Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September

Chinazi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are some reliable source that have in-depth coverage of "Chinazi" this term [1][2]. And I think "Chinazi" this article is sufficient for WP:GNG and WP:NEO now. SCP-2000 (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Such sources were brought up in the deletion discussion and not found to be sufficient. What reason do you have for the close being incorrect? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source was not discussed in AFD before and the second source was not really discussed before. --SCP-2000 (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: The second source was already brought up at the AfD and the first source was not. Both, however, are moreso about the comparison of the current behavior of the Chinese government and Nazism. This also does not change the WP:NEO concerns. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source has a lot of paragraph about "Chinazi" term meaning, background and usage. I think it is significant coverage. --SCP-2000 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's still about the term. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so it should not be used to give the meaning of a term. The relevant encyclopedic concepts are the current protests in Hong Kong, the regime of the People's Republic of China and the Communist Party, which all have extensive articles already in which reliably sourced comparisons with the Nazis can be covered in accordance with their due weight. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • When "Chinazi" this article was deleted before, it was a section that was about the social movement of using "Chinazi"this term and was not just written the definition. So I think it was not violate WP:NAD. Also, thank you for your comment. --SCP-2000 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC The arguments that cite it as an attack page are problematic at best. The term exists to disparage a group, that's true. But a neutral page could easily exist here. WP:NEO arguments are a lot more difficult to overcome. But I'm seeing coverage on the topic of the word itself ([3] and less in [4]). Brief mentions in the WSJ [5]. Thus, while the deletion arguments based on WP:NEO aren't unreasonable, neither are the arguments against. I don't see consensus in that discussion. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside of the canvassed !votes with keep arguments not based on any WP policy, I thought that it was a clear consensus for deletion in the AfD. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, I'm discounting the ones that are arguing for deletion based on WP:ATTACK. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Even then, only four editors mention WP:ATTACK at all. On top of that, none of them cited that as their only reason - they actually all cited WP:NEO as well. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that arguments citing WP:ATTACK should be discounted, because this article was written on the premise that comparisons between the PRC regime and the Nazis are true, rather than from a neutral point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said in AFD, the article can be improved and POV problem can be solved. No need to delete the article. --SCP-2000 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, endorse salting, but relist to discuss newly-published G&M article – Reading over the AfD, to me, the deletion consensus is both clear and overwhelming, after discounting non-policy-based !votes. Almost all of the keep !votes seem to be variations of "keep because it exists", essentially confusing WP:V and WP:N, which isn't surprising given that almost all of the keep !votes came from non-extended-confirmed accounts. I also see consensus that the sources put forward did not meet GNG for various reasons (not in-depth, self-published). There were several editors who favored merging; the content can still be merged. I think it being a second AfD and the *puppet concerns justify salting, as well. The closing statement was detailed and thoughtful. I just don't see a flaw here that justified any result other than endorse. BTW it doesn't appear the filer consulted with the closer before filing this DRV. – Levivich 01:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what is the relationship between your endorse reason and my DRV reason? I cannot see the relationship. --SCP-2000 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Taking a closer look, I do think this 29 Sep article by The Globe and Mail could be seen as WP:SIGCOV of the word/concept Chinazi itself (and not just a brief mention or usage of the word). It came out the same day as the thread was closed–I'm not sure the exact timing, but it wasn't discussed in the AfD. Coupled with this 26 Sep article by Quartz (publication) (which was raised in the AfD, but rather late in the week, and was not really discussed), and you might have two for GNG there. So while I think the close was correct given the state of the discussion at the time of the close, the new G&M article probably merits relisting so editors can consider whether these two sources are enough for a stand-alone article, or whether these articles suggest "Chinazi" is a useful search term justifying a redirect. I've updated my !vote accordingly. – Levivich 04:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (Closing admin) Posting here to make it clear that I've seen this discussion. To clarify, ATTACK did not really weigh in my assessment of the consensus as only a few arguments were predicated on it; the bulk of the concerns were about notability/WP:NEO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I see Hobit's point about new sources but the old ones in the discussion were contested on the grounds that they either did only mention the term (thus failing WP:NOTNEO) or that they didn't meet WP:SIGCOV standards; these points were only weakly rebutted if at all. The three additional sources you linked apparently were never used in the article or linked in the AFD and are only a few days old, so presumably they were missed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "Redirect to Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests#Flags and symbols". The case for WP:NEO was strongly made, but NEO is not a deletion reason if it can be covered within the other article. Also, new sources are appearing, so deletion is a disservice to readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a second choice if the sysop disagree overturn to NC and relist discussion. --SCP-2000 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe: How is this different from creating a new redirect now? Doesn't overturn mean that either the closer misinterpreting consensus or new information arose making a restoration of the article merited? If it's for the history, that would be WP:REFUND. Why "overturn to redirect"? — MarkH21 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • MarkH21, it differs with respect to availability of the content in the history, and its reuse at the redirect target, and it speaks to correction of the closing statement as an accurate reading of the rough consensus of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I read many of the stronger "delete" !votes less as a rationale argument that Wikipedia should not cover this, and more as justification for protecting the redirect in anticipation of post-AfD edit warring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: According to WP:SYN, WP:NEO, WP:NPOV. --風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 02:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. I would have closed as No Consensus, but the closer is expected to use judgment, and the canvassing is troubling. The attack page argument is silly. The Attack Page policy isn't meant to deal with pages that attack governments; it is primarily for BLPs. Is Nazi an attack on the government of Germany in 1939? Endorse anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to "Redirect to Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests#Flags and symbols". Salting is uncalled for if the article title is a reasonable search term that is covered in another article. I agree with SmokeyJoe. feminist (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roc Ordman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My page existed for decades when I was a Biochemistry Professor who was page 1 banner headline of USA Today for Vitamin C dosage discovery. It was removed for unknown reasons. It reappeared when I looked about 3 months ago, and now has been removed again. I have begun a company based on my research, and have created 2 nutritional supplements likely to prevent age-associated diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's, and would love to assist/advise on updating the page to save lives and fortunes in medical costs. Rocordman (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close per WP:G4 and WP:COI. Unless your notability threshold increases, no page deleted via XfD will be restored without a policy-based reason for refusing to acknowledge consensus, period. ToThAc (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Iron (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of the deletion of this article as I believe it deserves a place in the English Wikipedia (it exists in 8 other languages). It was deleted following a second nomination, only 6 months after the first nomination, the result of which was keep. The main contention for its existence seemed to be a lack of sources and its ability to pass WP:GNG. The fact that the subject was the recipient of the XRCO Award twice as a performer and once as a director should give credence to his ability to pass the threshold. The man was a popular performer in his genre and was inducted into the AVN hall of fame in 2018,[6] essentially the oscars of pornography. If that doesn't make a performer notable enough to warrant inclusion, then I don't know what does. I've also been able to gather some more sources regarding his bio, particularly since his recent death which can be used to improve the article. GlassBooks (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like the AVN hall-of-fame is huge based on the number in that article from one year. And the other awards don't seem to be enough either. But if you have sources, great. The hall-of-fame source is useful, even if he's just one of many. But it certainly isn't enough. Could you link to what you have? Say the best 3-4 sources that address WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [7] [8] both talk about his contributions to the adult industry. [9][10] interviews. [11] Forbes mention. [12] long list of credits. He's also has won three AVN awards, in 2000, 2001 and 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassBooks (talk • contribs) 06:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Industry publications, especially in porn, tend to be largely disregarded by the community. That's mostly due to "promotional" concerns. I'm not a huge fan of that practice, but I don't see anything close to enough to get past the bar the community has set on porn topics. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is the issue here an error by the closer, or new information, or a request to create a new biography in draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if the issue is an error by the closer.
• Allow Re-Creation in Draft Space Robert McClenon (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undeletion or allow for re-creation. I am willing to improve it based on the new information available.--GlassBooks (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse That's a clear delete on the AfD grounds, and the first delete even said the actor wanted his biography deleted. While there's new information, there's also been a shift against notability for adult entertainers, so I'm not convinced there's going to be an article on him which passes notability thresholds, but I see no harm in creating a new draft from scratch. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not entirely familiar with the new notability guidelines for pornstars. From WP:N it seems like the guidelines are the same as entertainers in general. But the criteria is still a bit vague. On this old discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) the general consensus seemed to be "multiple nominations and multiple wins". Which he clearly passes due to winning multiple AVN and XRCO awards as well as many nominations, including three for AVN Male Performer of the Year.--GlassBooks (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn After looking at it more closely, it appears that the vast majority of male porn stars who seem to get a pass have either won a Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor role or are notable for some other reason beyond the average porn star. So I don't think a fresh article on him would get a pass based on the new scrutiny. Therefore I am withdrawing my review. --GlassBooks (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting to overturn the decision to speedy delete Instana. I recreated the page today, almost 9 months after it got deleted on February 1st. As you can see on the deletion discussion from January, the results are far from clear. It was nominated for deletion, because I ignored the comments by two editors which were made during WP:AFC. This also was pointed out by another editor who voted *keep*. I published the page because the AfC process was not helping to build a good page. In fact, I came up with the structure myself after checking out similar companies on Wikipedia. I had hoped for editorial help during AfC, but this has not happened. Instead, an WP:AFD was called on the page. After 3:2 votes, the AFD got relisted twice to generate consensus. One more editor referenced the AfC, one agreed with the editor who proposed deletion, and a third one voted keep. I accepted the vote of the editor community at that time, even though in my opinion this was not a clear result. I am bringing this up, because it is important for the Speedy Deletion I am asking to overturn today. As said, I recreated the page today, adding about 200 words of new material to it. I did not add new references yet, mainly because I did not want to litter an article with references, just to make a point. as WP:ARTN says: The subject matters for noteworthyness, not the article. I recreated the page to have it re-examined by the editor community under WP:NTEMP. There is plenty of new evidence (SDtimes, devops.com, Container journal, Yahoo Finance, InfoQ, venturebeat, Rheinische Post, Süddeutsche Zeitung) that together with the existing material could tip the scales. I am not asking to agree here whether Instana is noteworthy or not, although you are free to voice your opinion. I am asking to undo the speedy deletion, because it was incorrect to perform it. It was deleted under WP:G4 which excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". This has not been evaluated by the deleting admin, as he confirms on his talk page, where he admits to not have read the page (nor my comment objecting deletion on the talk page). Other editors besides me already began improving on my work for the page. I would appreciate if the page could be restored, and if after it has been further improved, we can still call for a new AFD vote on the current evidence that we have. Also the page was locked, which I consider overreacting. I reached out to the deleting admin but in a shoot-first mentality he says he will only undelete after I provide him enough proof. Which is not what I understand under consensus. (Please note, that I declared WP:COI - you can find out after reading the page why :)) FabianLange (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FabianLange, the community had already decided that the subject was not notable enough for an article. Are you arguing that the decision was wrong? Or that notability has changed since the AfD? – bradv🍁 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per nom statement that "I did not add new references yet, mainly because I did not want to litter an article with references, just to make a point." If the recreated article has no new sources, then G4 was correct. New GNG sources would need to be brought forward for undeletion/recreation. – Levivich 17:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Link to previous discussion regarding this, wherin I not only read the page, confirmed I'd read the page (both versions), I also performed a document dif and pasted the changed content on my talk page for discussion and opined that it was mere product promotion and said nothing about company notability. Given that all that was covered, it's surprising to me to read here that I never did any of that. KillerChihuahua 17:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse all around. Killer's deletion of this was a correct application of G4 for a substantially recreated article. The original AfD consensus was correctly judged by Randykitty to be delete. Given Fabian's COI if they have no sources - better sources that weren't discussed at the AfD then AfC is the correct venue for a new article. But I see no new English sources that would further establish notability, while I didn't look for new German sources, don't think the German language sources added when it was at AfD show notability either. TLDR: Properly deleted at AfD, speedy deletion was justified, no new sources suggest a change in notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse despite having voted weak keep in the original AfD. The G4 decision is obviously correct if, as others have said, it is the same article that was originally deleted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The AFD close was obviously appropriate given the clear consensus to delete, and the new version of the page was not significantly changed; KillerChihuahua's G4 deletion was entirely correct. Yunshui ^雲_水 18:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Deletion review is not supposed to be a re-hashing of the AFD. We are only supposed to determine whether the consensus was properly interpreted by the closer. Therefore, whilst I think there was sufficient coverage in reliable sources to sustain notability in this case (particularly the Handelsblatt article, but also numerous other articles) I don't think the closer was incorrect in closing the original AFD as delete. Speedy deletion is also correct when someone recreates the article, so the deletion of the re-created article was also correct. I will say, however, that if FabianLange creates a new article, which is not simply a recreation of the old one, incorporating all of the references discussed here and in the original AFD, I think it should be an easy keep if it comes back to AFD. FOARP (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A clear consensus to delete at AfD. No comment on the WP:G4 as I can't see the article, but other users I trust have endorsed it on those grounds, and I'll trust it. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're interested, the only additional content is in a box on my talk page here. No other content was added. KillerChihuahua 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Looking at the cited text-in-a-box on KillerChihuahua's talk page, that sounds like WP:G11 material on its own. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. (I nominated the January 2019 AfD.) There are good reasons why editors should not create or edit articles where they have clear WP:COI. As RoySmith observed above, the text boxed on User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Speedy_Deletion_of_Instana is a long way from acceptable, failing the Wikipedia is for reference, not marketing and Source, cite, and inform rather than sell or promote lines from WP:PSCOI. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, G4 was correctly applied here, basically per OP's own statement above, as the OP acknowledges that the re-created version did not contain any new references. The original poster, FabianLange, needs to develop an improved and better referenced version of the article in their userspace first. Since there are significant questions about the topic's notability, and, more importantly, since FabianLange has an apparent COI in relation to the article's subject, it would be advisable, after an improved version of the page is developed in userspace, to rout it through WP:AfC or to file a request for re-creation of the article here at WP:DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but restore as draft What everyone else said is correct, but if, as nom says, more sources exist and they just didn't add them, they can do so in draftspace, which is the appropriate place for COI creations anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Blatant promotion. Many purported sources, such as Forbes contributor articles, are non-independent promotion. Suggest allowing re-creation of a the draft Draft:Instana for the purpose of presenting WP:THREE notability-attesting sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 West Virginia Mountaineers men's basketball team (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This and the other articles listed below were deleted as G5 by Barkeep49 after it was revealed they were created by the sock of a blocked user. Although technically they qualify for G5, they were perfectly good articles and as myself, Chadmb2003, and mhults7791 expressed concern about on barkeep's talk page, the mass deletion of these articles makes things a lot harder for WP:CBB so close to the start of the season. Several other users expressed concern on WT:CBB as well. When questioned on their talk page, Barkeep admitted they had mixed feelings about it but felt it was just policy they had to do. However, at the very least, given the large number of articles and the time required to reproduce them, WP:IAR should apply in this case, and that's a policy too. Barkeep themself had difficulty giving a reason that this deletion actually improved Wikipedia, other than to say that's the policy, which really isn't sufficient by itself. Regardless, the fact that multiple editors expressed concerns show the deletion was not uncontroversial, which is required by any speedy criterion, G5 included.

