Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 December

< November 2021	Deletion review archives	January 2022 >

31 December 2021

Laith Barnouti – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 13:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closer's rationale was that the surgeon doesn't satisfy WP:NACADEMIC being a fellow of RACS. However, they are a member of ASPS, where membership criteria are stringent and by invitation only. And, therefore, they satisfy WP:NACADEMIC bullet #3. That is "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association, or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor".

The closer also mentioned that sources offered in support of WP:GNG were deemed insufficient by participants. However, that is not entirely true or accurate. The only discussion between those that voted a keep and those that voted a delete was me and LibStar. In my discussion with them, they asked for articles where the surgeon was the main subject of the article and not covered in the context of a different subject. They said they did a google translate of the SBS Australia piece and said it was merely the surgeon commenting on surgical practices, where, in fact, I meant the other article and pointed that out to them in my response, after which they stopped responding and preferred to go ahead tag my name that I could be SPA. In my discussion with the closer on their talk page, I pointed that out to them and they still failed to recognize the wrong in LibStar's assessment and me trying to correct them by pointing out the source I meant.

I believe the closing of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus, and I think we could have gotten a much clearer consensus had the discussion been relisted. Magadlis (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also, the sources in the article included a number quoting him on Australian plastic surgery trends, which arguably would trigger WP:CREATIVE bullet #1. That is "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Magadlis (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more information on ASPS? From what I can find [1] it doe mention invitation only, but that's pretty vague, e.g. if any existing member is free to invite others that's somewhat less than there being a limited number of invitations per year (say). Other than that the requirements are FRACS which was addressed as being primarily length of training and exam based. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Note that I did not undelete the 2016 revisions, only the 2021 ones. Daniel (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak endorse the claim he meets WP:PROF is weak (probably even wrong), so I get it. But I'd have preferred a relist with directions for folks to address the WP:PROF claims. Still, not a wrong close. Hobit (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I am not convinced WP:NACADEMIC is the right guideline coupled with lack of information on ASPS (Stringent and by invitation aren't synonyms of elective and highly selective), "We represent 93% of Specialist Plastic Surgeons in Australia." doesn't sound that selective to me. I am not sure an industry body is necessarily a scholarly society ("Our main role is to protect the integrity of plastic surgery as a specialty.") (quotes from [2]) --81.100.164.154 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, good close, good summary of the discussion, and well explained. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct close, being a member of ASPS does not seem to satisfy WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shree Kshatriya Yuvak Sangh – Deletion endorsed.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is not any promotional page but about a very old social organization, I have provided al the reliable sources, please consider the page once again. Shanusar (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's been quite a bit of monkey business, involving several accounts, at Shri Kshatriya Yuvak Sangh (see the history) regarding this article; it seems someone thought creating it under this new title would yield a better outcome. If you are associated with the organization, you must declare a conflict of interest, and I would recommend submitting the article through articles for creation, where a neutral editor will review it. On the merits, I don't think A7 is met (the article seems to claim that the notable Tan Singh founded the organization, and I agree with WP:CCSI#ORG that that's a credible claim of significance), although G11 seems to be more of a possibility. A temp-undelete might be useful here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The text wasn't appreciably different from the versions created under that redirect, or currently at Draft:Shri Kshatriya Yuvak Sangh. —Cryptic 12:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, largely due to the nomination statement being unpersuasive. Refer to Draft:Shri Kshatriya Yuvak Sangh for moving forwards. I think the draft does not look very good, but with one or two more sources could be improved to be acceptable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 December 2021

29 December 2021

Ta-Lo – Deletion endorsed. Daniel (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/godschin.htm 152.133.1.17 (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Both the deleted Wikipedia article & the article at marvunapp.com cited the text from the source material (Thor & Hercules: Encyclopaedia Mythologica #1) which was clearly documented in the Wikipedia article's footnotes. There was no copyright infringement of the marvunapp.com site because the text was not original to the marvunapp.com site. 152.133.1.17 (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So? We're not going to undelete this simply because both it and its purported source both plagiarized a third source, which - since it was published in 2009 - is still far from public domain. If there's a correctable error here, it's that the first four = revisions creating this as a redirect weren't restored after deletion. —Cryptic 12:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's difficult to tell due to the deleted article now being inaccessible to the public, but based on my reading of the marvunapp.com site and memory of the Wikipedia article in question, only a fraction of the deleted article contained material directly plagiarized from the third Marvel Comics source. It appears a bit premature and heavy handed to delete the entire article without delineating the scope of any plagiarized material and giving the public a chance to correct any plagiarized subsections. As the deleting admin appeared to have no idea from where the material was plagiarized, it follows that he/she was not familiar with the original source material and therefore did not know the extent of any plagiarized material on the Wikipedia article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.10.198 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how copyright works, sorry. You don't plagiarize a source and then reword it, because then you're creating a derivative work which is a different kind of copyvio. The only way to do it is to research the subject yourself and then write from your own knowledge, citing sources where appropriate without stealing the source's words. We can't restore copyvios even if only partial.—S Marshall T/C 01:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appeal appears to be by an uninformed unregistered editor who doesn't understand that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. I would say to Endorse the deletion, but it isn't even clear what the appellant wants. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request temporary undeletion so those of us non-admins can actually see what was copyright or not. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd appreciate a temp-undelete as well, or alternatively a copy of the source code via email (if you're uncomfortable restoring putative copyright violations). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: Jclemens, Extraordinary Writ - temporarily undeleted for DRV. The content in question is behind the redirect that Hut 8.5 placed, see his comment below. Obviously I'll be nuking the history again post this DRV unless consensus is that it isn't a copyright violation. I know we don't normally undelete copyvios, but the risks of undeleting and hiding the potential copyvio content behind the redirect for seven days (very small) are far outweighed by letting more eyes review the content and deletion. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the bulk of the text in the deleted page is also found at [3], and there wasn't even much of an attempt to paraphrase/reword it. It doesn't make any difference whether that was the original source of the text or not unless the original source is either in the public domain or is available under a licence we can use, and we don't have any indication that it is. There was one section ("Marvel Cinematic Universe", later "In other media") which isn't found in [4], however I don't think it's a good idea to restore the article to get this section, because (a) it doesn't really expand on the description at Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Ta Lo, and (b) if the page is copied from printed sources then it's difficult to certify that it's not copyrighted without access to the printed source. Wikipedia does take copyright very seriously because hosting copyrighted material without permission is against the law, and we are even prepared to delete works presumptively as likely copyright violations in some situations. I suggest the OP write another version starting from scratch - don't try and start with some existing content and reword it, do the whole thing in your own words. Hut 8.5 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article was created by overwriting an existing redirect to Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Ta Lo. I've restored the revisions corresponding to the redirect as there isn't any copyvio there. Hut 8.5 16:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
semi-Endorse copyvio deletion, by restoring existing redirect and rev-del'ing the offending material. Earwig's tool is pretty decisive, and the recency of the timing means this isn't an ambiguous case: we got along just fine without this, and can wait until someone actually writes something original. Thanks for the temp undeletion, I agree the relevant bits should be rev deleted after this is closed, if the original redirect is kept. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – the grand majority of the text matches the Marvunapp site more-or-less verbatim, and it's not really relevant whether the Marvunapp site is also violating the copyright of the printed source. (I find it very unlikely that the printed source, which is published by Marvel itself, is compatibly licensed.) I agree with Jclemens that revdel should be adequate to resolve the issue here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Prahlad balaji/Userboxes/coder – Restored by deleting admin. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a test page. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I included it in the bundled MfD, it was as an unused userbox (of an indefinitely blocked user, and one which substantially recreates other userboxes), so I assume the deletion was carried out on that basis. jp×g 22:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. You are correct that this page did not match the reasoning for the others. (As an aside, there is a reason the DRV instructions suggest talking to the admin who did the deletion first.) --RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RL0919: For future reference, the text of WP:G2 states that G2 cannot apply to any page in the user namespace—so from a purely procedural perspective, all of the G2 deletions you performed in Prahlad balaji's userspace (following this MfD) were technically improper. However, from a WP:NOTBURO/WP:SNOW perspective, it is relatively clear that the pages you deleted provide no legitimate benefit to the encyclopedia, so I think the pages should stay deleted. (It's not worth spending the time to undelete all those pages and letting the MfD play out.) Mz7 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; I admit I had not read the G2 requirements in a while and had forgotten that point. Pinging @Jpgordon: (who speedy deleted a similar page from another MfD, which is what led me down this path) and @JPxG: (the editor who nominated the pages) as an FYI. I agree that in this case it seems a technicality – the other pages (besides the userbox that I already restored) are so useless that I would be willing to argue WP:IAR for leaving them deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 December 2021

Tom Bloom – Deletion endorsed. However, consensus exists to support a new article being drafted and then created, via the Articles for Creation process, by any interested editor. Daniel (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your reason here ThomasOliverBloom (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen, the nom was by sockpuppet User:Mdtemp (already identified as such at the time of the nom) so that should void it, and a new look at it seems appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to Joe Decker, who was not contacted by the opener. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reopen/open new AfD~~. On the one hand, the nomination was by a suspected sockpuppet. On the other hand, it looks like there was at least one good-faith delete !vote. Further, the article read very...spammy at the time of deletion, and this DRV was apparently opened by the subject. Frankly, I have concerns about the motives for the restoration and suitability of the article, but I'd rather give the community a chance to look at the text, to contribute new sources if they exist, and have a week to fix it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the AfD was nominated by a sock, but two other people supported deleting it, nobody has offered any argument against deletion (even here), and the OP is apparently the article subject. I don't see any value in reopening it. Hut 8.5 17:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think you have a point there. If the article was flawed to begin with, better to either let an independent editor start from scratch or, worst case, pull the old text back to draft space. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as reflecting one good-faith registered editor and a valid close, as well as that we really should be almost as wary of efforts at autobiography as of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse; allow creation via AfC. The nominator wasn't a sockpuppet of an already-blocked user at the time of the AfD (neither Mdtemp nor Astudent0 were blocked until 2016), so there's no policy basis for retroactively discounting the !vote. Since this is an autobiography, I think any recreation attempt needs to go through articles for creation. (No opinion on whether the sources above are sufficient to establish notability: I'm skeptical but this certainly isn't my field of expertise.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly see what happened now. If you scroll to the bottom of this page, you see one sockpuppet talking to another most participating in this conversation have been deleted from Wikipedia and are talking about Railroading the Martial Arts Project... you even have one puppet saying goodbye to another after his deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mdtemp ThomasOliverBloom (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Tom Bloom[reply]

