Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June

Dilshad Kamaludheen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Analysis of the sources:- 1 is just a database, no sigcov, 2 is only passing mention with match result, 3 is a repetition of 1, 4 again a database, 5 repetition of the 4th, 6 is match result, 7 is list of players, 8 mention only, 9 again passing mention, 10 match result again, 11 list of winners hence a database, 12 match result yet again, 13 same instance of match result passing mention, 14 says he got banned from participation, yet again only a passing mention, 15 again passing, 16 a database entry, not sure how did it came here, but it did. There is no instance of indepth in sourcing, no significant coverage, keep votes fail to address the bad sources available for him. Moreover he does not even touch WP:NBAD from a long long way. Clear cut deletion candidate.

Considering above, this article failed WP:NBAD, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I therefore object the closure of this afd. Thankyou. zoglophie 15:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD, and have already had a discussion with zoglophie here, where I advised them to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to say to your insults for me. Now please let the reviewers decide. Thankyou. zoglophie 16:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - No Consensus was the best conclusion by the closer even in the absence of extended argument, and the extended argument is further evidence of the lack of consensus. This appears to be a case where the appellant thinks that length of argument is strength of argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No error by the closer was alleged here. No consensus was both a possible result from that discussion and the best result from that discussion. I might have agreed with the nominator had I participated in that discussion, but it didn't sway consensus in the actual discussion. Try again in a few months. SportingFlyer T·C 18:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  many a times discussions go to second relist. Is relisting not an option here? Last year some of my nominations actually reached the furthest, ultimately resulting in delete. zoglophie 18:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is an option but you don't want to keep relisting things if you don't have to, and there was more than enough discussion that closing was possible. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there clearly is not consensus to delete. Only one "delete" vote outside of the nominator and that was a generic "fails GNG" vote with no further explanation. The "keep" side presented sources which some in the discussion considered to be passing. Appellant also needs reminded that DRV is not the place to relitigate an AFD. Frank Anchor 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was no consensus for deletion, if nothing else the fact that only one person other than the nominator supported deletion means the discussion can't reasonably be closed as Delete. If the only contributions to the debate were the nomination and Sportsfan 1234's cursory comment, the debate would have been closed as soft delete or no consensus. While there was disagreement over whether the sources provided demonstrate notability, this is a legitimate argument grounded in the notability guidelines, and it's not for the closer to close based on their own analysis of the sources. Hut 8.5 17:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This is a relitigation of the AfD itself, not a valid DRV. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse I’m on the fence between endorsing NC or voting overturn to keep, but both have the same end result. Not even close to having consensus to delete, considering it was just the nom and one other vote against a few keep votes that provided sources with varying levels of notability. The only user who felt specific sources were not good enough was the nominator who severely bludgeoned the process and wants to relitigate the AFD here. Carson Wentz (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  looks to me people are concerned more about me arguing the sources are not good enough instead of the sources actually not being good enough for the player. And spamming the Afd with dozen sources failing WP:GNG, WP:NBAD, WP:SIGCOV doesn't mean the subject is notable, which the creator did and caused apparent disruption. One other keep vote didn't even presented sources to prove his point. I'm not expecting much at the moment from here actually, I will happily accept the review and come back in future. zoglophie 06:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV is not the place for you to argue the sources are not good enough despite your multiple attempts to argue this point here. You made your case on the AFD. Consensus disagreed. Its time to move on. Carson Wentz (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Length of argument is not the same as strength of argument at DRV either. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Carrim Alli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this discussion as delete, which has been challenged on my talk page here, so I'm bringing this to DRV for further discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This could not have been closed any other way. SportingFlyer T·C 14:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the right assessment by the closer based on the input from the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:Ritchie333 - Will contentious editors get the idea that AFDs that you close will have DRV as AFD round 2? If you think that you made the right closure, can you at least let the dissatisfied editor do the work of filing the DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, as the "contentious editor" in question, I probably wouldn't have brought this to DRV. Park3r (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Despite the lone keep vote adding several sources to the article, nobody else voiced an opinion to keep the article in the 18 days between this vote and the AFD's closure. In addition, many of these sources were scrutinized during the process. Frank Anchor 18:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I added 15 sources to the AFD, all from WP:RS and argued that the subject possibly met WP:GNG. It was meant to be a top-level comment before another editor indented it and made it a response to the first delete vote. The final relisting asked for sources to be examined. One of the post-relisting votes was a very dubious delete with no rationale, which another editor addressed on the voter's talk page[1], and the other was an assessment of 6 sources (out of 15). Among the sources were two academic articles that referenced the murder that were not addressed, nor was my point about it meeting WP:GNG, rather than WP:EVENT. Do I believe the article should be kept? I don't know, but I do believe the AFD was inadvertently cut short because of a single challenged keep vote, post-relisting. Closer offered to draftify the article but that would still leave the sourcing unaddressed and open it to further AfD challenges. Park3r (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC while the deletes had the numbers, the argumentation was quite poor and misstated or misapplied e.g. WP:ROUTINE. I grant that a further relisting would not have helped, but I do expect the closing admin to be familiar enough to detect and deprecate a WP:VAGUEWAVE posing as a rationale. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also: Murders of non-notable people are almost never notable. is a ridiculous statement. Just looking at what comes up first when I search "Murder of" includes only John Lennon in the top 10. Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd are there, as is Laci Peterson. Sure, in sheer numbers, most murders of NN people aren't themselves N... but that's a non sequitur, because we're talking about a specific instance of alleged national prominence. Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse not a great discussion, and I'd prefer some more analysis of Park3r's sources, but the participants didn't think they were enough to overcome the arguments for deletion and I can see why. The idea behind pages like WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS is that while some subjects like grisly murders generate lots of short term media coverage, we shouldn't have an article on them unless they have lasting significance as well. The fact that sources exist, or even that the subject passes the GNG, isn't enough to overcome this. Park3r wrote that the subject was covered over multiple years in RS, but that seems to mean that there is contemporary coverage of the murder itself (in 2004), contemporary coverage of the trial (in 2007) and contemporary coverage of the overturning of the convictions (in 2009). That doesn't in itself indicate lasting significance. There is only one source cited which was published after 2009 (this one). Hut 8.5 17:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't consider that continuing coverage? I suppose we should delete September 11 attacks since Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks isn't enduring coverage of the attacks themselves? Hyperbole, of course, but really: If an event hits the press multiple times for connected but separate reasons, that's textbook ongoing coverage. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Man on trial for horrible murder" makes the news for exactly the same reasons as "man horribly murdered" does. We're an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper and we are supposed to have different standards. The 9/11 comparison is silly, 9/11 has huge cultural resonance and will continue to do so for decades (perhaps centuries), and anybody writing a history of the United States in the early 21st century will probably have to discuss it in some detail. If on the other hand the coverage of 9/11 after the event was largely limited to news stories about legal proceedings against the perpetrators, and the coverage almost entirely stopped in 2006, then it might be comparable to this situation. Hut 8.5 17:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify: people are killed in horrible ways in South Africa fairly routinely and their murders barely crack a mention in the media (I know a woman from the same town as Alli who was killed at home, had her fingers chopped off before being stabbed, and her death only made the local (suburban) paper, and I've had a relative tortured with a hammer, before being shot, and that didn't get any coverage). Looking at Boksburg explosion you can see how even 41+ people being burned to death due to criminal negligence doesn’t get a lot of ongoing coverage in South Africa. Carrim Alli’s death was gruesome, but that would not have made it newsworthy in itself (otherwise we’d have an article about every necklacing victim), rather the fact that he was murdered for dealing with corruption at the highest levels of the police that made it newsworthy (see also: Murder of Babita Deokaran). That’s also why it made it into the two journal articles, including the one about whistleblower protections published in 2022, indicating a degree of WP:LASTING effect. It’s actually very rare for the alleged murderers to be apprehended, for a case to go to trial and for the SA media to cover a case like this at all, let alone over a long period. Park3r (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The community had a chance to evaluate Park3r's sources, and evidently found them insufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – the idea that events require temporally and geographically broad coverage to be notable is well supported by WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, and while reasonable minds can disagree about where precisely to draw that line, the editors who participated in this AfD pretty clearly reached a consensus to delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus based on a lack of consensus of participants and weight of guideline/policy based arguments. An analysis of the !votes (ignoring VAGUEWAVE !votes) boils down to three issues: (a) whether Park3r sourcing meets GNG, (b) whether news reports are considered PRIMARY or SECONDARY sources, and (c) whether there was SUSTAINED coverage. There was no consensus on either (b) or (c) with Thebiguglyalien and Park3r disagreeing on how to interpret guidelines. If I were the closer I would have given Park3r a slight edge based on my own understanding of those guidelines - newspapers are not always PRIMARY sources and coverage over several years is SUSTAINED. Also (a) was not exhausted - although the analysis by Karnataka was not substantially challenged, Park3r pointed out that only 6 of the 15 sources were analysed, excluding "academic" sources. There was no consensus at this AfD. Arguments were not completed/exhausted. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alim Industries Limited (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this discussion as no consensus, which has been challenged on my talk page here, so I'm bringing this to DRV for further discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I'd be frustrated if I had !voted to delete because this was almost a delete, but alas there were sources, whether those sources passed NCORP were discussed extensively, and the drive-by delete !voters added nothing given the discussion that had already taken place. @Ritchie333:, in my opinion at least, please don't open up DRVs for your own closes, especially considering the petitioner had said they wouldn't take it any further. Even if this gets overturned it's clear you know what you're doing and I believe it's on those wanting a different result to take things here in any non-edge case. SportingFlyer T·C 14:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - No Consensus is a valid conclusion by the closer. Also, when editors argue as much as happened here, that is further evidence that there isn't a consensus. The appellant can renominate after a reasonable period of time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your using a legal term "appellant" which is really unsuitable here, as most people don't understand what it is, and yet your not taking into effect the quality of the arguments nor the policy itself in the Afd discussion. Your assuming because there is lots of discussion, there must be no consensus? Does the quality of the discussion not matter, since the same kind of arguments have made numerous times in the past and been shown to be fallacious. It like the Afd is almost standalone in own wee world and nothing that came before matters. You see the same kind of keep !votes been made all the time, and while a lot of them have been comprehensively rejected in the past as being fallacious, they seem to be given new weight. scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There was no sources on that article that passed WP:NCORP with an admin that choose wilfully to ignore that last two delete !votes, when the delete argument was already made, on a completly generic farm implement manufacturer, of type where there is millions of them. What is particularly egregious is the fact that Highking had to take this to DRV, who is a specialist in this area and a bellweather, yet that knowledge is completely ignored for two keeps !votes, one who was new to Afd editor, whose has made a whole series of mistakes over the last month and who up until about 4-6 weeks ago, hadn't read WP:NCORP and the editor creator and that is no consensus. I can't understand it. Overturn to delete scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete I see a lengthy but inconclusive (neither party convinced the other one) discussion on the suitability of sources, and then several delete !voters that came after it. In this situation it can be assumed that the latecomers read the discussion and agreed that the sources are not suitable, and saw no need to restate the same arguments that were already discussed above. This thus falls back to the strong numerical majority to delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus was a viable option for the closer. The two late delete voters did nothing to add to the “delete” argument. Frank Anchor 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They added nothing other than their numbers, true, but in doing so didn't they show that the delete argument was found to be more convincing and thus should be given more weight? I acknowledge that this viewpoint doesn't match the typical way discussions are closed on Wikipedia, but I can't think of any refutation to it and none has been provided.

  By the same argument, doesn't your comment add nothing to the "endorse" argument, since it basically restates SportingFlyer's comment above? Evidently you think it adds something, or you wouldn't have commented. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, this is completely different. In that I added a similar viewpoint to SF, but there are differences between our arguments. Unlike the delete arguments that just say “fails NCORP” or “per nom” with zero explanation as to why. Frank Anchor 02:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep The delete side failed to even assert that both NCORP and GNG were failed. Per N, if either one is passed, an article is notable, so a "fails NCORP" is not a valid deletion argument absent an assertion that GNG is failed as well. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real. Have you read the Afd? It states it in the opening !vote: I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Then I state it further on. If the two editor's had read the policies they would have known what it was about. It was a company, so only WP:NCORP applies and that has been consensus since about 2017, and that is an assumption made by everybody when they take part in a company Afd, or the sorted company Afd list, unless its an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what it is, like this for example. The editors who were there knew that NCORP applied because that is what the experience of hundreds of previous Afd's showed. Is that all experience somehow to be suspended because it wasn't stated as a textual statement in the rationale. Everybody knew that it was NCORP being discussed. Again on here, it seem come back to this, about being its own wee bubble, as though the rest of the Afd history, the 1000's that i've taken part in the last decade, and other folk who specialise in that area, somehow don't exist. Is it contingent on us to tell new editors what the policies are? No, I don't expect to go to Afd and spout boilerplate as though I'm a trainer, nor expect to address arguments that have been comprehensively debunked and are specifically due to NCORP being rewritten to address in the first place. You seem to saying that is everybody's function. It is not, by any measure. The whole thing is moot anyway, since what is posted to Afd is a mere fraction on what needs to be posted. Most of the junk is never addressed and the battle for quality is lost. Its not being fixed in here, because there is no consistency. scope_creep^Talk 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP applies just fine, but it's just another path to notability if the GNG isn't met. Any topic that meets GNG is notable, regardless of what SNGs it does or does not fail. Don't like it? Amend N so it no longer says It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right (and NCORP is listed there as "Organizations and companies"). The fact that everyone has been applying NCORP wrong for ~6 years isn't my problem, but it might be a good argument to go and undo some of the deletions of GNG-meeting organizations. And the battle for quality is never won by deleting articles, but rather improving them. An applied eugenics approach to articles is not a helpful or productive approach, because it alienates good editors and does nothing to stem the tide of even worse articles being created every day. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a company can pass either GNG or NCORP, that means that the NCORP guideline never applies and is entirely dead letter, and that it can be deleted with no consequence, because all companies that pass NCORP automatically pass GNG. What NCORP does is explain how the general notability criteria are to be interpreted as much stricter (and in which way) for companies. Please read WP:SNG: SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. ... SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the ... strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. (emphasis mine), and WP:ORGCRIT: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. .... NCORP is simply a reiteration of GNG applied to companies with an extra layer of strictness to avoid abuse by interested actors, in order to mitigate the risk coming from such activity, with an extra layer of redundancy. NCORP is not an alternative path to notability like other SNGs. NCORP is different from other SNGs. It has a protective role. It has not been applied wrong for ~6 years.—Alalch E. 16:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your opinion. If you want Wikipedia guidelines to reflect that opinion--which I'm not disparaging nor disputing that many people hold--you need to change N. An SNG does not--can not--change the GNG, which is contained in N, and is the overarching guideline that enables SNGs to exist as anything beyond essays in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NCORP the intention of its "stronger emphasis on quality of the sources [is] to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals". Thus, common sense would say the independence requirements should not be applied in a way which disqualifies sources that don't reflect such gaming.

