Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March

Rt Rana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

recently the page deleted from AFD , but iam not satisfied the AFD discussion because the article speedily deleted admin and previous 2016 AFD nominator at the same time this version came main space he put proposed deletion tag too , both are immediately voted for deletion as well as while afd was going some one changing vote, especially admin Cryptic vote changed by some one then he edit his votes please see the history .https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rt_Rana&action=history and someone behind the scene hard working for deleting this article, i think same team may be previous hacked his facebook . because they have disabled this article first and second reliable sources article came AFD two references are not working as well as while AFD was going time facebook hacked news removed from article , so that i did not vote but explain article notability for who was participating admin status . afd discussion - https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rt_Rana please dear gentleman kindly attention this case. thanking you Rajuiu (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to handle cases where deletion process has been improperly followed. It is not a place to re-argue the AFD because you are "not satisfied" with it. A clear consensus was reached. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - closure was procedurally correct; one particularly passionate !voter cannot overcome the clear, policy-based consensus of all the others. The petitioner is advised to read WP:STICK. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correctly closed. SportingFlyer T·C 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This article got another chance for community review, and the community has appropriately decided that it be deleted and create-protected, which is clearly within their purview. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comments

dear gentleman three admins (Cryptic, Kuru, JGHowes ) are not the satisfied AFD while afd was going , because they knows someone trying too hard deleting this article from wikipedia. so that their comments very different, i can explain admin 1 .Cryptic comments Not substantially different from RT Rana (AfD discussion), which I'm surprised DRV didn't even attempt to analyze dear gentle man please see previous RT Rana artilce and this article.( huge different ) 2. Kuru comments every source is junk but he is the editing manager and he is removing unreliable sources while afd was going, finally 11 sources are here but how can tell all sources are junk 3 JGHowes closer while AFD was closing Time he did not add Shushugah votes , he closed so he is not satisfied AFD . yesterday only he add Deletion review going time Shushugah votes. see the histroy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rt_Rana&action=history date - 31 march 2021 . but he closed 30 march 2021 note. -three admins are thinking Wikipedia need this article , and dear genteman please see the AFD Rajuiu (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, and comment:
  • • The close correctly reflects consensus.
    • This was a case of the gaming of article titles. Attempts to game the system should not be rewarded, and should not even be tolerated.
    • The salting was correct.
    • DRV is a content forum, but it may be necessary to go to WP:AN or WP:ANI if the appellant continues to try to bludgeon the process. A topic-ban may be in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone mucked about with that debate, trying to make it look like the "delete" votes were in bad faith. Such tactics should not be allowed to succeed. That's a clear and straightforward endorse from me.—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zahid (Faisalabad cricketer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After discussing the close with Stifle on their talk page, I am of the conclusion that they mis-interpreted the policy at WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that WP:GNG has to be met here: In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. and confirmed in the 2017 RfC which I linked in the discussion here: [1]. Even though lots of users !voted keep, this should have been deleted for clearly failing WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own decision. As I explained to SportingFlyer on my talk page, they are selectively quoting WP:NSPORT, which also says The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. (emphasis not mine), Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, and Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.. Even the part that they selectively quoted uses "should meet" rather than the mandatory "must meet". It is abundantly clear, taking NSPORT as a whole, that it must be read as stating an article qualifies as notable if it either meets a sport-specific notability guideline (which this article does, and I do not understand that fact to be in dispute) or the general notability guideline, and my closure is therefore correct. As I advised SportingFlyer on my talk page, if they feel this should be changed, they should attempt to gather a consensus to make the change they would like at WT:NSPORT or elsewhere. Indeed, I have just discovered that such a discussion is ongoing at the moment, having started last weekend, and I suggest this DRV is premature and should be closed without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reasoning is still incorrect. The RfC I quoted specifically came to the conclusion that There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. The "should provide reliable sources" does not create an and/or with the SNG, and the second quoted sentence just says failing to meet the SNG criteria means you can still be notable if you meet GNG, not anything about SNG allowing an article. In order to have a sports bio, based on recent consensus AND the way NSPORT is written, you must meet GNG. I don't know why this has become disputed. Either I am unaware of the new discussion, or the mentioned discussion is not on point here. The DRV is not premature. SportingFlyer T·C 15:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your reading of NSPORT is an extreme stretch from what the page actually says, and to the extent a 4-year old RFC reached a consensus, consensus may change over time and the guideline documents what current consensus is. Again, if you want to change policy to require GNG as well as SNG – which would render all SNGs otiose and be a considerable departure from long-term custom and practice on Wikipedia – the correct step to take is to gather a consensus to change it. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below – if the guideline said what you incorrectly think it does, the word "or" would be "and". Stifle (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not trying to change policy to require GNG as well as SNG across the entire project. I worked on drafting WP:SNG, which was subject to a lot of discussion, including that RfC; if you search the discussion for NSPORT, you can see that a) there's general discussion that the RfC was an overreach for all SNGs, but not for NSPORT, and that b) NSPORT does require GNG to be met, and the SNG just creates a rebuttable presumption. See, specifically, NewImpartial's comment at 20:00 on 9 December. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's clear I won't be changing your viewpoint and you won't be changing mine, so having regard to WP:BLUDGEON I will not reply further and will leave the others to determine whether I have correctly interpreted policy and guidance. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline is for articles being created; meeting NSPORT should be seen as akin to how a new article will typically survive first-pass scrutiny by NPP if it contains 3 independent RS. The criteria for creation are much less strict than those for deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse:
  • • The closer correctly summarized the consensus.
    • I personally think that GNG is a vague messy test that is needed as a fallback when there isn't an applicable special notability guide, and that special notability guides, when available, should be sufficient. (The opinions of other editors may vary.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I am unsympathetic to strict scrutiny being applied to guidelines (or even policies) because they all allow for exceptions on grounds of reason or common sense. Moreover, when closely parsed they give the (false, I'm sure) impression of having been written by committees of camels. I think AfD closers need to take a pragmatic approach and in this case no consensus is within the very wide range of outcomes I would think reasonable. Thincat (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak overturn to keep A) I'm really not trying to be a jackass here. B) I tend to be very sympathetic to NC closes and it takes a lot for me to argue an NC close should be overturned. But given the numbers (strong keep) and strength of argument (I'd call it a wash, in the GNG/SNG typical status but I can buy leaning toward delete depending on how you view that debate) it would have been better closed as keep frankly. Sorry to annoy both sides in this. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've always felt that Wikipedia articles need two independent, reliable sources, because if there are no good sources then the content isn't verifiable, and if there's only one source then our article is either plagiarism or a copyvio, so there are good reasons why you need two. For this reason, I abhor SNGs that allow articles that don't pass the GNG. But tragically, the community does allow SNGs to overrule the GNG in some cases, even where the SNG is blatant special pleading (and NSPORTS is the absolute worst of our SNGs in this respect). My opinion as an editor is that this content should have been deleted, but my opinion as a DRV reviewer is that Stifle's close was defensible. What we need to do is deprecate NSPORTS.—S Marshall T/C 10:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you – I would not have any objections to some tightening up being done to NSPORTS, but that discussion needs to take place elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  S Marshall has touched on the source of my frustration. Unlike some SNGs, WP:NSPORTS is supposed to ultimately require the WP:GNG to be met - it's literally the second sentence in WP:NSPORTS, and the community confirmed this with a 2017 RfC. It's frustrating to be told that this discussion has to happen when it already has happened. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you help me out here? I'm seeing the second sentence as "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." It sounds like the GNG or SNG works. Am I looking at a different sentence than I should be? Are we just reading that differently? I'm pretty confused. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence on NSPORT is This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The second sentence is meant as a guide for how to evaluate the sources already in the article, as a means of quickly predicting whether the subject is notable enough to avoid deletion, similar to how we look for 2–3 RS for bios in other disciplines. However, just like the RS might be shown at AfD to be insufficient for SIGCOV, editors may also determine the SNG presumption of notability for a particular subject is faulty by showing it failed in its prediction of GNG coverage. And I agree, the wording in NSPORT (and N) is terrible and unclear, although the regulars mostly seem to have the correct interpretation as described in the 2017 RfC. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Robert McClenon. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral All the keep !votes are, essentially, "passes NCRIC". Yet, as evidenced by multiple editors at the current RfC, previous ones, and the wording of NSPORTS itself, that guideline is a particularly problematic one and should definitively not be treated as a Verbum Dei. Now of course I'm not sure AfD closers can or should ignore so many non-policy votes from otherwise capable editors, hence the neutral. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Many (most?) editors at the current RfC actually seem to feel NSPORT guidance re: GNG is abundantly clear that SSGs are subordinate to GNG; that making the wording more explicit is unnecessary because it's such a minority of people who don't understand it; and/or that the rule just needs to be enforced more. Given the extremely high proportion of AfDs that end in delete for SSG-meeting sports bios as compared to any other bio, I think the majority of editors do understand NSPORT doesn't supersede GNG. The actual issue is there are many discussions that close as keep without GNG being met not because the !voters claim an SSG overrides it, but because in cases where the subject is pre-internet/non-English-language the SSGs imply editors should receive more time to find GNG-meeting sources offline. I think this lends itself to newer editors interpreting this is as evidence that the SSG does override GNG in any situation. JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay: The AfD closed as delete (with the later recreation being a redirect), and your comment seems to support that. Otherwise, could you also clarify whether you suggest overturning to "no consensus" or to "keep"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  RandomCanadian, I thought it closed as no consensus? While the close was defensible given the number of keep votes, I think the clearly mistaken interpretation of the guidelines should have merited at least another relist and ideally a close by an experienced admin who could review the arguments by the !voters (of which there is exactly one: passes NCRIC). I would argue to overturn it and either reopen or, preferably, close as delete. JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, got confused, for some reason I thought we were at the DRV for Allen (Cambridge University cricketer) (30 March) when I answered you (despite me having checked the AfD and commented above)... Stupid me. Nevermind the confusion, then. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There's a bit of a contradiction at play here, as on the one hand the intention of NSPORT is as a proxy for GNG when access to sources may be limited, but on the other hand the community has expressly decided in the RFC cited by the OP that "arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion". Taking that RFC at face value, the closer must disregard the !vote of Lugnuts and every other keep vote that cited Lugnuts only. But then we see DevaCat1's keep vote, which not only cited NCRIC, but explains that there is an apparent "lack of good access to sources in Pakistan for most editors on an English language site". This offers us a concrete reason why we may be struggling to come up with sources on this guy, and this is exactly the point of the subject-specific guideline: to tell us that it's very likely the sources establishing notability exist, even if we haven't found them yet. So, taking the keep vote of DevaCat alongside the delete vote of the nom and SportingFlyer as valid votes, I think the "no consensus" outcome is correct. There isn't a consensus to keep though.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Probably should have been closed as keep, but there is no effective difference between that and NC so not really worth a fight. No way this should have been closed as delete, that would be a clear WP:SUPERVOTE. Smartyllama (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalman_Sultanik (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

To resolve the issue, a new version of the article has been made and can be viewed at the temporary page found at Talk:Kalman_Sultanik/Temp. Sareneras (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong venue - this article was not deleted, it was blanked with {{copyvio}}, and listed at Copyright Problems. If you've rewritten the article, the correct place to discuss replacing the current page with the new content is there, at CP. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 06:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allen (Cambridge University cricketer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The consensus was to delete the article (not redirect). If the closing admin really wanted to redirect then they should have closed it as delete and redirect. I think there is nothing notable to save (preserve) here. Störm (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Has anything been preserved at all? Just the page history, there's no data or information that's been saved. What's happened is basically the same as what you're suggesting. No information has been added to the redirect location page after the redirect occurred. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Functionally, what difference is there between a redirect and a delete and redirect? Honestly, redirecting to a list is such an ingrained way to deal with marginal notability that its always going to be a sensible outcome. Especially as creating lists is really what we want the cricket project to do with all these GNG failing cricketer articles. I guess that’s an endorse from me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is question for closing admin (they closed it per WP:PRESERVE). Störm (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the issue for you and I’d like to understand why its so important to you to get the history deleted under the redirect? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz What was this then? Störm (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The redirect takes the reader to the sum collection of information that we had on the subject, and there is frankly no point in contesting its existence as an outcome of this process because any editor could permissibly create that exact redirect at any time. As for the continued existence of the underlying edit history, I would consider that a good thing. Experienced editors who know how to read an edit history can confirm for themselves that there was no more substance to the article than what is found at the redirect target. Those who don't know how to read an edit history will remain blissfully unaware of it. BD2412 T 14:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I noted in the AfD that I essentially thought a redirect was pointless, and I still do, but even I can't really fault the close. SportingFlyer T·C 15:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I am not entirely sure what the appellant is arguing anyway. Redirect is a valid close from the discussion. Other than that, not sure what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus of the discussion. It is not for the closer to substitute their own opinion for the consensus; BD2412 ought properly to have !voted. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I can see there was a bold-word consensus for delete but there was little by way of policy or guideline-based reason for deleting the history. Not being a plausible redirect was appropriate though not compelling. Regarding ambiguity of topic, a redirect maintaining underlying history is positively helpful. I think it was a particularly good closing rationale. People !voting delete and not wanting the history to be preserved should state the reason (e.g. entire article is a copyright violation/attack page or retribution is sought against previous editors). Thincat (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse it's clear that there should be a redirect here. There is essentially no difference between deleting the tiny amount of content in the edit history and keeping it, and arguing about that seems like a waste of time, but nobody made an argument why the edit history does need to be deleted and I suppose it's not inconceivable someone might have some use for it. Hut 8.5 17:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hut. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Spencer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted even though there was no consensus within the deletion discussion for deletion, in fact, there was a plurality of discussion in argument for keeping the article. The article is that of a notable figure who is receiving active news coverage. It must be noted as it is relevant that there is a municipal election in the next week for this subject and it is likely that to be a potential motivation. STLPublicI (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review has been fixed. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The closer has been notified as the nominator had not done so. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Well-argued close of a discussion with a surprising number of "keep" !votes coming from editors with only a handful of edits under their belt. More than a whiff of UPE... --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (I voted to draftify in the discussion), clear case of WP:NOTAVOTE, keep arguments were badly made and several were not cognisant of policy. I am a bit iffy on whether the closer supervoted a redirect close rather over a draftify one, but it’s not that big of a deal. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly wouldn't be upset if someone decided to take this to draft anyway but I do feel the redirect is necessary. I would certainly acknowledge that drafting had a stronger case in the discussion, just that a redirct is a stronger reflection of how the community likes to resolve this kind of thing when there could be an imminent change of status. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and allow history to move to draft at anyone's request. Maybe she meets the GNG, but none of those keep arguments really showed how. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as:
  • • A valid close after the discussion and the arguments.
    • The usual result of deletion arguments involving candidates for public office:
      • Candidates for office are not considered to satisfy general notability based on election coverage, only sometimes on pre-election coverage.
      • This does not appear to have been a case of pre-election coverage.
    • I did not take part, but would have !voted to Delete if I had taken part.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Very well-reasoned close. (Note I participated in the discussion). --Enos733 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. An appropriate close under the circumstances. Admins can and absolutely should consider the relative understanding of policy of participants in the discussion, and give less weight to those participants with a more tenuous grasp of the policies being applied. BD2412 T 15:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Article was redirected, not deleted. It is open to editors to change between different varieties of not-delete closures on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I see my endorse here is surplus to requirements so I'm just noting I'm glad the closer explained their reasoning. A redirect without further rationale would not have seemed satisfactory to many participants. Thincat (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is going to be really embarrassing when a mayor of a major american city doesn't have a wikipedia page because of your outdated rules. Better push up those glasses, they might fall off your nose. Lenin3 (talk) 17:34 3 April 2021 (UTC)

John Allen (Irish cricketer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Incorrect closure. The closing reason states "no sources, no article". The article was sourced, so the closing admin has told a white lie. The votes were 6 keep, 4 delete. Clearly the result of this discussion was not delete, and although keep edges it, I'd say no consensus overall. Reasons for keep were valid and the subject played for a national sports team in a major sport. StickyWicket (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn My keep comment in the AfD contains a link to an article about the subject, which I'm 99% sure I cited in the article too. Which would therefore debunk the "no sources, no article" mistake by the closer. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Not seeing a delete result here but could possibly understand it if there was valid rationale. However, the closing "no sources" statement is demonstrably false; as demonstrated by the CE bio which also cited at least one published book. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus I was surprised at this closer when I saw it given that the Cricket Europe source is significant coverage, so there was certainly some coverage, if only it was one article. One delete vote suggested that Cricket Europe was a self-published website, which was debunked as it was written by a cricket historian who contributes for Wisden, a known reliable source. I wouldn't say it's a clear keep, but certainly no consensus, although I'm not sure that this article needs to go through AfD again in the near future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I participated in the discussion so won't be bolding my comments here, as did the three overturn voters immediately above me, but the close was absolutely correct - significant coverage is a requirement for an article, as much as the cricket community who show up and !vote keep on articles which don't meet GNG when challenged might not like to accept that. AfD is also not a vote - it's about the strength of the arguments - and even the keep !voters essentially acknowledged there wasn't enough for GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale was per SIGCOV. No sources, no article... There was clearly sources in that article, so that debunks the second half of the closing argument. In terms of the SIGCOV the Cricket Europe biography is secondary, independent and reliable. His passing of a sports SNG and coverage in newspaper snippets mean he's likely presumed notable. As I said above, yes it's only one source, but to say there's no SIGCOV and no sources is a lie. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's a clear distinction between having a source in an article and having significant coverage, which is a requirement of WP:GNG. Also, Cricket Europe is clearly self-published. He's presumed notable until we go to an AfD and decide the coverage doesn't pass GNG, which is what happened here. Apart from Cricket Europe, there was no discussion about any other possible source which would demonstrate coverage which meant he passed the GNG - it's all "well we have an SNG!", even though the cricket SNG is infamous for being poorly calibrated to GNG, and unable to predict when a player will have enough coverage to pass GNG. Weight of arguments is important. SportingFlyer T·C 21:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Europe is a site run by a series of cricket historians, in the same way that Wisden is published by a series of cricket historians. It's not a fan site or published blog. The article went to AfD and was decided by yourself that it didn't pass SIGCOV. Two other users just posted delete fails SIGCOV without expanding on their point, against what is said to be done at WP:AFDFORMAT. The Cricket Europe bio also suggests that Billy Platt has written on the subject, suggesting further notability. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources don't have to be fan sites or published blogs - it just means there's no independent editorial coverage, and it doesn't necessarily disqualify the source. What we're reviewing here is if the closer made a mistake or not, though, not re-litigating the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Europe is

