Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 January

< December 2020	Deletion review archives	February 2021 >

I requested the restoring of an article for Paul Menta, which was deleted some time ago. The request was denied pointing me instead to this discussion and contacting the deleting admin, however I do not know who that is since I can no longer see the article. Please advise thank you. 65.98.241.200 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

28 January 2021

27 January 2021

Greek crossroads, neighborhoods, streets, and villages – Endorse Wily D 01:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Wily D 01:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The !vote was 2 delete, 1 keep, 1 abstain. The abstainer (Antondimak) was caught recreating the parent of these categories after prior deletion, with an omicron replacing the 'o' in "from". Antondimak also is responsible for the comment WP:WALLOFTEXT that made everything difficult. I'd hate to see that tactic being successful.

There are only 2 articles in these 3 categories. That's why Marcocalle and Rathfelder and I have all tried to put these articles into better categories, and been reverted repeatedly (again, by the "abstainer" Antondimak):

It's a violation of WP:SMALLCAT. Only the nominator and Marcocapelle gave a rationale. Rathfelder participated, but did not explicitly !vote, saying supportively "... The others, apart from Category:People from Karditsa should be deleted. Antondimak appears to be intent on disruptive editing...."
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DRV is a content forum. Is the filer appealing the close of No Consensus, or seeking to report disruption? Report disruption at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption was reported at WP:ANI, and that review was the reason Antondimak (the creator) changed from oppose to abstain. We also discovered that Antondimak had repeatedly subverted the CfD process by recreating after deletion 4 others with an omicron replacing the 'o' in "from", leading to further nominations over two days. All of them were closed "no consensus" after WP:WALLOFTEXT. I've asked for review of this first, because it is clearest and easiest to understand.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the close of No Consensus as a valid close. It doesn't matter if it is the close that someone else would have done. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Valid close. I recommend William Allen Simpson to wait two months, and then make a more persuasive new CfD proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was 3:1; the result could not be more clear. These are common numbers at CfD.
Only we 3 had specified policy and guidelines; adherance to policy and guidelines could not be more clear.
Population doesn't rise above 5,000 until 2 more levels up the tree; that there is no potential for growth (WP:SMALLCAT) could not be more clear.
Each category had only 1 entry; WP:SMALLCAT could not be more clear (0 entries would be db-empty).
Each article had no WP:RS for the notable categorization of birthplace (WP:COP-PLACE); that the articles should not be in these categories at all could not be more clear.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to know something about what you are talking about, but you could do better at telling a story in order to keep people's attention. I think a calmly reasoned new CfD submission is the forum for this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe - You recommend a calmly reasoned new CFD submission. That would be a good start, but when there is bad blood between two editors, there is a risk that that CFD will also be derailed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a justified comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as valid. Note that deletion review only considers whether the deletion discussion has been properly closed. If you're concerned about the behaviour of a user, that needs to go to WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it has become obvious to me that Deletion Review is not an adequate forum for enforcement of content policy and guidelines. I'm deeply disappointed that standards have fallen so low.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (closer). When one faces sort of a wall of back-and-forth text that needs to be read through, and the contrasting opinions in that wall are so strong, I think there is more of a tendency to decide that the result should be "no consensus". It was difficult to follow everything that had been going on behind the scenes as well, as one user was making changes on the fly. I don't mean to say I was lazy in closing the discussion – what I mean is that it's difficult to read so much conflict and decide that it's fair to close a discussion in favour of one opinion or the other. I have closed a lot of CFD backlog lately and perhaps I was tired. Anyway, as a "no consensus" close, I don't think there should be a mandatory waiting period before a renomination can happen. Perhaps a fresh nomination could better consolidate the various opinions, which I think would also result in more users participating. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If the closer thinks an immediate renomination is OK, then great. I think that in general, we shouldn't be telling unhappy participants to immediately renominate, that would be disrespectful for the closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I'd brought this Deletion Review at the direct suggestion of Good Olfactory (on Talk). Emphasizing that I'm not disrespecting the closer in any way, as we have had very good relations for many many years. My main interest is that closing be based primarily on established policies and guidelines, and that the WP:WALLOFTEXT attack never be successful.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the 'abstain' reads like 'oppose' to me. William Allen Simpson is hardly one to complain about walls of text. Oculi (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per closer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that there was a report at WP:ANI about two weeks ago, and it was inconclusive, in that it was archived without being resolved, so the conduct issue has not been disposed of. This DRV should be resolved as Endorse, and I have already !voted to that effect, but then continuing admin attention may be in order to see that any further proceedings are orderly. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus close - this is a mess. The !vote was actually 3-2 in favor of upmerging+deleting. The argument for upmerging (WP:SMALLCAT) was somewhat stronger than the argument against it (largely WP:ILIKEIT plus a promise that more articles will exist in the future). However, it isn't a clear numerical majority, and the hostility between Antondimak and William Allen Simpson has poisoned the debate. I think a RFC on how these categories should be structured is the best approach, not further piecemeal CFDs. At a quick glance having categories based on the 74 Regional units of Greece seems best, but I am not familiar with Greek geography nor place-of-origin Wiki-categories in other countries so I cannot make a definitive statement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 January 2021

25 January 2021

Chris Yonge – "Keep" closure unanimously endorsed. Sandstein 15:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closer's decision was "keep". When questioned about what they based their decision on, the answer was not that they evaluated all evidence brought forth, only that a number of "experienced" editors say the sources are sufficient. This answer implies that the closer considered the editor that brought forward the AfD and those who voted against keeping the article to be less experienced and therefore what they say should not be counted equally, that the closer, themselves, did not evaluate the evidence presented thoroughly when making their decision and, based upon the only answer we did receive, a consensus would not result in "delete" even if relisted. There was sufficient evidence presented to dispute the reliability of the sources, both included and not, such that it warranted more of a response from the closer concerning their decision and how they arrived at it based on provided evidence and not the experience level of editors involved. A result of "no consensus" would be better tendered if one believed a consensus to "delete" would not be met by relisting or more of an explanation should be presented to suffice why the evidence disputing the reliability of the sources should be disregarded as that was not presented within the discussion. This is not a just conclusion for either side. Either the result should be "no consensus" or it should be relisted. "Keep" based on legitimate policy explanation was not presented sufficiently to conclude with that determination. --ARose Wolf 20:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just by the numbers, there were seven "keep" !votes and four "delete" !votes (counting the nominator); one of the "delete" voters was an IP whose only edits related to this article, and another was a new account with fewer than a dozen edits, almost all being cursory AfD !votes. One "keep" voter was similarly a new account primarily adding AfD !votes (though at least they made a reasoned argument). Numerically, the actual balance of participation to be given any weight is 6-2 in favor of keeping. As an experienced AfD closer, I immediately noticed the participation of long-term experienced editors like Dream Focus, Bearian, and Atlantic306, who have contributed intelligently to past AfD discussions. I believe that as a closer, I am entitled to credit their evaluation of the sources and strength of coverage. I frankly don't see how this could have been closed any other way. BD2412 T 21:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Thank you. I could see readily that there had been a serious effort to improve the article. As I wrote, there are some less than stellar sources, but overall, the revised article meets WP:HEY and WP:SIGCOV. The closing for keep was proper. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. Of my last 500 AfD discssions, I !voted delete 71.1% of the time, and "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 95.0% of AfD's (sic.) were matches" of my !votes. So I'm fairly much where the consensus is, and am slightly deletionist. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Wasting everyone's time on a deletion review because you want to change "keep" to "no consensus", despite either one being the same results and not making any difference at all, is ridiculous. Giving coverage to a musician's music is the same as covering them, they notable for their work. Consensus was overwhelming that there was significant coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 21:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know how you feel about another editors genuine concern about the results of an AfD. Consensus was not overwhelming. Numerical results do not equate the substance of what was offered. Why should your say matter anymore than any other editor? Is their a caste system on Wikipedia that I am unaware of where certain editor's say matters more than others? You provided the same sources which were rebutted as not being reliable and no proof was brought forward to show them as reliable. Most of the coverage is nothing more than mentions of the the persons name and a hit or two of their music. That is not significant coverage and mentions do not stack to build to notability. NO definitive evidence was ever brought forward and NO sources were added that even remotely touched the the levels needed at any reputable encyclopedia to consider this person as being notable. If you want to have an encyclopedia as a collection of every piece of information you deem worthy to be included then go create your own. Calling another editors concerns a waste of time is shameful and uncivil. --ARose Wolf 13:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the user who submitted the article to a deletion review also refer to WP:AGF and not succumb to WP:OZD. TwinTurbo (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a few than need to take their own medicine when it comes to good faith. --ARose Wolf 14:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - the closer correctly interpreted the consensus. This isn't about discounting new editors, but about discounting comments that aren't grounded in policy. The closer's decision to do that was perfectly reasonable, and I can find no reason to upset it. See WP:CARCASS. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of where my comments on the AfD specifically were not founded in policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsistunagiska (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were based in policy. I'm talking about 1) the comment by the IP address beginning 2001:569 and 2) the comment by Onursides. In my view, neither set out a convincing policy rationale (e.g. "per discussion" doesn't move the needle), and so the closing administrator was entitled to disregard them. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ And yet by the closers very own words directed at me we see that they did not take those policy arguments into consideration. They "immediately" noticed familiar participants they deemed as "experienced" editors and counted up the vote and made a decision. That is not how AfD's should be decided. That is what was implied and nothing has been provided to prove anything different. That is the whole reason for this review. A disagreement on the closers talk page, which according to the rules is what I am supposed to do, where the closer simply was not going to tell me their deciding factors other than the ones mentioned which is a clear indication of bias towards certain editors regardless of actual content and merit of argument. AfD's are not a simple majority vote. The closer instead pointed me to this process and then promptly brought an execution force here to attack me for following the process and attack me personally because of my principles by downplaying my intelligence. And that's what "experienced" editors on Wikipedia are supposed to be? Shameful is what it is. I notified the closer of the AfD, the nominator of the AfD and posted a template on the AfD as prescribed in the rules. --ARose Wolf 20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were and are good-faith, policy-based arguments on both sides. The community coalesced around the keep arguments, forming a consensus. Asking the closer to disregard that consensus is in effect asking for them to supervote. I get it that you disagree with the outcome: I've often disagreed with the AFD consensus myself. But that doesn't justify appealing to DRV, and it certainly doesn't justify baselessly accusing the closer of "bias," "downplaying [your] intelligence," or "[bringing] an execution force here." You're getting very close to a civility violation, and I would respectfully advise you to dial down the rhetoric, drop the stick, and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can actually sit here and tell me after reading what the closer has said in both their talk page when I initiated the conversation as directed by the rules and then followed up with a DRV as both policy dictates and was suggested to by the closer, and then the vitriol that has been directed at me here, personally, tells me everything I need to know about where you stand. Where is your calling out other editors here for what they have said to me? Telling them to back away and stand down? I have been basically called a liar and incompetent and my very principles and significance to the this effort has been downplayed and treated as insignificant. Oh, that's right, they get a pass because they are "experienced". I get it. Civility is based on tenure to. You can be uncivil if you've been here longer. Thanks for that revelation. I'll move on and when the next case comes up where I feel like a DRV is relevant I will continue to follow procedure and process as it is laid out. --ARose Wolf 14:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add, if you think this is simply about losing an AfD then you really don't know me and you haven't really read what I've written here. That's all I have to say about that. --ARose Wolf 14:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody, here or elsewhere, has insulted you in the least. I truly am at a loss as to why you would even say that. If you really feel you've been insulted, the place for that is not here but ANI. (I would strongly discourage you from doing that since the issue would almost certainly boomerang.) But baselessly casting aspersions upon other editors and the project at large is inappropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as there was a clear keep consensus and no valid reasons have been given for overturning it imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - We know that AFD is not a headcount. But we know that the counting of heads is done at AFD. This is a case where Keep can be justified by the headcount alone without going into quality of arguments, so that is sufficient reason to endorse. It was also the right close, but that is not important. Send some trout flies to the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it is done is no excuse for breaking the rules. Quality of argument is the very foundation of what AfD is. To discount the quality of argument and the evidence provided is a disservice to the encyclopedia. You cant choose which rules you want to enforce and expect to be taken serious. --ARose Wolf 14:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me run down the list of sources we are calling reliable and offer this subject significant coverage:

HipHopCanada, Spotify, LinkedIn, Billboard, YouTube, Boombox Sound, SoundCloud Pro, This is AGTV, Banger of the Day, AppleMusic.