The interpretation advanced by HighKing in the AfD was that when a reporter sources information on a company's activities from the company, then even if the article is independent reporting as a whole it nevertheless constitutes non-independent coverage. That's inconsistent with the WP:NCORP's stated intention. And it's not clearly provided for by the text of WP:ORGCRIT. Without that argument the objections raised by the delete voters lose a lot of their force. Oblivy (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what was actually said, that certainly isn't it. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse or overturn to keep The organization has notability as a small domestic agricultural products producer that the government and NGO's recognize as a bulwark against imported tool makers. I was of the opinion the nomination was wrongly brought (because of the patent lack of WP:BEFORE), and I expanded it and provided sources. It's not just a self-promo project or "so what, it's just a business" situation.

@HighKing objected to one of the sources for reasons I think reflect a non-obvious reading of WP:NCORP, that an article which is independently written can't be independent to the extent it relies on information from the company. When I pushed back, @Scope creep piled on. I don't think I'm thin-skinned, but got to be too much. Saying "I give up" reflected a situation where two highly invested editors were telling me I was wrong and I wasn't going to convince them otherwise. I never changed my keep vote, but as @Ritchie333 surmised I had other things I could work on.

The project benefits from these articles because it should answer questions about organizations that the public may want to know about (as opposed to orgs that just want people to know about them). Although coverage is thin there is enough sourcing to show notability, and common sense should prevail. Oblivy (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGIND requires two types of "Independence". The one you're referring to is one half - independence of the author of functional independence. You also need to show that the sourcing contains "Independent Content" or intellectual independence. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete per Pppery.—Alalch E. 16:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete (edited) At DRV we're don't rehash AfD arguments but examine the actual close. It is difficult for me to impartially evaluate the close seeing as how I was a participant. Nevertheless I'll try. As an aside, I questioned Richie's close on his Talk page in order to understand his reasoning so that I could perhaps address any deficiencies in future AfDs. I was dismayed when my argument was dismissed as "personal opinion" without being provided any further detail. The fact that Richie brought this to DRV himself is an indication that perhaps this close wasn't good.

WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS says Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. The fact that Richie dismissed by guidelines-based argument for deletion as "personal opinion" is, in my opinion, the primary reason why consensus was misinterpreted. Another editor supported this reasoning and I can only assume this was dismissed also as merely supporting a personal opinion.

WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS also says consensus is determined by looking at strength of argument. None of the Keep arguments were based on NCORP guidelines and even here, some of the Keep !voters are repeating arguments which are flawed, are misinterpreted, or do not feature in AfD/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.

This AfD really boils down to evaluating consensus. The closer determined that the weight of Keep arguments was enough for "No Consensus". While I might not agree with the reasons provided, this wasn't an egregious close especially given the lack of overall *engaged* participation. I wouldn't have brought it here, its a waste of time. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - this discussion seems to further highlight the lack of consensus. I tried searching in Bengali for more sources and probably would have voted to keep. - Indefensible (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or overturn. I'm usually inclined to endorse closures where I read the consensus as more closely aligned with one outcome but the close is also plausible or possible, and this discussion can be considered that, however I believe the extent of downweighting for the pre-relist delete !votes is excessive in this case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angels–Mariners rivalry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Closer wrote "Suggestions to redirect the page to either 1995 American League West tie-breaker game or to other articles [sic] on rivalries did not win additional support following their proposal". I don't think this is a correct reading of the consensus. Three users supported the redirect to 1995 American League West tie-breaker game as an WP:ATD. One additional IP user voted for a Redirect to "an articles on rivalries" prior to the suggestion of that specific page. Only one user, the deletion nominator, opposed the redirect. The redirect page is directly mentioned as best representing the rivalry in the Seattle Times source full article about this rivalry. This ATD support was perhaps hard to notice due to the lack of actual bolded !votes for the redirect, and abnormal threading of support for the ATD, but support did exist for the redirect to 1995 American League West tie-breaker game as an alternative to deletion. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Rosguill is an experienced closer and directly noted that they had considered a redirect in their close but opted against it, and wasn't consulted before this DRV was opened. While several keep and delete !voters noted a redirect was possible, I think this discussion was validly closed as delete. SportingFlyer T·C 21:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - very sound and well articulated close. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (In the interest of full disclosure, I am the original AFD nominator) - Very well written close. Redirect would have also been a viable outcome based on limited support that raised some valid points (though I personally disagree with them, as stated in the AFD). However, as Rosguill explained in the closing statement, arguments for outright deletion had the strongest backing based in policy. Frank Anchor 23:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that DRV procedure was not followed here, as they never consulted with me prior to bringing it here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The DRV instructions say that one should "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer...", which I did do.

  This being my first interaction at DRV, I am unaware of the norms of the users here. I was attempting to "keep things out in the open" and follow the review process, rather than going straight to (and risk annoying) an individual user. If that is breaking "DRV procedure", the directions at DRV need to be updated.

  PK-WIKI (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PK-Wiki, I had removed my comment because SportingFlyer had already made the same point. Reinstating my comment after I removed it isn't appropriate, although ultimately it's not a big deal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Not only was this a valid conclusion by the closer, but it is a clearly explained conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Looks like a reasonable reading of consensus to me. If a redirect is desired, I would go ahead and create one. And if it proves durable/non-controversial undeletion of the history could be considered later. In other words, I don't see that the consensus in the AfD should be read as preventing a redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow creation of redirect The close was appropriate, however, if someone wants a redirect they should be able to create it, which of course can be challenged at WP:RFD. 104.246.113.199 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I voted delete and later opined that redirect was a suitable ATD. However that got little support among the delete voters. I have no issue with any user creating a new redirect to this proposed target page. Restoring the page history is not necessary in this case. Carson Wentz (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was not such a level of support for redirection as the suggested alternative to deletion as the appellant states, so that the close would be anything other than reasonable. —Alalch E. 14:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Added many entries to the page named "Avatar: The Last Airbender" and "The Last Airbender" RMXY (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close. The page has not been deleted, just nominated for speedy deletion, and this is the wrong venue to contest that (the talk page is the right place). However I have declined the speedy deletion as it is not substantially identical to the version deleted 16 years ago. I'm not completely convinced that this is a necessary disambiguation page, but that's something that needs to be discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Immanuelle/Vandalize this subpage (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Was speedy deleted for vandalism despite being a joke page where edits are not serious. Other users have pages like this too, it's basically a sandbox for a specific humorous purpose. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've mentioned this on Anthony Bradbury's talk page for you. Was there something on there that was just too funny to delete? And if so what was it?—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Danielle Madison (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Likely fails WP:BASIC. Consensus moved from weak keep to delete then redirect as a WP:ATD. Coverage was very weak. Should be redirected as a best alternative scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. No consensus is an accurate reflection of the discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect (or delete). The nominal keeps, while denoting their advocacy in bold letters as "keep", actually made comments which are, in substance, arguments for why to delete the article (lack of significant coverage). So there was consensus to delete. Redirection was identified as a good alternative. There's no special significance to bold letters, the argument is what matters. Alternatively overturn to delete.—Alalch E. 09:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I appreciate the closer for closing this- the result was not implausible, and I'm sure that other editors might disagree, but IMO this should be albeit weakly be Overturned to Redirect per Alalch E. Of the three weak keep votes, the one from Oaktree b was policy based but the others two were weak. One of them acknowledged a limitation of in-depth sources but still voted weak keep, which makes little sense. Thw other one by CastJared states that the article needs more sources to pass GNG and then makes a comment that the keep votes were "stranded", which too makes little sense (and at the time of the writing they are blocked for related reasons such as poor AfD participation with info in the threads linked). This IMHO contrasts to the far stronger arguments made by the delete and redirect, as Beccaynr provided an unrebutted ATD that would to me be a reasonable alternative instead of delete. Still，I understand that there were also a few policy based uncommitted comments, and my opinion is not that strong at this point. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most likely reason Beccaynr's redirect vote was unrebutted is that the AFD was closed six hours after it was posted. A single late vote does not equal consensus. Frank Anchor 19:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the note, I had indeed missed that. I suppose overall this would make my opinion weaker. I agree that Oaktree’s vote, while not the most detailed analysis, can be considered as policy based as it alludes to SIGCOV (I'm still unsure whether it refers to merely there being many sources or is actually policy-based, though this is not a hill I'm willing to die on). Personally, I still believe that two of the keep votes were considerably weaker. One of the votes vaguely says that but a lot of news articles published about her death instead of referring to any policy or specific sources, whereas I've analysed the vote by CastJared above. Overall, I acknowledge, however, that my opinion is weak (and have altered my wording to make that clear), and as always I appreciate your insights in DRV. VickKiang (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No consensus is the correct reading of that discussion. I don't know why the closer wasn't consulted before taking this to deletion review. SportingFlyer T·C 13:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus closure as there was no consensus in the three weeks the AFD was listed. Also the appellant's statement that Consensus moved from weak keep to delete then redirect as a WP:ATD is unequivocally wrong. A single "delete" vote does not shift consensus to delete, and a single "redirect" vote does not shift consensus to redirect. The Keep votes, particularly Oaktree B's, presented sources and asserted they were WP:SIGCOV while the delete/ATD side claimed they were not. With an even !vote split, this is a clear case of no consensus. Frank Anchor 14:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find the part where Oaktree B asserted that the sources he mentioned are SIGCOV, can you help me find it?—Alalch E. 16:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting from Oaktree B's vote, there is much coverage on her death. [two links to sources sources] and others all explain about her time on 7th Heaven (emphasis mine). I would reasonably consider that to be an assertion of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 19:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reply. I would read that as an indicaton of quantity not quality.—Alalch E. 21:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No consensus is a fair reading of the discussion. I also agree with Frank Archer's comments above. --Enos733 (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin - I don't have much to add, this seems like a pretty uncontroversial "no consensus" result. While this individual certainly seems to be on the edge of notability, and while sourcing was admittedly thin, I think it would have been an overreach to find consensus to delete or redirect here. Obituaries aren't necessarily considered significant coverage for the purposes of establishing notability, but the fact that an individual had so many obituaries printed in so many different publications at least suggests the possibility that there is significant coverage elsewhere that hasn't been found yet. Either way, there's certainly not consensus to keep due to the current lack of sources, but not quite consensus to delete either. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Certainly, there was not a consensus to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion about deletion had no consensus. This does not preclude a redirection discussion on the article talk page, where it belongs. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. No consensus is the best description of the discussion.Jacona (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - No Consensus was a valid conclusion by the closer, and the best conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There was indeed no consensus. CT55555(talk) 23:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect. All of the keep !votes were "weak keep", and two of them literally state they couldn't find any GNG sourcing! Not to mention those two !votes ought to have been dismissed outright. One is from a user who has been blocked and banned from deletion discussions due to nonsensical NOTHERE !votes. The other is from a user with, at the time, ~20 edits, whose only edits this year (after a 1-year hiatus immediately following achieving 12 edits/30 days) have been mostly rapid-fire unhelpful AfD !votes, including some keep rationales quite similar to those of SPAs and socks[2][3][4]. The only !votes that engaged in discussion of the sources were a weak keep, a delete, and a redirect, with the latter two giving much more detailed analysis. That leaves us with three editors who do not believe the subject should have a standalone article and one who only weakly supports retention. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Α (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was created in 2009 and deleted because of the WP:CRYSTAL violation as generation alpha doesn't exist at that time, at that time was generation z. Generation Alpha spans between 2011–2025/2013–2035 and the deleted page now should be redirect to Generation Alpha. Vitaium (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everlasting Summer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted incorrectly, there are sources that meet importance criteria. WhyAddX (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the page about russian visual novel "Everlasting Summer" was deleted with incorrect reason.

