to minimize the chances of redeletion. —Cryptic 18:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussion closed, following AfD (8 March). We need to restore the page because the show will premiere this month of April, and the trailer was officially released, and we have sources: https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/showbiznews/news/48906/magkapatid-na-na-in-love-sa-iisang-the-one-tampok-sa-love-you-two/story and https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/showbiznews/news/95646/love-you-two-love-triangle-teaser/video Mc Eduard Figueroa (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the original decision was sound, and the provided sources in this review are not independent of the subject. Additionally, "the show will premiere this month" is not a reason for creating the article. Once the show has been aired and independent coverage is available, it may be appropriate to reassess. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted weak delete in the original AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nothing wrong with the close, and the new information isn't enough to allow recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Well, the sources related to the show are reliable, so we need to fix this problem. Please allow us to recreate and restore this page. Mc Eduard Figueroa (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you referring to when you say, "we" and "us"? Do you have some sort of business connection with the subject? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mc Eduard Figueroa: you haven't answered my question, above. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I don't know how I say about that. Sorry for misunderstanding. Mc Eduard Figueroa (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mc Eduard Figueroa: To avoid me thinking you have a WP:COI it and are trying to avoid saying it it would be better if you started your reply Yes I have a connection .. or No I do not have a connection but when I said 'we' I meant ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - In addition to the above arguments, the reason that we need to restore the page because the show will premiere this month is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Looks like WP:TOOSOON. Allow REFUND to draftspace or userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Reliable sources are provided for the show, so we restore this page without any harm. Ria Cruz (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ria Cruz: I would urge you and Mc Eduard Figueroa to please read through Wikipedia's explanatory supplement on source independence. Love You Two is a show that is slated to be broadcast on the GMA Network. Thus, articles hosted on the GMA Network website are not independent and do not contribute to the subject's notability. Waving these sources around is not an argument to recreate this article. I would suggest you look for coverage in The Manila Times, The Philippine Star or another major news source of the Philippines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I already found an independent and reliable source about the show: https://www.philstar.com/pilipino-star-ngayon/showbiz/2019/04/02/1906623/jennylyn-dati-lang-pinapanood-si-gabby (sourced from The Philippine Star). Mc Eduard Figueroa (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mc Eduard Figueroa: two paragraphs of promotional fluff is not significant coverage. At any rate, DRV is not the place to re-litigate a subject's notability, it's to raise issues about deletion discussions that were inappropriately closed (e.g. if the closer chose a minority view without good justification, or if they appear to have misread a significant argument based on their closing summary). In the case of this article's deletion discussion, editors were almost unanimously in favor of deletion, making it a rather uncontroversial close––I really can't imagine what argument you could possibly make to argue that it wasn't. Now, if you think you've collected enough sources to demonstrate notability, you can just recreate the article with those sources. But uh, based on the sources you've presented here, I don't think that you're going to get very far with that. I would suggest that you wait until reviews of the show have been published, as they would constitute significant independent coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Well, thank you for your understanding. Should I recreate the page now? If not, it's okay. Mc Eduard Figueroa (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mc Eduard Figueroa: Based on what I've seen so far, I don't think sufficient sources exist yet. I would wait until you can find some actual reviews once the show's season starts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

endorse but allow recreation after show is launched and reviewed, depending on coverage. Sparebug (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
endorse but allow recreation after show is launched and reviewed, depending on coverage per above but also note COI editors need to follow WP:COI/WP:PAID Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 April 2019

1 April 2019

Wikipedia:Deletion review – Joke nomination. April Fools Day is over. Sandstein 05:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was a pretty obvious consensus to delete in the MFD discussion yet it was somehow kept. I really think it's obvious that this should be overturned to delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HammerTime per WP:HAMMER. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Joke nominations stopped being funny sometime around 2006. If this had actually been humorous, you wouldn't need a big honking template labeling as such.
On the plus side, I'd been trying to figure out exactly which page title had the history of WP:Undeletion policy before it was pseudo-deleted by redirection, and the MFD linked here pointed me at it. I'd thought it had been around later than 2007 (maybe it wasn't trimmed so draconically when initially merged?); also, I'm somewhat horrified that it advocates wheel-warring-in-all-but-name if you're an admin and you think a page's deletion didn't follow policy to the letter. —Cryptic 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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