Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 March

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

31 March 2023

[edit]

30 March 2023

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

I am nominating this article, which was deleted almost six years ago, to be restored under criterion 3. The song is ironically the band's most commercially successful song, and sources are available to prove it. It became their first song by itself to receive a certification award, going gold last October in the United States. For what it's worth, it has also surpassed all the band's other apparently notable singles in Spotify plays by around 16 million at minimum. Unsure of which venue to take this case, I initially brought this to requests for undeletion, where an admin offered support that the article should be recreated if brought here, since the deleting admin is infrequently active.

Now here's where it gets tricky: it was moved to a newer target at some point, simply Jesus (Brand New song), which was the page that was actually deleted, and I created as a target to the band's album, knowing no better at the time that this was the case and would prove to become a problem. (I don't have any memory of doing this.) I hope we are still able to grab the original if that's possible, but I don't know if there's anything that's even worth salvaging before. As long as I can receive some support to make a page for this song available on Wikipedia, I will consider my goal reached; I believe it is possible to make a substantially better article than what was possible before which actually discusses the song. A side note, I believe "Jesus Christ" is probably the better known title of the song and should be located there. dannymusiceditor oops 16:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft, but there is no need for permission to submit a draft for review, because the title is not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, going gold isn't an inclusion guideline for a single? If you don't have additional sources, I think this needs to stay deleted. As noted by Robert, it's not salted, so you can recreate it. But without something new beyond charting, I think it will just get speedied as a recreation. Basically, find new independent sources that provide at least some depth-of-coverage. Did going gold generate any meaningful coverage? Hobit (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge, it was to the contrary, suggesting that this was something that could supplement notability. That's how I learned WP:NSONGS anyway. Let me take a look at that right now. dannymusiceditor oops 16:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I might have just defaulted to including awards such as these under criterion 2, as I understood it. Granted, those alone don't necessarily guarantee notability, but I'm pretty confident that enough coverage exists at this point. If I have to build it from a draft like Robert suggested I will accept that compromise, though it's not my first choice. dannymusiceditor oops 16:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A) even if you start a draft, you can ask for the old version to be placed in your draft space (or AFC). B) Could you list the sources you think are enough to meet WP:N? If there are sources that are clearly over the bar, a direct restore is possible. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some to get it started: [1] (considerable coverage in album retrospective) [2] ("crown jewel")[3] (big one) [4] (minor, but reliable and would be used) [5] (commentary by Luna Shadows) [6] (Houston Press coverage of a show with detail toward Jesus Christ) [7] (album is "masterpiece", they paint "Jesus Christ" as the highlight) [8] ("The band — best known for their songs “Jesus Christ” and "The Quiet Things That No One Ever Knows” —") [9] (importance of contrast between this and their earlier work) [10] ("Brand New's most popular single to date, and unsurprisingly helped fuel the "Is Brand New a Christian band" debate"). dannymusiceditor oops 00:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1 -- killyourstereo.com is an unreliable source because in 2016 it was UGC; proof: "KILLYOURSTEREO.COM community, encouraging users to contribute and have their voice heard. With News, Interviews and Reviews and all coming from users, we have worked hard to solidify our name in the Australian music scene."
    2 -- not sigcov
    3 -- mbird.com is clearly a blog, with no evidence of editorial oversight; proof: "Top Blog Posts" -- edit: There is evidence of editorial oversight in 2023, but in 2011, when the article was published, the website only said: "At present, we employ one full-time staff, David Zahl and one part-time, Ethan Richardson. They are helped and supported by a large number of contributing volunteers and writers." (link) which is insufficient for me to conclude that the website had substantial editorial oversight in 2011, and the quality of the article, which is exactly a blog-type personal reflection, is testament to how the website functioned as a blog.
    4, 5, 6, 7, 8 -- obviously not sigcov, didn't look at reliability (edit: Relevant, former magazine, stopped printing, now UGC proof, some or all posts RELEVANT / RELEVANT STAFF, no evidence of editorial oversight ... gonna do a BEFORE on that article)
    9 -- too obviously not a reliable source to look for sigcov not sigcov
    10 -- blog post by Paul Shirley
    Just putting this out there.—Alalch E. 18:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't watch basketball and was unaware that was who had written the article. 9 you are mistaken about. I have worked in the music sector of Wikipedia, particularly "scene" music, for the better part of seven years and know this is perfectly acceptable. If you worked in the content area you would know Alternative Press is a widely used and circulated magazine which was almost synonymous with the emo and pop punk scene. For 1, I can prove the article's author is reliable at least. Morawitz has written for a more prolific publication such as Exclaim!, though note that this reference is not related to the article in question. Plus, from what I can tell, I don't think they're literally letting users actually write the stuff; they're just taking submissions from them and turning them into articles provided any tip given would be legit. The "benefits of being a user" would not leave that important part out were it the case, wouldn't you think? 3, contrary to your evidence, does have editorial oversight as listed here.
    The only other comment I have at this time is how much are you asking for to make an article anyway? Are you saying that I need to completely "finish" an article to a standard it may not be able to reach? I feel like most of Brand New's single material can't reach that apex, but nobody has called any of them into question except their most successful one, which is absolutely ridiculous. dannymusiceditor oops 19:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AP is very much a RS. When this was published it was in print. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, AP is reliable, but it's not significant coverage. —Alalch E. 20:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DannyMusicEditor, I am asking for approximately WP:THREE sources each of which is reliable and has significant coverage. About the song (not band, not album, not someone's cover of the song, etc.). If we don't have that, we don't have to have a standalone article about the song, we can just write about it in the album article. —Alalch E. 20:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if there necessarily is that much material about solely the song, or any of the band's songs for that matter, but I believe so much exists in other contexts and especially in print sources that a genuine article could be created. However, the song is old enough at this point that a lot of the information online is probably dead and what's left is in print, and I am not interested in purchasing any at this time. I know someone who might, though. @MusicforthePeople: dannymusiceditor oops 00:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only things I could dig up were Kevin Devine expressing his admiration for it, Pitchfork giving it a few sentences across separate paragraphs in their review of the accompanying album, and brief mentions from Billboard and Entertainment Weekly. I had thought there would be more coverage given the song and the band's popularity, but it seems I'm mistaken. MusicforthePeople (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Some new information has come to light since the deletion, that is of relevance to the question of whether the article should be recreated, but not quite of such significance that recreation is justified. It's kind of stupid that this may be the most famous song of this band, and it doesn't have an article, while some of their other songs do. I understand the nominator completely. It's also sad and stupid how this song obviously has a persisting legacy but the potential of it getting an article paradoxically diminishes over time (when the song being remembered for an ever longer period of time would indicate that it is increasingly "notable" in a real-world sense) because, as the nominator notes, sources are becoming harder to locate. Ultimately, what I really think matters here: No, we can't write a reasonably good article by cobbling together information from the sources listed here, because they don't provide sufficiently deep coverage of important aspects of the song as a musical work, such that we could consolidate them into something validly encyclopedic. A draft can be tried.—Alalch E. 11:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore a gold certification meets WP:NALBUM point 3. Since this single has presumably sold at least half a million copies in the US I find it hard to believe there isn't significant source coverage available. An AfD from six years ago which did not get much participation shouldn't be a barrier to this. Hut 8.5 07:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (or leaning toward draftify) - The original AFD decision was right then and has still been right. If I were the initiator of this DRV, I would've created a draft page and then submitted it via AFC before initiating this review. Regardless of the song's notability, per WP:NSONGS, I doubt the standalone article would have potential to grow further than it had before deletion, but I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow a draftily. I trust DannyMusicEditor's judgement as a seasoned GA/FA editor in this topic area and I trust that he U1s it if the sources do not appear. I am also willing to work with them, to find sources in Newspapers.com --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the kind words! dannymusiceditor oops 16:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw deletion review, request draftify. After taking a look at what this looked like in the Wayback Machine, there's really nothing worth retaining that I couldn't just write from scratch anyway. I had hoped for better. dannymusiceditor oops 16:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (!voted endorse above) Support draftification. While I endorse the close as a close and don't think that the article should be recreated, I think that it's worth to give this topic a shot by enabling DannyMusicEditor and others to work on the draft by starting from and building upon that which was deleted. —Alalch E. 17:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

← Body of the discussion stays unchanged

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:BoAt Lifestyle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The new sources are added by me and it makes the organisation notable. I have also created the draft, but don't know the rejection reason. Harvard, Mordorintelligence Report & Grandviewresearch Report are notable sources according to me.   Fishandnotchips (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you are appealing the AFD, I vote to endorse as it was already settled at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 8 with overwhelming consensus to endorse the delete closure. If you are appealing the AFC submission being declined, no action is needed. The page in mainspace is not protected against recreation, so any user is free to move it from draft to article, subject to WP:G4 speedy deletion and/or another AFD. My (non-admin) opinion is that the page was modified enough that G4 would not apply, though I would vote to delete or return to draftspace if the current draft version is restored and subsequently sent to AFD. Frank Anchor 18:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the delete closure. I have declined the draft. The draft is about what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what third parties have said about the company. Maybe the sources contain the information that establishes notability, but the text does not. An article should speak for itself and explain to a reader why the subject is notable. The reader should not be expected to view the sources, because the article should be a summary of what the sources say. If the sources report that third parties have provided significant coverage of the company, then the draft can be expanded and resubmitted. (I did not reject the draft. I declined the draft.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't read the old 8th Dec Log, but Frank_Anchor reply seems fair. We can also have AFD to discuss sources in details, but I request you to see the global sources, I added. Robert_McClenon you made me realise that from content itself the draft should look notable, which I was not aware. I made the changes for it. However, every line is been picked from global market reports and not by the company. Also, why do you think that all the global reports about the company are not independent?Fishandnotchips (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. Already endorsed and DRV is not the place to contest a draft rejection. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 March 2023

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Recipients of the Order pro Merito Melitensi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus was in favour of keeping the category, not deleting it (by 6 to 4 votes). In any case, it should not have been closed by a non-admin, per the rule about close calls for non-admin closures. Baronnet (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) -->[reply]

@Baronnet, due to the large backlog at CfD, I close most of the discussions there.