Let result stand; allow creation via AfC. I don't see a fatal flow in the deletion discussion. If an article is to be created about Bloom, then frankly, it's probably best created by independent editors and working from secondary sources, so the best way forward is with a draft. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and allow immediate renomination and appropriate time for improvement. We should not reward socks at all, to include not counting this discussion as legitimate, and there's nothing in the article, per what other people have said about it, that would be horrid to have living live for another week. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that we should not reward autobiographical self-promoters either. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd rather what, then? We reward people who hire more subtle firms who hide their COI better? Writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is a bad idea, but one that our current processes can and should handle both transparently and equitably. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Seven years ago, it was deleted due to lack of coverage. Are there new sources and someone is preventing re-creation? —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Burning (Seinfeld) – I wrote a nice, longer than usual close summary assessing relevant arguments etc., but then managed to totally stuff up the templates and therefore lost the text of the close. In the interests of not going insane by rewriting it again, the short version of the outcome is: original closure endorsed, but recreation explicitly allowed using the current standards for sourcing etc. that is expected and examples provided below. Daniel (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been turned into a redirect page because "[there isn't] a single source that discusses the topic at length". Jericho735 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Overturn per WP:IAR I believe this article deserves its own page. The sitcom Seinfeld has 171 episodes, nine of which are extended two-part episodes, resulting in an official total of 180. Of Seinfeld's 171 (or 180) episodes, "The Burning" is the only episode which does not have its own article (which has been turned into a redirect page). Information about this episode certainly exists online. It simply does not many sense for this to be the only episode out of 180 that leads to a redirect page. Jericho735 (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is an article for every other Seinfeld episode doesn't mean that they're all notable, and even if they were, that wouldn't make this episode independently notable. Find multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss this episode at length, and you can recreate the article: it hasn't actually been deleted. It's just been turned into a redirect, so all the text is still there in the version history. --Slashme (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Overturn per WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE, and per the Keep research and comment by Andrew Davidson which includes sources. When a series of 179 long-term and long-accepted articles is culled by one this creates a "Deletionists Delight" precedent which could upend thousands of page. IAR works on anything on Wikipedia, and if there was anyplace for its appropriate use it's in this review request. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONSENSE states "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Randy Kryn (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You guys do realize, the page wasn't deleted? It was edited and made into a redirect. All the content is still there. If there's plenty of coverage, go ahead and include it. Also, @Randy Kryn:, "long-accepted articles" means absolutely nothing as to whether an article is valid, and you should know better than that. DS (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is as bad as a deletion, as the topic goes from a full article to being in the background behind the curtain. And if a page has great longevity combined with many daily views that counts for something in the realms of Commonsense if not in the wikilegal language used to remove those pages. Please also read the AfD, where Andrew placed several perfectly good sources which seemed to have been ignored by the closer. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that the sources were good, as per Slashme (talk · contribs) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – the closure assessed the consensus correctly: editors made reasonable arguments that invoked our guidelines, and there was no basis for discounting the majority view that this episode didn't require its own article. It's very rare for DRV to overturn AfDs on substantive (i.e. not procedural) grounds, and this doesn't seem like a case for doing that. There are two options here: either coverage does in fact exist to satisfy the GNG, in which case you're free to recreate the article, or coverage doesn't exist to satisfy the GNG, in which case IAR doesn't apply because it's not in the encyclopedia's best interest to create permanently unsourceable stubs. In either case, there's no reason to overturn the closure. As for the idea that this is unprecedented, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shower Head, which closed with consensus to redirect almost a decade ago. It was later recreated with new sources, a possibility that is available here as well. In sum, the closure was correct, the arguments were reasonable, and the outcome wasn't unprecedented. While you're welcome to recreate the article if there really are sufficient sources to satisfy the GNG, there's nothing else for us to do here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably at least partially to blame for this DRV because I pointed out to Jericho735 that If you disagree with the outcome of a deletion discussion such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Burning (Seinfeld) the appropriate venue is WP:DRV. [5]. I am also the editor who reverted Jericho735 on The Burning (Seinfeld) to restore the version that implements the outcome of the AfD that resulted in Redirect. Editors advocating for turning this redirect into an article could have cited the sources that would have established that the topic is notable. I would not have reverted if sources had been added that demonstrate that it had received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. But that did not happen, and no evidence that such sources exist have been provided. The consensus at the AfD should therefor not be overturned. The argument that an article that is part of a series of articles that cover related topics should be kept even if it has no sourcing is not supported by any policy, and while it might appear inconsistent to have articles on all episodes except one, merely being one in a series does not make a topic notable; there has to be significant coverage. If it exists, add it. Vexations (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close reflects the discussion. As there was no deletion, further discussion on new sources should occur on the talk page of the target page of the redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no indication that the closure was anything other than a reflection of the discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Consistency is a virtue. Unless there is really some evidence that the episodes differ in notability, they should be handled the same way. (Personally, I think we should do combination articles for episodes, not individual ones, but individual ones for important series have long been accepted here.) DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and encourage a different forum. We need a wider discussion of when individual episodes of TV shows should have stand-alone articles. This is not the forum to have that wider discussion. The local consensus of the discussion was correctly determined to support a redirect. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (reluctantly) but allow re-creation in the appropriate manner. I don't think the close was necessarily correct but it happened a year ago. Time to move on. Calidum 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closer inappropriately accorded nonzero weight to !votes that failed to address the inclusion of summaries of this episode in dead tree books about the show as a whole. An episode summary in such a book is independent (TV studios don't write books; someone else made a decision that it was profitable to publish such a work), reliable, nontrivial RS. An episode summary is necessarily transformative, in that it has to decide what the main parts of the episode to include and which details to leave out, and hence a secondary source, not primary. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer would have interpreted the consensus incorrectly if he was to discount !votes that expressly did not agree with Andrew Davidson's comment in which he brought up three books. A consensus formed among subsequent participants that such sources aren't sufficient. They were characterized as: not secondary, a TV Guide, a fan work, and an index. It is not the case that delete/redirect side failed to address the keep argument with regard to those books. The close was right. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except that if a "consensus" exists that RS'es aren't RS'es and a closer is supposed to go along with that, then AfDs are pointless, and everything becomes nothing but a nose count--all people have to do is say "New York Times? Well, it's generally an RS, but we don't think this article is". You might think that's absurd, but we've seen similar arguments at individual bio AfDs. It's simply unsustainable for non-policy-based prejudices to be accorded weight. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as others suggest, the closer ignoring the three independent books should be an instant overturn. Jerry Seinfeld or the producers didn't write the books, they are totally independent of the show. People write books about the Apollo missions and they are regarding as good sources, and that is only one of thousands of examples where someone writes an independent book acceptable as establishing notability. I just don't get it, and this discussion hasn't made it any clearer. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was close was reasonable given the discussion. I didn't see it in the AfD, but this A.V. Club review helps a bit. If people can find a few more reviews... Hobit (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the A.V. Club is a reliable source ("The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews.") can't it just be added to the article and call it a day? With the three books and this new find the page seems fine to once again complete the set of episode articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's close. I'd say one more reliable review would do it pretty easily. I just couldn't find one. A found a paragraph here and a paragraph there, but not much other than plot summary. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based mainly on the second source listed by Cunard (below) I'm now at endorse but restore. The close was correct given the discussion, but we're easily at WP:N with two actual reviews and a bunch of other sources that discuss this episode. As always, hats off to Cunard. I searched for quite a while but couldn't find that second review... Hobit (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Significant coverage
  1. Sims, David (2012-03-29). "Seinfeld: "The Wizard"/"The Burning"". The A.V. Club. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-01-01 suggested (help)
    The review notes: "Here we have (excluding the finale) the last appearance of Puddy, and one of the best! ... But even though Kruger is particularly funny in this episode (making his chair spin three times without using his feet), George’s frustration feels a little lacking in context. ... The return of Mickey (again, excluding the finale, this is Danny Woodburn’s final appearance) doesn’t quite live up to some of his previous appearances. He and Kramer play patients for medical students and try to tap into their “characters” as best they can, but their rivalry comes off as forced, and guest appearances by Brian Posehn (who has one great line) and Daniel Dae Kim end up being the highlight."
  2. Durgin, Vance (1998-03-22). "Second-half absurdity mars 'The Burning' episode". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-01-01 suggested (help)
    The review notes: "CRITIQUE: Solidly in the tradition of the show's fabled irreverence, a funny first half was followed by a more absurd second half marred by the jokey priest and the absurd tractor story angle. But you can't expect a masterpiece this late in the series run. And there was a funny Titanic joke. "So, that old woman, she's just a liar, right? " George asks. "And a bit of a tramp, too, if you ask me," Jerry concludes."
  3. Nigro, Nicholas (2015). Seinfeld FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the Show About Nothing. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Applause Books. ISBN 978-1-55783-857-5. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Google Books.
    The book has a 285-word subsection titled "Episode 166: “The Burning” (original air date: March 19, 1998)". The book notes: "With the final season winding down comes “The Burning,” written by Jennifer Crittenden, in which Elaine discovers that David Puddy is not only very religious-minded, but believes that non-believers, like Elaine, will burn in Hell for eternity. Other storylines in this episode find George’s seemingly clever machinations on the job saddling him with more work than ever. And Jerry’s got a new girlfriend, Sophie, whose voice he does not recognize after an “it’s me” message is left on his answering machine. As things turn out, she doesn’t recognize his voice on the telephone, either, believing instead that she is talking with a friend named Rafe. She reveals to Rafe, who’s actually Jerry, that she has not apprised Jerry of a certain incident in her life dubbed the “tractor story.”"
2. Less significant coverage
  1. Lavery, David; Dunne, Sara Lewis, eds. (2006). "Seinfeld Episode and Situation Guide". Seinfeld, Master of Its Domain: Revisiting Television's Greatest Sitcom. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 254. ISBN 978-0-8264-1802-9. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "(164) The Burning (9016), March 19, 1998. W: Crittenden. D: Ackerman. J: Learns the truths about his 'It's me' girlfriend's tractor story. G: Tries to master the art of leaving on a high note, but it gets him extra work at Kruger. E: Discovers Puddy is religious but is upset he is not trying to save her from hell. K: Joins Mickey in acting out diseases at Mount Sinai."
  2. Ritchie, Chris (2012). Performing Live Comedy. London: Methuen Drama. ISBN 978-1-408-14724-5. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Although reiteration is not part of Jerry Seinfeld's usual stand-up routine, he emphasizes this point in the Seinfeld episode 'The Burning' (series 9, episode 17). George is in a meeting where, for once, he actually makes a good suggestion, which earns him rare approval from his colleagues. However, he quickly squanders this goodwill with a weaker followthrough and is disconcerted. Later, when talking to Seinfeld in the college shop, he relates how he had them for a brief moment but then lost them. Jerry tells him that he has to leave them on a high note and refers to this as showmanship: [more discussion]"
  3. Rohan, Virginia (1998-03-19). "Puddy come lately – Patrick Warburton's a rising star on 'Seinfeld' – Just in time to say goodbye". The Record. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-01-01 suggested (help)
    The article notes: "Tonight's "Seinfeld" episode, "The Burning," reveals a most surprising layer of Puddy. He's a religious guy, who believes Elaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) may be headed for hell."
  4. Tracy, Kathleen (1998). Jerry Seinfeld: The Entire Domain. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Publishing Group. pp. 308–309. ISBN 1-55972-474-9. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes:
    172. "The Burning" (March 19, 1998)
    Summary: Elaine discovers that Puddy listens to religious radio stations. George tries to always leave a room on a high note. Kramer and Mickey get jobs feigning ailments for medical students. Jerry doesn't recognize his girlfriend Sophie when she calls and says, "It's me." Sophie verifies you can get venereal disease from a tractor seat.
    Of special note: This episode was dedicated "In Memory of Our Friend Lloyd Bridges." Bridges appeared as "It's go time!" Izzy in episodes 151, "The English Patient," and 160, "The Blood."
  5. Fitzmaurice, Larry (2021-09-01). "All 169 Seinfeld Episodes, Ranked From Worst to Best". Vulture. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-01-01 suggested (help)
    The article notes: "28. “The Burning” (Season 9). This was a great example of Seinfeld’s writers skirting the boundaries of ‘90s network TV to break taboos — specifically talk of sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea from a tractor?). But “The Burning” isn’t just successful because of its provocative nature. Any episode with Puddy is a relative gem, and his and Elaine’s ongoing argument over whether she is going to Hell ends in a revelation that fits Seinfeld to a T: They both are — and so are the rest of the cast, too."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Burning to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your three “significant coverage” examples do not read to me as even “coverage”, but as mostly repetition of primary source material. Where is the transformational content? WP:NOTPLOT. What is the author of the putative secondary source saying about the material? Or is it nicely wrapped fan coverage? SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The version before redirection is a WP:NOTPLOT failure. The article contained facts and plot summary. Advice for improving these things is as WP:WAF, and the redirected article was pretty extreme in having no content that said anything about the fiction. No critical review, no real world impact. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an edge case. On the one hand, I agree with User:DGG that consistency is important, and that every other Seinfeld episode has an article. If books have been written about the series, then the books are indeed independent reliable coverage for every episode. Maybe the fancruft has grown up; in any case, some of the fans are scholars, and they write reliable sources. On the other hand, an editor with an unspellable name makes the point that a discussion of the merits of having an article about every episode, of a large number of series, should be somewhere else. I agree, but is there a reason why this one episode should be cut down to a redirect? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Allow recreation The close was appropriate based on the discussion. If an article can be created today that meets GNG, that will make a great addition to the project. --Enos733 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I've watched this discussion for a couple days. It's a complicated one. There is serious value to the consistency argument. Throwing around claims of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ignores the actual point of referring to other stuff -- it is not an argument about content itself but about reader expectations. Having articles for every Seinfeld episode but one clearly does readers a disservice. Whether every episode of Seinfeld should or should not have an article from a broad existential point of view is not an issue to be settled by a single AfD. More pressingly, I concur with Jclemens' stance that weight was not properly accorded to !votes discussing offline sources, which poses a fundamental problem for the close and is why I lean towards "overturn" rather than "recreate". (There are more claims to notability than those alone, as discussed by other DRV participants, but those wouldn't clear up the issue of overturn-vs-recreate.) Vaticidalprophet 13:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist to consider more carefully whether we really want this to be the only Seinfeld episode that doesn't have an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is not important. In fact, Wikipedia has rules like WP:OCE whose whole purpose is to make us take each decision separately without regard to other similar decisions we may have made in the past. Regardless of what happens with other episodes of whichever US sitcom we're talking about, this one needs sources that are specifically about it.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is somewhat important. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is policy. Insisting that every item has an article sounds very like the principle of a directory. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 December 2021

Template:Advanced Direct Connect – Closure was correct at the time, however due to new developments/information, the template is restored. Can be re-nominated at TfD at any editor's discretion, using an updated rationale. Daniel (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template was unused after the page was requested for speedy deletion, blanked and made into a redirect on bogus grounds (including considering a personal blog sources that were not such). Klondike (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand this request. Why should the template have been kept, or why should it be restored now? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question as per Metropolitan90 What is the reason for this appeal? What mistake was made, or what is being asked for? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think what happened was that Advanced Direct Connect, the page on which this template previously appeared, was deleted and/or redirected, causing the template to be deleted as unused. The page in question has since been recreated, so I think it would be uncontroversial to restore the template since the basis for deletion – that there was no apparent use for the template – is no longer relevant. The template can be renominated at TfD if there's some other reason why it should be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even if this were undeleted and used, it would be a single use template containing almost exclusively a bunch of inappropriate external links. The reason for deletion has not meaningfully been addressed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close that was correct the the time because, pace Pppery, the reasons for deletion no longer apply due to the recreation of Advanced Direct Connect, as explained by Extraordinary Writ. The XfD did not address the nature of the external links and it is not for DRV to concoct a post-hoc delete rationale entirely unrelated to the only delete rationale that was given in the XfD. I can't see the deleted template, so I won't speculate on whether the template should immediately be relisted at XfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The TfD nominator's rationale for deletion ("Unused, unclear use") no longer applies after Advanced Direct Connect has been recreated as noted by Extraordinary Writ and Charles Stewart. Cunard (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 December 2021

Oleg Kharuk – Deletion endorsed. Daniel (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been deleted as discussed for lack of relevance. I disagree with this. He is the winner of several prestigious races (Gulf 12 Hours), as well as a participant in the Russian and European Championship (2). 188.191.21.81 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Vexatious appeal. The correct close by the closer. The article cited by the appellant states that the subject competed in the race, just as was noted in the AFD about various sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Couldn't possibly have been closed any other way; there's been no additional information that wasn't available at the time of the discussion. DRV is not AfD round two. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as delete. Not a single keep vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- He is the winner, not the participant of this race. A source: 1. Also, the rules say that it is enough just to participate: « Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest (for example, the American Championship or 24 Hours of Le Mans).» 188.191.21.81 (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another source for winning: 1 (however, the rules only require participation in such international competitions). Also a source for winning the GT4 series: 2 - “ Russian drivers Oleg Kharuk and Ivan Lukashevich will complete Bullitt Racing’s Mercedes-AMG GT4 line-up at the GT4 European Series opening round at Monza. Kharuk, who claimed victory in the GT4 Pro-Am class at the Gulf 12 Hours in December with Bullitt Racing, and Lukashevich will race the #66 Mercedes-AMG GT4 at selected GT4 European Series events this season. The Russian duo will take part in four of the season’s six rounds, with Monza, Brands Hatch, Paul Ricard and the Nürburgring set to form their 2019 schedule.” 188.191.21.81 (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse only possible close. If the author wishes to continue to work on the article, draftification is an option. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the appellant is asking for permission to create a draft to submit, or to draftify the deleted article, then the appeal is not vexatious, but simply poorly stated. If they want to submit a draft, they should be allowed to submit a draft. But the close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a UPE article created by WMF and community banned Wikibusines. MER-C 18:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the sockfarm: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonina Seryakova. Endorse and speedy close as a bad faith nomination. MER-C 12:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 December 2021

List of international goals scored by Ronaldo – Closure endorsed. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Far too notable to be not considered important enough to deserve separate article. Otherwise we would have to remove literally all articles like List of international goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo, List of international goals scored by Ali Daei, List of international goals scored by Pele, List of international goals scored by Neymar List of international goals scored by Tim Cahill, List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao, List of international goals scored by Eusébio (third top scorer for Portugal) List of international goals scored by Eiður Guðjohnsen (only 26 goals for Iceland national team and soon will be outgone by Kolbeinn Sigþórsson), List of international goals scored by Diego Maradona, List of international goals scored by Romelu Lukaku etc.. Ronaldo Nazario scored 15 goals in history of World Cup, so he is the top Brazilian goalscorer in history of World Cup ahead of Pele (12 goals) and Neymar (8 goals), he also comes as second to Miroslav Klose in whole history at all. It is also not fair we have separate article for midfielder (List of international goals scored by Diego Maradona) but not for Ronaldo. Ronaldo was the youngest winner of Ballon d Or in human history and was ranked in 2008 as second gratest footballer of all time by Association of Football Statisticians behind only Pele (see: https://sportslens.com/news/top-100-greatest-ever-footballers/). Is there any source which call Ali Daei or Neymar as one of top greatests?

It is also disapointing wikiproject:Football never reach to any consensus when such list is notable (how it was happen we have separate article for Maradona but not for Ronaldo Nazario?? Why on the earth we have separate article for Robert Lewandowski who never scored goal in FIFA World Cup but not Ronaldo Nazrio? lol. And I ask that as Pole). My suggestio n for criteria would be (but it should be discussed in wikiproject):

~~#At least 50 goals in international career~~ at least 70 goals in national career for men. I do not know enugh about women's soccer statistics to keep comment there

At least 35 goals in international career if footballer is top goalscorer in the country OR scored more than 10 goals in history of World Cup OR was the best goalscorer on single world cup at least once.At least 50 goals for man football players who are part of FIFA 100 or are in top 5 top goalscorers for the country.