This game is widely known in russian community, so it meets the WP:GNG, using the reliable sources. Here are some of them that will explain the importance criteria:

Soviet Games, (Разработчики российской игры «Бесконечное лето» собирают деньги на новый проект; The developers of the Russian game "Everlasting Summer" are raising money for a new project)

Everlasting Summer on Steam (just see the number of reviews), in english

Костры погасли (The fires went out), in russian

Интервью: Арсений Чебынкин (ArseniXC) (Interview with Alexey Chebynkin (ArseniXC), in russian

Рецензия на игру Бесконечное лето (Review on the game "Everlasting Summer"), in russian

«Бесконечное лето»: аноны тоже плачут ("Everlasting Summer": anonymous persons also cry), by Edward Chedwick, in russian

Сделано в России. 20 самых примечательных игр русских разработчиков (Made in Russia: The 20 most notable games by Russian developers) by Oksana Alekseenko, in russian

Бесконечное лето — такое не забывается (Everlasting summer - this can't be forgotten) by Dmitry Ryabov, in russian

Everlasting Summer review — Thumbsticks, in english

Everlasting Summer: Enfile ta chapka, camarade! (Put on your hat, comrade!), in french

Also this game can be found in all those databases:

Internet Movie Database, in english

Metacritic (iOS and PC, both in russian

AG.ru, in russian

GameSpot, in english

Giant Bomb, in english

HowLongToBeat, in english

IGDB

MobyGames, in english

PCGamingWiki, in english

RiotPixels, in russian

Speedrun.com, in english

StopGame, in russian

Игромания, in russian

Игры Mail.ru, in russian

And also in other wiki-projects:

TV Tropes, in english

Wiki Tropes, in russian

Lurkmore, before the site closure, in russian

Posmotre.li, before the site closure, in russian

As the conclusion, I will just remind those Wikipedia rules - WP:POINT and WP:GAME. Wikipedia is created to provide the free encyclopedia, not to disrupt the rules or game the system. If there are not enough arguments to restore this page, are there any arguments to keep pages about unknown serial killers, such as Vasily Bolgarov, Valery Kopytov and much more with two-three links in references, with all of them from daily news articles? Why all of them have right to live in English Wikipedia, but not the Everlasting Summer? Everlasting Summer is much more widely known and has the pages in Egyptian Arabic, Czech, French, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian, Chinese, Ladin, Silesian, Tatar, Esperanto Wikipedias, but no longer in English Wikipedia.

Please read the whole message before answering here. The presence of Russian-speaking users is desirable.

I hope for understanding me correctly.

Also don't forget about WP:WL. I think that arguments for deletion were just formalistic, because there were much more notable sources, except those which are mentioned in deletion page. WhyAddX (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AfD, which had clear consensus to delete. However it as been a couple years since that AfD and it's possible things have changed in terms of notability, though I would note that the English-langauge sources I'm familiar with would not necessarily count as they are often either auto-generated or mere databases (like MobyGames, GameSpot, et cetera) and do not contribute to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correct reading of consensus, and after considering whether significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page, I would say that the most constructive path forward would be to create a draft using those Russian-language sources that were not considered in the AfD.—Alalch E. 17:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussion about deletion was very short and unargumented. There were only few of those sources, that I have published here. Every user who voted for deletion, did it without any arguments for or against. No need to restore the article as a draft, there were a full article just 4 years ago. WhyAddX (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read the whole message, you can see, that those references are not all only auto-generated. I published all sources I know. At least Kanobu.ru review can be considered as reliable resource, because it is very popular website in Russian community, where only redaction can write articles.

http://kanobu.ru/help:

"Articles can be written by the Kanobu editors, as well as users with the appropriate rights. The rights are issued to regular participants of contests, bloggers, as well as at the request of a user who wants to create beautiful texts."

The review by Oksana Alekseenko, who put the game to 20 most notable games by Russian developers, can also be considered as notable source, because it's written in ferra.ru, which is large Russian journal with 2.2 million visitors per month. WhyAddX (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aught, there are more than 66000 reviews on Steam. The game was widely discussed and exactly created in the russian Imageboard iichan.ru , which started many memes. Everlasting Summer is the first Russian visual novella, which also can be considered as notable argument. Can be there any disagreements? WhyAddX (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was not short. It lasted a normal duration, and a relatively large number of editors all agreed that the article should be deleted for the (then-obvious) reasons stated by the nominator. The new information that has subsequently come to light by virtue of your appeal here does not make me think that it's a good idea to simply restore the article; instead someone, such as yourself, should develop a valid article from information found in the WP:THREE best sources that you can come up with. It's advisable to do so in draftspace and submit through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process.—Alalch E. 21:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the result of deletion review will be rewriting the article through Afc - then I'll do it, maybe in my draftspace. WhyAddX (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You've been given good advice: Get rid of most of the text and most of the sources, and show us the three best ones. Very few people want to go through a ton of sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I will try. There will be a little bit more, ok? I know that most of the sources cannot be presized as reliable, but I will try to find the best.

  
  

  Kanobu.ru, which was considered as reliable source in Russian Wikipedia (The rules are unique for all language branches, aren't they?)

  
  

  Kanobu.ru review can be considered as reliable resource, because it is very popular website in Russian community, where only redaction can write articles.

  http://kanobu.ru/help:

  "Articles can be written by the Kanobu editors, as well as users with the appropriate rights. The rights are issued to regular participants of contests, bloggers, as well as at the request of a user who wants to create beautiful texts."

  
  

  
  

  Ferra.ru review can be also considered as notable reference. Ferra.ru is also a large internet-journal with more than 2.2 visitors per month. And it was also considered as reliable source in Russian wikipedia. The opinion of Oksana Alekseenko, who placed Everlasting Summer in the top twenty of the best Russian games of all time, also cost something.

  
  

  The part of page about developing can be written from that resource.

  
  

  Jeuxvideo.com is also reliable source, as it seems not to be just usual scrapyard site.

  
  

  
  

  Well, just see, there are more than million downloads and more than 168000 reviews in Google Play Store, and more than 68000 reviews in Steam.

  
  

  
  

  TV Tropes may be also reliable resource.

  
  

  
  

  Well, the first 10 references I gathered from Wikipedias on other languages. The game received a green light on Steam in 3 days, it is known not only in Russia, it is popular in search queries in Google (1,2). Any arguments?

  
  

  
  

  I have written about resources that can show the reliability of the page. But if the page will be restored, than it will be better to use also official websites of the studio Soviet Games, which created the game, and the website of the game also. WhyAddX (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But as I said, I have published all those links just to show that game is widespread and reliable, and also because it's not me who will decide the reliability. WhyAddX (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would strongly urge the nominator to be considerably more concise. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, now I'll be more concise. I have already said everything that I considered important and significant in the discussion. Yes, there are a lot of links, but let them be, because again, it's not up to me to decide which sources will be used. Users demanded a detailed answer from me, and I provided it. If you do not want to read the text in full - just limit yourself to links from the previous message. WhyAddX (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Delete was the only possible conclusion by the closer. It isn't clear what the appellant is asking. Sometimes bludgeoning doesn't clarify anything, except to establish that an editor is bludgeoning. The appellant is free to submit a draft for review or to create a new article, subject to AFD. Oncorhynchus mykiss to User:WhyAddX. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll wait for results of the discussion, and after that decide about possible rewriting the article in the draft. WhyAddX (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for explaining all those ethical principles in Wikipedia, because my expirience in Wikipedia as an editor is just two-three weeks. WhyAddX (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - DRV is not a second AFD. There is no other way the closer could have closed that discussion. I'd recommend the editor takes some time reading over things like WP:VG/S - many of the sources presented here are not seen as reliable and likely would not have helped even if this was a second AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have written above about those resources that were considered as reliable. Jeuxvideo is reliable resource using the WP:VG/S, Ferra.ru and Kanobu.ru were also considered as reliable resources in Russian Wikipedia in it's AfD for Everlasting Summer (1, 2). I have been asked to write three reliable sources. Here you are! 84.209.70.73 (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please wait, I'll check another resources for reliability, just wait a little. 84.209.70.73 (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, Gamespot also meets the WP:VG/S requirements. Many of resources are not viewed in that page, because many of them are popular and known only among Russian-speaking audience, but anyway, can be considered as reliable resources. 84.209.70.73 (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was me, I just forgot to log in. WhyAddX (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but that almost-empty Gamespot database entry does nothing to establish notability. And suggesting sources like "TV Tropes" or "Wiki Tropes" show a complete lack of understanding of our sourcing and notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And that was the reason I checked all my sources for reliability and after that wrote them under your message. If you can see, now I have said nothing about those "Tropes". Only Jeuxvideo, Ferra.ru and Kanobu.ru . Gamespot was mentioned because this site is in that page of reliable resources of English Wikipedia. 84.209.70.73 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But you just listed that extremely not-helpful GameSpot database source yesterday. And you've refused to narrow it down to your best 3 despite multiple requests. You're making it abundantly clear that you're just throwing everything at the wall and seeing if anything sticks. But sadly there's just way too many bad examples in there obscuring possible good ones. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I closed this AfD as "merge". However, a number of people objected to this as a result, so I suggested self-overturning as "no consensus". (See User talk:Ritchie333#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balthier) That doesn't seem to be a possible since another editor has already implemented the merge as suggested. So I'm bringing discussion here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I'm down with undoing if you want. I felt it was controversial personally, but I didn't see a direct object so assumed bookkeeping was needed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:I'm fine with it resulting as a "no consensus" as a nominator for afd. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really know what we're supposed to be reviewing here. It appears there were two options to close that AfD: Merge or no consensus, and I think the merges had the stronger argument. SportingFlyer T·C 15:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep was a third valid option. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect, I don't think there's any possible way keep was a valid option for this AfD unless you purely count votes. The closest argument to notability that any keep !voter made was yourself, when you said that interviews with an author about a character contribute to notability. That's a debatable point, but the merge !voters came up with comprehensive reasons as to why this should not be kept as a stand-alone article, and no keep !voters did apart from implying it was fine. I don't personally have any problem with a negotiated post-close no consensus, but this was absolutely correctly decided. SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ties go to keep. Per WP:DGFA When in doubt, don't delete. The way I interpret that in a split decision between keep or merge is the status quo wins and the article is retained. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you're involved, but I'm disappointed in your response considering we mostly interact here at Deletion Review. As I noted, there was no doubt in that discussion unless you vote count. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Remember, I am a GAR-before-AfD proponent: I view the entire discussion as out of process. Moreover, I think I'm talking myself into advocating GA as evidence of notability independent of the GNG: If there's enough coverage in toto to write a legitimate GA about a topic, the GNG and relevant SNGs are moot, as the finished article is evidence of its own propriety. While it may seem like I'm a rules encyclopedia, all of that is in service to writing a better encyclopedia, and pedantic notability disputes over articles that read well enough to pass GA bother me. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  “Keep” is a strong contender if one reads “merge” !votes as a flavour of “keep”. I read the first “merge” !vote as leaning “redirect”, the second as leaning “keep”, and the third as “keep but stubify”.