The discussion is not a vote; the keep arguments were weak (e.g. it has a lot of pages), whereas the delete arguments were more policy based (WP:OCAWARD, non-defining). — Qwerfjkltalk 15:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Sorry, nominator, but I'm afraid that any fool can see through this.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse consensus isn't determined purely by vote count, the strength of arguments presented is also very important. Here the arguments for deletion are reasonable and are based in a guidline (WP:OCAWARD / WP:NONDEFINING) while the arguments for keeping are weak. Certainly arguments like the fact it's a real award, it is often confused with other awards, we have categories for recipients of some other awards and that the category exists in other languages don't do anything to refute the arguments for deletion. The only attempt to refute the claim that it's a non-defining award was to say that "it indicates an acknowledged involvement in the works of a centuries-old charitable organization", but that doesn't indicate that it's a defining award at all. And if you're concerned about it being closed by a non-admin, I'm an admin and I think that was the right close. Hut 8.5 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this reply, which is more respectful than the previous one by S. Marshall ("any fool"), and explains the decision more clearly. Then the deletion of all of the following categories, which are no more defining than this one, will have to be considered: Category:Recipients of orders of merit. Baronnet (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Baronnet, feel free to nominate them yourself. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Category:Chevaliers of the Order of Merit (Ukraine) and the 23 others have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Baronnet (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse largely per Hut 8.5. While I generally do not support NACs when the outcome is moderately in doubt, the endorsement of an administrator can validate a questionable NAC in my opinion. In addition, appellant is also not doing themselves any favors by arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a valid argument in deletion discussions, let alone at deletion review. Frank Anchor 18:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether a close was a NAC is virtually always a red herring. What matters is whether the close was right: if it was right, then we should endorse. I'd endorse an IP editor close if it was right. And if it was wrong then we should overturn, irrespective of the closer's status. I'd say "overturn" to anyone, Jimbo Wales, sitting Arbcom members, no matter what, if I thought it was wrong (unless they were basing their decision on private evidence, in which case DRV is the wrong venue anyway). The only time the NAC aspect matters is if a NAC is so blatantly wrong that a sysop's willing to unilaterally overturn it on their own authority: not unheard-of, but it does happen.—S Marshall T/C 22:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not a vote. The delete side had policy based arguments. On the NAC bit, being a NAC is no reason to overturn. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. CfD (like several other XfDs) is much more tolerant of non-admin closures than AfD due to the lack of closing administrators, so I don't think there's a BADNAC issue here (as there might be if this were an AfD). I agree with Hut 8.5 that the closure was correct on the merits. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:OCAWARD is the clear editing guideline. @Qwerfjkl: has kept CFD functional by closing most nominations and I'd favor making them an admin, if they were interested. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Extraordinary Writ. —Alalch E. 19:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 March 2023

[edit]
  • Tom Westman – In this DRV, the community considers two alternatives: "endorse" and "overturn to no consensus". Nobody except the nominator argues for any other outcome and the "endorse" side enjoys considerable numerical superiority. In the circumstances, I as DRV closer could try to choose between "endorse" and "no consensus to overturn"; but as both have the same effect in practice, it doesn't seem needful to make that choice. I can just say that the close stands.—S Marshall T/C 09:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tom Westman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The "kept" closure was based on majority votes, assumption that !Keep votes weigh more than others, and assumption that BLP1E arguments were debunked by (supposed) evidence of sustained coverage. However, I still have issues with the closure, and even one of !keep voters cited WP:BADNAC for concerns about it. The !keep votes before the first relisting were very poor quality, according to Sandstein.

I discussed this with the closer (diff). The closer found Sportsfan 1234's "keep" argument, which occurred before the second relisting, convincing. I still have a few issues with Sportsfan's argument, which I analyzed in AFD, yet another editor who voted !keep praised it.

Of course, more !keep votes came in after the second relisting, but the "kept" closure still irks me. The closer doubted that any other admin would come to a different conclusion in their close, but... Well, if there's no consensus to delete or redirect, then at least "no consensus" would have been for me a more viable conclusion. --George Ho (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please see the discussion at User talk:4meter4#Tom Westman and the AFD close language itself for an accurate picture of my opinions in the relation to the close. I did not base the close on a majority vote (although keep was the majority opinion by numbers), but on what I perceived was the strongest argument under policy. I further believe that the close was an accurate reflection of community consensus, and that there was a clear shift away from support of the BLP1E argument after the evidence by sportsfan was presented. While I believe the close to be accurate and fair, I have no objection to a re-opening of this AFD by an admin under a WP:BADNAC rationale. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or endorse (which are the same result for practical purposes). While I disagree with non-admins closing AFD's which were previously relisted as there is some doubt to the outcome, I feel the closer pretty much got this one right. I feel that either keep or no consensus were within the discretion of the closer, though I would have opted for the latter as there were solid, policy-based arguments for both keep and delete/ATD votes. Frank Anchor 19:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I said on 4meter4's talk page, I think this DRV could have been avoided, since a reading of the discussion suggested clear controversy and a likely DRV if closed by a non-admin. However, I think the reading of the consensus was correct. Suriname0 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The delete !votes are quite convincing, and I do not think there is consensus either way. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There were two basic arguments for deletion: WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. The GNG arguments need to make clear why the sources in the article don't meet the GNG. I didn't see anyone do that. BLP1E requires that the person be a low-profile individual. I didn't see a case made for that (though there a keep voter that had a fine argument that WP:LPI doesn't apply). The numbers (10 to 4?) and strength of argument send us into keep IMO. I honestly think I'd have !voted to overturn a NC outcome, something I rarely do. I just don't see any policy/guideline arguments that can justify deletion. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The majority of participants made arguments to keep, and a minority of participants made arguments to delete. Of course, the quality of the arguments is more important than the volume of them. Some keep participants pointed to WP:GNG, although they did not tend to cite specific examples. I'll call that acceptable, but not great. Others argued that winning one and taking part in one winning two very notable television-based competitions prove notability. That sounds a bit like WP:ANYBIO but people didn't tend to link to that, so I'll call that an ANYBIO-implied or an WP:IAR type argument, the later being perfectly permissible, we're not a bureaucracy, IAR is a pillar of the project. In summary, the keep !votes were reasonable, but not the best. The delete participants mostly pointed to WP:BLP1E to justify deleting, but that was convincingly refuted by User:Randy_Kryn who argued that criterion 2 of BLP1E was not met (all three need to be met, for BLP1E to apply). Nobody refuted that, although an explanatory essay was rejected, that points made in the essay that were cited by RK were appropriate. I therefore consider the delete !votes to be refuted and weaker than the keep !votes. In the context of the person winning two one and taking part in another television show, arguments that they are notable for "one event", are not convincing. Being notable for one theme of events is not synonymous with being notable for one event. CT55555(talk) 01:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
winning two very notable television-based competitions: Westman won just Palau; he didn't win HvV. To what second win were you referring? I've not yet seen him win another season unless I missed something. Maybe you were referring to his HvV appearance? George Ho (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. You are correct and I am mistaken. I misread a !keep vote that said he won one and took part in another. I will now strike out the inaccurate parts of my analysis and once I've done that, I'll make an update if it changes my conclusions. CT55555(talk) 01:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what was meant was that by playing the second season six years after winning his first season, a second season in which he survived well into the game after making some interesting moves, was a second notable event which the subject purposely took part in knowing that publicity would follow. CT55555, thank you for your kind words above. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know the AFD discussion was closed, but I have to say something. as I saw forth, all Tom did in Survivor: HvV were using a Hidden Immunity Idol (to have Cirie ousted), confront James over his aggression toward Stephenie (who was also in Palau), making alliance with a few others... until his elimination from the Heroes tribe before James. Being in the Heroes tribe, which earlier often lost to the Villains tribe, didn't help matters either. In summary, I doubt his HvV gameplay, including his "interesting moves", surpassed his Palau gameplay and win. IMO I thought Tom was all over the place in HvV and made (almost) no impact to how the season went overall. George Ho (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and his HvV gameplay can be mostly already illustrated in the HvV article. George Ho (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main thing is he agreed to play six years after his previous appearance, knowing that it would bring him more promotion. So BLP1E didn't apply and the close was correct. Let's not reargue the nomination again. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment without opining on this close itself... should a relisted close--indicating no clear consensus was achieved within the first week--perhaps be a red flag that a NAC should generally be avoided? Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, unless the relist was due to low activity. Suriname0 (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed as delete, and changing keep to no consensus is process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nominator is just wasting people's time now and its getting ridiculous. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing statement seems a reasonable interpretation of consensus and policy. DRV is not a place to argue the case on its merits, and there's nothing out of process with the way the discussion was closed. Also, per Stifle, it doesn't really matter whether it was closed "no consensus" or "consensus to keep". Since the end result is the same, such a change is beyond pointless. Perhaps that's the most cogent point here. --Jayron32 16:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse – There are three problems with this AFD and its close, none of which call for overturning it.
      • As noted by other editors, this was not a good AFD for a non-admin close, but that is only a reminder to the closer, because that is in itself not a reason to do anything different.
      • No Consensus would have been an even better close, but there is no material difference.
      • So this is a Weak Endorse rather than an Endorse.
      • The nominator was bludgeoning the AFD. It is all too common for an editor who bludgeons an AFD unsuccessfully then to take it to DRV, although it is even more often an author whose article is deleted rather than the nominator of an article that is kept. I think that at this point the appellant may be trying to use an electric cattle prod on a dead horse.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak endorse (although on the fence to Overturn to no consensus) largely per Frank Anchor above. Irrespective of the numerical keep advantage, some of which as Sandstein pointed out, were not overly compelling, it seemed to me that it wasn't necessarily a clear outright keep outcome. It doesn't matter if NC or keep amount to the same outcome, given NC better affords the opportunity for a further discussion down the line. I can't see a viable scenario to delete though, so it may be that an NC overturn would be more WP:POINTy than practical. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, what delete arguments did you feel guideline/policy based? Hobit (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion seemed mostly around whether WP:1E is applicable and the initial keeps at least seemed to poorly advocate retaining on the basis of this event alone, or at least coverage that depended on that event. It isn't so much about what "delete" arguments were offered, but any that didn't advocate outright keeping. That said, the nature of the show itself seems to suggest, based on precedent, that show winners typically become sufficiently notable and so while I thought the non-keeps were not unreasonable, I think on balance keeping the article is probably the right call from judging consensus (I maybe in my last response should have said I didn't think it's a clear convincing keep, but that's irrelevant). I don't see any issue around WP:BADNAC either as there never seemed to be a viable scenario where deletion would be considered. If the best alternate outcome, even conceded by the nominator themself, was for NC, then I wouldn't usually think that warrants a DRV. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I guess I generally am of the opinion that at an AfD the delete side makes the case for deletion and the keep side tries to address those issues. Since the arguments for deletion were WP:BLP1E (which doesn't seem to apply per WP:LNI), WP:ENT (with no argument as to how that guideline isn't met) and a few other things (e.g. WP:NOTPLOT) that don't clearly apply and where there was no explanation of how they did apply, I don't feel the delete side ever made a valid argument for deletion. As such, I just don't feel like we have any option but keep. Sounds like we more-or-less got to the same point. Thanks again for the response. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Subhodhayam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reason: Disagreeing with both the outcome of closing process and timing for closing. Wishing the discussion properly relisted or the outcome changed.

