Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April

Eugeniusz Olszyna (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deletion criteria applied to an overly expanded article that addressed ALL the points raised in the initial deletion discussion (which was very marginal anyway. If the nominator disagreed then should have gone to AfD as a 2nd nomination. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Any admin please temp restore for comparison between AfD deleted and G4 deleted versions, please. Abcmaxx, understand that recreating an AfD deleted article so soon after closure can appear to be bad faith or gaming the system, so more scrutiny--and, well, some people who just don't believe it to be proper in any case--will be directed at the recreated article. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, Jclemens. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse first of all this article was recreated three weeks after the AfD closed. The bar for doing that should be set quite high, as there won't be any changes in circumstances during that time frame. It also wasn't a different article, it was the same article with some added text. That text included four new sources, however three of these were linked in the AfD and the participants didn't find them impressive. The other one is some sort of encyclopedia of Polish football players, and I suspect this would not have been very convincing if it had been brought up in the AfD. If this article had been sent back to AfD for a second time the resulting debate would have been the same, and G4 speedy deletions are supposed to prevent people from having to do that. Hut 8.5 17:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry but I disagree. The AfD was very borderline and most of the deletes were 1 sentence votes without any elaboration. The other point raised was the sources are all about death so I added an addition from a reputable source (not just some sort of encyclopedia of Polish football players - highly subjective statement without any proof, bordering on bias). What's the point of having AfD's if when addressed there's still obstacles thrown. This deserved at least a 2nd AfD and time to improve it. None of the votes said that the person wasn't notable; just wanted better sources; I have done just that. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you've really addressed the AfD. It looks like you took the text of the article which was deleted at AfD and added some sources which the AfD thought weren't evidence of notability. The AfD wasn't particularly borderline, and if you wanted to dispute the result then recreating the article isn't the way to go. Hut 8.5 20:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was absolutely borderline. Writing "yep I agree" isn't a compelling argument to delete, the only discussion about sources was from 1 editor who was neutral and the keeps, with 1 exception who justified his vote. Also the sources are absolutely fine and its absolutely not true that they were dismissed. Also the source I added from 2003 is absolutely fine and establishes notability. I'm not sure how many sources you expect from a person who lived in the pre-internet PRL-era; the very fact I managed to find any sources at all is nothing short of a miracle. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also my point was not that it was AfD-ed and deleted; although probably could have easily challenged that. The point was it was speedily deleted after the article was re-created much improved. It wasn't the best article around but it still deserved a 2nd AfD at least if people felt 7x WP:RS for such a short article is not enough. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the G4, having compared the two versions of the article. I am not providing an opinion on whether the restored article should be kept at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the above comments make it clear that the recreation was not a genuine attempt to address the problems identified in the AfD, but instead to dispute the applicability of those problems, for which recreation is the wrong tool. Also per Hut 8.5 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 did not apply. While technically one source is sufficient, expanding from three to seven sources is an entirely expanded article. I haven't seen an argument that the sources weren't reliable, but that they were discussed in the AfD. Had the author brought the close here for overturning, someone would have said to go recreate it, and someone else would have suggested the discussion be closed as relitigating the AfD. Fundamentally G4 excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version as this recently deleted article is not, so neither current nor future endorses of the G4 are policy based, and should be disregarded by the closing admin.

Now, having said that, can this be taken to AfD? Sure. Can the editor in question be taken to ANI? Sure, although I think that would be ABF'ing. But the article in question has apparently been substantially improved, and that's kinda the point of G4: If you make it better, you earn a new run at AfD. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy and send to AFD if someone is so inclined. This version is substantially different that the G4 deletion does not apply. Frank Anchor 12:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and send to AfD. This should be speedily done on a reasonable request. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The entire point of G4 is to get consensus of deletion discussions to stick and not be subject to supposedly reasonable requests to second-guess it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the point of G4 is to make a better encyclopedia. Even if the revised article is eventually deleted, the "add more sources and recreate it" bit may seem like a waste of time, but a good-faith effort is better than what was deleted even if it, too, is eventually found deletion-worthy. G4 could say, but doesn't, that any new article that doesn't solve the problem that led to its most recent deletion could be speedily deleted. Why doesn't it? Messy though it may be, I believe that evolutions like this are reasonable outgrowths of G4 as worded. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Pppery, true, and yes it was deleted only a month ago, but a ten year old account with 20000+ edits claims “addressed ALL the points raised in the initial deletion discussion”, then take it to AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course the creator will believe that their recreation has addressed the concerns of the AfD, because if they did they wouldn't have recreated it. That means nothing. The AfD itself has proven that Abcmaxx's standards for notability are strongly out-of-touch, so should not be so blindly trusted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unbelievably harsh on me, very WP:ABF. I could just as easily say that this discussion shows that your standards of notability are so absurdly high and out-of-touch, so should not be so blindly trusted either, as well as misunderstanding what G4 is for on top of that, as pointed out by others. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ... But nor should they be blindly mis-trusted either, hence a return to AfD. Notability standards are very subjective, and each and every notability standard, and the entire concept of notability, remains "just a guideline" for just such a reason. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, G4 did not apply. I had seen this at WP:Requests for undeletion#Eugeniusz Olszyna and had waited to see if the deleter had an explanation. Jay 💬 07:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfU is now archived at WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 385#Eugeniusz Olszyna. Jay 💬 04:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4 deletion of a page that was not substantially identical to the deleted version. Anyone can start an AfD.—Alalch E. 06:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clear attempt at an end-run around AFD consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Honest question: which is more important, following consensus or achieving the most encyclopedic outcome? Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher W. Shaw (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per WP:DRVPURPOSE#5 #3 - procedural error in closing the discussion 8 hours early. As the AfD nom, I wanted to respond to the questions and comments on my Saturday morning, but by then the AfD was closed. I requested the closer to reopen it so I can respond, however he said he was not inclined to, and suggested DRV as one of the options. Note that this is not to argue a technicaly (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early, WP:DRVPURPOSE(NOT)#6) since 8 hours early is a significant time period. I understand the close stated WP:SNOW, which is an essay, and I would not like to get into how good or bad an early close is, as opposed to denying someone who wanted to respond to the discussion before its scheduled close. Jay 💬 16:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 in error. I have struck it off and quoted WP:DRVPURPOSE#5. Jay 💬 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (Involved editor) - What exactly is the purpose of this DRV? Do you actually expect those 8 hours to make a difference in regards to the outcome of an AfD that was entirely Keep votes? SNOW closes are common practice and are routinely done before the full AfD time, often much, much before in other cases. The close was done 5 days after the last person commented in the AfD. You had plenty of time to respond and you didn't. Silverseren^C 19:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This DRV is not to overturn the outcome, but to complete the discussion which was prematurely closed. Jay 💬 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You had 5+ days to respond to anyone in the discussion and you did not. Were you seriously going to respond only in the last 8 hours that were left? I don't find that a credible claim at all. Silverseren^C 15:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, per my DRV request statement. There is no stipulation that one respond in the first 5+ days, or otherwise is seen as not interested. See my long comment on time below. Jay 💬 17:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (Involved) While I think this is process wonkery, it's an NAC and it can be overturned by anyone. I'd do it, except I participated in the discussion albeit in opposing POV to the nom. We do not need seven days to dispute eight hours. Star Mississippi 23:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (SNOW keep). It was SNOW keep. The deletion rationale was refuted. I cannot believe that you have a response ready that was going to turn the prior participants back to “delete”. A relist request is not justified by someone having a response to give. If you think the article should be deleted, follow the advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not know if I can change the outcome, and that is not the purpose of this DRV. I did not request for a relist either. Jay 💬 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If no response would change the outcome, then WP:SNOW applies and the AfD should be stopped. Wrapping up loose ends of discussion points in a forgone AfD is a waste of time. Futile discussions should be closed. They are closed early to prevent further time wasting with futile point making. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Futile discussions, such as this one, should be closed early. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a DRV and one suggested course of action post a close objection. I don't see it as pointless. Alternately, if not the DRV, you can suggest the course of actions that should have happened. Jay 💬 17:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The course of action that should have happened is very simple: you should have accepted the close. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "This DRV is not about changing the outcome" What's the point, then? If the outcome doesn't change, there's no reason to re-open the discussion. --Jayron32 13:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, with Salmo trutta. A closing eight hours early is a technicality when the consensus is overwhelming, which is one of the reasons why snow closure is widely accepted, and probably should be upgraded. Silver seren is correct that there is nothing to be gained by this DRV except annoying people. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned, I do not want to get into how good or bad SNOW is. I don't see why the SNOW should continued to be justified when there was a good faith objection to the SNOW close. Again, I didn't ask for the AfD to be re-opened to wait for new participation or to buy time, but to complete the AfD in its scheduled course. Jay 💬 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please don't reopen the AFD unless that is the consensus of this DRV. It may be more fun to let this DRV run for seven days so that someone can ridicule the appellant than just having a boring reclose. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved). I'm normally a process stickler, but there was clearly a consensus to keep there and it was equally clear that that consensus would not disappear in a few hours. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This DRV is not about the consensus. Jay 💬 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and trout. Bringing this to DRV was absurd. As an admin, I have the power to take over the close, but I'm not going to do that because it would send the wrong message that the extant WP:NAC can't stand on its own and needs somebody to come in and prop it up. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I made no mention of NAC. In fact I made it clear at the closer talk that this is NOT a BADNAC, when the closer had that apprehension. Jay 💬 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse much per Pppery I'm plenty of a process wonk and agree that early closes are normally a bad idea for an NAC, but that was a per se valid SNOW close, even though we usually advise against them in AfDs to forestall just this sort of pointless appeal. Now, having been educated by the AfD that went against your rationale, please go demonstrate that you're a collaborative encyclopedia-builder by improving the article (e.g., by incorporating more reviews or other material discussed in the AfD) so that the next person won't make your mistake. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse purpose#5 is "if there were SUBSTANTIAL procedural errors in the deletion discussion"... this seems to fail the substantial part, and seems to be a waste of time, with no real argument put forward as to how the extra few hours would materially have changed the outcome. SNOW is pretty well established, can it be misused? Sure. Was it here? Doesn't appear that way and nothing has been put forward to suggest it was. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This DRV is not about changing the outcome, nor do I think the procedural error clause is about changing the outcome. This is my first DRV (I think), and it was not my first option either. I felt my request at the closer talk was simple and straightforward, but I exhausted any less time consuming options at that discussion. Jay 💬 10:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So what do you think DRV is about? What would be the point of a process to spend time discussing another discussion if the challenge wasn't about the actual original outcome? I'd be interested in understanding how closing early could be substantial if the outcome isn't impacted in any way by it --81.100.164.154 (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This DRV is about the premature close which left the discussion incomplete before the scheduled close time. Discussions are listed for a minimum 7 days for a reason. Jay 💬 10:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So how is that a substantial error? Why do you think for the goal of the project to build an encyclopaedia adding some comments which wouldn't impact the outcome would be important? You do realise all these processes are just a means to an end of building the encyclopaedia, you seem to be treating the discussion as an end it's own right. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  8 hours is substantial for me, which is why I mentioned in my request that I'm not arguing about a 10 minute technicality. Jay 💬 11:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are missing my point. The point of the discussion is to determine if we keep or delete the article - in order to further the end of building an NPOV encyclopaedia. If something doesn't impact the outcome of that discussion, then it cannot be substantial i.e. the purpose of the discussion is not to have a good chat, or let everyone post their comments. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per all above and per WP:NOTBURO. Frank Anchor 15:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are now more people endorsing the AfD close unanimously than there were in the original AfD. In addition to the above recommendation for WP:NOTBURO, WP:1AM is also good reading. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think the early close was a very good idea, as leaving it open another 8 hours would not have had any impact on anything and would have removed the need to rely on WP:SNOW. However the debate was clearly going to end in the article being kept and we haven't seen any new knockdown argument presented, so I don't think it should be relisting it. Hut 8.5 17:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bruxton FWIW, I agree with Hut that the early close was not the best move. Not because it resulted in the wrong outcome, but because it opened the door to this kind of silliness. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Confused if This DRV is not about changing the outcome, nor do I think the procedural error clause is about changing the outcome. @Jay:, why are we here? What are you seeking to accomplish at the end of seven days? No snark, honest question. Star Mississippi 19:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The obvious supplementary question to that, which nobody else seems to want to ask, is why do we put up with administrators who behave in such a silly way? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am looking to revert the close. Jay 💬 17:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:GOODNAC; I don't see the "silliness" being a result of an 8 hour early SNOW closure, the silliness could just as easily stem from someone claiming a need to do exactly the same thing 30 minutes after the due time. As an alternative, the nominee can leave a message on the article's talk page. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I can, and I would have if the close was done and I was late. But since the close was before time, I rather do it at the AfD itself. Jay 💬 17:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Long comment on time management: We are volunteers and Wikipedia is not our life. I do make daily edits - mechanical actions, procedural changes, reverting vandalism, watching pages (I have 4000+), responding to one-off questions and comments, participating in discussions, edits that take not more than 2 or 3 minutes on each page, etc. Sometimes there are edits take research of 30 minutes to an hour. Then there are activities where you go back and re-evaluate, given multiple inputs or comments from several people, such as responding to multiple people on a nomination. While none of us can stipulate who spends what time and day on what kind of edits, I keep my weekends on activities that take time and space.

For scheduled discussions that Wikipedia has fairly given 7 days, it ensures everyone gets their say, regardless of their preference of weekdays or weekends. (I started this DRV on a Saturday and responded to most on a Sunday, but now that I have started it, I don't have the luxury of a weekend!) While I don't see what benefit a SNOW keep 8 hours ahead of time accomplishes (we are not dealing with AFD backlogs here, and there is no race to close, and I hope there is no dearth of closers at AfD, although I know we have a month's backlog at RfD), I felt it conflicts with the wisdom of the 7 day timeline, given the WP:Snowball clause#The snowball test. Jay 💬 17:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Snowball clause#The snowball test only kicks in if a reasonable objection has been raised. It has not. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is the premature close. Jay 💬 18:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an objection, but not a reasonable objection. I thought one of the things we prized in admins was the ability to "read the room". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, procedural error seems minor and unlikely to have changed the result. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse We're really arguing about 8 hours? Out of a week? This wasn't going to be closed any other way. --Jayron32 13:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments :
  • • The appellant says that this DRV is not about changing the outcome, and it is not about the consensus. Then what is it about? Is it about process for the sake of process, rather than about process to improve the encyclopedia?
    • Is the appellant saying that all early snow clauses are a bad idea, or only that this early snow close was a bad idea? If the latter, why?
    • How does the appellant think that any result of this DRV will improve the encyclopedia?
    • Speedy Keep is a guideline and not only an essay. It states:

      The "snowball clause" is a valid criterion for an early close, and is not subject to any of the other criteria necessary for a speedy keep, but it is not a speedy keep criterion itself.