  I read a consensus that the article is REFBOMBED, but AfD is not the answer to REFBOMBing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think merge votes are a flavour of keep. Keep means "keep as a stand-alone article" and merge means "delete as a stand-alone article, but preserve the information in the article somewhere." There's a crystal clear consensus to keep the information in the article, and there's also a softer consensus to remove the article as a stand-alone page, because those arguing to merge have stronger arguments it should not be a stand-alone title. AfDs can indeed be merge discussions, if merge is the correct outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but some can read a merge !vote as a “keep, if the merge is rejected at the target article”. AfD is not good for merges. Indeed, WP:ATD-M is a policy reason to speedy close an AfD if it heads towards a merge. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair, but it's still clear to me none of those supporting merge in this discussion were voting to keep the article as a standalone page. SportingFlyer T·C 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus based on above comments from the AFD closer. Closing as either merge or no consensus would have been viable options; I think the merge voters had a slightly better case than keep voters, but both sides had solid policy-based reasoning. Frank Anchor 17:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Thanks again for opening this. My (involved) read on the discussion is that the 'keep' side believed that the included reliable sources in the article establish notability and the 'merge' side did not. This is an irreconcilable difference of opinion that can only really result in NC, given that the discussion was evenly divided. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• To criticise the closing statement, it describes a no consensus, but then spins a case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, as if none of “keep”, “delete” or “merge” held consensus, and “merge” is the least worst. However, NOGOODOPTIONS requires consensus that the status quo is rejected, which is not how AfD works. There was “no consensus”, which defaults to keep. However, rather than “overturn”, I suggest rewording ”A merge seems the most appropriate compromise” to ”There is no consensus to delete, but this discussion should be continued as a talk page proposal to merge”.
  Even if there were a rough consensus to merge, AfD cannot force a merge. AfD can “Redirect with possibility of merging from the history”, but if involved editors do not cooperate to do the merge, the AfD closer cannot force it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Searching the references for WP:GNG compliant sources, I find none of the first 27 are independent. Some don’t even mention the topic. The 28th reference appears good, but fails WP:100W (a very low bar, 100 words of coverage). I recommend WP:RENOM, and a better nomination argument for “redirect”, if a talk page discussion on merging doesn’t find consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources for the section covering Reception look good, but they are too brief. I think it should be transwiki-merged to https://finalfantasy.fandom.comview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Balthier, and cut back to paragraphs containing independently sourced content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My sense given my experience editing in this topic area is that the article passes WP:NEXIST but folks were too busy to do an extensive source search on the spot, given that the nominator had also nominated a dozen+ other video game character articles for AFD and GAR in the same short time frame (including a double whammy AFD+GAR for this particular article). Thus, people on the 'keep' side were short in their assertions and didn't revisit to rebut responses. Regardless, I think the sources exist and will take time to find. A NC result will allow that time to improve the article (which has since survived GAR). Axem Titanium (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Implying the people who !voted did not do an "indepth" search due to time constraints or voted frivolously (in essence being "bad faith deletionists") is a major assertion deployed with no evidence. You'd think that with the combined efforts of everyone who participated, something substantial would be found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - per Axem above. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No action. AFDs ultimately come down to keep or not-keep; variations between the different flavours of not-keep can be discussed on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant to write "delete or not-delete" but everyone seems to know what I meant anyway. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think no consensus is a better close than merge. The merge arguments were a bit stronger in that they focused more on the specifics of the sourcing, but I don't think it's quite enough to push the debate to their side. Contrary to what the closing statement says there was essentially no support for deletion at all. Hut 8.5 19:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The merge !votes were stronger. Commentary on the topic from the creator of the topic is obviously neither independent nor secondary (The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it), so arguments claiming those interviews contributed to notability should have been discarded. Additionally, the article being a GA is utterly meaningless as GAs are not a consensus outcome and the GA criteria do not actually address notability directly. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reclose or whatever. Though I'd lean towards agreeing with Stifle and disagreeing with Jclemens here, any of the closes mentioned is fine. Since AfD isn't the preferred place for a merge/split discussion, it can carry on elsewhere. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (Keep). There were no !votes to “delete”. The nomination was weak, was not a valid “delete” rationale, and the nominator failed to follow WP:BEFORE. It should have been a speedy keep WP:SK#1. The AfD closer erred in entertaining a merge proposal at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn / no consensus (involved, voted keep in original AFD). The original close didn't appear to come from a close reading of the situation and was since self-reverted as noted, and at least one of the merge votes was rather weak IMO. On a strict votecount basis it was even, and I don't feel that the pro-merge side identified issues that would mandate a merge, and I of course disagree with JoelleJay that the keep votes were somehow weak (being a keep voter myself). To be sure, the article is somewhat borderline, but as a Keep voter, I was certainly sold that the sourcing is reliable and not trivial or passing mentions. SnowFire (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. No Consensus would also have been valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per WP:NOTAVOTE. Admins are expected to close on the merits, not on sheer number of people voting a certain way. The keep rationales did not present any hard evidence that the article was notable, and were refuted in depth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an involved editor. As ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ stated, AFD discussions are not a vote, and the closer is meant to come to a decision based on what they consider to be the strengths of the actual arguments. In a case like this, where the "votes" are fairly even but they felt that the arguments for Merging were stronger, closing as a Merge is a perfectly valid decision. And, quite frankly, I agree. Those advocating Keep did not attempt to refute the arguments from myself and the other proponents for Merging based on the general weakness of the sourcing and lack of significant coverage, and did not attempt to present any new sources or any real arguments as to why the current sources could be considered significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per JoelleJay. The "keep" arguments were eviscerated and there was no attempt to engage with Rorshacma's thorough textual analysis. A "no consensus" close based on vote counting could have been forgiven but not excused (AfD is not a vote). The most appropriate close, as was performed, incorporates the relative weaknesses of multiple "keep" positions and the strength of their rebuttals. czar 05:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No consensus, though leaning towards merge considering how little is actually there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Opinion about the subject's notability and quality of article content was clearly divided throughout the AfD process, and it certainly still is the case here with this deletion review. Contrary to the representations by some of the editors present, a merge vote (and their rationales for endorsing the merge) is not stronger then the keep votes. As SnowFire pointed out, the pro-merge side have not identified issues that would mandate a merge. There's nothing precluding a proper merge discussion from taking place in the talk page. A no consensus close is still a valid result, and Alpha303 is right in pointing out that AfD isn't the preferred place for a merge/split discussion, it can certainly carry on elsewhere like in the talk page. Haleth (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I didn't explicitly endorse the merge above, which is the better result here. SportingFlyer T·C 11:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per arguments above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. All keep !votes incorrectly present trivial coverage as significant coverage or present non-independent primary sources as independent secondary sources. Note that the GA process does not check for notability or secondary sources—merely that the most basic aspects of the subject are covered in the article and that the sources meet the bare minimum of WP:RS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please review the deletion of Zaan Khan. It was deleted back in 2021 because the actor played only minor roles. But now, all the issues have been addressed which lead to deletion of the article of Zaan Khan back in 2021 as Zaan Khan meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. He has played lead roles and prominent roles in multiple television shows, starting with Hamari Bahu Silk, then in Kyun Utthe Dil Chhod Aaye for nearly two years following which very recently in 2023 he played a significant role in Maitree. At present, he is playing a significant role in Meri Saas Bhoot Hai. The deleted article can be enhanced with good sources that support these significant roles as well as the other roles he has played. Furthermore, the article includes some basic details about his personal life. Please review the afd and restore the deleted article to main or draft space. 59.95.163.248 (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation (which does not need DRV approval since it does not appear the title was WP:SALTed). The appellant can simply start a new page from scratch. A request to restore the original page's history to article space or draft space can be made at WP:REFUND. I will note that "delete" was the correct result at the time of the AFD (unanimous consensus to delete) but a lot can change over two years. Frank Anchor 12:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:@Frank Anchor: We want a restoration of the previous article so that we can get a base for creating the article in mainspace.

  Can you please restore the article, we assure that we will work on it ans add resources to

make it a good Wikipedia article 117.193.244.140 (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not an administrator, so I can not restore articles. As suggested above, requests to restore articles can be made at WP:REFUND. Frank Anchor 13:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly there was basically nothing in the deleted article. The version deleted by the last AfD had two sentences of prose and merely said that he was an actor and listed some films/TV series he's appeared in, which will be different now anyway (only half the roles the OP mentioned were included). The version deleted by the first AfD was similar except it also included a date and place of birth, but it didn't cite a source for that so we probably shouldn't include it either. You might as well start again. Hut 8.5 17:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article had been created by a now blocked editor and worked on by their socks. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: The draft was what I was talking about, not the mainspace article. IP at REFUND requested restoration of the draft, but pointed to this DRV. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the previous closure. If the appellant is asking for the deleted article to be refunded, I don't know why editors ask to have articles that were deleted for lack of notability refunded. Why is it helpful to start with the deleted article rather than starting fresh? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Disclosure that I created the page initially* Good afternoon all. I am requesting a second look at this AfD from last year. I do not believe there was thorough discussion on the sources available both on the article and online at the time of its deletion, not to mention since then. Both of the voters pointed to the deprecated NMMA/NSPORTS guidelines and neither did an in-depth analysis on the source. For this reason, I was surprised to see the discussion being closed after input from only these two voters. Looking at the first half dozen sources on the article, there were (in my opinion) GNG-passing sources such as 1, 2 and 3. This last source is from El País, the largest newspaper in Uruguay. You can see here the dozens of articles from El País alone covering the subject in-depth, everything from his fighting and commentating careers themselves to his social work and his highly-publicized romantic life. There was a film made about his life last year, and he's been hired by ESPN and BKFC as an analyst (ESPN source). I'll stop my rambling now; thank you! JTtheOG (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I tagged the AFD with the DRV notice. Thanks for letting me know about this discussion on my talk page. I don't have much to say, I'll let other editors consider whether to endorse this AFD closure or overturn it. However, unless there is very problematic content (and this one didn't have that issue), I'm normally fine with restoring articles deleted in AFDs to Draft space to allow for fixing any problems and then submitting the article for AFC review. Like many other AFDs, this one would have benefitted from participation by more editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The AFD close was fine given the extent of the discussion. 3 policy based deletes and no objections is clear. The first source is a vice blog and probably not an RS as a result but the newspaper profile in El Pais and the documentary clearly take this over the line. I wouldn’t insist on this going through draftspace. We can just bring it back and add in the new sources and any sourced content. Endorse but restore Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm always concerned when those wanting deletion say many or much of the coverage in the article is minor or routine, etc. But what about the ones that you don't think fall in that category? Nfitz (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I personally think this is one of those articles which shows the reverse problem of sports notability - he's not a notable fighter by any sense of a worldwide metric, but received coverage in his homeland. I'd endorse the old AfD and allow restoration without making any claim or endorsement as to whether it would survive another. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and allow recreation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Rosales (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page (Gabe Rosales - Musician, Producer, Academic) helps promote my music business, my academic life, my nonprofit 501c3, and public policy work. Nothing on the page is harmful or inaccurate. I am not sure why it was deleted. Gabejrosales (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe J Rosales

It's not clear what you're asking for. Foo.png was speedily deleted as a test in 2006. The FfD date you link to, 2009-02-19, doesn't have an entry for either Foo or Gabe Rosales. What are you wanting us to look at again? Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Stifle for fixing that and mooting my initial comment. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• REFUND - I think they are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabe Rosales, which was a soft delete with little participation. As such it would be automatically restored by going to WP:REFUND and making a request - though an Admin could do that now. That being said, the article MUST contain in-depth secondary sources that meet WP:GNG, or it will be simply be deleted again. The best I see in Proquest or Newspapers.com is an incidental mention (and some about a baseballer with the same name). It's worth considering that Wikipedia is not a directory. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if we're talking about the AfD Nfitz found. As there were three participants, WP:REFUND does not apply, and the reason for restoration fails WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 14:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There was only one !vote, making it a PROD-esque soft delete. Refund per the policy on soft deletes and PRODs. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I counted three, including the nom. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure. Is the appellant saying that he wants to use Wikipedia to promote his music business? This seems to be a self-defeating appeal, with the appellant saying that he wants to use Wikipedia for promotion. Shouldn't that be a red flag? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the AfD had three participants, none of whom supported retention. The appellant also has a clear COI and PROMO intent for recreation so why would we refund to even his userspace? JoelleJay (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone can refund this if they want to, it was closed as soft delete, whether or not it should have, but they're equally free to decline if there are content issues or renominate immediately after restoration. I don't expect it to stay long if the purpose is to "promote my music business" so I'm not sure it would be a good use of time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to hard delete. There were 2 !votes to delete, both of which seem solid enough, so I don't think soft deletion was the best option here. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 06:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It's clear that wanting an article for promotional purposes is not a thing we can support. As such I would overturn to hard delete per ClydeFranklin. The alternative of undeleting as a soft-delete for low participation then going through a new deletion cycle to delete as promo/spam is process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to hard delete is what I was thinking, too. I'm guessing the closer just didn't notice Carpimaps's de facto delete !vote, and with that counted, it's clear that we don't need to go through the ordeal of undeleting just to redelete a week from now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to hard delete. Following the deletion nomination, the two additional votes were an explicit delete vote and a de facto delete vote by Caprimaps which stated couple of minor mentions here and there but no WP:SIGCOV. Definitely not a notable musician (emphasis mine). They are both policy-based and IMO make this eligible for hard deletion. I'd discourage recreation in this case as the appellant's argument is extremely weak (my music business, my academic life, my nonprofit 501c3, and public policy work and makes a case for self-promotion). VickKiang (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Greetings, I'm requesting a deletion review for the article HeavenMayFade which was speedily deleted under A7.

The page about A7 says:

"When assessing an article for such a claim (the first way described above), you should search for a statement within the article that attributes noteworthiness to the subject... The existence of such a statement of noteworthiness/importance/significance within the article would generally ensure that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied. Such a claim of noteworthiness need not be supported by any reference; the fact that such a claim exists and has been made deems that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied."

I stated the noteworthiness of HeavenMayFade in the "Impact" section of the article, which, according to the above, should mean A7 generally should not have been applied. I described my reasoning in the talk page too which was also deleted without comment.

For convenience I will paste the Impact section here:

==Impact== Towards the end of HeavenMayFade's active years, the band saw its lead guitarist Harley Graves being scouted by the now-notable band Miss Fortune. Graves' distinct musical style, which was honed during his time with HeavenMayFade, became a major influence in shaping the sound of Miss Fortune's debut album, "A Spark to Believe".^[1] This album subsequently reached the Billboard charts, marking the start of Miss Fortune's successful musical journey. HeavenMayFade therefore plays a role in understanding the genesis and evolution of Miss Fortune's musical style.

Thank you.