Outcome. The closing admin. states that there is consensus on the quality of sources. There is none. Two users (one being the nominator) find the sources lack in-depth analysis (notwithstanding their quality, good or bad). Even if sourcing had been the issue, I participated myself, arguing the page should be kept as important film in the career of an important filmmaker (which the sources, in-depth coverage or not) prove. 3 users seem to agree on that. Also, how can 4 Keep (by 4 different users) versus one redirect (and even assuming the nom. would think (1?) delete is the best, which is not explicit) give a redirect decision? 'No case made not to redirect', says the closing admin. I don't understand by whom. I suppose 4 keep mean 4 no redirect or do we have to state smth like 'Keep (and no redirect)' from now on? That would sound absurd to me.

Timing: On March 21 one user insisted : "AFD discussions last at least one week so this discussion won't be closed for a few more days (if it's not relisted for another week). Have patience and please do not bludgeon this discussion. I think you have made enough comments" (!) And the page was indeed relisted on March 25. How can it be closed only a day later without any comments at all having been added to the page in the meanwhile? — MY, OH, MY! 12:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer comment: you could have discussed this with me before bringing it here. A numerical count of keeps (or sources) is not helpful as they were frequently repeats, and were not policy based a they were simply listing of links without addressing the quality, which several users rebutted. To clarify, by no reason not redirect I meant that was a valid option in lieu of deletion. So I stand by my close. Note, I'll be offline much of today so may not be able to come back to this until this evening or tomorrow. Star Mississippi 12:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, and thank you for your clarification. Numerical count of (sources and/or) Keeps is really not the core of my comments, though. Neither is the quality of sources. I'm sorry if there was any other venue better than this one to address the problem. But as you do seem to stand by your close, we certainly would have had to come here anyway. Thank you all the same, and have a good day. — MY, OH, MY! 13:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if someone feels this needs a relist, I'd advocate some limits as some of the bludgeoning that was advised against in the AfD is happening here too and that is not conducive to consensus. Star Mississippi 01:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The keep side was unable to show that the sources they brought up consist of in-depth coverage. When countered in this way, the keeps were unable to rebut the counterargument, and just kept listing more and more sources, which were obviously not getting better and better, as the total pool of subpar sources was gradually being exhausted. Citing WP:NFIC toward the end was an interesting argument, but no evidence was offered as to how mentioning the film would clutter up the biography page of the director if it was mentioned. Lack of in-depth coverage usually means that not that much can be written about a topic. Consequently, when the closer downweighed the numerically stronger keep side's votes and found a rough consensus to redirect, as emanating from a rough consensus to delete, they applied an okay interpretation of consensus. —Alalch E. 14:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Do you really think moving the whole content of the page will not clutter up the biography of the director and not lead to other users removing content, with tags such as UNDUEWEIGHT etc.? I really don't. Also, what about closing one day after a relist? Was that OK? — MY, OH, MY! 15:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse:
      • There are two questions that are within the scope of this Deletion Review, and one that is outside its scope.
      • The first procedural question is whether the closer was correct in closing this discussion eight days after the nomination, and one day after a relist. What the closer did was to ignore the relist and close the discussion after eight days. The closer did not state why they ignored the list. For that reason, I think that we should Weakly Endorse the ignoring of the relist. The probable reason to ignore the relist was that it could be inferred that further discussion was both not necssary and unproductive, due to multiple voting and bludgeoning. It would have been better if the closer had explained this, but this can be inferred.
      • The second substantive question is whether the close was a reasonable assessment of consensus. It was. The substantive close can be Endorsed.
      • The question that we do not need to consider is to relitigate any issues about the significance of sources. This is not another round of AFD.
      • So that is a Weak Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.
    A) Your assessment ot the consensus seems to bypass the issue mentioned above. Will the redirect (and moving of material) not clutter up the page about the director?
    B) You say you assume the probable reason for completely ignoring the relisting is that "it could be inferred that further discussion was both not necessary and unproductive, due to multiple voting". That is inferring a whole lot. 1) One and only one user (who seemed to have been unaware he did not have to repeat that he had commented the page as Keep) did what you call multiple voting. But as I recall above, he was 'kindly' reminded that he could not and at the same time, that more time would be given. So he more or less stopped commenting but time for other users to express their view was not given. That is plainly not right. 2) I don't understand how you can know for sure from that that further discussion would have been unnecessary, as no consensus at all had been reached. It was and is still necessary. Your imagination can make you think otherwise but that does not prove anything. Anyway, even if the reason that you infer is the one the closing admin had in mind, that does not make it right to close discussion when various options are still on the table. — MY, OH, MY! 18:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - clearly the consensus was based on policy, rather than the bludgeoning tactics of an editor, who voted multiple times, despite being told not to. And btw, is now creating the article again, despite the AfD.Onel5969 TT me 14:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Policy-based arguments naturally carry more weight. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer's rationale was clearly correct. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possibly worth noting that several editors were WP:CANVASSED to place keep !votes, here, here, here and here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closer's rational seems reasonable. It should be noted that redirection is not deletion, it does not remove the article history from public view, and can technically be done via normal editing, so long as the concerns noted in the AFD are fixed. I would strongly advise that Fostera12 is not the person to undo the redirect, largely because it is clear they have no idea what constitutes a reliable source. That's irrelevant, however. Redirecting was a reasonable result of the discussion, and DRV is not supposed to be a rehash of the AFD. As a final bit of advise, if someone were to want to restore this from a redirect, creating it as a userspace draft and getting it through an independent review by experienced Wikipedia editors seems reasonable. That's got the heavy caveat that the film does not appear to be independently notable at this time, but who knows? --Jayron32 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Alalch and WP:TROUT My Oh My for failing to discuss with Star Mississippi first and for ignoring the obviously-inappropriate canvassing identified by Catfish Jim above. signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above, and I would like to note that I have major concerns regarding the ongoing disruption (canvassing, ignoring the deletion outcome) by My Oh My. Would suggest that this be examined at the appropriate venue. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 March 2023