      So there is a guideline that authorizes an early close when the outcome is known.
    • What is this DRV about, other than objecting to an essay that has the informal status of a guideline?
    • What outcome does the appellant want for this DRV? Why?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the questions. Replies:

1. It is about correcting a substantial procedural error (PURPOSE#5).

2. WP:SK#NOT allows for an early SNOW close, but also says SNOW keep is not a SPEEDY keep. It also says to take additional care for snow keeps. I feel there should be a proper application of mind for a snow keep. Post-close objections have to be considered, especially in my case since I was the nom of the AfD, there were questions posed to me, and the early close prevented response. If we are to continue to have the SNOW is not SPEEDY debate, we need to decide how early cannot be considered early. Is it 16 hours, 24, 3 days? Where do we draw the line?

3. See above point. Either get rid of the SNOW can be early clause, or add sufficient pointers that do not have to be resolved at case-by-case DRVs. Again, prevent drama at DRV by simpler solutions as could have been achieved by the post-close discussion at the closers page.

4. I was referring to SNOW which is an essay, and which was used for the close.

5. Point 1. Error in close. If the opinion is that an 8 hours advance close is not a substantial procedural error, we must understand that enwiki is being edited in all timezones. All the time. While I'm yet to get an answer to what did closing the AfD 8 hours in advance achieve, there should be no reason not to believe that the 8 hours someone is asleep could be the most active 8 hours of editors in other parts of the world. Let us not undermine 8 hours. We may not have to draw a line here because PURPOSE(NOT)#6 spells out technical silliness such as 10 minutes.

6. Revert the close. Go back to how the AfD was, let it run its course, and let another closer or the same closer get to decide. Get the close its "closure"! Unless DRV is about outcome all the time, in which case I'm open to be educated, and not visit DRV again except for change of outcome.

Jay 💬 18:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

from reading your replies here @Jay I think this conversation is better suited to one of the deletion discussion pages, maybe WT:AFD? We're not going to change the permissible window of an early close within this DRV or any individual discussion. SInce it's clear the outcome isn't going to change even if we re-open the AfD, I really suggest closing this and having the necessary discussion elsewhere since that will need to happen anyway. Star Mississippi 02:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close and let's wrap this up, please. We're just going around in circles here with the nominator repeating their same rationale for questioning the DRV, and then being told WP:NOTBURO, and then rinsing and repeating. Nothing is going to change here, and a DRV is not the place to discuss changes in procedure. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If User:WaltCip is asking for an early close, I strongly disagree. Since we are here because an early close of the AFD has been challenged, it is important, at least for appearance, to let his run for the full seven days. If User:WaltCip is saying that we have already had enough discussion, and should just wait two days for the close, I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'm not talking about an early close; I just don't think there's anything further to gain by further belaboring of the points being made. I get where Jay is coming from, but the consensus at this point seems pretty steadfast. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with dependent personality disorder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reasons given by the nominator for deleting this page were problematic for two reasons. First is the claim that "this category consists of indicted criminal defendants whose legal teams claimed (usually unsuccessfully) that their clients had this disorder;" this may be true in some cases, but this is not a problem with the category itself, just certain articles. The proper solution would be to address this on the talk pages of these articles, not to delete the category. Second, the claim that "news outlets are repeating legal claims that were disputed at trial" applies to all articles in the category "without a single exception" is incorrect, as there are numerous instances in which the diagnosis was accepted by the court as a mitigating factor; if the courts accept the diagnosis, then I think Wikipedia should as well. The Wikipedia policies cited by the nominator (WP:RS and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT) were irrelevant and inaccurate, as all or most of the articles that could be included in this category cite a reliable source confirming it, and it is not subjective. Furthermore, there was only one vote to delete the category, which simply agreed with the nominator. 73.202.141.31 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - It isn't clear what the appellant is asking instead of deleting the category. The appellant says that there was only one vote to delete the category. Yes. Where are the votes to keep the category? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm asking that the category be restored or relisted/listed for discussion; I'm not sure what the standard procedure would be in this case. I believe a discussion is needed because all of the nominator's reasons for deleting this category were erroneous and were never challenged. 73.202.141.31 (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The appellant has also requested undeletion of the category at Requests for Undeletion. Is this forum shopping? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  in fairness REFUND did attract a try DRV comment before it got listed here. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I originally posted on requests for undeletion and received a comment suggesting it should be posted here. I'm not sure which one should be used and I can delete/close whichever isn't correct. 73.202.141.31 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Due to the severity of the identified problem it was great to delete the category. Proportionate response and quick fix. I support recreation. —Alalch E. 03:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you clarify what the "identified problem" was? The nominator's apparent main reason for deleting the article was patently false. 73.202.141.31 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was not patently false. Multiple biographies of people who don't provably have this mental disorder were added to this category which is a serious BLP violation. It's very bad to say that someone has a mental disorder when this can not be verified in the usual way. It was very expedient to fix this by deleting the category. It can be recreated and added only to the appropriate articles, of which there are multiple as you say.—Alalch E. 11:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there are certain articles that don't belong in this category; however, that is not what the nominator claimed. The nominator claimed that in every single instance the diagnosis was a ploy used unsuccessfully by criminal defense attorneys and was disputed at trial. This is objectively untrue. 73.202.141.31 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse reasonable close. The argument for deletion wasn't that only some of the articles in the category were cases where the condition was raised as a legal defence, but that almost all the articles in the category were of this type. If that was true then the category is basically a category of people by legal defence. The bar for categorising people by mental disorders is very, very high because of WP:BLP, and it would be reasonable to delete the category just because it tends to include BLP violations, even if some of the entries aren't BLP violations. Hut 8.5 17:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "The argument for deletion wasn't that only some of the articles in the category were cases where the condition was raised as a legal defence, but that almost all the articles in the category were of this type. If that was true then the category is basically a category of people by legal defence."

  It is not true.

  Any category can potentially include BLP violations. If that is justification for deleting a category, then there would be almost no categories that could be applied to living persons. 73.202.141.31 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a straw man argument. If a category tends to include BLP violations, or includes a lot of BLP violations, then that's very different from "it can include BLP violations". Hut 8.5 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

As an uninvolved editor in the AFD, I'm asking the article to be relisted. It was open for 7 days, and I don't see a consensus for the redirect; this discussion seemed split to me. There's no harm in waiting another week or two to make sure there's consensus on this. For context, this is about the same time of year that many such articles are created for the biggest teams in the world, as information about the next season is becoming available. There's no indication that a BEFORE was done, and the justification for the AFD is based on the current state of the article, rather than the existence of suitable sources. A very quick look does find sources discussing the upcoming season, such as at this, this, this, and this. Relisting the AFD would allow for the opportunity to discuss these and other sources. Nfitz (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No valid policy reasons were given to keep the article: there was a mixture of ILIKEIT and false claims of SIGCOV. The sources you have provided all seen to be speculative / unconfirmed rumours, so could not be used to add content to the article either. Spike 'em (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - obviously a valid close. WP:OSE is a weak argument in an AfD, even more so in a DRV.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, my two arguments are lack of consensus, and the existence of available references. Otherwise I was providing context (and I've edited above for clarity) - elsewhere I've asked for opinions on when is too early for such articles, in an attempt to minimize future conflict. Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - and it appears that Nfitz is WP:CANVASSING regarding this DRV over at the Footy project: see this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems to be the current modus operandi of WPFOOTY. See this, which subsequently each got a handful of keep !votes from project members, after which they were speedily NAC closed as "snow keep" after 1 day, effectively preventing non-project editors from giving their opinions. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's most certainly NOT canvassing, as per our own guidelines, User:onel5969 and User:Randykitty! Under WP:CANVASSING, section WP:APPNOTE notes that editors CAN can place a message at "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion". Could Randkyktty and onel5969 expand on they don't think this applies to DRVs? Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm with you on this one: a neutrally-worded notification on a related project seems fine to me. It brought me here and I disagree with you on it! Spike 'em (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I told them it was a bad NAC close, but they obviously disagreed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to DRV them - or perhaps one of them. Can I suggest 2023–24 Serie A or 2023–24 EFL League One as they only had 5 keeps. Also, why doesn't the guideline about notifying projects apply here? There's a lot of criticism of User:Jkudlick early closes, so we should ping them. Nfitz (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse redirection. Participants noted the article can be created in the future whenever it gains SIRS SIGCOV and that there is zero reason to host it beforehand. Those advocating to keep did not rebut this argument with anything remotely policy-based. JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - A relist would have been even better, but redirect was a valid close. We are only deciding whether the close was valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• With AfD participation as low as it is, we can't keep relisting low-participation discussions -- because that spreads our limited resources of editor attention even wider on the next week. Wherever possible AfDs should be closed, for efficiency reasons. It was possible to close this, and the close reflected what editors said in the discussion, so I would endorse.—S Marshall T/C 08:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. We don't normally relist unless there's very low participation (<2-3 people) or new information has come through late in the day. Relisting isn't just spinning the wheel in the hope something will change. There was a clear enough consensus and the article can be spun out when the season actually begins. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as fair close. GiantSnowman 21:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A reasonable close based on the discussion. We will have an article on this subject by September once the fixtures start to roll in trades happen --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved but I have voted "keep" in similar AFD's). There was at least some consensus to close as redirect. A relist would have been a valid choice by the closer as well. This whole topic will be moot by June at the latest anyway as there will be more info regarding the next Premier League season by that time and a page will be re-created. Frank Anchor 11:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I do have to question the point of all this. Everybody is agreed that it will be fine to have this article when the season starts, which is just over three months from now. There will probably be coverage of the season before it starts, so there's quite a bit of discussion and effort just to ensure that this title stays a redirect for at most three months. And an AfD which ended in a Redirect closure will probably get in the way of anybody trying to recreate the article in the future. Is this really a good use of everyone's time? Hut 8.5 17:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question, User:Hut 8.5. And the closer we get to the start of the season, the more likely the article would pass AFD. In fact a week after this AFD, the same editor proposed the same thing for a lower ranked team, and it was a unaminous keep - see WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 A.C. Milan season! So is there a fundamental difference between Milan and Tottenham (I hope those days are over!)? Or have we now passed the line where such articles would be kept; we certainly are past the time such articles are normally created. The article was maybe 6 weeks early, at most. And for this, we have a big series of AFDs for very large teams and leagues, that would notable weeks later? It's a very black-and-white view of the guidelines - almost as if it was an attempt to apply Wikipedia rules that don't exist. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's always a question of where you draw the line. If it was 4 months would that change it, or 5 or 6 etc. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment right above suggests that the line has already passed. At the latest, it would be at the end of the season, as UEFA competition spots are confirmed on May 28th - or sooner. Also the status of player and coach contracts are quickly announced - in about 4 weeks time. The article was maybe 6 weeks early, at most? Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And all this time wasting would have been unnecessary if people wouldn't jump the gun. What's the problem with having a little patience and creating this kind of articles as a draft, moving them to mainspace only once sufficient sourcing actually is available? The problem is not that articles like this are taken to AfD (and then DRV), but prematurely creating unsourced insufficiently sourced stuff. --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's factually incorrect - the article was sourced. It cited four sources and there are obviously more available. The issue in the AfD was whether the topic had enough sourcing to pass the GNG. Whether the project has an article which doesn't meet the GNG for maybe a month or two is simply not a big deal. The GNG is a guideline, after all. Hut 8.5 12:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed "unsourced" => "insufficiently sourced". Lingering in Draft space for maybe a month or two is simply not a big deal either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Mwiqdoh might have jumped the gun a bit on doing the last redirect (and DID jumped the gun originally when they moved the article to mainspace in February); they also spent 6 weeks with the article in their Sandbox rather than in draft-space. But what's wrong with a little patience in mid-April and not AFDing it! Meanwhile I'm now aware that User:Skyblueshaun is working on a version in draft at Draft:2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season - which surely should be moved over the redirect after this AFD is over. I'm not sure why no one ever tried to move the main-space article to Draft rather than blanking and redirecting. And I'm not sure why the closer didn't move it to draft. And perhaps this process would have moved faster if I hadn't DRVed it - though with the SNOW keeps at WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Serie A, WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 EFL League One and four WP:Articles_for_deletion/2023_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup_Group_A articles, not to mention the unanimous keep at the directly comparable WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 A.C. Milan season and the apparent lack of consensus WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, I don't know why the most pragmatic solution wasn't to quickly relist the discussion - which had no relists. Sure, maybe it WAS "legally" an okay close. But it wasn't a pragmatic one. Nfitz (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The closer chose one policy argument over another policy argument and the closing rationale reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE. I am asking that the closure be overturned to either keep or no consensus to respect our policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Aoidh had a particularly relevant rationale for keeping. On a straight ivote it was 13 editors favored Keep and 6 editors + the nominator favored deletion. See also relevant conversation with closer where the closer only highlighted the keep rationales that were weak. Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer: As I explained in my close and I will re-explain here, I used the "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" as the meter stick. The highest-quality arguments that were rooted in policy came from deletes. All of them stemming from NOTCHANGELOG. Many keeps, on the other hand, were rooted in ITSUSEFUL, LIKEIT, what about foo / per other AfD, or INTERESTING. Because of that, they were given no weight in my close. I also explained why I did not find the expansive reading of NOTCHANGELOG by Aoidh, which effectively eats the policy, to be persuasive. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I will note that, as mentioned above, I took part in the AfD and argued for keeping the article, whereas User:Guerillero's reading of the consensus was for the deletion of the article. However, their reasoning for how they determined consensus is reasonable and there is nothing problematic about the close. I still think WP:NOTCHANGELOG should be a surmountable issue but they're not wrong in how they weighed a strict reading of it. I think it should have been kept but I respect that consensus went the other way, and the close was a reasonable one. - Aoidh (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist also feel like WP:SUPERVOTE was used especally when compared to the WP:CONSENSUS for IOS version history was for Keep Popeter45 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment i already listed this page for DRV yesterday Popeter45 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Popeter45: This one should probably be procedurally closed then since there's no reason to have two open AfDs and the prior one was opened first, but since I commented above I'll let someone else be the one to do that. This one was likely created because the review notice wasn't placed on the AfD for your listing, which means editors would not have known about it when looking at the AfD itself. - Aoidh (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  yea my fault there, long time wiki editior but first time partaking in AfD and DRV so prob missed some stuff Popeter45 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. The close was a supervote and there clearly was not consensus to delete. While the keep side had a strong numerical majority, the delete side had a slightly better and more policy-based argument, specifically citing WP:NOTCHANGELOG.The biggest argument on the keep side cited WP:SURMOUNTABLE, reasonably noting that cleaning up the article can address the NOTCHANGELOG issues. I do not think a relist is necessary due to the high attendance of the AFD. Frank Anchor 18:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