Sapols (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was incorrectly listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 7 originally, edit history available there. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
  • This will probably be the same as most A7 appeals. On the one hand, if the appellant makes a reasonable case, and the appellant appears to have made a reasonable case, the A7 will be overturned, because speedy deletions should be uncontentious. If the appellant thinks that an article should be restored, it probably should be. On the other hand, restoring an A7 only brings the article to article space for one or two weeks, because if an administrator reasonably but mistakenly thought that it was an A7, a rough consensus of the community will think that it isn't notable, a higher bar. Most A7 appeals should result in restoration, but also in deletion at AFD.
  • Can the article be temporarily restored so that non-admin users can see it briefly?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Robert McClenon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as credible claims of significance go, I don't think "their guitarist later played for a band that was actually notable" is a strong one, and I don't see any other indication of significance in the article or any sourcing that would contribute to passing WP:GNG. Spicy (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Endorse. As Robert McClenon says it is usually best practice to restore A7 deletions upon a reasonable request like this. However, most marginal A7's are slam dunk deletes for non-notability at AfD so a restoration here doesn't guarantee that we'll keep the article for the long term. On my own analysis none of the sources in the article are usable to establish notability and the only semi-plausible claim to significance is the involvement of lead guitarist Harley Graves who went on to play in a more notable band. It looks like a valid A7 to me. Being an influence on a notable thing is a very weak claim to notability.*See WP:NOTINHERITED. But it's a close enough call that I can't really fault Sapols for asking for restoration. But unless someone can find better sources, the article doesn't have a a snowball's chance in hell of surviving WP:AfD, so it seems rather pointless to restore now just to delete again in a week or so. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There is nothing in the text of the article that provides a credible claim of significance. The sources are not directly relevant to the bar for a credible claim of significance, but most of the sources are unreliable (or garbage sources, to be less polite). In this case, in my opinion, the article not only will not pass musical notability, but doesn't make a credible claim of significance. Thank you for temporarily restoring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Poor sourcing, only credible claim of significance is that a band member went on to play with a more well-known band which could be mentioned in a biography on that musician. I can see why it was deleted. By the way, this is the second time this article has been deleted on A7 grounds. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Look, I'm normally a stickler for speedy deletion not being applied hastily or overly broadly, and have a very expansive definition for what counts as a credible claim of significance... but the band that played a few local venues and released one EP that charted nowhere, with no hits on any chart, that broke up 10 years ago and not one member ever went on to do anything significant enough musically to merit an article. I'm sorry, but that's textbook A7: The band didn't do anything of notice outside Tulsa nor anything lasting. It's a textbook A7; if we gave it back to you, someone would nominate it for deletion, and it would just be deleted a week later. Endorse Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Revisiting this to note that I've reread both the as-deleted text of the article and WP:CCS and continue to believe that A7 applied. One member almost influencing another band, even if completely true and documented non-trivially in independent RS'es, wouldn't make this article notable. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is irrelevant, because significance is explicitly a lower bar than notability. A claim doesn't have to demonstrate notability to be credible claim of significance, and anyway the claims in this article are that one member was later an influential member of a notable band. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to endorse the A7 because I think it exceeds A7, which requires there to be no claim to significance on its face, and if I were reviewing this at say AfC I would have to look into whether it's significant or not based on is claim. That being said, I agree the article as it stands is unlikely to ever pass an AfD, but I can't boldly endorse the A7. SportingFlyer T·C 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy. I will be clear I don’t think the article as written stands any chance at an AFD. However A7 does not apply because a claim to significance has been made: specifically that this was guitarist Harley Graves’ band before moving to a more notable band. Per Sapols above Being an influence on a notable thing is a very weak claim to notability, but it is still a claim to notability and this article deserves a full AFD. Frank Anchor 03:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy. The Impact section is basically entirely claims of significance. I agree it doesn't stand a chance at AfD in its current state, but that's irrelevant to A7. Also trout those above who are saying this is a "textbook A7" when it is clearly not. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (Weak) endorse but restore if the nominator really wants it to, and someone can choose to list it if they want to. I would consider one degree of separation to be a credible claim of significance (i.e. Graves is significant due to their membership in a notable band) but two is a stretch. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey all, Sapols chiming in. First off, thanks for taking the time to review this. You've all raised valid points about HeavenMayFade's lack of mainstream attention. It's true, but I still think their connection to Miss Fortune lends them a certain degree of relevance in this specific context, as I've stated. It's starting to look like we agree that speedy deletion might have been premature. Even if the article doesn't ultimately survive, could we move to an AfD process for a more thorough discussion? Appreciate your help. Sapols (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incels.is (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I made substantial improvements (×4 size, more sources, create source eval table) to the article, but the closer closed the discussion quickly before any additional reply was made (post-article-improvement), and before it re-entered the backlog for AfD regulars to see. So there was no consensus and no quorum. More importantly, the closure message did not mention any policy or guideline rather treated the situation only as a "tiring discussion". He stated that was a no consensus, but he didn't set the outcome to that, because some people did not want the article kept. The outcome should've been "no consensus", per a modicum of procedure. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A difficult close for Ritchie333, but in spite of all of the walls of text in the AfD, I think they did a commendable job with the close. I think no consensus would have been a possible option, but a larger consensus of !voters wanted the article not kept, and Ritchie333 clearly weighted the votes as well based on argument. Furthermore, most (if not all?) of the sources presented and used to improve the article were discussed in the AfD, so it's not a situation where sources which clearly demonstrate GNG have been ignored. SportingFlyer T·C 10:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (non-controversial fact clarification) The sole comment to my source table was the PA: I doubt your evaluation of the sources based on your inability even to accurately identify what they are or who they come from, referring to a single source out of ten, where I forgot to mention the book it came from. Regardless, I used additional sources in my final article, namely the think tank report.

  Ritchie333 clearly weighted the votes as well based on argument

  He only stated: I see a mixture of those wanting to keep, merge or delete the article - however, many of the rationales were refuted. It is an unclear, false balance reason which makes no reference to policy and the notability of the subject. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:C020:684A:19BE:BF68 (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been the most exhausting AfD I've participated in in my memory, and I derive little satisfaction in the fact that it has been closed the best it could be. Of course, I am involved here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved) for the simple reason that the closing statement included the language This suggests a "no consensus" close, but I am reluctant to read that as a the consensus as it retains the full article, which comes off as a WP:SUPERVOTE. Frank Anchor 18:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it comes off as a supervote as all, and even the nom didn't allege it was a supervote. It tells me that the closer considered no consensus due to the diversity of opinion, but then determined there was a consensus not to keep this article, and then selected merge from the options of merge versus delete, not that no consensus was the only correct option to close the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's selective quoting, I then went on to say "and there are a significant proportion of editors that explicitly didn't want that."; in other words I was determining that through views expressed through editors at the debate, including Alpha3031, GorillaWarfare, S0091 and SmallJars. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nonetheless, a significant portion of editors also wanted the article kept and presented reasoning based both in policy and adequate sourcing (with the sourcing in the recent source analysis table not sufficiently refuted). To me, the language in the closing statement is a clear supervote and the fact that the nom did not allege that is not relevant to my opinion. Frank Anchor 19:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did absolutely not intend for this to be a supervote, I have no interest in the article or whether it stays or goes. I am, however, unsurprised that editors want to re-ignite the feud at the AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do believe that casting what could be considered by some users as a supervote was not the intent of a longtime admin and skilled closer like yourself. Frank Anchor 21:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Frank Anchor can you explain in more detail how @Ritchie333 close was a supervote? Based on the numbers the keeps were a not a "significant" portion (double check me). Going by straight vote, there were a total of 16 votes (including the nom) with 10 voting not to keep (delete/merge/redirect) and 6 voting to keep, which is 62.5% not to keep, and 37.5 keep before weighting the arguments. You would have to toss out 4 of the not keeps and none the keeps to get to a 50/50 split. I agree some of not keeps were not strong but some of keeps were not either and most of the not keeps explicitly state to merge or was not opposed to a merge. S0091 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost 40% of the voters voted to keep, which is very significant. It’s not relevant that this is a minority because AFD is not a vote. My belief as to why part of the close is a supervote has already been explained above. Frank Anchor 22:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from original nominator: I can't believe we finally got through that endless AfD only to wind up here at DRV. Many of the early !voters remained active in the conversation throughout the lengthy AfD, even after the expansion mentioned by the DRV nominator above, so I don't think it's accurate to say that the close is flawed because it was based on a substantially different version of the article. Furthermore, the new version is mostly just longer in text but introduces few new sources: compare 24 sources pre-expansion with 25 post-expansion — some have been swapped out, but they are largely the same. Given that the AfD was mostly about sourcing issues, I don't think that makes a substantial difference to the close. Note also that there were five days between the beginning of the expansion mentioned by the IP and when the AfD closed, which is plenty of time for people to weigh in. (Edit: see below) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note also that there were five days between the beginning of the expansion mentioned by the IP and when the AfD closed, which is plenty of time for people to weigh in.

  That is a complete lie.

  The edit history [5] says the expansion began late June 9th, less than 12 hrs before the end of the AfD. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:C020:684A:19BE:BF68 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, I misread the edit history and got your IP confused with the 2600:4040 IP. I've stricken that portion of my comment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you should strike out the rest too because WP:CCC. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:C020:684A:19BE:BF68 (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't believe we finally got through that endless AfD only to wind up here at DRV. –GorillaWarfare

That's unfathomably hypocritical. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:C020:684A:19BE:BF68 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How? And how is that at all relevant here, other than as a continuation of your previous incivility? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being hilariously hypocritical, it casts doubt on the whole nomination.

In one situation, you use your tools to fast-track the unsalting and your recreation of incel. In the other, you nominate the related article incels.is for deletion, which obviously ends up plagued by WP:PULLRANK.^{[note 1]} What is the common denominator?

That's what I thought, just a continuation of the incivility. If you genuinely think I'm breaking policy as much as you're accusing me of it, please bring it to ANI or somewhere appropriate instead of bogging down these discussions (WP:ASPERSIONS). Regarding the incel deletion, as you'll see at that discussion, there was/is no great venue for a discussion, but I offered to start one — which nobody wanted me to do. As for WP:PULLRANK, that would suggest that admins can't nominate articles for deletion, a plainly absurd thing to say. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you genuinely think I'm breaking policy as much as you're accusing me of it

If juxtaposing fact 1 and fact 2 is that great of an accusation, then the facts must be damning. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:C020:684A:19BE:BF68 (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, repeatedly accusing me of misbehavior without actually bringing it to ANI/etc. but instead in an attempt to influence this discussion is just WP:ASPERSIONS. Either stop, or take it to ANI. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a procedural error in the AfD (it having taken the path of WP:PULLRANK instead of WP:AFDDISCUSS as soon as IPV4 was opposed to nom), and so I believe it belongs in the DRV. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:C020:684A:19BE:BF68 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:GorillaWarfare - Of course we end up here after that AFD. It is often the ugliest AFDs that end up here at DRV. That's the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And the editor who is insulting you is demonstrating that they don't have the courage to edit pseudonymously. Maybe DRV should be semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The basic job of an encyclopaedist is to summarize what the reliable sources say about a topic. Summarize. Our task is to be clear and succinct, even where our sources are longwinded and waffly. People who can't say what they have to say briefly are in the wrong place. And the process of forming consensus is about persuading people to take your side. It's not about persisting until they give up through sheer exhaustion. You need to engage with what people say. Read. Comprehend. Think. Reply. People who won't do that need to be blocked for the good of the encyclopaedia. In the debate we're reviewing the "keep" side wasn't doing any of this: it was just disagreeing at ever-increasing length. The outcome should have been "delete" on our cultural norms, but I can understand the closer not wanting to deal with the sheer quantity of text they'd get for doing that. I'll go with overturn to delete on the strength of the arguments.—S Marshall T/C 07:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse decisions - but also see that !delete would have been a valid outcome. For me, uninterested in the topic and not before seeing the AfD, the main points are these:

1. There's an assertion about an academic paper source which names a forum at a different url being the same one (same management, same community) as the WP subject. I don't know how this could actually be proved without WP:OR

2. I don't really see why there is such an angry response to Merge when the contents would presumably be retained at the new target

3. With all the unpleasantness being thrown around, it seems like merge is actually a consensual conclusion that takes account of all the !keep comments despite their angry, personal statements from anon IP editors in the sense that it was accepted that the contents would be kept at the target.

4. There's no proceedual error which meant that !keep voters should have had a stronger impact on the outcome unless we accept that unpleasant loud voices should have a bigger say. In fact, if I was a closing Admin, I would have been highly likely to simply close to !delete and the closer showed considerable restraint. JMWt (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close of Merge as a reasonable conclusion by the closer. Either No Consensus or Delete would have been valid, and Merge is a compromise. The closer was however too optimistic in writing: I hope that's something that everyone, on all sides of the debate, can accept.. When an AFD gets as nasty as this one did, it is as likely as not to wind up here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this was a difficult close and it appears that both merge and no consensus would have been valid outcomes. I strongly oppose an overturn to delete since there was little opposition to merging among the delete voters. Carson Wentz (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Østby family (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Without prior discussion, User:Liz deleted the article titled Østby family: a concise, well-sourced article on a notable subject as per Wikipedia criteria. Brox Sox (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you actually discussed the deletion with the deleting admin or has your interaction just been to slap a DRV notice on their talk page? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted a question on the deleting admin's talkpage some days prior to my Deletion Review request, but the user ignored it. Brox Sox (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as apparently legitimate. No objection to undeletion to see exactly what content was lost, but Østby family was deleted after merge to House of Rosensverd, which had since been moved to Østby noble family, which was moved to Østby (Norwegian village), which redirects to Østby, Innlandet, a page which was itself moved from Østby, Norway last year. Rolling back what happened, Bbb23 deleted Østby noble family as a G3 on April 11, and House of Rosensverd the same day as a G8. Later that same day, Liz deleted Østby family as a G8. So, the real question for DRV is... Was Østby noble family a legitimate G3 on April 11th? Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be fairly straightforward for an admin to take a look and see if the G3 was truly a G3, but I'm not sure that's the actual question - what concise, well-sourced article exactly does the nom think was deleted? SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was kind of hoping one admin investigation would settle both questions. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for untangling the history of all of these mergers, Jclemens, which I was unaware of. I just deleted Østby family because the page was a broken redirect. I'll admit that I didn't look into the page's past history. Most of the time these broken redirects are pretty straight-forward deletions of pages that are deleted because the target page was deleted. I have no objection to restoring this page if there is a new, valid redirect target to point it to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This is... weird. The article the OP is talking about is now in the history of Østby (Norwegian village), e.g. [6]. The page was subsequently rewritten to be an article about a village [7] and then redirected. So I suggest the OP reverts this and moves the article back to the Østby family title.