• Overturn - when the rationale for taking the individual's article to deletion is, "No obituary in Wisden" - is that how far we've descended as a project? What needs to happen is to make articles like this visible to the project first and foremost before sending to deletion. Note that rationales for deletion have become more and more tenuous as time goes on. Has the nature of collaboration within our project completely gone? Let's clarify, this isn't a re-do of the deletion discussion. This is an evaluation of the discussion. And the simple answer is, the discussion happened in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and there was not enough mileage to make this discussion valid.Take these discussions to an appropriate place first. Ensure enough eyes have seen it first and are able to provide what you may or may not consider "appropriate" sources. The Taking to AfD must not be a first resort. It is quite clear that, when given the chance for prior discussion, expansion can happen before an AfD discussion takes place. Bobo. 21:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please recheck my rationale. I haven't said anything like "No obituary in Wisden". Störm (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The deletion rationale in the close comment is at best an oversimplification, but the discussion itself appears to me to have had a clear consensus that the only in-depth source that could be found was the one on cricketeurope, and (whether or not that one was reliable, not agreed on in the discussion) that one source was not enough for GNG. The article as deleted did include another source that could plausibly have counted, a contemporary newspaper article with the subject's name in its headline, but even wjemather who added it discounted it and only considered the cricketeurope as counting towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I second what David Eppstein has said above. CricketEurope's profile about the cricketer can only be used for verifiability. No one was sure if a profile in cricketeurope counts towards notability. All other sources added were trivial in nature and were used just to inflate the article. Störm (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus - AFD is not a vote count, but the vote count should not be ignored without a sound policy-based reason based on strength of arguments. The closer's rationale does not address the Keep arguments at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The closer was correct because there were zero reliable sources providing significant coverage. The delete votes asserted a lack of SIGCOV, with the first delete vote highlighting the problem with the cited biography being self-published on a fan website. None of the following keep votes addressed the lack of SIGCOV or reliable sourcing. Perhaps the closing rationale was overly concise but this isn't Deletion Rationale Review.----Pontificalibus 06:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. You're selectively chosing to ignore the part where it's said that CricketEurope isn't a fan published website. It is run by cricket historians who contribute to Wisden. StickyWicket (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t ignore anything. It’s a fan site, it’s not published by Wisden and it has no editorial oversight. I contribute to scientific journals in my day job but if I set up my own website about vaccines it wouldn’t be a reliable source.—--Pontificalibus 10:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Things don't have to be published by Wisden to be reliable. CricketArchive isn't published by Wisden, none of the military history books about wartime cricketers I refer to are published by Wisden. StickyWicket (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The sentiment for keep was sufficiently strong that the close should been reflective of the difficulty in dealing with the subjective and advisory nature of our notability guidelines. Well-meaning people deserve better than this. Even as a !vote on the article it was poorly expressed. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC. Appears to meet the SNG. There is one detailed source that no one argues is unreliable (self-published, but apparently by an expert in the area who is well regarded). Given the numbers and the strength of argument, I don't see consensus for keeping or deleting. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The very reason why this article was brought to AfD is because meeting the cricket SNG isn't sufficient for an article, given how many players meet the SNG but fail GNG. In order for this to be overturned, the closing argument would have to assume that meeting the SNG trumps having to meet GNG, which does nevertheless require multiple sources, not one single source which participants disagree about. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see the article, but as I understand it there are plenty of sources that mention him in this context. One good source, lots of directory-like sources (which I assume include things about how each player did) is perhaps enough to get us there. My general sense is that when the SNG is not met, we expect above the GNG bar, and when the SNG is met, we are more flexible. Otherwise the SNG provides no value... Hobit (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your general sense is generally correct and that we are more lenient when the SNG is met, but if the SNG is met and GNG is clearly not met, as is the case here, a delete outcome reasonably follows. Furthermore, he barely passes the SNG, which greatly reduces any flexibility we might otherwise have (if he had 100 appearances for Ireland but no one could find any sources, the outcome might reasonably be different unless someone put in good research showing newspapers did not cover him at all.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The SNGs try to be a bright line--if the topic is over, it's over. And it's not the the GNG clearly isn't met. We've got one good source that we've identified. We've not found much else. I'd bet local papers at the time covered him to some extent. I've no objection to a merge/redirect for now if it is reasonable to mention him in the target proposed. But this is DRV and the question is if it was closed correctly. I don't think delete is the right outcome given that discussion... Hobit (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The "delete" opinions argued that there was no substantial coverage of the person, which is required per WP:GNG. Nobody contradicted that. The SNGs create only a rebuttable presumption of notability, and that presumption was rebutted here. The closer was therefore right to give the "delete" opinions determining weight. Sandstein 07:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The numbers were relatively well balanced and neither side correctly raised a policy-based argument that was not rebutted. Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by certain parties, an article needs only to pass an SNG or the GNG, not both. If it were otherwise, there would be no point in SNGs existing. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from AfD closer): WP:SNG: "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." --Randykitty (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:NOTAVOTE seems to apply, and in this case the keep !votes were markedly weak: 2 were essentially "he passes an SNG"; 1 was a "per above". That only leaves relatively weak (one of them self-identified as such) arguments about marginal coverage. There was no consensus to redirect (mentioned by only a few users), even if that would be a possibly valid alternative; and since the strength of the arguments was solidly on the delete side, there was no reason to keep the article (which is what a no consensus close effectively does). Of course this does not prevent the title being recreated as a redirect; but I doubt keeping the previous history of the article is really necessary, especially for a player who is long inactive and unlikely to get further coverage... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus Close reads more like a !vote than a proper close, and as others have explained, is false in any event as there were sources. Whether the sources were significant is a matter for consensus to determine, and there was no strong consensus one way or the other. Smartyllama (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Shahrul Chankui (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:BADNAC points #3 and #4 apply here. Discussion closed as draftify despite no support for this outcome. The editor is highly inexperienced and shouldn't be closing AfDs yet. The discussion was closed after only 5 days and I don't believe that the consensus was strong enough for WP:SNOW to apply. Also, they have taken it upon themselves to draftify the article, meaning that the result is actually draftify not delete, as suggested. I also don't believe that draftifying would be appropriate given that the player doesn't seem to have an active career. There weren't any comments in favour of draftifying either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I completely agree with this DRV. The user who WP:NAC'ed this article only created their account on 9 February 2021, and made only one edit prior to today, at which point they started playing around in AFD. Clearly, they do not understand the rules or guidelines of NAC, and should not have interfered with the process here. (Disclaimer: no prior involvement with either this user or the related article.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy undo and relist this is nothing short of disruption and doesn't need a DRV. VAXIDICAE💉 14:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Dennis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:BADNAC points #3 and #4 apply here. The editor is highly inexperienced and shouldn't be closing AfDs yet. The discussion was closed after only 5 days and I don't believe that the consensus was strong enough for WP:SNOW to apply. Also, they have taken it upon themselves to draftify the article, meaning that the result is actually draftify not delete, as suggested. I also don't believe that draftifying would be appropriate given that the player doesn't seem to have an active career. There weren't any comments in favour of draftifying either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I completely agree with this DRV. The user who WP:NAC'ed this article only created their account on 9 February 2021, and made only one edit prior to today, at which point they started playing around in AFD. Clearly, they do not understand the rules or guidelines of NAC, and should not have interfered with the process here. (Disclaimer: no prior involvement with either this user or the related article.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheWire28.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

File was hastily deleted after two votes (one for a speedy keep, one for a deletion). For context, each article for each episode of The Wire has had a still image from the episode to serve as an episode identification. The non-free images that have been used on those articles have been there and stayed here for over 15 years. The claim that the images could have been from any other episode and therefore fails NFCC#8 is false. I am retrieving these images from IMDB - they are often official set photos created by the cast, from that specific episode.

Another editor said this in the discussion:

"The claim that the image "serves to identify the episode" makes no sense: I watched all of the episodes of "The Wire", but the picture that I have just described is not in any way specific enough to bring back the particular episode in question: it could easily have come from any one of many episodes, even if one regards identifying the particular episode as "significantly [increasing] readers' understanding of the article topic" and believes that failure to do so "would be detrimental to that understanding", which is highly dubious anyway."

If I take an official set image from a specific episode and I add it to the article of that episode, then the image is meeting NFCC#8. It by definition has contextual significance because it is literally demonstrating what occurred in the episode. It is a direct representation of WHAT OCCURRED in the episode and therefore serves a PURPOSE in the article. The image that was deleted was literally from that episode - just because you happen not to remember it was from that episode doesn't mean it wasn't from that episode. I already addressed the claim that it could have come from many episodes. I'm retrieving it from the IMDB entry for each episode.

I find it confusing that some editor from 2006 had the same idea I did and wasn't immediately stalked and watchlisted to have all their files marked for deletion. In fact, this file was not originally uploaded by me, it was uploaded by that editor.

Part of the reason why the @Whpq: doesn't think the file meets NFCC is simply because the article isn't written as well as articles of episodes of Breaking Bad are. For example, almost every episode of Breaking Bad goes into depth about reception, whereas episodes of The Wire haven't been contributed to in months/years. This is why he was unable to get the images I uploaded to the Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul articles removed.

I want to end off by circling back to NFCC#8 with an example from Final Grades, the final episode of Season 4 of The Wire. The current non-free image being used there is a picture of a major character in an iconic death scene, which is mentioned under the "Stanfield Organization", "McNulty", and "Critical response" section of the article. And yet, Whpq tagged the image. Even outside of this, viewers who have watched The Wire would immediately recognize that the scene would be from season 4's finale, which would definitely increase the reader's understanding of the article. LJF2019 ^talk 21:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Based on the discussion, that appears to be a textbook NFCC#8. The image needs to provide added context, which appears not to be the case here. The rationale for NFCC is that we need to minimise the amount of non-free content on the site, which is long-standing. I haven't seen the other images described here, but it's very possible, though not certain, they also fail NPCC as well. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn and relist. Yet again, an FFD closure pretends that WP:NFCC#8 was a simple and objective criterion that the article fails. This is a perennial problem with FFD, which is unreflective of the community. The fact is that an ideological split exists on Wikipedia between the free content maximalists and the write-an-encyclopaedia-in-any-lawful-manner types, and FFD is mainly of interest to free content maximalists.
  NFCC#8 is a horrible fudge, and it isn't possible to interpret it in an objective manner. It says that Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, the problem being that some people are more visual than others, and therefore something that doesn't increase your understanding of an article topic might very well increase mine. I put it to you that NFCC#8 is inherently subjective and can only be evaluated by community consensus. It cannot possibly be evaluated by an individual sysop based on their personal opinion.
  In this case there was, clearly, not a consensus that the image failed NFCC#8. The closer substituted their own view for the community's. It's indefensible and self-evidently cannot be allowed to stand.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it is inherently subjective. It's very strongly worded - that omitting the image would be detrimental to the article. If there's not consensus about whether its omission is detrimental, omitting it probably isn't detrimental. The delete argument by JBW is also exceptionally strong in determining the detriment. I don't see how no consensus is a viable option here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If such an ideological split exists in any significant form seems an irrelevant question - the WMF has defined the project's boundaries in such a matter and we aren't free to just ignore it. the resolution on this states "the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to 'empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license'", it does of course recognise that for some images there maybe no choice and provides for it, but on your ideological level it's pretty clear. (Incidentally your idea of use legally seems to mean use legally in certain countries many places in the world don't, if indeed an image is needed for understanding someone truly interested in writing a universal encyclopedia would do all they could to come up with an alternate for those many people in the world who can't use the non-free stuff, of course if you are only interested in writing something to be read on wikipedia.org I guess you may not be interested in full free content) --81.100.164.154 (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm here to write an encyclopaedia, and to build good quality encyclopaedia content by any lawful means. I feel that people who're here to delete encyclopaedic content for reasons of free content ideology are not here to build an encyclopaedia, and I have no patience for them whatsoever.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC Pretty much per S Marshall's arguments. Put more simply: NFCC#8 is an opinion-based criteria, there was no numeric consensus in the discussion, and the keep argument wasn't clearly wrong. I've no objection to a relist. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Whilst there was not a consensus at the discussion, NFCC are applied strictly and require a clear consensus to keep a non-free file, which was not present. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stifle:I'm too far out of NFCC stuff these days. Could you point me at where that is specified? Hobit (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quotes from WP:NFC:
      1. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.
      2. Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created
    • In general, the basis of Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia requires that non-free content is an exception and requires a consensus to include, not to exclude. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having had the NFCC hammer come down on episodes that I'd worked on extensively, I feel the DRV nom's pain here. At the same time, whpq and Fastily are both quite active and experienced in dealing with such areas. I suspect specialist understanding of the topic may have outstripped what an average editor understands. At what point does being so familiar with the people & assumptions about NFCC become less of a help and more of a barrier? I truly do not know. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse, noting that:
  • • I have very little experience at Files for Discussion.
    • The appellant appears to be re-litigating the decision rather than citing an error by the closer.
    • Delete, Relist, or No Consensus would have been valid closures. So Delete is a valid closure.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn either to NC or to relist per S Marshall. To the contrary of the above, this is certainly not relitigating the discussion; it is merely pointing out that NFCC 8 is a criterion that has been interpreted in very "creative" ways, and requires community consensus to determine rather than being one of the more "objective" criterions, despite the close claiming it was a clear case. There's no rule that only title cards can be used as "representative" images, and such a rule would be silly anyway and not find consensus. The delete votes were quite unconvincing here. SnowFire (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Keep argument had three faulty points: it's been here a long time, other stuff exists, and it increases the readers' understanding simply by existing. WP:NFC#CS is very clear: the file either has to be subject to critical commentary or identifies "an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article." Taking a random screenshot from the episode does not satisfy NFCC. This was uploaded in 2006, it's time to stop making arguments like it's still 2006. ✗plicit 07:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep - the reader's understanding of the non-free item in question, the episode "Dead Soldiers" of the "The Wire", is clearly significantly enhanced by the inclusion of the minimal bit possible - one can't use less than one frame of an episode. Thus, it meets NFCC#8, and its frankly disingenuous and dishonest to suggest otherwise. CS refers to possible ways something can meet NFCC#8 - it's about sufficient, not necessary, conditions (and frankly, a guideline, rather than the policy). Really, there's absolutely no argument for deletion, so closing as keep is the only possible outcome. WilyD 10:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC or relist. I join the views of S Marshall and Hobit. NFCC#8 is a matter of editorial judgment, not something a closer can or should decide by fiat. And there was no consensus in the FfD about whether NFCC#8 was met. Sandstein 20:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. S Marshall is correct that NFCC#8 interpretations are so subjective that they can only be reached on a case-by-case basis by discussion consensus. There is simply no such thing as a "Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation" claimed by the closing admin in the closing statement, and that finding was, in a sense, a super-vote. However, Stifle is also correct that in WP:NFC cases, "the basis of Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia requires that non-free content is an exception and requires a consensus to include, not to exclude." A discussion consisting of two detailed well-argued opinions, one for keep, another for delete, in addition to a fairly short 'delete' nom, certainly qualifies as 'no consensus'. A simple close of "no consensus, default to delete" might have been acceptable here. However, that's not how the closing admin phrased the closing rationale, and the FfD was closed rather quickly. It makes much more sense to resist it and see if actual consensus for something can be achieved here. Nsk92 (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Stahl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Early closure by a non-admin on a very poor self-published article severely lacking in reliable sourcing. This AFD should not have been closed by a non-admin. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer comment: Macktheknifeau has not asked me about this close before opening this DRV as suggested in the instructions at WP:DRV steps, nor have they completed steps 4 and 5 of opening a DRV. Their claim that this was an early closure is also blatantly false: the AfD was opened at 20:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC) and closed at 22:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC).
  Notwithstanding these procedural errors, this wasn't even a close case. There were 7 guideline-based keep !votes based on WP:NPROF being satisfied, whereas there were 2 delete !votes (including the AfD nomination) based on failing WP:GNG, on the sources for NPROF not being in the article itself during the AfD, on the citation metrics not being independent reliable sources, and on the citing articles not containing significant coverage of the subject. On top of the numerical strength for keeping the article, editors challenged the deletion arguments by pointing to guidelines, such as NPROF being independent of GNG (as stated in the lead of NPROF) and notability not requiring the sources to be in the article itself (as stated at WP:ARTN). There was an overwhelming consensus at the AfD for keep. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apologies for the procedural issue, I was called away in the middle of the work. I merely suggest that this article should not have been deleted by an admin. Nor do I believe a 7 to 2 consensus to be "overwhelming" when considered such a small sample size, not enough to justify a non-admin close. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a clear case based either on assessment of arguments or vote count. What does the appellant consider would have been an overwhelming consensus? Is this a revenge nomination? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:NPROF is explicitly intended as an alternative to the GNG. The only real argument for deletion seems to be that he doesn't meet the GNG, but that isn't relevant if he passes NPROF. NPROF requires independent evidence that the criteria are met, but that seems to be present. The article could still be deleted for failing WP:V if the subject has no third-party reliable sources, but the article does cite some third-party reviews of his work, at least some of which are clearly reliable sources. Hut 8.5 12:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I took part in the original discussion (so I'm not sure I'm allowed to !vote here), but as per WP:DRVPURPOSE (I'm assuming this review is done under clause #1), I can see no reason for this to be overturned. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• People who took part in the AfD are allowed to take part here, although it's good if DRV gets other input as well (so the discussion doesn't just turn into a rerun of the AfD). Hut 8.5 17:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Not an early close and clear consensus to keep based on existing policy. --Enos733 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a discussion participant. Most of the discussion participants (but not DRV proposer Macktheknifeau) agreed that WP:PROF, not WP:GNG, should be controlling in this case and that the subject clearly passed WP:PROF. The consensus of that discussion seems clear enough to me, and the DRV proposal does not even address that at all, instead returning to the rejected argument about notability based on GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I am neither the biggest fan of NPROF (after a BEFORE search, I have no idea how the heck this guy is considered notable) nor non-administrative closes, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with this one. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SPA involved in the discussion. Don't think it's going to change anything but Professor Stahl is clearly using Wikipedia as a personal CV. (WP:NOTCV).--Prisencolin (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yikes, you're right. Yet another problem with NPROF. SportingFlyer T·C 21:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Prisencolin: @SportingFlyer: Given that both of these comments were added after I stubbed the article down to something that merely provides the bare facts of his education and career and adds six independent sources (reviews of his books) I am unsure what you two think you mean by "Stahl is clearly using Wikipedia as a personal CV". Stahl's version did not look like a cv; it looked like a badly-written and worse-sourced essay-like autobiography. The parts of the current article that look like a cv now are there because they are the sort of thing all academic biographies should include, for the same reason that all academic cv's should include them: they're what other academics want to know about the subject's background. They differ from a cv in the important respect that I have deliberately omitted unimportant details (like what companies he worked for when he worked in industry) rather than including all such detail as a cv normally would. If it looks stubby, it's because it was intended to be stubby, because most of the previous content was not worth keeping. And if you think that Stahl had any involvement in my stubbing it down, then you need to go re-read WP:AGF until you understand and internalize it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm commenting on the fact the article history includes a lot of clear autobiographic edits based on my frustration that I think this guy is clearly non-notable, not on your edits specifically. None of this really has anything to do with the DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SportingFlyer yes the article history contains self-promotion, but that does not change the fact that he passes WP:NPROF as it is currently written and interpreted, if you disagree with the NPROF guidelines it would be better to discuss changing it on its talk page and not here. We can easily remove self-promotion from an article, notability is assessed separately. --hroest 14:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse If we're going to have NACs at all, this is one. The closer's explanations make sense. An H-index of 42 is 41 more than I have at the moment... Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only about 32 more than I have :-) Hobit (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Also I tend to claim that reviews of multiple books in reliable sources leads one to being notable, but don't need that here. Hobit (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closure was not early or inappropriate in any way. The question of whether the article was "poor" or "self-published" is out of scope of DRV; such arguments were made and rejected at AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Looking to recreate the category per WP:CLT, the article List of Italian-American actors now has some more context based on information from reliable, secondary sources on why this categorization is valid. These were not considered in the 2013 CFD. Closing admin doesn't seem to be active anymore. I believe that based on what academic literature says, Italian American identity within American cinema is unique among European American ethnicities in its effect on greater American popular culture so it's not comparable to any of the other categories deleted in that mass nomination.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a bit different from most DRVs, but if this were at CfD, I would still vote to delete on overcategorisation grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain? If you see the information in the article List of Italian-American actors, it explains why Italian-American identity among actors is extremely palpable and influences filmmaking and casting to a great extent.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've typically kept X of Y descent separate from occupational categories, otherwise things become very unwieldy very quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 10:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not really true there are plenty of categories of the sort which exist, of course there are plenty more which at deleted as well. Category:American actors of Chinese descent has been CFD'd at at least 4 times and has survived every time. I'm also pretty sure that overall project guidelines, specifically WP:COMPREHENSIVE, prohibits the limiting of certain kinds of content just because "it could become unwieldy" to have a proliferation of similar content in the future.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That category has technically been kept, true, but it's actually been "no consensus"'d four times. So there's not a clear guideline here that these sorts of categories are acceptable. SportingFlyer T·C 13:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:OCAT. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lambec (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camp_Lambec