iOS version history (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Relist

• Reason : the deletion discussion was started at 00:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) and it was closed too early by a nom-admin user at 02:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) their decision to close was based on the previous article for deletion discussion that from 12 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1keyhole (talk • contribs) 02:43, April 26, 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse overwhelming support for keep (12 keep votes with some basis in policy/guidelines and no support for deletion outside the nom). This is very reasonable for an early non-admin close as there is no point in extending the discussion on what is a foregone conclusion (see WP:NOTBURO). Frank Anchor 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak relist after learning more of potential SPAs, canvassing, etc. that may have tainted the discussion. Or better yet, start fresh with a new AFD. I do plan to vote "keep" if the discussion is relisted/restarted, but recent findings both here and at the Chrome DRV have shown that there is a lot more than simple keep and delete votes. Frank Anchor 11:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to endorse per my original argument. There is probably some canvassing and SPAs on this AFD but even so, there is clear consensus to not delete. I also think the nom and "delete" arguments on similar AFDs are too predicated on WP:NOTCHANGELOG, which can be addressed through means other than deletion. Frank Anchor 17:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the Canvassing claim has really been overblown by 2 users from the delete camp seemingly as a way to de-legitimise others views, the lister submited a spurious SP claim againts me and others with zero evidence apart from us all wanting to keep the artical Popeter45 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the AFD closer, User:Skynxnex, Buxton, was not notified of the deletion review. 1keyhole, please remember to notify the closer of a deletion review as required by the DRV instructions. Also it is encouraged to discuss the close first before opening a deletion review. Frank Anchor 03:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Frank Anchor, I del-sorted and !voted in the discussion but did not close it. I believe Bruxton did. Skynxnex (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I must have picked the wrong name by mistake, thanks! Frank Anchor 10:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Maybe the closer didn't really need to mention the previous AfD (which isn't especially relevant to this discussion), but either way, this was a perfectly valid application of WP:SNOW, and I'd respectfully encourage the nominator to respect the crystal-clear consensus and move on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking because I wasn't aware of the additional context here, which does indeed make the SNOW closure somewhat less defensible. I'm not going to make another bolded !vote at the moment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as reasonable closure. To the extent there is a concern about a non-admin closure, I, an admin, am willing to vacate the closure and re-close also as keep. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment oh I forgot to mention two votes came from single purpose accounts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1keyhole (talk • contribs) 09:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Relist The deletion proposal had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.—Alalch E. 10:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC) /I've switched to supporting relisting based on Hut 8.5's comment below (... why 12 keeps to 1 delete over 5 days is clearly a foregone conclusion when 11 keeps to 2 deletes over 5 days for an extremely similar debate plainly wasn't) I was already aware of the other similar AfDs when I endorsed, but believe now that there was in fact a chance of a different outcome. During the remaining two days, it's reasonable to expect that there would have been delete !votes, and it's possible that those !votes could have affected consensus; that's all there is to it.—Alalch E. 16:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)/[reply]
• Endorse. There was no other possible outcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @HJ Mitchell (and @Alalch E.), would you be open to reconsidering given the updated context? I think the fact that this was closed early by a non-admin without acknowledging the canvassing template or the strength of !votes makes the legitimacy of the outcome a lot less clear, and that's without even mentioning the trending deletion endorsement of an AfD with nearly identical metrics and arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay a new AfD would probably be preferable to reopening a tainted one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But a new AfD will be even harder to keep open after two SNOW keeps... Why not just relist it for at least the remaining two days so it can be closed by someone who has the full context of canvassing, SPIs, etc.? JoelleJay (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've changed my !vote after thinking more about it, and I've also considered HJ Mitchell's view that a new AfD is better. I'm not sure how I stand on that option. —Alalch E. 16:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist: given the direction of 1keyhole's other NOTCHANGELOG nominations – namely Firefox version history and Google Chrome version history – I would suggest closing the discussion early was rather premature. Additionally, although the majority of the people in AfDs did/do want the article kept, WP:WWIN explicitly includes changelogs as indiscriminate information Wikipedia should avoid. Any competent closer should, and would, properly take that into account after a 7-days closure. Additionally, I find myself a little perplexed at people splitting the difference with the Chrome version history DRV; surely the relevant principles are the same? WP:NOTAVOTE, etc... Sceptre (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - We respect the consensus. Also I see that the op has not followed the listing instructions. I will place a notice at the top of the AfD discussion for them. Lightburst (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist if the Google Chrome version history AfD had been closed at this point, it would have likewise have been similarly one-sided. Yet it was eventually closed as delete, and the same could have happened here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per Alalch E. argument on WP:SNOW Popeter45 (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  also reason listed by @1keyhole sounds verbatium to 6. on when Deletion review should not be used: to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early); Popeter45 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the appellant, ten minutes and two days are vastly different from each other. Frank Anchor 17:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist as a premature close. The very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination) had 11 Keep and 2 Delete comments after 5 days but ended in deletion. This one had 12 Keep and 1 Delete after the same amount of time. The result was clearly not a foregone conclusion, which is what WP:SNOW is for. Hut 8.5 16:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, 12 keeps vs. only the nom over the course of five days is as close to a forgone conclusion as you can get. Frank Anchor 17:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was 100 keeps to 1 delete, if the 100 keeps ran directly counter to Wikipedia policy to the 1 delete pointed out, then we would expect the closer to delete on the basis that the 100 keeps had no weight. The arguments to keep the article in the AFD mostly boil down to WP:ITSUSEFUL, which ideally should be given little weight. Sceptre (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And of the 12 keeps, how many should be given absolutely no weight? I count at the very least !votes #4 (ITSUSEFUL), 5 (ITSUSEFUL), 6 (ITSUSEFUL), 8 (ITSUSEFUL), and 12 (ITSUSEFUL). And that's not even mentioning the !votes that make no argument other than "per [x]" with no additional policy rationale (#2, 3, 7, 9, 11), or the presence of obvious canvassing/puppetry (at least #5, 6), or the fact that turning the content into prose would do nothing at all in addressing the prohibition on any material being cited only to primary/official sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't seen an argument as to why 12 keeps to 1 delete over 5 days is clearly a foregone conclusion when 11 keeps to 2 deletes over 5 days for an extremely similar debate plainly wasn't. Hut 8.5 16:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

both to me would be WP:SNOW Popeter45 (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Popeter45: So you would have snow kept this? Anarchyte (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. These AfDs have been plagued with canvassed !voters from the "data hoarders" and "firefox" subreddits, as suggested by the template at the top. That more regular users have also been ignoring NOTCHANGELOG policy with ILIKEIT !votes is disappointing. JoelleJay (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  to an extent i would argue this wasnt a canvassed, linked pages are not about the AfD and was instead about a earlier attemp to vandalise the page via blanking, only after the page was restored did the AfD get created Popeter45 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's inappropriate to label those changes as vandalism. Regardless of your opinion or even consensus view on the changes, it's apparent that they were made in good faith with the intent of improving Wikipedia. Regarding canvassing, it seems clear that there was canvassing to some extent (though unclear if canvassing impacted the outcome of this deletion discussion). The deletion discussions are mentioned in the comments of both linked reddit posts and this one has two !votes coming from SPAs that seem to have been created to exclusively weigh in on these deletion discussions. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - the closure after five days was appropriate, as with a dozen keeps, many strong, and no comments for the final two days seem to be based on "Other Things Don't Exist". No prejudice against another AFD - but please wait until the DRV for the similar Android article is complete. Nfitz (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, there was absolutely no chance of this being closed as anything else. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional relist: if the "delete" closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination) is endorsed below, this AfD should be relisted so that an admin can close it consistent with the Chrome AfD and policy. Sandstein 08:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. While it's true that there were a large number of early keep votes, discussions following the closure have made it clear that there is not exhaustive consensus to keep this article, so WP:SNOW can't apply—there is at least some non-trivial chance that the policy consensus lands on the side of deletion. I believe the original closure was in good faith and made sense based on the votes at the time, but given that contention over the outcome has emerged, I don't think we can reasonably say that a snow-closure should be kept in place. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The arguments for keeping are the same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination), and since the latter is controversial, there are no grounds for a SNOW close here. If the decision to delete the Google Chrome page is endorsed as policy-based, then the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here must be overturned. Avilich (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This was a valid non-admin snow close. Arguments that it should be overturned are not persuative. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Non-admins should not be closing AfDs with clear canvassing issues.

  thanks for letting us know, I also have account and will vote to disagree with what their trying to do
  

  Awesome, thanks for doing that. Also, please be sure you vote on the iOS Version History) page as well, as the same person is trying to have that page removed as well. The good news though is that there are soooo many people voting "Keep" so I don't see how they're gonna get enough "Delete" votes.

  Consensus is not determined by anti-policy or non-policy-compliant !votes, even if they are the numerical majority: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. In this case, almost all of the keep !votes were some version of ITSUSEFUL, and of the few that explicitly attempted to rebut the NOTCHANGELOG argument, none actually addressed a key factor in the policy: that no content can be sourced only to primary/official outlets. Instead they seemed to think the problem could be resolved by prosifying the tables, which obviously doesn't solve anything when they're still sourced to apple/affiliates. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (uninvolved) — I don't agree with the "consistency" arguments related to the deleted Google Chrome article (which is just WP:OTHERSTUFF). The Chrome article was NOTCHANGELOG exemplifed. Each article gets judged on its own merits. DFlhb (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't like it either. But there's a reason to relist outside of this argument. —Alalch E. 11:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! DFlhb (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment — and I'm straining the limits of what can be brought up at DelRev, but with good reason. The iOS version history (VH) article is unique compared to the other universally-awful VH articles, in that I raised the iOS NOTCHANGELOG issue back in October, and proposed and reached a consensus with other editors to remove the tables, and keep and expand the prose. After I removed the tables, people who weren't part of that consensus poured in to complain (not just on that talk page), and naive little DFlhb folded to the pressure and spent days cleansing the tables of copyvio and bringing them back, because I thought our consensus no longer stood (though none of the complaints were policy-based; trout for me). The obvious, obvious solution is to just go back to that old policy-compliant consensus, reached on the iOS version history talk page, by removing the changelog tables (which I've just done). DFlhb (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, there's a strong argument to be made for getting out the TNT; there's the famous "AfD is not cleanup" argument after all, but if an article is in clear conflict with policies for a sustained period, and is markedly resistant to having those problems corrected, then what else can we do? Sceptre (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The resistance was almost entirely IPs, hence why it was dumb of me to backtrack; didn't see any conduct issues otherwise, except those brought by the tables themselves (like the temptation to fill-in blank cells with copyvio) — DFlhb (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Policy and guidelines support the result as did experienced AfD editors. There was a great deal of nonsense in trying to keep this article, it is simply continuing here.  // Timothy :: talk  14:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TimothyBlue, are you sure you meant to endorse the keep closure? JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Rather clear instance of a premature closure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Clearly premature close, given straightforward policy and the direction that other debates on this topic are going. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as null It should indeed not have been closed as speedy, but the goal of the AfD was to remove the tables, and now they're removed. There is objectively no WP:NOTCHANGELOG material left in the article (as all changes are sourced to secondary sources, and everything else is about hardware support rather than changelogs). The original AfD reasoning (and responses) are no longer applicable, so relisting is pointless. If people still want this article deleted, start a new AfD with a policy-based reason that applies to the current version of the article. I doubt that would succeed, since while it lacks citations, AfD is not cleanup. DFlhb (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tables are no longer removed, so I retract my vote; but since NOTCHANGELOG is currently being discussed, and some are proposing changes to it (not just straight removal), I'd suggest that instead of relisting now, that we wait for the NOTCHANGELOG discussion to be settled, and then relist the article. DFlhb (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DFlhb: I reinstated the tables because Android version history set the original precent for the tables to start with and was the original cause for WP:CHANGELOG even getting its current wording to begin with. And the tables can be revamped to not be as exhaustive / comprehensive, but arguably there are like 2 tables in the entire article that go a bit too far in terms of exhaustiveness, and that was when other editors began re-adding the iOS 8 and later tables in full. I have however significantly trimmed down the amount of excessive detail in quite a few of the tables. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the removal of the tables was a good decision and drags it away from violating WP:NOTCHANGELOG. I disagree with the editors' rationale for keeping (the article at the time had large-ass tables contrary to the NOT policy) but agree with the outcome. I would have opted to relist if the tables were not removed. (please  mention me on reply) SWinxy (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Hut 8.5 and Sceptre. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination) looked as SNOWy as this but changed direction based on strong policy-based arguments, of which I find the present AFD's participation lacking. Relist to allow policy-based arguments to play out. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Not a good closure, there are a number of issues here. Notably:
  • We have firm evidence of off-wiki canvassing.
  • I do not think this was an appropriate non-admin closure. WP:BADNAC makes it clear that non-admin closures are not appropriate in situations that are likely to be controversial. A discussion with a massive "this has been canvassed" banner on it and multiple brand new accounts showing up who's only edits are to participate at the AFD should have been closed by an admin with experience of closing canvassed discussions.
  • A fair number of the keep votes are exceptionally weak. Comments like this helped me so much just today in making a buying decision, this page in it's entirety is extremely useful or There is literally nothing wrong with this article have no basis in inclusion or deletion policy and should be discounted.
  • Per above, the similar google chrome deletion discussion was in a similar state and ended with a delete result so clearly there is a chance of a deletion consensus arising here, and a SNOW closure was not correct.

192.76.8.88 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

on that last one you could just as well say as this closed as SNOW there is a chance of a keep consensus arising there, and a delete closure was not correct.

also once again this same argument of "i found somebody talking about it so all arguments againts what i want are invalid!" Popeter45 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is the first sentence even supposed to mean? It's incoherent.

Have you actually read WP:SNOW? That essay describes a set of situations where a discussion can be closed early due to the outcome being obvious. The sections on when a snow close is wrong are especially relevant, e.g. If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. and closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. Given the canvassed votes, the low quality and lack of policy basis for a decent chunk of the comments and the turnaround of a similar discussion this was not a good candidate for an early close. 192.76.8.88 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it was verbatium what you typed just swapped around the argument

and again the disreagading any other viewpoint as "canvassed", you could just as well say the turn around was due to Canvassing by the delete crowd Popeter45 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this makes no sense. Do you know what canvassing is? Have you read WP:CANVASS? Canvassing is when you inform people about a discussion in a biased or partisan way, e.g. asking people to come and vote keep, informing people who are known to hold a certain opinion, or leaving messages in places where people with only one viewpoint are likely to see them. Canvassing by the delete crowd is complete and utter nonsense, the people who were voting "delete" are regulars of this website, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever that they were brought to this discussion via illegitimate means.