Additionally, I am including the following deleted articles in this DRV for the same reason:

Smartyllama (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I am adding the following articles which were deleted by Liz for the same reason. Although it is late in the process, the same logic obviously applies regardless of who deleted it so they should be included as well.

Smartyllama (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletions were within policy. The sockmaster was a community banned user as well. Kb03 (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh – while the deletions were well within policy, if there are other editors willing to work on these articles they can easily be restored. That said, these aren't terribly in-depth and it wouldn't take much effort to recreate them from scratch either. – bradv🍁 17:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several editors willing to improve them, myself included. The closing admin still refused to restore them. Smartyllama (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, it does take a lot of effort to recreate these from scratch. Each game of the schedule has to have a decent amount of data for it. Date, time, TV information, conference opponent or not, opponent, arena/site, and city/state. This also does not including finding each of the opponent's page to reference to as well as finding and adding each team's roster and relevant player information (height, weight, hometown, year in school, etc). Re-creating these from scratch is anything but trivial. Chadmb2003 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why wouldn't readers just go to the team's website if they wanted to get date, time, TV information, opponent, location, the roster, players' stats, etc., for the current, ongoing season? Why are we duplicating this information on Wikipedia? I read at Barkeep's talk page, an editor wrote "I had to go off-site to view the schedule." My response is: um, yeah, why would an encyclopedia reproduce a college basketball schedule, when that's available at a number of other websites? – Levivich 01:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything in every single one of our articles is available in other sources. If it weren't, it would violate WP:NOR. That has to be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Smartyllama (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of our articles combine information from multiple sources. Whereas, I can get everything on that list (schedules, roster, stats, etc.) from a single website like WVUSports.com or NCAA.com. No reason for us to be yet another website with schedules, stats, etc. It's an encyclopedia... we need prose summarizing multiple secondary sources, not reproducing primary sources like statistics. – Levivich 00:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As myself and several others have stated repeatedly, we will add additional content once these articles are restored. Forcing us to create a large amount of content from scratch makes it that much harder to go beyond that. This is neither the time nor the place for your ridiculous crusade. Smartyllama (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A WP:G5 was absolutely correct here. WP:TOOSOON would also apply. That being said, if other editors want to use the content, I don't have any problem if these are restored via WP:REFUND. SportingFlyer T·C 20:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The season's six weeks away at this point. WP:TOOSOON does not apply anymore. And I would have requested it at WP:REFUND but that explicitly excludes G5 deletions and the admin refused to restore it, hence we're here. Smartyllama (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Have all of these seasons been covered substantively even though they're still a month and a half away? That's why I'm advocating for WP:REFUND, I understand the G5 exclusion but in this case G5 was appropriate and I'd like this to be closed as "appropriate close, but individual articles can be refunded in spite of the WP:G5 ban," especially since so many of our seasons articles violate WP:NOTSTATS. SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't care what you call the close, but these article should be restored and given the deleting admin refused to do so and WP:REFUND explicitly says not to post there if it's a G5, this seemed like the only way. Smartyllama (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles don't need to be restored. As I've noted, the WP:G5 was proper, coming here was proper, I'm saying I believe the remedy should be you should be allowed to go to WP:REFUND in spite of the WP:G5 restriction having discussed it here. I don't want these mass-restored since there's a very good chance they violate WP:NOTSTATS as the season hasn't started yet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Re NOTSTATS, just picking a few articles at random from the list: Louisville ([13], [14], [15]), Arizona ([16], [17], [18], [19]), and West Virginia ([20], [21], [22]) all have significant coverage that could be used to build up the articles if they were restored. I would assume the others do too, and would be willing to do that if and when they are restored. Smartyllama (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and refund – According to WP:G5, a page should be deleted if it was created by a banned user *and* if it has no substantial edits by others. The vast majority of these pages did have substantial edits by other users of WP:COLB. After these pages were originally deleted, Barkeep49 restored 2019-20 NC State Wolfpack men's basketball team to Draft as they indicated there was room for improvement on sources, and once I added several the page was restored. Can something like that not be done here for the rest of these articles? Chadmb2003 (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  All articles with substantial edits by other editors, including several whose only other editor was an IP, have already been restored. So that element of G5 was not ignored. The list of articles here are ones that, outside of DAB fixing and the like, only the banned editor contributed to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I know for a fact that I edited the Creighton one, so that is simply untrue. Who knows how many others you missed in your zeal? Smartyllama (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smartyllama: I had missed this until now. I don't think I'm zealous about anything on Wikipedia but to the extent that I am this isn't it. Your only edit on Creighton was accepting it from Afc. I do not call that a substantive edit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – Assuming the pages listed were only edited by the blocked/banned editor, this seems like a textbook G5 application, and I'm not seeing a reason to IAR for these articles (which I don't think comply with WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:NSEASON anyway). – Levivich 01:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with the textbook WP:G5, this isn't the place to continue your crusade against sports articles - these articles are clearly notable as long as they don't violate WP:NOTSTATS (which most college season articles do, without making any comment on the contents of these articles). SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    

    • Setting aside the G5 issue, if they are notable but violate WP:NOTSTATS in their current form, they should be improved, not deleted. Several editors, myself included, have offered to do so in this case once the articles are restored. Smartyllama (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand, but I'm really in two minds here, since something that's notable on WP:GNG grounds shouldn't be included if they fail WP:NOT. That's why I have my specific position - restoring articles which violate WP:NOT without a maintainer are useless. SportingFlyer T·C 03:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, myself and several other editors have offered to improve the articles if they are restored. If they fail WP:NOT now, they won't shortly if they are restored, and the solution is to improve them, not delete them. On the other hand, making editors recreate the existing content from scratch because of some absurd ad hominem argument gives them that much less time and motivation to expand them beyond what was already there. Smartyllama (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, I'm not suggesting you recreate the existing content from scratch, I'm suggesting we waive the WP:G5 requirement at WP:REFUND for these articles only so they can be restored when you or others are ready to improve them. SportingFlyer T·C 21:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which is now. As I and others have repeatedly said. The longer we waste our time with this DRV, the less time we have to actually improve things. This whole process is totally ridiculous and violates WP:NOTBURO. Which, by the way, is also a policy. Smartyllama (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The nomination reads: "Although technically they qualify for G5 ...." and that's the end of it. They were procedurally properly deleted. Editors are free to request the restoration of individual articles for improvement, and admins are free to act on such requests (or not). Sandstein 07:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which I would happily do if WP:REFUND didn't explicitly exclude G5 articles. Several people here have said to ask at WP:REFUND, but this ignores the fact that WP:REFUND explicitly prohibits that. I'm fine with a closure of "Endorse but REFUND" but it would seem to me that that would contradict what it says at WP:REFUND and I'm not sure how else to overturn an inappropriate but G5-required mass deletion besides invoking WP:IAR, which others have been unwilling to do. Then again, ignoring the G5 exclusion at REFUND would itself be an appropriate use of IAR in this case, maybe it's OK. Smartyllama (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Let user:Smartyllama have the deleted page’s references and start again. There is no creative content in the reference list, and so no attribution to give the banned editor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As others have said above, it's actually a lot of work to recreate all the deleted content. And every minute I spend doing that is one less minute I can spend actually improving the articles beyond NOTSTATS. I don't have time to do both. I can either improve them or redo what was already done. I don't have unlimited time. And one of those options seems like it would improve the encyclopedia a whole lot more than the other. Furthermore, given the extensive formatting required to redo the work the other editor did, I could easily improve all the other articles in the time it would take me to recreate one from scratch. I don't have time to do that to all of them and I'm not going to waste my time redoing someone else's work when it would be way, way easier for an admin to just restore it. Smartyllama (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    How much content was written by non-banned editors? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how much was already written on these articles by non-banned editors, because I can't see the articles at this point. I do know, however, that myself and others were planning on improving these articles when they were deleted, but simply hadn't gotten around to it yet since we were working on improving other, related season articles (which according to the deleting admin weren't deleted, though at least in the case of the Creighton article, that's simply untrue as I remember editing that.) Smartyllama (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. If G5 applied, it is the admin’s responsibility to make the judgement on whether to delete, which includes the judgement to decline a restoration. Banned means banned, it doesn’t mean banned unless the new content would take time to reproduce. Start again with the bare references, don’t undermine Wikipedians’ authority to ban. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SmokeyJoe The problem is that what the banned editor did is by far the hardest part editing-wise due to all the tables and boxes and stuff. It would take me weeks of constant editing to reproduce his work and I don't have time for that, I want to improve articles, not do what has already been done because of some absurd ad hominem argument. I'll also note that in the time I wasted on this DRV, I could have vastly improved all the articles if they were restored, and it's stupid things like this that really decrease my motivation for the project. Smartyllama (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you are talking about this, which is nominally sourced to this. All directory information, the details unsourced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty much, though I can't confirm if that's the latest version. I can easily find and add sources and additional content. Recreating the tables with the roster, schedules, etc. from scratch would be much, much harder. Smartyllama (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a citation for the schedule in the article, which took me about 15 seconds to find. It would take me several orders of magnitude longer than that to recreate the table from scratch. Or we could just restore the article and I could add the cite. That's a lot easier. Smartyllama (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just noticed that Liz deleted 2019–20 Utah Utes men's basketball team even though G5 definitely did not apply since I edited that extensively. Between this and the Creighton deletion, plus any others Liz may have deleted erroneously or non-erroneously, we need to heavily scrutinize the deletions to make sure G5 even applied to begin with. Also, if Liz can get me a list of any additional season articles she deleted under G5, I can add them to this DRV for the same reason. Normally I wouldn't add any so late, but I was just made aware of this and whatever logic applies to the Barkeep deletions should also apply to the Liz deletions and any others I may have missed. Smartyllama (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that several of Liz's deletions, including the Utah article, were erroneously tagged as G8 (which should have been reserved for the talk pages) which may be why Barkeep missed them when giving me the list. Regardless of how they were tagged, the same logic obviously applies one way or the other, and in any case the Utah article and any others where anyone else contributed should definitely be restored. Smartyllama (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The list I gave you is of articles I deleted that I didn't restore. Anything Liz or any other sysop did about this banned editor would not be covered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah, you're right, I misread the logs. I've stricken the incorrect parts and will be compiling a list shortly. Smartyllama (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barkeep49 Can you move your additional comment above below our replies to the previous comment, please? Smartyllama (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, it's my fault, not yours. I've fixed it. Smartyllama (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin note No content on any true substance should be in these deleted articles. Following the nuke I did based on the banned editor, I went through and restored any article with any substantive edits by anyone including IP editors. The deleted articles have only gnomish sort of edits. A typical article is 2019–20 Miami Hurricanes men's basketball team. This one had IP edits and thus was restored by me. But note that at the time of deletion how the content far surpasses what the single reference can support. And indeed still can support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it took me all of two minutes to find and add two more references. I could easily do that and more to all the other articles too. Recreating the tables and infoboxes would take significantly more work. What the banned editor did may not be significant content-wise but it was by far the hardest part editing-wise. Smartyllama (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infoshops (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I’d like to put the deletion of Template: Infoshops to a review. I’ve already spoken to the closer and to be clear I voted keep.