What do you think? Out of curiosity do those people who !voted for removal of that article would support removal of article List of international goals scored by Tim Cahill, as well? But irrespectively of everything how many players scored 15 goals in FIFA World Cup and how many players won two times World Cup or won FIFA player of the year at 20 years old age? Rejecting that is also challenging to remove all articles like List of international goals scored by Lionel Messi. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Hmlarson, The Rambling Man, R96Skinner, AffeL, Eddie891, Fenix down, Cheetah, Gonzo fan2007, TompaDompa, ChrisTheDude, and PresN: you all seems to participate at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach/archive1 or Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao/archive1 (BTW in this discussion was even mentioned Association of Football Statisticians which ranked Ronaldo in 2008 as second the best player of all time as per my sources above in that discussions). What all do you think about criteria suggested by me for notablity that stuff. What you guys think about recreate the article based on attributing that Ronaldo made a lot of significant constributions to Brazil at the FIFA World Cup? Should not we have article on Ronaldo if we already have for Maradona (who is not close to be top scorer for Argentina or forall confederations). We alrady have articles for players from countries like Armenia or Philipines (Armenia is small country and Philipines is country where football is not one of the most popular sports). On the other hand international football stats for men seems be very overrepresented on Wikipedia in comprasion to stats for women or stats at important club competitions. Note we do not have artile List of Champions League goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo. Karim Benzema and Ruud Van Nisterlooy could make up such list in both cases but there are no single such article about them. Warmest regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawid2009: I'm not sure you are at the right venue. Maybe I've misunderstood you, but I don't see this falling under the purview of WP:Deletion review as outlined at WP:DRVPURPOSE. Would you care to clarify why you think this is something that should be discussed here, specifically? TompaDompa (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: What I can see WP:Deletion review says Deletion review maybe in process if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; what is relevant here. When I created back this article then my edition was reverted so where I can start new legitimate discussion if not here? (along with discussion transcludion to Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Football andpinging other editors). Per WP:NOTCENSORED should be possiblity to ask about review. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular new information you had in mind? Other possible places to start a new discussion (per WP:Consensus can change, if nothing else—a year has passed since the AfD after all) include Talk:Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer) since the content was merged to Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer)#International or WT:FOOTY. I think the latter is the place where you are most likely to get a productive discussion about this. TompaDompa (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: OK, I an do it another way (add more content to article Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer) and add template WP:SPINOUT, and later make WP:RFC on the talk page with transcldint to WP:FOOTY as you and SmokeyJoe suggest... But what if someone would again revert me (after adding more content to Ronaldo) during RFC process? Discussion would be abut adding more content to article on Ronaldo or about creating separate article? I think a lot of such list are not notable but not for Ronaldo Nazario (he scored more than two times more goals in World Cup history than Lionel Messi and he had better international career than lub so deserve an article). Dawid2009 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the merge close. No case for using DRV to reverse the decision, as there was no deletion. If consensus has changed since the AfD, argue for a WP:SPINOUT at Talk:Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A valid close by the closer, and, in my opinion, the rigt close. As noted, the appellant can instead propose a spinout, and some editors will disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse numerically the participants were heavily on the side of getting rid of the article, and the Keep side don't seem to have any knockdown argument, just references to previous discussions (which came to mixed outcomes) and comments which are based on the assumption that we have to keep the content somewhere (which isn't the case). I don't think any other closure is supportable. Hut 8.5 18:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse justifiable close, although no consensus would also have been a defensible close. Why is this ATD outcome being appealed? ATD outcomes allow the case for the article's existence to be strengthened by improving our coverage in mainspace to the point that keep will prevail at AfD if the page is recreated. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse No rationale is presented why the close would be wrong, with the nom only rearguing the AfD (with arguments which would not be very strong there either - notability is not inherent and "other similar stuff exists" [to which the obvious reply is "two wrongs don't make a right" - similarly problematic NOTSTATS violations existing are not a reason to keep this one, but a reason to delete the others too]). The close does not otherwise seem to be incorrect, so unless the nom can highlight something that is not immediately apparent from looking at the discussion, I don't see what rationale there would be to overturn anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut 8.5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 December 2021

History of Dell – Overturned to merge with the agreement of the non-admin closer. Djm-leighpark, please be more careful with closing AfDs until you have considerably more experience. Sandstein 09:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Every !voter in this discussion favored a merge, although a few at the end discussed a reverse merge instead, but it received a NAC with a keep result. The closer, Djm-leighpark, was previously involved with the article, having de-prodded it (diff). This happened a month ago, but it seems no one brought it here to be rectified. (The AfD nominator, SpuriousCorrelation, tried to directly alter the result, but was reverted by Natg_19, leading to brief discussion here.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relist – definitely a WP:BADNAC. WP:NACD is quite clear: "Do not close discussions...for a page in which you have a vested interest". I think deprodding an article, which implies a view on the dispute at issue, is certainly enough to trigger that criterion. (I also think the closure is wrong on the merits, since there seemed to be broad agreement that merger was appropriate, but that's just icing on the cake.) Uninvolved administrators can reverse inappropriate non-admin closes on their own authority – that would probably be the best outcome here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (COI - I'm wrting this on a coffee & food attacked Dell Keyboard with a peeling off sticker "orange" on it. Other Workstand/PC stuff including mouse is non-Dell). Had it in my mind what I was going to say but got distracted in my raise of this AfD and debating a 119'er on a possible iffy LFT. From memory, and its somewhat shot regarding COIVD, this was never a zillion years a PROD or AfD but a most valid merge discussion, through from memory SpuriousCorrelation may have been in a big put to lay a PROD/AfD and start a merge discussion. Now lets be totally clear, I deserved to be eating WP:TROUT from here to Christmas with that close, not to mention I used Twinkle/AfDclose for the first time on that close (and failed and I totally blew the close rationale. ... said as much at Special:Diff/1056191045 at the time. I was actually expecting to see a merge discussion, as the merge in either direction was valid but SpuriousCorrelation moved in and did a merge to History of Dell. I maybe did a little fettling on the article after reading, certainingly adding an open library book, but that was AfD close looking back at history. This "History of Dell" section is not CFORKed which is probably the main thing at the moment. The history is interesting from a product and product marketing viewpoint; I did think of getting stuck into it but I'm in enough pie's already and its a bigger job. There's a case for bring back into the main article and with a little expansion there'd be a case for bringing it back out again. The existance of the Dell technologies article needs to be considered in any thoughts as it's the Dell brand name and to an extent the man himself who is notable. TROUT me, take meto ANI and block me, but if relist'ing AfD is not the greatest placeds for discussing merge over the turkey.I hope I'm not closing an AfD like like that again ... attempting to be helpful and get on with it went wrong. Am aware I may be here in two or three hard-boiled AfD's over the Christmas period, but this is a simply a little mash. Hope the background helps. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge, (as incompetent closer with possible vested interest). Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge: per above. ––FormalDude ^talk 10:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 December 2021

22 December 2021

Florian Hempel – G4 decision endorsed, but with recreation allowed. And a recreation has already been recreated following edits by ItsKesha during the DRV, that is substantially different from the previous, so per SmokeyJoe's comment below I will leave this as the "live" version. Effectively this new version can be left in place and a fresh AFD can be filed if editors still wish to challenge the recreated version. — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Passes WP:GNG. Previous reasons for deletion nullified by events and coverage over the last year. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original decision because the discussion was pretty clear. I'm seeing a lot of news coverage now that is later than the Feb 2021 AfD discussion, so allow recreation. Reyk _YO! 01:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt and allow recreation, as should generally be the case when there's been a significant amount of coverage since the deletion. I can't see the G4'ed version, so no comment on whether it was properly speedied. If you'd like one of the previously deleted versions to be restored, that should be uncontroversial. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It had only the two sentences that are visible in its creation log. —Cryptic 07:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. Well, I suppose that was technically a bad G4 (since it contained a new source and a new claim of notability), but under the circumstances I think overturning it would be little more than process for process's sake. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse last AfD, Overturn creation protection I see one recreation after the second AfD, in which two of three non-nominator participants cited WP:TOOSOON. TOOSOON deletions should not be salted unless there's an exceptional amount of recreation. I see nothing wrong with either deletion discussion, but I cannot support the salting of the title based on what I see in the logs. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, allow recreation I am not sure if the underlying article should go first to AFC, but especially with deletion arguments of WP:TOOSOON, new coverage should generally overcome older deletion discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The reason for deletion was WP:TOOSOON. TOOSOON is the textbook biggest reason to Draftify. Don’t de-SALT yet, the proponent has not provided evidence. The best way to provide the evidence is on the draftified page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we not un-SALT? Given the single recreation, the SALTing was not in alignment with the text of WP:SALT itself which notes "This level of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated." (emphasis mine) Maintaining an out-of-process SALTing when DRV review is explicitly listed as a way to remove such protection is, in my estimation, not an AGF way to handle such a request. I'd be interested to hear a differing perspective. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination statement has a complete lack of references to new events or coverage over the last year. There was no argument put forward disputing the decision to SALT. The onus is on the DRV nominator to give minimum evidence or argument, and I don’t consider that they did. At AfC, there will be a clearer expectation for actual new sources.

Can you better explain why the SALTing was “out-of-process”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request temp undeletion. I am leaning straight strong endorse, with comment to discourage bringing this sort of request straight to DRV, this is not the purpose of DRV, and DRVPURPOSE needs improvement (my attempts remain blocked). However, temp undelete to allow review of a possible bad G4 deletion and a possible bad SALTing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC

Here are some new sources. I'm not sure why this sort of request shouldn't be taken straight to DRV, and the nomination process didn't demand sources, only a reason, which I gave. If you wanted sources to support the nomination, you could and should have just asked me? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because DRV is the highest court for content. It’s for reviewing errors in process. You should have been advised to ask the deleting admin, and/or the protecting admin. This is faster and easier than coming here. Making a draft makes your request much easier to review. When wanting to reverse a decision, you have to provide evidence, not just say evidence exists.

Your sources look good enough to allow recreation. Beware that interviews based on sources are not independent coverage and do not attest notability. I haven’t looked at what WP:NATHLETE says for darts. DRV should be reserved for appeal if the deletion admin, or protecting admin, or AfC reviewer, refuse your request. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those alternative avenues were suggested anywhere in the process? Also, I did infact contact the aforementioned deleting admin as was suggested as part of this process, and he hasn't even responded to this discussion. So... looks like this process has worked effectively irregardless! Thank you. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative avenues needing writing into WP:DRVPURPOSE. One day.

Who did you ask? I can’t find it. They are required to respond.

You weren’t supposed to edit the DRV temp-undeleted page, but you have, and it’s good, it is G4 passing, so let’s let it go. Anyone who disagrees can AfD it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SmokeyJoe, article temporarily undeleted for DRV per your request. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Temp undelete. Based on what I see at the Feb 2021 AfD-deleted version and the Oct 2021 re-creation, I Endorse the G4 and SALTing. The AfD consensus was clear, and the single poor source recreation was disrespectful to that consensus. The source was non-independent and promotional, and would not have made any difference to the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 December 2021

20 December 2021

19 December 2021

18 December 2021

Template:R3 – Overturn. Anyone may nominate them for RfD if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The G4 speedy deletion of Template:R3 and Template:R4 was not valid because the redirects I created at those titles had nothing to do with the templates that were previously deleted at TfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I deleted them, was because the deletion of templates from the previous TFD was still in progress. The templates were listed in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell/R-phrase, showing up as blue links when they should have been red. I will agree that the G4 deletion reason was not the best to apply, but it was better than using R3 on the R3 template. Earlier discussion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_13#Template:R1. Last night the deletion of the R templates was completed, and the holding cell deleted. So this concern of mine is not so relevant any more. However not so related to this review is that templates should not be reused so fast with the same name, and so should not be recreated with a different function unless there is a very good reason to do so. I will not be too concerned about Pppery * creating it again, but the creation before was premature. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn if I understand correctly. It might be helpful to provide somewhat more information to what this DRV is about, but I am inferring that:
- - The subject is R-phrases and S-phrases, which are cautions used to label hazardous materials.
  - The TFD that was completed deprecates the templates for R-phrases to be replaced with the more modern S-phrases.
  - The close to the TFD refers confusingly to H-phrases and P-phrases. It isn't clear to me what they are.
  - On the one hand, restoring different R-3 and R-4 templates does not appear to be what G4 is intended for, because they are not the same as the deleted phrases. On the other hand, since the R-phrases were deprecated, a new TFD for them is expected.
  - So it appears that the G4 should be overturned, but that a new TFD is likely.
  - It also appears that very little information has been provided in this DRV.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The recreations had nothing to do with R-phrases, but were instead redirects to Template:Db-r3 and Template:Db-r4 respectively. Other than that, your understanding is correct. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We know who deleted these templates, but who tagged them for speedy deletion? It might be nice to hear from the tagger.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Graeme Bartlett deleted them sua sponte, without anyone having tagged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, it would invoke a very old essay I wrote about the rule of two people, so in that event I'd say overturn.—S Marshall T/C 19:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to TRfD. Too confusing. Stop using ambiguous template names. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The speedily deleted pages were redirects, which are discussed at RfD not TfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Corrected to RfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and censure Graeme Bartlett for an appallingly bad deletion. The pages deleted at TfD were templates related to R-phrases, the pages speedily deleted were redirects to CSD templates. There was no similarity between the content at all, let alone "substantially identical". Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Antonio McKee – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 09:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