Are you really surprised that a discussion that was tainted via biased recruitment from another website is being treated as tainted? 192.76.8.88 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

neither have you provided evidence, that reddit post everybody is posting has NOTHING to do with the AfD, was actually made before the AfD was even made,its simply being used to discredit the keep argument by constantly shouting down everybody

also care to explain why delete comments always seem to come in sudden batches just when you would think the AfD was about to close and always just spout the same single line, many new ones are all the exact same of "as per WP:CHANGELOG", tell me that doesnt look suspicious? Popeter45 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally people in those reddit posts saying that they are going to vote at the AFD [1] people being pointed towards other discussions that they should vote in [2] people trying to tell other redditors that this kind of AFD disruption and vote stacking is going to backfire [3]...

also care to explain why delete comments always seem to come in sudden batches just when you would think the AfD was about to close That happens in basically all deletion discussions because a lot of AFD regulars look at the debates that are just about to close. Go look at any AFD log page and you'll see votes left at the last minute. We even have a links in things like {{Deletion debates}} to take you to the discussions that are about to end. There's also a definite trend that once a discussion attracts drama or becomes controversial it attracts the attention of other people.

many new ones are all the exact same of "as per WP:CHANGELOG", tell me that doesnt look suspicious? Someone pointed out the exact policy that supports deleting these pages, and you think it's "suspicious" that a load of people agreed with them??? 192.76.8.88 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - I have no doubt that the closure was done in good-faith. On the outset, it appears to be a valid close, however now that additional details have surfaced, it's better to reopen. Might I remind people that WP:SNOW is not policy. Chances are, it'll close in another 7 days as "keep" (because the content is more policy-driven than the other changelog articles), but at least then it will be definitive. Anarchyte (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I don't see any reason to believe that the focus of the discussion or the result will be substantially different from last time. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 09:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Premature close with canvassing issues. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yes, canvassing issues with no explicit proof. Mind expanding, @Freedom4U? Just because subreddits have had these complaints, doesn't mean that it has attracted canvassing. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There were literally two 500 upvote reddit posts with explicit calls to canvass and a number of the "keep" votes were wildly unrelated to policy. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Keep - This article has had two AfDs now, both times were keep. It is VERY clear that the vast majority of editors both times wanted this article to stay. Endlessly voting to list an article for deletion because you disagree with AfD consensus is abuse of the AfD system, and canvassing is a non-starter here - there is NO valid way to prove anyone was canvassed despite the subreddit posts, and I would've voted Keep in the AfD too making it an even stronger vote to keep. And are we just going to ignore the WP:SNOW keep result 12 years ago as well and assume that people were canvassed then too? I have said this dozens of times now, in all of these irrelevant and IMHO dumb discussions - deletion of articles should outright be a strict last resort as articles can always be improved, and there are no WP:CHANGELOG violations here because they aren't exhaustive logs. The Google Chrome deletion discussion is an irrelvant discussion because as with everything else in the world, negative conotations tend to attract the most negative editors. I have been on Wikipedia a long time, never in my time until now have I ever seen these articles be AfD'd until now, when apparently it was decided that it would be fun to start misintepreting a Wikipedia policy. Additionally, WP:NOTCHANGELOG is a non-starter policy as well. It is open to vast misinterpretation, due to its vague and downright subjective wording. "Exhaustive" is an outright subjective term. Someone can find something exhaustive while someone else won't. That entire policy is a joke in my opinion, and it was why I opened the RfC to either rephrase or delete it. Because there is no way to objectively enforce that policy without being subjective with regards to what "Exhaustiveness" even means. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion
• Reason: Deletion/redirect had been set up due to lack of reliable sources that had written about the podcast. More sources are now writing about the podcast itself. Here is an example of a reliable one: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revisionist-history-malcolm-gladwell-podcast-review-malcolm-gladwell-cvcbmmp3g — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschanna7 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close. We had this last month: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 March 22#Triggernometry (podcast).—Alalch E. 22:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (I still recommend a WP:PROSPLIT discussion, after the podcast content in the source article has been expanded to the point that splitting is warranted under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:PAGEDECIDE. I still oppose simple restoration)—Alalch E. 22:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome version history (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Overturn deletion
• Reason for choice: i Belive this was a faulty decision as Rational was based on a view of NOTCHANGELOG that is currently debated via a RfC on NOT and as such should not have been deleted, outcome should have either been Keep with a option of 3rd nomination at a later date or at least Relisted until such time as Concenus on what NOTCHANGELOG should be used for — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popeter45 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Arguments that needed to be discounted were appropriately discounted; majority non-discountable advocacy was behind the view that NOTCHANGELOG, a policy that strongly indicates deletion, means just that. A difference in view around application of said policy did not resolve in a consensus that the policy should be taken to mean something else. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup was brought up (via WP:SURMOUNTABLE), but this was addressed and was kind of demolished by subsequent participants: it isn't about formatting and presentation, it's about substance and sourcing. Maybe this counterargument could have been responded to in the AfD; it wasn't; it ended up being a successful counterargument. The delete side prevailed, the closer correctly identified this, and, really, his close speaks for itself.—Alalch E. 21:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  About there being some talk page discussion about NOTCHANGELOG on the policy talk page, I'll say: dura lex sed lex (or something of the sort). No indication that Wikipedia is going to become a change log in the near future.—Alalch E. 22:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I must disagree, arguments were not appropriately discounted as the policy is contested and cleanup as not considered as never mentioned in closing argument, also the fact the closer mentioned opening a RfC when a RfC was already open points to not checking such before ariving at their conculsion Popeter45 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If editors want to change the policy so that Wikipedia stops not being a change log they should change it. It the meantime, the policy stands.—Alalch E. 22:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No valid argument presented for overturning. The RfC referenced by the nomination statement doesn't even seem to exist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTCHANGELOG needs re-writting/ clarification in talk page on WP:NOT, was merged with a previous talk point by somebody else Popeter45 (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If editors want to change the policy so that Wikipedia stops not being a change log they should change it. It the meantime, the policy stands. And I disagree that anything is need of changing at all, and would probably have !voted delete if I had seen this AfD before it closed. Anyway, now actual Wikipedia:Request for comment is open at WT:NOT, despite you implying one is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closure was a correct reading of the consensus in that discussion based on policy as it stands. If there's an appetite for changing the policy, that's a subject for a widely advertised RfC but it cannot be overridden by a single AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - (Copying from a duplicate listing that I was tagged in that's listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 26 that should probably be procedurally closed since it's duplicative) I will note that I took part in the AfD and argued for keeping the article, whereas User:Guerillero's reading of the consensus was for the deletion of the article. However, their reasoning for how they determined consensus is reasonable and there is nothing problematic about the close. I still think WP:NOTCHANGELOG should be a surmountable issue but they're not wrong in how they weighed a strict reading of it. I think it should have been kept but I respect that consensus went the other way, and the close was a reasonable one. - Aoidh (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On further review I 'm striking the endorse and moving to neutral on the close, leaning towards "no consensus"; putting more weight on the actual reading of WP:NOTCHANGELOG gives less weight to the delete votes in a way that shows a lack of consensus. This and adjacent discussions (iOS and Chrome) have been evolving in a way that changes how the close should be viewed. Of the three articles this one was certainly more of a changelog in a strict reading compared to the other two currently being discussed, but WP:NOTCHANGELOG does not forbid improvement to fix the issues, giving even less weight to comments calling for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A DRV for the same article was also opened on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_April_26. One of the DRV's should be procedurally closed with all !votes moved into the other DRV discussion (excluding any duplicate !votes). Frank Anchor 18:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  yea as poster of this one im happy for this one to be closed and comments moved Popeter45 (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close duplicate DRV, can this topic be closed and comments moved to other DRV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popeter45 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) (Moved from the other DRV and pretty much copied from my talk page) Comment from closer: As I explained in my close and I will re-explain here, I used the "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" as the meter stick. The highest-quality arguments that were rooted in policy came from deletes. All of them stemming from NOTCHANGELOG. Many keeps, on the other hand, were rooted in ITSUSEFUL, LIKEIT, what about foo / per other AfD, or INTERESTING. Because of that, they were given no weight in my close. I also explained why I did not find the expansive reading of NOTCHANGELOG by Aoidh, which effectively eats the policy, to be persuasive. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the procedural close, this discussion is both older and has more responses, so it should probably be kept --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  im happy for either, was just suggesting mine out of courtesy as other has the Link from the AfD Popeter45 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unprotect when this is closed 174.27.4.51 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content from duplicate DRV; copied by and red-colored annotations by —Alalch E. 19:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The closer chose one policy argument over another policy argument and the closing rationale reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE. I am asking that the closure be overturned to either keep or no consensus to respect our policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Aoidh had a particularly relevant rationale for keeping. On a straight ivote it was 13 editors favored Keep and 6 editors + the nominator favored deletion. See also relevant conversation with closer where the closer only highlighted the keep rationales that were weak. Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• [note to closer: repeated above] Comment from closer: As I explained in my close and I will re-explain here, I used the "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" as the meter stick. The highest-quality arguments that were rooted in policy came from deletes. All of them stemming from NOTCHANGELOG. Many keeps, on the other hand, were rooted in ITSUSEFUL, LIKEIT, what about foo / per other AfD, or INTERESTING. Because of that, they were given no weight in my close. I also explained why I did not find the expansive reading of NOTCHANGELOG by Aoidh, which effectively eats the policy, to be persuasive. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• [note to closer: repeated above] Endorse - I will note that, as mentioned above, I took part in the AfD and argued for keeping the article, whereas User:Guerillero's reading of the consensus was for the deletion of the article. However, their reasoning for how they determined consensus is reasonable and there is nothing problematic about the close. I still think WP:NOTCHANGELOG should be a surmountable issue but they're not wrong in how they weighed a strict reading of it. I think it should have been kept but I respect that consensus went the other way, and the close was a reasonable one. - Aoidh (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• [note to closer: DRV nominator] Relist also feel like WP:SUPERVOTE was used especally when compared to the WP:CONSENSUS for IOS version history was for Keep Popeter45 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment i already listed this page for DRV yesterday Popeter45 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Popeter45: This one should probably be procedurally closed then since there's no reason to have two open AfDs and the prior one was opened first, but since I commented above I'll let someone else be the one to do that. This one was likely created because the review notice wasn't placed on the AfD for your listing, which means editors would not have known about it when looking at the AfD itself. - Aoidh (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  yea my fault there, long time wiki editior but first time partaking in AfD and DRV so prob missed some stuff Popeter45 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. The close was a supervote and there clearly was not consensus to delete. While the keep side had a strong numerical majority, the delete side had a slightly better and more policy-based argument, specifically citing WP:NOTCHANGELOG.The biggest argument on the keep side cited WP:SURMOUNTABLE, reasonably noting that cleaning up the article can address the NOTCHANGELOG issues. I do not think a relist is necessary due to the high attendance of the AFD. Frank Anchor 18:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  — Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 26#Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination) 18:25, 26 April 2023

Technical break

• Overturn to keep sadly Aoidh has abandoned their own reasoned and appropriate keep rationale. Perhaps to defer to another administrator and not make waves? There is zero point to participation in AfD if an administrator can choose one policy argument over a policy argument which was supported by the majority of participants. WP:CONSENSUS is policy. The whole project is a confusing jumble of contradictory guidelines, policies and essays. We all do our best and with a keep or no consensus close, there is zero controversy. What exactly is the point of participation if a closer can decide to choose the policy they want over the policy that the participants clearly wanted. The bar for overturning is very high so it is paramount that an administrator not make a decision contrary to consensus. We also have policies of WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are levels of consensus. See Sandstein's !vote. —Alalch E. 20:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are... and five other competing guidelines and policies will refute that policy. That is why we have to respect consensus, if it is a localcon anyone can renominate. Lightburst (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to be clear that I am not "abandoning" my keep rationale, but DRV is not a continuation of AfD, it is meant to determine if the close was appropriate and correct. I think that even though it was not closed in a way that matched my opinion, that the close itself was appropriate. One can retain their keep rationale while also acknowledging that the close was done correctly. - Aoidh (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or relist. I'm struggling to see a delete consensus here; surely relisting would have been a better option than delete. Also the closer didn't mention (didn't give weight?) to the argument made that there are suitable references available using secondary sources. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved). CONSENSUS makes it clear that arguments are expected to be based on P&Gs if they are to be given weight; so what were the policy arguments of the keep !voters?

JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My overturn right above your comment is based on the sources provided in 1). I'm troubled you provided such an extensive list, but chose not to discuss that. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I very much dislike when an editor takes over a discussion with a wall of text reflecting their own biased interpretation. Nearly every delete ivote was policy based according to JJ and only one keep was "somewhat policy based". Thanks so much for interpreting it for us. Facepalm. Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A link to google search results does not demonstrate the presence of NORG-meeting SIRS SIGCOV of the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved) There was a "surmountable" argument claiming that a clean-up would surmount the problem, but the problem was the lack of third party sources, which a clean-up wouldn't surmount. Avilich (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to mention that SURMOUNTABLE is an essay while NOTCHANGELOG is policy. JoelleJay (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, re: the whole "AfD is not cleanup" suite of arguments: I have some sympathy with the argument, but there is surely a tipping point between "it can be fixed but nobody's got around to it" and "it can be fixed but nobody wants to do it". By titling these articles as "X version history", we are baking in these articles being changelogs. I could see an article such as History of Google Chrome where we deal with the evolution of the browser in prose being possibly compliant, but again, there's the issue with RSes and OR. Sceptre (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. Would it have mattered if I'd cited WP:IAR? Because while I can clearly see WP:NOTCHANGELOG exists, it's also a rule that, in this instance, is keeping us from improving the encyclopedia. In other words, I feel like WP:NOTCHANGELOG is meant to avoid articles on border-line notable topics getting change log articles that are consistently updated, not that it disallows all changelogs ever. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It disallows all changelogs ever, those that lack third-party sourcing. Avilich (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it actually doesn't do that. Please be more careful reading policy before making pronouncements like this in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Involved endorse. The closure reflected policy-level community-wide consensus, WP:NOTCHANGELOG , which local consensus may not overrule. Sandstein 08:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closure was an accurate reflection of policy, which cannot be overridden by a local consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – validly weighted close. Sceptre (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closer is expected to downweight or ignore arguments which conflict with policy (WP:DGFA). That would include arguments which advocate for policies to be removed or ignored entirely. It's also fair to downweight arguments which rely on the article being useful or interesting. After that there was a consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a clear example of properly weighing strength of arguments, not numbers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an example of a correct assessment of arguments as they speak to policy. There is nothing here that prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, as is argued above - in what way is a simple history of changes to a piece of software encyclopedic? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Policy is clear on this, and an AfD discussion cannot overturn policy. If editors disagree with policy, they should open a discussion at a location where policy can be changed, such as WT:NOT or WP:VPR. BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I didn't participate in the Chrome AfD, but I voted Keep in the Firefox version history AfD. The close is not only reasonable, but I would have closed the same way. Going slightly off topic now, but the table couldn't have been rewritten into prose: it contained some copyvio, and these kinds of articles are largely neglected so I doubt anyone would have stepped up to do it. DFlhb (talk)

Changing my vote to Overturn to keep if and only if it's indeed useful for checkusers, per Ivanvector. Otherwise, ignore this new vote and instead count the old vote ("Endorse"). DFlhb (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus – This is a hard DRV to review, because the principle that AFD is not a vote clashes with any concept of consensus, and we do not have a guideline that explicitly allows a closer to ignore a local consensus that is inconsistent with policies and guidelines. There was a clear local consensus, apparently 13-7, in favor of Keeping, but solid arguments that it violated What Wikipedia Is Not.