Here’s what I’d like reviewed:

• I was confused by the decision to delete since in the discussion there were three Keeps, three Deletes and a Weak Delete which said "but I don't see anything problematic with keeping them either" so I would have expected a decision of no consensus. The closer referred to “a majority calling for deletion” and I don’t see that. I do understand the decision to close is not based on a headcount but then if that is given as the justification I find it rather odd. The debate centred around criteria 3 and 5 of the navbox guidelines and I see no consensus there.

• I also think there were procedural errors:

Firstly the discussion was opened on July 27 by a user who didn’t follow the usual courtesy of notifying contributors to the template.

Secondly and more importantly, after one week (the customary time period for discussion), the discussion had two keeps and one delete. It was then relisted on 4 August 2019. After over a week had gone by and with no further comments made I asked for the discussion to be closed by someone, instead it was relisted again on 13 August 2019. That seems controversial to me since the usual timespan for a discussion is seven days. The first relister then later added a brief Delete note on 19 August 2019 which I think is improper behaviour, if they wanted to cast a vote they should have stayed away from relisting/closing (as I did). So I also find that controversial, although on reflection perhaps since it was over two weeks since they had relisted they had simply forgotten their previous action. Also in this time period someone on the Infoshops talkpage stated some things pointing towards keep perhaps not realising the discussion was ongoing. The discussion then stood for over a month longer (!) before being closed as Delete.

Thirdly on 30 August 2019, a user actually bothered for the first time to give a detailed justification for deletion, over a month after the discussion was opened. If I had seen that I would have given an equally detailed response since it broadened the scope of the discussion. I would still be happy to provide that although I’m not sure how relevant it is now, certainly the closer wasn’t interested.

So I want to review this deletion on two grounds as per WP:DRVPURPOSE, namely consensus incorrectly interpreted and procedural errors, stated above. To be clear I’d like the decision to be overturned, then I can work on improving the template. Thanks for any answer. Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus - I don't have an issue with the second Relist, which was a reasonable action when there was no consensus. However, there was still no consensus when it was closed. A slight numerical majority is not a consensus, and there was no strong policy reason why the Delete arguments were better. This should be overturned to No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Two relists is normal (see WP:RELIST) and in fact the second relist was a given since no additional discussion happened after the first. But I agree, there's no consensus here. Two of the five deletes were based on an argument the closer even noted was weak ("redundant to categories"). The participants were pretty much evenly split on the policy question, i.e. does the template meet the navbox criteria. Overturn to no consensus. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus - I agree with Robert and Joe that there was no clear consensus or overwhelming policy-based argument on display at the time of closing.  — Scott • talk 13:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closer I don't routinely close TFDs, but nobody else seemed willing to close this one, it was very overdue. I closed it as I saw it, with a slight majority and the stronger policy-based arguments in favour of deletion. No objections to an overturn, if that's the consensus opinion here. Fish+Karate 13:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus - Still no consensus found whether to keep or deleted. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish coffee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was recently speedy deleted according to WP:CSD#A7, but as a food item it does not fit this criteria for deletion (it is not an individual, animal, organization, web content, or event). The deleting admin has been contacted, but he is essentially inactive at Wikipedia and has not responded. If this page is to be deleted, it needs to go through AFD instead. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC) -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IAR Endorse. It's correct that WP:A7 doesn't apply because it has some random laundry list of things it applies to and this isn't one of them. The conclusion I come to there is that A7 is stupid. Why should some things be CSD-able if they give no indication of importance, but for other types of things, not? In any case, this is completely unsourced. My first thought was, "OK, this is stupid, I'll just write a new article about kurdish coffee and source it properly". But, I couldn't find any sources. Sure, the term "Kurdish coffee" is used in places, but I can't find a single WP:RS that supports it having the ingredients this article claims it does. What I can find is lots of places that reused our text. I even found a wikidata entry which is as unreferenced as the article in question. I'm tempted to say, reclose as WP:G3 (blatent hoax), since I can't find anything to suggest it's not. Maybe there's something in non-English sources, but somebody else will need to find (and translate) those. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Blatant hoax" isn't "I couldn't find sources". (And even if it were, Pistacia terebinthus was just one link away; it currently refs [23], which seems to be what this article is talking about, though not by this name.) It certainly isn't "I couldn't find English-language sources that I think are reliable". Send to AFD. —Cryptic 23:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see the harm in sending to AfD. It isn't technically A7 eligible and there probably is an article to be had here. Maybe this isn't it (I can't see it) but feels like it needs a discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7 doesn't apply to food items. That aside, surely after the article has been around for years, it should be dealt with at AFD. Reading the French version of the article (fr:Menengiç kahvesi), I'm not sure why the referencing was a particular issue that couldn't be easily overcome. I'm also scratching my head how this is a hoax. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is an obvious error on the part of the admin (who hasn't responded to questions), it doesn't fit the A7 criteria at all. There's no need for AfD either, it's not difficult to find sources for "Kurdish coffee" made from terebinth, e.g. [24], [25], or the Turkish word for the same thing, menengiç: [26], [27], etc. Please undo the deletion, there's no reason for it, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The reason A7 does not apply to products is because it is impossible efor one individual admin to have sufficient knowledge of all the different possibilities to recognize those that might make a claim to notability The Del Rev here is good evidence for this--even if A7 applied to products this would not have been a reasonable speedy. . That's not the case with companies, where the obvious and blatant non-notability of some firm is clear to anyone. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy list at AfD. A reasonable dispute of nearly any CSD, certainly including A7, should see it immediately listed at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if there's really any dispute, because we don't know what the admin was thinking. Maybe they just hit the wrong button. As soon as the A7 deletion is undone, I can add reliable sources covering notability and facts, and do a bit of copy editing. Let's see if anyone still thinks AfD is necessary after that. --IamNotU (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Adjusting !vote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Allow subsequent AfD if there remains a problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as A7 is not applicable. An AFD is not really required at this point in time, and if the promise to add sources is honored, would quickly tank and the article would be kept anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Medical Center (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

"3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"

This article is about a newly opened hospital in Jordan that was deleted because a 34 story 200-bed hospital was "not notable". Hospitals require these criteria: significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources (per WP:ORGCRIT). Five such sources were provided belonging to the leading newspapers in Jordan: Al Ra'i (Jordanian newspaper), Ad-Dustour (Jordan) and Al Ghad (governmental, semi-governmental and private respectively page 22), along with one of the most viewed online newspapers in Jordan (Khaberni). There was nothing to prove that these articles were taken from an alleged press release. [28], [29], [30], [31] and [32]. By the time the discussion closed, two more sources surfaced [33] and [34]. Note that Wikipedia is not an English exclusive website and that sources in foreign languages are acceptable. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm the closing admin, and I stand by my closure. As I explained, at length, to Makeandtoss, they did not provide most of these sources during the AfD. Consensus there was determined on the basis of the arguments provided, and the arguments to delete were stronger. I also suggested that they simply wait for a couple more sources and then recreate the article; it's a new center, more sources can be expected. Heck, they could have recreated the article with new material today and that would have caused less drama than coming here. Make of that what you will, I'm done with this argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: As I said above, five sources were already provided in the discussion and the extra two were provided after the discussion was closed. Recreating the article makes no sense, the nominating editors will simply renominate it, as they have done already twice. And no I will not succumb to selectivity, which has become unbearable on Wikipedia. Guidelines must be applied justly. Editors get accused of causing "drama" for wanting to do things right here! Makeandtoss (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're going in circles, and it's rather frustrating. Your statement above is patently false in two respects; only three of the sources were provided at AfD; and there was evidence of a piece of text being recycled between two of them. Continuing to argue the issue without causing those facts is silly. Trying to relitigate the AfD, instead of showing how consensus was wrongly assessed, is definitely causing drama. Implying, as you have done multiple times, that you are the victim of injustice because an article you wrote was deleted is being unnecessarily dramatic. Taking this to DRV, where even a reversal wouldnt't prevent renomination at AfD, instead of recreating, because you think that will lead to renomination at AfD, is being dramatic. I don't want to get further involved with this argument, as I said. Please don't keep pinging me to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of drama to build up an argument won't work. There were multiple incidents of selectivity that culminated into this. The five sources were present at AfD, you would have checked if you were reasonable. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I think this should be overturned to no consensus - there's only three !voters and there's a significant disagreement about whether non-English language sources meet WP:GNG. I understand why this was closed as a delete, but I don't really see a clear consensus to delete. I also wouldn't be too concerned if we draftified the article, as there are other sources available not presented in the AfD such as [35], but I don't think it should have been deleted outright. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The good thing about Wikipedia is that it is not a democracy. And actually I did use this source in the AfD (along with various other sources not mentioned here) but they were considered to be unreliable by some editors. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as delete - If I had been the closer, I would have closed it as Delete. But that isn't the question. The question is whether the close was reasonable. It was. A No Consensus might have also been reasonable, but this was a valid close. That is that. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please explain why you think the close was reasonable? SportingFlyer T·C 02:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:SportingFlyer - I don't see any Keep !votes. That looks like Delete to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Robert McClenon: Cheers, thanks for your response. Though Makeandtoss didn't explicitly vote in the discussion, I counted their extensive participation as a !keep vote, which is why I believe we differ in our interpretation. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: But that's not exactly the reason why this was brought to the review. New sources appeared after the discussion ended. The extra two are linked above. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Makeandtoss - Question - Are you asking to Draftify a new version of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although an option, no I am not currently seeking to dratify a new version of the article. I am here to have it undeleted it per DRVs guidelines; the surfacing of new sources that would render the deletion questionable. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn With only a single delete vote (other than the nomination) there wasn't overwhelming consensus. More troubling, the nomination statement was patently false, claiming an open hospital was still under construction. The only delete vote, seemed to be insistent on getting an English-language source, in violation of policy, despite being handed multiple other-language sources ... anyone can right-click translate. More stunning - I can't imagine a 34-story hospital wouldn't be notable in any city on the planet ... there'd be immense news coverage years before it opened. Meanwhile numerous sources that appear to meet GNG were provided - and ignored, during the discussion. My mind boggles! While the closer needs to read consensus, they also need to make sure the delete (or keep) arguments don't completely violate Wikipedia policy. Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• relist per Nfitz's arguments. Or failing that overturn to NC. That isn't a keep. While I think many of the delete arguments are bogus (English, not open, etc.), the sources aren't so far above the bar that we can get to keep from this. I'd rather see a longer and better informed discussion. But if relist isn't in the cards, NC is the right outcome of the discussion. To be clear I'm arguing to relist overturn because the delete !votes are so flawed (nom statement just flat out wrong, !vote to delete not based in policy). But even then, this isn't clearly notable--the sources haven't been meaningfully discussed. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually less sure after reading the AfD again. There are in effect two !votes to delete, and HighKing's arguments are quite reasonable. I'll move to abstain. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • HighKing created the AFD - and yes their argument is quite reasonable. The only delete vote (other than HighKing's nomination) dismissed the Arabic sources out of hand, and asked for English ones - which violates Wikipedia policy. The keep argument is also quite reasonable, with 2 or 3 good Arabic sources and numerous other mentions. At best it was no consensus, or relist for further debate. One of the two references raised after the closure is compelling as well. The combination of these three references alone is very compelling to me - one, two, three. Do they follow the press releases a bit too closely in an restrictive undemocratic closed society with a highly-controlled media ... surely that goes without saying. Nfitz (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is it correct that the statement by the nominator that the hospital was not yet open was incorrect? If that is true, and if the hospital was open at the time, I will strike my Endorse and change it to an Overturn and Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Yes the statement is incorrect as the hospital has been open since July. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Relist - If the hospital has been open since July, then the AFD was conducted with materially inaccurate information due to good-faith error and should be relisted. If there is disagreement based on sources as to whether the hospital has been open, then the AFD has still been conducted with materially inaccurate information. Trying to guess whether to close this as No Consensus or as Keep would be a mistake. Just Relist it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. I've been thinking about this one for a while. I originally closed this as delete, but after a talk page conversation, I agreed that I had misread the discussion and backed out my close to get additional input. The problem is, we didn't get any additional input; the same people who participated in the original discussion rehashed the same arguments. I think it would have been better to relist it for a third week in the hopes of attracting additional participants. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, sorry I rushed before. After reading the discussion, and the sources a bit, I think relist is probably the right outcome. I think Nfitz has described the discussion pretty much correctly. But I do think most of High King's arguments are strong enough one can't reach a keep outcome. I'm also fine with NC. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Haddad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted because discussion from more than 2 years, maybe at this time he didnt have notability, or the article is just bad. but now this director he is most famous music video director in arab world, in this 2 years he also directed movie, tv series, tv show, I put many english sources in article, and the arabic sources is more than hundred, I will put this sources again here if you want, and if you still have issues with notability, then actualy there are article for music directors had less notability than him, I recreate because I wonder that he still didnt have article here This some sources in English confirm his notability:

