Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February

Adam Hanka (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I just discovered that an article of politician Adam Hanka has been created on Czech Wikipedia. As someone who has been editing West Slavic politician pages, I would request for article's restoration to improve the page myself. However, does the corresponding article still look like WP:PROMO? CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @CuteDolphin712: the page was "soft-deleted" as a result of this discussion by Liz. She'll be happy to help you with this. Owen× ☎ 17:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello, CuteDolphin712,

OwenX is correct. You can ask any admin to restore an article deleted through Soft Deletion or request it at WP:REFUND which is probably best as it is regularly patrolled by admins. DRV is for when there are disputes about a deletion decision or with an AFD closure and it doesn't sound like your request is stating that argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a warning that draft space may be better, I might send it to AfD again if it is restored. SportingFlyer T·C 09:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Do I Have to Do? (Stabbing Westward song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Need a second relist to determine whether to keep or merge the article, as the current sourcing is indeed minimal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own close, but no objection to this being filed. It wasn't going to be deleted, rendering an additional relist unnecessary. As I said when Jax0677 raised it with me (thank you), AfD is already overloaded and the lack of participation is limiting the ability to attain consensus. By closing ones where the only extant question is where this material should live, it allows space/bandwidth for those whose outcome is in doubt. A merger discussion can continue on the Talk page or if there's no engagement in that, an editor can do it boldly.Star Mississippi 22:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. A second relist might garner more support for a merge, but you don't need AfD for that. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - it was an exceedingly weak nomination. No relist would have helped. Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. A concentrated merge discussion can be opened on the article talk page. Frank Anchor 23:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Merge discussions don’t belong at AfD. Once consensus against deletion is clear, the discussion should be closed. Propose merging on the talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If there was an error here, it was relisting it the first time instead of closing it then. This was never going to be deleted; at worst, there's a crystal-clear redirect target. Contra SmokeyJoe, AFD is explicitly appropriate for controversial redirects - and that can include controversial merges - but that doesn't apply here since it had never been discussed on talk nor attempted directly. —Cryptic 07:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Cryptic, read CONRED more carefully. Controversial redirects. Really, that’s a subset of Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. Here, keep or merge the song to the band, there’s nothing remotely controversial about that. The difficulty is the structurism detail, which is not appropriate to an AfD discussion.

  Redirect proposals can belong at AfD, where it is a pseudo deletion. Merge proposals don’t belong at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I am someone who believes merge is a very viable outcome at AfD, but there was really no other reason to keep this open after a relist. Not a close I would have made myself, but not an incorrect close. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Why does the appellant want a second relist? They nominated the song for deletion, and it wasn't deleted. So is the request for a second relist to choose between Keep and Merge, rather than leaving that to discussion, a request based on process for process? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's particularly baffling when you look at how little effort the nominator put into the nomination over the course of the two weeks it was active too. They wrote up a three word nomination statement, refused to meaningfully engage in requests for more explanation, and seem to think things would somehow change with a third week of unguided discussion? It doesn't make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Realizing that Sergecross73 was the primary editor opposing deletion and the interlocutor in the nom's minimal interactions, I still agree with that editor's above comment: No listing of BEFORE, no substantial interaction with objections. I mean, DRV is open for all and this isn't ANI, but it's a BOOMERANG-ish situation: if you want something deleted, put effort into the XfD, don't just come here when the discussion didn't go your way, lest you find yourself the one chastised. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to turn this into an RfC, but this isn't the first time the appellant does this. Starting a DRV like this takes zero effort on their part, and every once in a while, as they say, even a blind squirrel can find a nut. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 9, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 22 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 1 (the last three nominations before this one) all had equally poor review rationales, in my opinion. If you include this one, three out of the four have pretty much been SNOW endorses. It's not a great track record for an experienced editor. (Full disclaimer, the December 9 one was against one of my closes; I also closed the November 22 one.) Daniel (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong endorse and trout the nominator. That sort of AfD nomination statement should result in a speedy keep without prejudice to a nomination that demonstrates at least some effort. The other engagement (and I use that term loosely) of the nominator with the discussion was also below the minium standard we should be able to expect of editors who've been engaged with the project for 6 months, let alone over 15 years. There was never any chance that this would end in delete and the closer is absolutely correct to say that AfD is not the right venue for discussions of keep vs merge. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or Procedural Close - The appellant hasn't stated a comprehensible reason for this filing, even after being asked. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It's good to hear from Star Mississippi that they see a decline in AFD participation. I've noticed that as well since the summer which makes it more challenging to discern any consensus among discussion participants. As for this AFD, it was an extremely weak deletion rationale, barely a handful of words. Next time, try to present a more persuasive argument that indicates an adequate BEFORE was done. Given the discussion at the time of closure, this article wasn't going to be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion discussions essentially come down to either delete or not-delete. Here, there is no question of a delete closure. Varying between the different flavours of not-delete does not require a DRV and can be taken up on the article talk page. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Star Mississippi and SportingFlyer. Not an incorrect close at all. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I originally approached the deleting admin, but they were uncomfortable with unilaterally undeleting it after a discussion and told me to take it here. I don't think this image should have been deleted.