Lets review the others that give the subject "more" in-depth coverage:

Exclaim offers him a brief (like literally two sentences) bio and gives you his concert information. LBB Online is an interview which is considered a primary source the last I checked. Toronto Rappers is just a song. The one source I opened and looked at that had any in-depth information was newsroom.accenture.com and it didn't even mention the subject, just someone he's associated with. And we expect that other people are going to take this encyclopedia seriously? I mean, come on. I want to believe we are being legitimate here but its getting out of hand. We are keeping subjects because we like them, not because they actually have significant coverage. I invite, further I encourage, anyone to look at these sources objectively and search online for others that really give the subject in-depth intellectually independent coverage that makes this person more notable than the average producer, songwriter or even the average person busting their ass every day to make ends meet. Provide it to us so I can look at this subject and be convinced it meets the verbatim and literal letter of the law when it comes to notability here on Wikipedia. Saying the quality of the argument doesn't matter is like saying facts don't matter. --ARose Wolf 14:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The AFD could not possibly have been reasonably closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I can see no other reasonable close. --Enos733 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There has been no evidence offered to demonstrate that the close was improper, contradictory to policy or was inconsistent with the consensus reached at the AfD by participants based on the arguments presented in the discussion. The ruling on the field stands. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is the closers own words. They didn't look at the arguments being presented and took a few editors that they have seen on AfD's prior to this one and determined their arguments had to carry more weight because of their longevity on Wikipedia. A clear violation of AfD policy. A closer has a massive responsibility to the integrity of the encyclopedia. They should be as well versed in the details and arguments as the nominator. --ARose Wolf 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, as stated, I weighed the evaluation of the sources and strength of coverage proffered by participants in the discussion. BD2412 T 18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite clear, "As an experienced AfD closer, I immediately noticed the participation of long-term experienced editors like Dream Focus, Bearian, and Atlantic306, who have contributed intelligently to past AfD discussions.". When I questioned you seeking further understanding of your vague closing argument the answer I got was "a number of experienced editors have weighed in to say that the sources are sufficient for this article", which could lead someone to the conclusion that the arguments of these particular editors were given more weight because of who they are and your familiarity with them rather than the actual content of the arguments themselves or your in-depth review of the arguments equally. At no point did you say you assessed the arguments equally giving only weight to the policy based arguments themselves. How can I as an editor who diligently searches these subjects out and takes the basic notability guidelines of Wikipedia at its literal and verbatim face value accept that my policy based arguments, and by proxy the arguments of other editors, are treated with less regard than those considered "more seasoned and more experienced" by a particular closer? It does not instill a sense of confidence in the closing. Good faith is not a perpetual indifference to criticism of actions and the results of said actions. I can believe you are an editor of good faith but not have confidence in your closing based on what you have offered as to how you arrived at your conclusion, especially when I know the arguments being made and their merit and treat them, including my own with objection. --ARose Wolf 19:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eight people have endorsed the close, along with the ~~nominator~~[edit: I meant to say closer]. When all 9 people who participated in the discussion are against you, maybe you need to stop accusing everyone else of being wrong and consider perhaps you are the one in error. Dream Focus 19:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator endorsed the close? Where is Magnolia? I don't see the nominator commenting here. In fact I was told by the nominator they supported the review. Got a big thank you from them too. Stop pushing your personal POV as fact. Thanks --ARose Wolf 21:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say the administrator who closed it, they the closer not the nominator. You did of course contact Magnolia on his talk page at the start of this [1] but they choose not to comment. Anyway, two more people just endorsed it, and still no one showed up to agree with you. Dream Focus 22:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may base your opinions and beliefs on how many people agree with you but I don't. I don't pretend to know how you should live your life and I don't act better than you or offer advice where it's not wanted. I will accept the results of this review but it doesn't change my opinion nor my principles. If this article came up for AfD again today I would vote the same and make the same argument because I do not believe it passes the basic notability guideline for inclusion. I never will until sources are found or added that would change my view. I would never attack someone the way you all have here and I would be the first to defend you and anyone if they were attacked like this as I have in the past. What is absurd is the way everyone thinks they are superior to others just because they have been here longer and very free with their opinions on the way they think I should be. I act on my principles, not yours, and I follow the rules as they are written and that won't change. --ARose Wolf 14:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I note that the nominator here at WP:DRV in the deletion discussion interprets "presumed notable" as "presumed not notable", in the belief that the word "presume" actually means its opposite. Funny then that in "the only notability guideline that matters" the very same "presume" word is used. What is it that makes so many people presume that that is the only notability guideline that matters rather than what it is, one among equals? Real, unpresumed, notability is decided by consensus at discussions, and in this case was clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not policy, that's mob rule. And if that's your assessment of what I interpret "presumed notability" to mean then you have a lot to learn about me. Thanks for the input though. I appreciate all the assessments of my personal intentions, interpretations, my experience being questioned, personal attacks on the validity of my arguments rather than the arguments themselves and such. I sure am glad you all know me better than me. --ARose Wolf 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mob rule or not consensus is certainly policy. As Winston Churchill said about democracy, it is the "worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". What would you replace it with? I based my assessment of how you interpret things on your actions in the AfD and here. If you do not interpret things in such a way I apologise, but it means that you are even more inconsistent than I thought you were. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus shouldn't overrule law. I don't agree with most SNG's because they are vague and were made to give specific subjects an advantage over others but even then, no SNG can be applied in this case. The subject of this article has to meet the basic notability guideline. As stated, there was evidence brought forth rebutting the "presumed" notability. All the closer had to tell me was that they weighed the evidence equally and decided that the keep vote had more merit. Instead they chose to belittle some editors whose arguments and thoughts are just as valuable as any others by implying they glanced at the AfD and saw familiar names voting a certain way and decided those voices carried more merit with no regard for the arguments themselves. That was my issue with this closing. The closer could have avoided this with a proper analysis and ruling. Implying you sided with one argument over another simply because of who is making the argument is a mockery of the AfD process. Rulings are not to be based on numbers and not to be based on who is involved but strictly on the merits of the arguments. That was not conveyed in this case. I am not going to comment on the rest of what you wrote because its just plain silly to insinuate the kind of rhetoric you are using to describe me personally. --ARose Wolf 13:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always accurate to state it doesn't matter who makes the argument. It depends – just like testimony from an expert witness may carry more weight in a law court, depending on the point at issue. In some cases you'd be right, the logical force of an argument and its congruence with policy speaks for itself . But in other cases the arguments hinges on an assessment of the extent of coverage in the sources. Here's a key point - while it's not prohibited for a closer to assess the sources themselves, generally that's the job of the voters; the closer just weighs the expressed consensus. Inline with what admin BD2412 and others are saying, a skilled veteran editor like Dream is trusted to evaluate sources somewhat more than a random new account. (Btw, if the closure relies too much on their own evaluation of the sources, that can be frowned on as a supervote. ) Hopefully this is clear for you? If not, I designed this rhyme to indicate in poetic form why it matters who bothers to show up at these AfD's. Per your interest in rap, maybe that would help set your mind at rest. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catchy poem. I disagree with your assessment. I don't believe Dream's argument should carry more weight than Magnolia's just because of the name or how long they have been here. The closer should absolutely weigh the arguments based on the arguments themselves even if it is an IP making the argument. I have seen this played out before and been on the opposite end of it. People are going to scream either way. My issue is not with the closing but how the closing was conveyed to myself upon requesting the criteria by which each argument was judged. If you look at my conversation with the closer you will see it was them who suggested the review process as a means to arbitrate my concerns. The only reason it has become more than a simple discussion about this is because of the personal attacks made upon me here, questioning my intelligence, my interpretations, my knowledge and my experience. Again, AfD is not a majority vote nor is it a democratic process. Wikipedia is not a democracy. AfD is a judgement based on the merits of opposing arguments in line with policy. It has nothing to do with tenure here at Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with experience in certain fields or professions and it has nothing to do with names. --ARose Wolf 14:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. FWIW I very much doubt anyone seriously doubts your intelligence, you come across very formidable in that department. It's just kind of the way AfD is, any individual trying to argue against the overwhelming majority always takes some flak. I've known some of the participants here for over 10 years and they are useually kind and helpful people. AfD doesn't really bring out the best in anyone, including me. We can always hope it will become more respectful... One point I'd have to disagree with is length of service does make a big difference. Policy as written does largely hold true, but not quite 100%- and there's generally no substitute for long years of experience to learn the unwritten rules. Hope you descide to stick it out and stay, the way these things play out does eventually start to make more sense.FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing is definitive then this project will eventually fail. It is a house of cards. A policy is a policy and should be adhered to. Having policies that contradict each other and remain vague in the attempt to allow for gray areas is only leaving room for disaster. Altering that policy on whim just to satisfy editors simply because they have been here longer and enough of them vote a certain way does not speak well for the encyclopedia. That causes the mob rule scenario in which an article on a subject may be kept in one instance and a similar article on a similar topic may be deleted just because of who is making the argument and not the merits themselves. If you have two doctors giving an opinion and one has been a doctor for 5 years and the other has been a doctor for 3 years and 6 months, whose opinion should be given more weight? By what you are saying it would be the 5 year doctor simply because they have been a doctor longer. However, you only know their name and you only know how long they have been a doctor because you've seen them around. You don't know whether they have an MD, a PhD or a DVM. One's arguments may be great for their respective profession but not for others. You wont know that unless arguments are weighed, not on their name or longevity but the content of the arguments themselves. --ARose Wolf 15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to add, I'm not going anywhere. You all don't get the luxury of knowing you drove me away or changed one ounce of my principles and commitment to the rule of policy here at Wikipedia. If you want to break the rules that's your business. I will adhere to the letter of it and vote that way every time. I expect admins and closers to weigh the arguments based on policy and not pick a side simply because they know someone involved and when they don't I will say something. That will never change. What can change is policy. If someone feels the policy is wrong then go through the process to change it. Don't circumnavigate it in some cases to keep something you like and deny it in others because you personally are indifferent to the subject because all that does is cause outsiders not to trust your "expert" opinion. --ARose Wolf 15:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The imminent failure of Wikipedia has been regularly predicted for twenty years now. For that reason, it is not a particularly compelling argument. BD2412 T 18:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However compelling or non-compelling you personally feel the argument is the fact remains the same. Implying you made a policy based decision solely off the tenure of Wikipedia editors and your fondness for their opinions is not good practice for anyone. --ARose Wolf 19:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I would add that in those twenty years Wikipedia has completely destroyed the previously lucrative market for print encyclopedias, and during that time has never had hard-and-fast rules handed down on Mount Sinai, but has made do with consensus of established editors. If that's failure then I'd like to know what success looks like. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you lost me when you threw out your personal opinions attacking my intelligence and consistency without knowing me or even looking at my past arguments/votes to make those conclusions. Nothing you say from that point holds merit with me. I came here to contest a decision, not attack a person. You attacked me as a person very directly, something I have not and refuse to do even now. --ARose Wolf 19:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that "the rules" are all-important then please follow them by not changing rule-based formatting to something that doesn't follow them. And at no point have I attacked you personally, but have simply disagreed with your opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't be run by consensus, and you still haven't said what you would replace it with. My suspicion, based on your refusal to answer that question, is that you would prefer this encyclopedia to be your personal dictatorship, but I hope you can prove that wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you know anything personally about me is a dangerous road to take especially since you know nothing about me. You question my intelligence with these veiled passive aggressive attacks on me. If that's how you want to go through life then so be it. I won't hesitate to call you out on your words. I know nothing about you personally and I really have no time to make personal assessments of what you want Wikipedia to be, Phil. Likewise, I would suggest you not do that with me. Tell me what rule based formatting has been changed? Every single one of those words are part of the notability policy here at Wikipedia. Reliable, Significant Coverage, In-depth, Multiple (look at the notes on what multiple means to Wikipedia, preferably note 4 WP:N), Intellectual, Independent, Secondary, Sources. All used in the context in which they are used in the policy and policy guidelines. Most SNG's point to this. Some do not. The only one who bends the rules here are those who believe simple consensus (majority rules) is all that matters and when policy arguments are made that it doesn't pass requirements for notability are simply ignored. --ARose Wolf 20:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You broke "the rules" in this edit, where you made it look as if my response to someone else was actually a response to you. I would usually ignore such an edit, but if you're going to be such a fan of "the rules" then I need to call you out when you don't follow them yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger:, I think you intended the edit before that one. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was both. In the first edit our stickler for the rules broke them by posting an edit before the previous reply, and in the second by adding an extra colon to my edit. An editor who continually breaks the rules but claims that they are sacrosanct is clearly being inconsistent, and that's not a personal attack, but a statement very obviously based on the evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I added that because it was the next line in sequence. We both were editing and posted the same number of colons which indicated it was the same line of thought and they were independent thoughts attributed to two individual persons. The proper thing is to indent one further space to indicate separate comment in sequence, not who the comment was about. My post went in before yours. Yours came after mine, thus the additional indention. Not breaking rules. --ARose Wolf 22:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And moving my edit to place it out of context is stepping over the lines of what is permissible and is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia rules and a point of contention that borders an a direct assault and attempt to cast aspersions upon another editor. --ARose Wolf 22:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I began my post I was under BD and responding to BD, when it posted I was ahead of yours. I added a colon to denote its sequence. If that was an error then I admit it but I did not move my comment above yours and to even suggest that with no shred of evidence is a serious accusation. --ARose Wolf 22:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can look at the history to see that my edit was before yours, and that you completely unjustifiably added a colon to mine. I would usually overlook such rookie mistakes, but as you seem to be such a stickler for the rules then I need to point out that you are not obeying them. You seem to be intent on digging yourself deeper into a hole here. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not digging any hole. I know what I did. I was making an edit and when it posted it was ahead of yours. And we were on the same line. I went back in and added a colon to yours to indent it one more line to separate our comments. As I stated, if that was in error I made a mistake. At least I can admit mine and not have this self-righteous attitude that I am better than anyone else here. That's what happened on my end. --ARose Wolf 22:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I am finished with this pettiness. If you want to continue the discussion then by all means. I have to go attend to my life responsibilities. --ARose Wolf 22:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't pettiness, but your arrogance. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) So why is your comment above mine when its time stamp is three minutes later? If you're going to lecture people about "the rules" then make sure you understand them yourself first. As I said, I usually ignore such rookie mistakes, but as you seem so certain that you are the one who knows the rules but others do not then I have to call you out. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to know the inner workings of how things post here. The rules are the rules no matter whether I follow them or not. So trying to shift focus onto this and away from blatant disregard of the rules which is what I brought up to begin with is the very definition of pettiness. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true. I can say in this, when I started my comment there were no others below BD. When I posted my comment it was above yours. You can say whatever you want but it doesn't make it true. I readily admit I added the colon to your comment and stated why. If that was wrong then so be it. The rest of this is petty because you weren't sitting here beside me so you really don't know with 100% certainty what happened or why. If you want to assume bad faith on my part that's your business but I will call it for what it is when you do, pure pettiness. Enjoy! --ARose Wolf 14:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the issue is very simple. You have taken the position that Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be incontrovertible rules. If you take that position then you had better not disobey any rules, such as you have done. If you have now changed your mind and do not consider our policies and guidelines to be incontrovertible rules then just admit it. There's no shame in admitting that you were wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to bring up my character as a person or whatever rules you personally feel I have broken. If you feel they are justified then bring me up before ANI. That's your right and privilege. I will not back down from my principles or my belief that the notability guideline found in WP:N (meaning GNG) and the notes that follow below it ARE the only criteria by which an article should be retained, period. Anything can be written upon presumption. But the very definition of presumed means it can be rebutted. I followed the proper procedure upon dispute with the closer as suggested by them and the rules. You do not have the privilege of having me apologize for my belief in the basic notability policy here and your continued attempts to try to get me to capitulate will go unanswered. --ARose Wolf 20:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said in this discussion, the word "presumed" also appears in the general notability guideline. Did you, such a stickler for the rules, not notice it? Either play by the strictness of the rules or recongnise that the rules are subject to consensus, Don't try to claim that the only rules that count are those that you personally agree with. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a discussion for another place and is not why I brought this to DRV. I will admit one thing. I allowed others to pull me into that discussion. No more. I brought this to DRV solely because the responses from the closer were one in which I felt they did not give clear and concise reasoning for the decision they arrived at. And when pressed they used words that implied a position that seemingly denigrated one set of editors arguments and elevated another set of editors arguments not on merit but on tenure and familiarity. If that was not their view or the way they decided then it could have been avoided with better wording and clarification. That is all I will discuss until this DRV closes with a decision and I will accept that decision even if I do not agree with it. --ARose Wolf 21:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close. Repeating what has already been said here and regardless of my participation, the result was very reasonable. User:Tsistunagiska, you did present some reasonable arguments during the discussion, however, others on the contrasting side of the debate did too. There is no point trying to change the vote as I think the outcome genuinely couldn't have gone the other way. See WP:CARCASS and WP:OZD. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I recommend the advice in WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the nom's frustration, but yes, we have WP:IAR if nothing else. But there wasn't consensus for deletion here. Unlike some others here, I think no-consensus would have been a brave, but reasonable, close. But that's not what the closer did, and given that there *are* sources, the only question is if they rise to the bar set by WP:N. IMO it's a close call, but "yes" is reasonable. I think WP:RENOM and WP:STICK are where you are for now. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit I accept that assessment and many others here. All of this could have been avoided with simple openness of the closer in the initial conversation. I do not bring every AfD disagreement to DRV. This was egregious to me only because of the closers responses. I disagree, personally, with IAR because this adds to the already created caste system of mob rule that I really don't think Wikipedia intended nor wants to be the case. I genuinely care about the encyclopedia or I wouldn't be here and I want to have every confidence in what is contained in this encyclopedia and that it is not only here because a majority at an AfD wants it here but that it has complied with the same rules of inclusion that everything else has. Once we arrive at that place where everything is held to the same standard without deviation then you can evaluate the system you have in place for improvement and make changes where appropriate. That is a discussion for another place. I have said I would accept and do accept the results of this DRV on principle. That does not mean that I accept the behavior as I expect others would do the same to me if the roles were reversed. That also does not mean that I wouldn't arrive here at DRV if I were a closer but the other party would know exactly how I arrived at my decision in detail. --ARose Wolf 20:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that your primary care is about the encyclopedia--otherwise I can't imagine you'd have argued so passionately. But one of the hard things here is letting things go. Sometimes the bastards are just that. Other times it's you that's at fault. Usually it's a bit of both. But in all cases, there is something to be said for caring so much you're willing to walk away from the dispute when that is in fact the best thing for the encyclopedia. I'm afraid that's where you need to be here. At least until RENOM is met... From experience I can say it's much easier to say than to do... Hobit (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Good grief. A perfectly reasonably close. Also, please do see WP:DROPTHESTICK. Nsk92 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Tsistunagiska - It is difficult to intimidate other editors at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of the editors here have been here as long as you have, and have acquired at least as many clues as you have. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and I'd challenge the DRV nominator to do what I do when I really don't like an XfD/DRV outcome: improve the encyclopedia by further good-faith editing. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The consensus of the editors at this AFD was that the topic was notable. It was not shown that their !votes should have been disallowed. A minority thought the topic was not notable and their !votes were not disallowed either. The close was in accordance with all this. It is not the closer's job (or ours here) to overrule opinions we disagree with. Thincat (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mayors of Davao City – No consensus; what input there is asks the appellant to discuss this with the closer. Sandstein 15:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Restore categories for mayors of Davao City, General Santos, Naga, Camarines Sur and Puerto Princesa. These three are outside the jurisdiction of any province (see Cities of the Philippines#Independent cities (analogous to the independent cities of Virginia)), so classifying these under the supposed provinces they fall under is factually incorrect. Keep deleted the other two categories. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some mayors of these cities may have been answerable to provincial government before these cities became independent, but I'm not sure who these are. FWIW, Rodrigo Duterte's mayorship came after Davao City became independent, and if the Davao City mayors categorized here served after Duterte became mayor, all of them were not answerable to Davao del Sur. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Did the appellant discuss this with the closer? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-Up Comment - This appears to be a request for the closer to modify the close rather than a request to overturn the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the closer about this sort of thing, and only come to DRV if you disagree with their answer. DRV will overturn and undelete content deletions way more readily than non-content deletions such as categories or templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 January 2021