Perhaps we need a clarification from Village Pump as to what to do when there is a consensus at the AFD, but a clearly stated minority viewpoint takes the other position which is policy-based. The real question is what to do when a solid majority presents arguments that are out of line with policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's called WP:DETCON --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With the exception of foundation-level policies such as NFC, policy is merely a codification of what the custom and practice is in a certain area, and the interpretation and application of policy to individual discussions is to be determined by consensus. Where it is clear that the community, in a discussion, is aware of and has considered the policy applicable to an area, and has come to a consensus as to what to do on a topic, that consensus should be accepted, even if it appears to be on all fours with the policy. On the other hand, comments that clearly show a lack of awareness of a policy, rather than an attempt to interpret and apply it, fall to be given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Seems like a case of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, as per the closing comment. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  when there is a consensus at the AFD this assumes that consensus is defined by numerical majority, which it explicitly is not. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment from a disclourse on Jeffhardyfan08's talk tage seems to be a non-public effort to get the closer for this page to repeate the same arguemnt to delete the firefox page, if thats the case CANVASSED should be applied and considered to the WP:NOTCHANGELOG argument Popeter45 (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What in tarnations are you talking about? One of the things I do on Wikipedia is close AfDs that were not closed by the first wave of admins. These tend to be contentious. You can check my contribs to see me do this hundreds of times. I was not asked to close this discussion by anyone. Someone mistook my relist as a dibs of some sort. Please strike your allegations. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Request temp undelete. Also, why was “Redirect to Google Chrome#Version history]] not in the discussion? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Request temp undelete to allow review SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. Undeleting the entire revision history threw a database error so I only undeleted the most recent couple months' worth, but that should be plenty for this review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: Policy and guidelines support the result as did experienced AfD editors. There was a great deal of nonsense in trying to keep this article, it is simply continuing here.  // Timothy :: talk  14:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  if there is such a strong view to keep even if againts one rule shouldnt you instead question why and if that rule is the issue here rather than the editors? Popeter45 (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. If you disregard all the "keep" !votes and rationales, it is possible to read a "delete" consensus out of this discussion, but this is a tautology. Otherwise, it is not clear to me that there's a consensus here; it is worth noting that the nomination of the same page for IOS version history was closed as WP:SNOW keep. jp×g 06:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. An experienced admin closer read the discussion and produced a clear closing comment, describing their process for which arguments were policy-based and weighted strongly and which arguments were non-policy-based and weighted zero. Any further objections are problems with policy, not with the close. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep - the closer incorrectly interpreted the policy as compelling the deletion of all changelogs by virtue of being changelogs, but that's not actually what the policy says at all (it more or less says to use reliable sources in changelogs and to use common sense as to which changes to log, not that everything resembling a changelog must be immediately scrubbed). Then, based on that faulty understanding, the closer managed to come up with reasons to discount all of the arguments to keep, 13 of them to 7 deletes, while managing not to criticize any of the delete comments that amounted to WP:IDLI. This was a WP:SUPERVOTE, plain and simple. I also advocate to restore the list per WP:IAR as the information is useful to checkusers for sockpuppet investigations, and is not compiled in as convenient a format nor as frequently updated anywhere else on the web. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"says to use reliable sources in changelogs" -- just demolished your own argument right there. Avilich (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The list primarily used Google's official Chrome releases blog as a source, and while WP:NOT does say not to use self-published or official sources, that text links to the original research policy subsection on primary sources, which says that a primary source can be used for basic factual statements (see point 3 in particular), and that a self published source can be used when it's an expert source on a topic. Does anyone here want to argue that Google is deliberately publishing incorrect information on releases of its own software on its own blog dedicated to that topic? The article also incorporated independent sources for supplementary information where needed, although there were a handful of {{cn}} or {{clarification needed}} tags in a few sections. Besides, lacking reliable sources is one of the highlighted examples of a surmountable problem in arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - if some information needed better sourcing then the solution was to find better sourcing, not to delete the entire page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of secondary sources obviously is a reason to delete; no keep voters showed how to "surmount" the problem, so that argument is simply ridiculous. Using cn templates is totally optional, and if adequate sources continue to be lacking then deletion is virtually mandated due to policies like WP:PRIMARY ("Do not base an entire article on primary sources") and WP:DEL-REASON#14. Avilich (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make this reply short, since you seem too busy to have read what you're replying to: the article did use independent (not secondary) sources for information which required it, and no policy forbids using primary sources for basic indisputable facts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can read Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources as "straightforward facts cited solely to official sources are acceptable", especially considering OR prohibits basing the whole article on primary refs. It makes no sense that the wikilink to OR would be intended as an implicit endorsement of a statement that literally negates the sentence the link appears in; the link is almost certainly there to explain what a primary source is.

Additionally, PRIMARY does not say "secondary sources are only needed for interpretation of primary material" or "all straightforward information from official sources can be included in an article, even if that means most of the article is directly repeating what the company has said". Those interpretations of PRIMARY (and indeed the arguments to keep version history articles in general) would require us to ignore:

• NOTCHANGELOG
• NOTGUIDE (Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like)
• PRIMARY#5
• ABOUTSELF#5
• NOTEVERYTHING
• NOTADVERT (Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts)
• NOTPRICE (Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: (...) products and services (...) An article should not include product pricing or availability information (...) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention)
• INDISCRIMINATE (To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources).

JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Starting from your first point: I didn't read the text quoted from NOT and develop that interpretation myself. I read the policy subsection that it links to, which says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." (all emphasis in original) My interpretation of that section is that primary sources are acceptable for basic statements of fact. If you scroll up from there you'll find a "further information" link to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, which contains the WP:PRIMARYCARE subsection. This section lists several examples of acceptable uses of primary sources, including: "An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." (emphasis in original) Again, that explanatory supplement suggests (states quite plainly, actually) that an official source is acceptable for this basic information.

As for not basing an entire article on primary sources: WP:PST (above PRIMARY, again) suggests that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." The OR policy is interpreting the general notability guideline, which indicates that independent secondary sources are required to demonstrate a topic's notability, and absent such sources an article should not be made. However, notability is for topics, not for content (WP:NOTEWORTHY). This topic's notability is already established: Google Chrome is obviously a notable topic, and this list is reliably-sourced supplemental information on that notable topic. We could just include it in the main article, but that would add 190kB to an article that's already 150kB, which would be much too long. Splitting this information to a separate standalone list is a logical content fork.

In short, the various policies and guidelines are in conflict here, which is not at all unusual on this project, but fortunately we are directed to ignore rules which prevent improving Wikipedia. Clearly it improves Wikipedia's coverage of the world's leading web browser to maintain a reliably-sourced tabulation of significant milestones in its history and development; what form it should take is an editorial process, and AFD is not cleanup. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing them. Or as someone else said in one of these parallel discussions: Wikipedia writes the policies, the policies don't write Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARY literally says Unless restricted by another policy. I guess those "restrictive policies" are just not allowed to link to PRIMARY since apparently its broad guidance on generic use-cases automatically overrides any restrictions! And again, PRIMARY does NOT say that primary sources can always be used for any straightforward facts, it says that they may be used, with caution. NOTCHANGELOG plainly states the circumstances in which primary, non-third-party sources cannot be used: to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article.

I'm frankly astounded that an admin is claiming the OR guidance on "basing articles on primary sources" only applies to determining notability. The policy does not say Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources, unless notability has been established, or Do not base an entire article on primary sources unless notability has been established, and be cautious about basing large passages on them unless notability has been established, or Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources until notability has been demonstrated. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic, unless the topic is demonstrably notable, or Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves (...) so long as: (...) the article is not based primarily on such sources, unless the topic is notable.

The policies and guidelines are not in conflict, and the overwhelming rejection of the proposal to remove NOTCHANGELOG shows that "being useful to some people" is still not a reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly stated in the five pillars of Wikipedia that

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information 1keyhole (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not one of the five pillars. But "Wikipedia has no firm rules" is one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are wrong. here is the complete quote from pillar one.

Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, nor a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are 1keyhole (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I don't see any reason to believe that the focus of the discussion or the result will be substantially different from last time. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 08:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. I think the close was based on an overly strict reading of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, which doesn't call for the deletion of articles covering software updates, but rather gives guidance on how to write them encyclopedically (summarise 3rd party sources). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No such 3rd party sources were provided, and NOTCHANGELOG does in fact recommend the deletion of articles that fail its criteria (WP:DEL-REASON#14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"). Avilich (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That recommendation to delete does not come into play until it has been demonstrated that the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and NOTCHANGELOG doesn’t declare software updates to not be suitable for an encyclopedia - exactly the opposite in fact: it gives guidance for how to make a software update article suitable for a encyclopedia. The article already contained several 3rd party sources. Not enough, by far, and not adequately summarised, but AfD is not cleanup. The key issue with the close is that it discounted non-policy-based keep votes but over-broadly interpreted NOTCHANGELOG in such a way that the delete votes weren’t recognised as equally non-policy-based, and so should by the closer’s own standard also have been discounted, leading to no consensus. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And while on the subject of policy, I also think it was inappropriate to give zero weight to non-policy-based arguments. Weigh them lower, sure. But to discount them completely is to ignore WP:5P5. Consensus can be, and frequently is, the basis for exceptions to policies. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a time and place for changing policy and that isn't through a LOCALCONSENSUS at AfD -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closer had a completely valid view of consensus, which is not based on the number of people for or against. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus or relist The rationale from the closer reads like "how I would have based my vote" instead of summarizing the commentary of the discussion. Closure should allow for differing interpretations of PAGs. It seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE in the sense that first they decided how the outcome should be, and then argued against the rationales of every comment that went the other way. If they had wanted to argue against those arguments, they should have voted themselves and made that argument. Closures should summarize consensus, not declare it by fiat.--Jayron32 18:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is a useful topic for Wikipedia. Arguments for deletion were a mistake. Note I am not considering the close itself. This topic is covered in many independent sources. The material would be encyclopedic in Google Chrome, but is too big to include there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, uninvolved in XfD (although I have opined in the NOTCHANGELOG RFCs this has spawned). I would have based the close more strongly on GNG-based arguments and less strongly on NOTCHANGELOG itself, since GNG is more about the existence of the article and NOTCHANGELOG is more about its content. But I think the result would have been the same, and we can't have articles none of whose content is acceptable per policy. I agree that discounting all of the ITSUSEFUL comments is entirely within the closer's remit, and I disagree that doing so makes the close a supervote. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I wasn't involved in the AfD, however the article deserves to be reinstated. From reading the AfD, many of the voters who said to delete were interpreting WP:NOTCHANGELOG into something it wasn't, causing the article and all its history to be deleted. The only thing WP:NOTCHANGELOG says is to not be exhaustive (e.g. not listing every single meticulous change made to a software product) and to use reliable sources. Yes, the article didn't always use secondary sourcing, but that could've very easily been rectified without causing the entire article to be deleted. So I am voting to overturn. Articles can always be fixed, and deletion should always be a strict last resort unless the policy violations are so severe that they can't be resolved no matter whats done to an article. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ART Giants Düsseldorf players (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus interpreted incorrectly. Nominations with 1 keep vote and 1 delete vote usually gets relisted. Team page not having an article mentioned in the rationale, but was in draft and now exists. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(as closer) the opposing argument was weak; as per WP:SMALLCAT, there are not enough articles on enwiki to warrant a category. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having potential is valid point against unjustified rationale of not having potential (SMALLCAT). Per the German wiki caterory, I see many articles passing GNG in English wiki. Also that 'players by club' is a part of larger sub-categorization scheme (again, allowed by SMALLCAT). Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10, there is no reason to suppose that those articles will be written anytime soon - categories should come after articles, not before. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"anytime soon" is not part of SMALLCAT, it says "will never have more than a few members" So potential is potential, no matter when. Also it is logical for (pro or semi-pro) functioning club to have more such players. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10, it's unreasonable to make a category in the assumption that one day there will be articles. — Qwerfjkltalk 06:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is only your opinion and not based on any policies. Please try to understand what SMALLCAT actually says and focus on that when used as an arguement. Closer should always be impartial, not biased. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10, this is how it is applied at CfD by CfD regulars (such as Marcocapelle and William Allen Simpson). WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• When I used to close at CfD, I was always struck by how wide a gulf there is between what WP:SMALLCAT says (only small categories that by their very definition can't be expanded, e.g. "Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor", are prohibited) and how it's actually applied by CfD regulars (small categories are almost always deleted/merged). In this case I think the guideline as written would support a relist given the low participation and the disagreement/lack of evidence about whether a realistic potential for growth exists, but what we really need is an RfC to reconcile policy and practice in this area. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist given the very limited participation and the reasonable argument for keeping. WP:SMALLCAT only applies to categories with no potential for growth, and it mentions an example of a category which could include articles which haven't been written yet, so I don't think the closer's interpretation of there are not enough articles on enwiki to warrant a category is consistent with the actual wording of the guideline. Hut 8.5 17:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — not opposed to a relist, although it would be unlikely to have a different outcome. It is a fairly well written nomination. The nominator had tried to find more articles. At the time, this low (4th, 3rd, now 2nd) tier local community team didn't have its own article. Pelmeen10 made one a few minutes before this review request, full of red links. German wikipedia has different notability guidelines. [N]ot every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. There's no good reason to have these WP:NONDEFINING categories to tag ancillary minor league teams that some players joined before becoming notable. [D]o not add categories to pages as if they are tags. Sadly, lately we've seen rather a lot of tagging players with these low-level minor league teams (even prison teams).
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Low-level minor league? It is the same level as 2. Bundesliga. Professional club (did you really call it a tag?) in a fully-pro league. Club where a professional player has played during his career certainly is DEFINING characteristic. All hell would brake loose if you'd nominate all club categories for deletion. Wikipedia claims it's a work in progress - so every red link is a potential article. It was their first season in this level and the next season will be their second (clear factor for growth potential). It's not likely for all the red linked players playing for 2nd Bundesliga to be their career highlight - potential. It is likely for a player with current Wikipedia article to join the club - potential. When nominated, the nominator didn't even know there was a similar category in German wiki - I connected it to Wikidata a day later [4]. It's a shame deletion force is ofter stronger than any policy. All my comments are based on WP:SMALLCAT, which was the main arguement for deletion. So how does WP:SMALLCAT point to deleting the category? Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. CfD is not a high-traffic volume and relisting is very unlikely to produce a different outcome. @Pelmeen10 you can always re-create the category if or when the club has a bigger footprint on the English Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on misinterpreting WP:SMALLCAT? Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As noted above, de.wiki has very different notability standards so the mere existence of topics there that could fill a category does not mean that en.wiki articles could exist and would be defined by this category. JoelleJay (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Santos Silva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Overturn deletion
• Reason for choice: I believe that the deletion of the Ricardo Santos Silva article was incorrect, as the subject meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and should be considered notable. The subject has been covered by multiple reliable sources, which demonstrate their notability.

• Detailed arguments:

* The subject has been covered by several reputable sources, including Reuters, The Guardian, and BBC. These sources provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject, thus satisfying WP:GNG requirements. * The CNBC interview with Ricardo Santos Silva alone provides in-depth information about him, his work, and achievements. It is hard to argue that an interview with the subject does not provide detailed mention, as the very nature of interviews is to focus on the interviewee. * The Entrepreneur of the Year award article supports notability, as it shows recognition of Ricardo Santos Silva's achievements within his field. This award is a testament to his impact in the industry, making him a notable figure. * It's important to consider the cumulative weight of these sources, as each contributes to establishing the subject's notability. While some may argue that individual sources do not provide extensive coverage, the combined coverage from multiple reliable sources indicates that Ricardo Santos Silva has garnered significant attention in the media.