1) the assertion that it was a press agency image was false, the victim was a child not known before he died and the context and distribution of the image make it clear that it originated from his family, who it is perfectly permissible to use a minimal version from under the project's fair use rules. With cases like these it's often redistributed by agencies, who obviously do not own the copyright. It's also standard to have a picture of the murder victim (see: Murder of Brianna Ghey) on their article if one can be found that isn't a press agency image (which this isn't).

2) It's also particularly relevant to the article in question, as the victim's young age is what made the case notable. Without a picture, a significant aspect of the notability is lost on the reader.

The point over it not being a press agency image was brought up in the discussion, but was not addressed by anyone. There was a single delete vote before this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I closed the FfD. Re-adding the image to the article in its current state would be an WP:NFCC#8 violation. I also do not believe it is standard practice to automatically insert a non-free image of a person in Killing of ... type articles. Anyways, I'm not opposed to re-evaluating if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth. For convenience: image, description page. Courtesy pings for @J Milburn, @Cremastra, @Davest3r08 -Fastily 22:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With regard to the content of the article, it suffers from the common problem where it's under extended confirmed protection so it stops getting edited whenever it stops being interesting to the typical breaking news editors, and later coverage is simply never added. I don't really get why people try to make articles so soon after an event happens, but they do.

  I guess that's a different reason (which I disagree with), but it wasn't the reason the FfD was started, and that reason was blatantly incorrect. In my opinion this is as just as contextually significant to the article topic as any other article about the death of a person which uses a non-free image, which to my awareness is most of them (that don't have usable free images) PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What article was this image being used in? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon Killing of Wadea al-Fayoume PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The nom appears to be mistaken in the NFCC#2 argument and that was noted in the discussion. The weak delete isn't backed by anything other than an opinion (which is standard in these cases) but is a reasonable reference to NFCC#8. relist as we don't have consensus (which I know is common in FfD discussions) and the mistaken nom just made it hard for anyone to usefully contribute in defense of the article. I suspect the #8 arguments will win out, but I think folks should be given time to realize that's the actual reason that needs to be discussed. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No opposition to this, but honestly I'm quite surprised that there are particular questions when it comes to this article and #8, considering that it seems to be quite accepted in for articles about murders, disappearances and specific killings to have a fair use image of the victim. I don't see how in the Murder of Bianca Devins (a GA) or Disappearance of Natalee Holloway (a FA) or Murder of Cameron Blair (a GA). Of course, other stuff exists and that's not an argument, but it seems to be in every GA/FA on this type of article I could find. I don't the picture of is any less necessary here. Sure, in both cases you could go without it, but that goes for pretty much all images of say, a deceased person as well. The bio of a deceased person is just as comprehensible without a photo of them, and yet it's standard practice to include it on bio articles if one is available.