Auth0 – AfD endorsed - a new draft exists at Draft:Auth0, which can proceed in the usual way. Wily D 15:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Wily D 15:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notice that this is a WP:PAID contribution. jclayc has been paid by ForwardPMX on behalf of Auth0. History of the deletion conversation is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Auth0 Since the time of deletion, the company has met notability guidelines through reliable coverage by independent sources. See revised article in my sandbox. In addition to the content there, I believe the company is notable because of all of the derivative works that the open source community has built around their solution, a partial list of which is below, but I was unsure of the best way to include in the article revision.

Endorse but that isn't the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-Creation only in draft, as is required for paid submissions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Thank you for the feedback. I have re-created the article in draft format and marked it for review via the articles for creation process. Jclayc (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If you really think you have overcome the reasons for deletion, use AfC, follow the advice at WP:THREE, and don't come to DRV until your draft is written. You may request WP:REFUND to draftspace, and come here if that is refused. There is no case for overturning the AfD decision of 15 October 2016. I am not impressed with your new sources, read WP:THREE very carefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for the feedback SmokeyJoe. In the AfC process Robert McClenon looked at the new article draft and requested "Please request that the deleted version of the article be made available to the reviewers to verify whether this draft is substantially the same or substantially different." I am doing that through WP:REFUND Jclayc (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I have started to address the issues brought up in the initial AfC rejection, including assessment of sources using a source assess table but I'm going back through with WP:THREE in mind, looking at cio.com, crn.com, businessweek.com and a few others. I'm also editing to increase content about the points of differentiation of the company's services referenced by others (i/r/s) and in their issued patents (with Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_patents_reliable_sources? in mind). Jclayc (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It sounds like you’re missing the point about three, only three. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Understood, I'm getting there on only three. I'm also creating more content around what reliable, independent sources have said is differentiating/notable about their services. For those two reasons, I have not re-submitted the draft and will not until I have done those things. Jclayc (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are also missing the point that their objective should be to improve on-line information about their employer, and that can usually be done better by improving their corporate web site than by the paradoxical effort of trying to get an article in Wikipedia that is both neutral and promotional.
    - The principle of freedom of the press is not always understood by advertising corporations or POV warriors. If you work on your corporate web site, you, the company, have freedom of the press. If you try to get an article in Wikipedia, you do not have freedom of the press because you don't own the press. The WMF and the community have freedom of the press, including the right to review COI contributions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks. I totally understand and agree that Wikipedia has 100% authority and control over the content it chooses to publish and that there is no freedom of the press argument to be made. No one has a "right" to be mentioned in Wikipedia. I can hopefully author an article that meets Wikipedia's standards of notability and be non-promotional. I truly think the issue is me learning how to properly document the company's notability, not the company's notability itself but you're the ultimate judge of that. I am emphasizing the open source contributions and community developments around the company's products (which was called out as a positive in the AfD discussion), notable coverage of their company's position in the marketplace and (adding) what others have said is noteworthy about their products. Jclayc (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 January 2021

22 January 2021

Investing.com – There is a clear consensus that the article should be restored, so I have gone ahead and done that. Whether that is by way of overturning the original AFD or accepting that there are sufficient changes/improvements to avoid a G4 speedy deletion is not something I need to decide. But the effect of this closure is that the August 2020 AFD may no longer be cited as a reason for G4 speedy deletion. I will leave a note on that AFD linking to this discussion. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

It baffles me that the article about the world's most notable financial app (by far) and top-three websites in this field (finance, investments & stocks) had its entry deleted; it happened half a year ago in a rather unusually long discussion with minimal participation but nevertheless an equal number and more sounding arguments of keep votes. Closing admin is no longer very active unfortunately and this thread is not to contest his discretion but to recreate it based on its improved version - as initially the official deletion reason was WP:N and good sources were likely missing at the time. Some editor has since tried to recreate it but another one kept tagging it for G4, and then (when notability became undisputed) - G11. I will assume good faith. User:Barkeep49 rightly protected the page afterwards; recently I re-wrote its draft and contacted them to make sure the future article is okay now, to which on Jan 14 they confirmed "would not delete the new version under G4" and suggested improving language/sources, which I later did as well so that it meets even the most draconian criteria, with references from sources that are considered the highest standards in this category. The admin said "AfC or DRV is the right way" to move forward (thank you again for the valuable explanations) so here I am. Millions of people should be able to read about notable, encyclopedic (Investing.com has entries in several other wiki languages) services/websites/companies/organizations they rely on, and it is the project's responsibility to treat all subjects fairly and allow it. Kindly review the Draft:Investing.com and consider re-uploading it. Thanks, Bezrat (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]

Overturn to No Consensus:
- - The close of Delete is not consistent with a naive headcount.
  - There do not appear to be significantly stronger policy-based reasons to delete.
  - The close does not cite specific policy-based reasons.
  - An overturn restores the article.
  - No need for AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt and allow recreation because I think that's what's being asked for here. Based on my review of references 1, 5, and 15 of the draft version, there's enough for an article... although it does feel a bit like it's been on the WP:REFBOMBed side, that's a forgivable sin when you've been G4'ed. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the neutral input, 'Jclemens'. For clarification purposes, I think the page should not only be unsalted but also needs an:

Overturn to No Consensus and article restoration (to the better draft version). Bezrat (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

temp undeleted for drv Wily D 07:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore Current sources at draft version seems fine and meets WP:GNG. The website has 50M users and good coverage. It shouldn't have been deleted in the first place and afterwards, editors must not exploit the use of speedy deletion tags. I also agree with the above that the tone is fine. Setreis (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Delete arguments seem to be more policy-compliant. Keep arguments argued that it should be kept because popular / IAR. IAR is policy, but it's also exceptional. A rationale needs to be offered and have substantial support. They made zero reference to particular sources, it's unclear whether they even looked at them. The delete comments actually analysed the sourcing. They reached the conclusion that GNG/NCORP was not met. We don't keep articles for popular things (we constant delete bios of very popular people which don't have the sourcing). If this also doesn't have the sourcing, it gets deleted. I believe the close was correct. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the salting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the above commenter, it's unclear whether you actually looked deep into it, because links were provided in the discussion (such as the Alexa one, proving the website to be not just "popular" but more notable than 99.99%+ of the rest in the world), and there were substantial sources in the article (including considerable coverage by Business Insider, Techcrunch and Financial Times). Understanding the authority of these links is crucial to making a wise vote. They can be better analyzed now, that's how it should be done. Bezrat (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa's ranking is not an RS. Business Insider and Techcrunch aren't accepted for notability on Wikipedia. Financial Times is not WP:SIGCOV it literally just says "Sources: Investing.com, Reuters", that's it... The sources are being misrepresented. Your comment quite literally makes the deletion argument right here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Website rankings, at this level, are powerful indicators for overall notability (for this subject and in general). I seriously do not think there has has been a case of a top-250 website getting deleted from Wikipedia in recent years. You conveniently chose to POINT here at a passing mention link, which there are thousands of, but ignored Business Insider's thorough articles [2] [3] (see IMB's too [4]), just to name a few - which dedicated entire articles for the subject, its products and/or services. This is too obvious. Bezrat (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment, along with all others below in favour of overturning, have no sound basis in policy. Made obvious by your citation of WP:POINT somehow, when evidently you don't understand what the page means. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "Point" was not the best choice of wiki-guideline admittedly as thought it had a slightly different meaning. Refrain from ad hominem or baseless accusations and keep a civil discussion; I presented additional links that show the subject meets NCORP criteria. Bezrat (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but unsalt and allow to go through AfC - The close was correct for that discussion (I participated but didn't !vote). There were three keep !votes. Two were based on "it's popular" + IAR and one said "per above" with a mention of GNG without specifics. None did much to address the WP:CORP/sourcing issues. That said, I got the sense at the time that sources might exist, and it looks like OP here has found a few of them. It's a sufficiently different article, but I'd want someone at AfC to take a look when it's ready to go. Some of the sources seem suspect (Forbes contributors, a few sources I haven't seen before and look a bit promotional, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Use AfC. There is no need to unsalt first, because the AfC should be reviewed by an admin, who can then unsalt if the article draft is sufficient. I think that's our usual method. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC, restore article immediately to either previous or current version. As I have demonstrated before, this is an obvious policy-based overturn case - both due to the overlooked sources/notability at the deletion discussion which are now evident, and the improper closing of it. EliQM (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually a courtesy to declare you were involved with editing the page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly did that (..."I have demonstrated before"). Note that dozens of editors have edited the article since it was first created. Regards, EliQM (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I also believe speedypromo deletions were not appropriately grounded in policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn' to no consensus, per Robert McClenon who said it perfectly. I would advise to use the new sources that were found, without these the article would be lacking. Also, in light of the page's history, consider WP:SEMI protecting it temporarily. Stangpa (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20 total edits, 4th since 2019’s sandbox edits. As with the nature of some other accounts involved in this discussion, I think the editing history doesn’t match. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are a negative user creating a toxic Wiki environment. I use the website inveting.com on a daily basis, and came to read about it on Wikipedia today, to find out that the page leads to this review discussion, so I decided to voice my opinion. I have done hundreds of edits before creating an official account. One can also wonder why you or the above user who wanted the article to go through an AfC process decided to come to this discussion from nowhere and are so eager to prevent its existence. People who use this website and app want to read about it.Stangpa (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marking SPAs to aid the closer is quite normal. As for myself, regularly comment on DRVs and not a big fan of “I like it” / “it’s popular” arguments, or arguments with no rationale supplied (much less a valid one which addresses WP:NCORP), which is the case for all recent comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to No Consensus and allow article restoration. The draft version seems to meet WP:GNG because of the sourcing. - tucoxn\^talk 22:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus and allow article restoration. I see there are enough sources to back up its notability, and the speedy deletion looks so baseless here. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kristen Hancher – Speedy endorse: withdrawn by nominator. Ovinus (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I thought this discussion was incomplete and closed too early as no consensus, without suitable discussion of the sources. Sorry if this is the wrong venue. Ovinus (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - The closer had two reasonable choices, to Relist or to close as No Consensus. There is no obligation to relist to try to reach a consensus. No Consensus is a valid close with this headcount. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can't keep relisting low-participation debates, because Wikipedia's worsening problems with editor retention mean that a majority of debates get low participation. Wikipedia's only scarce resource is volunteer time. It's getting scarcer, and we have to conserve it. I've always thought that after a debate's been relisted once, a bold close is better than a timid relist. I agree that the discussion was incomplete, but I think that in the closer's position, it was right to close at that juncture.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this hit home for me. Can I just withdraw this DRV? Ovinus (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly, while nobody has said anything other than "endorse".—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your message S Marshall both in terms of the lack of editor hours and the appropriateness of NC discussions which have few participants without a consensus. I do think there is value of discussions about these at DRV because if we're going to make changes, and what changes they would be I don't know yet, we'd need to present data that this is a problem and DRV appeals are one such data point we could use. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Closer) This close wasn't perfect, but neither was the way the debate was going. As S says, I looked at it and thought "what are the odds we can actually find a consensus if it's relisted for a second time?". I thought it was very little, and hence closed it as no consensus. Best part about NC close is it does not preclude a renomination anytime in the near future at all (unlike "keep", where you generally need to wait a little while before sending it back to AfD). Can absolutely understand the DRV nominator's thought process, but that was mine in closing it. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No obligation to relist, no clear consensus, closing admin's rationale as elaborated here makes sense. Well within admin discretion. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 January 2021