• Fadi Haddad, The Busiest Lebanese Director And Retina Films
• After Najwa…Nancy has Fadi Haddad’s signature
• news about his last movie in 2018: "Maharaja" Lebanese Movie in all Cinemas in Lebanon Starting December 20th 2018 FPP (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have sources about him? The hotarabicmusic site is down (for me at least), and the others have basically nothing about him and only a little about his work. English sources aren't key (though they help), quality, independent sources are needed and the two I can see lack the detail needed. I'll also note that the AfD had some issues IMO. No group of people are "inherently non-notable" though I do understand the idea behind the words. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The first source confirm that he most famous direcotr in lebanon, the second talk about his works with one most famous arab singer such as Nancy Ajram and Najwa Karam, third talk about his movie, that he is also film director, there are another which can find in english:

• • This about his work in movie: Have you deleted the scenes of Dalida Khalil from the movie "Maharaja" for Ziad Barji?
  • This about his clip with Fares Karam: Fares Karam films new clip with Fadi Haddad
  • this about his work with Diana Haddad: Diana Haddad to release her new album in “Eid Al-Adha”
  • this about his work with Arwa: Arwa’s “Waqool Ansaak” soars to 1.5 mln viewers on “YouTube” in 17 days
  • this about his work with Assi Hellani: Assi Helani feeling merciful this Ramadan
  • this about his work with Melhem Zein: https://www.emiratesvoice.com/en/103/melhem-zein-sings-for-assi-hellani
  • this about his work with Sabine: Sabine Shares First Exclusive Photo From Talekni Music Video
  • this about his work with Najwa Karam: Najwa Karam To Host Valentine’s Concert In Jordan --FPP (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It is impossible for us non-admins to judge a WP:G4 deletion when we can't see whether what was deleted was sufficiently similar to the previously deleted article. Could an admin please restore this so we can look at it, or, if there is a good reason not to do that, say whether there was a substantial difference, particularly whether there were any new independent reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's called "tempundelete", is common practice, and I have done so. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. I see new sources post AfD, which was a delete due to lack of sources demonstrating notability. That makes for a non-controversial WP:REFUND request to draftspace. Draftspace is suitable as a staging ground to work in the WP:THREE sources that are needed to demonstrate notability for a topic that could be considered promotional. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per SmokeyJoe. The subject seems to be notable enough, but the article needs to be worked on to demonstrate that before being recreated in mainspace. Geolodus (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify the AfD is a couple years old now, I have no problem restoring the article if a quality article which demonstrates notability can be created. SportingFlyer T·C 19:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• what the case of this article now? can I restore it or not? --FPP (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify, but I would advise the filer to be patient and let this DRV run for seven days. This is a case where there is no deadline, and acting as though there is gives reason to suspect paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, consensus seems to be that the subject is notable, but the article needs improving. But hang on - if the subject meets GNG, and the article needs improving, then deletion is never the solution, because deletion is not cleanup as per the policy WP:NOTCLEANUP. The article should be developed and improved, not deleted (or draftified) ... there is no deadline. Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I see new sources, but I do not see the GNG having been met. I think the onus should be on the proponent to point to the GNG-meeting sources, for deleted topics. Also, the deleted page is a terrible article not worthy of mainspace. Maybe it will be fixed in five minutes, but until then draftspace is the better location. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I've misinterpreted consensus above. At the same time, the article that was deleted earlier this week doesn't appear to be terrible, and not worthy of mainspace - it's a stub, and certainly looks improved from the one that went to AFD a couple of years ago. But hang on ... how then was it speedied as G4? It looks like a complete rewrite to me, with substantially different references. Even if I've misread consensus, the speedy doesn't seem to be valid, as it's both not 'substantially identical to the deleted version' and the new references 'address the reasons for which the material was deleted'. An AFD candidate perhaps - but this can't be a G4 speedy. And that's what is being appealed here. Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah maybe. Maybe I am on the thought train of what User:FPP ideally should have done, which is: Instead of re-creating the deleted article, go to WP:REFUND, request draftification, re-work it, and then AfC-submit or BOLDly move back to mainspace, claiming clearly that the reasons for deletion at the AfD have been overcome.
          Was it a good G4? I haven't really considered that, just that it is at least an obvious REFUND. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't get the impression FPP was aware of the content of the original article (which no one had edited since September 2016) - looks to me like they started with a translation of the Arabic version at ar:فادي_حداد. Looks to me like an independent effort by an editor not involved previously. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that - but it also means that G4 doesn't apply. Nfitz (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agree. There is nothing wrong with an uninvolved editor translating a foreign article onto a redlink. I support allow recreation. The newest version is OK, and can be renominated at AfD at any time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn isn't a G4 and no one here is claiming it is. It's that simple IMO. The speedy can't be endorsed, so it goes back to main space. AfC/Draftspace etc. aren't required. If people think the *topic* isn't notable, feel free to send to AfD. But "move to draft space" just isn't in DRV's remit AFAICT. I can see an IAR thing here in an attempt to help, but in my opinion even then things should only be sent to draft space by someone willing to work on them. I can't get behind the IAR here unless that's actually the case. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore the article to mainspace. As Hobit notes above, this was not a G4 case and nobody in the above discussion is arguing that G4 was applicable here. Thus the article should be restored; if after that someone still wants to have the article deleted, they can PROD or AfD it then. Nsk92 (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheSuicideSquadLogo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This was deleted as a copyright violation (WP:F9) but I'm challenging it because it does not meet the threshold of originality to be considered a non-free work. It's just words with a few holes in them, which is not original or unique enough to render it a non-free image. Per Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts_and_typefaces, "typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States." JOEBRO64 15:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For interested editors, see the original discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#File:TheSuicideSquadLogo.png, where the request was originally denied.

Now, click on the link for typeface; a typeface is a font family, not an entire logo with formatting. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Seems to be a pretty clear WP:F9. There's more to the logo than mere characters, and the logo seems to be an original or unique work. (Note: I can't see the image, but I believe I have found it elsewhere on the internet, and of the three potential logos I looked at, did not see any which would be ineligible for copyright protection.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like what was uploaded was a rectangular crop from https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEXoL5OXYAITCs3?format=jpg&name=large containing just the "The Suicide Squad" logo, from the bottom line of the full image, between the WB and DC logos. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the one I found. Thank you for confirming. I stand by the WP:F9. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If it were just circles cut out of the lettering, that might not be over the TOO, but it's ambiguous enough that I'd still prefer to write up a NFCC rationale than slap a public domain tag on it - it doesn't take a lot of creativity when combining typefaces and geometric shapes and 3-D elements to become copyrightable; compare File:Disney Junior.svg. This doesn't even come that close, though: the holes aren't circular, and the cracks around them are plainly copyrightable. Downscaling the image so that they're a bit blurry doesn't change that. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this isn't just letters in a typeface, the artist has added holes and cracks to them in a way that's not part of the typeface. I strongly suspect this is over the threshold at which it qualifies for copyright protection. I also don't think this is an acceptable way to treat a volunteer who's just doing their job. Hut 8.5 06:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe that was a little harsh, but can't you see that this frustrates me? JOEBRO64 10:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can that it does, but we can't see why it does. You've been explained by multiple editors that it doesn't pass the free threshold. Why would this suddenly change? -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I'm allowed to disagree with people who I think are incorrect. It's as simple as that. JOEBRO64 11:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are. But not a single person has come forth to support you or oppose the deletion, while a multitude have come forth to oppose you and endorse the deletion. Despite what you may think, it is clear that you are the only incorrect one here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagreement is fine, as long as it's respectful and WP:CIVIL. Keep in mind that the recipient of your invective is another human being, who is volunteering their time, just like you. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn F9, list at FFD (Is that a proper option? I'm still getting the hang of file DRVs.) F9 is for unambiguous copyright violations; this one is ambiguous. I look at these logos, including the one under discussion (at the bottom center), and then I look at Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright (logo), which is the category filled with {{PD-logo}} images, and it seems the Suicide Squad logo has much less originality than any of the others in the category (whereas File:Disney Junior.svg looks to me to have more original components than the logos in the category, e.g., the unique, stylized Disney font, the mouse ears silhouette, the red "i" with two yellow dots invoking Mickey Mouse's overalls). This file should be discussed at FFD rather than handled on a speedy basis. – Levivich 03:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Commons seeks to conform to copyright both in the US and the source country. Its guidance is at commons:Threshold of originality. Here we only address US copyright. Thincat (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the difference? – Levivich 14:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand you, UK law, for example, accords copyright to images involving a (much) less degree of originality. But in this case, since the logo is US, it is only US law that counts even on Commons. I happen to think the logo would more likely be kept at Commons than here. That has nothing to do with copyright law and a lot to do with the attitudes that have developed among the denizens of WP:FFD and COM:DR. Thincat (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn F9 because it was certainly wrong. I would upload the thing to Commons rather than fuss here. Thincat (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Likely exceeds TOO in the US, given the arrangement (and complexity) of the bullet holes. Wouldn't be opposed to restoring if a valid fair use case could be made. For reference: original file, description page -FASTILY 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• List at FFD Probably will bedeeted, but it should be discussed here, not here. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Likely to be deleted at FfD, but there is apparently serious debate here, so apparently it's not an appropriate speedy. By my understanding it is probably protected. But I'm no expert. So overturn speedy and anyone can list that wants to. To be clear, I think the person doing the speedy made a quite reasonable call. But worth discussing it seems. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to FFD. CSD is for clear-cut cases, and since there's reasonable arguments on both sides, this obviously isn't a clear-cut case. The people who understand copyright law/policy hang out at FFD, so this should be sent there for their expert review. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse clearly to complex for public domain, especially with the cracks around the holes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bardhyl Selimi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

improvement Hyrdlak (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

• Endorse WP:G4. The re-created article looks vitually identical to the one deleted by AfD. The only difference looks like a carpet-bomb of additional references, but there's no indication that any of them are significant in terms of addressing the issues raised in the AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The contention point that led to the deletion of this article on Sept 4, 2019 was the issue of notability as proved by sources not connected to Bardhyl Selimi. With the 'carpet-bomb' of 50 references I prove the subject's notability in the spheres of Albanian/Kosovan and Esperanto (global) culture.