The page Østby noble family was created by Vif12vf on 11 April 2023, it was an attempt to undo the move of Østby noble family to Østby (Norwegian village) through a cut-and-paste move. User:Norges Adelstand then added a long rant to the top of the page alleging, amongst other things, that "This article is pure harrasment and factually wrong. All the claims in this article are wrong" and that the claim that someone isn't considered noble is "just pure racism amd cultural appropriation". Norges Adelstand then tagged it for speedy deletion and it was deleted under G3, possibly because of the rant, but in any case the non-rant content can be seen here, and it doesn't look like harassment to me at all. Norges Adelstand has since been indeffed for disruptive editing. Hut 8.5 12:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to revert everything to the way it was on say April 10 without making any judgments about content? SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection from me. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No action: There's no need for administrator action. The "lost" House of Rosensverd content can be restored from page history of the current redirect (Østby (Norwegian village)), and the page can be moved back to a non-village name, such as back to House of Rosensverd. Maybe there's something seriously wrong with this content, but I'm currently unable to tell, and the page was a victim of WP:AHIJACK; there was never a consensus that the "House of Rosensverd" content is unfit for inclusion in the encyclopedia.—Alalch E. 20:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that nothing be endorsed/overturned in this deletion review, because this is about untangling the consequences of disruptive editing.—Alalch E. 20:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to several/unspecified contributors above: Yes, the multi merging and moving of the article was a deliberate strategy of the person behind User:Norges Adelstand and other aliases. The user was given a temporary ban for his crude language and threats, then as User:89.8.149.65. His repeated blanking, merging, and moving of the House of Rosensverd/Østby family article, which eventually was deleted after (I think) he persued User:Vif12vf to delete it. On Vif12vf's talkpage, he wrote (translated into English): 'Hi Buddy, The article 'Østby noble family' is an article that has been subject to pure vandalism of the original article that a foreign asshole [i.e., me Brox Sox, who is not foreign but Norwegian] had changed the title on out of pure hatred and racism against Norwegians and in addition the person committed Cutural [sic] Appropriation of Norwegian history. Thus, I needed to act and have removed the text and nominated the article for Speedy Deletion nonsense. [...] Otherwise, I agree with most of your opinions. NATO can go to hell.' Rather the rule than an exception, User:Norges Adelstand's talkpage and discussion activities are sheer rants. Another example, on the discussion page of , another user (a respected heraldist and lawyer, for that sake) had a small comment to the article's contents—and was met with a very lengthy response which includes bold text and multiple question marks. Just look at it—this intimidating, unpleasant raging is User:Norges Adelstand's modus operandi as a Wikipedia contributor. Regarding the deletion of 'Østby family', User:Norges Adelstand was furious that I removed erroneous and for that sake unsourced information, including the alleged princely status of the Østby/'Rosensverd' family. In particular, in the said article, User:Norsk Adelstand quoted a letters patent of 1458, but I happen to have the book (Bartholdy 2007, ISBN 9788775000005) containing all the known letters patent issued from 1396 to 1546, and could thus clarify that in that quotation, User:Norges Adelstand had added his own text which claims that the Østby/'Rosensverd' family were styled as the King's thegns (the letters patents says 'tienner', servants, not thegns/thanes) and given the title of Prince with not only patrilineal but even unlimited cognatic succession (a provision that, if it were true, would have made tens of thousands of Norwegians Princes and Princesses between 1458 and 2023). It was simply too fantastic to be true, especially since the Østby family presumably became patrilineally extinct ('last known male member') in 1788; their cognatic descendants, to whom User:Norsk Adelstand very well might belong, don't possess any noble status according to the 1458 letters patents. The letters patent doesn't explicitly specify that noble status was limited to legitimate patrilineal descendants, but this was considered so obvious in those days that they wouldn't waste ink on stressing it. Anyway, when it was deleted, the article 'Østby family' was perfectly well-sourced. There was no legitimate reason for deleting it. It should ideally be undeleted, or otherwise restored, with the title 'Østby family'. Brox Sox (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to add that names such as 'Rosensverd' (a name based on the family's coat of arms) are contemporary names invented by historians for the purpose of easier identification of noble families that, when they lived back in the middle ages, didn't have any official family name. And historians today generally prefer the formula 'name of main residence/farm' + ætta (clan, family), i.e., Østbyætta (Østby family), and when the family's farm is unknown or ambiguous, they use the formula 'ancestor's name' + ætt, e.g., Torbergætta (Torberg's clan) or Sigurd Aslaksons ætt (Sigurd Aslakson's clan). Brox Sox (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Brox Sox: Just to be clear, once we untangle all of the merges, the original page that needs to be restored is at the title Østby family or House of Rosensverd? Others may be clear on this, but I'm not, and it'd be great if we could be 100% certain with what needs to happen here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer: I suggest 'Østby family', in line with the article Østby-ætta at Lokalhistoriewiki (run by the National Library of Norway) as well as third-party-published sources such as Christiansen 1996 (see below) and Langekiehl 2006 (see below, too) in Norsk Slektshistorisk Tidsskrift (Journal of Norwegian Genealogy). As for the competitor 'Rosensverd' or 'Rosensverd family', this was not a contemporary name when the Østby family lived, but has been constructed by historians and genealogists of the 20th century. Later, such names have become adopted by popular genealogy, used in self-published sources such as Geni.com. In the 21th century, historians don't recommend using 'canting arms' names such as Rosensverd ('Rose Sword', with reference to the roses and swords in their coat of arms) retroactively, instead preferring more objective markers of identification based on the name of a given family's ancestor (example: 'Dyre Sevaldssons ætt' below) or their farm/estate (example: 'Østby-ætten', 'Hove- og Østby-ættene' below).

  1.) Christiansen, Per Reidar Bjørnerud 1996. 'Dyre Sevaldssons ætt, og litt om Hove- og Østby-ættene'. Norsk Slektshistorisk Tidsskrift, 35: 387–435; 2.) Langekiehl, Atle Steinar 2006. 'Var Torbrand Eivindsson på Tofteberg i Borge Eivind Smedsson Frøshaugs sønn? Spor av Østby-ætten i bondearistokratiet'. Norsk slektshistorisk tidsskrift. Brox Sox (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, please note that User:Jay1279 moved the article to Østby (61.25391694871437, 12.52696060033196) in Trysil Municipality, Innlandet County—but the then-noble farm of Østby (59.200653845105535, 11.138025454779827) is located in Sarpsborg Municipality in Viken County, formerly Østfold County. North-east and south-east of Oslo, respectively. Brox Sox (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - I'm really confused on what article we are looking at. Can we have a temporarily restored version somewhere to evaluate - or perhaps someone can educate me a bit. Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was not part of the initial discussion which decided that this article should be deleted and redirected to 2022 California's 17th State Assembly district special election, but I contend that, in light of the continuing (reputable) media coverage of Mr. Mahmood from this March, April, May, and June alongside the existing references to him around Wikipedia, the stand-alone article should be un-deleted. I do not have any affiliation to Mr. Mahmood or any investment in the SF politics surrounding him, but I think there is a clear enough interest in him to mandate restoration of the eponymous article.

FlamingMoth (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC) FlamingMoth[reply]

• Closing admin comment aware of this request and fine with whatever consensus determines if factors have changed which render my close moot. It does not appear that @FlamingMoth is questioning the close at the time, and as such and because my on wiki time is still somewhat limited for another few days, I'm not re-assessing my close. Please ping me if that becomes necessary. Thanks!

Star Mississippi 01:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot As a non-protected redirect, any editor is welcome to un-redirect and add sufficient coverage demonstrating ongoing notability at any time without DRV intervention. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot per Jclemens. Stifle (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not convinced the new articles get him to WP:GNG, but he's clearly received some media coverage separate from being a political candidate. I'm not sure I'd restore the old article, but there's no reason a new article can't be created and AfD'd if necessary. SportingFlyer T·C 09:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. Just because someone can un-redirect a title as a starting point, doesn't mean they have to. I'm sure folks can think of several instances where starting from scratch would yield a much better article. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot per Jclemens. —Alalch E. 17:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Immanuelle/Two-spirit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deletion with no specified criteria. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator wrote out the reasons on the nom. Image for those with an Indigenous identity (Two Spirit) was flagged as inappropriate by member in good standing of the Indigenous wikiproject. New image has been created by users from the communities in question to replace it, and is now hosted at the Indigenous Wikiproject. There was no more reason for the inaccurate, considered offensive by some, image (that was invented by someone on tumblr), so I deleted it per nom. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a relatively long discussion on my talk page about this. Their disruptive editing allegations are quite unfounded and based on a total of two reverted edits I consider to be good faith but incorrect and an edit war which ended with consensus on my side. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus on your side? What are you talking about? This is not the board for it, but Immanuelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of disruption and WP:RADAR and WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour, as well, and was warned by @Liz: for some of it.[8] but never responded that I can see. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Medicine wheel (symbol). The editing went overwhelmingly to my vision for the article. Actually only one edit needed to be reverted as the other one I thought was reverted is still up. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) The image was an inaccurate portrayal which was supposed to represent the Two-Spirit community. The image they chose to use was made by a random person on Tumblr and is not in use by the 2S community at large. I am not sure why @Immanuelle doesn't understand that it is inappropriate to create something representative of a community simply because they want to when it is not an actual factual associated representation. This is offensive and dishonest. I kindly created an alternative which @CorbieVreccan posted for public use at the Indigenous Wikiproject. The image simply does not belong here. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending the image at all. I was the one who suggested proposing the image for deletion on wikimedia commons. Rather I see this conduct as being contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. I even said I wanted it deleted to remove the image. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I'm not sure why you're requesting a review then. The image you used has been proposed for deletion on wikimedia commons by @CorbieVreccan, I was unsure as to how to do so myself. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it deleted you should withdraw this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have absolutely no idea what's going on with the wall of text above, but it seems clear that 1) whatever this image was, it likely needed to be removed, 2) it seems as if there's clear agreement it should be removed, and 3) no clear speedy criteria exists to remove it, which has needlessly escalated this whole situation. (Maybe G10?) Even with the speedy error, I don't really think there's anything more to do here apart from maybe fry up some trout - I don't see a reason to un-delete even with the incorrect speedy. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn out of process deletion.—Alalch E. 23:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a collaborative approach and dialogue to resolve editing disputes. Out of process deletion in a dispute is an application of force and as such may fail to lead to a constructive resolution, and in this case it has already failed to do so, producing a minor scandal that people will now go through. Wikipedia is a wiki. All Wikipedia spaces that are publicly editable need to be treated according to that fact. No one owns userboxes. Not the user in whose userspace it's located, not the users who put it on their userpages, and not the users who assert a connection to the topic of the userbox. Deletion of userboxes is handled at MfD.—Alalch E. 23:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as out of process. MfD is the correct venue for this. I'm also starting to think that the deleting admin was WP:INVOLVED due to past conflicts/disputes with [the] editor (e.g. here and here) and their apparent strong feelings about this. CandyScythe (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED which means we don't delete non-illegal offensive images without a discussion except under G10, to which this appears entirely nonapplicable. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A userbox was deleted, not an image.—Alalch E. 01:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I stand corrected: A userbox was deleted because it had a wrong image associated with it. NOTCENSORED still applies. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn. Clear failure to follow deletion process, possible WP:INVOLVED violation, absolutely inappropriate deletion. Members of wikiprojects wishing to have pages deleted need to go through the proper channels, just like any other user, and the proper channel in this case is MFD. To be clear, I am writing here only about the deletion of the userbox User:Immanuelle/Two-spirit, and not any image thereon. Stifle (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion was clearly inconsistent with the deletion policy, as it does not fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion. The fact a userbox uses an image someone thinks is inaccurate or offensive is not a reason to delete it unless it is enough to make the userbox an attack page or vandalism, which isn't the case here (for the record the image is File:Neapolitan two spirit flag with feathers.png). Hut 8.5 07:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Obviously this is my fault. I did not think that further marginalizing a marginalized population and promoting inaccurate information was something that was allowed here. This is why I nominated the userbox for speedy deletion. I apologize for my mistake. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no blame being assigned here and no apology necessary. There's simply only a handful of reasons why something can be speedily deleted across the project. SportingFlyer T·C 21:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The deleting admin is certainly getting some deserved blame assigned. Disregarding the deletion policy and INVOLVED is very troubling. I'm not blaming the nominator for making a mistake, though the rationale and subsequent remarks could be seen as WP:UNCIVIL, and they should review the policy before flagging any further pages. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. Indigenous girl's passive-aggressive non-apology demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of administrators and proper use of the tools. Avoiding further marginalizing a marginalized population and promoting inaccurate information is not a reason to skip process. There is wrong information all over Wikipedia, some of which is very insulting to a variety of subcultures and people groups. Our processes are written to address this, and G10 allows unilateral action in obvious cases of intent to harm, of which this is not one. As a general rule, if an admin knows that a particular thing is insulting by virtue of specific background knowledge when that is not obvious to the community as a whole, that admin needs to educate others such that reasonable people will come to share that understanding rather than taking unilateral action. Also, admins should have a sense of proportion about the reach and harm of an infobox: use of an infobox to attack others is more likely to be a user conduct violation requiring ANI review than it is to require an emergency, out-of-process deletion. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was absolutely not my intention to appear as passive aggressive. If you could please clarify what specifically came across as passive aggressive I would appreciate it s that I can improve my wording in the future. I am not an admin, I am fully admit, I do not have a full understanding of the role of administrators and the proper use of tools. Should I feel the need to nominate anything for deletion in the future I will be sure to fully understand the policies and will ask for input from more experienced editors prior to nominating anything. Is there somebody that would be willing to talk to me one on one about this topic so that I can better understand it? Thanks. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I'm sorry. I just realized something. I forgot that Immanuelle, whose userspace this userbox was in, and I had both edited the Medicine wheel (symbol) article, as well as interacted on that talk page; I also responded to her once over at Talk:Métis. I was thinking it was only the latter, and the warnings I posted on user talk. So, yeah, this does make me over the line into involved. I should have ignored the speedy flag, no matter how much I agree. I guess many would say especially because I agree with Indigenous girl's reasons. Probably if I were better-rested I would have remembered. I shouldn't edit when tired. So, as much as I don't want to do this, I'm going to do a procedural revert. I'd still like Immanuel to follow through on what she said above about wanting it deleted. But a different admin will have to do it. Best wishes and sorry for the drama. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 08:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Day Alive (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am writing for the deletion of One Day Alive to be reviewed. The page was edited and multi cites were taken out leaving only like 3-4. I will edit page to add more cites. I am proposing to reenlist page as they currently have a record contract with a subsidiary company or Warner Brother Music. They also have a record coming out being produced by the guitarist of Saving Abel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbelot (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Webbelot using the template here Wikipedia:Deletion_review will probably be helpful for administrators Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template fixed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think I sympathise with the nom as they posted on the AfD's talk page before any other votes came in and responded to the notification on their own talk page asking where they could contribute to the discussion, but this doesn't appear to have been a notable band. The way to save this would be to produce definitive GNG-qualifying sources, and I'd possibly recommend AfC. As a FYI, the page also probably still lives as a copy on Webbelot's user page. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Temp undelete for review please? Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Star Mississippi 13:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as having no evidence of deceptive editing prior to deletion nomination or during deletion discussion. The main editing to that article was done by an SPA, and doesn't appear to have made any unusual additions or deletions prior to AfD nomination. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Wikipedia doesn't allow articles on every topic, only those which meet criteria for notability/significance - for bands that's WP:NMUSIC. There doesn't seem to be evidence that this band meets these criteria. If they do actually release records on Warner Music Group then that would qualify, but it doesn't sound like they have yet. We can restore the page to draft space if you want to work on it. Hut 8.5 17:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I'd note, for the record, that this DRV discussion wasn't initiated until after OP approached me to get the article undeleted, and after I had already replied on their talk page — but to summarize again, the article as written did not demonstrate that the band had accomplished anything that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC, and did not use WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources to support the content. Instead, it used primary sources, blogs and circular citations to other Wikipedia articles, none of which constitutes reliable or notability-building sourcing at all, to verify that the band exists, which is not an automatic notability pass in and of itself. Furthermore, when I replied to OP, I explained that the path forward would require working via the AFC process to write an article that made a stronger notability claim, and cited better sourcing for it. No objection to draftifying, but OP has already been told what they need to do, so I don't really understand why they're still trying to bypass it. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The right conclusion by the closer, and no evidence of notability of the band. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was consensus, as correctly identified by the closer, irrespective of this or that source being changed or removed, that the subject is not notable.—Alalch E. 17:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Phillips (YouTuber) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I created this article due to a category I created (Category:Welsh YouTubers) in 2021 being proposed for deletion. I had not heard of the YouTuber prior to this and I joined Wikipedia in 2020, so I could not have seen the 2017 deleted article of him. UtherSRG deleted the article because of WP:G4, but it states that it "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". As I mentioned it is highly unlikely that I have seen the 2017 deleted article so any similarities would be coincidental and the deletion no longers applies as the subject has become more notable. I messaged UtherSRG on his talk page and he asked me to come here. If people think that the person is not notable then they can open a deletion request, I don't believe that speedy deletion was the right course of action. Sorry if I made mistakes, this is my first time at deletion review. Sahaib (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC) -->[reply]