It was a 4-2 vote for keep so I disagree with the person's decision for the result to be a delete. It is closer to no consensus, which would be inline with the previous results, then a straight delete. HeinzMaster (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE. Even so, of the valid participants, there were 4 editors whose comments could be seen as in favor of deletion: the nom, Cassiopeia, Papaursa, and me (all having participated in athlete AfDs extensively). There were 3 who supported keeping: 16derria, who had made just 15 edits, 7 of which were canvasing editors who had !voted keep in the first AfD; C.Fred, an admin who was canvased by 16derria; and Jesslesliee, whose contrib history totaled 12 reverted edits in fall 2020 (all whitewashing Kent Holtorf). I would say Ritchie's close summary of After discounting canvassed / COI comments, there doesn't appear to be much appetite to keep the article is about as accurate as you could get. JoelleJay (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as per JoelleJay. The deletion reason given entirely checks out. Remember that AfD discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. WikiJoeB (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – perfectly reasonable closure. Discounting the !votes of SPAs and/or canvassed users is commonplace and consistent with our guidelines, and no one has argued that the keep !voters weren't canvassed and/or SPAs. I'm glad that the closer didn't just rely on the !vote count here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discounting of interviews in SI is something I tend to disagree with. I think claims that WP:GNG at least pass the smell test and that no consensus was a better close. Is delete in admin discretion? With the canvasing issue, probably. So weak endorse. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As well as my own reading of consensus, I was also following on from the previous resisting by Scottywong who wrote "Looking for a more thorough analysis of sources for GNG by independent editors that weren't canvassed to come here." In the last week, there weren't any, but there was a further solid view to delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn (no consensus)~~ Delete !votes such as “not convinced the sources provided add up to GNG” are NOT solid views to delete. A solid !vote to delete requires being convinced that the sources DO NOT add up to GNG. There is no thorough source analysis. I think a minimum of three sources need to be thoroughly analysed for whether they meet the GNG, not vaguewaves that some sources do not appear to do so. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware you had to declare absolute certainty and avoid hedging^[a] language for your arguments to "count" at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are degrees of hedging. I consider “still unconvinced” and “I am not convinced” to be especially weak. The onus is one those seeking to delete to assess and fail the sources. Without commenting on you or anyone personally, this is sometimes the language of the lazy who do not even read the sources. Ideally, I would have you name three sources that your read, and the reasons for discounting each. On the other side, the proponent threw up a laundry list of sources. User:Papaursa Reviewed and dismissed them, so on this basis I think I should switch to endorse. The proponent should be required to offer the best sources, not an abundance. Still, my assessment is the discussion was headed to “Draftify” and would have benefited from one more person critically assessing a few sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of editors submitting sources at AfD is to convince others they demonstrate notability. Papaursa, having reviewed the sources, was not convinced and explained why. I, having also reviewed the sources, was also not convinced and agreed with Papaursa's description as well as adding my own comment on interviews. AfD doesn't require each participant to reiterate the same argument, and anyway athlete AfD regulars know I'm a serial source nitpicker and PAG-goblin so if anything my deference to Papaursa's appraisal was probably appreciated. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote to Weak endorse. The close could have easily been “no consensus”, or “Draftify” for work on sources. Could not have been closed as “keep”. Advise the proponents for the article that many poor quality (eg non-independent) sources, not meeting the GNG, do not help, but that only two quality sources are needed; and see WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Entirely reasonable closure. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Since SmokeyJoe is complaining about weasel-worded !votes, is he changing his !vote with a weasel-worded revision? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. I don’t think there is serious weaselling here, but explicit hedging. No misleading pretences. It’s hard work to thoroughly check every source. Some “delete” !voters didn’t claim to have checked any sources, but instead seem to rely on other !voters and impressions. I believe the bar for “delete” is higher. However, on my second read through I see that Papoursa did enough source analysis.

On my own source analysis, I find it close. It comes down to rejecting sources on the basis of them being interviews, or otherwise deduced as non-independent promotion. My reading of the discussion is that “Draftify” could have been a better compromise close. Draftify remains an option. The purpose of Draftify would be to give the proponents a chance to follow the WP:THREE advice.

The discussion could not have been closed as “keep”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:SmokeyJoe - Thank you for striking the previous overturn. At the time I asked if you were weaseling, you hadn't struck the Overturn, and therefore appeared to be contradicting yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I was in the process of reviewing a selection of the sources proffered in the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ She pointed out (Lakoff, 1975, pp. 53-54) that speakers might use these devices when genuinely uncertain about the facts, or alternatively to mitigate the force of an utterance ‘for the sake of politeness’; these uses, she implied, were quite ‘legitimate’. But, she claimed, women tend to use such devices for a third reason, namely, to express themselves tentatively without warrant or justification when ‘the speaker is perfectly certain of the truth of the assertion, and there’s no danger of offense, but the tag appears anyway as an apology for making an assertion at all’ (1975, p. 54).

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

17 December 2021

File:Pepsi targeted ad 1940s.jpg – Closure endorsed. Daniel (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fastily's duplication of a (poorly written) non-free use rationale does not solve the WP:NFCC#10c violation pointed out in the FFD discussion (It does not have the required separate and specific non-free use rationales for each use. [emphasis added]) as the rationales are still not specific to each use. Fastily refused to do anything about it when I pointed it out on their talk page. Closers should not be taking it upon themselves to close discussions with actions that claim to resolve a policy violation but do nothing of the sort. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't abundantly clear, I indicated no prejudice to renomination regarding other NFCC concerns (yes, not mentioning them was deliberate). I find it seriously bizarre that you've jumped straight to DRV, this isn't FfD redux. -FASTILY 02:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't FFD redux; it is a review of your close that did not resolve anything. There weren't and still aren't separate and specific rationales, as required by policy – the sole issue pointed out in the FFD nomination. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fully familiar with the mores of FfD (which seem to differ substantially from those of the other XfD forums), but it seems to me that we have a subpar non-free use rationale, a subpar nomination, a subpar discussion, and a subpar closure. While we could spend a week arguing about what that means from a procedural perspective, I think the best thing to do would be to start over: just renominate the file (along with an slightly more detailed explanation of why the NFCC aren't met), withdraw the DRV, and hope for a somewhat more productive result. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that discussion should end in deletion because no rationale for deletion was presented. The nomination said the image didn't have separate and specific rationales for each use. There was, howver, a specific rationale for one of the two uses. Removing the other usage of the image would have satisfied the nominator's concerns, and it wasn't explained why deletion was necessary. Hut 8.5 08:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At FFD "no quorum" results in delete.[6] Files submitted for deletion at FFD (the venue also has other purposes) are almost invariably deleted. If there is any risk that too many people are voting keep the discussion is relisted. So far as I can see the most recent exception was a "convert to free" on 26 November.[7]
Endorse The OP's reason for deletion was overcome by the closer - seems bureaucratic, but any additional deletion will require a new discussion, and renomination is the correct thing to do here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've seen Fastily here for keeping something :-). In any case, the problem was addressed. If you feel the NFCC notice written isn't enough, I'd suggest you either update it or, if you think its use cannot be justified, send it back to FfD. endorse Hobit (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Mostly per Hobit, but WP:ATDs absolutely include writing a better rationale for non-free usage. If there was simply no way anyone could, then yes, a deletion would be appropriate, but a separate rationale need not necessarily be different than another, which may be an OP misunderstanding of the requirements. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The deletion rationale was addressed, leaving no reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 December 2021

15 December 2021

14 December 2021

Kyle Murphy (American football, born 1998) – "Draftify" closure endorsed. Sandstein 09:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I find the discussion to be very close and more of a "no consensus" than a draftify. While several users at the beginning of the AFD stated the article was in very poor shape, I significantly improved the article and so I believe that outcome is no longer necessary. In the discussion, there were four keep !votes (me, Paulmcdonald, Editorofthewiki, gidonb) versus four draftify/deletes (GPL93, JoelleJay, KingSkyLord, Stifle) and one neutral (Cbl62), and though I know number of !votes is irrelevant, there does not seem to be a clear consensus in favor of draftify. I suggest it should be overturned to no consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. As I explained to the appellant when they queried the close, I agree there were improvements made to the article. Post-those improvements, however, further views continued to come in regarding draftify or delete, most significantly from GPL93 and Stifle. I found GPL93's contributions persuasive and, in terms of our policies and guidelines, not sufficiently addressed. Therefore, I believe there was a consensus to close this as 'draftify'. Daniel (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but I think that the appellant may be wasting their time and ours. If the appellant thinks that the draft should be accepted, why don't they submit it? Maybe because the subject hasn't played in the National Football League and so doesn't satisfy gridiron football notability, and will have to be evaluated based on general notability? Either submit it, or don't submit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I've submitted the draft then. I opened this because I thought that an AFC submission would be declined with the reason of "per AFD. Fails NGRIDIRON". BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fair, as I would have declined it on those grounds had I come across it. Note the draftify voters who commented noted draftifying was proper for the reasons we draftify sportspeople - he's not notable now, but he could be in the near future for passing the SNG (in a field where merely passing GNG doesn't guarantee notability due to routine coverage), not because the article was deficient. SportingFlyer T·C 12:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closer made a correct reading of consensus - there's not really that much more to it than that, especially considering the routine coverage afforded every undrafted NFL free agent. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just declined this at AfC and @BeanieFan11: pointed me here (thank you). I think the AfD was closed correctly, but my take on the article as it existed in draftpace was that it neither passed GRIDIRON, nor did the coverage rise to the level required beyond coverage of local players getting coverage when they received an NFL tryout and/or signed to the team's roster. Murphy has not played in an NFL game, and there's not significant coverage to meet BIO. Star Mississippi 03:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

DNMO – Speedy deletion from 2019 endorsed. Editors are welcome to recreate the page, either in articlespace or in draftspace, using new content which meets our notability guidelines. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Creator of page did not leave enough info. See Spotify page "DNMO" for proof of importance (over 100 million streams) ^[1], the youngest performer at both the iconic Red Rocks Amphitheater and EDC Las Vegas^[2]. He discovered and signed Sub Urban when he had no career and gave him his first global success. He was also one of the first artist's signed to dance music icons Zeds Dead's label Deadbeats^[3]. Since then he has signed a production deal with Prescription Songs by legendary pop producer Dr Luke^[4], and is producing radio hits for artists as well as his DNMO project. Please restore the page. Fredjenkins75 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/3cMInYqk6yzf37zo8iznoz?si=-bDqPmY5SAuro6OzhRGdMA. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://edm.com/music-releases/dnmo-sub-urban-sick-you-deadbeats. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://deadbeatsofficial.com/artists/dnmo. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://www.instagram.com/p/B3xVgDaB0WA/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Close This is a WP:CSD#A7 from 2019. Just recreate it. Looking around there is a fair bit of coverage, but it all feels like press releases. Maybe that's typical in EDM? Don't know. Just try to find coverage that meets WP:N. Also be quite aware of WP:COI and in particular WP:PAY. Might be better off starting this as a WP:draft, as I foresee a real chance of this being deleted under WP:CSD#G11.Hobit (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was hardly anything in the deleted article - it devoted half again as much screenspace to the subject's social media and press releases as it did to article prose, and it didn't talk about anything more recent than 2017. —Cryptic 12:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Advise Recreating from scratch While not showing notability, the stream count alone would demonstrate A7 is met now, but no-one is disputing that. While I don't mind userifying this for the user, I actually think it would downright hinder their ability to create a new article (I'd actually have to note on any recreation that if it is G11ed, don't sanction this user). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-Creation, either as draft or in article space. As User:Nosebagbear says, starting with a page that failed A7 is usually a hindrance. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hope that we don't sanction a user for a single G11. Some newbies come in and think that they are supposed to write that way. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is another simple one - there's no way the article's being undeleted, but there's no reason not to recreate the article, assuming there's enough good coverage of him to do so. SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 December 2021

2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game – Closure endorsed. Daniel (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was a challenging close, so I don't fault the closing admin for their decision. I think the biggest challenge was that the original AFD rationale missed the mark a bit. The rationale focused on whether the topic was notable for inclusion, whereas it would have been more appropriate to focus on WP:CONTENTFORK and whether this game, as part of the larger topic on the Brady-Belichick era, should have its own stand-alone article. I would like the discussion to focus on the following:

The game is notable enough to be covered in Wikipedia. It was widely covered and discussed in varied sources for many weeks.
The game itself—i.e. the activities that occurred during the game—was not notable in the same light as Fail Mary, Bottlegate and 2018 NFC Championship Game were. This was a standard, albeit well viewed, Sunday Night Football game were Tom Brady set a passing record.
Obviously though, since this game was well covered, something else made this game notable. What was that? Well, it was notable because it was the culmination of the Brady-Belichick era. Again, had this game involved other players, it would have not had the same coverage or notability.
So if the notability of this game is so closely related to a topic that already exists on Wikipedia, we have to determine whether it warrants a content fork into its own article. Looking at the current 2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game article, if you remove the game summary section, almost 100% of the remaining material is currently covered in Brady-Belichick era, including the history of their relationship, Brady leaving New England, etc.

When looked in this light, in my opinion, it seems like a few paragraphs in Brady-Belichick era noting Brady's return, what happened during the game, and the "Aftermath" can sufficiently cover the 2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game article and that a content fork is unnecessary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment Don't hold it against Gonzo_fan2007 that he didn't discuss it with me, I likely would have suggested this route anyway as I stand behind my close. Challenging as nom noted. There was no other way I see closing this. Votes were well grounded in policy all around, and where the content should live is within editorial purview. There was definitely no consensus to delete the text, nor was there a clear consensus as to where it should live, article location wise. I guess I'm endorsing my own close, but comment as I don't wish to stand in the way of consensus. Star Mississippi 18:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The closing editor summarized the results of the discussion accurately... It was relisted not once, but twice, each time receiving sufficient additional commentary, relisting a third time would have been WP:DEADHORSE territory, the "no-consensus leaning keep" is a reasonable interpretation of the discussion as it stood when closed. Gonzo_fan is relitigating the deletion, arguing the merits of the original case which is not what DRV is for. This forum is only for when the closure was inappropriate, for example misreading the consensus, etc. I don't see where even Gonzo_fan is arguing that. If the closure accurately reflects the discussion (which it does) then the OP has no leg to stand on in this venue. --Jayron32 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jayron32, just wanted to note, I think my implication above is that it was closed incorrectly. The responsibility of the closing admin is to interpret consensus within the confines of established policy. My DRV is noting that I believe the closing admin in this case interpreted consensus incorrectly by providing unnecessary weight to comments regarding the notability of the game, and ignoring the numerous, well-grounded comments that noted that this topic is already sufficiently covered on Wikipedia, and thus this is an unnecessary fork. The way I laid it out above was to make sure that this discussion focuses on the interpretation of the appropriate policy while assessing consensus. My apologies if that was not immediately apparent. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "People voted differently than I wanted them to" is not equivalent to "Those people didn't correctly interpret policy". There are competing policies and guidelines at play here (as there are in any contentious discussion) and that someone interpreted the situation differently than you chose to does not make those people are not "within the confines of established policy". Indeed, many of the "keep" votes cited policies and guidelines that support their votes, you don't get to discount those votes simply because you don't like their conclusions. --Jayron 32 15:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I agree with the above comment that this DRV is serving no more purpose than to relitigate the AfD. While I did in full disclosure vote keep in that discussion, I believe, as someone with a reasonable amount of NAC experience, that no consensus, rather than an outright keep, was the proper outcome to the deletion discussion. After multiple relists, a clear consensus to delete or merge/redirect did not emerge, which was not helped by the vague rationale of the original nomination. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD did what it could. It concluded that the article met WP:N (which I believe we have wide agreement on). Editorial decisions about where to cover the material largely don't belong at AfD--they belong on the talk pages of the article(s). As far as I can tell, being a WP:CFORK isn't a reason--in and of itself--for deletion. The question is how the material can best be covered. And that's pretty much where the discussion got to. endorse Hobit (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - What is the appellant requesting? To overturn the No Consensus and substitute a supervote of Delete? If the appellant is requesting an Overturn to Delete, then this is a request for a supervote, which is not what DRV is for. If the appellant is requesting a Relist, that isn't necessary, and isn't consistent with policies and guidelines. If the appellant is asking anything else, this appears to be re-litigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per all the above, I think an RfC on the appropriate pages may be the best way to collegially seek the desired outcome. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It's absolutely ridiculous this was kept as it clearly fails SPORTSEVENT and the 10YT users are clearly correct, but it was 13:9 on keeping, the fact it was a no consensus really to me shows the closer did weigh the arguments properly, and while it's a bad AfD it's not really a DRVable AfD. I'd wait three months, re-nominate while arming yourself with the fact WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE was misapplied, and send this into the bin where it belongs. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. If I'd seen this sooner and !voted, I'd have argued similarly to yours. We'll have a game like this if Rodgers leaves and subsequently faces Green Bay. There was nothing unique or notable about this one. The broader issue is we don't handle recent news well when it comes to evaluating long term notability. I feel like many are resolved with a subsequent AfD when the event is no longer in the news, but we need a better process. Star Mississippi 14:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I !voted to merge the article and stand by that opinion, but there was clearly no consensus to delete the content and the AfD closure holds no prejudice on further discussions regarding merging. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 06:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While I still don't believe that this game deserves a stand alone article, based on the arguments in the AfD the only reasonable outcome was No Consensus. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't believe the AFD contributors were correct to support keeping the article, but that is my opinion. The closer could not have reasonably closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 December 2021