Aulus Postumius Albinus (propraetor 110 BC) – Procedural closure. This discussion is redundant to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22#Aulus Postumius Albinus Magnus, where the same editor also seeks deletion of this redirect. If that discussion also does not resolve to somebody's satisfaction, they can come back to DRV. Sandstein 08:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This incorrectly-named article was redirected to another one. The final count of the discussion is 3 deletes, 1 redirect, 1 merge, and 3 comments. Only the editor who suggested redirect argued his case; the others just dropped a comment and did not come back to elaborate on their reasoning when it was questioned. Furthermore, the aggregate amount of support for deleting after the the discussion was relisted increased by 1. A simple deletion of all outstanding articles and redirects was the correct thing to do. Avilich (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse We allow "wrong" redirects to continue to exist all the time, as long as they're plausible and non-malicious. I think the consensus appropriately encompassed WP:ATD considerations. Sometimes, you're right but insufficiently persuasive (never happened to me, I swear...) and doing the best with the outcome the process has produced is the next best step. Of note, the three deletes includes you as the nominator, who is normally assumed to be in favor of deletion. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong redirects only exist for plausible or common mistakes. A single vote for redirecting does not constitute a consensus. The one who said "merge" and at least two of the ones who "commented" seemed completely oblivious to the purpose of the discussion – suggesting a page merge when there was no content to merge – and they did not bother to argue their position further when challenged. It's unacceptable that their opinion is weighted equally to the others. I wasn't "insufficiently persuasive", I was one of only two who even tried to persuade, and the votes came mostly in my favor. Avilich (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of things: firstly, the nominator did not advise me (the closer) of listing it here, which I believe is pretty poor form? Secondly, the nominator has also nominated this for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_22#Aulus_Postumius_Albinus_Magnus. Are we happy with these discussions running in parallel? It feels like a little bit of forum-shopping to me, although maybe I am tainted from the really quite abrupt (bordering on abrasive) methodology the nominator has used in every bit of correspondence on this issue. Daniel (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said "extended discourse" will be "a waste of time" and coldly refused to address anything I said or clarify your actions (which is usually done as a preliminary for a review). I see you only submitted a new comment in your talk page after I opened this current discussion; I have little doubt that you would've said nothing at all had I not. I apologize if I offended you, but you're not in a position to complain at being passed over. If it makes you feel any better, I only nominated one of the two original redirects for deletion; I left the more 'plausible' one out, per the arguments in the discussion you closed. Avilich (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sodha – deletion of this article is endorsed, but the the content may be restored and moved to draft on request. The argument for overturning is that the provided sources were not properly considered, and that people called for deletion based on the article being devoid of content, probably unaware of more substantial versions (albeit unsourced versions) in the article history. Those are indeed valid concerns with the AFD discussion, but at the same time "unsourced" is an immediate concern and I am unwilling to restore such material to article space when a clear majority wanted the article deleted. The "keep"/"overturn" side has suggested that improvements could be made to the article. If someone wants to commit to improving the article so that it is properly sourced, restoring the content to draft space is available on request. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there are independent reliable sources available in news and google books, the WP:BEFORE clearly states that article should not be nominated for deletion if it can be improved upon. Less Unless had already cited many soruces in AfD discussion. Afd nominator cannot again vote Delete Check google book search for Sodha Rajput - [5] also Sodha is available on other wiki lanugage page [6], [7] Jethwarp (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a temp undelete, please? Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 07:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A valid close, and the only plausible close. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I was the nominator of these articles for delition. There could be numerous sources that may have passing mention I.e one word reference to these caste as all of these are minor clan of Rajput caste, a notable caste group. But all those sources donot have info (other than those indicating it as a part of Rajput caste) to write a seperate article. As any uninvolved person can see that we donot have sources to indicate wat do they eat? What are the Culture and traditiona etc etc of these castes. That's why all these articles were one or two line article for years and some of them were tagged as not satisfying WP:GNG....As per WP:NOTDICTIONARY these shouldn't be created as seperate article. I would like to advice Jethwarp to include them in Rajput Clans with minor info we can derive from the sources.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the close reflected consensus Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn None of the subsequent delete !voters, which again included the nom casting a bolded !vote against convention, substantially engaged with the sources provided in the AfD. The history shows a (not recent, but still) hatchet job on the content. A "no consensus" or draftify close would have been better, and even if this deletion is sustained on purely procedural grounds, I want to specifically note that substantially reverting to a prior version and sourcing it would be plenty to overcome G4, as the AfD'ed version of this article is, well, minimal to the point that one AfD !voter thought A1 might apply (it would not, because article history, but still). Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with Jclemens above. This may be easier in draftspace. Encourage bold mainspacing when ready to brave AfD again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or Overturn to NC The discussion was poor to say the least. And as Jclemens mentioned no delete !voter addressed the sources (in the article, it's history, or the AfD) in any meaningful way). Sources appear to have a reasonable claim to be above WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gaur Rajput – "Delete" closure (weakly) endorsed. Sandstein 21:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

there are independent reliable sources available in news and google books, the WP:BEFORE clearly states that article should not be nominated for deletion if it can be improved upon check sources [8] , [9], Jethwarp (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh Both non-nom delete !votes aren't appropriate reasons for deletion, and the first suggests ethnic strife may have motivated the AfD. I'd be inclined to have this called a soft-delete, and the article text given to the DRV nominator to work on in sandbox/draft. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I was the nominator of these articles for delition. There could be numerous sources that may have passing mention I.e one word reference to these caste as all of these are minor clan of Rajput caste, a notable caste group. But all those sources donot have info (other than those indicating it as a part of Rajput caste) to write a seperate article. As any uninvolved person can see that we donot have sources to indicate wat do they eat? What are the Culture and traditiona etc etc of these castes. That's why all these articles were one or two line article for years and some of them were tagged as not satisfying WP:GNG....As per WP:NOTDICTIONARY these shouldn't be created as seperate article. I would like to advice Jethwarp to include them in Rajput Clans with minor info we can derive from the sources.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse in that the close is a valid close, but I would ask the closer to Relist, and, as noted by Jclemens, a draft should be allowed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaur Rajput are have centuries old history, they are also known as Gor Rajput and find mention in 36 Royal Races many google books mention them right ancient times right upto Mughal times and British India history. I cite some books - my question is a caste is important enuough to be mentioned in 36 Roayal Races, gets deleted unceremoniously and in gets Endorse vote in Deletion Reviw, Great. If someone is losing it is Wikipedia, people will to other online encyclopedia for their research and information on castes

1 Territory, Polity, and Status: A Study of Shekhawats - Page 14books.google.co.in › books B. L. Meharda · 2006 - FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 14 The Gaur Rajput fought at least 13 battles with Sheikha . The last battle was fought near Ghatwa on the banks of the Khontiya Tank . The Gaur Rajputs received help from Sultan Bahlol Khan Lodi of Delhi

2. The Cambridge History of India - Volume 4 - Page 306 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 306 Pahar Singh , a Gaur Rajput petty chief of Indrakhi in western Bundelkhand and an imperial commandant , took the side of Lal Singh Khichi against the latter ' s oppressive overlord Anurudh Singh Hara of Bundi , a loyal general of the emperor

2. Indian Defence Review - Page 81 In retrospect Aurangzeb..... In the ensuing month there was a strange The wave of anipathy also spread to the Hada and Gaur Rajput clans , thereby slackening of resolve on the part of this Mughal force . endangering the vital road through Malwa to the Deccan

One can find many royal families of feudal pre-indpendent India belonging to Gaur Rajput caste spread in States of Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Uttarakhand Bengal Bihar

Jethwarp (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Plz see, I was right here too, the books you are mentioning contains short references about their participation in a war. They donot contain enough material to write a seperate article. Its a caste and for that we need various information like their cultural beliefs, diet etc. It is better to mention them in the Rajput clan article.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bari (caste) – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 21:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

there are independent reliable sources available in news and google books, the WP:BEFORE clearly states that article should not be nominated for deletion if it can be improved upon check sources [10] also on Governement of Maharashtra - OBC list Bari is mentioned [11] - Jethwarp (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse No other way that AfD could have been closed. If you believe an article should exist, I suggest you create one, working from the deleted text if it would help, that will address the objections and convince future editors that it should exist.
Endorse I was the nominator of these articles for delition. There could be numerous sources that may have passing mention I.e one word reference to these caste as all of these are minor clan of Rajput caste, a notable caste group. But all those sources donot have info (other than those indicating it as a part of Rajput caste) to write a seperate article. As any uninvolved person can see that we donot have sources to indicate wat do they eat? What are the Culture and traditiona etc etc of these castes. That's why all these articles were one or two line article for years and some of them were tagged as not satisfying WP:GNG....As per WP:NOTDICTIONARY these shouldn't be created as seperate article. ~~I would like to advice Jethwarp to include them in Rajput Clans with minor info we can derive from the sources.~~Heba Aisha (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A valid close, and the only plausible close. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the close reflected consensus Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Bari are a branch of a non - Aryan tribe , who has been given a fairly respectable position in the social system in consequence of the demand for leaf - plates , which are largely used by the highest as well as the lowest castes.... [12] check this link there are complete details of this leaf plate making caste.

2.The Castes of Marwar, Being Census Report of 1891 - Page 207books.google.co.in › books

Hardyal Singh · 1990 LEAF - PLATE SELLERS THE BARI The Baris or Rawats as they are generally styled number 4 , 557 males and 4 , 378 females . They properly form a class of personal attendants , though their present occupation is to make plates or cups....[13]

I can cite many more already the caste is in Other Backward Caste list of many states of India

there are several books independent sources available of the Bari caste - traditional leaf plate makers now struggling in modern days due to loss of traditional occupation of making plates Jethwarp (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Heba Aisha please note Bari is not a Rajput caste as you have commented, please do some research before commenting and nominating for afd, they are non aryan / other backward class of leaf plate makers. Bari classified as OBC (Other backward class) in Uttar Pradesh , Rajasthan, Haryana, & delhi. Jethwarp (talk)

- Jethwarp, the comment was posted inadvertently, as I assumed you nominated all Rajput related pages for DRV. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- This shows how serious you are on checking details.

- In Afd you have nominated and again voted with bold a delete agsinst the convention, curiously no one has objected and removed your voteJethwarp (talk)
- Instead of restoring these half baked articles, why don't you write a new one with sources you get? I know even after revival they will remain a one line article format for years like it was before.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also please note the Popular Prakashan publisher which you are citing is not considered a WP:reliable source in caste articles as they Plagiarize other sources. You should be careful in your assertion and should have asked other senior editors who edit caste articles like Sitush and Kautilya3Heba Aisha (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another source you have mentioned is not accessible and no one is going to take WP:BURDEN to expand the article as for proving my nomination wrong you are able to find only these few poor quality sources which clearly testifies that I was right in judging the notability of this article. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - clearly the close correctly reflected the consensus. If there really are reliable sources now, feel free to start afresh. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Badla Jatti Da – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 21:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

there are independent reliable sources available in news and google books, the WP:BEFORE clearly states that article should not be nominated for deletion if it can be improved upon check sources [14] , [15] two books mention this Punjabi movie as one of first big time hits in year 1992 , other sources are available in non-english Jethwarp (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse No other way this could have been closed. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A valid close, and the only plausible close. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the close reflected consensus Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No case for overturning the AfD decision. You may request a WP:REFUND and work on it as a draft, where you can add these new sources. Non-English sources are good, but please help reviewers by translating the relevant sections. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the closer obviously interpreted the consensus correctly, and no other possible objections are evident. The page hasn't been salted, so feel free to write the article again if there really are reliable sources available. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 January 2021

Nova Firoze – Endorsed - this wouldn't preclude the creation of a new article if sources demonstrating the topic meets WP:N could be found, but no evidence has been presented here such sources exist. Wily D 06:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Wily D 06:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result for this was delete. Participants do not consider that this actress has had the level of coverage to meet the relevant notability guidelines. But I think it was a wrong decision, because the actress is one of the popular actresses in Bangladesh. Received significant awards for acting and model.Finally the article is removed, my request is to reconsider the removal of the article.Alamgir64 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comment - The consensus of all participants other than the article creator was very clear in the discussion. The closing decision was unambiguous, that this actress has not received enough coverage to demonstrate notability. In the closing statement, I already offered to restore it to draftspace if there's a serious argument that more sources exist - which, to be honest, is generous given it's already been draftified once and moved back by the same editor. Instead, this DRV has now been opened to revisit a decision that I don't think really could have been made any other way. ~ mazca ^talk 16:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The community's very clear decision was to delete that article, as Mazca correctly identified.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and potentially speedy close. Deletion review considers cases where deletion process was not correctly followed. It is not a venue for the re-arguing of cases which have clearly been decided in line with the consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and allow draftification, AGFing that more coverage may be discoverable, but the consensus is clear and not unreasonable. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow creation of draft. An entirely reasonable close. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and as per above allow draftification. Setreis (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Alamgir64 is wasting our time with a nomination based on assertion, without evidence. A better way forward, without speaking the probability of success, is to request draftification, see WP:REFUND, and follow advice at WP:THREE, providing the evidence if it exists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 January 2021