I still have no clue why the relisted draft of this article was deleted without any discussion. Hyrdlak (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

The reason why the re-created article was deleted "without any discussion" was that we had already had the discussion. We don't repeat a discussion, probably with exactly the same reasons as before, every time an individual editor disagrees with the outcome of that discussion. Personally, if there is even the slightest reasonable doubt about whether a recreated copy of a deleted page is changed enough to warrant a new discussion then I restore it on request, because there is considerable disagreement as to what changes are enough to invalidate speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted page, and I regard it as better to give the benefit of any doubt. However, in this case I felt, and still feel, that there isn't any reasonable doubt to give the benefit of. So that editors who are not administrators can judge for themselves I have restored the history of the article, and moved it to Wikipedia:Bardhyl Selimi/Temporary copy for deletion review. The version deleted as a result of the discussion is here, and the version which Power~enwiki tagged for deletion and I deleted is here. The text is virtually identical. A number of wikilinks were added, but that is irrelevant to the issue of deletion. A large number of new "references" were cited, but unfortunately, contrary to what Hyrdlak says, they do not by any means "prove the subject's notability". Most if not all of the 52 new "references" that were added to the new version of the article either don't mention Bardhyl Selimi at all or merely mention his name briefly in passing. At least one is a page which is marketing a book of his, and merely gives his name as author. Some of the references are pages on Wikipedia or forums, as well as scarcely mentioning him. And so it goes on... Not only do the new references fail to "prove the subject's notability", they fail to even provide a small step in the direction of showing more notability than was already demonstrated when consensus at a discussion decided the subject did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is, in fact, a good example of what is described at WP:BOMBARD: the mistaken belief that simply throwing large numbers of references at an article adds evidence of notability, even if none of those references contain anything relevant to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, although I am not sure whether this is an appeal of the original Close as Delete, an appeal of a G4, or a request to re-create due to new information. The fact that this filing isn't clear is another reason to endorse. If this is an appeal of the original Close as Delete, all that is noteworthy is the wall of text by Hyrdlak, but it isn't clear what the meaning of the wall of text is. If this is an appeal of a G4, I have to rely on those who have seen the two pages that they are substantially the same. If this is a request to re-create due to new information, it isn't clear what the new information is. So for whatever reason, we can leave it deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Driggs (lawyer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Adjohnbrock (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Adjohnbrock: Please let us know why you think this article should be undeleted. You also need to consult with the deleting user on their talk page before coming here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks like a proper G11 to me. The article consisted entirely of advertising, even the section describing the subject's failed suit against his state bar for threatening to discipline him for violating rules about advertising. —Cryptic 00:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anarchist writers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe consensus was interpreted incorrectly for this deletion. The category was deleted as part of a broader deletion of Category:Anarchists by occupation and its sub-categories. But aside from the nominator, everyone who supported deletion of the other categories said that Category:Anarchist writers was an exception and should be retained. In other words, the actual consensus was to retain Category:Anarchist writers and delete the others. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. It looks like the closer, Good Olfactory, hasn't been editing for almost a year. In any case, I agree, this looks like a mistake in the close that should be corrected. Most of the delete comments did indeed explicitly include this as an exception. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not just most - nobody commenting in that discussion supported deletion of this category except for the nominator. I'm surprised nobody brought this up, either here or with the closer, before now. —Cryptic 20:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the XfD was attended by a bunch of Anarchist wikipedians. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to delete something you need the support of at least one person other than the nominator, so there was no consensus for the deletion of that category. Hut 8.5 06:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore (this category alone); this was clearly an oversight. – Fayenatic London 07:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore this category alone. The closer User:Good Olfactory is usually a conscientious and reasonable admin, so I assume that this was just an oversight which he'd be happy to remedy if he was around. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Consensus was clear to keep that specific category alone. SportingFlyer T·C 21:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Seems like a pretty straightforward oversight. – Levivich 04:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Nanotechnology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This portal was deleted with only two !votes based on the mistaken assertion that the portal had been abandoned since 2012 and had no maintainer. No notification was given to me, the maintainer; apparently, a notification was misdirected to the portal's original creator, who has not been active since 2007, rather than myself.

Given that the basis for the deletion was factually incorrect, this falls under WP:DRVPURPOSE item 3: "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". In addition, given that the discussion received very few !votes, it possibly should have been closed as WP:NOQUORUM, which may also place it under item 1: "someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly".

Upon undeletion I will promptly fix the issues with outdated information raised in the deletion discussion, which are easily fixed. This request includes Portal:Nanotechnology and its subpages, and Template:Nanotech selected and its tracking categories. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and undelete as lister. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To elaborate on my last point, the deletion discussion does fall under the letter of WP:NOQUORUM, "a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion", in which case "the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD... [and] the article can be restored for any reason on request" (emphasis in original). Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for additional discussion including the portal's declared maintainer. There was a {{Portal maintenance status}} template on the portal page identifying Antony-22 as the maintainer, so it was an oversight by the MfD nominator not to notify him. I don't think the closing admin did anything wrong here, but the earlier mistake justifies reopening the discussion so Antony-22 can defend his maintenance activities against the criticisms offered in the MfD discussion. Whether it makes any difference to the final result will depend on how that additional discussion goes. --RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, failure to notify an active listed maintainer is a critical failure for consensus decision making. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe. See my !vote below. A22 was indeed a listed maintainer, but describing him as an active maintainer is quite a stretch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Failure to notify an inactive listed maintainer is a lesser-than-critical issue. Still, all stakeholders should be notified, and watchlisting is not always sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @SmokeyJoe, it seems to meet that you expressing a personal preference rather than a policy or guideline. WP:MFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion says little about notifications, and WP:AFD#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors is explicit that no notifications are required other than tagging the nominated page: "While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors".
          So I see no policy basis for treating the lack of notification to a maintainer as being in any way deficient, let alone critical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • True. We could add it to the rules, to notify maintainers of Portals, like how there are special rules when nomination WikiProject subpages, but it is possible that by the time we agreed to do that, and resolved the possibility of automating it, there will be no more portals anyway. In the meantime, for an very low participation XfD, we usually agree to relist to let a late person have their say. I think the closer should have been asked, and them immediately agreed. It’s very silly to have a megabyte review over a 3 person discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • We usually agree to relist to let a late person have their say only when they have some statement of fact to contribute that was overlooked - typically, sources that weren't considered, or changes outside of Wikipedia since deletion. I can't recall DRV ever overturning on something so flimsy as "I used to edit this page, and I didn't get a chance to vote", which is what this amounts to. Antony-22: if you've got something to say that would reasonably have changed the outcome at MFD, now's the time to say it. The threshold's pretty low, but I don't see that you've passed it. —Cryptic 04:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • We do for sure usually relist if someone comes in just a bit late with something important to say. Antony-22 has not yet said what it is that he might say that is important, but sometimes we like to be nice to people. I see that he did ask User:MER-C at User_talk:MER-C#Portal:Nanotechnology. I am not fully onboard with the quorum talk, but I would have done a quick relist, it would have wasted less electrons than this DRV. Strongly agree with "The threshold's pretty low, but I don't see that you've passed it." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've put more detail in a comment below. But basically my point is that all the content issues raised are ones that could have been fixed very easily by asking nicely. The deletion itself was based on the incorrect statement that the portal had been abandoned since 2012, and that no one was around to take the ten minutes to add a few death dates and update a few employers. Also, the discussion really does fall under the letter of WP:NOQUORUM. I realize that the expectations for portals have been changing over the last year or so, and I can certainly commit myself to bringing on more maintainers and associating with one or multiple WikiProjects. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Antony-22: I don't doubt your assertion that the problems could have been fixed very easily by asking nicely. But the whole point of a maintainer is that they should be pro-actively maintaining, rather than passively waiting for someone else to notify them of long-term problems. And for three years, you hadn't been pro-active.
                    WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so if your priorities and interests had moved elsewhere, then that's fine and you deserve no reproach for donating your time to something else. But please don't try to have it both ways. You can't be both a maintainer and a not-doing-any-meaningful-maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, portal has a named maintainer who has related deleted edits from 2016. (Also seems issues could be fixed relatively easily). —Kusma (t·c) 21:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as a typical SNOW deletion, but no objection to a relist for more participation. The challenge for User:Antony-22 will be to persuade others why this Portal could help readers better than the article Nanotechnology, and address the many standard portal criticisms including: Never used, no sources, core content compliance problems, redundant to and negatively competing with the parent article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The support for a relist is correct as a principle. However, I see no sign of new comments that will change the result. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist A fuller participation in the deletion discussion would be welcome. Also the oversight to notify the maintainer (prominently listed via the {{Portal maintenance status}} template) is most unfortunate. Perhaps the nominator was having too much "fun" in hastily churning out nominations, whilst engaging in their new hobby, to be bothered? --Cactus.man ✍ 00:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is a case where a failure to notify has led to an unfortunate outcome. If the maintainer had !voted, this would have been at worst a no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 02:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The statements made in the MFD clearly showed that the portal had not been (sufficiently) maintained for years. The small number of !voters in an XfD isn't a good reason to overturn an outcome - especially as many editors (including myself) don't bother commenting in cases where the nom has made a good case and no-one has disagreed. DexDor ^(talk) 11:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Minimal participation and the maintainer wasn't even notified doesn't make for a valid discussion. Restore the portal and reopen the existing discussion for a week. I'm not optimistic the result will be any different, but at least let the maintainer have his say. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per DexDor. Notification is optional (if the portal is not on editor's watchlist, how can we expect a talkpage notification to be seen?), and the consensus was clear. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as having a named maintainer might change the discussion and it wasn't that well attended to start with. I can't really fault the close though and the rationale for deletion wasn't just based on having no named maintainer, it also noted that large portions of the portal were very out of date. It might be worth restoring to draft space instead if it does have that many factual inaccuracies. Hut 8.5 18:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The close was proper as DexDor explains. However, there is no harm to the project if the portal is relisted for more participation WP:IAR. --Enos733 (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I do not recall any significant edits by Antony-22. I am fine with relisting. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a portal is first set up, subsequent updates to content are made on the subpages, not the main portal page. It's possible you only looked at the main portal page and saw the edits made by the original creator, but weren't looking in the right place to see the more recent content updates by me. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as one of the Delete !voters. The close was proper. It is not true that the MFD would have been No Consensus if the maintainer had been notified. There were three Delete !votes including the nominator and myself, and no Keep !votes, so that one Keep vote would have still be a Delete consensus, unless a strong policy argument was provided for Keep. I will note that the maintainer could have checked the portal within the week of the listing, or watchlisted the portal, which makes them appear to be a low-priority maintainer. I wouldn't have changed my !vote if I knew that the portal had a semi-active maintainer, because I was persuaded by the errors (which illustrate that content-forked subpages have a tendency to content rot). However, a Relist is a reasonable idea, especially based on Ignore All Rules. Robert McClenon (talk)
  • The portal was on my watchlist, but I suppose I missed it because I wasn't editing much that particular week and wasn't thoroughly perusing my watchlist, as happens sometimes when real life takes one's attention. A talk page notice would have generated an email, which I would have noticed and responded to very quickly. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The MFD nominator was incorrect about the date of abandonment, but not about the fact of abandonment. Antony-22's deleted contribs shows that their last 3 edits to he portal were made on 1/ 29 March 2019, 2/ 23 June 2018, 3/ 12 July 2016. One tweak per year is not active maintenance, and the sheer number of factual errors adds to lack of credibility of A22's claim to be a maintainer. So this is not "significant new information", just a footnote.

Note that WP:POG has several other criteria which were clearly not met, such as the need for multiple maintainers and lots of readers and for an associated WikiProject.

So the error makes no material difference to the portal's status, and should not alter the outcome of the MFD. This woefully neglected portal has wasted the time of readers for years, and factually misled many of them. The fact that A-22 now seeks to assert himself as the architect of that neglect, after his culpability was mistakenly overlooked, does not justify wasting more of the community's time on the unpleasant exercise of demolishing A-22's claims. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per BrownHairedGirl. I was one of the delete voters at the MfD and my vote would not have changed based on knowing that an editor, who for all intents and purposes long ago forsook this portal, had a bout of MfD induced nostalgia and wanted it kept. The portal was riddled with serious errors for years, which demonstrates Antony-22 was not a serious maintainer of this portal and even if they had been, did not require notification. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Failure to notify an individual isn't usually reversed by deletion review; we'll overturn if a page itself isn't tagged for deletion, and for images and templates sometimes if the tagging's not visible in article or article talkspace, but "I edit this page and didn't get a user talk notification" isn't the sort of significant new post-deletion information that WP:DRVPURPOSE is talking about.
  I'll extend some benefit of the doubt since this was a minimally-attended deletion discussion, and I don't get the overall impression that individual portals get well-scrutinized at MFD. On the other hand, I can't find any nontrivial maintenance to the portal's content by the nom here since his updates to subpages of Portal:Nanotechnology/Selected biography on 7 November 2015, unless you count adding "Welcome to the nanotechnology portal", changing links to reflect the split of Nano/Bio Interface Center out of University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science, or merely swapping which bio is on which subpage. (I don't.) So while I'll grant that the statement "no maintenance in six years" was incorrect, there's no reason to think that the correct "no meaningful maintenance in four years" would have changed the outcome, especially given the other issues raised at the MFD. Endorse. —Cryptic 04:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist A poorly attended discussion that had some factual errors and a notification issue that might have turned the tide. Seems like it's worth a relist. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As the closing admin, I defer to the outcome of this discussion. MER-C 13:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Several people have referred to "serious errors", but the issues pointed out were a couple of missing death dates and a couple of employers that needed to be updated. This would have been barely ten minutes of work if someone had just asked nicely, and certainly isn't reason to delete. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Antony-22: This tends to be mostly an issue with BLPs. I am not a huge fan of {{Transclude lead excerpt}}, but I recently decided to use it for pages as this one to avoid embarrassment related to long outdated info on BLPs (especially, to catch any deaths). —Kusma (t·c) 16:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) (Comment continued) I believe the last time I updated the content selections was in late 2016, so it's perhaps a valid criticism that that's a bit of a longer time than is ideal. For what it's worth, I had prepared updates to the selected biographies (mostly based on a few recent nanotechnology-related Nobel prizes), but hadn't gotten to implementing them yet. So again, this could have been fixed by nicely asking instead of jumping immediately to a deletion discussion.