11 December 2021

10 December 2021

9 December 2021

Korean Air Flight 2033 – Recreation permitted. If the future author would like the 2019 text moved to draft-space to work on, please let me know and I will facilitate. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

So, through what I can see, the deletion consensus probably just saw the face of it (being a runway overrun) and called it to be deleted. However, taking a look at the wreckage, this is not a 'minor everyday runway overrun incident' as they say. It is impressive that everyone on board survived the crash despite hazardous fire and probably it could be comparable to an article I created and was accepted at AfC recently. Though the nominator mentions about the An-12 crash in the AfD, the reason why it is not included is mainly because it is a cargo flight with irrelevant notability. The fact that no one aboard was killed in the Korean Air Flight itself is impressive. Username006 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close because the nomination does not allege that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and what is contained therein is not pertinent to any of the other four WP:DRVPURPOSE reasons. Something being impressive is not a reason to overturn an AfD close. Therefore the nomination does not align with the purpose of this forum, so there is no prospect of success. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the AfD was nearly eight years ago. If you believe it meets notability now, you're more than welcome to start a draft. Star Mississippi 18:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd go ahead and recreate the page, but note it will likely be deleted unless you can show it was notable beyond a simple news cycle - a newspapers.com search shows this will prove a bit difficult, at least in English language sources. SportingFlyer T·C 00:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this decision was from almost eight years ago; the correct course of action if you wish to have an article at this title would be to create one. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the 2019 G4 deletion was borderline as the article was slightly more detailed and used different sources. Not different enough for me to say the speedy deletion was incorrect but enough that I'd have at least hesitated if I was the one who saw the tag. If anyone really wants the text to base a draft on they can have it as far as I'm concerned, but it really isn't going to help much without additional sources. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The article that was deleted in 2019 was somewhat more substantial than the article that was deleted after an AFD in 2013. The AFD had only light participation, and the participants seemed to be under the impression that the incident was just a runway overrun when it actually was a crash leading to a fire. The incident is of comparable significance to Air France Flight 358 (which also was a crash after runway overrun, but where a successful evacuation saved all the lives onboard). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of 2019 variant - I probably would not have deleted the G4 had I processed it myself. It's got enough as is to make a decent attempt at showing notability, except for the WP:LASTING aspect. Aspects like that should be reconsidered at a new AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 December 2021

7 December 2021

6 December 2021

Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6 – Closure overturned and discussion relisted on my own authority per WP:BADNAC. Controversial AfDs should run for their full time and not be closed by non-admins. Sandstein 13:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inappropriate snow closure of contentious AfD by non-admin. Appears to consider the Afd process a "vote", and many of the "votes" are by IP's or simply say "per (user)". Clear consensus has not been established. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and trout - this article has absolutely no chance of getting deleted, and a snowball close was completely appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist AfD was only up for two days and there was clear discussion and conflicting opinions on the article subject. There was very much not a Snow Keep scenario even if an admin has closed it and, the fact that it was a NAC, that makes it even more inappropriate. Relist the AfD for the rest of the 1-week time frame. Silver seren^C 00:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most obvious problem here to me (which no one seems to have pointed out) is that this AfD was trying to propose a merger instead of a deletion, which is supposed to take place via a different process. As such, it arguably would meet the spirit (although perhaps not the letter) of speedy-keep criterion #1. Under most circumstances I would !vote to vacate this as a BADNAC (particularly since WP:SNOW surely doesn't apply when over a third of !voters disagree), but given the procedural issues with seeking a merger from AfD I think keep was the inevitable conclusion, and so I would endorse the outcome, although for somewhat different reasons than the closer's. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Arguments in favor of keeping were more numerous and in this editor's opinion more convincing. I originally voted one way and swapped when the Keep side made good points about the article and why it met notability criteria. Just because the argument for keeping the page isn't convincing to you doesn't mean it isn't to others. AlexKitfox (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The point is taht given the level of discussion, the Afd should have been allowed to continue for the standard one week. Also, User:RandomCanadian having made several edits to the parent article World Chess Championship 2021 is clearly a COI editor. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what DRV is about. It is not a relitigation of the merits of the article. Silver seren^C 01:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen - I see an active AFD with a split of opinion, a lot of arguments being made on both sides, and a lot of low-edit-count !voters. It's OK to discuss merge at AFD and this one should go the full seven days and then be evaluated on the merits (not the numbers), with a closing rationale written that summarizes and properly weighs the arguments made. I don't think this was an appropriate SNOW close or an SK1 situation (too many editors participating on all sides). And I agree, given their edits, RC was not an uninvolved editor and shouldn't have closed the AFD at all. Levivich 01:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(closer) Endorse The argument being made is that 0) I'm not an admin 1) this was an inappropriate early close 2) that many of the arguments were "per X" or otherwise poor; that 3) there was no clear consensus; and that 4) I'm somewhat involved in the discussion (per Levivich). Disregarding number 0 (which is not a valid reason to overturn a close, and hence given as much weight as its number), and addressing each of the others in turn:
1. AFDs are rarely this well attended (I know, I've closed quite a few). Given my analysis of the arguments made therein (see no. 3), there was effectively very little, if any, chance this would have actually led to a delete/merge outcome. Hence WP:SNOW.
2. I am well aware of WP:NOTAVOTE, but I don't see a reason why most of the "keep" arguments would be invalid. Both sides provided arguments which are seemingly valid in terms of policy (if they were not, one side could have been simply dismissed without second thought); and few of the contributions to the discussion (this touches both sides, see 2.1) were an obvious logical fallacy or otherwise inappropriate argument. One was clearly preferred by the participants of the discussion, who provided coherent arguments why (including many/most from experienced editors), and this is why I closed it as such.
  2.1 regarding "low-edit count !voters" and IPs: as a matter of principle [having edited as an IP before I got an account], unless there are obvious signs of canvassing or off-wiki shenanigans, I don't disregard otherwise valid arguments solely because of this (after all, IPs are human too and WP:AGF is policy). Now, it happens that inexperienced editors often make comments which get disregarded anyway for other reasons, but that some inexperienced editors are not aware of our complicated policies and guidelines is not a reason to reject (guilt by association being, itself, an invalid argument) those who make seemingly coherent arguments, even if they don't cite enough alphabet-soup. Challenging the closure on this ground would also be selective cherry-picking, as some of the "merge" !voters are also "low-edit count: editors (for example, Special:Contributions/Plainsoup; or Special:Contributions/2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001). On top of that, on further inspection, many of the other merge arguments are remarkably weak (based on some personal criteria, closer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT than to proper policy and source-based reasoning, of what would constitute an "important" chess match); if not outright refuted by those arguing for keeping ("this game has very minimal news coverage" vs. the multiple links to reliable sources proving just the contrary).
3. The outcome was rather clear enough, given A) that there was a large numerical majority (this is not a vote, but if an argument has obviously managed to convince the majority of participants, who provide their own reasons for it, then it's not the closer's job to dispute this unless the argument is laughably weak or in contravention of policy, which it is not here) B) the presence of a coherent argument, including rebuttals to the arguments for the opposition C) the already significant participation for an AfD. The eventual outcome in light of how things are usually done around here was clear and not particularly controversial. Bringing this to an early close shouldn't be controversial: this is the outcome that would have occurred anyway, and it's better if people go spend their time actually improving the encyclopedia instead of wasting it on foregone AfD debates.
4. I have not participated in the AfD prior to closing it; nor did I even edit the article in question before closing the AfD (my edits in the area limit themselves to adding the results of today's game to the main page, something entirely unrelated to the current AfD). In light of that, claiming that I am "not an uninvolved editor" is simply flat out wrong.

In short, I do not see a good reason, presented by either of those challenging, why my closure would be wrong, either A) on outcome or B) on its reasoning. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IAR Endorse Site policy is pretty clear that this should be re-listed. However, site policy handles AFDs of "current events" badly so I am ignoring it. Keep or merge, there will be a more productive re-run of this discussion in a few months -- and it will be easier to determine "long-term significance" then. And it is almost certain that the current discussion will end as keep if it is re-opened. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. No compelling reason to have shut it down early. The fact that it was very busy was all the more reasons to let it play out the 7 days. Btw, it was not a SNOW situation. And IAR really doesn't apply here, as the premature close didn't solve a problem that policy hadn't anticipated, which is what IAR is meant for: fixing stuff that policy doesn't cover or anticipate adequately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing whether something has "long-term significance" two days after the thing is obviously not anticipated by policy, and is a bad idea in any case, even if that did not really factor in my close as there were clear and numerous arguments as to why this could have such significance, none of which was compellingly refuted beyond alphabet-soup waves. This was a SNOW situation, as I don't see a way in which this would have resulted in anything but a keep (even a hypothetical, if unlikely, no consensus, would still functionally have the same effect as my close, and in either case it's almost certain this will get revisited in a few months anyways, which will allow for a more thorough discussion at that point, not only because of the time passed). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What did you "fix" by closing it early? What bad thing would have happened by letting it run 7 days? Even if it was a SNOW situation (and a majority would say it is not, which I think you will see), what was gained? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What was gained is that editors don't have to waste their time with a foregone conclusion, and readers don't (or wouldn't, if people had the good sense to let it go) get inconvenienced by an annoying red banner. I honestly do not see how this could have closed as anything but "keep" (or the very unlikely "no consensus", which is basically the same as keep in this instance, due to the ill-timing of the AfD based on a premise of a lack of long-term significance of something that happened two days ago), as such SNOW (which isn't based on a strict number count, like the rest of Wikipedia's consensus building guidelines) was entirely appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but now we're here. It's going to take longer than it would have if you'd done nothing. This was highly predictable. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bad close. Not wrong--this will be kept at the end of the day. But IAR wasn't helpful or needed. There was no need to short-circuit standard policy. I'd say leave it closed but WP:TROUT the closer. Though I've no objection to a relist Hobit (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Extraordinary Writ. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (voted keep) — By no means was this a SNOW case and there were compelling arguments that support a merge. We cannot predict how others would have felt over the next five days and if the discussion would have changed directions. Allowing an early closure of an unclear discussion not only sets a bad precedent, but it also prevents constructive discussions that could have taken place. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to relist - Policy is very clear that this doesn't meet the standards of SNOW. I can't see what damage to the encyclopedia would have occurred from it remaining open, so the IAR reasoning proposed seems unwarranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Count was 17 keep, 11 non-keep (approximately). Doesn't really seem like a WP:SNOW to me. I am also not in favor of early closing of AFDs in general. There's no harm and lots of benefit to allowing people a full 7 days to participate. The full 7 days allows folks to feel that the process has been fair, transparent, and un-rushed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist for a full 7 day period (starting from the date of the relist). Not appropriate early closure. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW closures are recommended only in few situations. There's a reason for the standard periods. They create a reasonable expectation within which most interested editors can get their views in. I don't think there will be a consensus for deletion, but I would've let it run a full 7 days regardless. If for no other reason than the fact that an early disputed close actually sucks up more editor time than the extra few days of letting it run the standard duration. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist the fact that opinion was running in favour of keeping "by nearly a 2-to-1 ratio" isn't a valid reason for a SNOW early close, the difference of opinion would have to be much more stark for that. Yes merger proposals aren't supposed to go to AfD, but AfD isn't a terrible venue for such a discussion and it probably attracts more attention than a discussion on the talk page would, so I don't see a good reason to cut that discussion off with an early close. Hut 8.5 12:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 December 2021

4 December 2021

Cushitic peoples – Recreation allowed. That's at least the feedback by most of the people who have commented here, even though there's not much of a consensus to be found here, so an AfD of the recreated article remains possible. A relisting was also proposed, and I could relist the AfD if I were to close this DRV as "no consensus", but relisting an already very long AfD after over 6 months isn't very helpful in my view. If needed, a fresh AfD would be more useful. Sandstein 08:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The main reason why I’m requesting a deletion review of Cushitic peoples is because the main justification that was used to nominate the page for deletion was that it lacked notability and contributions made by editors who were sockpuppets. The editor who nominated the page for deletion mentioned that the very specific wording: “Cushitic peoples” didn’t yield much results online and therefore the page deserved to be deleted. Despite the possibility of there being a debate regarding the name of the page itself i.e. “Cushitic peoples”, I feel like the categorisation of said ethnicities have always been categorised not only as a linguistic group, but also a distinct ethnicity that was historically always described as “Cushitic”. I will add a section on genetics that show a specific “Cushitic” categorisation in genetics. This categorisation suggesting an ethnicity going beyond shared related languages was historically formulated in different ways such as “Cushitic people”, “Cushitic pastoralists”, “Cushitic ethnic groups”, “Cushitic populations” “Cushitic speaking peoples”, “Cushites” etc. There is in fact a very large body of academic material online that could attest to the fact that the term Cushitic in terms of ethnicity and peoples do exist. I’ll just present a few:

1. Hallpike, C.R (2008) The Konso of Ethiopia: A Study of the Values of an East Cushitic People (Revised edition). Link to purchase the book and its availability: ([[8]]) As the title of the book suggests, it clearly states “Cushitic people” as it focuses its study on one of the ethnic groups in Ethiopia.

2. Mondlane, E. C. (1961). [Review of Indian People in Natal, by H. Kuper]. American Anthropologist, 63(3), 616–618. http://www.jstor.org/stable/667752. Link here: ([[9]]). On page 616, it states clearly; “Cushitic peoples” as an ethnicity. It also mentions the term “Cushites” as an ethnicity also.

3. Stoakley, R (2016) Kenya, Land of Contradiction: Among the Nilotic, Bantu and Cushitic Peoples. Link to the book here: ([[10]]) As the title of the book clearly shows, it describes the “Cushitic peoples” as an ethnicity. The title evidently shows Cushites to be an ethnic group of related peoples.

4. B.M. Lynch and L.H. Robbins (1978) Namoratunga: The First Archeoastronomical Evidence in Sub-Saharan Africa. Link to the book here: ([[11]]) In the abstract section of the book it states: “The same stars and constellations are used by modern eastern Cushitic peoples to calculate an accurate calendar.” This shows quite clearly that this is an ethnicity aswell as a language group.