18 January 2021

17 January 2021

16 January 2021

Gagan Gupta – G11 overturned - that doesn't necessarily preclude an AfD if anyone thinks it necessary, but I don't see a mandate to do so procedurally as the DRV closer. Wily D 12:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Wily D 12:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted under WP:G11, but in my opinion, it was not blatantly promotional. The speedy deletion was also contested by two other users. I asked the admin who deleted it to restore it, and to submit it to AfD if they still believe it should be deleted, but they appear to not be interested. Un assiolo (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion it was a promotional resume masquerading as an article. CUPIDICAE💕 19:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Rastapeuplulos was the creator of the article and may be interested in the discussion. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. At the beginning, the article was a translation of the french article, and as the french version was not good, the article needed a lot of work. The article was changed quickly after your comments. New sources were added, promotional part were deleted. I think it should be restored.Rastapeuplulos (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

temp undeleted for DRV Wily D 06:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy. Perhaps there's some peacockery that could be pruned, but there's nothing wrong with a bio of a businessman who runs one of his country's largest employers that merely reports his significant business activities. Kardashians are the exception, not the model for biographies here. In addition, Praxidicae/CUPIDICAE improperly restored the validly removed speedy tag to the article, an abuse of process that should be summarily undone rather than ratified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy and send to AfD if really desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, bad G11. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy According to my answer to User:Un assiolo. I think that the article should be restored. Rastapeuplulos (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy, The subject seems legitimate to me. There are quite a lot of sources.Wik8dude (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a deeply promotional article in many places, and if restored here, should be thoroughly rewritten and possibly AfD'ed.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an abundance of sources. It will be hard to work out which are independent. I don't expect it to be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 - The article has serious neutrality issues, but that is not in itself a reason for speedy deletion either as G11 or for any other speedy reason. Whether the article should be deleted in an AFD is not the issue in this DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad speedy, the article's been around for almost 6 years and there is inevitably a neutral version to revert to in the history. Overturn and optionally send to AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around for a few days. It has not been around for 6 years. It was deleted in 2015 and recreated but whoever restored the current version restored the first article too.CUPIDICAE💕 16:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The old article seems to be about a different Gagan Gupta. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indrajaalam – No consensus. Sandstein 10:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article can be recreated using these sources:

Indian Cinema
Indian Panorama
The New Indian Express
Asian Age
The Hindu
The Indian Express. But it is better to be draftified. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you only want it restored to the draft space, with the intention of creating a new version that would address the concerns that lead to the initial deletion, a DRV isn't necessary. Just ask at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or one of these chumps. Wily D 12:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done that, but since it was deleted as part of an AfD, I came here as I did for Krishna Kuchela. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule at REFUND is to refer requests for draftification of AfDed articles to the deleting admin, assuming they're still active and still an admin. You don't have to go to DRV to get something draftified unless either the deleting admin objects or the person who reviews the REFUND request objects. I don't see any problem with restoring this one though. Hut 8.5 20:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose needs improvement to clarify that DRV should not be the first port of call for a wish to re-create after a deletion. Before coming to DRV, ask the deleting admin about draftification or userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either Relist or Allow Re-Creation. Since the article was very recently deleted after minimal participation, relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 January 2021

Miss Grand – Overturn G4 deletion - There's a complicated history here a bit, so if I muck up what should be (un)deleted, it's an honest error, ask me to fix it. Wily D 08:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Wily D 08:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was improperly tagged and deleted as G4, even though it was entirely newly created and can't have borne any resemblance to an article, about a different subject, which had been deleted in 2017 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (3rd nomination). I've brought this up with the deleting admin DGG, who moved an unrelated draft over the deleted article and reverted it back to draft, without restoring the article in question. It's been over ten days since the deletion, and seeing as it currently seems inconvenient for him to divert attention to the issue, I've informed him that I'm bringing this to DRV instead. Paul_012 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temp undeleted for DRV - the new article is in the history of Miss Grand, the deleted version at Draft:Miss Grand WilyD 12:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, no, the old version is at Miss_Grand_International - okay, I'll temp restore that too, so people can judge G4-ness. EITHER WAY, DELETE THAT WHEN THIS IS DONE Wily D 12:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Overturn, undelete all and ask Paul 012 to see if he can fix the mess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse~~ considering greater G4 leeway when the AfD was closed with a consensus of "delete. And WP:SALT". It is not the same page, and the author may justifiably feel aggrieved, but "repeatedly recreated" applies. Note also the existence of Draft:Miss Grand. I do not read the re-creations as overcoming the AfD decision.

However, there must be a way to try again after more than a year to challenge the old AfD decision. I suggest: (1) the patrolling admin may refer any G4-eligible page to AfD instead. Note that he did not. (2) Use WP:AfC, and consider advice at WP:THREE to enable timely efficient review. For further work on this, go to Draft:Miss Grand. Any discovered forks should be fixed by redirection, not deletion.

Another important consideration is that the topic and sources are a foreign language. Personally I would want, and I recommend, linking to an already existing native language Wikipedia article. If an en deleted topic is not notable in its native language, there is a heavy presumption against it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This "greater G4 leeway" isn't mentioned anywhere at WP:CSD, nor does it appear to be in line with the guidance there that speedy deletions be done only "in the most obvious cases". In this case, the application appears to be in contravention to the spirit of G4, which is to prevent the community from having to go through the exact same discussion over the (more or less) exact same page. As I read it, the criterion is supposed to preclude re-creation of the content, not act as a ban on the subject. If it is standard practice to regard creation protection as making related pages eligible for CSD, this should be added as its own different criterion. (I notice that something along these lines has recently been proposed at WT:CSD, with some editors voicing concerns over the idea.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the specific suggestions, I don't currently plan to further work on the subject, and personally, I do not see the value of taking this through AfC, placing the burden on a single reviewer to weigh the status of an article against the spirit of the arguments from previous discussions. A new AfD would be preferable. Thai Wikipedia articles exist for Miss Grand Thailand (th:มิสแกรนด์ไทยแลนด์) and Miss Grand International (th:มิสแกรนด์อินเตอร์เนชันแนล), though not as a central overview (which I created with the expectation that the two subtopics would be redirected there, though Miss Grand Thailand has since separately been created, and I wouldn't object to an eventual merge somehow, if it is to be retained). Note also that I had notified Black Kite, one of the salting admins (but not the AfD closer, who is no longer active), of the page's creation, and requested re-creating the salted title as a redirect, which they did not object to. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul_012. "greater G4 leeway" isn't mentioned anywhere? That's because I only just made it up. There are many AfDs, many recreations, an explicit consensus to SALT, and the latest recreation looked like a Whac-A-Mole attempt at avoiding the SALT by using a different title. It is also a confusing mess to have multiple versions. Anyway, from you answer, it seems to me that you are sensible, and I think we should overturn the G4 deletion and let you fix everything up as you see fit. Redirect the lower quality copies to the best version in mainspace, and explicitly link to the Thai version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When Paul asked me about this, I suggested Draft:Miss Grand as a suitable way to start dealing with this material. As he wasn't satisfied, and as I have not yet figured out anything better, he brought this here. I don't think the history of the decisions matter--the goal is to find a way towards an article if an article is possible. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing currently at Draft:Miss Grand is all non-independent, and useless for moving forward with.

The sourcing at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Grand&oldid=997876075 is superior, although in Thai. I suggest working from that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the G4 speedy. We are discussing the article currently temporarily undeleted which was speedied as Miss Grand. This is completely different from Draft:Miss Grand which looks to me somewhat similar to the undeleted version of what was last deleted by AFD. So what is in draft is a bit like the old deleted article and not the new one. Or maybe I'm confused? G4 seems utterly inappropriate: the content is completely different and the references are (completely?) different. Even the topic is somewhat different: a national event where the old article was about a strongly associated international event. SmokeyJoe's arguments might be highly persuasive at WP:Village pump (policy), less so at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion, but are not at all convincing that this speedy deletion was within policy or even close to it. Thincat (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why I come back to these discussions. My first reading was confused on a few things, including what exactly was G4-ed. That said, I do think G4 has more leeway when there was a consensus to SALT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Just to note that sometimes when an article fails to be deleted at AFD in spite of many attempts, it is salted when at last a deletion is successful.[16] Thincat (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that what SmokeyJoe observes is true, but question whether it should be. In theory, every G4 should be considered independently, and the SALTing of a target should not play into such a decision. In practice, it's hard to distinguish why someone is working around a SALTed title to put a new article in place. Experienced Wikipedians will tend to ask for an un-SALTing, while both inexperienced Wikipedians and sockpuppets/SPAs will not. Experienced admins do tend to jump to G4 a bit too hastily, and I suspect for relatively benign ABF reasons--that is, assuming sockpuppetry rather than inexperience. Regardless, in this case Overturn speedy and send to whatever other process, if any, is desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If overturned, please also restore the talk page and the redirect from Miss Grand International (the version created 31 December 2020[17]). --Paul_012 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:CUeject – Page undeleted Naleksuh (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a "blatant hoax". This should have been at most tagged with Template:Humor and at least done nothing in line with other things such as Template:8ball. The page was not informational and is subsequently not a hoax. Can be sent to TFD if necessary but not a valid use of CSD (page is both a template and not a hoax). Naleksuh (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation of this template implied that it was used by Checkusers at SPI, which is incredibly far from "not a hoax"; this is a direct reference to Among Us and is not actually used by the CU team. I have no issue with it being restored to a title that doesn't imply that CUs use it, but as it was it was not acceptable. For the record, G3 applies to pages in all namespaces, so being a template means little. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primeface: For the record, G3 applies to pages in all namespaces, so being a template means little. I think I phrased this poorly. While templates are not inherently immune to G3, what I meant was that the page was not informational and is not really possible for it to be a hoax. It can't even form a complete sentence without user input.

I don't recall implying that the template was actively being used by CheckUsers. I think I made it clear that it was intended for use by CheckUsers, and added it to a list with all the other templates. If its association with SPI pages is a problem, it could have a name such as Template:Eject or Template:Ejected (since it could be used for things besides SPIs) however 1) I would like to keep it in the list and 2) Template:CUeject should still redirect there. Is that sound good? Naleksuh (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Repinging since I misspelled your name last time. Naleksuh (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a CU template, and the reason I deleted it was because a clerk noticed it and questioned why it was created. I have no issue restoring to your proposed name, but it should not have a CU-related redirect. Primefac (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: that is not a speedy deletion reason. It might, at a push, have been an arguable T2 deletion but that was repealed in July with explicit instructions to use TfD instead. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This person is an imposter", and giving reference to a very popular game (arguably a meme at this point) in my mind is most definitely a joke, especially since it looked like a CU template. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes are not speedy deletable unless they are pure vandalism (clearly not the case here) or a blatant hoax (see below). Looking like a CU template is not a reason for speedy deletion either. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, send to TfD and trout the deleting admin. Was this template useful? unlikely. Was it a blatant hoax? not even close. Blatant hoaxes are pages that actively, intentionally and unequivocally mislead about the subject, a template that says "(user) was ejected" is no more or less misleading than {{confirmed}} or any other of the result templates used by CUs are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template has been restored to Template:Eject (I was going to wait for the OP's reply, but the discussion above is to the point where it doesn't need to wait). Primefac (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to TfD. DRV is not competent to understand template hoax humour, and nothing productive will come from trying. This looks like a waste of time even without trying to understand what it is about. "Eject was ejected." Is that funny? Is that remotely useful? I suspect Naleksuh (talk · contribs) of violation both WP:SOCK and WP:Bot_policy#Bot-like_editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusing another editor of both sockpuppetry and bot editing at the same time, because you do not like a template they created, is quite simply assuming bad faith. Regardless, the page in question was undeleted so there is no need to continue this discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mark Simmons (comedian) – Deletion endorsed with leave to recreate; request draftification at WP:REFUND if you need it Stifle (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comedian is definitely notable now, having been on numerous TV panel shows since the deletion. TomJ1991 04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'd really need to find and present some third party sources from quality publishers to demonstrate he now meets our usual inclusion criterion to make much headway, eh? Wily D 12:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow draftifying if desired. The XfD was properly closed and no sources are presented here, so restoring straight to mainspace is not going to happen but if someone wants to work on improving it in draftspace then I don't see a reason not to allow that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This does not belong at DRV. Blame User:SportingFlyer for blocking attempts at improving the broken documentation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose.

The AfD is almost a year old. The subject is active and could well now be notable. If the comedian is "definitely notable", one should be definitely about to demonstrate this with two or three suitable sourced. Read the advice at WP:THREE and use WP:AfC. Start by requesting a WP:REFUND for Mark Simmons (comedian). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and allow draft/re-creation per the above advice. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As per all above. Setreis (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 January 2021

Dianne Morales – endorse close, G4-esque re-redirecting overturned There's no fault with the original close, but with the new version is sufficiently different that it can't still be enforced. Wily D 07:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Wily D 07:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The prior redirect result was proper at the time, as the subject did not then satisfy GNG. However, in the ensuing months, coverage has been such as to result in the subject now meeting GNG.