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

1) Article deleted by User:Liz on the following grounds: "(G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Cianzera) in violation of ban or block, many different sockpuppets have been at work here.)" [11] User:Liz seems too busy to respond on her Talkpage... I don't blame her, she seems quite active with clean-up tasks. Technically, I believe WP:CSD#G5 does not apply here: AFAIK, the page was created before the user was banned ("To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." per WP:CSD#G5), and I for sure, and possibly a few other users, did contribute significantly (images, maps etc...) ("...and articles that have no substantial edits by others" per WP:CSD#G5).
2) In terms of article content, I think the rather rich Kyrgyz Khanate article about the independent Kyrgyz polity in the 16th-17th century (circa 1510-1680) was probably quite legit (some random sources: [12][13][14][15][16][17]), although it was indeed a bit inflated and mainly serviced by a recurring sockpuppet/IP from... Kyrgystan, but I had started to contribute to it recently as part of an overhaul of articles related to the History of Central Asia. It's a bit sad to see a rather important part of Central Asian history vanish, just because of sockpuppet stuff... I suggest that we should reinstate the page, and protect the article from the recurring single-purpose "newcomer" that has been active on it, because indeed sockpupettry cannot go on like this. Protecting the article should be enough, and it will allow other users, such as myself, to improve the page. The sockpuppet seems to be rather enthusiastic and well-intentioned [18], but at a loss with Wikipedia rules, so I suggest him to follow a proper un-ban request, and try to get a second chance on Wikipedia after the required, sad but necessary, 6-months probation period. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Courtesy heads up to @Blaze_Wolf who was also discussing this on Liz's page.
Star Mississippi 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already aware of this since i provided a bit further reasoning as to why I nominated the article for G5 in the first place on पाटलिपुत्र's talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I missed that. Star Mississippi 17:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll admit that this was a judgment call that took some time to decide and others might disagree with my decision to delete this article. Typically, CSD G5s are much simpler than this one and involve the page creation by one sockpuppet who is the primary or sole contributor to the page but this article was the work of the combined efforts by a number of sockpuppets. This article deletion was not a statement about the value of an article on this subject. It's just that the vast, vast majority of edits to the page were done by a variety of sockpuppets including User:Aykol Manas, User:Shoqan Ualikhan, User:Ardash Moghul, User:Th3Shoudy, User:Lauriswift911 and User:Foggy kub. Admins can look at the deleted contributions and judge how many were done by sockpuppets of User:Cianzera and User:Th3Shoudy (who is a suspected sockpuppet of Cianzera as well). If those examining this deletion review don't believe it met the threshold for a CSD G5 deletion, I accept that but in my judgement, it was almost entirely written by sockpuppets. I also protected the page because it is such a sockpuppet magnet for this sockmaster but that page protection can be lifted or reduced if reviewing editors believe that it is inappropriate. But should you look into the case of Cianzera and their identified sockpuppets, you'll see that concerns go beyond this article to their general behavior on their project, particularly attacking specific ethnicities that they have issues with and I thought it best to discourage all of their activity on this project because they were such disruptive editors. Liz Read! Talk! 17:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I was the user who applied the G5 to the page I feel I should provide a bit more explanation as I was unable to do so with G5. I don't remember how I came across this article originally, however after the most recent sock contributor to the article was blocked, I attempted to find the revision to revert back to before the sockpuppetry per WP:BANREVERT. However upon going through the edit history I discovered that the article had basically exclusively been edited by socks. So I checked the article creator and sure enough they were also a sock. I brought it up on Discord and was basically told "If you think a tag is warranted then add it." (the discussion consisted of a bit more but that was the general idea). So I added the G5 tag to the article so an admin would decide if a G5 was warranted. Due to the extensive socking on the article I feel that this wasn't solely a G5 but also a WP:TNT as there was no good revision to go back to since the article history consisted solely of sock edits (with the occasional non-sock edit in between). I would like to note that I suggest him to follow a proper un-ban request, and try to get a second chance on Wikipedia after the required, sad but necessary, 6-months probation period is not possible outside of VTRS since the user is globally locked meaning they are unable to log into their account. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for a start the edit history is astounding: the deleted article was 68kb in size and had 300+ edits in the history, and almost all of it was written by sockpuppets. There were an enormous number of sockpuppets used, and the sockmaster switched between them at random intervals, and once used a sockpuppet to revert an edit made by another sockpuppet. The OP is correct that this isn't technically a valid G5 because the author wasn't blocked or banned when the page was created, the article was created on 6 November 2022 and it doesn't look like the socks were identified until February 2023. However there are several suggestions at the SPI that this user has a track record of hoaxes, and I'm willing to overlook this technicality. The OP made 7 edits to the page, the most significant of which added an image and a 7 word caption. The rest were more minor and involved formatting images, removing an image, adding a Chinese translation and adding a citation, and I don't think they are enough to qualify as significant edits under G5. There were some edits from other non-sock editors, but again they look minor and the very new editors who made them may also be sockpuppets. Hut 8.5 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Hut 8.5. WP:BMB. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This appears to be a situation where a non-admin should rely on the judgment of admins who can cross the yellow tape to inspect the crime scene. I am distrustful of the work of users who were "not yet blocked" and about to be blocked for sockpuppetry, so I would probably endorse if I knew the details. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: I agree that only those with access to the page history can formulate a meaningful opinion and others are largely trusting those opinions. What I know about Liz though is that she is usually a stickler for doing things "by the book" (I mean that respectfully), so if she thought that a technical exception could be made on this occasion, i'd be willing to believe that as being the most appropriate decision. However, like you I can't really express an endorse on witness testimony alone, but feel on balance that's probably the right call. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Stone Bench Creations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article is being redeveloped here, so perhaps I could retrieve the sources if the article is temporarily restored. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for source access. Star Mississippi 13:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 March 2023

[edit]

25 March 2023

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

This article was deleted on March 18 per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcos Caballero. (I'm not contesting the AfD closure.) User:Frank Anchor recreated it on March 20 as a redirect to Sportivo Ameliano (the club Caballero played for), and GiantSnowman, who had !voted delete in the AfD, deleted the redirect without discussion a couple hours later. No reason was provided, but he explained here that he meant to cite WP:G6. Now, it may be that this wasn't an appropriate redirect, but I have a really hard time seeing how it could be "uncontroversial maintenance" to delete something that was created intentionally and for a good-faith reason—especially not when the deleting admin had taken a position in the AfD. This should be overturned, I think, with the understanding that anyone can send the redirect to RfD if they really think it's objectionable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 March 2023

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

This non-admin closing AfD needs more inputs from experienced AfD regulars to get a clear consensus as the page references are interviews and primary sources. Additionally, the topic has only few name drops in reliable sources with other bands or songs that have no significance and no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak endorse while a relist may have been appropriate due to the low turnout, there was unanimous support to keep (outside of the nominator) and the appelant appears to be relitigating the AFD, which is not permitted. Probably not the best time for a WP:NAC, but the result is the correct interpretation of consensus. Frank Anchor 15:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modified based on Hut 8.5's comments. My biggest concern was this being a NAC, however I have always considered endorsement by an administrator to validate questionable NACs. Frank Anchor 13:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure, but I don't like it - on the one hand there appeared to be a numerical advantage on the !keep side. On the other, a NAC with less (I think) than 7 days of discussion and with little time to examine the offered sources seem unnecessarily rushed. Tough to conclude that the debate had really run its course.
JMWt (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion was open for 7 days and 11 minutes and several sources were presented within the first day, so there was ample time to discuss, though nobody (including the nominator) chose to. Frank Anchor 16:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to reply to that without relitigating the AfD JMWt (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. Weak because there was low turn out, and two editors disagreeing with the nominator. I think community support for non admin closures exists in very narrow circumstances, and not in difficult cases, this is borderline. I think giving it another week would be more common and I think preferable. Endorse because nobody refuted the two arguments to keep, both provided sources, and presented a credible arguments, linked to policy, closure has participated in 100+ AFDs and is approximately aligned with consensus in their votes, which isn't a huge amount, but I'd not endorse if it was fewer.
CT55555(talk) 17:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Um, why are we even suggesting that an AfD open for seven days with no non-keep input is a) not a clear keep, or b) controversial enough that a NAC is not appropriate? Sources were presented and endorsed, not refuted or challenged even by the nom. Not asking for a nom to badger other AfD participants, but when no one else has contested sourcing, there's simply no justification to NOT keep. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't see any particular problem here: the AfD was open for seven days, it had enough participation for a close, nobody apart from the nominator supported deletion and there wasn't any attempt to rebut the sources presented. The OP should have responded to the Keep comments in the AfD and it generally isn't the closer's job to judge the sources. I guess we could relist it but don't take that as an indication the closer did anything wrong. Hut 8.5 08:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly a good NAC. —Alalch E. 09:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just thought I should make a brief comment as the closer. I generally set myself a very high bar on the uncontroversial requirement for my NACs, so I'm sorry if anyone thought this close was controversial. To explain my reasoning, I saw unanimous keep !votes (barring nom), a number of sources presented early in the discussion with a plausible GNG/NEXIST argument made, and no challenges made to the sources presented for the remainder of the discussion. Conesus appeared to favour keep, although I accept that a relist would have also been valid outcome. I should also say that I am now due to be away until Wednesday but I'll support whatever consensus is reached here. WJ94 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A valid non-admin close, and a valid conclusion from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Only correct reading of an unambiguous consensus to keep. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 18:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close accurately summarized community consensus. Keep was the only possible outcome based on community input.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 March 2023

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

During the AfD, an IPv6 user claimed to have added new content to the article using newspaper sources. No discussion was carried out about the sources allegedly found by this IP, and therefore the closure as delete was premature. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP made no claim that the sources established notability for the article, and the consensus (to me) before this comment seemed clearly that there was not notability to be found. There is a difference between verifiability (which the IP's additions may have addressed) and notability (which the IP's comments didn't speak to). Eddie891 Talk Work 17:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We will still need an admin to list the sources used by the IP, if you can find the edit(s) they made to the article, in order to review their found sources ourselves. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources added by the IP were all to the episode list. While I haven't seen the most of the actual sources cited (they're offline), the references were largely to the TV sections of either the Nottingham Evening Post or the Huddersfield Daily Examiner on the day the episode was broadcast, and I strongly suspect they just confirm that the episode was indeed broadcast on that date and don't provide significant coverage. For example "Dad's Tomatoes - First broadcast: 11/5/1998" was referenced to "Television and radio, Nottingham Evening Post, 11 May 1998 (pg.26)". The other sources were to a database which lists the collections of the British Film Institute, e.g. [19], which again isn't going to help meet the notability guidelines. I don't see much reason to revisit this. Hut 8.5 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • for me at least this is in the google cache [20] and gi ven the references seem to be tv pages on each and every episode, I doubt it proves much beyond existence. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer correctly found a consensus to delete. No argument to keep was made. Talking about a list of episodes, sourced or unsourced, is too dissimilar from a statement that the topic is notable, in order for it to be understood as an argument to keep that went unaddressed by the preceding participants. —Alalch E. 13:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - It was valid to close the deletion discussion, and Delete was the only valid conclusion at close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation in draft to expand on the sources added by the unregistered editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 March 2023

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

Referenced in reliable source for the podcast itself. The podcast has now been referenced in reliable sources, e.g. the podcast review from The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revisionist-history-malcolm-gladwell-podcast-review-malcolm-gladwell-cvcbmmp3g

I believe now there is a case for a Wikipedia page for the podcast. Jschanna7 (talk)

  • @Tone: you were the closing admin on this. Would it be alright with you if I move this to draft so that Jschanna7 can work on it, and I'll replace the redirect? I don't think there needs to be a full discussion here for a nearly three-year-old deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the close, but it does not seem to be an appeal of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft, or Recreation subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unanimous consensus not to keep. Allow recreation, preferably via the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 15:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow un-redirection with appropriate sourcing improvement expected, with any editor free to re-AfD it if sourcing remains contested. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and disallow restoration—follow WP:SPLIT. No significant new information has come to light since the redirection that would justify restoring the redirected page. Notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. It is simply too obvious that this should not be a separate page per WP:PAGEDECIDE and no single new source can change that; this was the general mood in the AfD. The content already overlaps with content in the target article. Instead, more content can be merged from history and/or new content about the podcast can be added to the target article, and a split can be proposed if and when that ever seems appropriate (if the passages about the podcast become so long as to be out of proportion to the rest of the article about the podcast creator). I don't favor moving to draft because the process around drafts can't do anything here. —Alalch E. 09:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears to be co-hosted, I'm not clear how having the information at one of the co-host's page is obviously the best outcome if the podcast is notable. And a single source can be enough to move something over the notability bar. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other host doesn't have an article and is a less prominent individual. The page is already redirected to Kisin and is de facto merged in the sense that content overlaps. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we're not supposed to have article X with sections/passages A, B and C and article Y that is essentially the same as B (same in level of detail), since that is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK; this is WP:DEL-REASON#5. This is reflected sufficiently in the AfD, and not just my original reasoning/relitigation. —Alalch E. 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation with no prejudice to a new AfD. No one has argued the source isn't significant nor that WP:N isn't now met. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paragon Cause (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I wanted to bring up restoring this page. After reviewing this and notability, I am perplexed why this page has been deleted and continue to be deleted. The notes from Reviewers seem to only highlight the negatives in terms of ref and not the positive. I reviewed original authors notes and agree. I still wonder if this is an example of the lack of female representation in wikipedia and why editors only focus on negatives and not the positives.