First request to undelete

Second request to undelete

I'm perplexed that no one bothered to tell me that it had been listed for deletion. I found out about it only after it was deleted. I was the major author on the article. I am perplexed why it was relisted twice. It passed muster under Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Camp Lambec - Lambec Lake by @Valereee:. I'd like to see it undeleted so I can work on it. --evrik ^(talk) 03:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Requests to undelete can go to Requests for Undeletion. This article was deleted seven years ago. Does the deletion really need to be appealed at this point, or can it just be recreated (at risk of a new AFD)? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment DGG used Twinkle to nominate the article for deletion and this notified the first editor, not major editors. Note that nothing ever gets fully deleted and so the article may be found at Deletionpedia, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to restoring it to draft. There might be subsequent references. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This was deleted 7 years ago; I would suggest restoring to draft. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The AfD was not improperly closed as “delete”. The fact that the article previously passed AfC is not relevant - the AfC process is intended as a guide and the reviewing editor does not establish a “keep” consensus, which can only be done at AfD. Editors wishing to be notified of changes to articles to which they have contributed should use the watchlist function. There is nothing to stop anyone creating a new article on this topic, and requesting a draft of the deleted article to assist them in this if they desire. However a simple undeletion is not appropriate, because if the sources in the deleted article were found to be insufficient six years ago they are highly unlikely to be found sufficient now.—--Pontificalibus 09:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but support draftifying per Pontificalibus - that was a pretty clear delete endorsement, and while we're lenient once some time passes, there's a good question as to whether this is notable enough for mainspace. As noted, you should accept articles at AfC if they might pass an AfD, not if they're clearly notable, so that's not an indicator of anything. SportingFlyer T·C 01:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment placing it here, Draft:Camp Lambec so I can work on it is fine. --evrik ^(talk) 02:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but draftify. The AfD was properly closed, and consensus was that the article in its deleted state did not meet GNG, but it appears to have enough possibility for improvement that it would make a reasonable draft. I don't think we need to go through the extra bureaucracy of a separate request for undeletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Post-Grunge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The original article was deleted because it used trivial sources. The article was recreated from scratch using those two trivial sources to flesh it out (they were still extremely useful and added good content to the article), but I added a third non-trivial source that expanded the article by adding 4 paragraphs that were non-existent in the original deleted version. Yesterday @John B123: nominated the article for speedy deletion using the criteria that it was identical. They also claimed that they never reviewed the deleted article to compare to see if it was identical. John B123 never supplied additional rationale for deletion and refused to engage in the talk page in any substantial way. Now @TomStar81: has deleted the article per the speedy deletion nomination and claims it was because it was identical-G4 (it was not), the article was dependent upon another article-G8 (also, no), and no credible indication of importance-A7, which states "albums" are exempt (this is an album). The article was deleted on false pretenses. This article should be reinstated and perhaps a tag put on it, that it could be improved with more refs, but not outright deleted. As it is, I feel the article was just fine with three references. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm a little frustrated that no one participated in the talk page, especially TomStar81. What's the point of contesting a deletion nomination in the talk page if no one is going to engage? It appears very large brush strokes are being used by both John B123 and TomStar81. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion Article was deleted four days before being recreated, at the same level as it was before, with only one new source and now meaningful addition of material. Deletion via AFD allows a wide degree of latitude on considering what constitutes G4, which is intended to mean anything recreated at or near its previous level, and this had only one new paragraph, which clearly places it within G4 territory. I think this is less about contesting a deletion and more about the editor not getting his or her way, which suggests OWN issues - and in fact, the block log shows disruptive editing blocks. I'm disincline to assume that this is a genuine deletion review since it came not after the afd, but after a TOOSOON attempt to recreate an article the community already ruled shouldn't be here - at least not yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Comment The criteria for WP:G4 is not a simple "identical" but "substantially identical". G4 is not applicable where "the reason for the deletion no longer applies". This is not the case here. The article was originally deleted for failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, this was still the case when the article was recreated. The talk page was deleted per WP:G8, not the article. No I wouldn't engage on the talk page after suffering WP:PERSONAL and WP:ASPERSIONS. I note the editor has copied the article to their sandbox. I would suggest the way forward would be they worked on the article in sandbox and when they feel it meets WP:NALBUM they can submit it to WP:AfC. --John B123 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you claiming you can see the article now, when you couldn't before? It's very disingenuous to say the article is substantially identical when it has been expanded from a stub article to an article with four paragraphs that grew by 400% from the original. The original had one paragraph. I'm not sure what your idea of substantially identical is, but in my eyes, I would expect more than just 50% identical which the new one is not. There was hardly any prose on the old article. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We do tend to say that, where there's doubt, a new source inoculates against G4.—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For the record, both version of the deleted article may be viewed here for those interested in the validly of the CSD G4 deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @S Marshall: notifying you of the versions posted above in case you wanted to change/adjust/comment further on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's definitely very similar, and we don't want to give people an incentive to drip feed new sources one by one to get repeated bites of the cherry at AfD. I understand why you G4'd it. But I think it's important to be consistent with the previous decisions we've made at DRV, so I'd send it back to AfD. I differ from Robert McClenon and Jclemens in that I think one new paragraph doesn't matter. Only the new source matters.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually referenced the source, not the paragraph. I agree that sources are the bigger deal when something has been deleted on the basis of notability, rather than just the prose. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's more than just an additional paragraph. If you want to get super technical, I'd say 2.5 paragraphs more than the old, and if you give me more time, perhaps 5 or 6 new paragraphs (see my other comments below). Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 and restore, while permitting a second AFD. The addition of a paragraph and a source renders the second version not "substantially identical" to the first version. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's more than just an addition of an article. I added two paragraphs, plus some additional content in a third paragraph that was not in the original. When @TomStar81: says on my talk page that the new article "added literally nothing" that's complete hyperbole, and I expect more from experienced Wikipedians who are in charge of these rote tasks. It's comments like these that make me disregard all their following comments and question their role here at wikipedia. If you look at the size of the article, that alone would clue you in that the new article is substantially larger, relatively speaking. It's larger than a stub article, which is essentially what the old article used to be. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4 per Robert McClenon. AfD may or may not delete it, but "substantially identical" does not include adding another source. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 11:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 and restore. I don't think G4 applies as the recreated article is about 50% longer than the deleted version with an additional ref, so it is not substantially identical. However, it is debatable whether the issues identified in the AfD have been addressed, so to my mind, the most appropriate course of action is another AfD to discuss that. That said, I would probably support deletion at AfD as this is a non-notable album from a non-notable label. It has now been created four times over the years, so if it is deleted this time I would hope it is salted. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I may be doing my maths wrong. 50% means adding half as much more? It's more accurate to say the prose of this new version of the article has been expanded by a factor of 4 (is that 400%?). Which is why I find it very disingenuous when TomStar81 says on my talk page that "literally nothing" has changed from the old version to the new. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with S Marshall, the only real question is if the new sources is any good. I can't see the whole thing (I assume we are talking about "Street Style in America: An Exploration Illustrated Edition"?) but what I can see does appear to be very short. If that's the wrong new source, let me know. If it's the right one, just how much is there in this source? Could you email me a copy of the relevant page(s)?. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The new source is not the Street Style book reference which makes up most of the content of the first paragraph in the article of current discussion. It is the Northwest Independent Music News no. 33. I have a digital copy of the paper for anyone interested. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • (ec) The Northwest Independent Music News, an offline source, appears to have been the one added. Although looking through the history, it appears that the CSD nominator pretty flagrantly exceeded 3RR to restore the CSD tag. Did that get made exempt from 3RR for some reason while I was inactive? Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't appear to be an explicit exception, but the removal of the speedy by the article creator isn't an "allowed" edit, and you could argue that it's covered by either 3RR exemption #8 or arguably #4. Perhaps there needs to be an explicit exemption - it's not the sort of edit that 3RR is meant to discourage. SportingFlyer T·C 01:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments. The article has two non-trivial sources, one of which is a direct mention of the album in a book in relation to the time period change from grunge to post-Cobain's death. That's what is tackled in paragraph 1 of the new article, and is expanded upon from the old article. The next two paragraphs revolve around the non-trivial newspaper source Northwest Independent Music News, which I may be able to use to add another small paragraph while citing it. The final paragraph gives some context to the label, the previous release, and the the producer advertising the new comp (the article of discussion). The last is certainly trivial, but it helps flesh the article out a bit - its location at the end of the article's body is probably misplaced. It's still possible I will be able to add another source to this deleted article from a run of newspapers called the WOW Hall notes, as well as the Oregon Daily Emerald. I ask for two things in the review during your consideration: acknowledge the previous deletion was done in error, and if need be put it up for AfD, but speedy deletion was hasty and in error. Second, give me some time to find more sources to cite. I think it can be done. Yes this article has been neglected for some time, but coincidentally I have come into a cache of various publications that are highly useful for encyclopedic sources and I haven't fully digitized them for review and use on Wikipedia. I've also created a new band article for Bogwon (AKA Jolly Mon) which are featured on the album at the same time this article was deleted - which was one of the criticisms of the previous AfD's (essentially too many red links). I may be able to do more with my new resources. In fact, I've made a small goal of creating more articles on the music scene of Oregon from the 90s, and recreating the Elemental Records article that didn't have enough sources before. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News: The article still fails both the GNG and NALBUM, and you've done exactly nothing to break that streak in any way, shape, or form. If its been deleted 4 times, each time, unilaterally and unequivocally, then it clearly and unmistakably means that in its current, very small, very non-compliant with Wikipedia policy and guideline way it is once again going to end up very deleted, and none of your BS here or there is going to change that inevitable outcome whatsoever. The only thing you're going to gain is a bad reputation for disrupting Wikipedia to push what you mistakenly believe to be a notable topic on this site when you've been told 4 times previously its not notable and should not be here, which in turn could get you blocked, topic banned, or simply kicked of site. You need to stop wasting our time because even if you win this battle, you will lose the war at afd, and it will be with SALT this time. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is particularly uncharitable and unhelpful. Yes, the album may indeed not meet inclusion criteria, but let's save the vitriol for actual trolls, not passionate editors doing their best to include a niche topic that probably doesn't fit, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sage advise. I'll stow the powder for now and wait for the afd, since at this point I'm all but certain we're gonna end up there again. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think a G4 speedy deletion was appropriate here, because the article was not substantially the same. As such, the deletion must be overturned. I very much doubt it will survive another AFD, but to AFD it must go. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh When this was sent to AfD, it had one source and one sentence of prose. Now it has three sources and three paragraphs of prose. Unfortunately, as discussed at the AfD, none of the sources appear to be any good, and the new one doesn't appear to work for GNG either. So we have a dilemma: technically this is an overturnable G4, but common sense dictates that there's been little if any improvement in the demonstration of notability. In short this is exactly the type of situation G4 is meant to address, but we're loathe to apply it because there's enough of an argument that it's not "substantially identical." I assume we're headed towards another AfD, but I don't really see the point of that. SportingFlyer T·C 01:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I think you mean 4 paragraphs of prose. Third and new source is non-trivial. How does it fail GNG? As far as I can see, the new source passes WP:GNG. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitively fails WP:GNG. I can't see the new source, but the other two sources are so poor for notability reasons (one sentence in a book, and a listing in a list in a local paper, used to cite a sentence about another album unrelated to this album) that even a new source can't rescue this thing. But this isn't another AfD: it's to determine whether the last deletion/redirect was appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Understood about the AfD, but you still seem to be dodging the question. You said the new "source" fails GNG, and now you've moved the goal posts to the "article" fails GNG. My original question was how does the new source fail GNG per your remarks: "none of the sources appear to be any good, and the new one doesn't appear to work for GNG either." I'm not sure what you mean by local paper. The paper isn't local, it's Pacific Northwest which is a region. It's a region so big, that it's bigger than many U.S. states and European countries - so "local" seems to be extreme hyperbole and lacking definition. So far, I don't see any rationale to support your statement that the new source "can't rescue this thing." It's a non-trivial, non-local music newspaper source. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are three sources in the Wikipedia article. Two of them clearly do not count towards notability. A third source exists. I can't access it. Even for the sake of argument the new source clearly counts for notability reasons, the Wikipedia article still doesn't pass the requirement of the GNG. But that's not at issue here, that's for the AfD, since it seems likely we'll be patient enough to overturn the G4, which is what this discussion is about. SportingFlyer T·C 11:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so it appears you were speaking beyond your faculty on the third source. I understand that the article may not meet GNG. I want you to know that in the presumably upcoming AfD, I will be asking for more time to flesh the article out, because I feel I can probably find two more non-trivial sources for the article. All I ask is just give me some time - and that never hurt anyone. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mediacube (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Hello. The article was deleted by quick delete (G11). It was also pointed out that the article is not significant. I believe that the article was not advertising, and if there were any shortcomings, then in any case this is not a reason for G11. As for the significance, I cited several sources in the article: dev.by and tut.by (well-known Belarusian publications: Tut.By), as well as vc.ru. Plus, the article has a source for a scientific article by the professor, where he examines the company's income, as well as its activities. Also added a link to Nasha Niva magazine - 1. And I found a book where, on page 370, the activities of the company are discussed.