Thus, significant new information justifies recreating the deleted page--but in the form seen here. Which reflects the many RS articles devoted to coverage of the subject of the article. The subject has now received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.; 2603:7000:2143:8500:7913:1C16:7EF2:49A9 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Nothing in the previously recreated version] of Dianne Morales indicates that the subject has attracted more attention from significant sources. Per WP:NPOL, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. That would mean that Dianne Morales would need to meet WP:GNG by as an unelected political candidate who has never held office. Morales' campaign has received coverage from local sources (NY1, City & State NY, Bklyner, Gotham Gazette, Norwood News, BK Reader, News Break Brooklyn) and blogs (Human Services Council, BeLatina, Labyrinth (?)). National sources that cover Morales only mention her in the context of the broader mayoral election, which does not satisfy in-depth coverage. If she wins the incredibly crowded primary for 2021 New York City mayoral election, I support the recreation of her page, but not at this time. KidAd talk 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article satisfies the GNG. Because the topic has received significant coverage (addressing the topic directly and in detail) in reliable secondary sources (both reliable and WP notable, actually) that are independent of the subject. Including the non-exclusive 9-article list below. Beginning with 3 articles, devoted to the subject, by The New York Daily News, Politico, and The Hill. Some editors say "show me three articles" - well these would be them. Followed by other articles, also devoted to the candidate. By NY1, City & State, Norwood News, and the African-American oriented magazine The Root.

Shahrigian, Shant (November 2, 2020). "Progressive mayoral candidate Dianne Morales wants to rewrite NYC's 'social contract'". The New York Daily News.
Durkin, Erin (November 19, 2020). "Dianne Morales officially kicks off mayoral campaign". Politico.
Williams, Jordan (December 3, 2020). "NYC mayoral contender challenges New York Times for defining candidacy by marijuana use". The Hill
Gloria Pazmino (November 12, 2020). "Dianne Morales Touts 'Lived Experience'". NY1.
"She Helped House New Yorkers. Now Dianne Morales Is Running for Mayor". NY1, October 9, 2020.
Jeff Coltin (December 1, 2020). "Dianne Morales' NYC mayoral campaign theme: 'power to the people'". City & State.
Jeff Coltin (August 5, 2019). "Dianne Morales wants to be New York City's first female mayor". City & State.
David Cruz (August 29, 2019). "Bronx-Based Nonprofit Director Launches Mayoral Bid". Norwood News.
Terrell Jermaine Starr (January 11, 2021). "Mayoral Candidate Dianne Morales Doesn't Want to Return New York City Back to 'Normal'". The Root.

Furthermore, the editor's assertion that "Nothing in the previously recreated version of Dianne Morales indicates that the subject has attracted more attention from significant sources" mistates the rule. The GNG test is significant coverage in "reliable sources." Which we have.

And the editor's assertion that there has been no increase is simply incorrect. We indeed obviously have an increase in the amount of coverage by RSs. The prior AfD closed on September 13. Simply look at all the refs of articles that came out after that. Seven of the above nine articles, for example.

The editor also confuses why this subject is notable. It is only suggested that she is notable under GNG. Which she is. It is irrelevant whether or not she - in addition - is notable under NPOL.

And GNG cares not a bit about whether she has held any office or not, or whether she will win, or whether her field is crowded. Which much of the editor's focus seems to be. That is all irrelevant.

Finally, the editor ignores the full articles devoted to her in the national publications The New York Daily News, Politico, and The Hill. While focusing on the more NY State and NY City focuses on her. Certainly, we have those as well, for example NY1, City & State, and Norwood News. However, those are all fine publications, all reliable sources as required by GNG, and taken together all these articles satisfy GNG.2603:7000:2143:8500:7913:1C16:7EF2:49A9 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a valid close and the right close, with the following points:
- - Allow creation of a new draft in review, but not direct creation in article space.
  - Recognize that publicity resulting from a campaign for public office is usually downgraded in the context of general notability.
  - A history merge is required if the article is accepted.
  - If the community doesn't like the downgrading of election publicity as counting toward GNG, an RFC is in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not make stuff up? There is not one word in the GNG that "downgrades" election-related coverage, and discussions such as those surrounding Theresa Greenfield show that there is not consensus support for it. Responsible editors should not advance such positions as though they are policy- or guideline-based. They are not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - I am not making anything up. I am stating what is the usual application, with exceptions, of general notability to political candidates. Tf you are saying that this downgrading is a non-policy-based result, then I agree, but that should be discussed elsewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A standard that is not based in policy or guideline is just made up. A "non-policy-based result" is by definition inappropriate and cannot legitimately be supported. Your endorsement makes no sense and should be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Only way the discussion could have been closed. To continue the discussion with any new information, continue at the talk page of the redirect target. Continue at Talk:2021_New_York_City_mayoral_election as the correct forum for this question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per DGG below, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianne_Morales&oldid=1000017728 contains enough new sources, not discussed at AfD, to justify re-creation. Permit that re-creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation. I don't see the point of sending it elsewhere--we are competent to decide if there's enough, and my opinion is that there is. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC) .[reply]
Permit recreation clearly over the WP:N bar now. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore already-recreated article text. As has repeatedly been affirmed here, no permission is required to write a new text for an article which is not substantially identical to a previously deleted text. The fact that an AFD closed as redirect rather than simply delete does not mean that permission to write a new and different version is required. Not one word of deletion policy supports this limit, and attempts to "enforce" should be treated as disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz-Thx for that explanation. I had wondered the same thing. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C0E5:FAA8:A6E4:B20F (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

NIDA (political party) – Resolved. Restored by deleting admin. Sandstein 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedily deleted under criterion G5, but I think it was a useful article that shouldn't have been deleted. Moreover, G5 may not apply: the sockpuppet was not used to evade a block, as the primary account was not blocked at the time of creation of the article. Criterion G5 specifically states that "to qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked" and that "a page created before the ban or block was imposed (...) will not qualify under this criterion". ― Ætoms ^[talk] 14:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 January 2021

Scott Liss – Administrative closure. H etching has also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Liss (2nd nomination). We cannot have a DRV and an AfD running at the same time. Sandstein 12:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the subject of the article. The previous discussion was closed only because the nomination for deletion was withdrawn. It looks as though consensus would have been to delete. I am sure the notability requirements are not met and deletion of the article is appropriate. It must not be that every independently recorded album is seen as “notable” for inclusion on Wikipedia, and thus used as a basis to prove significant notability of the artist. H etching (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and in this case I'd prefer an "overturn to delete" outcome here, over relisting the debate for its full period. It's appropriate to apply a streamlined process to a simple case.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Overturn to delete" wouldn't be appropriate, since the original AfD was closed early. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have verification that H etching is Scott Liss? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious. I'm pretty lost as to why there was a withdrawn nom, etc. Sources are close, but if the subject wants it deleted, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deletion_of_BLPs_of_relatively_unknown_subjects seems to easily apply here. Hobit (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, forked conversation, and continue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Liss (2nd nomination). AfD1 was in November 2012, and there is no purpose in reviewing it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deviprasad Dwivedi – Speedy endorse - Nominator has asked to withdraw and all others suppose endorsement Stifle (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was not a "clear or obvious case", therefore a non-admin closure was unwarranted especially considering that the one closing the discussion is not so experienced in closures. Closing the discussion without stating the reason is self-evident that this is a challengeable closure. My point is short and straight-forward on why this article should be deleted: Passing WP:ANYBIO (although i don't believe it does) does not ensure notability (per itself) and in this case, where there is a serious problem with WP:V (the subject blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NACADEMICS and NO (not 1) independent reliable sources can be found as one can check) the article can not be kept with 3 out of the 4 votes being- 1) Author vote 2) Monteboat (a new editor with double digit edits) 3) Delete turned Weak Keep. At the very least, it should've been relisted. Also see this discussion. Edit: The closer has admitted to closing an afd as keep because "the keep votes were leading by one". This shows that he is not an adept at this. Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 06:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any closure other than keep possible. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stifle: I think that he could've waited for more votes since 3 out of the 4 casted did not form a strong base for a keep (see above). Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 11:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, precisely per Stifle. It's not appropriate to relist cases where the consensus is clear.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall Can you explain how this is a case of clear consensus? Consensus hasn't even reached yet. 1 Keep and 1 Weak Keep is all that the discussion has got. Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 18:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can't see it from reading that discussion, then no, I don't think I can explain to you how clear it is.—S Marshall T/C 19:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of some of the arguments, but yeah, it could only be closed as keep. Endorse. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why has the close been undone while the Deletion Review is still in progress? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The closer reversed their own closure. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Stifle: I'll like you to please speedy close this discussion as "endorse" on my behalf. Thank you, Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 08:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 January 2021

Ripple Music – Moot. Nobody here seems to have noticed that the closer undid their contested closure at 17:50, 13 January 2021‎ (UTC), and the AfD has been ongoing again since then. This makes this request and discussion moot. Noting also that the request's filer is also a now checkuser-blocked sock. Sandstein 09:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

After weeks of AfD discussion and re-opening, the company's notability was not sufficiently established. Despite this, the discussion was closed with a "Keep" result by a non-administrator. Law15outof48 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. After weeks of discussion on the AfD page and being re-opened once, the company's notability failed to be established per WP:ORIGCRIT. WP:GNG: the article should be deleted. Law15outof48 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (ie reopen). This should never have been closed by a non-admin. Several of the keep votes look potentially suspect. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - If I had !voted, I may have voted keep, there are claims the label has a significant influence on a music genre. But I haven't verified those claims. All that is beside the point, I do not see a consensus for "keep", and any such close would need an good explanation, of which there is none. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw the opened discussion that was 8 days older. I counted the the keep votes (4) and delete votes (1) and hence closed the discussion as keep due to the leading number of keep votes. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 20:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOTE: "most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule." Secondly, the discussion actually had 4 'delete's and 5 'keep's (the 6th 'keep' was from someone who voted twice). You treated the discussion as a vote, tallied the votes incorrectly, and closed the discussion with a 'Keep' result, all with zero explanation. That's not how this works. Law15outof48 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Four of those participating don't have many edits. The second edit one ever made was to nominate the article for deletion https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Special:Contributions/Law15outof48 Anyway this non-admin closure should not have been done since people disagree on the outcome. The rules for non-admin closure should be more clear, just flat out say "you can't do this unless everyone but the nominator says to keep it". Only one blue link in the list of bands with anything released by this label so probably not notable. If someone wanted to contact them on their official website and ask if they got any coverage in any legitimate media, that might help find something to see if they pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 22:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as a bad non-admin closure. The rules on non-administrative closures are incomprehensible, and should be reworked. Maybe the advice to non-admins who want to be useful on deletion discussions would be to clarify that non-admins should be welcome to do the Relisting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi folks, I voted twice on the Ripple page -- not intentionally trying to mess with the process, didn't realize each Keep was a "vote." Then when I saw the message to strike though one of them, there was already a direction not to further edit that page. I've written and edited a few articles in the past but this is my first time participating in a deletion discussion. Thanks for your patience! Hopefully people can look at the big picture and determine some clearer guidelines for record label notability as part of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels. Glad to see the Ripple page remains, as a consensus to delete has not been established. Jessiemay1984 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus There is not a consensus to keep nor is there a consensus for deletion. In addition, the close is a bad non-admin closure. --Enos733 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have closed as no-consensus, but that's also a not-delete result. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I have read the other arguments presented here and have changed my opinion. Relisting this is the best option given the circumstances. Law15outof48 (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Endorse the original closing (Keep or non-delete) with comment that it might have had a bad non-admin closure. The page needs fixing not deletion WP:DINC. The central points asserted by the user requesting deletion have been addressed on page and in discussion. Evaluation should consider possibility or potential for WP:VOA in contribution pattern of nomination. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Special:Contributions/Law15outof48.Krakan.silfursolin (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A facsimile of the following comment was added then removed from original discussion. KEEP The Ripple Music article describes actively engaged recorded music label, publisher, distributor, and cultural entity in music genre and subgenre operating for over 10 years representing broad roster of active musicians and significant catalog of recordings. Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on AllMusic https://www.allmusic.com/artist/ripple-music-mn0002560446 Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on Discogs.com https://www.discogs.com/label/209142-Ripple-Music. WP:MUSIC indicates that many artists in repertoire would meet notable criteria, whether or not they themselves are represented with Wikipedia articles or entries. There is limited discussion indicating how to assess Notability for smaller and independent record labels and music publishers as culturally significant. Wikipedia Notability guidelines should not unintentionally bias toward "major" international corporate entities or certain "major" institutions. Discussion appears to contain Moving Goalposts when presented with notable references by invoking WP:INHERITORG, WP:ITSOLD, & WP:LOCALFAME to refute notability. These can continue to be leveraged to argumentum ad infinitum as invoked here, they would also apply to most genre or regional music organizations that exist to promote culture and artists. The page needs fixing not deletion. (I am newbe, apologies if awkward. If this does not belong here, please advise. Thanks.) Krakan.silfursolin (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the reverted NAC at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ripple_Music&oldid=999933871

Allow re-listing at AfD, but demand a carefully written nomination statement that summarises the previous AfD and this DRV. The previous AfD is too much a mess to re-open. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