As for notability, here are points in response to wikipedia's own guidelines

1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. The band has appeared in a number of non-trival articles including National Magazine exclaim! Magazine [1], CBC Music[2] Rogers TV[3] and Salt Water News among many others, [4]

2. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). The band released 4 albums and these albums were all produced by The Raveonettes Sune Rose Wagner and songs include performances by liam howe of the Sneaker Pimpsan Eric Avery of Jane's Addiction, all internationally known artists.

3. Has won or been nominated for a major music award The artists have won two ECMA

4.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. The artits are on rotation for Stingray Music, CBC Music, Corus Radio have appeared in top 50 National Charts in both the USA and Canada to name a few

Previous notes from editors also reference misleading information as well as information that can bias future reviewers such as saying a 'band member' wrote the prior article and thus warn of caution. This creates considerable bias for any other editor reviewing.

Its very easy to review many other artists articles who are male fronted bands that have far less notability and are on wikipedia. Examples include Slowcoaster[[21]] are two examples.

Jbonapar (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ LaPierre, Megan. Exclaim! https://exclaim.ca/music/article/paragon_cause_reminisce_on_the_early_2000s_halifax_music_scene_in_8bit_on_two_to_play. Retrieved 22 March 2023. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Carter, Adam. CBC https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/new-ontario-songs-1.5010329. Retrieved 22 March 2023. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ "Rogers". Retrieved 22 March 2023.
  4. ^ Salt Water News https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/lifestyles/hillsburn-zamani-toney-multiple-winners-at-2022-east-coast-music-awards-100730290/. Retrieved 22 March 2023. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Asian African Association for Plasma Training (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

<Wish to i) understand when and why page was deleted so as to improve it, so this is a request to undelete it to save to draftspace or userspace. Unable to notify admin who deleted it as identity unknown. Johncdraper (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 March 2023

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

Dear fellow wikipedia users. The following article was delated earlier in October 2022. In comparison to the previously delated article a number of changes were implemented. This includes reliable sources as well as neutral language which cannot be considered as ‘promotional’. In fact the text which was published today does not share any similarities with the previous one. However, after publishing it was tagged for speedy deletion without any possibility to contest this decision.

It is also hard to agree that the person fails WP:NPROF as he is in fact one of the most popular psychologists in Poland who has appeared many times in mass media and has published over 27 books. He has also received a well-known and significant award or honor, i.e. he was awarded the Bronze Cross of Merit by the Polish President. ([22])

Overall, bearing in mind the above-mentioned argumentation, I kindly ask you to reconsider the decision for speedy deletion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrix1917 (talk • contribs)

You would probably do better to talk to the deleting admin at User talk:Hadal first. I have provided a note there that this discussion is taking place. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger and Matrix1917: Thanks for the head's up Phil! Re: Mateusz Grzesiak, I deleted it because from my perspective it did meet the CSD criteria for WP:G4. Same subject, same general claim to notability, same general content. Per the G4 policy, it would have been better to create this 'new' version as a draft for review before publishing it in the main namespace. Now that it's deleted, perhaps this is better handled at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
I don't claim to have any special knowledge of Polish culture; yet, I will point out that this individual does not appear to have an entry on the Polish Wikipedia and he is not listed, even as an unlinked mention, at pl:Grzesiak. When looking at this instance together with the previous AfD discussion, it is also interesting that the proponents of the article have very few major edits outside of this specific BLP topic.
As a constructive suggestion, if you plan to request undeletion, that you bring this to the attention of editors who can offer an informed opinion: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland as a place to start. --Hadal (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original close if this is an appeal of the original close, but it does not appear to be an appeal of the original close. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Opinion as to whether the G4 was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the way G4 is written, it's for pages that are basically identical to the deleted version. This wasn't identical but is similar enough to be an edge case, however one of the edits to the recreated page literally has "repost" as an edit summary, revealing the editor's intent. I endorse this as an WP:IAR G4 - we're not a bureaucracy, articles which are obviously unsuitable should be removed, regardless of what the written rules say. An alternative could have been to draftify but I can't fault the deleting admin's choice. As for the earlier deletion discussion, it's clearly a consensus to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Admin's description of deleted content is very clear that it fails the It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version clause of G4. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    G4 doesn't require the restored page to be byte-for-byte identical, only substantially similar without having addressed the reason for deletion. The exact wording of the criterion is not intended to be used to end-run a deletion discussion to repost a deleted-by-consensus article with only trivial changes; that would be both wikilawyering and gaming the system. Undeleting an article just to have a new deletion discussion where the same result can be expected is just a waste of everyone's time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the word 'similar' does not appear in G4; the operative phrase is sufficiently identical. The restored content demonstrates that G4 did not apply, based on this comparison. The wording is different, the claims are different, and different sources are cited for similar claims--e.g. the National Education commission medal. While what you state about "trivial changes" is clearly true, it does not appear to be applicable to this case. Regardless of whether the revised article should prove unworthy, a second AfD is in order, and can provide much better opinions on whether an editor is recycling content with trivial changes--disruptive editing--than can a single administrator processing a speedy deletion request. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy. If editors in good faith disagree about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies then it does not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suppose I can't endorse my own deletion, but I wanted to point out that the article title was salted for a reason. Per the AfD discussion there have been repeated efforts to introduce this BLP at the Polish Wikipedia with similarly negative results. Despite the language of CSD:G4, the actual information in the article and the claim to notability were the same. Given this context, I strongly suggest that any restoration of the article content be done in the Draft namespace. --Hadal (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note: I have undeleted the version most recently deleted, as well as the last revision of the version deleted at AFD, so that everyone can review and comment on whether or not this was valid as a WP:G4 deletion. Please check the page history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not sufficiently identical. G4 serves to save time by avoiding superfluous consecutive AfDs, but applying G4 to insufficiently identical articles, despite a very high likelihood that a new AfD would have the same outcome (—apart from not being what WP:CSD says—) doesn't reliably produce efficiency because there's a probability that the deletion will be challenged, which then may need to be discussed at DRV, such as in the present case; this is not very expedient. Drafts have nothing to with this because drafting can't make an already provenly non-notable topic notable. What should have been done instead of G4 is AfD, and what should be done now is still AfD. —Alalch E. 11:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Recreation was clearly an attempt to make an end-run around the consensus at the AFD. Doesn't technically meet the letter of G4, but clearly meets the spirit. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please illuminate how you reached this conclusion with respect to editor intent? Is there some other evidence that should be presented here? Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text of the two versions is different in detail but very similar in their broad direction and their style. Both versions contain quite distinctive, and very exhaustive, tables of Mr Grzesiak's various publications, and I would tend to see both versions as more reminiscent of a CV than a biography. I'm unable to endorse the G4, but I also wouldn't say we should restore either version to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G4 deletion, the new version is substantially identical to the old one in that it does not appear to address the reasons for which Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mateusz Grzesiak resulted in deletion. Pinging Piotrus as the AfD nominator who might be able to provide a more nuanced opinion. Sandstein 05:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing by comment since I was pinged: I probably don't have much to add to what I said. Bronze Cross of Merit is, I think, not considered suffcient for BLP on pl wiki (if it was, then the biography wouldn't have been deleted from pl wiki, either). Interestingly, publishing 27 books is a type of an argument that usually sways people on pl wiki in favor of keeping an article. The odds are this one is suffering from too much blatant attempts to use Wikipedia to promote the subject, which causes a form of deletion-boomerang allegergic response... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G4 deletion. The new version is not meaningfully different than the older version. No objection to the nominator working on this topic further in draft space provided it goes through an WP:AFC review before being moved to main space.4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how "meaningfully different" as a criterion aligns with the wording of G4? Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, send to AFD if someone wants to. The article is sufficiently different from the previous version to merit independent discussion, with a range of plausibly different notability claims, additional/different sources, and some of the hype removed (I recognize the argument that G4 does not require word-for-word identical, or merely cosmetic changes, but I also think G4 was intended to cover situations where unambiguously the content is essentially the same, not where content isn't the same but people merely see the same issue, like promotion). I am unable to judge if the Bronze Cross is a reasonable new claim of notability, whether editing is enough to change the still overly promotional/CV-like tone, but I see enough has changed from the version deleted at the last AFD that I am not comfortable relying on G4 to nuke this new version. That said, I think if this does go to AFD, there will be sufficient prejudice against it in its current state, given the history, that I'd strongly advise editors seeking to keep it to bend over backwards to make it neutral and not promotional, to not ref-bomb but emphasize the independent in-depth sources they feel establish notability. Martinp (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't the editor effort expended here have been better spent after speedy deletion had been contested by established editors in another, decisive, AfD discussion, at which, if I had decided to take part, I would probably have plumped for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Neutral filing on behalf of @Parzival1780: who raised it at my Talk. See extended discussion at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Why_was_the_list_of_emergency_workers_killed_on_9/11_deleted? While I believe my close was correct, happy to have this discussed and support their query. Star Mississippi 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC) -->[reply]