Vote: Overturn deletion

Rationale: I believe the deletion was incorrect, as the subject has been covered by multiple reliable sources and significant coverage, demonstrating notability in accordance with WP:GNG. The combined weight of these sources should be considered when evaluating the subject's notability.

ScottWillis45 (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - this is not a rehash of the AfD. Admin followed policy and based their decision on WP policy, not as a simple vote.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: accurate reading of the consensus; arguments to keep aren't backed up by the sources they cite, and DRV is not for rehashing the AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin - I'm happy to admit when I've erred in closing an AfD, but after re-reviewing this I don't see that to be the case here. ScottWillis45 is the creator of this latest version of the article so it's understandable that they don't believe it should be deleted, but I believe that the close is consistent with WP:DETCON and ScottWillis45 does not suggest above that there was any issue with the determining of that consensus, just that they disagree with its outcome. - Aoidh (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse as out of scope of deletion review. Deletion review is not to be used merely because you disagree with the outcome of an AFD; it is not a second round or ad novo appeal. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the "delete" side had a stronger, more policy-based argument, specifiaclly the source analysis which was not refuted despite being up for over a week before the AFD closed. The appellant had ample opportunity to discuss this AFD but chose only to relitigate it at this forum, which violates WP:DRVPURPOSE. Frank Anchor 14:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for your comments and feedback. I understand the purpose of a deletion review is not to rehash the AfD, and I apologize if my previous comment gave that impression. My intention is to address the concerns raised and provide additional evidence to support the subject's notability, which I believe satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines for keeping the article.During the AfD, there were more votes to keep the article than to delete it, which is one of the reasons I requested a deletion review. I believe that the additional evidence provided here will help to further clarify the subject's notability. Given some personal matters, I was unable to review the assessment table during the AfD process but I would like to point out that the assessment table appears to have some inaccuracies, such as stating that the CNBC interview is not about the subject. It is crucial to recognize that an interview with the subject inherently provides detailed information about the interviewee, which in this case is Ricardo Santos Silva. Taking into account the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia, the reputable sources cited, and the inaccuracies in the assessment table, I believe there is a strong case for keeping the article on Ricardo Santos Silva. I am open to constructive feedback and suggestions on how to improve the article and further establish the subject's notability within Wikipedia's guidelines. ScottWillis45 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the admin was correct in taking the guideline-based arguments over the ones that pleaded for keeping based on non-guideline arguments such as "diverse accomplishments". Please note that I did participate and I did the source analysis. To address the point above, my assessment of CNBC was not inaccurate. An interview directly with the subject himself does not count as significant, independent coverage of that subject. We need reliable sources writing at length about Ricardo Santos Silva (e.g. multiple paragraphs) and what was presented was purely a WP:REFBOMBing of sources, five of which did not even once mention Ricardo Santos Silva! This close is actually a really good example of an admin closing based on strength of arguments and not just doing a simple vote count. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was a correct reading of consensus. ScottWillis45, I recommend you look closely at Spiderone's excellent source analysis. The subject is clearly mentioned by reliable, independent sources but his life and career are not covered in detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Understood and thanks for your collaboration.Aoidh User:onel5969 Vanamonde User:Spiderone User:HJ Mitchell User:Frank Anchor Stifle ScottWillis45 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Masters Tour (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't think that consensus about the non-notable quadruple headlining tour to end into no consensus, despite the fact there are four albums been linked for the respective bands that are headlining the 2008 summer tour such as Nostradamous, Motörizer, The Rules of Hell and the Formation of Damnation. When in fact which it presented in the AFD of this Metal Masters Tour are the 2008 Summer Tour which it featured Maroon 5 and Counting Crows as a co-headliners and held in the same year. The article was created, then BLAR'd by Onel5969, which led to an RFD discussion that TartarTorte questioned the redirect per WP:PTOPIC and WP:XY over the redirect and then restored and sent to AFD by CycloneYoris which it started the discussion and resulted in a deletion. Similar precedent held two months since Maroon 5 and Counting Crows discussion, there are another co-headlining tour which is called "The Royalty Tour" which it became a subject to creation, BLAR, RFD to AFD and to an ultimately deletion discussion. Now this quadruple headlining tour will be subjected from, creation to BLAR, ending up to RFD, resulting to AFD and then to the review to verify which outcome can decide. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:4403:E009:6080:BD67 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse (involved) - Rehash of a (nonsensical WP:OTHERSTUFF) argument made during the AfD. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not nonsensical, though, is it. Nominator talks about "precedent" -- he's expecting that similar cases will result in similar decisions, so he's pointing us to what he sees as similar cases and highlighting inconsistencies in how we do things. The right response from us here would be education and explanation, not contemptuous dismissal.—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Deletion review should not be used...to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits)". That said, "no consensus defaulting to keep" is a bit of an odd outcome for a discussion where almost everyone opposed the status quo—not necessarily wrong, but odd. I would probably have closed along the lines of "consensus not to preserve as a stand-alone article, but no consensus for outright deletion, so the result is redirect with no prejudice against another RfD to sort out the issues raised by the IP", but a simple no consensus closure may well have also been within discretion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myla Vicenti Carpio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't think there was a consensus to merge. I think there were valid reasons to keep, and I think there was overall no consensus. (involved, mentioned review here) CT55555(talk) 23:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a keep voter in the original AFD, I still think it should have been closed with that. BhamBoi (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This is a difficult case, but I cannot see error in the close (and a no consensus close would have also been within the discretion of the closer). On policy, the merge/delete comments are much stronger. It is my understanding the community usually determines that meeting WP:AUTHOR means multiple works that are reviewed by independent publications, and this is what the merge/delete voters articulated. The keep voters who did suggest the subject met AUTHOR pointed to policy language that a book needs to be "well-known," and the subject's book was sufficiently well-known. However, as 4meter4 stated in a keep comment, "well-known" is a subjective measure. --Enos733 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• On the !vote numbers, that would have been a no-consensus or a keep. But the keep !votes didn't link or cite any sources about this lady, so how on Earth were we going to write a biography? It's impossible so the outcome couldn't be keep. That also precludes no-consensus. I would endorse. —S Marshall T/C 08:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as within closer discretion. There was clearly a consensus against deleting, and all other outcomes can be modified or discussed at the talk page if needed. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a reasonable alternative to deletion. The book appears notable enough that it would survive an AfD so is a good target for a merge and redirect which is generally preferable to deletion, especially with a subject who may well gain more coverage to sustain their own article in the future. "No consensus" would not have been a wildly inappropriate outcome but in my view there was a consensus that the article shouldn't be kept. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse. While they technically pass NAUTHOR #3, there doesn't seem to be enough sources to establish their notability. No consensus would've also been an acceptable close. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn this seems an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE. The consensus was to keep. I appreciate that the closer found an ATD however it was not the correct outcome after participation in the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Twospoonfuls/sandbox/11 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Purportedly deleted for G12 copyvio reasons, this article wasn't published in the article namespace. These were my personal notes. Moreover, it doesn't satisfy G13, they were in my userspace, not draftspace. What is the point of a sandbox if its contents is going to be treated as final published material? If nothing else that is a point that needs clarification. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 22:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It doesn't matter that it wasn't published, it was accessible. Can't keep copyright-violating material visible anywhere on the site. Based on what I can learn about the deleted page from the nominator's request, there don't seem to be any errors in this speedy deletion.—Alalch E. 22:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, even if no one else on the Internet does, and copyrighted material is not permitted anywhere in Wikipedia, even temporarily. There are very few sorts of material that are subject to deletion from sandboxes, but copyright violations are subject to deletion from sandboxes or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Almost anything is permitted in sandboxes, but not copyrighted material or attack pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse copyright violations are not acceptable in any namespace, including userspace. Sandboxes aren't treated as if they were "final published material", but that doesn't mean you can have anything at all in a sandbox. Publishing copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is typically illegal and the law doesn't care what namespace the content was in. From a quick check it looks like the text was largely taken from the book linked in the deletion log. Hut 8.5 16:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, the general criteria for speedy deletion (G1-13) apply to all namespaces. There's a lot of latitude in userspace but you can't host copyrighted material there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Holub (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted for lack of notability, in particular because nobody found any book reviews. But I have found various book reviews:

• [5] "Holub's Taming Java Threads contains some nice techniques for getting the most out of thread programming. I'm not sure if it's a necessary resource, though."
• [6] (Holub on Patterns) "The book distinguishes itself from other books on design patterns by taking implementation as the center of its discussion. [...] Any reader in the Java world could definitely benefit from reading the book."

Specifically for "Compiler design in C", I found numerous reviews:

• [7] "A large book [...] Quite well written, too, though it has a lot of errors."
• [8] - not sure what the review says, but [9] says "all titles reviewed are recommended."
• [10] - again, not sure what it says, but the snippets I can see seem positive
• [11] - some review, can't tell what it says
• [12] - "The authoritative reference for anyone who needs to write compilers"
• [13] - "Holub is one of those authors with a bent towards optimizing performance. In this book, he covers a whole smorgasbord of techniques and tricks that will speed up a compiler."

It seems from [14] that the rest of his books were published in the 1980s so are difficult to find reviews for online, but hopefully it is clear that his "Compiler design in C" book has had a significant amount of influence. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comments: The AfD was a simple unanimous "delete", so I doubt there is any question about the propriety of my close. None of the reviews mentioned in the DRV request were in the article or discussed during the AfD. So I have no objection to allowing creation of a new article at this title using new sources; it would presumably be quite different from what was deleted. In that circumstance this probably didn't need a DRV, but since the requirement to consult the closer has been deprecated, this is my first opportunity to give that advice. --RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd suggest writing a new version, which you don't need anyone's permission for. If you'd like us to restore the original version to draft space for you to work on then we can do that. However it was quote short (184 words), it didn't mention anything about compiler design (it was more interested in his work as a software trainer), and it read more like his personal website than an encyclopedia article. It also only cited two sources, his personal website and a profile on the website of a university he used to teach at. Hut 8.5 11:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, thanks. I wasn't aware that re-creating the article didn't require a DRV, maybe that could be made clearer somewhere, e.g. adding "re-creating a page" to "what DRV is not" on WP:DRVPURPOSE. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Some new information has come to light since the deletion that potentially justifies there being an article on this topic, beyond what was discussed in the AfD, but as the deleted page does not have meaningful content worth restoring, the page should stay deleted, and a brand new version can be started.—Alalch E. 11:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow creation of new article either in article space, subject to nomination for AFD, or in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse but feel free to rewrite with the new sources. The sources you cannot see should probably be acquired (interlibrary loan?). The new sources should protect it from speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bestselling cars of all time (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I would appreciate the possibility of recovering the content I created, because I do not have any copy. In 2011, I put a lot of effort to collect and organize data on this subject. I relied on newspaper articles as sources of information. The reason given for the deletion: "G7 One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". As part of my edit of the page, the Toyota Corolla was no longer in the first place, and to this day I wonder if the reason for the removal was not corporate lobbying. I admit that I made the mistake of inserting logotypes into the article. I didn't know at the time that it might be illegal. If my violation was to insert logos, then I think removing one column would solves the issue. As far as I remember, there was no warning or discussion before the page was deleted (I don't know if that might be considered as "speedy deletion"). The deletion took place almost immediately after my edit, despite the fact that before it the page in its previous version existed probably for several years and it didn't bother anyone unitl that moment.

Thank you in advance for your interest in my problem Fargoeth (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In no particular order:
  1. It was deleted because User:T H A1984, who created the page, tagged it {{db-g7}}.
  2. It existed for about five months, not several years.
  3. There's at least three different users with significant edits to the page; I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with a way to reasonably interpret that as a valid G7.
  4. You might be interested in the more properly-named and much better-developed lists at List of best-selling automobiles or List of automobile sales by model.
  5. Did you want this version restored (given #4, I'd be inclined to decline, despite the irregularity in #3 above), or just want the content for your own use? —Cryptic 23:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your response. Regarding the lists you kindly linked above, thank you for your effort, I konw their content. Frankly speaking I just want to retrieve the final version with edited content for my own use. Someday I would like to develop this content further for my own personal blog or put into an article. I don't want to get into any disputes whether the existence of this page is necessary. Fargoeth (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Set an email address in Special:Preferences and I'll mail it to you. —Cryptic 11:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for everything. I have just confirmed my email adress in User Preferences tab. I hope I did everything right. I appreciate your help and engagement. Fargoeth (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Email to Fargoeth as stated by Cryptic. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of best-selling automobiles#World's bestsellers and restore history under the redirect, as what seems to be a best of all worlds solution; the title seems like a plausible search term, Fargoeth and anyone else interested gets access to the history, and the wrong Cryptic pointed out in #3 is not left uncorrected. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't considered that during my first look at the page since I saw an entry in the history labeled "Rmv copyvio". I took a closer look while mailing Fargoeth, though, and not only did that edit remove nothing except purportedly non-free imagery, the images in question aren't even copyrightable (and are now on Commons). So it shouldn't stand in the way of this. —Cryptic 04:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Regional (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am the creator and the RFD nominator of Nine Regional (disambiguation), and I believe the recent RFD discussion did have the wrong consensus, as I want the history of the redirect to be restored, with the redirect tags {{R from history}}, and {{R to article without mention}}. The page was redirected to Channel 9#See also, just a week before it was deleted, and before then a disambiguation page, with 2 entries, WIN Television and 10 (Southern Cross Austereo). Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 03:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What the? It appears that the close of the RFD is what the nominator-appellant requested, and now they are disputing it. Can someone explain what this is about? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ...and how would the restored redirect have ever met our disambiguation expectations in the first place? Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also not sure what's going on here:

• The page was created as Nine Regional by TechGeek105. At this point it is an actual disambiguation page.
• The page was subsequently moved to Nine Regional (disambiguation) as a result of an RM on the talk page, proposed by TechGeek105. The RM saw lots of comments from TechGeek105 and only one from anybody else.
• Less than a day later the page was PRODed by TechGeek105.
• A week later TechGeek105 redirects the page to Channel 9#See also. Someone else removes the PROD tag on the grounds that since the page has been redirected it isn't necessary any more.
• 3 days later TechGeek105 nominates the redirect for deletion at RfD, which ends in deletion since nobody else commented.
• TechGeek105 is now appealing the deletion of the redirect.