• This is moot, the article has been undeleted by UtherSRG, but I'm a bit concerned the advice was to come here if G4 didn't apply considering the period of time involved. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC) not moot, it was being undeleted for DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily undeleted for this DRV. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• That's clearly not a WP:G4 as they are not substantially identical. Whether it would survive an AfD is a different question, but that's a bad speedy. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. It was a bad G4. The deleting admin’s response

: You should go to WP:DRV to make your case for undeletion, and you should have gone there for recreating the article in the first place, especially given that it was previously G4'd as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

should be repudiated, here. A prior G4 does NOT mean that a new recreation needs pre-clearance at DRV. DRV is not the gateway for creating new articles where previously deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a G4. No opinion on listing it at AfD, someone can do that if they want to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy undelete AfD it if anyone feel like it. SmokeyJoe's reasoning is correct. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• here is a comparison between the speedy-deleted version and the version deleted at AFD.
  Overturn G4 with option to list at AFD. Clearly does not meet the criterion of "substantially the same". Stifle (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (1) the article wasn't substantially the same, and (2) notability of this subject (who is young, and known for the very recent phenomenon of YouTube pranks) was extremely likely to have changed between 2017 and 2023: the previous deletion had no relevance. We all make mistakes, Trout and move on... Elemimele (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 clearly does not apply. It can be sent to AFDif someone wishes to go that route. Frank Anchor 18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn - The version that was deleted as G4 is substantially different from the version that was deleted after the AFD. The version that was deleted at AFD is better, and there is very little chance that the current version will survive AFD, but G4 does not apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: the one deleted at the AfD was longer but I don't think it was necessarily better as it included unsourced parts and the sourcing consisted of some primary and not good sources. At User:Sahaib/sandbox, I have copied some of the good sources from the draft and added some others not from the draft so I can expand the article. I don't think there is very little chance that it will survive an afd as it passes the general notability guidelines. Sahaib (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, not a sufficiently identical copy.—Alalch E. 19:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Street Bird (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed by RandyKitty as no consensus, and numerically, this is true. The argument for keep stemmed from Cunard, who linked a variety of sources. Nythar then provided a source assessment that, in my opinion, proved that all of the sources that Cunard linked failed WP:SIGCOV. Then followed an extensive exchange between Nythar and Huggums537 that got uncivil, and a load of !votes for keep and delete. In my opinion, Nythar's sources assessment tables, and some questionable applications of policy means that the article should have been closed as delete. Willing to throw it out to another AfD. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we could've left a little more time for RandyKitty to respond to the talk page questions. They're normally a very good closer so this might not have needed to go to DRV. But for the record, I (involved) of course agree that this should not have been closed as NC, not least because the keep !votes all seem to hinge on meeting GNG when none of the sources meet the stricter requirements of NCORP. Another part of the problem is also that until yesterday, the AfD wasn't in the business and companies delsorts, so many of the editors actually familiar with NCORP would not have seen it. That I believe would be reason enough to relist, although given the total deficiency in the keep rationales a delete outcome would have been acceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay: It was my fault not putting it in the business or companies delsorts, and I also did not know about the questions on Randykitty's talk page, which I apologies for. Do you think we should re-open the AfD and let it run for another week? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if you had talked to RandyKitty they might have been willing to relist, but now that it's at DRV it's up to the usual DRV crew to judge. And unfortunately since the issue with the close has been framed as "didn't agree with SIGCOV source assessment" -- e.g. what people here would say is "relitigating the AfD" -- instead of the much more compelling problems of editors !voting based on non-NCORP rationales and NCORP editors not being notified, there's little chance it'll even be reopened let alone reclosed as delete. JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as an editor who supported retention in the AfD. This is a summary of the sources from the "keep" perspective:

  1. Veenhuyzen, Max (2014-08-31). "The Scene: The Bird". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  2. Bennett, Andrew (2010-07-23). "The Bird". News Corp Australia. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  3. "The Bird". Broadsheet. 2017-10-06. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  4. McCarthy, Kristie (2018-09-26). "The Bird: A hipster hang-out with hip hop karaoke and a killer courtyard". Concrete Playground. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

  Venue reviews are not routine sources. Veenhuyzen 2014 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVeenhuyzen2014 (help) is a 285-word review. Bennett 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBennett2010 (help) is a 347-word review. Broadsheet 2017 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBroadsheet2017 (help) is a 149-word review. McCarthy 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMcCarthy2018 (help) is a 249-word review. These reviews are all about William Street Bird and all meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. These reviews are both functionally and intellectually independent from William Street Bird, so they meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. The Sunday Times had a circulation of over 250,000 in 2013 and is distributed throughout the state of Western Australia. It meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which requires "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source".

  Nythar wrote above, "the subject does not stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues)." There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) that a venue must "stand out" or be "more notable than other similar venues". There is a requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria only that the venue "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement.

  Cunard (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Keep" participants agreed with this view, while "delete" participants disagreed with this view. There was a clear lack consensus among the AfD participants about whether the sources met Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, so Randykitty correctly assessed the consensus of the AfD as "no consensus". The AfD had extensive discussion from experienced editors so I do not see the need for a relist.

  Cunard (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are quoting one of my many comments at the AfD, and you've chosen one where I didn't mention any guideline. Subjects don't need to "stand out" to be notable; I said that to illustrate a point. The subject isn't notable because the sources are completely trivial (i.e., not "significant coverage"), very local, or routine in coverage. The four sources you've linked to above, which I've already addressed countless times, do not contain "significant coverage"; not a single one, when assessed separately from the others, consists of any content that can be used in a Wikipedia article; they're wholly promotional and focus on food prices, minor performances, hyper-local events, and other trivialities. Nobody has yet addressed this point. The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement: only if they significantly cover the subject. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete: My concerns revolved around WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. SIRS states that "Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other" and that they must "meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability." One of those criteria indicates that at least one source must "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." CORPDEPTH describes which sources qualify as "significant and in-depth coverage." It states "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The problem with the sources Cunard provided in that AfD is that, when each source is evaluated separately from the others, none of them pass any SIGCOV criteria. Take a look at them yourself (listed below). Not a single source passes any notability guideline, and this can clearly be seen by the simple fact that several of the sources (especially the top four) contain no content that can be used in a Wikipedia article (meaning they're composed of minor trivialities such as food and drink prices, the internal design of the venue, etc. Such sources cannot be "significant coverage"; they'd be considered "trivial coverage", which is the opposite of SIGCOV. How can a source that's so promotional and trivial that it can hardly even be used in an article, be "significant coverage"? Well, it can't be. They simply don't focus on the venue's ownership history, its operational history, contain a neutral account of its cultural significance, prove that it's notable beyond Perth, or contain anything else that would indicate they "significantly cover" the venue. And the rest of the sources are either routine in coverage or are very local:

It appears that this non-notable venue is being lifted up to the level of notability simply because sources exist; however, none of these sources, when examined alone, can be considered to be "significant coverage", not per any SNG guideline or per the GNG. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closer is not supposed to make a judgement on whether the sourcing meets the notability requirementThe closer is expected to determine whether there is consensus about whether the sourcing meets our community's notability requirement. In this case, participants were equally passionate in their position whether the sources met NCORP/GNG (and pointed to policy in their comments). A no consensus close is quite appropriate in this case. --Enos733 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement wasn't so much on whether the sources met NCORP as on whether GNG supersedes NCORP. In that case the issue boils down to who has interpreted the policy correctly. Avilich (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enos733, I appreciate your point, which is quite right, but would you consider the points I make below please? My issue with this close is not the result so much as the way it has happened. There were procedural problems with this close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Is there enough coverage to make a sensible article of the topic? Clearly so, because we have one. A Keep outcome would also have been reasonable, because it's not even clear that an entertainment venue is covered by WP:NCORP. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll also note that the article has been expanded significantly since the AfD closure. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there enough coverage by independent, non-local media? The venue is a corporation, it has to meet NCORP; it can't do that with reviews from the same city it is located. JoelleJay (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's actually not established that it has to meet NCORP. Your procrustean expansivism is uncompelling and would serve to eviscerate the encyclopedia, rather than simply do what is within NCORP's remit: keep spammy startups off the 'pedia. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. NCORP defines what is independent SIGCOV for organizations; if a source does not meet NCORP requirements it can't count toward NCORP or GNG. If this wasn't the case then the guidelines at NCORP would serve absolutely no purpose. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, you're arguing sourcing when it's not even clear that an entertainment venue is covered by WP:NCORP. If NCORP covers everything except that which is covered by a separate SNG, then the GNG is toast. It's clear that NCORP is being applied overly expansively, so I don't really care what it says until and unless it is established that this sort of thing is exactly what the community wanted, again, rather than just to keep spammy startups off the 'pedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would a bar & diner that hosts music events not be covered by NCORP? It's a business, that's what NCORP is for. Their marketing manager/SEO strategist would be thrilled if we misclassified her client as "not a business". JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Entertainment venues are not called out in NCORP. Corporate structure is not a key defining factor of what is covered in the article. NCORP doesn't get to encompass everything just because it lays claim to, nor to redefine RS for its own purposes. Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when is a business not covered by NCORP?? It doesn't matter whether "corporate structure" is part of the article, that's not a requirement whatsoever and isn't even an aspect that's covered in most NCORP subjects like restaurants or bars, which WSB also is. JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You know what? You're right. There's a simpler answer: Per WP:N, corporations that meet CORP or the GNG are notable. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and 1. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. We've been wasting all this time trying to box CORP back into its proper place as an SNG, when it never had permission to bypass the GNG in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CORP held consensus before and independent of WP:N, well ahead of the formulation of the WP:GNG. WP:CORP does not derive authority from WP:N, although the language is aligned.

  WP:CORP is about Wikipedia not being a venue for business promotion, and accordingly it gives more emphasis to the assessment of the sources.

  I agree that much of the argument here, and at the AfD, is all wrong. The pertinent question is not whether the sources are local, but whether they are independent or non independent due to being tainted as a promotion. The sources were not well assessed for that, and so “no consensus” was the only valid close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been discussing notability here on Wikipedia for, um, about 16 years and don't remember things that way. N is N, and N still says GNG or SNG, so to the extent that anyone is arguing that a topic that fail NCORP and passes GNG fails N, they are wrong as N is currently written. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to go back to 2005. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) was a coherent guideline (albeit untagged) a full year before the WP:Notability proposal. However, much of the “notability” language existed in WikiProjects and userspace, especially User:Uncle G.