5. Blench, R (1999) The westward wanderings of Cushitic pastoralists: explorations in the prehistory of Central Africa. This article is entitled: “The westward wanderings of Cushitic pastoralists: explorations in the prehistory of Central Africa.” Link here: ([[12]]) The title “Cushitic pastoralists” suggests clearly an ethnic group. The article also suggests the “Cushitic” people as an ethnicity. Just one random example would be on pages 72-73: “This would suit the present hypothesis extremely well: if the Cushites began their westward movement from Ethiopia some 6-5 000 years BP they may have been responsible for the Khartum Neolithic (beginning 5 700 BP) and then gradually spread westwards along the Wadi Howar some 4000 years ago.”

6. Lynch, B. M., & Robbins, L. H. (1979). Cushitic and Nilotic Prehistory: New Archaeological Evidence from North-West Kenya. The Journal of African History, 20(3), 319–328. http://www.jstor.org/stable/181117. Link here: ([[13]]) On page 319 it states: “Murdock, for example, postulated that an early population of Cushites spread into East Africa from Ethiopia to Tanzania bringing a megalithic cultural complex with them.” This suggested an actual ethnicity that combines related languages and related peoples. I will soon show a plethora of evidence regarding categorisation based on genetics.

7. Blench, R (2008) Was there an interchange between Cushitic pastoralists and Khoisan speakers in the prehistory of Southern Africa and how can this be detected? Link to the paper here: ([[14]]) The paper has many references to Cushites as an ethnic group. One example on page 9 shows: “Cushitic pastoralists would formerly have spread down through Central Africa, at least as far as Zambia/Northern Zimbabwe, probably intermixed with hunter-gatherers.” This suggests an ethnicity too.

8. Mire, S. (2015) Wagar, Fertility and Phallic Stelae: Cushitic Sky-God Belief and the Site of Saint Aw-Barkhadle, Somaliland. Afr Archaeol Rev 32, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-015-9181-z. Link to the paper here: ([[15]]) In the abstract it states: “The article further explores the potential link between the wagar and the Sky-God Waaq, adhered to by the Cushitic people of the Horn both before and during the practice of Christianity and Islam.” It also states: “The word waga/Waĝa (or Waaq) denotes the Sky-God adhered to by many Cushitic people (including the Konso) in the Horn of Africa (Loo 1991; Trimingham 1965), including the Somali in pre-Islamic times.” This shows clearly the understanding of “Cushitic” as a grouping of people aswell as a language group.

Genetic categorisation of “Cushitic” as related ethnicity/peoples:

1. Shriner, D., Tekola-Ayele, F., Adeyemo, A., & Rotimi, C. N. (2018). Genetic Ancestry of Hadza and Sandawe Peoples Reveals Ancient Population Structure in Africa. Genome biology and evolution, 10(3), 875–882. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evy051. Link to the paper here: ([[16]]) The abstract mentions “Cushitic” as an ethnicity with common ancestry: “Our results indicate that west Eurasian ancestry in eastern Africa is more precisely the Arabian parent of Cushitic ancestry. Relative to the Out-of-Africa migrations, Hadza ancestry emerged early whereas Sandawe ancestry emerged late.” This shows clearly that there is a genetic component that is specific to Cushitic people. Also here: “and E1b1b haplogroups, which are common in Cushitic populations (Tishkoff et al. 2007).” There are many references that show Cushitic as a population.

2. Pagani, L., Kivisild, T., Tarekegn, A., Ekong, R., Plaster, C., Gallego Romero, I., Ayub, Q., Mehdi, S. Q., Thomas, M. G., Luiselli, D., Bekele, E., Bradman, N., Balding, D. J., & Tyler-Smith, C. (2012). Ethiopian genetic diversity reveals linguistic stratification and complex influences on the Ethiopian gene pool. American journal of human genetics, 91(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.05.015. Link to the paper here: ([[17]] The paper speaks clearly regarding Cushitic as a distinct genetically affiliated peoples who share a common ancestry. One section states: “We calculated the genetic distance (FST) between Semitic and Cushitic Ethiopians and populations of the Levant, North Africa, and the Arabian Peninsula using two approaches: (1) the whole genome and (2) only the non-African component. In the whole-genome analysis, Ethiopian Semitic and Cushitic populations appear to be closest to the Yemeni (Figure 3A); when only the non-African component is used, they are closer to the Egyptians and populations inhabiting the Levant (Figure 3B).”

3. Shriner, D and Keita, S (2016) Migration Route Out of Africa Unresolved by 225 Egyptian and Ethiopian Whole Genome Sequences. Link to the paper here: ([[18]]) It states in the paper: “Notably, the two Egyptian samples we used include a low level of Cushitic ancestry but no Nilo-Saharan ancestry. This absence implies a lack of coverage of the full geographical range of Egyptians, including Nubians who today speak a Nilo-Saharan language (Dobon et al., 2015).”

4. De Stefano, G. F., Martínez-Labarga, C., Casalotti, R., Tartaglia, M., Novelletto, A., Pepe, G., & Rickards, O. (2002). Analysis of three RFLPs of the COL1A2 (Type I Collagen) in the Amhara and the Oromo of Ethiopia. Annals of human biology, 29(4), 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460110101440. Link to the paper here: ([[19]]) In the abstract section, it states: “The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people.” This shows clearly that Cushitic is also referred to as a people.

As I have demonstrated quite clearly here, Cushitic is referred to not only as a linguistic group but also related ethnicities/peoples. I read quite thoroughly through the articles of deletion and the only justifiable reason I could find for deletion would be that the article could have had poor citations or other reasons which cannot be due to notability. It only took me a considerably short amount of time to find these sources and I could’ve added many more. I feel like the article should be restored and tagged, semi protected to avoid any additions until the errors could be cleared and correct citations established. But I didn’t find any reasonable argument for outright deletion. The article could be improved and the title could be changed to avoid controversy such as “Cushitic speaking peoples” or “Cushites” etc. Wadamarow (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Missvain, that really is not a good enough closing statement. Your explanation is self-narration, trivially true, and useless to understand “why”. Can you please amend the close with why you went with delete please? SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admittedly know very little about this topic or anything related to it, but the reason for deletion, even with the "I'm going with delete" "reason" for deletion, is that this topic isn't adequately covered in literature. Some of the sources provided above seem to be trivial mentions, but other sources may rebut the reason for deletion. I've no actual issue with the finding of delete as consensus was clear. My sense based on the AfD discussion is that the page probably shouldn't be restored due to sockpuppetry/pov concerns, but if there's sourcing, and the sourcing's different from what was the AfD, I don't see any reason why a new page couldn't be written based on the discussion there. SportingFlyer T·C 14:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add apart from the editor who made the nomination, no other editor was a notable contributor to the page. Furthermore, for some reason User:SportingFlyer mentions that some of the sources have trivial mentions. But I'm just trying to establish that "Cushitic" is NOT only a linguistic group, but has always also been referred to as related people's and ethnicities which was the entire reason the editor who nominated the page for deletion was attempting to disprove and that's why the deletion went ahead. All I want is to establish that the term isn't restricted to the particular use as a linguistic affiliation only. Just like you have a Wikipedia page for Germanic languages and Germanic peoples, Slavic languages and Slavic people, Nilotic languages and Nilotic people, Bantu languages and Bantu people. This is the exact same contention. I hope that explains my reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadamarow (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really really feel like I've been involved in this discussion before. Was something similar at DRV in the past? Like years ago? Web searches are turning up nothing. In any case, relist. One reason to come to DRV is finding new sources. We've got new ones, let's see how they do. Hobit (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for Wadamarow (talk · contribs). The deletion was over six months ago. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allow the creation of a fresh article, because the nominator's sources do clearly show that the academic literature discusses a Cushitic people as well as the Cushitic languages.—S Marshall T/C 12:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add some more information for the sake of the deletion review. The Cushitic peoples' page was supposed to describe and categorise the ethnic groups which primarily speak Cushitic languages which is completely different from the Cushitic languages page (used as an alternative redirect after the page was deleted) which speaks only about the specific languages categorised as Cushitic. Almost all modern genetics based evidence and research categorise Cushitic speakers as related peoples so a specific terminology or wording such as "Cushitic peoples" or "Cushitic speaking ethnic groups" doesn't really matter per say so long as what is being described are the ethnic groups whom speak languages which are classified as Cushitic and have proven genetic affiliation. I've already provided sources and can provide more sources where genetics based literature classifies Cushitic as an "ancestry" and "ethnicity" which is more than just a linguistic group. I'll use one source as a simple example:

1. Giuseppe Passarino, Ornella Semino, LluÃs Quintana-Murci, Laurent Excoffier, Michael Hammer, A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti, Different Genetic Components in the Ethiopian Population, Identified by mtDNA and Y-Chromosome Polymorphisms (1998) The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 62, Issue 2. The link could be found here: ([[20]]). It states: "the Cushites, who were divided into (a) northern Cushites (Beja), who were nomadic pastoralists living in the northern lowlands, (b) the central Cushites (Agaw), who settled on the northwestern plateau highlands and who practiced agriculture (cereals); and (c) the eastern Cushites, who also were agriculturists and who were differentiated into >20 different groups (including the Oromo, or Galla) and who settled in the southern part of the Rift Valley." This shows clearly a study of related groups described as "Cushites" which is the same thing as Cushitic peoples, but I'm afraid there is more focus on the semantics and specific wording than the actual reality which is frustrating. Are Slavic languages not spoken by Slavic peoples? Does this mean ALL Slavic peoples are the exact same? Is it not just a categorisation of people who are related through an ethno linguistic affiliation? So what is the difference here? Why was this particular page just deleted?

There are many who have classified "Cushitic" as a distinct genetic category due to relations that go beyond language classification. According to Hodgson (2014) he states: "This IAC was not identified in the source study for the HOA SNP data [16], but Tishkoff and colleagues [59], in an analysis of an independent autosomal microsatellite dataset, did recover an equivalent IAC (calling it “Cushitic”). While this Ethio-Somali IAC is found primarily in Africa, it has clear non-African affinities (Text S1)." The link to the paper can be found here: ([[21]]). So if the relation between the term Cushitic is only language, why is there a huge amount of academic literature showing genetic affiliations of peoples who speak these languages?

I am conviced that a simplistic Google search of "Cushitic peoples" was the cause of this and it serves to justify lazy research which led to the hasty deletion in the first place coupled by a discussion between editors who were not well versed with the subject matter. I do not say this disparigingly so I do apologise if it comes off as such, but a simple look at the discussion for deletion is clear. By the logic of those who supported to delete, then I don't see why Germanic peoples, Bantu peoples, Slavic peoples and many other Wikipedia pages exist. It's the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadamarow (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The guidelines do not say that the closer is required to explain the closure, so the tautological closing comment is not a consideration. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-Creation, either in draft space or in article space. This does not seem to be an appeal of the close so much as a request to create a new article, and, as noted, six months have elapsed anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would urge User:Wadamarow to be considerably more succinct in his submissions to the debate; prolix walls of text are much less helpful than short and to the point submissions. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Amen. As an academic: one of the most important things I've learned is how to write succinctly. It can be hard for issues like this, but Wikipedia has little patience for walls of text. This is pretty bad. Hobit (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason in writing up a lot of information was I wanted to include as much information as possible to show clearly without any doubt why the deletion was wrong, also restore the page with the correct information and citations if possible. I copied the trend I read on the deletion discussion in terms of length which was my mistake. I've only been on Wikipedia for about a year so I'm not familiar with all the requirements and rules for different page discussions and length of words. Thank you for the advice, I'll improve moving forward. Wadamarow (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to work on Wikipedia, now is a great time to get over that impulse. Attention spans aren't long enough to be comprehensive, and if your best 2-3 points or sources won't convince people, a bunch more won't either. Jclemens (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 December 2021

Wanted (2004 film) – "Delete" closure endorsed, but recreation remains possible if there are now in fact good sources. (Cryptic's comment suggests that restoration wouldn't help much.) Sandstein 17:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Film closed on the basis of no sources. There is a full Sify review here, a source about production here, second source about production, a source about release here, and book mention. DareshMohan (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Construe as a soft delete and restore. Two !votes should only rarely be enough to constitute a consensus, particularly when, as here, one !vote was a vague wave and neither seemed to have made any effort at WP:BEFORE. Soft deletion was the appropriate outcome; now that it's been contested (with sources) the article should be restored, uncontroversially. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A two-vote delete on GNG grounds was correctly decided by the closer. I have no idea if the new sources presented are reliable or fall under GNG but even if they are the GNG is still marginal (I only see a review, a brief article, and a passing mention), so starting from scratch from draft space is what I'd recommend here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse as soft delete, restore Discussion was light, sourcing effort was not documented, participation was minimal. No error by closer, no reason to wait a full week before the restoration. Restoration could be to draftspace, but as long as DareshMohan feels like getting to it right away, I don't see that as necessary. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm underwhelmed by the proposed sources, but treating it as a soft delete seems reasonable. If better sources aren't found, I'll likely send it back to AfD if the closer here does not. Hobit (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just re-create the article. The AfD was almost a year ago and you're providing new sources. A new version can stand or fall on its own merits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The sources still don't establish notability. News about production, release are really just announcements. Ideally we should have two in depth reviews about the film. For a film that came in 2004, a new review coming now is unlikely. But even if it does come miraculously, it could become notable and I would change my mind. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Write a new article if you like, but what's in the old one won't help. (I'd go so far as to say looking at it would make a new article worse.) It consists largely of an amateurishly-written plot section and an unreferenced cast list that starts with a "cameo appearance", and the at-first-glance usable lead section and infobox claim that the person in the cameo stars in the film. —Cryptic 03:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mass killings under communist regimes – Procedural closure. This request by an IP editor is not an actionable deletion review request. It complains about external canvassing, but does not tell us how the AfD should have been closed differently because of this, or why. General discussions about Wikipedia's problems belong at WP:VP or other community fora. Also, the closers, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Joe Roe, Rosguill and Seraphimblade were not notified of this request. Sandstein 14:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The problem, it seems, is entirely with the process, and how it happened, regardless of the article's content. The close seems to be contradictory, as said on the nomination's talk page, and it makes no apparent sense why it would even claim that a total vote count isn't taken into account... when a few sentences later it is what happens. Why does the site not have the capability to deal with such vast canvassing? Why not only have commentators who have clearly not come from another site be able to comment? (And, sure, they may say that they discounted comments not based on policy... but they did a literal count, which apparently "strongly" suggests... that brigading is what happened, clearly. And it's not like a site can't know where people come from, either... all within the browser's data.) The rest of the close seems to be almost a veneer to backup the vote count, it may seem...