Honestly this looks like someone running a page through lots of different processes for fun. Possibly there's another explanation but I can't see it. Hut 8.5 18:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m, TechGeek105, and I really did all this, so someone could restore the history. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 20:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no mention of Nine Regional in the target that @Hut 8.5 mentioned. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've neither denied that you're doing this all for sport, nor articulated that the encyclopedia will be improved by taking this action, so... Endorse and reject userification/draftification absent a better explanation. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I'm requesting this page to be undeleted via the deletion review process is because it has valuable history done by me, in fact it was the the first disambiguation page I created from scratch, and was not a redirect turned into a disambiguation page. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 04:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have valuable history again?—Alalch E. 08:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was done by me, as I thought there was multiple uses of Nine Regional until I found out there was only 1 use, @Alalch E. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 10:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only use of Nine Regional was 10 (Southern Cross Austereo), from 2016 till 2021. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 10:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have valuable history. The most content this page ever had was a disambiguation page with two entries in it. That content isn't going to be useful to anyone else. Hut 8.5 12:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5, but it’s useful for me only. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5, can you please email me the previous contents. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hut 8.5 10:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this discussion may be closed now, @ClydeFranklin Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deshbhakti Ke Pavan Teerth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

If we compare any award given away with only Nobel Prize, Oscars, Bookers, etc. then that would not be fair at all. As there are many awards and recognitions given away by government bodies recognizing the work done by artists, authors etc. and these hold a lot of importance in that country. There are no fixed guidelines as to which award holds the most important after the Booker Prize for literary work. The deletion of the Wikipedia page: Deshbhakti Ke Pavan Teerth suggested is not fair. Aintabli (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC), has rightly commented that Indian Government has awarded 'Rahul Sankrityayan Award' for the year 2018–19 to this Book. Ministry of Tourism, under the Government of India has awarded this Rahul Sankrityayan Award. No it would not be apt to consider Sahitya Akademi Award as the more "major" option in India. Moreover, the English version of this book: Patriotic Pilgrimage Of India, is available at the National Library of India. Hence meeting the threshold standards (Criteria) also. It is my humble submission to re consider this deletion of the article and also help me to publish the same. Raksha57 (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close. The complaint doesn't attach to any of the five ennumerated reasons to seek review. It just relitigates the AfD. No new information has come to light since the deletion. NBOOK threshold standards are exclusionary, not inclusionary. The closer was not notified. It is possible to start a draft.—Alalch E. 11:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the award was considered and rejected as establishing notability in the AFD. There is no defect in process. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to soft delete due to lack of participation (the nom, a single delete voter, and a neutral comment). If this is not eligible for a soft delete, please ping me and I will change my vote to endorse. Either way, the appellant is not arguing the procedure of the deletion but trying to relitigate the discussion itself, which is not allowed per WP:DRVPURPOSE. The appellant or any interested editor can create an article on draftspace if it is believed more WP:SIGCOV can be found. Frank Anchor 15:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Properly deleted. If you want to reverse a consensus to delete, see advice at WP:THREE. Do it in draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to handle issues where deletion process has not been properly followed, not to raise or re-raise arguments from the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Either Delete or Relist would have been a valid conclusion. The appellant seems to be relitigating. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse fair close, while there was only one explicit Delete comment there was other discussion on the subject by other people who were clearly of a similar opinion and nobody supported another outcome. I don't think it's fair to use the Booker Prize as an indicator of a "major" prize, as the Booker is easily the most prominent literary prize in the UK and that standard would only allow a handful of awards to qualify. But it was reasonable for the participants to decide that it isn't enough, and the article didn't include a proper source for this award anyway (the citation was to these search results). Hut 8.5 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked TikTok videos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nom was based on WP:LISTN but nearly every vote pointed to a different policy or reason and each of them were described incorrectly. Three out of five delete votes said WP:V wasn't met and each for different reasons. The first said that it was because TikTok is a company, though this ignores WP:ABOUTSELF; the second said it was an example of WP:SYNTH without any explanation; and the third said that TikTok was not able to be trusted because it was owned by communist China and used to manipulate people and that it was too easy to manufacture likes, which is against both WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The two votes that addressed the WP:LISTN concerns only listed the policy without an explanation, while one said it was impossible to keep updated, while both completely ignored the sources listed in my keep vote that address the WP:LISTN concerns. Even if these votes were clearer, none of them suggest a consensus has been reached per WP:PNSD and further discussion is necessary. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the fact that everyone has a different reason why this article is a bad idea doesn't mean all of them--or even any of them--are necessarily wrong. I'd go with unencyclopedic and unmaintainable as sufficient reasons. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:OUTDATED expand on this, but neither "unencyclopedic" nor "unmaintainable" describe policy-based arguments. The former is too vague and the latter is why there is a template for dynamic lists. benǝʇᴉɯ 13:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There needs to be a consensus to delete, and there was, but there does not need to be a consensus all with the same reason. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete" was the only possible close for that debate; the consensus was overwhelming.—S Marshall T/C 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @S Marshall: Can you point me to what the exact consensus was outside of "delete"? If all that is required for a consensus of "delete" to be reached is merely for people to vote "delete" for any reason, let alone all different reasons, then that becomes a poll rather than a discussion. I would appreciate knowing the particular, policy-based reasons behind the close, especially since I disputed the WP:LISTN concerns with articles from Cosmopolitan, Seventeen, Newsweek, and In the Know about the list's subject, among other reasons, and the WP:V concerns appear to be based on flawed understandings of policy. benǝʇᴉɯ 14:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You say "a poll rather than a discussion", as if one thing can't be both. In fact deletion debates are both polls and discussions. Our instructions to discussion closers say (at WP:NHC): The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate. And the result of the debate is that the community doesn't want this content.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Multiple editors agreed that such a page does not make for an encyclopedic list because the information coming from the dynamic dataset can't be independently verified, being that this is a primary source, and that, as such, it is also impossible to keep the list updated. The information was additionally criticized as especially untrustworthy, which is obviously the same line of argument. One editor opposed this reasoning. A consensus was found around a concern that the content is not suitable for the encyclopedia. —Alalch E. 15:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - If multiple editors give different reasons for deletion, they may not disagree anyway, but may also agree with the other reasons. In any case, the consensus was to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Gonzalez-Lima (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am the living person described in this page. My page was deleted improperly because I refused to pay hundreds of dollars to Laura Walters who wanted payment or otherwise was going to delete my page. My page was originally drafted by Chris Kang, a student at Amherst College, but then the page was slightly modified and resubmitted for approval by Laura Walters. Here are emails from Laura Walters to me: On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:55 PM Laura Walters wrote: Hello Francisco,

I'll revise this rejected draft in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and submit it for approval. I'll send you the last draft so you can review it before submitting it. It will cost you USD 380. Pay me when the page is approved and published.

Regards, Laura

Re: Greetings! External Inbox

Laura Walters Apr 10, 2023, 2:25 AM (6 days ago) to me

Hi,

Please respond otherwise I have to delete the page

This was a case of extortion by Laura Walters trying to profiteer from Wikipedia. Please do not allow this type of misuse of Wikipedia and undelete this page. Thank you, Prof. Dr. Francisco Gonzalez-Lima — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.95.34 (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The differences between the deleted version at Francisco Gonzalez-Lima and the still-existing draft at Draft:Francisco Gonzalez-Lima are trivial: splitting two paragraphs, changing a section heading, and adding a few wikilinks. She (assuming it was even Walters who created the mainspace version, which is by no means certain; the account that did so was Felone Kelin) did add a couple references - [15], [16], [17], and [18] - and while that's something, none of them make a difference in whether the draft is acceptable.
  The mainspace version should remain deleted as copyright infringement. No opinion on whether the draft should be moved to mainspace; I don't edit in this subject area. —Cryptic 08:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cryptic: Where does copyright violation come in? Have I missed something? Stifle (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was copied without attribution from the draft written by User:Cjk2000. While we could provide that attribution, there were no copyrightable changes made to the mainspace version, so the preferred method would be to delete it and move the draft there. And then, if the draft isn't ready for mainspace, move it back to draft. That last isn't a call Felone Kelin is qualified to make even if they somehow aren't the scammer they're claimed to be above. Take a look at their deleted contribs. —Cryptic 09:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This article was speedy-deleted under CSD:G7 (author request to delete own article), which requires that the request be in good-faith. Unless User:Felone Kelin can convince us that there was a reason for the G7 request other than attempting to extort money from Professor Gonzalez-Lima, or there is a copyright concern (which I am not seeing) I would overturn the deletion as ineligible for G7 due to being made in bad-faith, properly attribute the original author User:Cjk2000 in the history, and block Felone Kelin for WP:UPE. Moving the draft to mainspace would also work. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not really inclined to restore this given that it was apparently written by someone violating Wikipedia's terms of service and plagiarising Draft:Francisco Gonzalez-Lima. That draft was rejected at AfC, and the reasons for rejection haven't been addressed since. Hut 8.5 11:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Prof Gonzalez-Lima, Wikipedians take a dim view of paid-for articles and we certainly take a dim view of people trying to extort money from you for them. That should not happen to anyone and on a personal level, I'm sorry to hear that it happened to you. My colleagues above are giving various reasons why we shouldn't restore this version of the article. On the level of Wikipedian policy they are correct. But that doesn't mean we wouldn't host any article about you. A different draft with more encyclopaedic wording would be acceptable, if you meet our notability criteria for academics, which in my experience the majority of full professors at accredited universities will tend to pass. The criteria are listed in full here, and whether they are met is tested by the citations to reliable sources in the article. I do hope this helps you.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be good if this DRV resulted in some version of the article being restored to mainspace, by the way. I also think it's important that Felone Kelin's behaviour is rewarded with a swift and final site-ban, although this isn't strictly speaking the correct venue to get that done.—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Stifle and S Marshall here: The conduct issue is the most important part in this issue. Extortion is a crime, and if that's really what happened here--which is probably a trust & safety or at lest a functionary issue to determine--then we need to make sure such egregious behavior is not rewarded. The story is plausible enough to merit investigation. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an unusual case, because the deletion discussion was with respect to a disambiguation page which was deleted without a proper consensus, then recreated (by me) on different grounds, once additional notable topics were created or documented that newly required disambiguation at that title. Nonetheless, since individual lines of content have been removed from the disambiguation page based on the deletion discussion—and against longstanding disambiguation page precedent—it remains necessary to address the close. Specifically, the deletion nomination was premised on the topics on the page being WP:DABMENTION topics rather than individual articles. However, there was an exhaustive RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 43#RfC on change to MOS:DABMENTION, which resulted in no consensus specifcally for the rule applied to this current AfD. There have been numerous efforts to delete functionally identitical disambiguation pages which have failed. One instance slipping by the attention of the community should not be allowed to introduce inconsistency across the project.