EFounders – endorse Wily D 07:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Wily D 07:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minimal participation with 1 nomination, 1 lean delete, 2 keeps. Closed as keep. Closer stated they closed based on a headcount and has since realized closing it as keep was not very accurate. Closer lacks technical capacity (despite some instructions offered) to relist or close as non-consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says "(non-admin closure)". I don't think they can do that unless everyone agrees. The "leaning delete" person didn't bold their vote or specifically say delete. Leaning sounds like "considering" which in context of them stating they were unsure about things, makes sense. Need to ask them to clarify their vote. If you get an administrator to close this it'll just be "no consensus" more likely than not. Dream Focus 17:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should have been closed as no consensus and that a lean delete isn't the same as an actual delete (regardless of whether someone bolds or not). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Not a great discussion but I think most people would have closed it that way. NC would also probably be within discretion. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A three or four person discussion where there isn't a clear consensus doesn't strike me as something where most people would have closed that way - or at least I wouldn't if I were closing it. As noted above in response to DF, I do think this is a NC on both consensus and due to a lack of participation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus is the same as keep, the article is not deleted. So I don't see why you wish to bring the case here. The outcome will be the same. Dream Focus 17:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The choice to close as keep is reasonable (as would have been a close of no-consensus). The discussion was relisted twice. --Enos733 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could have been no-consensus, but it's the same outcome really. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been no consensus, after weighting the votes. The practical effect of this is to enable an early relist, which a "keep" outcome precludes.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Could not have been closed as "delete". Read advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha – Relisted. Since nobody seems to want to close this, and two participants to the AfD and DRV have been blocked, I am relisting the AfD that I closed in the hope to get a mpre thorough discussion and consensus. Sandstein 14:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was deleted even though there were third party independent sources cited It is a more than century old organization and certainly worth encyopedic Jethwarp (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a temp. undelete please? Hobit (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I had participated in the discussion. The AfD Nominator had raised the concern appropriately and the AfD participants rightly pointed that WP:ORGCRIT was not meeting. The closure is justified. Good close by Sandstein. --Walrus Ji (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion nomination did talk about self-published sources and a COI primary author; but then it shot itself in the foot with its references to "unacceptable unencyclopaedic fonts" and its telling admission that the nominator had tried to clean it up but been reverted. I see some red flags for the misuse of AfD for cleanup. What might in fact be needed here is not deletion, but for a sysop to step in and restore order. Before we go there, though, the concerns about sources need input from a previously uninvolved, trusted Hindi speaker in my view.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)ou[reply]
Comment Thank you S Marshall for your perfect reading of situation and red flag for misuse of AfD for clean-up. The problem here was not with article's worthiness it was due to some ip and user Tathya the Fact trying to promote his personal vendetaa on this page , whom I got immediately blocked [18] and also informed the participants in Afd. Instead of dealing with vandals and PoV pushers by Admin intervention, the nominator took AfD route, which is inappropriate and not proper. Wikipedia has policy on how to check and deal with vandals and POV pushers. AfD route to deal with this is misuse of AfD process, as you correctly pointed out. Regards Jethwarp (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jethwarp, you have created this article that was judged as failing WP:ORGCRIT by the community. Where are the third party sources you claim to exist? Instead of resolving the actual WP:ORGCRIT concern you are now attacking the nomination on technicalities. Considering that this article is about an advocacy group, can you please clarify your Conflict of Interest with this group? are you a member of this group or from Khsatriya?--Walrus Ji (talk) 17:59, 14 January2021 (UTC)

Let other editors decide about the cited sources and I don't have any COI interest in the aricle. Anyone can check the page history to see what are cited sources and which editors could have CoI intrest in the page. Jethwarp (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I just got curious about using of AfD route by Heba Aisha and found out to my surprise that user is after all articles related to named Rajput, Kshatriya and even Jats. Just check the articles user has been able to via delete AfD procees[19] one example is Sodha it was deleted thru Afd where as independent sources are available [20] (talk)

Jethwarp, all these article which I tagged were one or two line article with almost no source and some of them were already tagged that they may not meet WP:GNG for years.example: [21] Noone tried to improve them and I believe that this was because, they failed to possess required number of third party independent sources.About the page we are discussing here,: I didn't object after you provided explaination in delition discussion.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to clarify, if you have checked the pages nominated by me. You would be knowing that I have also nominated many movie related articles too. And, those who commented in the AFD deletion discussion expressed their view after checking whether the source exist or not.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - I also possess the same concern that Walrus Ji possess, most of the pages you created are related to a particular social group or notable personalities associated with them I.e Rajput. Example: the pages of many of the landlords who you edit regularly also belong to same social group and this organization was also of the same social group. I would like to tag admin Bishonen, about the disruption that has happened in recent times with pages related to this caste. The pages which got deleted faces the same problems example Rajput weeding, admins can check.It was with one source and the whole commentary was nothing but a WP:POV violating castecruft. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the Wikipedia deletion policy clearly states that if no one is improving article that cannot be reason to nominate articles for deletion. If reliable third party sources are there one should try to improve it. just in case of Sodha you should in this particular case should have opted for AfD process diligently. thanks and regards and please don't discuss on my edits and personal attacks, I am here to save this particular article and not saying all your nomination were right or wrong. Jethwarp (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said that because you also accused me of taking Afd route and not warning the disruptive user, but [22], you should have checked that I warned him three times. Also, I still believe that most of the hindi sources you are keeping are not independent and anyhow related to that organization possessing COI related materials. As I couldn't see enough quality newspapers itself in the source list, those flashing there were just poor materials of dubious quality news websites. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting speedy close according to the Clause 8 of WP:DRVPURPOSE Jethwarp, This is not the page to attack Heba Aisha, you can take your grievance to Heba Aisha's talk page. If you read the definition , it says Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions;. Instead you have started this for all the wrong reasons listed st WP:DRVPURPOSE (1) because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome. (2) to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion; (3) to argue technicalities (4) to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed). Walrus Ji (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The red flag were first raised by S Marshall and As I realized that arguments are drifting away from main cause I remarked that I am here to save this page and would like to stick onwards only for this deletion review in future also Walrus Ji you first deviated from Deletion Review Clause 8 by asking me questions on my affliations etc. ThanksJethwarp (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Read advice at WP:THREE for how to contest a decision to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - would request all to please check the cited sources all are independent third party reliable sources cited in the article:-

1. Singh, Ujjwal Kumar (2007). The State, Democracy and Anti-Terror Laws in India By Ujjwal Kumar Singh - the book mentions how the organization took up fight against Mayawati government for her targeting of Rajput and Thakur castes

2. भारत रत्न महामना. बालमुकुन्द पाण्डेय, देवेन्द्र कुमार शर्मा · 2015. 2015. p. 85. - the book on Madan Mohan Malviya clearly states about the Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha and it's meet of 1922 under chairmanship Nahar Singh of Shahpura and it's pioneering role in bringing back Muslim Rajputs in to Hindu Rajput fold. The book also mentions Mahatma Gandhi was averse to this idea but the organization was blessed by Malaviyaji, who later passed similar resolution Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

3. Government Gazette: The United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. Year 1910. p. 144 mentions about the organization and it's meetings etc

Cited here only above 3, Any one can verify the other cited sources non- are self published sources or advocacy group links

Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity I looked at the reference 1 posted above. In this 350 page book, this organisation has only a single mention in a line saying that it wrote letters to the legislators. This is not what Significant coverage is supposed to mean. It appears that Jethwarp has some competency issues in understanding WP:Significant Coverage. In any case, if this is the #1 source in the list of top 3 sources then this only proves the non notability of this org. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is also known as All India Kshatriya Mahasabha google book search for same [23] Jethwarp (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check link [24] and [25] and [26] and [27] and [28] and [29] and [30] and [31] and [32] and [33] for example.

Most importantly right from 1910 till date you can find different google books of every decade mentioning about the organization. Jethwarp (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jethwarp, I have checked Reference 1 with your new search string. The alt name has zero mention in reference 1. I also clicked and reviewed all the links of google hits that you have provided above. They are trivial mentions. I could not even find one source that could convince me to vote a Keep. While we need to find multiple as WP:ORGCRIT demands. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect your opinion is already known. Let other knowledgeable editors check the links. You have already voted in AfD and saying same thing again, with regards. Jethwarp (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mentioning some important contnent from book for benifit of participants about notability of organization

1. Writs staying the act were secured from the High Court immediately after it came into force in 1952, and the legal controversy continued until 1954 when the Supreme Court of India finally upheld the act. The Kshatriya Mahasabha served as the central co-ordinator for the jagirdari class, extending its support to a broad coalition of candidates from several parties, as well as independent candidates State Politics in India - Page 354 Myron Wiener · 2015 [34]

2 A number of organizations had been established to deal with the issues related to Kshatriyas . The All India Kshatriya Mahasabha had been established with the purpose of social upliftment of the Kshatriyas . Female Infanticide and Child Marriage - Page 252 Sambodh Goswami · 2007 · [35]

3However , the smaller non - Muslim organisations like the All - India Hindu Mahasabha , the Bihar Provincial Hindu Mahasabha , the ... the U . P . Sikh Conference , the All - India Kshatriya Mahasabha , all with varying tones of indignation reprobated the Pakistan Plan Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, Volumes 8-10 Faculty of Social Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, 1982 - Pakistan [36]

4. The Kshatriya Mahasabha sent a representation to Prime Minister Nehru who deputed Pt. Govind Ballabh Pant to adjudicate. The Pant Award while conceding many demands of the Jagirdars contained a provision that the Jagirs having Party Politics in an Indian State: A Study of the Main ... - Page 84 <books.google.co.in › books K. L. Kamal · 1969 ·

5.The Rajasthan Kshatriya Mahasabha accepted the Pant award and was doing its best to solve the problem by constitutional means. The Sabha conducted negotiations on behalf of the Jagirdars with the State Government on various issues Indian Recorder & Digest - Volumes 1-2 - Page 15books.google.co.in › books 1955 PAGE 15

6.The earliest known caste federation is that of the Rajputs who constituted the Kshatriya Mahasabha.. sometime in the later decades of nineteenth century , mainly to consolidate unity among... Journal of Social Research, Volume 27 Council of Social and Cultural Research, Bihar., 1984 - Anthropology pg 76

The above sources clearly indicate that organization is notable :- Source 1-4 gives notabality to organization

1. In 1952 Supreme Court accepted Kshatriya Mahasabha as central co-ordinator for Jagirdari case

2.It clearly mentions The All India Kshatriya Mahasabha had been established with the purpose of social upliftment of the Kshatriyas

3. It mentions that the Pakistan Plan was disapproved by organizations such as Hindu Mahasabha , the National Liberal Federation of India , the All India Forward Block Conference , the Khalsa National Party , the U . P . Sikh Conference , the All India Kshatriya Mahasabha ..

4. Govind Vallabh Pant Chief Minister of UP and Jawaharlal Nehru PM of India had to negotiate with Kshatriya Mahasabha with respect to Jagirdar case and Pant Award, clearly indicating the organization's notability.

Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted even though there were third party independent sources cited It is a more than century old organization and certainly worth encyopedic. I request administrator to please restore the page with only content which have sources cited even if it is third party independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tathya The Fact (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tathya The Fact, is blocked from editing this page.Walrus Ji (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Ji is also blocked indefinitely Jethwarp (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 January 2021

10 January 2021

Ashli Babbitt – Overturn and relist. There is rough consensus here that this closure did not meet the criteria outlined in WP:SNOW. That it was closed with undue haste. El_C 16:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm a little delayed getting to this...because life, but it still needs to be done. I'm concerned with the decision to close this AfD so quickly. Yes, there was a lot of input. But it wasn't anywhere near unanimous or snowing. The AfD only ran a little longer than 24 hours. The closers reasoning that "[...] it does Wikipedia and the community no favors to prolong this, [...]" simply doesn't feel like reason to hasten a close. I feel the community deserves more time to weigh in. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 13:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and reopen Didn't meet WP:SNOW. This is an extraordinary case, so perhaps having be merged for now but allowing the discussion to continue would be the right choice. I suspect I'd lean toward moving this to an event article or merging--I've not looked closely enough to know. To take a quote I have on my homepage "Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating. --SmokeyJoe [37]" Hobit (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but void - I don't think there was any sense in letting the AfD run - it wouldn't help. That said, the four day old AfD on the topic is clearly extremely out of date, and any attempt at a "permanent" decision at this time is hopelessly foolish. For instance, here's an article in the New York Times that's a few hours old that would go against BLP1E applying; but that question is liable to remain highly fluid for the short term, which is why we see the whole AfD is political partisanship rather than any kind of reasoned examination of the situation. A new article would already not be G4-able, and I'm guessing a new AfD today would be stale by friday as well. 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is already 101k of readable text, so it should be split into smaller articles (and will probably continue to organically grow, necessitating even more). Trying to enforce a merge here, now, is bad encyclopaedia building. Whether to merge is really a question that should be kicked ~six months down the road, when we can answer it honestly as encyclopaedia writers. WilyD 14:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What you have stated is exactly why I said in the AfD that was just simply too close to the event to judge its lasting notability fairly. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 16:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a WP:SNOW situation, but the situation is still rapidly evolving. No action for now; suggest relisting in a couple of weeks. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think that was a reasonable SNOW close. They don't have to be unanimous, the only requirement is that the outcome should be obvious. This AfD got a very large amount of participation which was overwhelmingly on the side of deleting/redirecting/merging, especially as a number of the keep comments had no merit. The fact that it's a high profile subject where BLP applies doesn't help. I don't see how the NYT article linked above in any way rebuts the BLP1E argument as it covers her in the context of the shooting. Hut 8.5 19:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It provides a fair overview of her entire life. The reason for the coverage was her death. But the coverage itself reaches into a lot of her life. We have her life history in there--plenty to write a bio. She is only known for one thing, but the coverage isn't just about the event, it's about her life. Hobit (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How much we can write about the subject isn't the determining factor, the article still "cover[s] the person only in the context of a single event", which is what BLP1E asks for. The article is going to be very heavily skewed towards the event however we write it because that's the only part of her life which is at all significant. Hut 8.5 21:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your point, but disagree with it. First of all, her life, like everyone else's, is significant. It may not be notable, to use Wikipedia's term-of-art, but it is significant. Sorry if I'm being preachy here, and I realize you are also using significance as a term-of-art but I think we should be careful about phrasing when discussing someone where BLP applies for all the standard reasons. But beyond that, if major news sources are covering one person in that level of depth, even it is for one event, then we should be considering having an article on that person--it is pretty good evidence that her role in the event was significant. Is that enough to have an article? I'm leaning against--at least not as a biographical article. But the NYT covering her in that level of depth is evidence that her role is enough to overcome WP:BLP1E. 21:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, then read WP:BLP1E, because it's extremely obvious to anyone even vaguely familiar with it. 1E covers biographies of people covered in the context of one event, not because of one event; that's why we have biographies of Lee Harvey Oswald, Guy Fox, Marc Lépine, John Hinckley Jr. ... because their lives - their biographies - became covered as a result of their involvement in some event. The New York Times article gives context for her life - where she grew up, her employment history, her personal life (relationships like marriages); those are all coverage off her beyond the context of the one event. Now, it's just one article, on it's own it's not necessarily enough to make an outcome obvious, but those are the kinds of things that are indicators 1E doesn't apply. Wily D 06:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, those individuals are notable for individual acts. She was just that part of an indiscriminate mob that happened to catch a bullet. Sucks to be her, but she isn't notable. --Khajidha (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious early close outwith criteria. Should be reopened so that the procedure can be followed properly, leading to a close that brings some closure. Leave the redirect in place during that discussion though because it's as obvious as a coalpile in a ballroom that, with the present available sources, there shouldn't be an article with that title.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - A quick closeout in response to rapidly unfolding events is not the way to make decisions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, draw a line under that version, and allow re-creation using sources that are not near-immediate news coverage. My search now reveals sufficient independent reliable sources providing ongoing coverage from an improved perspective. Ongoing coverage provides far more sourced comment than fits in the current redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. 12 hours of discussion cannot justify cutting short a high-participation discussion with strongly argued points on both sides. The closer's determination that the subject was likely to remain a low-profile individual was absurd on its face and been demonstrated to be false by subsequent coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as a frank mess, a violation of WP:SNOW, and a matter of being too soon to the event to comfortably AfD. One could also argue we are too soon to the event to comfortably make this page, at least at the time it was made. But it's several days since now, we know this (at least plausibly) isn't WP:BLP1E (a policy I suspect goes unread by many of the people who quote it), and the original AfD is essentially poisoned. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly was "very soon". With all the sources in the redirected version now being so co-temporary they are now primary sources, I think it much better to allow a fresh re-creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It was not a WP:SNOW situation and closing after just 12 hours was incorrect.Did feel WP:RAPID applied here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No action for now. Re-list some time in February. There is some debate about which way BLP1E should apply; those questions should be settled when the coverage settles down. In my view it was WP:TOOSOON for the page to exist. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This looked like unseemly haste. Having said that, the article should be moved to Death of Ashli Babbitt and will need substantial rewriting. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