Also, nanotechnology is a fairly broad subject, as it overlaps physics, chemistry, and even molecular biology, and any or all of those WikiProjects could adopt this portal. This would take a bit longer than the time allotted for a deletion discussion, but I can certainly commit myself to bringing on additional maintainers if this deletion review succeeds. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Members of topic wikiprojects generally take very little interest in portals. Nanotechnology may overlap those topics (and others), but it's smaller than any of those 3 topics. DexDor ^(talk) 21:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, these are all topics better discussed at a relist. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Clearly it would be fair to the maintainer to allow them to state their case, and they should have been notified in the first place.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I previously closed this discussion and undid this closure per a request on my talk page. But since I've now read all of this discussion, I might as well give an opinion as an editor. The closure should be endorsed, as it reflected consensus and did not have any procedural defect. That few people participated is immaterial; this is not unusual in XfDs. The argument that relisting is appropriate because the "maintainer" was not notified strikes me as particularly weak. Wikipedia recognizes no privileged role for editors with respect to any page; see WP:OWN. The participation, or not, of any particular editor is therefore also immaterial. Besides, how well is this "maintainer" doing their job if they didn't watchlist the portal page and didn't notice the deletion request? Not very well, it seems, which is probably also a reason, on the merits, to delete this page as unmaintained. Sandstein 16:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thank you for your discretion. I realize this is a tough close because it's right on the line between consensus and no consensus, despite having a very clear majority for relisting. This might be a situation where, according to #Closing reviews, "in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of 'no consensus' as equivalent to a 'relist'."

I'd also like to point out that WP:NOQUORUM has an absolute criterion of "few or no comments" other than the nominator; it is not relative to what is typical of a certain type of XfD. Also, as I stated above, the portal was on my watchlist, I just happened to not look at it that particular week. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I count 9 out of 21 votes being to endorse, which is clear no-consensus territory.

And "I didn't check my watchlist" is a creatively novel DRV rationale. Regardless of the outcome of this particular DRV, I sincerely hope that DRV never allows XFDs to be overturned on that basis, because the result would be procedural mayhem.And if you want to change DRV's guidance for closers into "no consensus→relist", WP:RFC is thataway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means just "I didn't check my watchlist". The original deletion decision was based on demonstrably incorrect information; it should have been closed under WP:NOQUORUM procedures; and, well, I'm just quoting DRV's guidance for closers at the top of this page. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't check my watchlist" is one of the bases of your request.

The "demonstrably incorrect information" is that one of many points in the nomination was a mis-statement of the period of abandonment as seven years rather than three. That is not a material difference. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – One of the WP:POG requirements is that a portal be maintained, which means having editors to maintain it. In that context, the argument that this MfD was procedurally defective because the maintainer wasn't notified actually supports deletion, not a procedural keep. If the portal had maintainers, they would have noticed that it was nominated for deletion. That no maintainer opined in the discussion more or less proves that there are no maintainers, and thus the portal should be deleted. WP:NOTAVOTE applies here, and it's not unusual for an XfD to have only a few editors opining; that doesn't make it procedurally defective. The end result if this is relisted is not in doubt: deletion. So, the close should be endorsed. – Levivich 18:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am striking my agreement to a Relist, because on review I see that this would establish the precedent that a maintainer or author could ignore an XFD in order to game the system and see if the XFD discussion was closed as Keep or No Consensus, but appeal if it is closed as Delete. The maintainer should have been aware of the nomination. A maintainer who is not aware of a nomination in seven days is not really a maintainer, and that was one of the reasons for the MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really not trying to game the system or help others to do so here. This is a case where the deletion was made based on incorrect information that wasn't corrected due to a misdirected notification; it shouldn't create any precedent outside those narrow circumstances. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple wrinkles here - first, portals are spread across multiple pages, so it's possible to not notice that a portal has been nominated for deletion if you've only worked on the sub-pages, and second, the XfD was poorly attended enough that another voice grounded in policy could have potentially swayed the discussion from a delete to a no consensus. Clearly anyone who wants to keep an article would be better off !voting keep than ignoring an XfD. Furthermore, there's no proof the XfD was willfully ignored. SportingFlyer T·C 05:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, at least, A22 has a number of edits to the main portal page (most recently on 29 March 2019, to add "Welcome to the nanotechnology portal" to the top). However, I don't think that having missed the nomination edit on one's watchlist is real evidence of being unmaintained - heck, I've got 36000 pages on mine, enough of which are bluelinks that I wade through about two hundred entries a day - so much as needing to have the portal MFD'd and deleted to get the nominal maintainer to notice that the death dates are three years out of date. —Cryptic 17:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milk N Cooks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This review is not a reflection on the judgement of the closing admin. The closing admin properly closed the AfD based on the content of the discussion. I would like to review the result of the AfD because since the close of the AfD I found new arguments for a keep that I was unaware and would like a second bite at the apple with this new argument.
The AfD closed as delete because there was only one good reference that all editors agreed established notability, but WP:N requires multiple references to establish notability. I have since discovered the existence of WP:ENT which states that notability is presumed if the entertainer has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
This is the reason why I am seeking this review. The one reference that all editors agreed is good clearly demonstrates that the subject of the article has a large following − Trump supporters. Hence, I don't think multiple references are needed to establish notability, as notability is already presumed by criteria set in WP:ENT and verified by WP:RS.
I regret that I was unaware of WP:ENT at the time of the AfD and could not bring it up during the discussion. Banana Republic (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the party line answer here would be that WP:ENT may create a "rebuttable presumption of notability" but if more than one good source cannot be found then it still fails GNG and can be deleted. At least that is the tack currently being taken with sports biographies. As for Milk N Cooks, I'm sympathetic and I think they're close to passing GNG. Another two half-decent sources and I'd support re-creation. If they are rising in popularity then I imagine some more coverage will pop up soon. Haukur (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a second "half-decent" reference, from the time before they were popular with Trump supporters. It is in a local paper, so it was dismissed during the AfD, but it is a full Q&A with the duo. Banana Republic (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I remember reading it and I do think it counts for something, even if it may not quite bring us over the line. Haukur (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:ENT is for "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities". The subjects of the article were musicians so WP:ENT does not apply to them, indeed it specifically directs us to WP:NMUSIC for musicians.----Pontificalibus 16:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not really musicians. They are DJs. Hence, entertainers. Banana Republic (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All musicians might be regarded as entertainers, however WP:ENT notes this by directing us to WP:NMUSIC for entertainers who are musicians. I suppose the term "DJ" encompasses e.g. radio presenters who might not be regarded as musicians, but also those who mix music as the principle act at gigs and who are obviously regarded as musicians. In this case our one reliable source refers to them as a "twin music act", and the source makes it clear that they are musicians who play music at gigs.--16:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
      • The point is that they do not create their own music. They use music to provide entertainment to their fan base. I think WP:NMUSIC is for people who are known for their music. Banana Republic (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most musicians don’t create their own music. Club DJs are regraded as musicians, and these two specific ones are regarded as musicians per our one reliable source.--Pontificalibus 17:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you look at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Other, you'll note that none of the criteria could possibly apply to DJs. Banana Republic (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • 1, 3, 4, 5 could all apply quite easily. This is why Category:Electronic dance music DJs is in Category:Electronic dance music musicians. ---Pontificalibus 17:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Self-endorse. I don't usually get involved in these things, but this is getting silly. This was already the subject of a long thread on my talk page. Then dragged to DR in an absurd battle over what "multiple" means. Now we're at DRV arguing about which WP:SNG to apply because one of them lets you get away with a single source and the other one doesn't? I think the most applicable policy here is WP:STICK. Not to mention that WP:DRVPURPOSE doesn't include, I didn't do my homework the first time. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why you're making this personal. The very first sentence in the review says that this is not about the judgment you used in the closure. So you don't have to make this personal about me. Banana Republic (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - User:RoySmith That isn't what the DRN was about. The appellant wanted to take over the shortcut THREE, and I told them that the procedure for taking over a shortcut was Redirects for Discussion. However, I agree that it is getting silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • A tangent from the DRV, but looking closely at this dispute, Wikipedia:Multiple sources probably needs to be moved to userspace. SportingFlyer T·C 07:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this feels like an attempt to rehash the AfD, and none of the reasons given is very convincing:

• WP:NMUSIC is a much better standard to use here then WP:ENT. The subjects are musicians: people who create music. Specifically they are DJs of the kind who play music in clubs (not the kind who broadcast on radio). They might be mainly known for remixing music made by other people but that's still creating music. It looks like they have written original music as well, they provided the score for a conservative documentary. By contrast they clearly aren't "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities" which is what WP:ENT is for. Nobody in the AfD mentioned WP:ENT whereas a couple of people did mention WP:NMUSIC.
• Even if WP:ENT is the standard to use I'm not convinced that the Politico article shows they have "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". It says very little about how popular they actually are. It does say They have a decent fanbase, with tens of thousands of followers across their various social media accounts and millions of streams between their SoundCloud and Spotify profiles, but "decent" isn't "large" and having tens of thousands of followers on social media isn't very impressive.
• The OP claims above claims the subject meets this subsection of NMUSIC, but for that you need solid evidence. If you want to argue that they are "cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre", for example, then you need to come up with actual reliable sources which say so.

Hut 8.5 21:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This is very easy - the DRV is stating the article should be kept because WP:ENT exists, but special notability guidelines are subservient to WP:GNG - they provide rebuttable presumptions, and the deletion discussion already showed the inadequacy of the sources, i.e. that WP:GNG is not satisfied. SportingFlyer T·C 02:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because the appellant agrees that there was no error by the closer and none of the other reasons for DRV has been established. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It is a well thought out close. Szzuk (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Correct close of the discussion that showed a consensus to delete. Procedurally sound. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I would like to see if the deletion of File:Veronica_-_Vatican2.jpg can be reversed. I raised the issue with User:Fastily earlier this year, but didn't pursue it further at the time. (User talk:Fastily/Archive 6#FfD deletion of File:Veronica_-_Vatican2.jpg The deletion discussion is here. This image was in use at Veil of Veronica, and it does not look like there was any attempt to notify editors of that page that the image was being discussed.

One of the reasons given for deletion was that the image was "blurry to the point of illegible". My concern is that that image, bad as it is, was the article's only actual image of its subject. All of the other images in the article are drawings or paintings based on the actual artifact, or photographs of other similar artifacts. This image appeared in a gallery of four images of related artifacts, and the text discusses the similarities between them, particularly the gilded metal sheet with an aperture, which was visible in all four images. The actual face is not visible in the picture, but that is kind of the point. Almost nobody has had a good look at this thing in over a century, and the last person who did see it and write about it said that the face was no longer visible. It is still valuable to see the blurry image alongside the images of the other three artifacts, which may be ancient copies of it.

Besides saying that the image was "blurry to the point of illegible", User:Magog the Ogre wrote in the deletion discussion "it appears this is a copyright violation". I'm not sure on what his basis was for the statement that the image appeared to be a copyright violation. Photographs that simply reproduce two-dimensional works that are old enough to be public domain are themselves public domain under US copyright law and are allowed by Wikipedia's rules.