This is the information I managed to get from this source. This is an independent review of the history and activities of the company: an independent review of the history and activities of the company: MediaCube appeared six years ago, when TV producer and art manager Mikhail Bychenok left the Belarusian television, where he had worked since the age of 17 and devoted 10 years to it. Mikhail took the starting capital — 50 thousand dollars — from his father, a businessman in the construction industry. The money went to the equipment, the office and the first salaries of employees. According to Bychenko, there were no other investments: the company produced entertainment video content for ONT, BT, STV, including New Year's shows, made commercials and broadcasts for banks, mobile operators and retailers (one of the major projects — "Luck to Boot" for Eurotrade) and grew at the expense of revenue. Four years ago, the company won a tender to select a regional partner of YouTube in Belarus: the partner had to work with Belarusian authors, solving technical and financial issues. Having won the competition, the company became MCN (Multi-Channel Network) — one of about 300 organizations that provide assistance in managing channels on video platforms. Among them are Russian Yoola, Ukrainian Air, Canadian BroadbandTV, American Fullscreen, etc. Having received the MCN status, MediaCube entered the global market. MediaCube has more than 1,000 partner authors. About 50% are from the CIS countries (including about 100 partners from Belarus), the second largest market is Latin America. Among the clients of the Belarusian MCN YouTube-bloggers Vlad Paper (A4), Dima Maslennikov, Pleasant Ildar, Egor Creed, Sergey Lazarev. The total audience of all authors is more than 200 million people. Legally, MediaCube today is a holding company with the Belarusian parent company EmCiEn Global LLC (HTP resident, subject of the transaction with Zubr Capital) and five "daughters" - Belarusian Media Cube Production LLC and FotoVideoPro LLC, Russian Mediacube LLC, as well as Cyprus and Canada MediaCube. The sole owner of all legal entities until recently was Mikhail Bychenok, now the owners of the parent company are also listed as "Zubr Capital". MediaCube employs about 100 people, including about 10 developers, and the rest of the staff provides technical support, works with bloggers, sells, and makes content. Video products account for 10% of the revenue structure (annual revenue-from $ 10 million a year), the main part of the money comes from MCN. Gadagasu (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This book (page 370) contains the following information: The MediaCube agency is engaged in the promotion of this Влад Бумага (official partner of YouTube in Belarus). In exchange for a share of the revenue (MediaCube – 20 %) the agency offers video bloggers a legal scheme of work and a simple mechanism for earning money, performing the functions of a concert director: they help with the search for advertisers, protect copyrights, "develop creative", engage in PR support, etc. About 300 Belarusian bloggers cooperate with MediaCube. The average author with 100 thousand subscribers earns "more than the average announced salary in Belarus». Gadagasu (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From this source, you can take the following: MediaCube is an international company that develops its own IT solutions for video creators and musicians, monetizes and distributes their content on different platforms, and protects copyrights. MediaCube is a partner of YouTube and TikTok. MediaCube clients are YouTube creators, major brands, and artists from 64 countries. At the moment, the company has more than 1000 authors-partners. Among the well-known partners from the CIS are bloggers Vlad Paper (A4), Dima Maslennikov, Pleasant Ildar, Egor Creed, Sergey Lazarev. The total audience of all creators is more than 200 million people. The company is one of the top 25 YouTube partner networks in the world.Gadagasu (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I haven't seen the article, but will note that:
  • • The draft was seen by both reviewer User:Hatchens, who rejected it, and administrator User:Deb, who concurred that it was advertising.
    • The appeal is 757 words long, and itself reads like an advertisement.
    • The appeal does not make the case concisely (because it isn't concise) either for notability or for non-advertising, and a shorter version probably wouldn't either.
    • Deb not only concurred with the nomination to delete, but expressed a concern about conflict of interest. The appellant hasn't answered the question.
    • The company probably is notable. The submission almost certainly didn't establish corporate notability.
    • If the company is notable, a neutral editor should write the article.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 11:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonina Seryakova. Checkuser has confirmed that Gadagasu is a sock. Whether the article's creator, Antonina Seryakova, was the sockmaster, or a sock of someone else has yet to be decided.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Endorse clearly eligible for WP:G11 and the DRV nominator is clearly a sock who shouldn't have the ability to open this discussion. Whether this needs to run for a week is questionable. SportingFlyer T·C 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda_Patrick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Most recent edits on top:

A CNBC article calls Rhonda Patrick "an all-around scientific rockstar" and has a 173 word subsection discussing her research on Cold exposure. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/how-to-build-a-bulletproof-mind-in-5-minutes-a-day.html

There are also multiple articles written by people who are independent from Rhonda Patrick about what supplements Rhonda Patrick takes, what she recommends for pregnant women, etc.

https://fastlifehacks.com/dr-rhonda-patricks-supplements-list-2/

The same website/author wrote 12 other articles about what Rhonda Patrick does / recommends relating to various topics. Source: https://fastlifehacks.com/category/rhonda-patrick/page/2/

Here are other articles about Rhonda Patrick / what she recommends / what supplements she takes / etc.

https://naturallystrong.me/rhonda-patrick/

https://uvitals.com/rhonda-patrick-supplements/

https://gradualgrowth.org/supplements/dr-rhonda-patrick-supplements

https://goop.com/wellness/health/the-nuances-of-vitamin-d-and-how-to-get-enough-of-it/

https://medium.com/@podcastnotes/the-9-best-life-extending-vitamins-and-supplements-recommended-rhonda-patrick-on-the-joe-rogan-4d22389864e

https://www.outsideonline.com/2366071/biochemists-advice-wellness

https://www.xcode.life/23andme-raw-data/analyze-dna-raw-data-nutrition/

https://nebula.org/blog/foundmyfitness-review/ (This one might be considered about her company, but they are obviously quite intertwined)

https://www.healthirony.com/dr-rhonda-patrick-supplements/

https://fitnessclone.com/rhonda-patrick/

I could probably post many more, but I'm not sure that it would be fruitful. I just Googled "What does Rhonda Patrick recommend for". I'm not sure if websites that aren't well known like CNBC get treated as if they have any weight or not.

Everything below here has already been responded to by User:SmokeyJoe:

Significant developments have occurred since the article was deleted. It was originally deleted because she was deemed not notable enough. She has gained notoriety since then.

She has 350K followers on Twitter including Jack Dorsey (the CEO of Twitter) , Chamath Palihapitiya, Joe Rogan, David Sinclair and who knows who else. (I can only see the people who I also follow).

Source: Follow the people I mentioned on Twitter, and then go to Rhonda Patrick's Twitter (https://twitter.com/foundmyfitness) and see that they also follow her

She has had 14 people on her podcast who have Wikipedia articles about them including Wim Hof, David Sinclair, Steve Horvath, Matthew Walker, Valter Longo, Charles Raison, Guido Kroemer, Roland Griffiths, Peter Attia, Robert Kevin Rose, Ronald Krauss, Aubrey de Grey, Tim Ferris, and Bruce Ames (who she did her postdoc under),

Source: All of her podcast episodes can be found here https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes , and then you can Google the people featured and see that they have Wikipedia articles.

She has been featured on three people's podcast who have Wikipedia articles about them including Joe Rogan's podcast (10 times), Tim Ferris (2 times), and Robert Kevin Rose.

Source: https://www.podchaser.com/creators/dr-rhonda-patrick-107ZzkEbZM or you can find this URL by googling "what podcasts has rhonda patrick been a guest on"

There are also qualms with the original deletion as mentioned on the deleter's talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User_talk:Ks0stm#Rapid_AfD_after_questionable_edits_by_single_editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okthatsnice (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion. My search for sources found only promotion. Okthatsnice (talk · contribs) has provided no sources. If you really want to try, use WP:AfC and follow the advice in WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by Okthatsnice: I added sources and hopefully this relieved the complaints mentioned by User:SmokeyJoe

The sources you added above are not useful in demonstrating Wikipedia-notability. Sources need to be independent, reliably published, and cover the subject in some depth. Read more at WP:BIO (for biographies) and WP:CORP (for companies, which she is). The threshold is higher than I think you think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added more sources. I'm not sure if all of them count as reliable or what the criteria is for being considered a reliable source. Spreadlove5683 (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close as delete. But is the appellant asking to overturn the 2017 deletion, or asking to re-create in draft, or asking to create a new article? After four years, the appellant should be allowed to create a new article, and as long as it contains information that is newer than 2017, it does not risk G4, and it is of course subject to AFD. Robert McClenon
• Comment to User:Spreadlove5683 - There is a myth in Wikipedia that adding more sources is the key to having an article accepted. Sources are necessary but not sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert I honestly just wanted to get a wiki page started for her because I think she is notable and I was trying to show someone else her credentials, but there was no Wiki page about her, which would have been helpful. I probably won't fill the page out myself beyond a small edit or two. I originally thought it would be as simple 2 minutes of creating a stub page. I'm probably about done spending time on this. Spreadlove5683 (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC) PS user:okthatsnice is my other account that I tried using becuase it is older and thought it might give me more ability to create a page. I keep forgetting to switch between my incognito window to stay on one username at a time. Spreadlove5683 (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC) @robert, what would have been sufficient? Honestly though it probably doesn't matter. Unless I can get something going in 30 minutes I don't plan on contributing anymore time.[reply]

• Keep deleted, and prevent recreation whether in draft or mainspace. I suggest a speedy close. Looking at Google Scholar, she has only 2 significantly cited papers, both done while a graduate student, as part of a team. So it does not pass WP:PROF. Considering GNG, the question is whether any of the sources are more than marketing hype for her company. Being featured on podcasts are not a RS for anything, and in general are too trivial to be even mentioned in an article. Followers on twitter do not produced notability . Not a single one of the sources proposed here is even conceivable acceptable. The CNBC article seems to be a reprint from Medium, and in any case is a promotion for an unproved medical treatment (called life-style to evade regulations about advertising quack medicine) that would never pass WP:MEDRS. Anyone thinking this might even be remotely acceptable should actually look at the proposed references. WP does not take part of promotional campaigns. Even were this notable, it would still fail NOT ADVERTISING. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:DGG. On Google scholar, are we talking about this? It looks better than two well cited papers. I agree, fails WP:PROF, and no acceptable sources listed above or elsewhere that I can find to meet the GNG. A couple of obscure sources about her could get her above the GNG, but I am sure that the coverage would be completely different to the deleted articles. Prohibit drafting is a harsh judgement, but I agree, with the condition: follow WP:THREE even to allow drafting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I had not allowed for the name variation. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's usual for a grad student to be allowed to do some work on a sure-fire project of their lab, that will get some citations, so they have something besides the thesis to show for it. The question is what do they do on their own projects. Thhis can sometimes be difficult to distinguish with off-WP knowledge of the situation, but sometimes bibliographic analysis shows it: these are papers with many authors. A grad student who had been able to do some work for which they were primarily responsible on a major project would have done considerable work afterwards. As was customary, my advisor, to help clarify things, made sure that each grad student had in addition to whatever else, a single-authored paper. (And blocking re-creation does not actualy block re-creation absolutely--it just means an admin has to be convinced). DGG ( talk ) 11:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted Seeing as this is a "can this be recreated" DRV as opposed to an "the AfD was wrong" DRV, I have to say that it should remain deleted based on the sourcing and the above source analysis by DGG and SmokeyJoe. SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic bishops by nationality (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category was deleted in a discussion with a total of 4 participants. I suggested that it should not be deleted without notifying the contributing categories but was ignored. A later discussion on Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by nationality has generated many more participants and has shown a clear consensus against this change. As it is there are multiple subcategories that do not fit in the new parameters such as Category:French Roman Catholic bishops in Africa and Category:Spanish Roman Catholic bishops in South America. Beyond this we have a huge number of sib-cats which are Irish Roman Catholic bishops, German Roman Catholic bishops, etc. We have other categories such as Category:Roman Catholic bishops in the United States which show there is some will to create parallel trees by both where bishops served and where they were from. This under participated in discussion that failed to tag relevant child categories and is now trying to impose a change of scope on the child categories is making things truly messy. The best course is to overturn this premature close especially considering the opposition to applying it more broadly. Huge category scope changes like this should not be effected with so little participation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. "deleted" or "moved"? The CfD linked shows a move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I look I see a merge, not a move, followed by deletion. Anyway, it doesn't matter, categories are no use any more but fortunately, along with other useless stuff like Authority Control and navboxes, they are down at the bottom where they are easily ignored. Thincat (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I guess this more constitutes and out of process merger. It was merged into the Roman Catholic bishops by country, ignoring that it was a child of Category:Occupation by nationality. This would be like assuming that the defining thing for ambassadors is where they worked, and their nationality has no importance, and merging Ambassadors by nationality into Ambassadors by country of assignment. OK, since some bishops serve in their country of origin, this is a little bit extreme, however at times in the past the majority and at times virtually all bishops serving outside of Europe were from within Europe, so in some places for decades and in some areas for centuries every bishop was not someone from that location, so in some places this would be the functional reality of the situation. This is a very, very wrong headed move. It ignored the fact we have categories like Category:Spanish Roman Catholic bishops in South America and Category:French Roman Catholic bishops in Africa that clearly go against it. If you look at [2] you will find the current discussion about the seeming sister category (or daughter category, if you see archbishops as a subset of all bishops, a view that I think would allow for avoiding too many small categories) we have 5 people opposing the nomination and only 2 in support counting the person who made the nomination. There is clearly not widespread support for this move. Also This move made it so French Roman Catholic bishops a category that in all its other parents says it is about people by nationality, has one parent which attempts to rescope it to only those who served in France, and include any who served in France who were not French. This is ignoring at least 68 articles there that are explicitly categorized as not serving in France, and there are possibly more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• That CfD asked the participants to choose between two alternatives, bishops by country vs bishops by nationality, and most of them accepted that framing. As Carlossuarez46 correctly pointed out during the debate, in fact the two choices presented weren't mutually exclusive. This should have led to a discussion about whether we could have both, but for some bizarre reason, there wasn't much discussion of that. In my view we should actually fork the category into (1) RC bishops by country of diocese and (2) RC bishops by country of origin. We might need to send it back to CfD for the category nerds to decide how to do that in a way that's consistent with our other categorization decisions.—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a tricky discussion, but I think the close correctly identified the consensus. I'm not sure this whole thing isn't a giant overcategorisation but that's not the question being asked. As the closer noted, there's work to be done here - it doesn't change the ultimate consensus, though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for increased participation (though I don't tpersonally hink it matters much one way or another) DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close correctly identified the consensus. That said, perhaps a discussion of forking is necessary by nationality. Not at the bishop level but higher up the tree. For example: Category:Scottish Christian clergy could be the target of all Scottish nationals who were bishops but who did not serve their episcopacy in Scotland. It would essentially be an expat category and so should be quite small. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - it leaves all the contents such as Category:American Roman Catholic bishops without their obvious parent. A consensus to do something silly should not prevail. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The close was correct, but it is a pointless close since none of the follow-up nominations (that were implied by this close) will go through. Relist per WP:IAR. I still think that emigrants with an occupation in their new country rather than in their country of origin should be categorized by occupation + new nationality instead of by occupation + old nationality, in fact I thought that was even in one of the categorization guidelines - but I can't find it and there is apparently not enough consensus for that logic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my nomination, but I agree it hasnt worked and needs to be reconsidered in a wider context. We need to find a way of categorising clergy which can cope with both nationality and location without confusing the two - which is what we had before. Rathfelder (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Calling most bishops emigrants is misusing the word. There are some few bishops that are emigrants. There are a lot more who are expatriates. In some cases these bishops were very closely connected with colonist regimes. There is a reason we have Category:French Roman Catholic bishops in Africa, Category:Spanish Roman Catholic bishops in South America and Category:German Roman Catholic bishops in North America. I have not checked the last one, so there may be a few debatable cases there. French bishops in Africa is full of men who I do not think there is any way to consider them to have been anything other than French.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Migration patterns amongst clergy vary, as you might expect, for place to place. But its very rare for a person to migrate once they have attained the status of bishop. Much more common is young priests moving to a new country to become a bishop. And regardless of what you might think about their personal nationality (I've only found 3 articles which actually say something about a bishop's nationality) a large majority stay in the country where they are a bishop until they die. Rathfelder (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not as rare as you imply. Also some bishops were without any question expatriates who were seen by others and saw themselves as foriegners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Hill (arts director) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

82.13.134.24 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 February the following article was deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=David_Hill_(arts_director)

The article had been in place for some time without controversy, but it seems that an attempt to edit by someone who had a working connection with an organisation referenced resulted in speedy deletion of the whole article.

This is a request for the article to be replaced, or at least the original article before any attempts were made to change it. In particular there were a number of references given that will be lost if the article is not reinstated.