There has to be some point at which the precedents established by the tireless work and thoughtful discussion of the disambiguation project are given some modicum of respect. I respectfully request that the AfD close be overturned to no consensus, or that the discussion be relisted for determination as to whether the positions of participants are consistent with the referenced RfC. BD2412 T 01:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The cited RFC essentially did not change standing policy, and did not come to any actionable conclusions. As such, the current text at WP:DABMENTION is our official guideline, and the close was a reasonable conclusion. Further, I am concerned by the WP:FORUMSHOPPING by the nominator, given that many of the same issues are under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Lott; a conversation started by the nominator. Additionally, I am concerned by the behavior of the nominator at User talk:Arbitrarily0#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Lott and in the edit history of Charles Lott. It doesn't seem right for an admin who participated in an AFD as a commenter to then countermand the closing admin of that AFD after they didn't like the outcome of that AFD and recreate the article under some other pretext to essentially WP:Wikilawyer there way around an AFD closing. Also many of the edits by BD2412 at the Charles Lott article after recreation have been disruptive. In summary, there seems to be multiple active competing conversations, rather than a succinct location, and lot of skirting around policies is a way that doesn't seem transparent or ethical or respectful of the processes we have for building community consensus. This is not behavior befitting of an admin.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly can taking an AfD to Deletion Review be forum shopping? Also, how is it a "pretext" to create missing articles on notable subjects? You have yourself previously conceded that California State Senator Charles Fayette Lott is a notable figure, did you not? Your characterization of legitimate contributions has crossed the line incivility, and is edging closer to the limits of my patience in dealing with such. BD2412 T 03:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are essentially asking for a review of the same content across multiple pages. Why ask a wiki project to build consensus on the content if you are going to try and re-open an AFD that would then be doing the same thing? It seems like forum shopping to me, as for practical purposes both conversations are trying to determine what to do with the content at Charles Lott. Further, creating a new dab article because you created new articles that needed disambiguating would have been fine. But that isn't what you did. What wasn't ok was using your admin tools to restore an older version of a deleted page which had inappropriate content for a dab page per the AFD close. You were using your admin tools to work around an AFD close to restore content that was clearly ruled as not belonging on that page, and not merely to disambiguate the new articles you created. I think that is pretty well articulated already in the linked discussions above. It's shady behavior, and was disrespectful to the AFD process of building community consensus to make decisions.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: The WikiPoject discussion is alerting the project to the larger problem, not seeking review of the specific page (for which this is the appropriate forum). See Arbitrarily0's own comment on this matter: "I am inclined to agree with you, BD2412, but many other editors will not be so inclined, so please take this to DRV so we can have a more authoritative ruling than either of us can produce". So, here we are. With respect to the previous content of the page, literally any editor could have restored that, and it is quite possible that someone else will. Nowhere did the AfD discuss what would be permissible to have on the page if the page was restored due to the presence of new articles. Please show me the rule that says that a deleted article, if properly recreated due to the discovery of new content, is forbidden from also including content that it contained when it was deleted. If there is such a rule that I am unaware of, I would very much like to be corrected on this point. BD2412 T 03:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are wikilawyering again to obfuscate the issue. The AFD was closed with specific language articulating that specific content on that page was inappropriate for use on a DAB page. You then ignored that summary of community consensus, and unilaterally restored that content in contradiction to the language of that AFD close. I think that is blatantly disruptive behavior that is disrespectful to the AFD process. What you should have done, is brought the issue here to AFD review first instead of restoring the article on your own, and hashed it out here with community input to allow the community to make the choice. But you didn't do that. And now you have two competing conversations that are being asked to review identical content. This situation is a mess in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be completely clear. The AfD was solely premised on there only being WP:DABMENTION topics on the disambiguation page. Once there were separate freestanding articles, that was no longer an issue. WP:DABMENTION has not been removed as a guideline; it is still permissible to include in disambiguation pages content based on mentions in articles. You yourself have acknowledged that the fictional TV character, a WP:DABMENTION, is now appropriate to include on the page. Arbitrarily0 found that the military officer was appropriate to include on the page, and yet you have falsely asserted that they had deleted it from the page (which they never did) and that I had then restored it from their deleting it. Boleyn, who added those lines to the page in the first place, assuredly did so in good faith as well. Literally nowhere in the AfD discussion is there any discussion of any of these specific lines. To assert as much is as false as the assertion that Arbitrarily0 deleted the line on the military officer, which I would appreciate your restoring now. BD2412 T 03:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to engage with you on specific content decisions here because it is the wrong forum and is off topic. Further, the decision to restore content should be made through wider community input that includes more people than just you and I. This content dispute would benefit from wider community input in the correct forum which in my opinion should be at the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page where there is already a request for comment made by yourself. Let’s see what others have to say there, build a community consensus, and then implement it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay folks, I've got a question: "Does the DAB page, as it now exist, meet folks readings of WP:DABMENTION and WP:NOT?" My understanding is that it (now) does since we have two blue-linked articles with some variation of this name. But I don't do much with DAB pages. I'd like to get short and clear responses from both sides of this. Hobit (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hobit In it’s current state I have no problem with the disambiguation page. This is because the disputed material has been removed, but is currently open for community review/ input at the discussion linked above. In my opinion there really isn’t any practical reason to continue this DRV given the content disputed is the subject of an ongoing community discussion at the relevant WikiProject talk page, and the newly created articles after the AFD closed essentially made a clear and new need for a DAB page to exist. In short, the most practical thing to do would be endorse the close and allow the other discussion to go forward in a single location as to what to do with the disputed content.4meter4 (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not see a consensus in that AfD.—S Marshall T/C 08:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason you do not see a consensus is that there isn't one to be seen. Not even a very rough consensus. Thincat (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you've said that but I wouldn't, or at least, not at this stage. I'm minded to listen to the closer's explanation here.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so now I've seen the closer's explanation and there's not a lot there to bite on, so I politely disagree with them. My view is that this is moot as the decision has been superseded, but my review of the close is that it was inaccurate and the AfD should have been closed as no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse correct interpretation of consensus to delete. However, the current version of the page is acceptable in my opinion (I voted delete in the AFD) and it is sufficiently different that WP:G4 speedy deletion does not apply. Frank Anchor 12:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I lean toward agreeing with S. Marshall that this looks like it was probably better closed as NC, not sure it's far enough that way I'd !vote to overturn. But I'm going to go with moot, page now meets inclusion guidelines. Issues about including other material on that DAB page should be resolved as a regular editorial issue, not as a DRV/deletion process issue. Issues about guidelines/policy disputes can go to the appropriate talk pages. My only two cents is that I don't think using this AfD as evidence of community consensus on the issue is reasonable--at best there was minimal consensus for deletion of the prior material. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin. I still stand by my close, which is based on giving greater weight to the arguments of User:No such user and User:4meter4. But I also agree that the point is now moot, thanks to the excellent contributions by User:BD2412. My edit to Charles Lott was not done on the authority of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Lott, but on my being persuaded with 4meter4's reading of WP:DABMENTION. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think it's probably not ideal for a closer to then turn around and be an editor of the same article, especially if those edits are not based on the close per se. Clearly doing things in the other order would be a problem, I'm not sure waiting a week solves that. I admit I'm a bit more worried about the appearance of being uninvolved in a close than most. Hobit (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In hindsight, I agree, and regret the way I've added to the confusion here. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment MOS discussions do not determine what we cover in Wikipedia, merely how the information we do cover is presented. MOS != NOT. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true in most cases. For dab pages, however, the guidance on what to include is split between WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. – Uanfala (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, then, someone should make sure the split between policy and appearance/presentation is sorted out before the next time this comes up, no? Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly to Hobit, I think no consensus would have been a better reflection of the discussion. Although there was a numerical majority for deletion, several of the Delete comments seem to me to be contradicting wider consensus. However the Delete arguments are now moot given changes made to the page since, and I don't think anybody should be citing this AfD as a weapon in future content disputes. Hut 8.5 07:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close as moot. This is literally a content dispute about whether certain entries meet WP:DABMENTION or not. DRV was not needed despite having been recommended by one of the participants in the content dispute who was the closing admin (not relevant anymore). DRV does not produce authoritative rulings on editorial decisons within pages that are not deleted. It seems as if the AfD outcome is used to prop up certain instances of removal on the page that is now not going to get deleted, which would not make any sense, but really the arguments from the AfD about DABMENTION are being cited as arguments about whether and how to properly disambiguate; the closing admin has involved himself in the content dispute and has joined one of those arguments, which is fine, and is not DRV business.
  4meter4 should not say things like The fact that you reverted the changes I made to the dab page in line with that closing seems to me that you did not respect the language of that close. It's wrong. Consensus about deletion is not the same as consensus on what changes to make on a page when it is not being deleted. 4meter4 should only base their actions on relevant and not irrelevant rationales, but as DRV is not dispute resolution in this sense, it can't do anything here.—Alalch E. 10:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alalch E.:, I do believe that the appropriate close of the deletion discussion on the basis of particpation and precedent should have been no consensus, irrespective of the later content dispute. I would be content, however, with a determination that, the matter being moot, the AfD is indeed not relevant to the content of the new disambiguation page. BD2412 T 15:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a conduct problem: Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling#Claiming consensus supports the status quo when it doesn't, WP:FORCEDINTERPRET, WP:SANCTIONGAME (I personally think it deserves a temporary block of editing privileges /diff/), and WP:PLAYPOLICY (complaining about wikilawyering while precisely doing the same: wikilawyering). DRV doesn't really do conduct. —Alalch E.
• Question a lot of the AFD seemed to hinge on NOTDIRECTORY. But NOTDIRECTORY doesn't discuss disambiguation pages. Do we really apply NOTDIRECTORY to Disambiguation pages with linked entries? I can see that one could call any disambiguation page a directory, but I don't think that's the intent of NOTDIRECTORY. As for the DRV - I'm not really sure why it's here. User:BD2412 is clearly here in good faith - but if one wanted to do the right thing procedurally after undeleting and improving the article, wouldn't it be AFD it oneself, and vote Keep - and notify all the other voters? Nfitz (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nfitz: My proposition is, very specifically, that the AfD in this case was closed incorrectly. I would prefer not to see future discussions proceeding on the belief that this was the correct outcome in this case. BD2412 T 19:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. And I think this needs to be closed with no further action taken. Nfitz (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bielefeld (2nd nomination) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page was deleted by G3, though it was created as April fool AFD nomination. Should not be deleted as G3 as it was April Fools joke. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 13:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is this a foolish argument, two weeks after April Fools Day, about how to clean up an April Fools prank? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I mean, it's a fairly run-of-the-mill April Fools' AfD—not an especially funny one, but also well within the rules that the community has set out. I have a hard time seeing that as a valid G3 since there's no indication that anyone involved was trying to harm the encyclopedia. (The creator was a sockpuppet, but other editors contributed, so it also wouldn't be a G5.) If editors think these prank AfDs have gotten out of hand (which I would tend to agree with), then the place for that conversation would be an RfC. But I would overturn this speedy, although I do think (per Robert) that these sorts of deletions are probably not worth bringing to DRV in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Based on what those who can access the deleted history said, this is a ROTM April Fools AfD that is not G3. Don't think this is worth taking to DRV though. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is evidently a ferling that this nonsense should be kept, I have reversed my deletion, though it is beyond me why anyone would think it a good idea to take up several editors' time by immediately starting a deletion review, rather than consulting me in the first instance. JBW (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science fiction fans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Procedurally flawed (indecently hasty) non-admin closure Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(as closer) @Orangemike, there were no objections to deletion and the rationale was clearly grounded in policy (WP:DEFINING).
Most closures at CfD are NACs due to the shortage of closures. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If the nom has policy/guideline-based arguments for keeping this, I'd be okay with a relist to give them a chance to make those arguments. But procedurally I see no problem here. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse at this time, in the absence of a more specific argument from Orangemike as to what the error was. The CFD was open for the usual seven days, and it appears that other CFDs are also often closed as NACs after one listing for seven days rather than waiting for an admin closer or relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correct interpretation of unanimous consensus to delete. A relist would have also been a reasonable choice due to limited participation, but delete was the better choice as nobody supported “keep” in the CFD. Frank Anchor 02:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - I don't think the close was "bad", per se, but I think this could have benefited from a relist. The current name was clearly a problem (as could also be seen in the category's description), but I think that a rename with pruning might have been possible through further discussion. I think User:Marcocapelle had some interesting ideas in the discussion for subcats for a better named parent cat. So maybe something like Category:Science-fiction fandom people, might be a decent discussion starter. - jc37 03:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In the discussion I have not suggested to keep such a parent cat though. The two subcategories I mentioned can also be directly parented to Category:Science fiction fandom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies for not being clearer. I was saying that they could be. The point being that further discussion could bring about further options/ideas/information/etc. Of which you just listed another : ) - jc37 08:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This is how CfD works these days. The discussion lasted a full duration. There was consensus to delete. —Alalch E. 11:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Unanimous consensus to delete after 7 days, and even though I don't see anything exempting CFD from WP:BADNAC #4 (perhaps we should do an RfC on this), they seem to accept delete NACs. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse was listed for 7 days with unanimous support for deletion. Reopening it would be reasonable if there was a substantial argument against deletion, or if the conclusion was somehow suspect, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Hut 8.5 10:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Why on earth would anyone think the closure was "indecently hasty"? The discussion was allowed to run for more than 7 days, three editors commented, which is a reasonable number by CfD standards, and every one of those supported deletion. It is difficult to imagine a more unambiguously correct closure.JBW (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist: The "unanimous consensus" being spoken of here was among two voters, one of whom wrote nothing but their signature. The nomination just pointed at WP:DEFINING without explaining why, while the other just said WP:PERNOM and then offered alternatives, still without explaining how WP:DEFINING applied in this case. Agreeing that the discussion should stay closed because it was open for a day longer than the minimum requirement glosses over a lack of actual reasons given for its deletion and closure per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and an examination of the quality of arguments required by WP:CON to decide that there was consensus. benǝʇᴉɯ 13:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those "voters" often comment at CfD and other experienced editors (should) know that their "votes" are !votes. William Allen Simpson agreed with the nominator that the category is based on a non-defining characteristic, which is the most classic reason to delete a category, and didn't have anything to add. It's unnecessary to explain how being a science fiction fan is not a defining characteristic, because it's so obvious. Three editors agreed and no one disagreed during the full discussion period, because there was really nothing else to say. —Alalch E. 15:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - in the absence of any rationale whatsoever to keep, it's difficult to see how else this could have been closed. Oculi (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Sean Reed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted very hastily in 2020, just after the event occurred. Since then, the shooting has received persistent coverage in local and national media (see NPR, Washington Post, CNN, AP, etc. I think that is good reason to recreate the article. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not salted, so creating a new article at that title shouldn't be an issue. Bringing back the previous article from three years ago with sources purely from then (presumably there have, as you say, been more sources adding more context since then) looks like more work and drama than just making a new article? — Trey Maturin™ 17:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything here which would overcome the reasons for deletion. Three of the OP's four sources report that a grand jury declined to charge the police officer over the shooting and they were only written a few months after it happened, the other one is more recent but it just reports that a lawsuit was settled. None of that suggests lasting significance. You can recreate the article, the deleted version was 100 words long and cited two sources ([19][20]) so it wouldn't be much help anyway. Hut 8.5 18:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation, either as draft subject to review or in article space subject to AFD, because recreation is allowed because the title is not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Wonders of Karnataka (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

page was deleted under the category G11: unambiguous advertising, since page is similar to karnataka state version of Wonders of the World i would like to contest speedy deletion, since after marking page for deletion, page author and myself replied on talkpage that this page is not spam which i think was not noticed by deleting admin, also discussed it with User talk:Randykitty#Regarding_deletion_of_a_page which admin didn't respond after initially replying it was spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~aanzx (talk • contribs) 06:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The article was absolutely blatant promotion, whether the speculation that the deleting administrator didn't check the talk page is correct or not. It is also of interest that in their talk page post denying that the article was promotional, ~aanzx wrote "Furthermore, the tourism initiative by the government of Karnataka is a significant development that deserves attention, and the page provides a platform to showcase the efforts of the government to promote tourism in the state". I find it mindboggling that anyone can think that is a reason why the page was not promotional, and I wonder what on earth ~aanzx thinks would be a reason why something is promotional. JBW (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My main point if it's really spam, maybe which i didn't grasp, or how it was spam i didn't understood, if someone contest a speedy deletion on talk page i presume it's suitable to respond to to that before deleting article. I am just asking if there was oversight. ~aanzx ^✉ _© 11:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (from deleting admin): I always read a talk page (if present) before deleting an article (whether CSD, PROD, or AfD). In the present case, the talk page comments just confirmed that this was a clear G11. I responded to a query on my talk page, but didn't continue what I thought was a fruitless discussion, being rather occupied with other things at that time. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse, having not seen the deleted article, and not wanting to see it, but agreeing that the talk page content establishes that the content was promotional. This is a weak endorse because G11 requires that the article be exclusively promotional, and I am relying on trusting the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse poorly sourced, promotional article. Star Mississippi 02:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, deleted for good reason, promoting the campaign. Should write about it on own website. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like withdraw this nomination, as i needed the second opinion from others which by consesus endorse deletion, this request can be closed. ~aanzx ^✉ _© 08:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

198 (number) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was previously deleted in 2022, per the result of an AFD discussion. I would like the earlier history of 198 (number) as well as it’s talk page to be restored, as soon as this deletion review closes, because I would like to put a R from history tag on the redirect. Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was meant to say; Adding 198 (number) to deletion review. Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. However, it is not clear what this is. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Robert McClenon, I am not sure what this is about. It doesn't appear to be a claim that the deletion discussion was incorrectly closed. "I would like to..." do something isn't a reason to overturn the outcome of a correctly closed discussion, and no other reason has been given. Unless and until another reason is provided, therefore, we have to endorse the closure, and decline the request. (See WP:ILIKEIT.) JBW (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, guys, it does make sense. During the AfD the content was merged -- see the very last entry in the AfD. There was a subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 29#198 (number) in which the community decided that a redirect was legitimate. The applicant now wants to restore the history beneath the redirect in order to preserve attribution. This isn't just legitimate, it's mandatory for terms of use compliance and in my view it ought to be completely uncontroversial. We could lecture the nominator about the different venues for requesting this kind of thing, but I think it would be more productive just to restore the history as asked and speedily close this DRV?—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Copyright compliance is unlikely to be a factor, the text under 198 is essentially facts trivially stated and not likely to be afforded copyright protection - there are only a few ways you can state the number of ridges say. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there's more to WP:CWW than copyright. Attribution is author credit: it's the only "reward" we offer volunteers, and mainspace contributions are a kind of social capital. The situations in which we don't need to provide attribution are listed at WP:NOATT and I don't think any of them obtain.—S Marshall T/C 12:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The focus of CWW is copyright it's opening sentence is all about licensing, and it mention nothing of editors "reward". One of the sentences heading WP:NOATT is "However, duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia) requires attribution.", the 4 items listed are guidance and not definitive. Regardless my sole point was that there is not a copyright requirement, if it's desirable for other reasons, that's another matter. Either way for copyright reasons or some other feel good reasons, generally a redirect with history tends not to achieve much as someone reading the article I've no idea that other article exists and I can go look there to some how try and piece together who might be attributable for a given piece of work YMMV --81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  People usually use {{merged}} on the talk page.—S Marshall T/C 13:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "What links here" will show the redirected page, and history can readily be seen on the redirected page. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore history at redirect. The appellant does. not appear to be challenging the closure. I’m not sure if DRV or WP:REFUND is the right venue for such a request but we’re here now. There’s really no compelling reason not to restore the history, easpecially after the redirect was validated at RFD. Frank Anchor 10:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominator comment: I also recommend to restore the history at the redirect because the redirect was merged with 190 (number). Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 11:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy restore history under redirect 1) it was merged, so CWW expects it, and 2) there is no assertion of G10-11-12 attack-spam-copyvio "poison" content that should not be restored. This should really be a standard function of REFUND, should it not? Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]