9 January 2021

8 January 2021

Poothali – Endorse, but allow recreation - I'll move the article to the draft space, where it can be updated to demonstrate it (plausibly) meets WP:N Wily D 06:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Wily D 06:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I found two sources that could have salvaged it: this and this which is an excerpt from The Hindu (wait till I find the original Hindu link). Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, properly closed AfD. Try asking the deleting admin for a WP:REFUND. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
temp undeleted for DRV Wily D 06:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore given the minimal participation this should be treated as a soft deletion which can be overturned on request. The first link looks pretty useless as a source but the second one is more promising. Hut 8.5 19:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There appear to be two overly broad actions having opposite effects on diversity and systemic bias. The author probably did create too many articles on Indian films, but one can see that they were trying to increase diversity and combat systemic bias. The nominator probably nominated too many articles on Indian films, and definitely was undiplomatic and insensitive in saying what they were doing. That having been said:
- - Overturn to No Consensus as an exercise in Ignore All Rules in spite of a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks to the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 January 2021

Krishna Kuchela – Endorse, but allow recreation - I'll move the article to the Draft space, it can be returned to the main space once it's been updated with sources that (plausibly) allow it to meet WP:N Wily D 11:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Wily D 11:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Though it was deleted per this, the nominator seemingly didn't try to look for sources that I easily found, such as this and this. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did look for sources before nominating the article. In my opinion, none of the provided sources establish notability of the subject nor qualify as significant coverage. R, Kolma8 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the debate only had one participant other than the nominator, so it was probably best viewed as a soft deletion which can be overturned when reasonably contested. The sources cited above are a lot better than anything linked in the deleted article or the AfD. (The deleted article did have a link to this archive of The Hindu, but it doesn't mention either of those sources.) Hut 8.5 17:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply an inevitable result of someone nominating far too many articles every day for deletion - more than could possibly be properly researched - and being supported in that endeavour by many people on that editor's talk page, in opposition to the people who have offered good advice. My prediction is that we will see the rest of the "delete anything not related to Western anglophone pop culture so visible in a Google search in English" brigade turning up here just as they have been egging on the nominator of this deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or restore With only one other participant, this discussion could have been relisted or should be treated as a soft delete. --Enos733 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
temp undeleted for DRV Wily D 05:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, properly closed AfD. Try asking the deleting admin for a WP:REFUND. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There appear to be two overly broad actions having opposite effects on diversity and systemic bias. The author probably did create too many articles on Indian films, but one can see that they were trying to increase diversity and combat systemic bias. The nominator probably nominated too many articles on Indian films, and definitely was undiplomatic and insensitive in saying what they were doing. That having been said:
- - Overturn to No Consensus as an exercise in Ignore All Rules in spite of a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks to the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 January 2021

5 January 2021

4 January 2021

Youth Against Rape – Endorsed Wily D 06:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Wily D 06:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason for this deletion review is that, I believe it was dominated to delete by editors who worked on Smile Foundation, after my comment to delete that article (Retaliation). However, I would like to clear that in my opinion article may stand with some changes and some more sources (I also believe editors and closing admin didn't checked other language sources), so I would request you to kindly restore the article. For the socking part, I've talked with the administrators and understood WP:BROTHER, Kindly accept apologies on that. Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - In my opinion, either Delete or No Consensus would have been a valid close. The title has not been salted, and the appellant is free to create a draft. If I were reviewing the draft, I would ask to compare against a copy of the deleted article to verify that the draft was better, and otherwise would Reject the draft. (This does not mean that I would accept a better draft, just that I wouldn't accept one that wasn't visibly better.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Temp undeleted for DRV Wily D 05:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Correct reading of consensus, even if the closer was tentative in their wording. There is the possibility that the participants were over-harsh due to the influence of the WP:Reference bombing, which goes straight to the standard advice of following the advice at WP:THREE when appealing a deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in my opinion notability had been established and I wasn't persuaded by the counter-arguments, but the consensus was for deletion and I can respect that. Pratyush.shrivastava may I suggest you first create a few other articles on notable topics on wikipedia, then return to this topic in a few months. Maybe by then (if no-one else creates the article in the meantime) there will be more reliable secondary sources and it will be easier to write a draft article. Best wishes for 2021! Mujinga (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mujinga: I understand, Best wishes to you too. -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse See no problem with the close. NavjotSR (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 January 2021

2 January 2021

1 January 2021

Thomas Hardy's Ale – WP:G11 speedy deletion overturned. AfD remains possible. Sandstein 10:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I made some edits to the article to make it not look like promtoion, eventhough I have no affiliation with the brand and do not benefit from promoting it. Please reveiw my drafts and make suggestions, but I think it's good as it stands. Rachelskit (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Rachelskit - I can't see the deleted article, but I can see from the history that you were move-warring and create-warring with User:Deb. It would have been better to discuss with Deb than to edit-war with her. I can also see that Deb did not salt the title in draft space, so you can still create a draft and have it reviewed. And I know that if Deb deleted it twice as G11, it almost certainly was G11, and you should have discussed after the first draftify. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Initially I was not convinced that it was irretrievable, so I removed the speedy nomination tag and moved it into draft. User:Rachelskit moved it back into article space within seconds. When I again deleted it, the user immediately recreated it without explanation, which was a cause for concern. Robert is correct; had it been discussed after the draftify, or even before the recreation, the outcome might have been different. The best thing solution would be to create it in draft to obtain consensus. Deb (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I created a draft of the article: Draft:Thomas_Hardy's_Ale Rachelskit (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Temp undeleted for DRV Wily D 16:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my opinion, the current draft is a Decline. It is not a G11. I have not reviewed all of the versions of the restored article to see whether any of them were or were not G11. I disapprove strongly of the conduct of the appellant, who was edit-warring, and will not be neutral about the content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What edit-warring do you allege. If you mean the the revert of Deb's draftification, that is perfectly allowed. Draftspace and AfC is optional, and if the author doesn't want to use it, they may revert draftification, and then the only option for the draftifier is AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Bad G11. The article had several references, and some were OK. Delete the fork at Draft:Thomas Hardy's Ale. Allow immediate listing at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe:, are you aware that G11 has nothing to do with references? Deb (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per se, maybe, but not independent reliable sources that cover the topic. The promotional tone can be fixed. The promotional tone matches the promotional tone in the references, so some more evaluation and discussion at AfD is probably in order. It was a bad G11 call. We’re you influenced by annoyance with the move revert? Have you read WP:Draftify? If draftification was appropriate, CSD was not, and vice versa. The two do not overlap. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, as I mentioned above, I was influenced by the actions of the editor in reverting within seconds without even pausing to wonder about the reason for the draftification, and by their failure to respond to my comment on their Talk page and by their subsequent second recreation of the article. But when I say it didn't at first sight seem irretrievable, I gave it more scrutiny following these actions. The editor has worded their claim of disinterest very carefully; however, the draft is if anything more promotionally-worded than the deleted version. Were this a beer that's no longer available commercially, I might have looked at it differently. I will not be troubled if the deletion is overturned; the article will then be an uncontroversial A7. Deb (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can change the tone so it's less "promotional", which I don't think it is in the first place, since I was just stating the history of the beer. Rachelskit (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - SmokeyJoe (talk) Thanks. Yes, I didn't know what Deb meant by go into draft. I also agree it was a bad G11, since it wasn't promotional. I already made some edits on the draft: Draft:Thomas Hardy's Ale Rachelskit (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy. I don't know whether it would survive AfD, but the sources suggest there is a good chance and problems with tone are easily fixable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
overturn speedy I get where the deleting admin is coming from. It is certainly overly promotional but doesn't meet the bar of G11 (doesn't need a fundamental rewrite). Not at all sure it would be kept at AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Paras – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 10:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the page was wrongly deleted because he passes the general notability criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia. And I don't understand why he is not notable, so I got in contact with the admin that closed the Afd discussion through the admin's talk page, the admin agreed with me that the page has reliable secondary sources but couldn't explain why those reliable secondary sources are promotional, so the admin advised I should bring up my concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion Review so that other editors will review my case and consider "undeleting" the article. Before the Afd discussion was closed I cross-checked the page again according to Wikipedia guidelines and confirmed there were no PR sources on the page till the discussion was closed, since the admin couldn't explain the reasons why the sources are Promotional,I concluded the Judgement was based on assumption and Wikipedia shouldn't be based on assumptions. Barmitzg (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am "the admin" being mentioned here. This what I said on my talk page in response to this frustrated editor's issue: "I don't see any reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in a neutral manner presented in the deletion discussion...I just reviewed the sources in the article that was deleted and while they might be from reliable secondary sources, they do not represent the subject in a neutral manner. Promotional style content in newspapers and magazines do not establish notability." Barmitzg then asked me to explain why the sources aren't enough to establish notability. I just haven't had the energy to sit down (New Year's Eve, not editing Wikipedia constantly, not feeling that 95% of the things that happen on Wikipedia are that important for a critical, time sensitive response) and explain why each of these sources is borderline promotional.

Just because something is published in a reliable secondary sources, doesn't always mean the content is neutral. I viewed the pieces in the article as puff pieces, which are sadly quite common in Indian news sources - people pay to have themselves covered in the paper and Indian journalism doesn't require disclosure. Regardless, I deleted the article based on consensus from the deletion discussion. As a person who reviews hundreds of AfDs a week, I do not believe it is my job to review every article's sourcing. It's the job of those supporting or opposing deletion. The community did that, agreed that the subject failed general notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I have no personal opinion about whether this article remains deleted, for the record. Missvain (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for the following reasons:
- - AFD is not a vote count, but should not disregard a decisive result on a vote count, and 4-to-1 (including the nom as a Delete !vote) is decisive.
  - The closing admin did not really have a choice. Any other close would have been wrong based simply on the sense of the community.
  - The closing admin, User:Missvain, was not required to research the sources, but is to be thanked for having done the additional research that she did.
  - Reliable secondary sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition to establish notability.
  - Other criteria for notability in addition to sources include the need for the sources to provide significant coverage, and neutral point of view.
  - Sometimes an editor, such as User:Barmitzg, may simply have a minority opinion.
  - ~~I haven't seen the deleted article, but I don't think that a temporary undelete is required.~~ Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion was the only way it could have been closed. On my searches for searches, I find zero sources demonstrating notability, but a lot of sources that are non-independent and promotional. Regarding User_talk:Missvain#Afd_Closure_of_Dr_Paras, I suggest to closer User:Missvain, that in clear cut cases of deletion where the proponent doesn’t understand, point them first to WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
temp undeleted for DRV Wily D 10:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I were reviewing it at AFC, I would decline it as a run-of-the-mill life coach, and as focusing on what the subject says about himself rather than what neutral third parties have written. The closure still appears to be correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside the fact that he was notable enough to make it in the news, he has also received some awards in his field. He doesn't fit in run-of-the-mill.Barmitzg (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - In some fields, awards are run-of-the-mill. If I were reviewing it at AFC, I would decline it as focusing on what the subject says about himself rather than what neutral third parties have written. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. And User:Barmitzg might like to read the conflict of interest guidelines while he's about it. Deb (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I know about that and I don't have any connection with the subject. The deletion is not even a big deal to me but the problem is I'm not learning anything positive from this deletion process but rather negative which implies that an article can be deleted without following Wikipedia guidelines. And for someone writing his first article, it is discouraging and not inspiring to continue contributing to Wikipedia.Barmitzg (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "implies that an article can be deleted without following Wikipedia guidelines" I don't see how you get that from this deletion, which seeks to uphold the guidelines. It was the article you wrote that didn't follow the guidelines. Deb (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment to User:Barmitzg - You complain that "an article can be deleted without following Wikipedia guidelines". You haven't made that case. Wikipedia policies and guidelines say that an article can be deleted via any of certain procedures, one of which is a deletion discussion. We had a deletion discussion. The policies and guidelines also say that the result of the deletion discussion can be appealed. This is the appeal. You are in the minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you edit entirely with respect to one subject, you are a single-purpose account. There is no rule against being a single-purpose account, but single-purpose accounts are usually asked about conflict of interest. That is happening here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - It appears that two administrators, User:Missvain and User:Deb, are being more patient with you than you are with them and with Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the close was based on consensus and I have no issue with anything that Missvain said. The reasoning was sound. It's worth noting that this article was draftified twice but the creator moved it back into mainspace without following procedure. After the second time, this was then put up for AfD as User:Praxidicae had no alternative. Praxidicae was being very patient, in my view. I probably would have put it up for AfD the first time that it was inappropriately moved back. Draft space is a really useful process where new editors can get advice from more experienced editors on how to write good articles and Wikipedia's notability criteria. It's a real shame that that opportunity was not taken. Spiderone 18:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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