Still so bad at templates. AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks Star Mississippi 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to no consensus, a very close call which, in terms of keeping a page, should be enough for a no consensus. Many editors gave good reasoning for keeping the popular page (pointed out to have 12,000 views a month) and in situations like this a no consensus close would be as common as a delete, this one just happened to fall on the delete side by the comments of one or two additional editors giving opinions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - a tough call, and I think you could have explained better ("you see where the deletes edge out" isn't really an explanation - why do they edge out?), but I find myself agreeing with the conclusion. The core arguments to delete were WP:NOTMEMORIAL (a longstanding Wikipedia policy), and that the list constituted a grouping of inherently non-notable individuals. The keep counterargument was that WP:NOTEWORTHY, part of the main guideline on notability, exempts members of lists based on a notable group from being required to meet notability standards individually: since the notability of the group is established, the notability of the members of the list was not a reason for deletion. It can be seen from the last few days of discussion that new comments continued to back up the nominator's rationale despite this keep argument, which suggests that editors did not consider it convincing. There were no new "keep" !votes after 19 February (except one that was plainly an appeal to emotion and an argument to avoid), though the discussion was open for another 17 days afterwards and relisted once in that time. This is a rather clear consensus to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC CT55555's takedown of NOTMEMORIAL was never adequately addressed, giving policy-based edge to the Keeps. Keep would have been a reasonable close, but NC is adequate. WP:VAGUEWAVEs must yield to specific rebuttals of what the policy, guideline, or essay, actually says every time. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm tempted to say overturn, but I'm involved and think this review would be better lead by people less involved. But I do agree with Jclemens that my (I think, I hope) careful explanation of why NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply was not addressed. CT55555(talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closer, here's one more comment from Parzival1780 which ended up in the wrong spot. Want their input to be included so flagging. While I'm aware that Article was useful, did not need to be deleted is not a reason for DRV, I encourage new user leniency as the discussion on my Talk indicates. Star Mississippi 17:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The closing statement is based on the argument that the list mainly consisted of non-notable people. There isn't actually much in the way of policy/guideline support for this as a basis for deletion. WP:LISTPEOPLE does give this as a standard, but it isn't exactly mandatory and it's mainly used to keep lists with a broad scope from becoming too big, which isn't a problem here. WP:NLIST is the usual standard to apply for notability of lists, but I don't see anybody on the Delete side citing it. The argument that it should be deleted as unencyclopedic based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL is rather stronger, in my view, but that's very much a judgement call for the participants and I don't see much of a consensus on it. Hut 8.5 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, not an easy call to make, but ultimately well and sensitively made. While there were some claims made that WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply but WP:NLIST exceptions should, those claims were reasonably rebutted by some and apparently found unpersuasive by others. The closer did a reasonable job reading policy-based consensus accurately. That's process; getting into substance: 1) reading the surrounding discussion (including on the closer's talkpage prior to this DRV being opened), it's pretty clear it is precisely because many people feel there should be such a list *as a memorial of the individuals* that this is such an emotive discussion; 2) I can't but help think this would be a noncontroversial delete close if it were a (comparably sourced) list of victims of a tragedy, first responders or no, elsewhere in the world. I agree that as a society, America should remember these heroes by name; but that doesn't mean a en.wp list is the way to do it. Martinp (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing to add: In the event the deletion does not get overturned here, I would expect any admin would be willing to userfy the deleted list to someone, anyone, who would want to move it to be stored elsewhere on the internet, for instance a wiki with different scope than en.wp. I am sensitive to the arguments like those of Randy Kryn and Parzival1780, which I don't think are strong from a deletion discussion/deletion review point of view here, but do reflect that this is material assembled with effort and dedication, important for many people to keep available somewhere. So I am sure the goal is not to unceremoniously nuke it, rather to enable it to be moved somewhere where it is not out of scope/policy. Martinp (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of why Parzival found their password, in addition to making communication slightly easier, was that Randy Kryn and I had advised them that your suggestion was a potential route. I would absolutely support this outcome. And while I'm here, @Ivanvector, thanks for feedback on improving closes. Very helpful. Star Mississippi 01:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Both the delete and a no consensus close would be an acceptable reading of the discussion. The policy arguments were strong in both the keep and the delete statements, but there was a small or solid majority of comments in favor of not keeping the article (including the redirect and merge comments). --Enos733 (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Well-reasoned, sensitive closure and NOTMEMORIAL applies. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. It isn't the job of DRV to decide whether the close was perfect, or whether the close was what each DRV participant would have done, but whether the close was a valid assessment. I haven't tried to assess how I would close the deletion discussion, and don't want to. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Overturning to "no consensus" would mean undeleting the whole list, and this is something that is too risky at the moment. The close was correct, and the !del arguments weigh more than !keep ones to me. If policy is stronger than guideline, then let's not overturn and undelete. George Ho (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay George Ho, I'll bite. Why would it be "too risky at the moment" to undelete the whole list? Curious, as I haven't read the article, which is behind the admin wall. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Undeleting the whole list would mean reviewing longstanding policies that are expected to be usually enforced by editors and readers, like NOTMEMORIAL. Trying not to apply that policy is something that I don't want to do. Furthermore, even with reliable sources verifying past existences of such workers, I agree with others about the criteria being broader than it should have been. Moreover, this project isn't the place to use just to attract viewership. Plus, I would fear further content disputes over and over. George Ho (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds to me like you're itching to apply the Supreme policies of Wikipedia, WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Editors and closers almost always forget that WP:IAR is policy and think of it as an exotic rarely used back door when, in fact, it's a policy that is above both guidelines and all other policies. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean ignoring WP:NOTBURO also? I know that NOTMEMORIAL seems too bureaucratic or too preventive to you and not set in stone, but the policy and its spirit are too hard to ignore, especially when the project's integrity is at stake. Same for NOTBURO, which also mentions IAR. I appreciate the editors' efforts to contribute to the deleted list, but.... Still, the close should be followed and set a precedence about such lists. George Ho (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTBURO tells us "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." The original RfD and this discussion include many editors who say that the page does not fall under NOTMEMORIAL - I personally don't know because I haven't read the page - so that should be a consideration that a solid point-of-view exists that NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You reminded me of bludgeoning in another AFD discussion. Haven't you thought that you're doing the same thing to me too? Also, what about the "without considering their principles" part? Furthermore, you interchangeably used "RFD" and "AFD". Moreover, I wonder whether you filed a deletion review before, despite your participating in other DRV discussions. You were asking one of admins to reconsider at one's talk page. George Ho (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you meant mine, I don't see any issue with @Randy Kryn joining this discussion when we were discussing a different article on my Talk and my busted formatting led to Parzival's inquiry landing literally inside our discussion. Star Mississippi 22:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the other one, but that's unrelated to this. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 March 2023

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

Why Artfi was deleted under CSD A7 while the page is about a notable company and has been covered multiple times with proper reliable and independent sourcing Entrepreneur (magazine) - (1), Gulf News - (2), Entrepreneur (magazine) - (3), Forbes India - (4), The Pioneer (India) - (5), NewsBTC - (6), Finance Magnates - (7).

As per Wikipedia:Speedy deletion "A7 is to be used only in situations where there is absolutely no indication of notability. This one makes several claims of notability, including being awarded by one of Dubai's leading news papers Gulf News, renowned contemporary British artist Sacha Jafri collaborated with Artfi. There are various other claims in article.

Similarly, G11 does not fit here as well as the article was not promotional in nature. It was carefully written and sourced from reliable sources. As per G11, "this applies to posts that are overtly promotional and need to be rewritten substantially" If the post has some promotional elements, please tag it to allow me to fix the issues. I would request you kindly restore the page. Thank you! VirenRaval89 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong overturn A7, weak overturn G11 and send to AfD or redraftify. This was definitely not an A7 candidate as the award from a major newspaper is clearly a claim of significance, and the associations with notable people are arguably so. G11 is borderline, but CSDs only apply in "the most obvious cases", however there is no chance that the article would be kept at AfD in its current state so I struggle to muster much enthusiasm for undeletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's usual to discuss with, and mandatory to notify, the person whose decision you are disputing before making a listing here. Please would the lister explain why they chose not to do so? Stifle (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin here: I speedied it as crypto spam. Speedies are instantly reversible if anyone wants to do that. I'd suggest draft first, though - I've restored it to Draft:Artfi. In particular, I suggest much more solid RSes and no crypto sites - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I'd agree with a general declaration that "speedies are instantly reversible if anyone wants to do that"; copyvio or attack pages certainly wouldn't be. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both, send to AfD It may suck as an article, but restricting it to draft on the basis of bad speedy deletion (I agree with the above about why neither A7 nor G11 applied) inappropriately makes it a WP:FAIT issue. The right thing to do is move it back to mainspace where any editor may start an AfD. Who knows... better coverage may appear within a week. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, send to AfD believe that CSD did not apply (based on the content/sourcing in the draft) per User:Thryduulf though I would vote to delete or draftify in an AFD setting. However I would not be the only one to vote in an AFD so I think this should go to a full discussion. Frank Anchor 01:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Speedy with agreement of the deleting administrator. The appellant has the choice of submitting the draft for review, or of moving the draft to article space, knowing that there will be an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the deleting admin has chosen to restore the content to draft space, I suggest no further action here. The nominator is welcome to move it to mainspace whenever they wish, and anyone will be welcome to nominate it for AFD if they do. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 March 2023

[edit]

18 March 2023

[edit]

17 March 2023

[edit]

16 March 2023

[edit]