So... what this does 'strongly' suggest is that canvassing seems to be perfectly acceptable, regardless of claims to the contrary... as actions matter, not words, and a count was taken, and people who didn't even understand what the nomination was for were allowed to flood it... and, as suggested on the talk page, this will only happen again in the future with other controversial articles, and since the canvassing sites (which are all listed as unreliable sources here) generally write on the instruction of their owners, the argument was made... why not just let the owners decide by themselves what to delete, and what to keep? Would surely save everyone the time? One supposes this is arguing to some extreme end, but it is actually what happened now, practically... just indirectly. While they can't just use their money to get an individual to manipulate content, they now know that they can get their entire audience to flood every future controversial 'discussion', and one doubts if there will be any result in the future which goes against their desires... if this process isn't fixed... 88.109.68.233 (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 December 2021

1 December 2021

Shooting of Ashli Babbitt – No consensus. There is substantial and well-argued support for an "overturn to redirect" outcome but it does not quite amount to an actual consensus to overturn.
This is of course profoundly unhelpful because it means editors still can't decide what to do. As DRV closer one of the options within my discretion here is to relist the disputed discussion. I have thought about this hard, and I don't see how it could help, because we've already had such a lot of input at AfD and DRV.
To make matters even more complicated, another thing at issue is Sandstein's evaluation of what the status quo actually is -- the longstanding redirect, or the recently-developed article? Editors consider this but I can't see that they reach any kind of conclusion.
A "no consensus" outcome means that Sandstein's close remains in force for the time being, by default, but it most certainly does not mean that this discussion is over. In the circumstances editors are welcome to try alternative ways to resolve the dispute. A community RfC is very much still on the table, and it might offer the best chance of attracting views from other experienced editors who did not participate in AfD or DRV and who might be able to break the logjam. The longer time alloted and more expansive format of an RfC seem appropriate to a matter that's creating so much tension. I encourage the parties to consider this option and take enough time to draft a well-crafted RfC question before proceeding.
I hope this helps. Any complaints, comments and questions about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closer did not interpret the consensus correctly: There was rough consensus but the closer found no consensus. The closer found a significant majority of 11 to 7 but weighed that against the relative strength of arguments; contrarily to what would have been expected with such a close, upon which it could have been deemed that the majority had some failings in their position (downweighed/discounted !votes), the closer simply found that There are reasonable arguments on both sides ... So... "clear majority" plus "reasonable arguments on both sides ..." gives a rough consensus at least—not "no consensus".

Further (not the main argument, but maybe worth airing): No consensus needs to be avoided when it can be. The closer needs to try and find consensus a little harder. No consensus really isn't a propitious outcome for almost anything. When there's no major significance here to how the content would be treated, seeing how it is covered similarly elsewhere (so not a real deletion or even the usual redirect ending on a brief mention—there's already a maximum-detail section in an indisputably relevant place), having a not-strictly-necessary no consensus close makes our processes seem more ineffectual and time-wasting than they really are. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Weighing arguments vs. votes is almost essential in politically charged topics, and I have no issues with how Sandstein handled this one. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is not my original nomination case, but if we go that route, it's still a bad reading of consensus, because the closer weighed arguments against an isolated fraction of WP:N, visibly ignoring the caveat that notability doesn't guarantee a separate article, which hinges on other conventions (relating to content organization), such as WP:CFORK. In this way, the closer did not really assess the discussion in it's breadth and merits from a policy perspective. If he had done done so more thoroughly, he would have found that the keep side tactically avoided engaging with the critique of the raw notability case, to game out a traditional keep, despite the said caveat being highlighted to them multiple times (keep in mind that this is the same convention and so not a conflict of competing policies). This is what should have led to a downweighing of !keep votes based around a raw notability argument. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plip!

Overturn to redirect and swifly trout Alalch Emis for prematurely starting this DRV before the closing admin had a chance to respond to questions on their talk page. There is no rush here. As I explained on Sandstein's talk page, I was preparing to close this AfD but Sandstein got to it before I did. I read the discussion as having consensus to restore the redirect. The majority of the keep voters gave a rationale based on the notability of the event. However, no one was challenging the notability of the event, and just because it's notable doesn't mean that it is guaranteed its own standalone article, per WP:N, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." Therefore, I considered many of the keep votes to have an irrelevant rationale, and gave them less weight. Additionally, none of the keep voters gave a compelling reason for why this event needed to have its own article, rather than covering the event within the context of the main article. It seems to me that the majority of the content added to the standalone article is biographical info about Babbitt, which is not necessary or appropriate since Babbitt is not a notable individual outside of this event (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt), and therefore this amounts to an attempt to create a biographical article without actually creating a biographical article. Beyond that small amount of additional biographical information, the article is unquestionably a content fork and cannot remain in this redundant state. No keep voter successfully demonstrated that the article is not a content fork. Based on all of this along with the small numerical majority of redirect votes, I found consensus to redirect.

Furthermore, this page existed as a redirect for around 11 months before an editor decided to turn it into a standalone redirect. Two days after the split, an AfD was started and the discussion commenced. Therefore, it is my assertion that the "status quo" in this case is for the page to remain a redirect (and honestly, for me, that lowers the bar for finding consensus to redirect at AfD). So, even if it is determined that there was no clear consensus in the AfD, we should be defaulting back to the status quo of the redirect as it existed for 11 months, not to the status quo of an article that existed for 2 days before being nominated. Had there been a discussion on an article talk page to gain consensus for splitting this article before someone split it out, a no consensus closure would have resulted in keeping the status quo of a redirect. Just because someone boldly split the article out shortly before a discussion commenced doesn't suddenly change what the status quo is. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to say that the previous status quo was truly reflective of consensus? The fact that the bold editor did the fork in the first place is one indication that it wasn't. Once that happened, it became the de facto status quo in relation to the Afd nomination, and that is all the closer needed to contend with. In reference to, It seems to me that the majority of the content added to the standalone article is biographical info about Babbitt, which is not necessary or appropriate since Babbitt is not a notable individual outside of this event (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt), and therefore this amounts to an attempt to create a biographical article without actually creating a biographical article. I don't see the bio info as coming for the purpose of creating a bio article; I see it as explanatory background info, which is relative to the subject's later actions, which directly led to her shooting. And it is WP:OFFTOPIC in the parent article. StonyBrook (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the rather lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashli Babbitt (along with other smaller talk page discussions along the way) set a pretty clear consensus for the status quo of covering the shooting of Babbitt in the main article (which is generally where it's been covered since the event took place), and redirecting all other alternative articles. If you truly believe that the simple act of copying and pasting content from one article into another article (without any discussion, and after the aforementioned AfD) is enough to create a new status quo, then I don't think you understand the definition of the phrase "status quo". —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong those discussions are old, the Afd specifically being from January, which was right after the event. Enough time has passed, and further events have occurred, that could have changed the consensus about this topic. StonyBrook (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StonyBrook Yes, consensus can change, but that doesn't mean it necessarily has changed. I've provided discussions showing the prior consensus that established the status quo. If you're suggesting that consensus has changed, then it's on you to find a discussion that establishes that new consensus. That's the whole point: this split article about the shooting was created in the absence of any consensus. There was no discussion. Consensus can change, but there is no evidence that it has. Therefore, the status quo remains the status quo. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the fork happened in the absence of discussion, the result of that was an Afd discussion, which apparently has demonstrated a shift in the consensus from a year ago, which determined at that time that a standalone article was not justified. That does not seem to be the conclusion of this latest Afd at all. StonyBrook (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can interpret a "no consensus" discussion as evidence that consensus has changed. At best, it means that there is no consensus that the standalone article should exist. Therefore, we should revert to the status quo until a clearer consensus emerges. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottywong: You're right on the essence of course, but regarding exact organization: The topic of the shooting was split from the parent article into Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack months ago (I'll find the diff, but I think it was summer [edit: diff]). Basically, the parent article has not been the home for this content for a while, but this, other, daughter article has. The here contested "restored" shooting article was created by simply replacing the redirect with content copied from the law enforcement article. This created the blatant forking situation. StonyBrook has argued that it is not just a content fork because some additional (very short) biographical information has been added. In my opinion this is the only relevant keep argument expressed in the discussion. The argument was opposed by several editors (I'm not relitigating by saying refuted, but it was not either ignored or conceded to); it was not noticed by other keep !voters who were only interested in climbing the GNG hill as if this was just any random AfD. — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch Emis: When I say "parent article" or "main article", I'm referring to Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Shooting of Ashli Babbitt. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to redirect. There was no consensus for the split -- if there's no consensus for the article to exist, status quo is to go back to a redirect. There's a reason we don't just vote on politically-charged editing decisions, this article is it. Feoffer (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see how "clear majority" + "reasonable arguments on both sides" = "rough consensus". It is "no consensus" just as the closer said, because Afd is not a vote. And nom should have discussed this with the closer first. We don't need to be telling an experienced editor that they need to to do their job a little better. It is not helpful to second guess a closing editor in such a charged Afd, who was willing to stick their hands in such a mess and get them dirty. StonyBrook (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There being a clear majority with comments being weighed equally is something that is seen as a consensus forming discussion, and this has almost nothing to do with your cited WP:DISCUSSAFD. In all of the written conventions dealing with !voting you will see that the language is formed in such a way to allow numerical superiority to bear on the result. Actually all the formulations of !voting and how it isn't voting take for granted that numerical superiority is important, but try to stress how it isn't the only important thing. Typically these considerations conclude with a practical explainer generally conveying the message of "this means that !votes can be discounted if they're mere votes", NOT "this means that !votes as such are not counted". — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and redirect. We're here to decide things, not throw up one's hands, just say it is a tie, and go home. 8-8, 7-9, sure, that's too close to call. Not-A-Vote notwithstanding, the further the scales tip numerically to a side, then there better be damn good justification to discard that advantage and still declare "no consensus". There wasn't a good justification here. Zaathras (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vote count is not relevant. I want to point out that a recent, infamous, AfD was closed as "no consensus" despite having a vote count of 145 vs 35. So StonyBrook is absolutely right that "clear majority" + "reasonable arguments on both sides" can very well be "no consensus". So vote count is not a good reason to overturn the close.VR _talk 05:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consensus is not judged by simply counting votes, we weigh the strength of the arguments on both sides. In this case, most keep voters argued that the topic is notable (which was never in dispute). No keep voters provided a compelling rationale for why the topic couldn't be adequately covered within the context of the main article. No keep voters demonstrated that the article was not a redundant content fork in violation of WP:CFORK. Therefore, not only did the redirect voters have numerical superiority, they also had the stronger argument. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think all the issues you listed were addressed. StonyBrook claimed that there is so much material that a spinout article is needed for reasons of size--that's a fine reason (and by far the most typical) to justify having two articles. In particular all the developments listed by StonyBrook argue pretty well that there is enough coverage (and enough events) to write a rather long article about her killing and the impacts there of. Hobit (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StonyBrook claimed that there is so much material that a spinout article is needed for reasons of size. Claims are not facts. The fact is all this material is, or could be, contained in the pre-existing article. Feoffer (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A roughly similar situation could be said to exist vis à vis the Murder of Dora Bloch and Operation Entebbe articles. The latter is even smaller than Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack, so could the Murder article be absorbed into the Operation article? The answer is technically yes, stylistically no. StonyBrook (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And of course claims are not facts. Issues of style and how to cover a topic rarely revolve around facts. But there are facts provided. #1 Any topic, no matter how broad, can be covered in one article. #2 Not every topic should be covered in one article. #3 There is so much reporting on this and things that resulted from this (court cases, etc.) we could easily fill up the word count of more than one article. The opinion part is what level of depth this topic should have on Wikipedia. That's the same question that comes up with any topic. And here the consensus to redirect the article was borderline. Hobit (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to redirect. Gauging consensus is not vote counting, and the policy based reasoning for restoring the redirect vs policy-based arguments to split was 1-0. VQuakr (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Either outcome was reasonable from a policy/guideline viewpoint. I'd probably have also endorse a redirect, though I think NC is a better reading--the discussion was close enough in terms of strength-of-argument. But I just don't feel anyone really provided any reasons to undo the spinout that wouldn't apply to nearly any potential spinout article anywhere on Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: It's not a spin out as the section in the law enforcement article from where the content was copied was not removed or shortened by summarizing. Furthermore, it should not be removed or shortened as it's just fine there. No article was shortened by creating this content fork.

The original parent article (Capitol attack) was shortened mid-summer when this content actually was split out from there to shape up the Law enforcement article. This was then taken from that original split to seemingly make a split-of-a-split (no problem per se), but unlike the original parent article, Law enforcement isn't too long, and the content is deeply embedded there and can't reasonably be removed. So when making the content fork and throughout this time, no one even tried to remove/summarize it. A summary is being had in the original parent article. So we have: (1) original parent article with summary, (2) original split with detailed coverage, (3) same detailed coverage copied over to make a content fork. This is what it meant when participants called it an obvious content fork as opposef to a valid split.