Thanks

• If anything the edit history indicates the opposite. The article had existed since 2010, but throughout that time it was distinctly promotional in tone. Less than an hour before deletion the editor who nominated it for speedy deletion removed the vast majority of the content, and that version was a lot better. I wouldn't object to restoring that version or to moving it to draft space, but I don't think the G11 deletion was an unreasonable call otherwise. Hut 8.5 18:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If it had existed since 2010 and there were significant changes made shortly before deletion shouldn't this have automatically been undeleted at REFUND even though it says not to request G11 (which was why it was declined) I thought the consensus generally lies on those wanting a change especially for deletion though the strict criteria for CSD may allow admins to delete and require discussion to undelete if the CSD was clearly correct? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't qualify for REFUND. REFUND is for uncontroversial undeletions only, such as housekeeping deletions (U1, G7 etc), cases where anybody has an explicit right to get the content restored (G13, PROD etc) and restoring pages to draft space. For almost anything else you'll be referred to the deleting admin (if still active) or sent here. Hut 8.5 20:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But this request has shown that its deletion was controversial and should be reverted not that reverting should be seen as "controversial" in the same way if a page move is made from a longstanding title and someone objects we revert the move rather than saying reverting the move is controversial when its not the status quo ante. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I understand your argument - controversial deletions come here, and G11 is a controversial deletion, so here we can see if the G11 was done properly and can revert if it wasn't. A temporary undelete would be appreciated to take a look at the content. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Because normally (such as with WP:RM) an undiscussed move is generally reverted (see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves) and then a discussion can be made to remake the move however I see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews and there's a lack of consensus then the speedy is overturned so I suppose there's nothing particularly wrong with the "wrong" version for a week or so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 23:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11, with the expectation that it will likely be sent to AFD. The article is terrible. It has notability issues and tone issues. If I were reviewing it at AFC, I would decline it both as not appearing to satisfy creative notability and as written to praise the subject rather than to describe him neutrally. But G11 is for pages that are exclusively promotional and could not be rewritten. There would be something left if the promotional material were removed. Whether it would establish notability is a decision to be made by AFD. It isn't unambiguously promotional; it is ambiguously promotional. It needs to be blown up and started over, but G11 is the wrong dynamite stick to use. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and send to AfD. Speedy deletion should not prevent a discussion if someone wants a discussion, speedy deletion is for when there is nothing to discuss. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the article was basically a CV in prose form, I don't think the WP:G11 was improper at all. However I understand if we want to give this a day at AfD, though I can't see it being kept. SportingFlyer T·C 11:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn speedy Not clear that the article, as deleted, was a G11. I'd rather see this at AfD (where I suspect it will get deleted). Hobit (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy not exclusively promotional so doesn't meet G11 especially when much content was removed before deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Sheppard (stuntman) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In one sentence: the article was delete because of questioning WP:V, only on basis of IMDB, one of the most unreliable sources.

Keep/Delete/draftify/comments An AfD is reasoning; not about count keep/delete count. Two people voted Delete.

• 1st Delete vote) The first with the reasoning “Per nom.” And the nominator said: “I cannot locate this man on IMDB as a stuntman at all, so to me he fails GNG”. This is not a valid reason for deletion as IMBD is an unreliable source. See below for more.
• 2nd Delete vote) “not enough sourcing to show notability”. The persons doesn’t explain why,and that’s a pitty because the article includes for example BBC sources and other notable news media. See my reply in the AfD discussion.

Another people voted keep, another leaning toward keep, another for rewrite, and one who commented stated that he is notable with a clear reasoning.

Already on the basis I stated above; I don’t understand why the article is deleted.

Reasoning for the deletion The reason for the deletion is that he cant be located clearly at IMDB. So it’s about around 100 reliable newspapers articles worldwide against IMBD. In de deletion discussing I clearly indicates IMDB is an unreliable source.

At Wikipedia we can not use IMBD as a source within an article, see WP:Imdb. Because IMBD is a user-generated website and the site is considered unreliable. There have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. It can only be used as an external link. And under wp:IMDBREF is stated that IMDB is unacceptable and it’s as unreliable as Facebook and Twitter.

I don’t have to say it here, but so it can be explained why the stuntman is not enough credited at IMDB because 1) IMDB is incomplete. 2) Maybe an IMDB user delete the content of this person (by purpose or by vandalism?). 3) The stuntman might have been an the manager of the stunt who organized everything; so that’s the reason he is not credited at IMDB.

So if we can’t use IMDB as a source; how is it possible that an article gets deleted on the basis of IMDB only?

So now the reliable sources lost from one of the most unreliable sources. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus appears to have been to delete for failing WP:V. Consider asking for userfication or draftification, and seeing if you can find a reliable source, first to satisfy WP:V, and then further see advice at WP:THREE. WE don't want to talk about IMDB, except that you might want to add content to IMDB, they have lower requirements than Wikipedia for information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close, with particular attention to what the closer says by way of explanation. The closer has no opinion on different text and different sources. So take Spartaz at their word and prepare a draft with better text and better sources for review. Thanks to the closer for clarifying. Also, the statement by the appellant is too long. If it takes a whole page to state your case, you have no theme. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I added everything on top in 1 sentence. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This seems to be the correct result. Even though the nomination itself wasn't very good, it doesn't mean there can't be consensus to delete. I think this is a fairly weak consensus, and I think Deb's !vote encapsulates exactly where this article lies - not quite ready for mainspace. Considering there's a user willing to adopt a draft, I think a delete and draftify works well, but moving this straight back into mainspace without adding any more sources that pass WP:V much less GNG will lead to a similar result. SportingFlyer T·C 15:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marriott Marquis Houston (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I noticed the page Marriott Marquis Houston was removed. In it's discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriott Marquis Houston the reasons are pointed out state that the hotel doesn't meet the WP:NBUILD criteria. However, this doesn't appear to be the case. To quote the necessary criteria for a "building or object", one of the criteria that offers it "notability" is stated as:

"* Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."

Of these, the building offers social, economic, and arguably, architectural importance. For starters, it gets social importance as it is a 1,000+ room convention hotel. Furthermore, being a "Marquis" branded hotel alone also gives it the social importance to qualify as an article. There's only 10 Marriott Marquis hotels in the word, all of which have an article outside of this one (which was unreasonably deleted). Additionally, these factors also transfer the hotel's social importance to economic importance, being that all major convention events in Houston have this hotel as it's official hotelier. It's "Texas shaped" lazy river additionally made too much headlines to not be noteworthy.

Outside of the hotel's impact, the building is also architecturally noteworthy due to its height alone. Structures of this height get wikipedia pages as well. This combined with the hotel's impportance show no reason for such article to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:ParaguaneroSwag (talk • contribs)

• Restore This was nominated by a sock and was redirected with very limited discussion. The AfD is so weak it basically has the same functionally the same as someone boldly redirecting the page, so we should rubber stamp a bold restore. The article probably needs another source to get clearly past WP:GNG. it has been discussed in other newspapers, but in the travel section, which doesn't really count. I do see some coverage of the fact it was the headquarters for the weekend when Houston hosted the Super Bowl. To the nom, this means we don't look for social importance or economic importance when determining whether there should be an article, but whether there are reliable secondary sources which cover the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Agreed with above. The Super Bowl headquarters is simply another reason for restoration. I do agree that more reliable sources need to be shown, but these can easily be found and added. The page was redirected with relatively no discussion, as long as restoration is agreed upon, the article should be restored and additional sources provided to give it's notability source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaguaneroSwag (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You're the creator of this DRV, so your "restore" !vote is implied. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per both of the above. Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restored after anonymous approval page now live Marriott Marquis Houston. Added sources reflecting the building's height, Super Bowl LI headquarters, and iconic lazy river. Paraguaneroswag (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You're the creator of this DRV, so your "restore" !vote is implied. Stop prefacing every comment you make here with that. (Also, is the word you're looking for "unanimous"?) --Kinu ^t/_c 18:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion should have started at Talk:George R. Brown Convention Center, the talk page of the redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Without a !vote one way or the other, the nominator is asked to stop restoring the article until the discussion is closed. The contents are visible to other editors via the edit history. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist our practice for htoels seems to be getting increasingly restrictive. Except for truly historic ones, there are usually plenty of sources, but the sources are almost invariably at least somewhat promotional --it's quite hard to write about a hotel in any other manner, except about the architecture. or th history.Regardless of how we're supposed to decide , I think we do decide on the basis of our own feelings of significance, and then support our feelings by arguing on the basis of whether the sources are acceptable . Personally, I think we should include major hotels, either in single or combination articles, but the generally promotional nature of the articles discourages me enough that I do not usually work on them or !vote on them. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Sockpuppets don't have standing to start AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per S Marshall. With only one other participant, a sock-started low-participation AfD should be essentially treated as a PROD. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural restore. Nomination was void due to being made by a banned sock. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elvy Yost (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page is Elvy Yost deletion page is https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elvy_Yost there was no clear consensus, user deleted specifically not based on vote, but on own preference I am sorry for formatting; I am an occasional Wikipedia user and am doing my best here. NoahB (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Bad discussions make hard closes. To the nom, deletion discussions are not votes, but rather the closer must weigh the validity of the arguments. Here, there were two delete advocates: the nom, and a single "doesn't pass NACTOR." Two keeps say that she's been in a significant number of TV series, which might pass WP:NACTOR, while the third basically reiterates that and makes an OSE argument. The key reason why delete's an okay circumstance here is because the nom discussed the lack of quality sources and no one else rebutted that. The other options were a relist or a no consensus, which also would have been fine - I probably would have relisted a second time, but that's not a reason to overturn. Finally, a quick WP:BEFORE search I just conducted doesn't turn up anything which makes me think the discussion was defective for a lack of identifying sources, which has nothing to do with the close. I also sort of expect this will be overturned to no consensus, though there's nothing wrong with the close here in my mind. SportingFlyer T·C 23:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Change from "Delete" to "Draftify". The deletion rational "TOOSOON" is a reason to draftify. It was draftified, but was put back. The AfD repudiated the bold re-mainspacing. Draftify and forbid mainspacing until approved by an AfC reviewer or better. Recommend following the advice at WP:THREE. Reference bombing decreases the likelihood of AfC acceptance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The key question is if there is a serious claim of there being two "significant" roles. I've not got a clue how those are generally judged. I think relist would have been a better option given the weakness of the !votes, and NC probably a better option too. weak overturn to relist I guess, but I'm an inch from a weak endorse and I'd be fine with a NC outcome. Because the closer is likely looking for some kind of consensus, I'd be okay with a move to draft too--SmokeyJoe's right that a TOOSOON outcome should probably send to draft. Hobit (talk)

Jendrik Sigwart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see that German finalist Jendrik Sigwart's page has been deleted after an politcal discussion of members of the German right-wing party AfD. Jendrik is a finalist to Eurovision, and one of the "Big Five" who will definitely sing in the final. His page has been deleted despite a number of good references and comprehensive articles and changed to a redirect that tells nothing, part of the logic being that the artist becomes notable after performing. But after performance the interest would have plummeted anyway unless it did real well. By deleting, most of those interested are let down. They want to know about the act prior to the event where they are searching for facts from all the artists, let alone that this particular artist had established himself in musicals and other art domains long before Eurovision. I am very disappointed. One of those in the discussions on AfD said this article is bound to come back some time later on and I am almost sure with lesser information than the two liner about qualifying. Many also argued with good reasos for keeping the article. So it defeats the purpose really what Wikipedia has done. ALso, the deletion was clearly a politically motivated act to reduce the chances of the German contribution to the ESC. In addition, all participating artists from 2021 and all German interpreters in history have their own page. Binocular1234 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My read of the AfD and the closer's interpretation (which seems reasonable to me) is that the AfD-enforced redirection was understood to be likely moot in the near future and a standalone article appropriate. I can't speak to the political motivations or to WP:OSE arguments, but I see nothing there prohibiting an un-redirection and addition of appropriate sourcing that occurred after the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation I am new to Wikipedia so I do not really understand how this "un-deletion" process works. I would like to expand the original article and to source it properly. Binocular1234 (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Spartaz Since this was your close and since the nom didn't consult with you before coming to DRV (which isn't quite required but is very encouraged, but the nom is also a very new user) would you have any issue with draftifying the page? It's what we do with sports biographies when the player doesn't meet guidelines, but will meet guidelines in the near future, and it makes more sense here than a redirect so that it can be incubated. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

meh. Simple question, has better sourcing emerged in the 20 days since the redirect was put in place? The history is still there and the bar to undoing the redirect was deliberately set low enough that I don't feel that admin policing of the redirect is necessary. Any sensible user is welcome to review the redirect on the basis of new eventsnand use editorial judgement. I don't see any point of forcing thus through drv. If there is dispyte about what to do, local consensus at the article talk page is surely enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct - someone can just move the most recent non-deleted version to draftspace and work on it there. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Well run and closed AfD.

On the desire to revert the redirect. The proper place to discuss that is the talk page of the redirect target, which is Talk:Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021. Has better sourcing emerged since the redirect was put in place? Discuss on that talk page. DRV is well premature for this discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unniyarcha (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It may be restored in the draftspace and may be re-added to the mainspace once I finish expanding it using this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see the article due to ad blocker blocker, but I don't see how we can deny the restoration to draftspace; the AfD was closed as delete with only one other participant, who agreed with the nominator. Hardly controversial unless I'm missing something. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Did you ask Amanda (aka DQ)? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This should have been posted at WP:REFUND or the deleting admin requested. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• They asked back in January, and this seems to be the exact same request. This user has tried to repost several articles, and takes me to deletion review without having an actual discussion on things. They don't seem to care about Wikipedia's conventions, but just restoring their content without notability/referencing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - A valid close of what appears to be a poorly documented film of questionable notability. Is the appellant claiming an error by the closer, which there wasn't, or is the appellant asking to restore in draft, which the closer says she is agreeable to? If the appellant is saying that they, the appellant, will move the draft back to article space when it is ready, No. The article was deleted, and we are endorsing the deletion, and a review is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as requested by Kailash29792. I don't understand why this request wasn't granted in the first place – an article is nominated for deletion because the sources it had were just database entries, after very little participation the article is deleted, then an editor comes up with better sources and asks to work on it. The closure of the AfD, as it stood, was correct, but there appears to have been a very basic failing of BEFORE – the second result when I search on Google Books is the film's entry in the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema – so I wouldn't worry about the outcome of that discussion. It should at best be treated as a soft delete, with no questions asked of the editor who brings up sources and asks for restoration. – Uanfala (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as draft Assuming the source listed wasn't in the article, it seems like enough to give it another go. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis Amankwah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was not given adequate time to argue against the deletion. Moderator expressed his view that 7 days was enough but it was not realized for 6 days into the delete discussion.Requesting another chance at delete review. 45.151.238.152 (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse deletion. No sign of notability, as everyone else said, and as I can see myself. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional endorse even though I can't see the content, as these sorts of apparent promo-bios percolate throughout Wikipedia all the time. Solution? Recreate in draft with better sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp undeleted - sorry for the delay. WilyD 10:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the actual content in the article, the Mirror and Guardian links seem to provide some evidence of notability. If only they hadn't been buried in a sea of news releases... Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I haven't seen the article and am not asking to see it. It appears that the appellant is wasting the time of the community with this appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer. Note that the discussion was closed more than 7 days after it was opened. Further note that I was not informed of this DRV, as required. Daniel (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not, and has actually never been, required, although the level of how strongly it was suggested has varied a bit. WilyD 10:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Step 3 of the 'Steps to list a new deletion review': "Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:". Daniel (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is, and has always been, required to notify the person whose decision you are disputing that a DRV has been opened. It was previously also required to discuss with that person before opening a DRV, but that was quietly spirited away by a poorly-advertised two-day discussion last July. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-open - XfDs need to be closed by an admin who can at least act as a disinterested party. And really, one week, no substantive arguments for or against, a relist would've been sensible anyways. WilyD 10:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WilyD - how was I in any way an "interested party"?Daniel (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An admin closing a discussion as a disinterested party acting on community consensus wouldn't come to DRV to argue for a particular outcome. Admins who so strongly favour a particular outcome they can't even try to act like they're judging consensus as a third party shouldn't be closing discussions because their own feelings are very likely to cloud their judgement, and it's poisonous to the trust of the community for admins to act like their enforcing their own preferences over consensus. WilyD 23:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I don't follow this at all. Am I not allowed to advocate for my close to be endorsed? I couldn't give two hoots about the article, the people involved in the debate, or the actual outcome (despite what you seem to be inferring), but I do care about my assessment of consensus. I'm not sure your viewpoint expressed immediately above - "an admin closing a discussion as a disinterested party acting on community consensus wouldn't come to DRV to argue for a particular outcome" - reflects the consensus belief of the wider participants at DRV. I frequently see closers come here to provide comments and support for their close, and never once have I seen them criticised in this way. I am going to move this discussion to the centralised Deletion Review talk page, as if that is the consensus, it should be established. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Generalised discussion created at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Involvement_of_closer_in_DRV.
• Endorse The discussion was clear and I don't see any error. SportingFlyer T·C 11:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Appropriate close based on the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion process was properly followed. Deletion discussions are open for one week as normal. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion There does not seem to be any present change that an acceptable article can be written. This is exactly thesort of a promotional article thatshould never have gotten as far as mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I see no procedural issues here. "Requesting another chance at delete review." No, deletion review is not AFD 2.0. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• relist those !votes were truly cookie-cutter and basically useless. So was the nom. And Jclemens identified sources in the article that might be at the WP:N bar. Just because the DRV nom has a horrible argument for the DRV doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a look at it. That said, this does look like a great case for WP:TNT at the least. Still, I think a deletion nomination where there are sources that look good in the article shouldn't be deleted without some discussion of those sources... Hobit (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pupypau/Business Telecommunications Services (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

this page was deleted with claims of "Unambiguous advertising" claiming that the sources weren't external. The sources on the article are from press and external organizations to the company. The page was created in the fashion of similar companies, the COI was displayed in good faith since I’m helping translate private companies from my city that are international. Previous to the translation I reviewed the page in english and deleted all biased comments and it was accepted by Spanish wikipedia moderators, then I translated that same content that was already reviewed for bias. The claims the moderator made on my talk page make me think she didn't read the article, as well as the fact that the article was barely posted when she did so and I saw activity on her page erasing other's articles as well Pupypau (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this was unambiguous advertising. This is defined based on the text of the article, not the sources. The text here was relentlessly promotional and it sounded like the company's marketing material. The Spanish Wikipedia is a separate project with its own standards and practices. If you are being paid to write this draft then you aren't complying with the Terms of Use regarding disclosure of paid contributions. Hut 8.5 13:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being paid for this article, I highly doubt that big companies would be willing to pay for a wikipedia article, specially a company page that wasn't updated since 2013 on the Spanish wikipedia. Again, the text was thoroughly reviewed and every qualifying adjective deleted, furthermore, it is a draft, i'm requesting undeleting to keep working on it.