15 March 2023

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Palestinian intifada (2022–present) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was erroneously deleted, the editors involved in the discussion only wanted a rename, not an outright deletion. Also many editors who voted to delete are heavily editing Israeli-related articles. There was agreement in principle to move the article to an appropriate name, such as the fact that the event is taking place on the ground with the recognition of the United Nations and the concerned parties. Sakiv (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as pointed out by the closer, a rename would not resolve the WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issues inherent in the topic. Even if some people who took part in the debate are also editing Israeli-related articles that doesn't make any difference. Hut 8.5 08:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I had been looking at this article in order to close the discussion, but Vanamonde was just a bit faster. I would also have closed it as "delete", with much the same reasoning. And as Hut 8.5 remarks, what articles some of the !voters edit or not is absolutely immaterial. --Randykitty (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the discussion clearly supported that a rename would not solve the central SYNTH argument, and while I don't have access to the deleted article, per the discussion, the attempt at rewrite that was done didn't compel any changed votes or new keeps. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It's impossible to transmogrify the substance of an AfD from deletion into something else as long as there are relevant deletion arguments, through formatting !votes as if it was an RM, only then to present a complaint how the AfD was not a real AfD or something. Unlike what the nominator said, the discussion shows that many editors wanted exactly deletion, based on valid reasons to delete, and their arguments were not disputed substantively enough, which means that a consensus formed around the delete case. —Alalch E. 00:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A valid conclusion by the closer. I concur with the above opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 March 2023

[edit]

13 March 2023

[edit]

12 March 2023

[edit]

11 March 2023

[edit]

10 March 2023

[edit]

9 March 2023

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vauraus Suomi Oy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[23]]|restore)

The earlier wikipedia page was removed 10 years ago, and in that time the company has grown to become fairly big in Finland 194.136.103.81 (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 March 2023

[edit]

7 March 2023

[edit]

6 March 2023

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

I submit for your consideration an application for revision of the deletion of the article "Tatyana N. Mickushina.” The main reason for the deletion is indicated as "Does not appear to have been the subject of significant independent coverage." I researched this topic and I managed to find a significant number of authoritative independent sources. Some of them relate to the "basic criteria", some to the "additional criteria - author.” I also added information about the fairly wide distribution of books by Tatyana Mikushina.
I created new article. This article is available at sandbox.

I. basic criteria:
Various sources have been found:

  • analytical, devoted exclusively to the activities of T. Mickushina as a writer and public figure (Russian Bulletin, Book Industry)
  • analytical, in which a separate section or part of the article is devoted to it (Ukrin-form, Novye Izvestiya)
  • discussion articles (Russian People's Line, Regions of Russia)
  • news articles about the release of her book about the award for writing (Network of city portals, All-Russian Business rating)
  • mention of her writing activity in the book of Dr. Hans Martin Krämer "Theosophy across Boundaries: Transcultural and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on a Modern Esoteric Movement”

II. additional criteria - author - 4с - The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention:
There are reviews and analysis of her books by several scientists from around the world (Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Portugal.) Also a review by the President of the London Theosophical Society.

III. T. Mickushina's books are quite widespread in the world. They are represented in the largest libraries of several countries of the world (USA, Russia, Ukraine, Portugal, Germany, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Belarus), as well as in well-known bibliographic databases (on the sites of Goodreads, Library Thing, Open Library, LiveLib, aNobii, Readgeek.)

Below are links to sources. Most of them are Russian-speaking. Therefore, for the convenience of evaluation, I give a description of these links.
I. Basic criteria:
1 — Ukrainian National News Agency "Ukrinform" - in the article there is a section called "Riga: Matilda plus Volyn", which is dedicated to the action initiated by T. Mickushina "Stop Matilda.”
2 — dr. Hans Martin Krämer, Heidelberg University – the book "Theosophy across Boundaries: Transcultural and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on a Modern Esoteric Movement", section "Effects of Theosophy on Russian Cultural History" – about the writing activity of T. Mickushina.
3 — The newspaper "Russian Bulletin" - Doctor of Sociological Sciences I.A.Romanov (at that time a leading researcher at the "Russian Institute for Strategic Studies") – criticism of the activities of T. Mickushina.
4 — The All-Russian Business Rating company in 2018 awarded T. Mickushina for publishing and contribution to the spiritual revival of the country.
5 — Network of information portals "Network of city portals", Omsk regional depart-ment "ngs55.ru " – about the release and presentation at the All-Russian book fair of one of T. Mickushina's books.
6 — The newspaper "Novye Izvestia" – a mention of the writing activity of T. Mickushina in the context of a discussion of the concept developed by her called "The National Idea of Russia.”
7 — Information and analytical service "Russian People's Line" - discussion about the system of views of T. Mickushina and her activities.
8 — The journal "Regions of Russia" - legal assessment of the controversy surrounding the activities of T. Mickushina.
The magazine "Book Industry" No. 4-5, 2017 – an article dedicated to the writing activity of T. Mickushina and the 10th anniversary of the “Sirius” publishing house created by her (the full electronic version of the magazine is not publicly available.) Below are links to the review of the article on the official website and a screenshot of the page with the article:
9 — Review of an article published in the journal "Book Industry" (official website.)
10 — Screenshot of the full version of this article (below average quality.)

II. Additional criteria - author - 4c — The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention:
11 — PhD, senior researcher scientist, Y.Y. Zavhorodnii, Institute of philosophy of G. Skovorody, National academy of sciences of Ukraine – review on the book «About yoga and meditation.»
12 — PD Dr. Phil., Bjorn Seidel-Dreffke, Martin Luther University – feedback on the book “Good and Evil: An individual interpretation of The Secret Doctrine by Helena P. Blavatsky“.
13 — Candidate of Philosophy, D. Metilka, NOVA University Lisbon, article on T. Mickushina's book "On non-violence.”
14 — Candidate of Historical Sciences O.L.Soloviev, Ural Federal University – review of the book "The Royal Family. Return.”
15 — Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences M.L.Skuratovskaya, Don State Technical University (magazine "Enlightenment" No.11, 2018, p. 571) – review of the book series "The Words of Wisdom.”
16 — "Esoterica" year 2011., volume 1 (winter-spring) page 37, Journal of the Theosophical Society in London - review by the President of The Theosophical Society in England, Eric McGough on the book "Good and Evil: An individual interpretation of The Secret Doctrine by Helena P. Blavatsky.”

III.
Library databases:
USA — Library of Congress (2 books), Boston Public Library (4 books), San Francisco Public Library (2 books), Harvard Library (3 books), Stanford University Libraries (2 books (1+1)), New York Public Library (1 book), Columbia University Libraries (3 books), University Library at the University of Illinois (1 book)
Russia — Russian State Library (97 books, some of them in foreign languages, also some are repeated), National Library of Russia (66 books)
Ukraine — Yaroslav Mudryi National Library of Ukraine (1 book), Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine (10 books (4 request "Мікушина" + 6 request "Микушина")), Stefanyk National Science Library (8 books), Odessa National Scientific Library (6 books (4+2))
Portugal — National Library of Portugal (5 books)
Germany — German National Library (2 books)
Bulgaria — SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library (14 books)
Czech Republic — National Library of the Czech Republic (6 books (request "Mikušina"))
Belarus — National Library of Belarus (12 books)

Literary databases — Goodreads (67 books), LibraryThing (24 books), Open Library (6 books), LiveLib (162 books, including electronic editions and audio books), aNobii (21 books), Readgeek (9 books) Pisnyy Mykola (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse original delete closure if this is an appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve Review of Draft or Approve Re-Creation of Article, subject to AFD Robert McClenon (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - This request is too long, and the appellant has provided an entire day's proceedings at AFD, but this is a straightforward case of submitting a better article than the one that was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation though I recommend the appellant become familiar with WP:TLDR for future requests. There seems to be adequate sourcing available. This page is not creation-protected, DRV is not required, but we are here anyway and I will offer my opinion. Appelant can either start a new page from scratch or request the old version at WP:REFUND and buiold upon it. Either way, a new page may be subject to its own AFD. Frank Anchor 15:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon and Frank Anchor, thank you for your answers. Would it be ok, if I publish a new article right now or should I wait for the completion of the application and receiving specific instructions from you in the final result? Pisnyy Mykola (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent any previous inappropriate re-creation, which we often see with fan-driven articles for internet celebrities, there's no reason to NOT draft a better article and mainspace it when ready. If you want the deleted content and don't have it, I'm sure one of the admins who frequents this discussion board will be happy to help you. But basically, per the above: a "normal" deletion for notability is always subject to someone writing a better article with great sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original close as correct. Allow recreation, preferably through AfC. --Enos733 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 March 2023

[edit]

4 March 2023

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template talk:Station-stub (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/June_2005#{{station-stub}}_→_{{broadcasting-stub}}_/_Category:Station_stubs|XfD]]|restore)

This talk page of a template needs to be restored because other users here need to contest the speedy deletion criteria I put on the stub template. Also, the redirect stub template is currently under discussion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 3#Template:Station-stub From Bassie f (his talk page) 21:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ClydeFranklin I will recreate it I promise. From Bassie f (his talk page) 05:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated the talk page as a redirect of Template talk:Railstation-stub 3 minutes ago. From Bassie f (his talk page) 06:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... So do you need us to do anything here, or can this be closed? Jclemens (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete old revisions then close this discussion @Jclemens. From Bassie f (his talk page) 08:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what purpose? There isn't a G4 pending, and if there were they could do that on a new talk page (not redirected). I'm really confused by what you are trying to achieve.
  • The template was deleted in 2005
  • Then recreated in 2013 - presumably without the talk page. ]
  • You listed at RFD
  • You G4d it
  • Then removed that G4, and it's still at RFD.
What utility is there in the original 2005 talk page at this point? -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For historical purposes which means this will be a R from old history. From Bassie f (his talk page) 20:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you describe these "historical purposes" and what that means, to me its such a generic phrase as to be meaningless. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marikamba Temple, Sagara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