I ended up here as a result of a question from another user at Talk:Veil of Veronica#Rome Veronica image.--Srleffler (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Srleffler (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Srleffler: Why was this not uploaded to Commons? Why not upload it there right now? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It already was uploaded to Commons, and deleted there as a copyvio. The image contained probably-copyrightable elements other than the veil itself, so the deletion there was likely correct. —Cryptic 18:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cryptic: what elements? Can you link to the picture somewhere on the internet? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the image and file description at time of deletion. Also, courtesy pings for @Magog the Ogre & @Salavat -FASTILY 21:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed this would be covered by Template:PD-art. The veil and its frame are both old enough to be in the public domain. Photographs of two dimensional works of art are not copyrightable in the US. Even if the photo is copyrightable, this case may be fair use under Wikipedia:Non-free content. The image is a small, low-resolution snip from a larger picture. It can't be replicated since the veil is not on public display.--Srleffler (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to be sure, but especially after looking at the uncropped image linked in the file description page, the frame looks three-dimensional enough that a photograph just of it would be copyrightable. The file wasn't cropped even just to the frame, either. A tighter crop would have a stronger chance of being public domain. Alternately, a colorable argument could be made to use the image under NFCC, and that hasn't been attempted. WP:NFCC#8 would be tenuous due to the image size and quality, but that's not an argument to be made at DRV. Restore and send it back to FFD, this time with a note at Talk:Veil of Veronica. —Cryptic 04:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to crop the frame out, but the image could certainly be cropped tighter to the frame. I do think that NFCC#8 is relevant. This is the only available image of the article's subject. None of the other images in the article show the actual artifact. They are all either works of an artist's imagination or pictures of other similar artifacts.--Srleffler (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Very low participation, but there is no reason to think more participants would say any different. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very low quality image of a dubious image of a lost dubious image. I don't believe this image can ever be used to improve Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Send to FFD" !votes should acknowledge that there was an FFD here. "Send back to FFD for more discussion" is reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore, send to FFD It would be good to know exactly what the copyright problem is with the image. I think restoring and sending to FFD would be the best bet, as there's a number of potential issues with this one, but it's not clear this should be deleted, either. SportingFlyer T·C 04:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to FFD. I can't find the exact place this is discussed, but I believe the problem is that the photo includes the frame around the painting. Paintings are 2D and frames are 3D, and apparently in the bizarre twisted world of copyright law, that's significant. But, yeah, sending this back to FFD seems the wisest thing to do, since that's where the experts on these issues hang out. Why anybody thinks this is a useful image is beyond me, but let's at least let the FFD folks give us a definitive read on the copyright issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to FFD. By no means a straightforward case that couldn't have valid arguments both sides. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venezuela Squad 1990 FIBA World Championship (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the above templates were deleted out-of-process and that administrative tools were misused.

In May 2019, 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup and 1998/2006 FIBA Basketball World Cup-related templates were deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 8#Template:Angola Squad 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup. Three days ago, the templates listed above were tagged for speedy deletion as {{db-g4}} by Sawol, and the link discussion was cited for the removal of the templates. Several of these templates were created several years ago, some over a decade ago. They were not part of the aforementioned deletion discussion, so the speedy deletion of these templates should have declined and deferred to WP:TFD. However, they were deleted by Anthony Bradbury.

WP:CSD criteria have very narrow definitions and are not particularly open to interpretation. The templates deleted failed to meet several aspects to qualify for speedy deletion under G4. They were not: a) recreations of templates that were previously deleted; b) sufficiently identical copies of content previously deleted material; c) previously deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. The deletion of these templates appear to be out-of-process. I asked for clarification on the deleting administrator's talk page, who believes the deletions the deletions were fine based on his interpretation of policy. I explained my points, and attempted to gather insight regarding his understanding of policy by providing a different example. The responses I received were underwhelming and don't appear to attempt to adequately explain how policy was applicable in this situation. He refused to comment on the example I provided because it was from 10 years ago, but somehow felt that deleting templates under G4 based on a discussion that never took place can fly. I would like the community's input regarding the matter, as I believe these deletions should be overturned as they do not meet CSD policy. ƏXPLICIT 10:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know a ton about templates, but it very much looks like the deleting admin couldn't justify the deletion under anything other than an IAR-type argument. IAR is rarely appropriate for speedy deletions. My guess is that we'll end up in the same place, but this should be listed at TfD. That said, I'm hopeful the nom here has a reason to believe that the templates are useful and stand a snowballs chance of being kept at TfD rather than just objecting for form's sake. But undelete and list at TfD. (Normally I'm not fond of DRV listing something, but we can safely assume the speedy tagger wants these deleted). Hobit (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, the deleting admin, have no argument here. I accept that the deletions were out of process, although I am pretty certain that WP:TfD would/will ultimately lead to deletion. I simply have not yet got round to what appeared to me to be a significantly time-consuming and non-urgent procedure. I deleted as a batch, but am not ware a way to batch-restore. Is this possible? If so, how? ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copy an undelete rationale to your clipboard, click on each of the "restore" links above, ctrl-v, enter, and rollback the speedy tags? —Cryptic 17:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That will undelete the templates themselves. The ugly part is that when the templates got deleted, whatever script was used to do the deletion probably also removed the template from all the places it was used. That's the hard part to undo. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should mass-deletion scripts be required to have an undo function. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would be nice, yes. But, it's not possible in the general case. Later changes might make it impossible to undo an earlier one in any rational way. That being said, there should be a simple way to "best effort undo" a mass action. The changes required can be triaged into 1) Trivial, so do them without human intervention, 2) Likely to be correct, so generate the likely change in an edit buffer which is presented to a human for confirmation, and 3) No clue how to proceed, in which case a human needs to evaluate what to do. In practice, a scheme like that will significantly reduce the amount of human effort required. This is a well known problem, and solutions similar to this exist for most version control systems. Now, we just need to get somebody to volunteer to code it up :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the deletion of all the templates not listed at the TfD. Is this all due to a procedural and script error/mistake? Maybe list at TfD without undeleting, if they are likely to be deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the OP that these templates don't qualify for speedy deletion because they aren't recreations of templates which were deleted at TfD. However the TfD rationale obviously applies to them, they would have been deleted at the TfD if the nominator had bothered to list them with the others and I don't see anybody here arguing that we should actually have these templates. As a result I don't think there's any point in listing them at TfD per WP:NOTBURO. Hut 8.5 11:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If they are relisted, having looked through the "precedent," I would make an argument for keeping them. SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist at TfD, as speedy deletion does not apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Brain (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was listed twice in a short period of time. The first discussion had about 3 opinions for keep and 5 for delete, and was resolved as no consensus. The second discussion only 3 months later was even briefer and bascially a re-!vote on the previous discussion with no real new information or change in opinions. This time there were 3 keeps and only 4 deletes. This however was interpreted as a consensus for delete, with the closing admin dismissing the keep opinions through their personal interpretation of policy. ed g2s • talk 12:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What's changed since Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 5? —Cryptic 14:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If there's nothing new to review, this needs to be speedily closed. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Stead (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Marcus Stead was subjected to a prolonged campaign of online abuse by Welsh nationalist campaigners on Twitter. They were openly discussing his Wikipedia page and were plotting to have it removed. Within one hour of those tweets appearing, a Wikipedia deletion discussion page had been opened. That same day, vandalism of Stead's Wikipedia page took place, which was quickly reversed. I do not believe the attempts to remove the Wikipedia page were started in good faith. The main complaints of the small number of individuals who sought deletion of the page in the discussion were that there were not verifiable, independent, reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article. Yet the article contained links to high-profile, verifiable sources such as The Guardian newspaper, which has a daily circulation of around 130,000 and has existed since 1821. Other sources included Radio Sputnik, an internationally-respected radio station with bases in Moscow, Edinburgh and Washington DC. Stead's Wikipedia page could have been improved, and indeed was improved in the last few days, but the reasons given for deletion were flimsy and were the result of an orchestrated social media campaign by Welsh nationalists. I urge Wikipedia to reconsider this decision. NeilA1978 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse – It appears the filer has not conferred with the closer prior to filing as required. Aside from that, this DRV statement makes highly unlikely allegations. The DRV was nominated by a 1-year/1,000-edit editor. The delete !voters (going down the list of the AfD) have: 9 years/50k edits, 13 years/350k edits, 10 years/60k edits (and an admin), 9 years/78k edits, and 2 months/249 edits. Also, it was closed by an admin who is a very experienced AfD closer. Given all the experienced editors involved, it is nonsensical to believe that this article was deleted as "the result of an orchestrated social media campaign by Welsh nationalists", as the DRV statement alleges. Actually, looking at all the new accounts !voting keep, it seems the article was deleted despite off-wiki canvassing, not because of it. – Levivich 15:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Your use of the word 'nonsensical' is highly inappropriate. I can easily prove Stead was subjected to abuse from Welsh nationalists on Twitter, and can upload images of Welsh nationalists discussing his Wikipedia page less than an hour before the deletion page was opened. Is there a means of uploading file images to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Self-endorse as the closing admin: Well, since the argument appears to be that the AfD was a conspiracy - or part of a conspiracy - to get rid of this article I'll say that nobody has offered any evidence of said conspiracy existing and we cannot throw out an AfD on a mere assertion. In addition, even if it was true that such a conspiracy exists valid arguments were offered that the topic does not meet inclusion criteria, which were not effectively contested - being on Sputnik or The Guardian as noted in the discussion is not a notability criterium. As I said in the closing statement, people need to write about someone before that someone can be included. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the claim that the article was deleted because of a campaign by Welsh nationalists doesn't stack up at all. Six people supported deleting the article, four of those have more than 50,000 edits and clearly aren't here because of an abuse campaign. At least three aren't even British. The links to the Guardian and Sputnik Radio are really links to things the subject wrote on those outlets, which doesn't count towards demonstrating notability. Hut 8.5 21:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The argument that there was brigading or canvassing to delete the article is less convincing than the obvious fact that the campaign to keep the article appears to be coordinated. The Delete arguments speak for themselves, so this was a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The case in which an article would be overturned at DRV for something insidious like off-wiki canvassing to try to get the article deleted would be a good reason to overturn an improperly closed article, but that's just not the case here at all. That would require a demonstrated pattern of canvassing, but as has been pointed out above, the delete !voters were experienced and varied and focused on the sources, while the keep !voters all appeared to be relatively inexperienced and potentially canvassed, the exact opposite of what would be needed to overturn the close on those grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Self-endorse as the AfD nominator: The issues with the article's notability, verifiability, and independence from the subject were serious, and the text lapsed frequently into uncited, unnotable, or read-like-an-advertisement style. NeilA1978's claims of a conspiracy allude to myself or other experienced editors being part of an unsubstantiated organised political vendetta against the subject of the article. At one point I was accused of being a 'train-spotter', which sums up what a mess the AfD debate became. There was no evidence presented linking myself or others to the "Welsh nationalist campaigners", instead all we have is an un-cited and un-notable article worthy of deletion. I am concerned however that the article has been deleted previously in 2008 and 2009, and was recreated by NeilA1978 without ever addressing the issues raised in the past deletion. He even went as far as to remove citation needed tags after it was nominated. I have raised concerns in the AfD thread regarding the identity of 'Neil' due to similarities between his account and Marcus Stead social media details. As a result I think there is a high risk of NeilA1978 or other astroturf accounts re-creating this article in a few months or years time, in its recent form. Llemiles (talk, contributions) 00:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong endorse. The discussion found the sources wanting, and this seems to be becoming one big soapbox for the newer users who have decided this should be kept. Wikipedia is not here to point out great injustices. Even if the guy should be famous, unless there are new articles (or other media) made and edited by other people, people who are not and have no connection to Marcus Stead, we cannot have an article on him without quite probably violating our second pillar of WP:NPOV. Especially on controversial figures that have such strong advocates and yet also strong enemies in this cabal of Welsh nationalists, we cannot, unfortunately, guarantee that the article would remain neutral and not unduly positive or negative unless the independence and reliability of the sources are absolutely rock solid. The article must therefore, at this time, remain deleted according to our policies. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was properly deleted. Now that it is deleted, if someone wants to try better, the method involves WP:THREE. The subject's achievements and credentials are not what counts.