• Overturn G11 and restore to draft space. The standards for draft space are less stringent than for article space. If the draft is unambiguous advertising, it can be sent to MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is more leeway in draft space but G11 does still apply to draft space. Hut 8.5 17:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Hut 8.5 - Yes. I have sometimes tagged drafts as G11. If there is a question about whether this is spam, I would like to reach my own judgment. Speedy deletion should be unambiguous. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi Robert @Robert McClenon:, please notice here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Draft:Pupypau/Business_Telecommunications_Services If I am not totally wrong I reviewed this draft this morning (had several ones today) and a) edited the User promotional under a promotional username without any disclosure before b) was the draft clearly an unambiguous advertising. @Deb:, for your info. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Added: Please notice also this username User:PaulaBTS/Business Telecommunications Services (clearly promotional) of now Pupypau. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we get a temp undelete? In practice, the bar for a G11 in draft space is generally a fair bit higher than in article space, but it's certainly an achievable bar. Hobit (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Request temp undelete. This day-old account is throwing around serious allegations[3]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse CSD#G11. Blatant promotion; irretrievable promotional language; cited to four promotional sources. I'm not 100% sure Pupypau (talk · contribs) needs a permabanning, he does appear to be a blatant WP:SPA WP:COI spammer, but maybe he just has no idea of the purpose of Wikipedia, the importance of WP:NPOV and independent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've temp undeleted it. Can we just speedy endorse and indef block this blatant spammer now? —Cryptic 22:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please. It's crystal clear unambiguous advertising. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse speedy it's bad enough that it's over the bar for draft space IMO. Hobit (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you everyone for taking time and concern. I have now the source text and I will be deleting/rephrasing until is wikipedia worthy, I think is a great exercise before I move onto other topics. I wanted to translate articles about different historical international companies (involved in economical recovery plans with the USA during the dictatorship) from Spain and I would have been making the same mistakes over and over again otherwise, so thank you for making my wikipedia journey possible. I will ask a moderator to check on the draft before submitting once I'm done. Doing the translation all over again it would have been repeating the promotional aspects of the text. Pupypau (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Clearly and irrevocably promotional draft which leaps over the bar of G11. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Perhaps an article could be written but it would need. to be started over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Maybe allow a creation of a less promotional version but the current version is very promotional and WP:G11 applies in all namespaces including draft and we do not allow promotional content in draftspace or anywhere else 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johny Messo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Can someone take a look at the closure, because (1) it was done while improvements of the article were still going on, and (2) the closure was to delete, but there was no clear consensus on the outcome: two users voted to keep (Sorabino and Gidonb), while user (SportingFlyer) voted to delete, thus agreeing with the nominator (Buidhe). Another user (Bearian) initially also voted to delete, but after seeing some improvements pointed to selective merger as an option. One more user (Styyx) just commented, by providing several useful links to sources that could be added. I contacted the closer (Spartaz) directly (here) and asked them to reconsider closure, and relist discussion for another week, but he declined, unfortunately. I also contacted other participants in the discussion, regardless of the way they voted. I hope that this article will be relisted, since there are many sources to be added. The person in question is a politician and author, who is president (since 2009) of the World Council of Arameans, an international umbrella organization of the Aramean people in diaspora. Sorabino (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AFD was open for over two weeks, and the sources were provided, assessed, and found wanting. Whilst the numbers on each side were relatively closely balanced, the keep side just kept saying "more sources must exist" without actually coming up with them. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Change to strong endorse because of excessive badgering by the nominator. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced content was added daily to the article, look at the edits history, and much more is there to add, particularly when it comes to involvement of this politician with organizations such as UN, EU, Council of Europe, ministerial and ambassadorial meetings and conferences on themes related to Arameans and other Christian communities throughout Near East. Sorabino (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, compare the state of the article as it was when proposed for deletion, and its state at closure. You will see that it was completely rewritten. I hope that you can actually see the article? Sorabino (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken all of the above into account. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, but did you actually take a look at the article, and checked the edit history? I am asking because your initial comments imply that allmoast nothing was added, and that is not true. Do you think that this person is notable enough to have an article? Sorabino (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have taken all the above into account. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just wanted to emphasize that it feels awkward to discuss an article that can′t be seen. Sorabino (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Visibility of the article. Can someone restore the visibility of the article, just temporarily, during the course of this review process, so that all users can see the content of the article and its edit history? Sorabino (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, thank you for mentioning Google cache, text of this article can still be seen here: Johny Messo, but edit history is not accessible there. Sorabino (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I just used the Google cache of the article. I'm leaning toward an endorse here, but would like to see what sources the nom (or others) believes counts toward WP:N. I'm seeing a lot of published works but nothing that really covers this person. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, the question of Wikipedia:Notability is the most important issue here. As stated above, this person is president (since 2009) of the World Council of Arameans (WCA), an international umbrella organization of the Aramean people. Someone might ask: Yes, but does that constitute notability? Well, the organization he presides (WCA) has the same representative significance for the Aramean people as, for example, the World Jewish Congress has for the Jewish people worldwide. Of course, WCA is a much smaller and less prominent organization, but it special significance for the Aramean community worldwide stems from the fact that Arameans are a stateless people, that is still fighting for the recognition of basic minority rights. As president of WCA, this person had prominent role in those efforts. As said above, there are many additional sources and reports on his involvement with organizations such as UN, EU, Council of Europe, ministerial and ambassadorial meetings and conferences on themes related to Arameans and other Christian communities throughout Near East. Recently, Israel became the the first country of the Middle East that officially recognized Aramean minority (2014). WCA and its president had prominent role in those efforts. Those are events of historical importance for the Aramean people. When it comes to subjects related to stateless peoples, minority groups, their organizations and prominent representatives, we should show special sensitivity, particularly when we are dealing with those who are currently active, like this person. If he is relevant enough for key international organizations and foreign governments, as president of WCA and representative of Aramean people, than we should not deny that relevance by deleting this article. In any case, total deletion would be highly inapropriate, and that radical outcome certanly did not gain majority support during discussion. At least, if relisting is not granted here, "Johny Messo" should be turned into a redirect pointing to WCA article, thus allowing future developments. And just to be clear: as someone who got interested in this article only after the deletion proposal was initiated, I am not proposing that alternative solution (redirect as alternative to deletion) in order to wait some time and then restore the article. And one more remark, just to be clear I am not an Aramean, or an activist. I am just generally opposed to deleting articles on minority organizations, their outlets and representatives, as I demonstrated in several discussions on similar topics. Sorabino (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Temporarily restored to facilitate the DRV. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Stifle, thanks but can you temporarily restore the full visibility of the article? Sorabino (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorabino No. That will only happen if this discussion overturns the deletion decision. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You can see the full article (and all previous versions) with the "View History" tab towards the top right of the page. WilyD 23:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On a quick review, I’m leaning endorse. Maybe it should have been a redirect to World Council of Arameans (Syriacs). That article is currently at AfD, but is heading towards a “keep”, with possible rename. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, it seems that closure was done in a haste: within a single hour, from this to this action, the same user closed more than twenty discussions in a row, thus investing less than three minutes per discussion. At that speed, oversights are inevitable, particularly with complex discussions, since it is hardly possible to read and analyze a complex discussion, look at the article in question, and perform technicalities of a closure, all within three minutes, and that much time was spent on this discussion, that was last in that row. Also, in a related discussion (World Council of Arameans) there were three votes to keep and none to delete, but the same closer decided to relist. That is not wrong, but with such liberal application of closing criteria maybe he should have relisted this discussion too. Sorabino (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a lack of good faith. This is one of our most experienced deletion discussion closers. Closing a discussion is not rocket science, this was neither a particularly long nor complex discussion, and a quick look at the other closes you discuss show most of them were what I'd consider "easily" closed. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, lack of good faith by whom? Sorabino (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Placeholder for long unnecessary bludgeoning response]

• Overturn to No Consenstus - There were enough Keep statements, and the Keep statements were sufficiently persuasive, that the closer should have either explained why they were discounting them, or Relisted a second time, or closed as No Consensus. The close appears to ignore the Keep statements, and that is an error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus - Precisely for the reasons stated by Robert McClenon above. I was unpleasantly surprised that my opinion, based on source research, was discounted by the closer versus other opinions. Possibly this was for not arguing which makes things only worse. I ask closers to be respectful of the participants in AfD discussions and patient enough to relist when there is no consensus. As Sorabino points out, this was relisted only once. gidonb (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I further agree with Sorabino that, for strongly related discussions, the combination of the decision to close as delete where the opinions were equally mixed and valid and the decision to relist where there was 100% consensus to keep is problematic. I assume good faith and would like to think that this is an unfortunate coincidence but I can see how Sorabino, who comes across to me as passionate about this very topic, is "p*ssed". I found this in the NL queue, examined the sources and am otherwise not involved. I only want to be treated fairly and wish to treat others fairly, including very much the closer. gidonb (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, I also had no interest for those articles, prior to the initiation of delete proposals, but when I saw that they were nominated at the same time, I became quite interested to see why would anyone want to remove an article on WCA and its president, since WCA is not only a representative organization of an entire stateless nation, but also an organization with consultative status at the United Nations, since 1999. I tried to improve those articles by adding referenced content, but much more could be added to both articles, and that is why I hope that some productive solution can be found, other than complete deletion. Sorabino (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino, thank you for clarifying! For sure, one can become passionate about a topic also by referencing and expanding articles that one happens to stumble upon. It happened to me more than once. I found Johny Messo in the Dutch queue and the World Council of Arameans (Syriacs) when I looked into merge options. gidonb (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, that is exactly the case. Since recently, I became interested in articles on minorities, particularly those of the Middle East, but those two articles (JM and WCA) were out of my scope. I also noticed that some other articles (related not to modern Arameans, but to modern Assyrians) were recently nominated for deletion. I tried to improve those articles too, and opposed deletion. I am mentioning all that because I realized that there are not many active editors from those communities, and the rest of us sometimes forget that articles on various minority subjects should be treated with additional sensitivity. Deletion should always be the last option. Sorabino (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - as noted, I don't have strong feeling, and I think a selective merge would probably be the first choice for me. I was canvassed on my talk page, and I stated am not at all surprised this was deleted, but I don't see a strong consensus on what to do. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, thanks for clarifying your position on the article in question. As stated above, I contacted the closer and all participants in that discussion (not just you) during the interval between the closure and initiation of this review process, in order to resolve this directly, as guidelines recommend. How would that be canvasing? Sorabino (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. While a little bit of justification in the close might have prevented some of this drama, the close clearly was within discretion. --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case its not clear, I already explained my reasoning to the drv initiator here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just mean that it would have been helpful if you had done that in the close. Having said that, I probably wouldn't have acted differently if I had closed that AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, why are you labeling this discussion as "drama"? My proposal here is the most simplest one: relisting for another week, so that some further improvements can be made in the article, and also hoping that a clearer consensus could be reached, whatever that may be. Sorabino (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• After checking the sources and reweighting the contributions in line with policy and guidelines, I agree with the closer that there was a rough consensus to delete. I agree that "no consensus" would also have been within discretion, but of the two, I would prefer the "delete" close as more reflective of the community's view.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, could you please look again, because only one user in that discussion supported the nominator, while two were for keep, and the fifth user (Bearian) clarified here (above) that his first option would be to merge (he amended his initial delete vote, already during discussion). Such division of votes hardly constitutes any consensus on the matter. Sorabino (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so, and the outcome was the same. The keep votes are of very little merit, while the deletes were firmly grounded in policy.—S Marshall T/C 01:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, the question here is whether the complete deletion was justified as the outcome, thus disregarding the possible relist or merge options, and not leaving even a redirect to article on the organization (World Council of Arameans). Sorabino (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse The !votes to keep were weak, with very little that indicated how this meets our inclusion guidelines. gidonb states that the GNG is met, but with no sense of what sources count. Sorabino mentions adding sources, but no one has really listed specific sources. And looking at the article nothing looks to be in-depth and independent about this person. To be clear, I'd also have endorsed an NC reading, but I think delete is quite reasonable. And to be even more clear, a move to a draft would be perfectly reasonable. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, if move to a draft would allow improvements of the article, that would be a good solution to. Sorabino (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist . There's enough disagreement above that a relisting of the AfD would seem the appropriate course.. I'm not sure how I would !vote on the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC) .[reply]
• Comment. AfD for World Council of Arameans (Syriacs) was closed today as keep. There were no votes in favor of the delete proposal. Now, when that outcome is known, one of possible solutions for Johny Messo is to merge it (selectively) with World Council of Arameans (Syriacs), leaving it as redirect, with its fully preserved edit history. That would be a compromise solution, and it would reflect more fairly the division of votes between delete and keep options. Relisting would still be my preferred option, but if that is not granted here, at least a redirect should be kept, as mentioned above. Sorabino (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for the reviewer. Unfortunately, it seems that there might be a wider issue here. I understand that no closer is thrilled by their closures being challenged, but that should not affect their attitude towards other issues. Few days ago, I approached the same closer (Spartaz) in relation to his premature closure of AfD for Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, directly related to the ongoing AfD discussion on Assyrian Academic Society. In spite of being engaged in resolving those issues, he decided to take the role of closer in the second AfD too, and made a decision to relist. In that discussion, only two users supported the nominator, while five voted to keep. I asked (here) user Spartaz to revert his relisting of AfD for Assyrian Academic Society, and allow an uninvolved editor to make a decision on that AfD. There are some other issues related to both of those AfD discussions, but they are out of scope of this review. Sorabino (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you are looking for is INVOLVED and raising a DRV or making allegations suggesting bad faith on my part does not make me involved. Indeed, I’m so offended by the review of my close that I even haven’t bothered to vote, and, if you look through the archives I’m brought to DRV a lot because I close out the discussions that are hanging around, meaning that they are not easy or likely to be disputed. None of which gives me a reason to have any kind of agenda at all towards you - especially as the clear consensus of this discussion will be to endorse and DRV is historically more likely to find against me than for me. What I have found over the years is that users tend to project how they would react to things on how they believe other editors are reacting, which means your allegations of bad faith and revenge on my part say more about you then me. I would relax if I were you, I dealt with real trolls and really bad actors on wikipedia and nothing you have done so far gets anywhere close to what I would consider annoying. Indeed, compared to some, even your walls of text which have annoyed some users here are elegant instruments of brevity. If you really want to get my comduct looked at ANI is your venue not DRV - but good luck with that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, the tone of your response says it all. Those two AfD were directly connected, and your closure of the first was challenged, pending the outcome of the other, thus making you a directly interested party, but yet you decided to act as a closer for the other AfD too, favoring the option that would justify your decision on the first AfD. It is crystal clear what your motivation was. Please, revert your decision on the second AfD and allow an uninvolved and impartial user to make the calls in the case of the Assyrian Academic Society, that is so far a solid keep. Your demonstrated disregard for the five keep votes, while two delete votes were self-defined as "week delete" anyway. How would such structure of votes justify the relisting? Sorabino (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a discussion is an admin action and someone challenging that does not make you involved from future admin actions involving that person - otherwise trolls would successfully get admins willing to stand up to them removed from dealing with them.

Every article I relisted was done so as part of closing off a whole (or part) of a day's discussions that were more than 24 hours late for closure. That's what I do.

Relisting for a better discussion that actually talks about sources is standard for me. Check my contribs. Its not out of context with other recent relists

You should try to get over yourself. I take this tone with everyone. Even people who are nice to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, your responses to those problems are quite surprising. This is not a personal issue. Those two AfD were directly connected by the very nature of the articles in question, since the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies was published by the Assyrian Academic Society, and from the very initiation of those discussions a possible merge was proposed and supported by several users, whose views you disregarded, and on that point your closure was challenged. Therefore, you should have left to some other, uninvolved closer to make decisions on the second AfD, since you have a direct interest in the outcome. Sorabino (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Silva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The consensus was clearly to delete and that result should have been similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Devapriya.