deletion discussion is closed based on the votes but not based on the wiki policies Nimmoun (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus was unanimous and very much based on policy. The filer is the original AfD nominator, and the only one who wanted the article deleted. This review can be dismissed outright. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shawn Teller, dear expert under which policy your closed the discussion ? and under which wiki policy nominator are prohibited from filling review ? And even if I am the only one asking for the deletion, I am talking about wiki policies only, other keep supporters are only talking in general and even a week passed nobody added sources to support the claims made on that article, why? If sources are available than add it who are stopping them? If sources are added I will not ask for deletion. I want to remind you, wiki deletion discussions should be closed on the basis of wiki policies not based on the votes.Nimmoun (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The subject is a building, a house of worship, and the participants and the closer applied the guidelines about notability of buildings. The appellant is apparently in good faith mistaken as to what guidelines apply. The appellant is correct that the discussion should be based on policies, and does have a right to request deletion review, but appears to be bludgeoning this Deletion Review, just as they bludgeoned the AFD. It's a building, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines say it is a notable building. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a clear consensus to keep and everything was done properly.—Alalch E. 02:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct reading of overwhelming consensus to keep. It appears that the appellant is trying to make this discussion into AFD round 2, which is not permitted. Frank Anchor 15:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Simplicity Two Thousand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer referenced WP:A9 in closing statement despite multiple sources being provided which I believe create a credible claim of significance. The only other editor calling for a speedy deletion did not cite any criteria so choosing A9 could not have been based in consensus. And are editors allowed to close AfDs they themselves are participants in? I had figured that wasn't the case but perhaps that was my mistaken assumption; I can't exactly remember where I got it from. And I will admit up front that I may also be making a mistake in opening this discussion. I can't say I necessarily disagree with the deletion result, just the reasoning behind it. And maybe that makes this a waste of DRVs time, in which case I apologize and please just ignore this. I just want to know that my instinct that the closure was wrong here is correct. QuietHere (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere: The closer closed procedurally because the page was speedy deleted and the AfD was mooted; there's no "reasoning" behind this close it's just a true statement of fact. Anyone is allowed to make such a close. The page being deleted under WP:CSD is unrelated to the AfD. The editor who deleted is not the closer, see the deletion log. You need to post a notice of this deletion review on that administrator's talk page if you challenge this speedy deletion, but it appears that you do not really challenge it. —Alalch E. 13:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I misunderstood that part. Well in that case, I do challenge the CSD insofar as it was inappropriate given the ongoing discussion, and I will be leaving a notice for the deleting editor momentarily. QuietHere (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the A9 is brought into question: Endorse as an AfD delete. /inserted note: After having learned more about the speedy-deleted article, I also endorse the A9 speedy deletion per a comment below. —Alalch E. 00:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)/ Treat the AfD as having reached a consensus that the page should be deleted due to a lack of notability. The discussion didn't last a full duration which could be seen as a procedural error on the AfD layer (when assessing the AfD on its own merits). Forgo this per WP:IAR and do not relist; there was no explicit keep support, and the discussion was reasonably thorough. —Alalch E. 14:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an A9. Maybe a complete AfD. I'd prefer a relist for due process. Hobit (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and relist. Let the AFD run its full seven days. QuietHere presented enough enough references to establish a very basic level of notability such that A9 does not apply. While the AFD was trending toward delete anyway, the nom plus three delete votes (considering the speedy delete vote as a regular delete vote) are not enough to justify closing a day and a half early. Frank Anchor 17:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why not A9? A9 applicability is determined based on the state of the article and the included references. If the article didn't make a credible claim of significance and there were no references to the same effect, then it was a valid speedy deletion and it should not be overturned in a deletion review. A7, A9, and A11 deletions don't need to go through DRV each time someone comes up with a claim of significance, such as by finding a reference. Non-administrators would have to see the article to be able to say that A9 was misapplied. —Alalch E. 18:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But there were references. One was the AllMusic review which was already in the article, and the others I provided in my comment to the AfD. I hadn't added them because what's the point of adding to an article that's maybe about to be deleted anyway, but the sources were known to exist and could've been added at any time. QuietHere (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There weren't. There was a reference (a single reference – only the reference in the article counts). Simplicity Two Thousand is a rerelease of the 1999 album Simplicity with remixes and bonus tracks. This is what the review has to say about it: "a deluxe box containing the original album, a whole slew of remixes, and a few new tunes to boot". It isn't even a stand-alone release, but a rerelease. There's a reference but it doesn't confer a credible claim of significance. Therefore the A9 was appropriate.—Alalch E. 00:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (on this investigation) - I suggest that certain parties figure out WP procedures and how to investigate background histories before launching processes like this that in turn send unnecessary notifications in every direction. The article was nominated for deletion per the usual AfD process by one person (user: ss112), but then someone else (user: Why? I Ask) tagged the article for speedy deletion while the AfD was still in progress, which is possibly a procedural error in its own right. Then the speedy delete request was granted by an admin (user: Bbb23), who apparently did not see that the article also had an AfD in progress, given the fact that it was still sitting there after the speedy deletion. None of the people above are ME, and I simply did the standard non-admin close on the AfD as a good faith effort to clean up someone else's mess. But then I was (indirectly) blamed in this here investigation for procedural violations and conflicts of interest. Please think before acting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (on the article) - WP:A9 is quite straightforward on how an album is not notable if the musician does not have an article due to being non-notable themselves. So if the album article survives it will be an orphan which Wikipedia tries to avoid. Some possible evidence on behalf of the album was presented in the AfD debate, but consider using that for a new article on the musician instead. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It could easily get linked from 2000 in music#Albums released and the record label Hedkandi, and I'm sure there's more options beyond that as well. Lacking an artist page doesn't guarantee an orphan, nor does it require having been made by a notable artist. QuietHere (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Relist - This was almost an A9, but it wasn't, and it was almost a good AFD delete, but it wasn't. It wasn't a good A9 because there was, just barely, a credible claim of significance. It was almost a good AFD delete, but it ran for six days. There is probably very little harm done is saying to Ignore All Rules and let it be an AFD deletion, but there is no harm in relisting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:Doomsdayer520 - Speedy delete nominations for an article that is pending AFD happen commonly. That is not a procedural error. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is when Admin leaves an AfD open after conducting the speedy deletion. Then a bystander (me in this case) has to close the leftover AfD, causing confusion about who did what/why/when in a hubbub like this. If that's not a procedural error, it should be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AfD was at 4d:1k at the time of closure, and the speedy delete rationale was assessed as adequate by the deleting admin. Without knowing what was claimed in the article I can't say whether the A9 actually was valid, but given what Alalch says above about the single reference it's clear no CCS was coming from the sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist An Allmusic link is a credible claim of significance. Let's roll back the incorrect A9 and let the AfD finish however it does. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AllMusic is just a database, why would a listing there be credible? JoelleJay (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this a review rather than a database entry? Hobit (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay @Hobit It's a review. QuietHere (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had thought it was clear to everyone that it's a review. My problem with the review is that Simplicity Two Thousand (or Simplicity 2000) is a 2000 rerelease of the 1999 album Simplicity; as far as talking specifically about the rerelease compared to the original album goes, it describes it as just that: a rerelease with remixes and bonus tracks. —Alalch E. 19:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a rerelease doesn't automatically make it non-notable. Perhaps it just needs combined with any sources that might be available for the original and they'll reach GNG together. I haven't looked into that but perhaps I shall. QuietHere (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion – for an article created at the title of the rerelease – for the subject to receive a credible claim of significance from a source, the source would need to say how the rerelease is important as a rerelease beyond talking about the album. —Alalch E. 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To emphasize: this is an A9 deletion, so notability is entirely irrelevant. Something may be--and many things are--entirely non notable, and hence deletable through AfD, but still have a credible claim of significance--and hence not deletable through CSD that rely on that lower standard. Jclemens (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But is a brief review in AllMusic actually a CCS? JoelleJay (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I don't see why not. It's certainly a start.
    2. That was the only source in the article when the AfD started, but more coverage was located during the AfD process. QuietHere (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I don't know why a user bothered to have the page be speedy deleted when the AfD was just about over, but I'll be sticking by voting delete. All this fuss over an album with the absolute bare minimum of "coverage" and for what? It didn't chart and its coverage is certainly not widespread. One source found in the AfD was literally just a listing of albums on an insignificant college chart. I don't get it but sure, let's go again. Ss112 21:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said up front, I figured this was basically a waste of time. Really, I just wanted to know I was right on the principle that the speedy was wrong more than anything else, and I'm sure I could've chosen a venue just for asking about that but oh well, we're already here, too late to change now. QuietHere (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh / Weak do not relist. While the speedy was invalid giving the article another week at AfD seems like a waste of resources. Unless someone wants to actively work on the article to improve sourcing, I don't think that it makes sense to restore the content and continue to debate it. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 March 2023

[edit]

2 March 2023

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

I am starting a deletion review for this page because the leading reason this page was deleted (redirected) was because the topic of matter (Sean Bielat) did not meet Wikipedia notability requirements WP:POLITICIAN as well as WP:GNG. However, when looking at the notability requirements that were stated as evidence for deletion and redirection, the page "Sean Bielat" does in fact meet these requirements as he satisfies the second option: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." If a thorough internet search is conducted, it can be seen that there are several news articles written on this candidate for two elections, as well as news about his business endeavors. After looking through the references listed on the last Sean Bielat wiki page[1], I did notice half the links were broken, but I found several other links to support the information stated on the page which I will list at the end. There are also many news articles that were already listed on the wiki Sean Bielat page that would qualify the subject's notability as well. Because of these reasons and supporting evidence, I do in fact believe this page should be undeleted as the subject "Sean Bielat" qualifies for a standalone article. The page just needs to be edited and updated upon undeletion.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Interestingfinds12 (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Bielat&oldid=1138258011
  2. ^ https://agln.aspeninstitute.org/profile/4760
  3. ^ https://arlingtoncap.com/news/arlington-capital-partners-announces-acquisition-of-irobot-defense-and-security-business/
  4. ^ https://www.flir.com/news-center/press-releases/flir-systems-to-advance-its-unmanned-solutions-strategy-with-the-acquisition-of-endeavor-robotics/
  5. ^ https://www.masslive.com/politics/2013/02/republican_sean_bielat_jumps_i.html
  6. ^ https://electionstats.state.ma.us/elections/search/year_from:2010/year_to:2011
  7. ^ https://www.wbur.org/news/2010/09/27/sean-bielat-profile
  8. ^ https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/124904/sean-bielat
  9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Bielat&oldid=1138258011
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 March 2023

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_March&oldid=1141997262"