  The original WP:CORP was premised on the need to resist advertising, although it used language that we recognise as WP:GNG-like, with independence featuring most prominently.

  The two SNGs that predate WP:N are WP:CORP and WP:PROF, and neither should be read as deriving from WP:N. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A top-level guideline need not predate subordinate guidelines, and age doesn't necessarily imply primacy. I don't doubt that CORP is old, but I do not recall seeing it enforced so ridiculously until recently--again, I normally deal with deletion discussions on pop culture stuff, so when I see these really bizarre arguments about CORP or sports SNGs, it's really foreign to me. It's in no way consistent with N as I understand and have used it; I literally cannot count the times I've noted the "SNG or GNG" in good faith. If you're telling me everything I believe about notability is a lie... you're going to have to find more convincing evidence. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is all a bit meta now. Take a step back and look. We now have an article all about a club in Perth. I am sure people enjoy going there. Will the club be there in a few years time? Will anything truly noteworthy happen there? Will anyone ever think its more than a club in Perth? Who knows (and we don't make articles in the hope it will be). There was a club like this in Croydon once. Quite a local buzz about it. I forget its name, but it doesn't matter. It is long gone, so I no longer care how much drinks cost there, or whether it is open on Wednesday nights, or who founded it. If it were notable, I am sure it would be mentioned on one of the Croydon pages, but it's not. Neither is the subject of this review mentioned on the Perth page for that matter. If it's not notable for a mention, how is it notable for a page? It doesn't get mentioned in lists of top clubs in Perth [9], [10], [11] although I guess it does get mentioned in an exhaustive list of all such clubs [12]. If NCORP is there to keep advertising off the encyclopaedia, it has failed this time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You and I have different definitions of what advertisement consists of. And yes, if NCORP is designed to keep advertisement that doesn't rise to G11 levels off of Wikipedia, the wording of N makes it entirely unfit for that purpose. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete - I was involved and voted delete. However the question at DRV is not to relitigate the debate but to look at whether the close was correct. In this case there were serious enough concerns that I had already gone to the closer's talk page. I would have waited a little longer before opeing a DRV but the issues are these:

1. The case was a clear delete, both in number of !votes and the policy arguments made, but it was left open beyond the normal 1 week discussion, and it was in the extended period that 3 more keep votes were added. These added no new information or policy reasons, but were treated as simple votes, balancing the voting to allow a no consensus close. There is definitely an impression here (I am sure unintended), that the case was allowed to run on until the voting was stacked to no consensus.
2. Deletion is not a vote in any case. The policy arguments made were clear, and the bulk of the conversation was a meta argument from one commentator arguing why the policy should not be policy. This argument tehrefore conceded the point. The close statement was so brief that it did not justice to what was a very involved and careful look at the policy arguments.
3. As the case had been allowed to over-run, and with an unclear consensus, this should have at least been relisted.

A relist would be acceptable, but endorsing close is basically saying deletion policy does not matter. That is not a message we want to portray. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse you may not like/disagree with the keep votes, but they are substantive and backed by policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But again, the question is not whether we agree or disagree with the votes, but whether there is an impression that the AfD was improperly allowed to over-run until there was an exact balance of votes, and only closed at that point without any attempt to relist nor evaluate the arguments. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't arguing this, but this was a possibility. I'm moving towards re-opening the AfD, if such a thing is possible. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Headbomb, how many of the keep !votes even acknowledged NCORP, let alone argued sourcing met it? JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer: Sirfurboy, are you suggesting that I somehow waited until I got some desired !votes? In fact, I was looking at some AfDs that had not been handled after running 7 days. This one ran a decent time, with ample participation by multiple editors and there was no clear tendency towards a keep or delete that would make a relist worth while. Cunard's summation of the debate is spot on. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said above, I am sure it was unintended. Yet the close, not after one week nor after two, and just after the number of votes suddenly balanced, and with a very short closing summary, gives an impression that this was irregular. I would have preferred if, rather than this deletion review, it had just been re-opened, as per my comment on your talk page, as I am sure it could have been resolved amicably. Unfortunately you did not see that before this review was opened, sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Apology accepted. It wouldn't have changed anything anyway as I see no reason to change my close. That the AfD ran for more than 7 days does in no way mean that it must be relisted. As for an exact balance of !votes, that's new to me because I didn't count the !votes. Even without those 3 late !votes, my close would have been "no consensus". I take offence by you characterizing my close as not evaluating the arguments. The discussion had produced huge walls of text (which I suspect may be related to the fact that no admin came around to close the discussion after the usual 7 days) and I waded through it all. My close does, I think, show that I evaluated the arguments of both sides. --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While it isn't the responsibility of an AfD discussion closer to determine if the subject is notable, the closer should at least review the merits of !votes. WP:NHC: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy [...] and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." <-- I am not saying that some !voters had no understanding of the matter; I am simply pointing out that there needs to be a somewhat thorough review of the !votes. Now, in regards to this particular AfD, some people (among whom I am one) assessed the sources and arrived at the conclusion that the subject wasn't notable. Others examined the sources and concluded that the subject was notable. One of the aspects of notability we discussed was SIGCOV in the context of GNG and CORPDEPTH. The closer is supposed to determine the consensus of the discussion by evaluating the merits of the policy claims. You wrote in your closing statement, "No apparent consensus whether sources satisfy SIGCOV, with good arguments both for and against", which is disappointing. So much effort was put into the discussion and the final closing statement doesn't even address how "good" any argument was. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want a !vote-by-!vote evaluation from the closer, then I'm surely not the only one who is going to disappoint you. I don't intend to add to the wall of text that this DRV is degenerating to, similarly to the AfD. In that spirit, this will be my last comment here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that Cunard's analysis is accurate.

1. The review in Sunday Times (a tabloid owned by News Corp) appears in the "home" and "real estate (Prestige Property)" sections and is written by a Perth-based journalist focused on Perth bars. Its circulation is a full order of magnitude lower than the population of Perth itself; that decidedly fails the "local media or media of limited interest and circulation" part of AUD.
2. The review in Perth Now (owned by News Corp) is not independent from the other review under NewsCorp and was written by another journalist dedicated to Perth bar reviews. Local!
3. The review in Broadsheet is categorized in a sub-subsection of the Perth news outlet for Broadsheet, not the more national Food and Drink section. Local!
4. The Concrete Playground review is also in the "Perth bars" section, written by a music talent manager/PR marketer who would obviously have a financial interest in drumming up attendance at venues her clients play at! Not to mention: local. JoelleJay (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn to delete I don't think no consensus is necessarily a bad close - hence my "weak" - and I do want to commend Randykitty for wading in to close this, but having read that discussion I don't think the WP:NCORP argument was successfully rebutted by those arguing for WP:GNG, since NCORP applies a stricter guideline unless things have changed recently. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – No Consensus was a valid conclusion by the closer. It was, also, incidentally, the conclusion that I would have reached, but that is not important. The appellant seems to be sort of re-arguing the AFD by arguing that the closer didn't reach exactly the same conclusion as the appellant would have reached. This is a case where there is reasoned disagreement as to whether the sources are independent, significant, reliable, and secondary. When there is no consensus among the participants in the AFD as to the status of the sources, No Consensus is a reasoned conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a case where there is reasoned disagreement as to whether the sources are independent, significant, reliable, and secondary. That would be the case if we were assessing a non-corporate entity .

  The DRV nom missed the biggest issues. Those were the fact that a) the AfD was not delsorted into the correct categories until the night before it was closed; b) keep editors largely ignored whether the topic met NCORP and instead insisted it "met GNG", which delete editors pointed out is irrelevant because the sources used failed the AUD requirements (the venue is in Perth, the coverage is in Perth, claims that the Perth newspapers are "regional" because they happen to also be distributed to the 8% of WA that doesn't live in the immediate Perth area are ridiculous; and moreover many delete !voters argued the coverage wasn't SIGCOV anyway). JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I think the fact that this AfD on a business wasn't in the business delsorts until the night before--hence all the !votes ignoring NCORP--is a very strong rationale for just relisting. I had gone to @Randykitty's talk page to request exactly that, then saw the close had already been brought up for other reasons. JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid closure. This is just relitigating the debate. I was summoned here by talk page notice. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (no consensus). Opposing arguments were continuing with no indication of converging. Some fresh air is needed. Follow the advice at WP:RENOM. The AfD nomination was too brief, try better next time. An abundance of sources were considered, but it looks to me that their possible failing quality, independence, was not well considered. A review can be failed for being nonindependent as a customer review and a too-close primary source, but there is clearly no consensus that by merely being a review it should be excluded, or that local newspapers should be excluded. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (no consensus) per SmokeyJoe. Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I had commented on the AfD and likely would have !voted delete had I decided to submit one but the discussion could reasonably be read as no consensus. Could this also have been closed as delete, keep or relisted? Maybe. I'm not sure I would consider relisting this even had I not commented. Trying my best to be neutral, delete seems more plausible than keep to my eye, but that is not in itself sufficient to overturn the close. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable closure. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, there was no consensus and it was closed as no consensus. Merko (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I voted redirect and stand by my opinion. But there clearly was not consensus not to keep. There were solid policy-based votes on both sides. Frank Anchor 18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; the close was perfectly reasonable. Suggest re-nominating in a few months unless better sources have appeared to clearly establish notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Q28/user names I personally recommend (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Welcome to the 1st Deletion Review in June 2023. I accidentally deleted this page in a previous operation, but the RFU didn't go through because the session timed out, and I can only request that the page be restored here Q𝟤𝟪 05:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restored per user request. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

0402臺鐵第408次車清水隧道重大鐵道事故 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Request for deletion review: It should be a redirect page to 2021 Hualien train derailment as it was named by Taiwan Transportation Safety Board (Chinese: 國家運輸安全調查委員會) for investigating the rail accident, but it was speedy deleted as R3. (See more information at [13] and Chinese Wikipedia article W:zh:北迴線太魯閣號列車出軌事故. @鐵路1, Mafalda4144, and Subscriptshoe9) Sinsyuan~Talk 06:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's customary to discuss with, and mandatory to notify, the deleting admin of your wish to review their decision here. Why hasn't that happened? Stifle (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh...The sysop User:Liz didn't give me any reasons why he decided to delete. Since I was notified for the speedy deletion notice, I wrote something to prevent from being speedy deleted (It is the same as W:zh:Template:Hang on) Sinsyuan~Talk 09:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is someone really going to type 0402臺鐵第408次車清水隧道重大鐵道事故 into the English Wikipedia search bar? Stifle (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think English users might not try to search that, but it usually uses for investigation conveyed by the government in Taiwan. Sinsyuan~Talk 13:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I would create a new discuss at WP:Village pump about “Redirecting pages (with the title named by the authorities, especially from other languages) to some rail or airplane related accidents.” For example:

  • 地下鉄駅構内毒物使用多数殺人事件 (named by NPA Japan) -> “Tokyo subway sarin attack”
  • 臺中捷運公司第03/04車組豐樂公園站重大鐵道事故 (named by Taiwan Transportation Safety Board) -> “2023 Taichung crane collapse”

  Sinsyuan~Talk 13:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Systematic bias at its finest. WP:RLOTE states that redirects in other languages should only be deleted if there is no cultural or linguistic association between the redirect and its target. Sinsyuan's explanation on the talk page before deletion (This redirect should not be speedy deleted as an implausible typo or misnomer, because this is the official name for investigating the railway accident by Taiwan Transportation Safety Board, organized in Taiwan. [See more at [14] (in Chinese)]) made it clear that this was not eligible for speedy deletion. WP:CSD#R3 itself reads, However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are sometimes redirects in other languages. ✗plicit 14:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn foreign language redirects are frequently considered acceptable if the target relates to a culture which uses that language. Most people in Taiwan speak Chinese and this is the official name of the subject in Taiwan, so it isn't an implausible search term. Hut 8.5 16:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not an R3, and in particular it shouldn't have been speedied after being contested on talk (a rare example where such a protest was relevant), but I suspect this won't survive RFD. Restore and send it there for discussion. —Cryptic 20:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Explicit. This deletion appears to be a simple error.—Alalch E. 20:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to RFD; I am convinced that it was ineligible for speedy deletion, though it may well be deleted the slower way. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm satisfied that this can be restored and sent to RFD. I'd do it myself but I think that this discussion should be closed first. And this wasn't systematic bias, I was just responding to pages that were tagged for speedy deletion and this seemed like a valid tagging. I will say that I untag quite a few pages that I think are inproperly tagged so I have no problem with doing that. But like Alalch says, sometimes we make mistakes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:Systemic bias essay Explicit links to is careful not to assign blame, and I don't think Explicit meant to imply intentional wrongdoing either. The idea is that we, as mostly native English speakers, are more likely to do things like deleting redirects in foreign languages (and particularly ones in non-Latin scripts) unless we make a conscious effort not to.
    Anyway, the original admin reversing themselves is one of the few ways to get a DRV closed early. There's no need to wait until after this DRV is formally closed, though it might be different if there was a split opinion here, or if you'd taken action in response to a community discussion like an AFD rather than speedy deleting. —Cryptic 19:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I think that the answer to Stifle's question is that it is possible, even if unlikely, that someone who is bilingual in English and in Taiwanese Chinese might copy this long Chinese title, since it is an official title, into the search bar. Speedy deletions should be non-controversial. Usually the filing of a DRV for a speedy deletion other than the misconduct categories of G3, G4, or G5 is sufficient reason to restore, possibly followed by XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to close early with Liz's statement and the general sentiment here, this discussion has clearly reached consensus, so the redirect can be restored and RfD'ed if anyone cares. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]