User:SilkTork used wrong reasoning to close the AfD as keep. Every article should pass WP:GNG and no sport-specific guideline supersedes WP:GNG (this was established through RfC). No one refuted my argument that coverage doesn't exist (we even don't know his birth date, first name/full name then how can you expect that coverage exists) instead SilkTork considered database entry in database site like CricketArchive as coverage. Störm (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When there's a large number of similar articles that are up for deletion that all suffer from the same deficiency of sources, it takes effort to consistently make the same argument over and over again. I failed here. My argument for deletion was too short because I participated in a number of similar discussions simultaneously, but my argument wasn't that the source was paywalled - it was the fact that these articles are sourced only to scorecards or database entries, there's no significant coverage - we don't even have a first name. It's a crystal clear WP:GNG failure. I hope that clarifies my !vote and gives a little bit of a better understanding of the situation and I'll leave it up to DRV to determine the outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A stretchy "keep" close sure, but not "wrong". See advice at WP:RENOM. In particular, I advise you to put more effort into the rationale of why it should be deleted despite meeting the sport-specific SNG. I consider the BLP argument weak, because I don't see BLP sensitive content. I consider the closer's argument to be correct, as no one had spoken against the SNG reason to keep, and so Rugbyfan22 (20:18, 26 February 2021) stands unrebutted. It's hard to make a WP:Supervote criticism when it was languishing after three relists already. I suggest that permastubs like this could be merged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the discussion in that AfD, this was a keep because A) The subject met the criteria for WP:NCRIC, which was declared in the AfD, and not challenged; B) It met WP:GNG because there was a reliable source (CricketArchive - "a leading online source for cricket statistics") which provided sufficient information to create the article; and C) It met WP:Notability because, per that guideline, a topic is presumed notable if it meets "either the general notability guideline (GNG) ..., or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" - in this case it appears it meets both. The only arguments for deletion present in the discussion was that it "Fails WP:GNG" and the article was "functionally unsourced" because the "only link is to Cricket Archive" which requires payment. However, per WP:PAYWALL, from our Verification policy, we "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." If the argument is that the CricketArchive source is inadequate, not because it requires payment, but because the information in that source does not directly address the subject and/or does not provide sufficient detail to create an article without using original research to fill in the gaps, then a new AfD should be started, and that argument put forward. SilkTork (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, no, it clearly fails WP:GNG. Cricket Archive is a statistics database. Databases are not significant coverage and we do not accept them as sources for proving sports notability. It is also the only source, and no others have been found. The only thing it shows is that he passes a sports notability guideline, one which has been heavily scrutinised recently because it's too broad and doesn't predict when a player will meet GNG. All sports SNGs ultimately require GNG to be met (except maybe the Olympics one because of consensus.) If the result of this DRV is that there should be a new AfD, I'll accept I got lazy making the same argument over and over and send it to AfD immediately on those grounds, but there's nothing correct about your argument here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify on the "the only source" comment, while it is preferred to have multiple sources, the GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required", so only having one source is not a deletion criteria. The delete arguments were that the article "Fails WP:GNG", but did not explain why because the article was cited to a reliable source, the source was independent of the subject, and there was significant coverage to create the article; the other two delete arguments were "functionally unsourced" because the source is behind a paywall, but - as I pointed out - this is not a deletion criteria because our Verifiability policy allows sources behind a paywall. Based on the discussion in front of me I could see no valid reason for deletion, and if I had done so I could have been accused of supervoting. Given that all three delete comments were found by policy and guideline not to be valid, while the keep comment was valid and in line with existing notability guidelines, I felt that Keep was the most appropriate close. I considered a No consensus close, but for that to take place I felt I needed something of a balance of arguments, and given that all three deletes were not valid while the one keep was valid, there was no imbalance. I followed the guidance at WP:CLOSEAFD ("Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments"; at WP:NHC ("Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue"); and at WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS ("Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy"). Even at that point I did consider the possibility of a No consensus if there was evidence in the AfD that the community were determining that sources behind a paywall were no longer acceptable, or not acceptable in certain circumstances. But there was no evidence of sufficient consensus in the AfD (just three users) for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to challenge a core policy. The issue of the sports notability guideline being recently questioned was not brought up in the AfD - the Keep comment on that point was not challenged, and the WP:N guideline is currently quite clear on the point that the sports notability guideline is acceptable. The subject, as pointed out by the keep comment, met the notability criteria of the appropriate sports notability guideline. SilkTork (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I note that I didn't address the "database" issue. There is no general regarding of databases as not being reliable sources. WP:SPORTCRIT does mention databases, but doesn't rule out ALL databases, just "database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases". CricketArchive has a good reputation, and is written and compiled by respected subject specialists such as Philip Bailey (statistician) who also writes for Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's making the argument databases aren't reliable sources. You've taken a look at this discussion, decided that the three delete voters don't like Cricket Archive because it was paywalled, and interjected your own opinion. You've also decided Cricket Archive was reliable, but WP:GNG only requires reliability as a condition - the source clearly doesn't pass WP:SPORTCRIT, since Cricket Archive is a generic, wide-sweeping database, as is Sports Reference (which is clearly reliable, but doesn't demonstrate notability because their goal is to track as much as possible - contrast this with a curated database of all-stars.) The key invalidating principle here is that you've made the assumption that the delete !voters don't like a paywalled source, which literally nobody made. In short, you've come to your own conclusion here based on policies you've hand-picked, and we've ended up with a bad close for a bad discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 16:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it does not meet the GNG by any stretch. However, no one agreed with the nominator that this was a reason to delete. Also, the GNG does not mandate deletion, there may be a merge target, and indeed there is, Kalutara Physical Culture Club. The discussion was inadequate. Delete rationales were poor. WP:BEFORE C.4, and ATD-M were not considered. Keep, or no consensus, a delete close would have been wrong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• weak endorse I think no consensus better represents the discussion, but I can't say the closer is clearly wrong in their reasoning and keep is likely within discretion. The problem is that I don't think there is consensus that meeting this SNG means we should/must have an article (unlike, say, WP:PROF which almost reaches that far). It instead provides guidance when we have "so-so" sources. Here we seem to have very poor sources. Not because of the paywall, but because as I understand it, the sources don't provide much detail. So I think NC more accurately represents the overall situation (local and global consensus). But the delete arguments weren't clear (are the upset about the paywall? The quality of the arguments?) and the explanation given by the closer seems reasonable. All that said, I think we'd be best served by having a better discussion in the fairly near future (much like we would with a NC outcome) once things slow down a bit (sounds like there were a ton of nominations like this). Hobit (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I voted keep, with my view that he had played enough games to be considered notability, I can see why there were some views for delete. However for the nominator to start a review saying there was a 'clear consensus' for delete is totally incorrect. There were two votes for delete and 1 for keep yes, but these discussions are not a tally system, and personally it's slightly offensive to the closer to call it that. While perhaps no consensus would have been a better closing argument, I don't see anything wrong with it being closed as it is due to the lack of participation, likely because of the 100s of cricket articles that were going through AfD at that one time, which now following an ANI is thankfully decreasing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse SilkTork is completely correct in evaluating the votes. "I can't see the source" is not a valid delete rationale, and as such there were zero policy-compliant supports for the deletion of the topic. It's not like WP:PAYWALL is under dispute or up for revision; it's been a Wikipedia expectation for, eh, at least 12 if not 15 years. Now, if each of them had tacked on "... and it's only one source anyways" that would have changed the strength of the argument, but it's not a closer's job to read what should have been argued to be maximally effective. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer has correctly discounted arguments which were poor or do not have a basis in policy. "Functionally unsourced" is meaningless. An article is either sourced or it is not, and this one is. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Since everyone's taken me to task for not being specific enough with my argument (I still think "functionally unsourced" in context clearly means the only source in the article doesn't count towards notability, but whatever, and the nominator's "fails WP:GNG" is clearly a policy-compliant argument) - does anyone have an issue with immediately sending this back to AfD? SportingFlyer T·C 10:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a faulty nomination due to failure at WP:BEFORE#C.4. Don’t relist. Don’t renomination with arguing why not merge or redirect. Why not merge and redirect? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because there's not really a merge target (a player for a team wouldn't typically get merged into the team page if they are not notable on their own), and as been discussed in several places before, there's absolutely no policy which claims than an AfD is defective because someone identifies a merge target. SportingFlyer T·C 11:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will likely !vote merge and redirect. Are you denying that WP:ATD is policy? Or do you think that AfD need not respect deletion policy? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've several times now claimed that failing to consider a merge target invalidates (or in this case makes "faulty") an AfD. This is incorrect - even if someone identifies a merge target, consensus may decide deletion still may be warranted. I've said nothing about WP:ATD. (In this case a redirect wouldn't make sense, since players rarely get discussed individually in depth on sports club pages - usually it's just the current squad list, and maybe a verified list of famous players.) SportingFlyer T·C 13:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The player is mentioned on the Kalutara Physical Culture Club page tbf. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • SportingFlyer, you appear to ~ three-quarters understand me.
            WP:AfD contains instructions, including WP:BEFORE #C.4, which if followed ensure that WP:Deletion policy is abided by, including WP:ATD, including WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R.
            "even if someone identifies a merge target, consensus may decide deletion still may be warranted". Absolutely. You telling me this suggests that you think I don't well know this. Checking for merge targets in the BEFORE step of AfD nominating does not mean that the discussion will not agree to not merge but delete. However, it is essential that there is a check for the merge target, and the discussion should contain evidence of consideration of every obvious merge target, and that participants decided that it should be deleted anyway. Eg, if the page is entirely inferior, inferior in content and sourcing, to the merge target, then it is better deleted than merged.
            The AfD is faulty if an obvious merge target was not even mentioned.
            --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The merge page in conversation would always, in a perfect world, be List of X cricketers, should one exist. And I believe there should be one created, within decent reason, for every "placename cricket team" article which has played first-class games. People have claimed over and over again that these are unnecessary, and (mostly the same people) are now claiming, through mass AfD nomination, that they are necessary. Bobo. 01:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • WP:BEFORE C.4 only requires a nominator to consider a merge target. A merge may be neither obvious nor desired by the nominator. I don't think it's correct to say an AfD is faulty if an obvious merge target isn't mentioned, especially for AfDs with any reasonable amount of discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 01:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • • • There is no evidence that Störm 20:07, 13 February 2021 considered the obvious merge target, and the obvious merge target invalidates his deletion argument, because the GNG requires a reading of Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. The GNG only means "delete" if there is no good merge and redirect target. An obvious merge target needs explicit rejection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my crazy inclusionist world, were I to have enough energy or impetus to compile it (and without being presumptuous I'm the only person who would be bored enough to do so), I would make a page for every potential "Player who made their debut in the XXXX / XXXX/YY season regardless of country" article. If I filter players by names including the letter "E", for all first-class matches, during the 2020-21 season - not necessarily just debutants, I find 520 results. If I weren't so disillusioned by all of this, I would be willing to make these lists by first-class debut season, but this is no longer the case. Bobo. 01:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would be well advised to read WP:LISTN. Unless the list is independently notable, lists only list bluelinks. Making inappropriate list articles to save things from deletion would quickly lead to trouble for you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. In a perfect world, both would exist - the list and all bluelinks. All lists would exist as a way of navigation. It is not me who turns bluelinks into redlinks voluntarily. So articles are just sat there with no mainbody alterations for eleven years plus? Good. They're absolutely fine as they are. Some Test cricketers' articles have been unedited in terms of mainbody text for 15 years. That's cool. I like facts. Not eleven pages' worth of other people's text to sift through. Oh. Bobo. 07:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have had lists of such players, including redlinks, compiled for over a decade on my own user subpages - at least since the cricket WikiProject Report was written in January 2011 - sorted by team in reverse chronological order based on debut appearance. At one point people were using them as a legitimate basis for article creation. Oh for the days when people were creating articles voluntarily instead of deleting them. Bobo. 08:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. The closing admin's statement that "It is not disputed that the subject meets inclusion criteria" is incorrect. It isn't disputed that the subject passes WP:NCRIC, but passing NCRIC does not mean the subject meets inclusion criteria, it means that it is likely to pass inclusion criteria. The subject does ultimately have to pass the GNG (WP:NSPORT). The argument that the source provided doesn't count because it's behind a paywall is wrong, but the nominator also argued that the subject doesn't pass the GNG, and that argument was not rebutted. The one source provided is a statistics site with no actual prose devoted to the subject. The interplay between the SNGs and the GNG is complex, and Bobo192 made a reasonable argument that the SNG pass indicated that sources are likely to exist, so there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Hut 8.5 12:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Keep is a valid conclusion by the closer. I probably would have said Keep as a participant and No Consensus as a closer. The question for us is whether there was an error by the closer, and there was not. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. While "keep" may have been the 'correct' result, and while discussions are not votes, it is hard to reach a "keep" result with only one person saying "keep" in the discussion (3 delete comments, 1 keep comment, and one comment). --Enos733 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close by SilkTork is pretty fine. The outcome of an AfD is never because of the "votes" but it is "arguments" that play the game. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. All arguments were poor, but there was no effective rebuttal to the rationale for nomination (fails GNG). Should (probably) have been relisted. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To expand, the closer's initial response here indicates that they alone determined the CricketArchive source is sufficient for GNG in this case; and this appears to be a large part of how they arrived at keep. In addition, it seems they have judged the "functionally unsourced" (whatever this means) comments as being based on it being behind a paywall rather than it not constituting significant coverage, which apparently was the intended meaning. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Overturn to no consensus" implies an end to the discussion. "Endorse" implies an end to the conversation one way or another. "Continue and relist" implies a continuation of the discussion. You can't have it both ways. Conversations are allowed to end as "no consensus", when there has been an entire week to build consensus. There is no need to relist articles over and over. We are all just tired of what is going on. And that is shown in lack of participation from both sides of the argument. The point I made before about lack of participation and continually needing to relist was nothing to do with following or flouting guidelines and everything to do with pure apathy towards the situation. If a conversation needs to be relisted three times, it is clear people have lost interest. "We don't know the individual's birthdate" is not a valid argument towards or against inclusion criteria. Bobo. 23:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To imply a user of 15 years of good standing who wears the number of "hats" that SilkTork does, doesn't know what they are doing, is rude and disruptive. Bobo. 23:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I'm inclined to agree with User:Wjemather (which is a rare thing), it should have been no consensus, but on the basis of that the article would have been kept, so the original close was valid. StickyWicket (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that in the past there have been instances where conversations which have finished "No consensus BLP therefore default to delete for reasons of..." whatever. Usually lack of sourcing. I'm too tired and frustrated by this issue to go and find them. That, in this case, is untrue. Bobo. 00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per all the points made above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse in line with all of the many comments above, this was another poorly argued AfD. If you want to AfD articles which pass WP:NCRIC and are well-sourced, then come up with some good reasons for doing so. The machine gun like nature of cricket AfDs, all from a single nominator, is stifling proper debate and the chance to improve articles before the discussion is finalised. I would also note that I missed this one, and if reopened as an AfD would vote to keep. DevaCat1 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A vote which would be easily argued against, as nobody has presented a single source with GNG-qualifying significant coverage, generally held to be a requirement for sports bios. SportingFlyer T·C 15:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We're back to the perennial topic of whether for sports it is enough to meet the SNG, enough to meet the GNG, or whether it needs to meet both. I could argue forany of the three positions, and the consensus has at various times supported all of them. Personally, I think sports is a special field with its own kind of coverage, and it should go by he SNG only, with the proviso that there has to be some coverage more than statistics. The issue isn't going to be settled here, no matter which way the DR is closed. I expect to continue to see at least one DR a week on this, forever. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG: your argument isn't supported by recent consensus, and has a flaw: if all that matters is the SNG, where do we set the bar for the SNG? Currently we have a cricket SNG which is clearly not calibrated to the GNG, and a WikiProject generally defending these unsourceable stubs from deletion on the grounds that they pass the SNG (several of the project participants have endorsed the keep, even though it should be at least relatively clear the closer misinterpreted their close by assuming analysis which did not exist in the discussion.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my argument is that there is not any consistent consensus , recent or otherwise. I therefore did not !vote. I'm not trying to be an obsacle. I agree that where to set the SNG has always been a problem also, in essentially every area; thats why the GNG looks attractive, until one realizes that every one of its words can be interpreted however one pleases. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the AfD all over again. This is the review of the discussion to see if the discussion had consensus. No proper objections were raised bar WP:PAYWALL. Barely anyone responded to the AfD because we are, frankly, tired of our project being destroyed at whim. While our project is being overrun by people who have no interest in contributing, this will not change. Bobo. 08:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually GNG was raised by the nom to which there was no rebuttal; paywall was incorrectly inferred by the closer since no such argument was made. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If people had agreed with the point that PAYWALL was an issue - which it isn't, via guidelines - they would have noted as such on the AfD. In fact, that point was not made at all. Bobo. 09:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and since paywall was not raised as an issue by anyone but the closer, and seemingly as their principal reasoning, that close is faulty. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The close is faulty or the arguments for/against AfD were faulty? There was no argument for this therefore it cannot be inferred. Bobo. 09:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments weren't faulty, just poor and/or badly expressed. And yet it was inferred. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If people had provided what you consider to be "valid" concerns, they would have been given "necessary" weight. If this didn't happen, then so be it. Bobo. 10:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. The numerical consensus was clearly to delete. This means that to arrive at a "keep" consensus, the "keep" arguments would have to be particularly strong. That is not the case. The only "keep" argument was WP:NCRIC, which creates only a presumption of notability. That presumption was convincingly rebutted in the AfD because it was shown that there is no coverage except match statistics of unclear reviability. WP:V and WP:BLP mandate deletion in such cases. Sandstein 10:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for the current state of the project, that is why there is no such thing as numerical consensus, and that is why there cannot be justification for relisting an AfD three times or more just to get people who don't care about the goals of the project to pretend to have an opinion. Why didn't these people express their opinions at the time? Maybe they don't have opinions and are just blindly copying and pasting. I still reckon that there must be offline coverage of the Saravanamuttu Trophy somewhere. Bobo. 11:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The theories of "consensus", or "consensus decision-making" (not consensus truth-divination) is a favourite hobby of mine. I very much enjoyed discovering User:Andrewa/Types of consensus. User:Andrewa, did you miss "numerical consensus"? Is it like Wikipedia:Supermajority? If the numerical consensus can be clearly something, then logically, the definition must have clarity, but what it is if it in majority or supermajority, both of which are inconsistent with "consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't miss numerical consensus. That's not consensus at all. That's the whole point.