The issue was quickly detected and two days after the redirect was made into the pseudo-split, an editor started an AfD to explicitly restore the almost year old redirect, and a significant majority of editors supported this, but the discussion was closed as no consensus, "defaulting" to the "status quo" of there being this content fork ostensibly cementing the problem which is frankly ludicrous.— Alalch Emis (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to redirect for the reasons given by Zaathras and Scotty Wong.
As an aside, this article would not have lasted a day if it had not been about a US topic. See WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think we'd have an article about the same situation anyplace in Europe, China, Taiwan or Japan? If someone got shot and killed trying to break into the legislature of any of those, I think there would be an article about it. And I think their should be. Hobit (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is such an article: 2021 United States Capitol attack. This was not an attack by Babbitt, she was simply one among the mass of people there. She was simply the unlucky one to get shot. The amazing thing isn't her death, but the lack of other such deaths. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Amazing isn't a requirement for an article. WP:N is. Her death clearly meets WP:N. The question is if the organization of the material is better handled with or without an article about her death and its aftermath. I'd personally lean toward having one just because I think there is more "aftermath" then fits in the main articles. But I think either organizational method is reasonable. And the question here is if the closer correctly read the consensus (or lack thereof) at the AfD. There is no clear policy or guideline that dictates what to do here. So the split !vote can be pretty reasonably read as as lack of consensus on the issue. And on Wikipedia, NC on having an article means we have the article. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Didn't say it was. But as her death and its aftermath is an inextricable part of the attack and its aftermath, I don't see how her death itself meets notability separate from the attack as a whole. It seems as ridiculous as having articles on every random person who went down with the Titanic. --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree that this topic requires its own standalone article. The only thing we need to describe is the event of her death: how she entered the building, how she tried to climb through the window, how she got shot, how she was treated, how she died, etc. We don't need to know that she owned a small business in California, or that her Twitter handle was CommonAshSense; none of that is relevant. And there is no "aftermath" of her death that is separate from the aftermath of the Capitol storming itself. They are tightly intertwined, because they are all part of the same event. Any aftermath that needs to be covered is already covered in other articles. If I'm wrong, please show me the aftermath that is specific to Babbit's death and separate from the Capitol storming itself, which is not already adequately covered in another article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Khajidha: Your comment above about how 2021 United States Capitol attack is the article where this was already covered prior to the content forking is incredibly misleading. Can't you see that the shooting content is not located there, bar a short mention? How would it then be a content fork? When people call it a content fork they refer to the Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. This is what Hobit was looking for when asking if there would be an article about it. You led Hobit totally astray. The correct answer is: "Yes there would be, and there has been since January, and now we have it duplicated". It's pure madness to get into a discussion about topic notability here. Notability wasn't disputed in the AfD. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The event of her death was the Capitol attack. Whether that death is covered in the article about the attack itself or the one about law enforcement's response to the attack isn't really important. The point is that Babbitt's death was not an event of it's own that needs its own article. --Khajidha (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as no consensus is the correct call here. Solid policy-based arguments were made on both sides, and there was no clear consensus despite a decent majority of votes supporting redirect. Frank Anchor 14:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect, the status quo for almost 11 months. The brand-new standalone article is a cut-and-paste content fork of a person notable for only one event, which is adequately covered in the parent article. Miniapolis 14:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a fine AfD argument. In fact, I'd say a fairly strong one (though justifying why it's adequately covered would be handy). But it really isn't relevant to DRV. Hobit (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hobit: There is a mix-up here. What are you even talking about by saying justifying why it's adequately covered??? Is it not clear from the AfD, and from the state of the relevant articles in the topic area, that Shooting of Ashli Babbitt was made by copying the longstanding Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Shooting of Ashli Babbitt section into the longstanding redirect page to make a content fork? It's still fresh in the nominated article's history (diff). This is notorious stuff. This topic had been covered in the same level of detail all along. I don't understand... I think you're missing a lot of key information here. I pinged you above to explain the same thing as you didn't appear to be aware of this, however it didn't seem to have any effect. Help me understand your perspective. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we're looking at this from two different sides. Do you agree there are things that could be covered in this article that would be inappropriate in the main article? Thanks like lawsuits involving her death for example. You seem focused on how the article came to be (as a copy), and I'm thinking mostly about what potential it has. The potential is what the keep !voters were arguing for. I'm not concerned about the cut-and-paste creation--many spinout articles start that way. It's potential that I think is the only real argument for having this article. And the only real argument for deletion is that such details are too minute for Wikipedia to cover. (And the way we usually make that call is WPN, which pretty much everyone seems to agree is met in spades). Does that answer your question? Hobit (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It helps a bit thanks. I'll reply to that from experience: I tried the hardest of anyone to improve the article and was initially curious regarding it's viability. I added the event infobox, gave it more structure, but soon I hit the wall confronted with the fact that the subject being the event, there's nothing really relevant to add. The level of detail regarding the event is already extreme. It goes well beyond the norm. The event was recorded on cameras, recounted from various perspectives and there is hardly more detail that can even be conceived. So everything would be mostly fluff. I mean look at the military career fluff I added now (diff), instigated by your comment. Is this what we really want? Apart from this type of expansion, any idea of real due expansion is purely speculative. So why would we retain a problem now (a content fork, which is something proven to be a bad thing in general, and which inevitably mutates to a POVFORK, albeit perhaps a subtle one in this case), for a speculative future benefit? — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand entirely. I'd argue the Aftermath section is that "now" benefit. And I think it will be able to be fairly expanded. But that said, I go back and forth on what the best way to present the material is. I suspect we're in the right place, but I'm by no means certain. But at the end of the day, the view that there is enough material to add isn't unreasonable--I mean there is a ton of coverage and a fair bit still ongoing. And I don't think consensus was build in that AfD that we are better off with just the one article. Both sides have reasonable points and the numbers probably weren't decisive. Thanks for the productive conversation. I certainly understand your view pretty well now, I hope mine makes a bit more sense. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I can tell, everyone agrees that this event satisfies our notability standards, and the only real question is whether it should be covered in its own article or in a different article. But unless I missed something, no one has actually cited any policies in this discussion except for WP:CFORK. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this article is not an impermissible content fork and so WP:CFORK doesn't apply. This leads me to wonder: do we even have any policies regarding when it is appropriate to cover something as part of its own article or as part of another article? Or is that purely a stylistic choice, in which case this argument revolves solely around personal opinion and so this discussion is unlikely to actually resolve anything? Mlb96 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool and thought provoking comment but there was consensus to redirect. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is somewhat relevant. It's at least the argument I'm making for why those arguing to keep were not wrong and that WP:N is relevant to the AfD and so !votes referencing it shouldn't be ignored. Hobit (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect side also cited WP:N, pointing out the caveat that notability doesn't guarantee a separate article, which hinges on other conventions (relating to content organization), such as WP:CFORK. The closer did not seem to take this into account. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Consensus — Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion and is not calculated solely by number of votes (emphasis mine). So not solely, but also keeping in mind the number of !votes. Careful consideration. Dissection. Synthesis. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlb96: that's a great question and I hope someone can shed some light on it.VR _talk 19:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. I agree with Scottywong that many keep votes argued for notability, which was not the main reason for deletion. The question is if the keep votes provided a good rationale as to why this couldn't be covered in the parent article. 3 possible rationales were given. 1st rationale was WP:ARTICLESIZE but this only applies to 2021 United States Capitol attack not Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack (which has room to expand). 2nd rationale was that a separate article allows for coverage of Babbitt's biographical details, but Feoffer rebutted that this can also be done in a parent article. 3rd rationale was that letting the section on Ashli Babbitt in a parent article expand too much will be WP:UNDUE, and WP:SPLITTING allows for that content to expand without creating weight issues. This looks like a compelling argument that was never responded to. Weight concerns aren't always justified, but in the absence of a coherent rebuttal, a closer can only assume that they are in this case. Ergo, both sides had valid arguments. VR _talk 18:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closure was within the discretion of the closer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse OP clearly needs to actually read the WP:CONSENSUS policy. The "problems" they describe are literally how we do things around here. It is not a vote count. A 60-40 dispute is not an automatic consensus for the majority. We weigh strength of arguments relative to the larger community's existing views, rules, and norms. A "no consensus" reading based on strength of arguments with a 60-40 "vote count" is not egregious, it is a normal thing that happens. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly don't need to. Instead, you seem to need familiarizing with the arguments of overturn advocates here, probably by actually reading the discussion, including the nomination itself. 61-39 majority is enough support for consensus under condition that all !votes are weighed equally, and the deletion case has been discussed thoroughly and conclusively. That's my DRV case but there are other cogent reasons stated here why overturning is correct, all of which are congruent. If you read up on the archives here you will see that there is an overwhelming understanding that to close against the outcome supported by an appreciable majority (61-39 is more that that; closer said "clear majority"), some !votes on that side would need to be discounted/downweighed. The closer explicitly didn't do that. If he did that, the !votes which would have been discounted are several keep ones. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing my claim though. I'm explaining to you facts here. A 60-40 vote count is not necessarily a consensus, and closing such a discussion as "no consensus" isn't anything out of the ordinary. It's absolutely in the normal range where it could go either way depending on the interpretation of the closer, but it's a perfectly valid close here. People are free to disagree with the result and the closer's decision, but we're here to review whether the close itself is legitimate. Looking at this as an uninvolved admin, it's a reasonable close that involves a contentious topic and it's inherently going to piss people off because the majority didn't get their way. It's still reasonable though, and I see no convincing argument above that refutes that. You seriously need to drop the fixation with the vote count though, it's seriously out of line with the entire overarching self-governing system of the project. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agree that vote counts aren't consensus. In the AFD discussion, one of the final comments was addressed to the closer. It argued "!votes that only address notability should be disregarded since they do not address the actual rationale in the nomination.". It's unclear from the rationale why the closer apparently gave full-weight to generic assertions of notability when notability was not under discussion. Feoffer (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a circular argument. On the one hand you assert that vote counts in Afd cannot be relied upon, and in the next sentence you expect the closer to make a decision based upon the argument from one of the sides that that the other side's votes should be thrown out. Let us assume for a moment that that argument should have been taken seriously. The result of it would have left the closer with primary arguments only, and they found that on the strength of those there was no consensus to delete. StonyBrook (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely discount !votes w/o relevant rationales. Feoffer (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to redirect I think Sandstein got it exactly right until the end of their statement where it's clear they did not look at this as an article that had undergone a WP:SPLIT but as a stand-alone article AfD, which I think makes a difference in terms of result. If an article is improperly split, you upmerge instead of deleting, meaning this isn't a normal "is this topic notable or not" but "should this article stand alone or not" and I think consensus was clear enough that it should not exist as a standalone, noting there were a couple votes I'd discount on either side. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I think there was a slight consensus to redirect, I'm also fine keeping this as a "no consensus" as long as the no consensus correctly reverts to the status quo of a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 14:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the assessment of "no consensus" was correct, but that should have been implemented as "no consensus to split" and the status quo ante of a redirect being restored. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is what we have in practice, where almost no one is questioning the notability of the event. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, the days-old status quo is the standalone article. The 11-month-old status quo was the redirect. Miniapolis 00:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT, not notability, is the issue which the closer may have missed. Miniapolis 00:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you know Consensus can change, specially when you are dealing with a topic which is getting updates after almost 1 year. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When did consensus change in favor of the split? When you boldly content-forked wihtout moving the content out of the source article (you tried to move out a small part but were immediately reverted, which is evidence of lack of consensus) and when two days later this was contested in AfD? The consensus for what you did never had time to emerge in the sense of WP:EDITCON: you were contested from the beginning. You did a bold quasi-split, were reverted on the remove side of split, and on the copy side you got an AfD closed as "no consensus". The consensus never changed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the linked policy: An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted. Mhh's bold edit of splitting the article was presumed to have consensus, unless it was challenged. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus unless it meets with disagreement. The bold edit was disputed in the form of an Afd nomination, so at that point, the presumed consensus was to have the article deleted. Following discussion however, Sandstein the closer made a bold edit, which determined that there was no consensus to delete the article. So at that point, the presumed consensus was not to undo the original bold edit. But then that consensus was challenged again with this DRV. The outcome is still pending, but the point is that I don't see that any aspect of these proceedings is not working properly as designed. StonyBrook (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to spin the situation any way you like. Think about it this way: if this AfD discussion didn't happen at AfD, but instead happened on the talk page of the article, under the heading "Should we split the Ashli Babbitt section out to a new article?", and the exact same discussion occurred, and the exact same "no consensus" result was obtained, what would happen? We'd say that there is no consensus to split the article, therefore it should be reverted to a redirect, as it's been for the last 11 months. Just because the discussion happened on a different page (because an editor decided to not have that discussion before splitting out the section) doesn't change the what the status quo is. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. But we can only deal here with what actually happened, not what could have happened. If it is the latter, then you would have been the Afd closer instead of Sandstein. StonyBrook (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: There was no consensus! Some said WP:Notability mattered with the others objecting this argument. I really can't see a strong comment favoring deletion given the provided rebutals. Even there's no consensus here as to what the status quo is. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever challenged the notability of the event. That was never a focus of the AfD discussion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There was no firm consensus. Discussions around redirecting can take place outside of AfD (a "no consensus" close does not prevent discussion of a redirect), or the article can be re-nominated in a few months once it's stabilised and opinions have had time to firm up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHC: The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The closer's explanatory language included the phrase, ..not on its face clear consensus. That cannot mean that they found rough consensus, because rough consensus means consensus, not no consensus, which is what they actually found. StonyBrook (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a mistake was made. There was rough consensus (sometimes called slight consensus) so consensus needed to have been found, not "no consensus". That's why this DRV has been started, it's one of the reasons to do so per WP:DRVPURPOSE (#1). — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that is your opinion, but it is not what the closer found, and as can be seen from a few of the responses in this DRV, the closer was well within their rights. My bad, I should have quoted the closer's full sentence, which was Numerically, it's 11 to 7 in favor of a redirect, a clear majority but not on its face clear consensus. In other words, they are saying that Afd is not a WP:VOTE. They were not implying by that, that there is somehow rough consensus, because right after that they said, in regards to the actual discussion, There are reasonable arguments on both sides.. and then they went on to find that there is still no consensus to revert. StonyBrook (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it have been a WP:VOTE? That's a red herring. It's a general premise that the discussion was not plagued by WP:VOTE issues. See WP:JUSTAVOTE to get of sense WP:VOTE in practical terms in AfD. It's about mere nominal advocacy as opposed to substantive advocacy—it isn't about numerically superior substantive support not counting for anything. All of these conventions serve to qualify raw numerical support as not being in and of itself consensus, but as something that needs to form around sensible reasoning. They try to arouse scenarios where the numerical superiority is legitimate, as opposed to merely imposing. They don't serve to replace one modality of imposing (by a majority) with another like you do (by an admin closer... with his "rights")

This is what Numerically, it's 11 to 7 in favor of a redirect, a clear majority but not on its face clear consensus. means:

There is a clear majority of 11 to 7 (61-39% support).
There is no clear consensus.

Great, no problem. When no !votes are discounted/downweighed (i.e. problems such as WP:JUSTAVOTE are not present / not accounted for) 11-to-7, while not necessarily being clear consensus, it is certainly an average scene where rough/slight consensus in found. When seeing that in this case the closer has not found clear consensus, one would expect that they have found consensus of a lesser intensity, that is still consensus.

So when one sees that in fact no consensus was found (despite The desired standard [being] rough consensus, not perfect consensus), one wonders, what the reason was. There can be reasons, naturally. Maybe the majority had some failings in their position (downweighed/discounted !votes). That would make the majority not in fact be the legitimate majority (or not even be a majority numerically as they are whittled down via discounting). We don't see any such reasons, in fact we see the opposite reasoning: the majority had a reasonable argument (no less reasonable than the opposing argument). Sooo... Not only do we have a pretty regular numerical support emblematic of consensus, we have a reasonable and therefore perfectly legitimate majority. This is exactly consensus. The closer described consensus while calling it not-consensus making the close illogical. Calling the discussion a tie based only on a personal adjudication of arguments, where one individual thinks they're matched in strength (Sandstein, for example), while another potential closer has a starkly opposite opinion (Scottywong, for example), is the thing that common closing practices have evolved around to avoid. Closing like this creates a strong perception of Consensus-reversal supervoting. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The majority had a reasonable argument (no less reasonable than the opposing argument). Sooo... Not only do we have a pretty regular numerical support emblematic of consensus, we have a reasonable and therefore perfectly legitimate majority. Not so fast. Not everyone in the majority had reasonable arguments. There were flaws in other arguments as well. StonyBrook (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close and reopen discussion a week further Although I argued for a redirect, I feel that more views here can only help rather than hurt. If there's a no consensus at the time of extension, it makes more sense to continue the discussion so that when it's closed at the end of 21 days, the decision is sure and certain. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect, closer and keep votes effectively failed to address WP:CFORK concerns, which is what the original nomination was based off of. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] She pointed out (Lakoff, 1975, pp. 53-54) that speakers might use these devices when genuinely uncertain about the facts, or alternatively to mitigate the force of an utterance ‘for the sake of politeness’; these uses, she implied, were quite ‘legitimate’. But, she claimed, women tend to use such devices for a third reason, namely, to express themselves tentatively without warrant or justification when ‘the speaker is perfectly certain of the truth of the assertion, and there’s no danger of offense, but the tag appears anyway as an apology for making an assertion at all’ (1975, p. 54).

[DNMO_Spotify-2] ttps://open.spotify.com/artist/3cMInYqk6yzf37zo8iznoz?si=-bDqPmY5SAuro6OzhRGdMA. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[Red_rocks_performance-3] ttps://edm.com/music-releases/dnmo-sub-urban-sick-you-deadbeats. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[Zeds_Dead_Signing-4] ttps://deadbeatsofficial.com/artists/dnmo. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[Dr_Luke_Signing-5] ttps://www.instagram.com/p/B3xVgDaB0WA/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]