The page was one of many unsuitable promotional pages that can be deleted as such, and so it is unfortunately true that people who have snuck their promotion into Wikipedia can be vulnerable to third parties threatening to draw Wikipedia community attention to the page, attention that will see the page deleted. Wikipedia is currently weak on deleting carefully disguised promotion, but don't worry, it is on the community's radar, and it will all be expunged one day. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Anwar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The very nomination has never been properly refuted, which says "Fails WP:ATHLETE which states "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." WP:CRIC that is cited in this AfD is a part of WP:ATHLETE which also has a FAQ at the top, Q1 says "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline." There is an agreement that the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hence the Keep votes have no grounds in guidelines or policy. Also, this AfD is now inconsistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Latif which pretty much has the same arguments and the situation (and even similar votes), nominated by the same person. I am proposing either overturn to Redirect for consistency with the mentioned AfD or Delete. Per [36] the closer says at the top notice "Unhappy with my AFD closure? Please list at Wikipedia:Deletion review." (plus a closure with generic "no consensus" without any explanation for such a lengthy discussion) Hence I am here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no consensus close- there was no consensus in that discussion. Although the boilerplate close was maybe a bit minimal, and it's disappointing that the canvassing pointed out in the discussion was allowed to pass without comment, I don't think anything would have changed if those two things had been dealt with properly. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I am curious is...why are votes that aren't grounded in policy or guidelines being given merit here? This isn't a vote count. Also the consistency issue I mentioned. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong outcome I can't bring myself to say overturn because that would imply the closer did something wrong. The outcome is wrong, but that's because the discussion was garbage, and I can't blame the closer for that. Many of the keep arguments are plainly absurd. We've got things like, All international cricketers (men and women) who play at Test/ODI/T20I level are automatically notable. Nobody is automatically anything. And, Keep ... until we have a major policy change to remove all sportspeople about whom little is known. Little being known about somebody is pretty much the definition of not being notable. I had looked at closing this and walked away because at the time I didn't feel up to walking into a minefield. But, we've got one source that's literally a name drop (i.e. her name buried in a list of names), and another that's a line score with zero commentary. We delete articles with sourcing like that every day. It's only in the sports world that stuff like that passes muster as meeting WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I agree with User:Reyk about the boilerplate closing statement. A complex discussion like this deserves a deeper analysis in the close. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete per WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. I completely understand why a closer might close that discussion as "no consensus", but in my view, that is the wrong close. All of the "Keep, meets WP:NCRIC" !votes should be discounted. What's left is nearly-unanimous consensus to delete. Our policies could not be clearer that if an article subject only meets a subject notability guideline like WP:NCRIC (part of WP:ATHLETE), and does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), then the article should be deleted. WP:N says that. WP:ATHLETE says that. The FAQ at WT:ATHLETE says that. The only SNG that is an alternative to GNG–which is WP:ACADEMIC–explicitly says This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. (bold added). "Keep, meets ACADEMIC" is a valid, policy-based !vote, but "Keep, meets ATHLETE" is not. When an article is nominated for deletion, and challenged on "doesn't meet GNG" grounds, then GNG-satisfying sources must be put forward for the article to be kept. Editors may disagree about whether this source or that source meets GNG, but if no sources are put forward at all, !votes along the lines of, "No, it doesn't meet GNG, but keep anyway because it meets an SNG" (a.k.a. "Keep, meets NCRIC") are not policy based and should be discounted. (Recent NFOOTY example, and another example in the ProJared DRV below this one, and yet another in the Marcus Stead DRV above this one.) Any other result–if we allow a bunch of "Keep, meets SNG" !votes to "cancel out" "Delete, fails GNG" !votes, then everything will be closed with "no consensus" and kept by default, which undermines our notability guidelines. That's why non-policy-based !votes must be discounted; otherwise, it's useless to have policies at all. – Levivich 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse firstly the OP didn't discuss this with the closing admin first, as they were supposed to. S/he did leave a message for the closer but then filed this DRV fifteen minutes later. That's not a reasonable amount of time to wait for a response.
  That debate can't be closed as Delete unless "keep, meets NCRIC" is considered to be an invalid argument, and I don't think it's that bad. Yes, WP:ATHLETE does say that "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline", but meeting the GNG is a property of an article subject, it doesn't depend on what research has been done by editors. It isn't possible to show definitively that an article subject doesn't meet the GNG, the most we can say is that we tried to find evidence and failed. Trying to find evidence that the subject meets the GNG often means that a monoglot English speaker Googled the subject and read what comes up. This may not always identify the best available sources, and if we have evidence that sources are likely to exist (such as, say, passing some SNG) then may be reasonable to conclude that the subject might nevertheless meet the GNG. The subject here comes from a country where most people do not speak English and was active about 12 years ago. I'm not saying that this argument applies here but I don't think we can discount the SNG in this situation. Hut 8.5 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my nom? Talk page of the closer has a notice while editing (which was linked) that the AfD matters should be directly brought over here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I don't think you can really complain about the closer not justifying their closure, since you didn't give them a chance to do so. Hut 8.5 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood me. I don't want the closer to justify his closure, as I was clear in what my intentions are at the last sentence of a nomination: "proposing either overturn to Redirect for consistency with the mentioned AfD or Delete". In a good faith, I absolutely think 100 percent that Stifle had a rational thought behind the closure, whether I disagree or not. He isn't an admin just because. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There's really no consensus to delete in this discussion, especially considering the difficulty from finding Pakistani sources from 2004, and an overturn would just be rehashing the arguments made in the AfD. The close should have been longer, probably, but I don't see any wrongdoing. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am just stunned and confused right now. I have been considering to leave Wikipedia for a while but this may be the final "nail in the coffin" for me. I guess WP:ATH's clear notice in relation with WP:GNG doesn't exist, then? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it really that important that Wikipedia shouldn't have a very short article on an obscure Pakistani cricketer? Besides you are basically complaining that the closing admin didn't privilege your argument over those of some other editors, which isn't much of a reason to leave either. Hut 8.5 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda important because it creates an example that will be gladly taken by WP:JUSTAVOTE Keep WP:CRIC/WP:NFOOTY people. I am not complaining over privileges, but that own Wikipedia guidelines aren't properly followed. If someone thinks WP:ATH and WP:GNG relationship should change, so be it. But it should happen in respective talk pages, and not by trying to ignore things in AfDs. I think Levivich said it here better than I ever could. Leaving wise, absolutely not the only thing (besides being busy with studies and such). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jovanmilic97: (edit conflict) With all due respect, why would this cause you to leave? I've nominated articles to DRV before and have not gotten the result I've desired, and it does not feel good, so I do understand where you're coming from! To me, though, that is clearly an AfD without a consensus without going into the merits of the case (apart from looking at the fact both sides make rational arguments), and no consensus AfDs are the most difficult to overturn. Are your issues with Wikipedia only with deletion, or do you have larger concerns? Frequently, if I'm frustrated with the result of a particular argument, I find that creating or expanding articles in a completely different topic area or performing rote admin work typically keep me focused, and while that may not work for you, I would encourage you to find an area of the project that makes you happy as a contributor, as I know you've made positive contributions in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wany this to turn off-topic now, but thanks for some kind words :). Like I have said above, some other things mostly off-Wikipedia related. Regarding the area of work, I have assigned myself to improving video game articles (with Forever Worlds, Big Kahuna Reef, Drift City, Nevermind (2015 video game), Battlestations: Pacific, Alida (video game) and Alien Swarm among recent examples), no worries. I think I will take your advice here, haven't thought of that way. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Renominate, whether now or in two months. I agree with RoySmith and I feel that the keep !votes miss the mark, yet IMO the outcome isn't necessarily bad. Having played at the highest level means that it's likely (notcertain) that Notability — our source material for writing articles — exists, though being outside the anglophone world, more time to look for sources might be justified. The keep !votes, however, seem to assume or assert accomplishments meeting ATH totally exempts an article from GNG, and the sources in the article amount to less material than the quote in the nom. Relisting again, noting that those votes may be weighted less is another option, but if that's good then closing as no consensus with no prejudice and the same note would be better — after all, the discussion had more or less tapered off and was largely arguing ATH counts as notable and not whether sources exist, both factors in favor of a fresh discussion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, to delete or to redirect. We have the prerogative at DRV not only to overturn bad closes (this really wasn't one) but bad outcomes. RoySmith and Levivich explain why this outcome was wrong. Our job is to review deletion-related actions. So let's review it and overturn it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a necessary application of ignore all rules, as follows. This DRV is "interesting" because it involves a conflict between the concept of special notability guidelines and the exact wording of the sports notability guideline, and therefore a conflict as to how to relate the sports notability guideline to the general notability guideline. The concept of special notability guidelines in general (at least in my opinion) is to provide clarity, especially because the general notability guideline is often difficult to apply. (I am sure that there are a few editors who will disagree, and will say that the special notability guidelines are either unimportant, for children, or of lesser value.) The sports notability guideline lists a multitude of specific cases where the sportsperson is presumed notable. The problem seems to be that it doesn't, as written, act as an alternative to the GNG, and so permits a deletion challenge if WP:NSPORTS is met but WP:GNG isn't met, to rebut the presumption. One problem with allowing GNG to override SNG has to do with systemic bias. Systemic bias is not unique to Wikipedia. Systemic bias in Wikipedia is partly the result of systemic bias in news media and similar reliable sources. Female cricketers from Pakistan are likely to be systemically underrepresented in Wikipedia due to underrepresentation in the reliable sources. In this case, strict application of the principle that GNG is required and the SNG is not an alternative would continue systemic bias, and treating the SNG as if it were the equal of the GNG will reduce systemic bias. The closer was justified in closing as No Consensus, against a rigid interpretation of the GNG, as a case of Ignore All Rules. The sports notability guideline should be revised to be an alternative to GNG due to the need to minimize systemic bias. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural note: I have a standing waiver of all requirements to consult with me before listing reviews of my deletion closures here. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own deletion as a reasonable reading of the debate, which had well argued points for and against deletion. Notability is a debatable point, and its presence or absence to be determined by consensus case by case, not by saying my policy is better than your policy. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close matched the discussion, and “delete” was not a possible close. Don’t like that? See advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close is reasonable. I do think closers should provide more explanation when closing a discussion that is difficult or passionate. --Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse NSPORT creates a rebuttable presumption of notability, requiring those that which to challenge it to show that no additional sourcing at all exists to expand the article to at least the GNG (as per WP:BEFORE. This, for this player, requires local Pakistan sources. That wasn't done. I will say that the issue whether the original source potential faked numbers should be discussed because meeting NSPORT still requires factually true data from a reliable source, but in general there was not a proper nom to challenge the NSPORT presumption. --Masem (t) 02:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem: I don't understand your comment about " whether the original source potential faked numbers"? I don't see any evidence, or even speculation about that. That she played international cricket, and scored what she scored is factual and verifiable. The only question is around her notability. Harrias ^talk 09:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem:Oh okay, I've worked it out. It looks like you've misinterpreted the quote. "..it looks as though they were making up the numbers". It refers to when a team might only have 9 good players, so they just add 2 players without any particularly talent to "make up the numbers". See Wiktionary. It is not suggesting at all that numbers have been faked. Harrias ^talk 09:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per SmokeyJoe. There was no consensus to delete, therefore it was kept. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The Sports SNG is merely a shortcut to GNG. However, as has been pointed out by Masem the lack of evidence that a BEFORE was done with Pakistani sources suggests we can't conclude that she doesn't meet GNG. So we can't give more weight to the delete !voters. And as the keep !voters didn't offer sources and just fell back on the SNG we can't give them more weight. So no consensus it is. But I'll echo those who like closers in such thoughtful discussions to also put some thought into a closing statement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this was on my radar to propose a merge to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers. I can understand why it was closed as n/c, but I do think that's probably a better solution whilst the search for sources continues. As I said on the AfD, I'm sympathetic to the arguments, but simply can't find in depth sources in any language Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProJared (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am puzzled as to why the AFD was closed as delete when there are more Keep votes than Delete. There is a bigger consensus to Keep than Delete, seeing as there are 6 Keep votes, and only 3 Delete votes. Also, an entertainer's popularity *does* factor into their notability, per criterion #2 of WP:ENT: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. I'd say the fact that the subject used to have 1 million subscribers meets that criterion, so I'm not sure why the closing admin asserted that "popularity is immaterial". Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: Because Sk8erPrince did not discuss this with me before starting this DRV, as per the instructions, I'll not be commenting here. Sandstein 06:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sk8erPrince please read WP:POLL. "Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule.". So your argument of Keep leading the votes is pretty much useless. No opinion on the AfD right now, plus you haven't discussed this with Sandstein (and with the absence of a good reason to not do so) per the instructions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There were 4 delete votes (the nominator counts as one). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. AfD is not a vote and the rationale for this DRV seems to be based on vote counting alone. --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The keep voters made various assertions, but these were not backed up by the required sources. WP:ENT doesn't obviate the need for sources.--Pontificalibus 10:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- it's not a vote and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES arguments shouldn't be given much weight. Reyk _YO! 11:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we get a temp undelete please? Arguments in the AfD argue about the quality of sources in the article and if ONEEVENT applies. Need to see the sources in the article to evaluate the arguments. Hobit (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]