My introduction to consensus was not as a Wikipedian but as a member of the UCA, see Uniting Church in Australia#Decision-making. And certainly not from an Australian Prime Minister who often spoke of "consensus" but meant bullying, some of it very public bullying, and some of it very private bullying. (We used to discourage bullying at Wikipedia but no longer do, sadly. But that's another issue.)

Let me give an example of how a skilled and impartial chairperson can achieve consensus. We were !voting on a motion to merge two congregations, the only two in a single parish (an unwieldy system we inherited from the messy formation of the UCA but that's another story). The chairperson said "How are we feeling? Can I have a show of cards?" There was a sea of orange (indicating support for the motion). And six blue (indicating opposition). He continued "I see only six blue cards. There are about four hundred people present who have requested cards" (he'd done his homework, and that is important) "so I propose that we now hear only from those six people." The six came to the front. After four had spoken briefly (I timed an average of three minutes, maximum four) he again said "How are we feeling now? Can I see a show of cards?"

There was a sea of blue cards, with not one orange. "I think we are now of one mind. But everyone please put down your blue cards and close your eyes. That is everyone except me. Please. Have we all done that? All eyes closed and heads down? Right. If you wish to raise an orange card you can do so now in perfect safety. Don't leave it up, just raise it so I can see it, I won't even acknowledge it until you have put it down again. This is a safe place."

"Just a few seconds more. Bear with me, this is important, and I promise we are near a decision. No more orange cards? Now is the time. (Pause.) All right, eyes open again, we have consensus. The motion is defeated unanimously."

And we were very happy with the decision. All of us. That's how it can work.

Julius Caesar once said "The wrong plan, pursued to its conclusion, will always beat the right plan, incompletely executed". That is part of why consensus works so well. Which brings us to Andrew's Principle. Enough for now I think. Andrewa (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting story Andrewa, though am I the only one to note that the "skilled and impartial chairperson" only allowed those opposing the motion to speak - those supporting the motion were not allowed to put their arguments forward, merely allowed to vote blindly and unseen. I much prefer the Wikipedian system where we allow consensus to build through open discussion, and we allow all parties to be heard. And if we feel that all parties have not been heard, or their arguments have not been taken into account, we have a review. That parish meeting is the sort we would have called to review, and would have relisted it for a more balanced discussion. SilkTork (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the others have read the story a bit more carefully. All parties had the opportunity to speak, and it was made a safe place for them to put their views. That's the whole point.

But an abusive chairperson can manipulate the process, and probably any other. Including here at Wikipedia. Have a read of wp:NYRM. It was a disgrace. Andrewa (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, it may have been the reality that all parties had the opportunity to speak, but in the story you relate above only one side was asked and encouraged to speak, and the wording you quote is "so I propose that we now hear only from those six people" [my italics]. If there was a later encouragement for the other side to speak (rather than hold up their cards), you haven't mentioned it. I like the story, but there is a sense that the chairperson was publicly facilitating one side, but not the other, and guiding the parishioners toward voting for that side. SilkTork (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. I agree with Sandestein views here, there is no notable achievement and coverage to consider this Cricketer for a separate page. Sliekid (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus (allow re-nomination), and delete as a second choice. It was a messy discussion, but for certain it is not a "keep". The closing statement was particularly poor, distorting the essence of the arguments: nobody really agreed "that the subject meets inclusion criteria", and nobody advocated deletion on the basis of WP:PAYWALL. On the other hand, the core argument for deletion is IMO only presented in this DRV: while Cricket Archive is a reliable source, it is just a database and does not contribute much towads GNG. No such user (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi No such user. Allow me to clarify my thinking. The first comment in the discussion was "copying from S. Devapriya"; so I took a look at it. That discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Devapriya) was similar, and had comments such as "it's possible he passes WP:GNG in offline sources, but right now it's referenced only to Cricket Archive" and "The sole citation is behind a paywall and makes WP:VERIFY impossible" - these comments were echoed in this AfD (by some of the same users) with the wording "functionally unsourced possible BLP (only link is to Cricket Archive.)" Functional means that something is usable. Other than being behind a paywall, the source was functional enough to provide the information needed to satisfy the relevant SNG - the only part of that source which was not functional, as had been brought up in S. Devapriya, was that the source was behind a paywall. There are arguments in this DRV that Cricket Archive is not an acceptable source because it presents the information in a statistical manner rather than in prose; but, as far as I am aware, our guidelines and policies do not disallow a reliable source because the information is not presented in prose - indeed, WP:RS says we can also use "audio, video, and multimedia materials". The only interpretation that I could see, given the information before me, was that the objection to Cricket Archive was that it is an online source behind a paywall, so cannot be easily accessed. And considering the matter again now, I'm not seeing any other viable reading of the phrase "functionally unsourced".

As regards my closing statement that "It is not disputed that the subject meets inclusion criteria". The first !vote comment is: "Keep: Has played 5 FC matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC." The following two !vote comments do not challenge or dispute this, basing their arguments on the lack of functionality of the source. Therefore, it is not disputed in the discussion that the subject meets the criteria. The delete arguments rely entirely on the assertion that the article lacks sourcing - but this is negated by the existence of the source (which is not disputed as the two delete !votes mention it). If you'd like me to respond further, please give me a ping. SilkTork (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that there's no available sourcing to pass GNG, not that the article is unsourced. I've also mentioned above that "functionally unsourced" has absolutely nothing to do with the paywall, and should be read as "the only source in the article isn't an acceptable source for notability purposes." Furthermore, the inclusion criteria are not relevant here: per WP:NSPORT, sports bios have to meet GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer. I understand your points. If I may give you my thinking. Relevant comments for sourcing and for meeting inclusion had been brought up, so I was looking at two aspects - 1) is the article sourced (meets GNG), as that was the nominator's concern, and 2) does the article meet the subject specific inclusion criteria, as that was a claim made by the keep comment. I was satisfied that the subject specific criteria had been met according to the argument in front of me as that claim had not been refuted. And I was satisfied that GNG had been met because there was a source in the article which had been used to create the article. However there were two comments supporting the nominator's view that GNG had not been met because the source was not functional. Given the argument before me, and the related S. Devapriya argument, the not functional argument appeared to be based on inaccessibility. As that was not a valid argument by policy, I had to discount it. Your later argument that the not functional comments related to something else is certainly grounds for renominating the article for AfD and presenting those arguments more clearly, but not grounds for overturning this AfD because your later argument was not clearly presented in this AfD (the "functionally unsourced" argument is a rare one, and appears to be used in relation to Cricket Archive, where at least once the parallel argument of "behind a paywall" had been used). Academically (while I don't think it is relevant to this DRV because it wasn't brought up in the disputed AFD, it is worth discussing it briefly as you have brought it up here) I don't feel that the argument that a statistical source is not a valid source is a workable one because I'm not convinced that our policies and guidelines support that view - though, of course, I could be persuaded if diffs and evidence were brought forward. So, as far as I could see the article was functionally sourced AND met subject specific inclusion criteria. So, to emphasis, a) I was not looking JUST at the inclusion criteria, and b) that the article had a functional source meant that it did meet both GNG and NSPORT. SilkTork (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I appreciate your response directly to me. In terms of the argument that statistical sources aren't valid, WP:SPORTCRIT says: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. and Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. I'm not entirely sure what the second sentence is supposed to mean, but the first clearly applies to Cricket Archive (the distinction here being made between say a sports database which lists everyone who played, which is what Cricket Archive is, and a sports database with higher inclusion standards, such as a database of only hall-of-famers - most sports databases will fall in the former category.) Put differently, the source is good enough to show WP:V for the purposes of a SNG, but not good enough as a stand-alone source to demonstrate GNG when the presumption of SNG notability gets challenged. I hope that is helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, your interpretation (explanation?) of the wording sounds reasonable to me, and if this article was relisted at AfD, and that argument used, I would assume the outcome would be consensus to delete. Academically (again, not related to this DRV, but discussing here as the matter has been raised), I would suggest rewording the guideline slightly to make the intention clearer. Or perhaps rewording to discount all databases, as I'm unclear on the distinction between the sports databases: which are regarded as worthwhile and which are not. My reading of the guideline is that it was discounting poor quality and/or non-selective databases, and that CricketArchive was not poor quality as it was curated by the respected Philip Bailey, and it was selective as it includes only information on first class cricketers, the same as would qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you're saying that such a respected cricket database which has the same inclusion criteria as Wikipedia is not allowed, then I can't see what database would be allowed. It seems to make sense to me to clearly disallow all databases. If there is a database which includes only hall-of-famers, there would be other sources to support notability, so just make it simple and clear for everyone - Databases can be used to support information in an article, but not to support notability. (Incidentally and irrelevant for this discussion, but just out of interest, on my browser the information on CricketArchive was (still is) briefly visible before changing to a subscribe page, and that page can be captured and stored. It contains exactly the same information as this page: [4]. There is a little more on T. Silva here: [5] where it indicates he was the opening batsman, but was bowled out after three runs. There is other information about T. Silva available, such as in The Janashakthi Book of Sri Lanka Cricket, 1832-1996. where it says that in Nov 1991 he was caught by H. Wickremaratne for only 1 run. I would, however, broadly agree that there is so little in depth information available on him that I would !vote to delete.) SilkTork (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I'm afraid you've committed a common fallacy of conflating WP:N and WP:V. On AfDs we weigh WP:N which gauges "why should the world care about what this person has done", as measured by the amount of their presence in media (and those are typically WP:SECONDARY), and that's what GNG is about. Once we establish that the person is worth noting, only then WP:V comes into play, and then various WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources are all fair game, depending on the statements they support. But here, the AfD argument was that the subject fails GNG, i.e. it does not pass the bar of the world caring about them, not that the information presented was false or doubtful. By those criteria, Cricket Database is mainly a primary source: it be used to verify facts (the subject has played 5 cricket games at a certain level), but does not explain how that achievement is worth of anyone's attention some years later. No such user (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi No such user. I'd be interested to hear what gives you the impression that I conflated WP:N and WP:V. In my close I discussed both aspects - the inclusion criteria ("the subject meets inclusion criteria" "because they have played five first class cricket matches") and the sourcing ("there is a reliable source which provides this information. The argument for deletion is that the source requires payment. However, our verification policy says..."). They are related of course, in that we need sources to evidence that a subject meets the inclusion criteria (as well as sources to provide enough factual information to build an article). Sometimes (not ideally, but it is not disallowed by policy) one source will provide all the information - evidence of meeting inclusion criteria and enough information to build an article; and that is what I saw in this AfD.

In your last sentence, when you say "Cricket Database is mainly a primary source", do you mean to say "is mainly a tertiary source"? (I'm assuming that "Cricket Database" means either "CricketArchive" or "a cricket database", or possibly a conflation of the two). SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: 1) But "having played five first class cricked matches" is not an universally agreed inclusion criterion; even WP:NCRIC specifies that A cricket figure is presumed notable; WP:GNG is regarded the golden standard, and this subject seems to fail it.
2) The argument for deletion is that the source requires payment. – You keep repeating that, but it wasn't an argument put forward this AfD; it was argued by Blue Riband in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Devapriya, who did not participate here. Here, the two posters used the phrase functionally unsourced, which they clarified above as only source in the article doesn't count towards notability. I understand that it was unclear at the time of AfD closure, but on the other hand nothing seems to suggest your interpretation.
3) Yes, I meant "CricketArchive", which is a database of cricket results; whoever has played in a match above a certain level will be recorded there, so we can verify they exist (and in my view those records make it WP:PRIMARY). No other source has been presented to even scratch the surface GNG. No such user (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that No such user. As I say above to SportingFlyer, I understand the arguments made in this DRV regarding the status of CricketArchive as a source not appropriate for assessing notability. My argument is that through the points made in this DRV, I understand the rationale behind the desire to delete the T. Silva article and agree with them; but those arguments were not made clear in the AfD, nor in the specialist notability guideline, so I couldn't close that AfD as delete. My suggestion is that the article is resubmitted to AfD, where, with clear arguments, the article is highly likely to be deleted. Also, as the guidance upon which the AfD delete votes relied is still unclear, my suggestion is that the wording should unambiguously disallow all database sites - as currently written they appear to allow selective database sites, which is what CricketArchive is. SilkTork (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klarisse de Guzman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A user deleted the page because he/she thought it was an article for deletion. The 2017 Klarisse de Guzman article was considered for deletion but this current version is totally new (made February 2021) and is independently written from the 2017 version. Klarisse de Guzman also passed more than one of the notability criteria for musicians/singers. Sbhpiamonte (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear to me that the most recent version of the article has been deleted. It appears to have been redirected and protected, which may seem to have the same effect, but isn't the same process. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been unprotected and the redirect undone by the protecting admin. I'm not seeing any slam-dunk sources and given the last AfD and what seems like a lack of new sources that aren't about the TV show, I sent it to AfD. Suggest we close this here and let AfD take over. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as moot AfD1 was redirected, user created an entirely new article, there was an edit war over the redirect, now at AfD. Probably didn't need to edit war over the redirect, but there's nothing to review here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. No deletion has occurred. Discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klarisse de Guzman (2nd nomination). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Chechik (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The nominator of the AFD disputes the validity of my closure, because I participated in its discussion. Per, WP:IAR and WP:RELIST, I closed the discussion because it had a WP:SNOWball's chance of it being closed otherwise. The AFD is a month old, re-listed numerous times, with the final one (with the re-lister stating it was likely going to be closed as non-consensus) not only producing nothing to build a deletion consensus, but being drawn out over its allotted 7 days. I also have concerns over the nominator's display of incivility during the discussion. --w^{L<speak·check>} 10:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked wikileon to undo this outrageously out of process NC close from an involved keep voter but he refused citing IAR. Instead he choses to cast aspertions in my direction instead of accepting the challenge. This is the conversation Maybe an uninvolved admin could just undo this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Overturn: I still think this was valid WP:IAR based on WP:RELIST and WP:SNOW, but I realized doing this is more WP:BUREAUcratic than putting the work into reverting the closure. --w^{L<speak·check>} 09:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Endorse: Would the AfD be closed differently if I weren't the one to close it? It was live for exactly a month, extended three times with the last one leaning toward NC, and the only opposing argument was you violating WP:CIV by comparing the article to "other shit articles" and ignoring the sources which don't focus on the awards, the consequences of allowing an AFD to be relisted repeatedly. Yes, the closure was out of process, but there's no chance it would have ended differently, which makes the task of undoing it a bureaucratic waste of energy that IAR was created to address. Was my closure justified? That's for this DRV to decide. --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there would be much of a complaint if they hadn't posted in the discussion immediately before closing it. This discussion will still probably be closed as no consensus, but someone who !voted should not have closed it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just lost a long comment after an edit conflict. Basic theme: Closer shouldn't have closed. I'd urge someone else to do so.

Looking at the specific case: Numbers lean toward keep or NC. Arguments rely on Jezebel article (which appears to be great) and QC India article, which appears to likely not count (summary of a reddit AMA with no byline). Looking at the article and searching we see some notable main-stream interviews (Howard Stern) and a few paragraphs in LA Weekly as well as some more questionable sources such as The Sun (an entire article) and a lot of mentions/references in the DailyDot. But the big issue is the awards--most of the discussion focused on that. She's won one of the largest in the porn field and been nominated for the same a bunch of times. The AfD/DRV nom has indicated those don't count, but I can't find any consensus external to the AfD on that (I recall there being massive discussions on the topic, but I don't recall a decision to discard the best of these). All told, I'd say NC is the right outcome if there is a consensus to ignore *all* porn awards, otherwise we have a keep. Hobit (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate and trout Citing WP:IAR after a BADNAC? WikiLeon's eating trout for dinner every night this week. Closer should not have closed after voting, they shouldn't have closed had they not voted, and they definitely shouldn't referenced WP:IAR after being called out about it. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with all but one part. Why shouldn't they have closed after not voting? Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NACD Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. I consider this close. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the "admin stats" on their page and long time in service, I'd assumed they were an admin. Tis my day for making mistakes. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was an admin. --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I'm another ex-admin who wouldn't have closed it either--no upside to you doing it, and this DRV was an almost inevitable result. Vacate and reclose won't change anything, but we didn't need it closed fast, and we didn't need this DRV either. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist - As the other editors say, this should have been left to an admin. I would probably weakly endorse a No Consensus close or a Keep close by an uninvolved non-admin, although an admin close would be better. But it wasn't necessary to ignore the rules. What was the rush? Is there any real difference between closing it as No Consensus and leaving it unclosed to wait for a closer? If you really really think that it needs to be closed, can't you list it at WP:ANRFC? Of course, that won't close it immediately, but neither does a BADNAC that gets appealed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Trout - I don't care whether the No Consensus is upheld, or if it's vacated so somebody else can close as No Consensus. IAR isn't license to ignore rules just because you don't like them, and there clearly was no urgency in closing the AFD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn and a hover of trout. You never, ever, ever close a debate you participated in, unless you're closing it against your own view and the debate is otherwise unanimous. That's non-negotiable. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I voted "keep", and the closed it as "no-consensus" (a different view because of the effects on whether or not the article gets relisted). --w^{L<speak·check>} 01:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No consensus isn't against your own view if your own view is "keep", because both have the same effective outcome. Fix your mistake rather than doubling-down on it. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist The nominator may not close, except to withdraw the AfD if nobody agrees with them (and even then I say I'm withdrawing it and let someone else do the actual close) . A person joining in the discussion may not close-- even its unanimous., a neutral closer might choose to continue the discussion. . I'm not big on following procedure exactly when the result is otherwise clear, but this is one the basic rules to prevent obvious unfairness. It's one of the places where we need to draw a firm boundary. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]