  But yes relist and get consensus that's good. Just wanted to comment because this surprises me and I plan on getting similar articles to an higher quality in the future, and thought this was generally accepted. And if it shouldn't be done then a *lot* of files need to be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Relist - I would have preferred to have this appeal less than two months after the FFD, but I don't think it was ready for closure. There wasn't enough participation in the FFD to constitute consensus, with the nom, one Weak Delete, and one comment. I am not an expert on Non-Free Content Criteria and will not say what the proper action should be. If I become more familiar with the criteria while the FFD is relisted, I may participate. There wasn't enough participation to read a consensus based on the input, and a Relist is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I am unclear why Hobit thinks that I was mistaken in my claim that this image was a NFCC#2 violation. No argument or evidence has been provided. It was (in Hobit's words) 'pointed out' in the nom that 'The copyright holder is al-Fayoume's family'; but no evidence was provided for this. On this page, from which the image was sourced, Reuters is selling the image. I'd say this is a pretty obvious shut-and-closed NFCC#2 case. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And before anyone points out that the photo was almost certainly taken by a family member, and not a Reuters employee... Of course. But might Reuters be selling this on behalf of the family? Might the family have given it to Reuters? Might Reuters have bought this from the family? I'm not an expert on how these press agencies work. All I know is that Reuters is selling rights to the images. If I'm 'mistaken', are they mistaken, too? Are they lying? What exactly is being claimed here? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are numerous cases where agencies have sold images that they merely redistribute and do not own the copyright of. They in no way own the copyright especially since every other source credits the image to the Central of Islamic Relations of Chicago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Law and Crime cites the image of him to CAIR-Chicago and so does this and The Independent lists the same photo of him as from Cair Chicago, which is the Center of Islamic Relations of Chicago, not Reuters or a press agency. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, of all the sources I see that use this image, I can't find any besides Reuters itself that credit the image to them. Sometimes press agencies do this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, it sounds like we are accusing Reuters of being mistaken/lying. If you're right that Reuters are mistaken/lying, then yes, I'm happy to admit that I was mistaken about NFCC#2. But I wonder if there are other ways we could go about this. Are there any images out there that aren't being claimed by Reuters? They might not overcome NFCC#8 worries (on which I'm neutral), but they'd at least overcome my NFCC#2 worries. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a few, this one, listed as "Courtesy of Hela Yousef" and this one ("Family Handout/CAIR-Chicago)". The first one is quite a bit better IMO. From searching all of Reuters articles about this case they have never claimed either of those as theirs. Either are listed as from CAIRC or "family handout" (or both) in every source that uses them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. I would not oppose one of those pictures being used on NFCC#2 grounds; if we're going to have an image (again, I'm neutral on the NFCC#8 question) let's make it one of them, and not one claimed (falsely or otherwise) by Reuters. So I think the deletion of this image should stand. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine, a new image can be uploaded and I'm not bothered, but I would really like to get some consensus on the #8 criterion here because if this is the common interpretation there are probably hundreds of files in this exact kind of article that fail it and should be deleted, including multiple FAs and other GAs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. I fear that may need to be a wider conversation than is possible on this deletion review. I confess I didn't mean to provoke any kind of wider conversation when I nominated the image for deletion; I genuinely thought it a straightforward NFCC#2 violation. Given that you're happy to use a non-agency-claimed image if/when you use another, I'm happy, so I'm going to step back from the conversation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It does appear NFCC#2 and #8 apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  NFCC#2 does not apply (see my rebuttal above) and if this violates NFCC#8 I don't really see what doesn't tbh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree with you there, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the usage in this article is any less contextually relevant than other articles of this type? Are they not supposed to have images? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that matters as that quickly becomes an other stuff argument and we need to be focused only on the image at hand. FfDs are hard due to minimal participation, but after reading the discussion here and there I'm convinced NFCC#2 applies because the image is clearly for sale and that NFCC#8 applies because the article does not need the image to convey the necessary information. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The other stuff argument does not apply because FAs and GAs are rigorously reviewed by the community, so I consider the sign that this is present in every high quality article like this a sign that this is an accepted use of a non-free image. With regard to NFCC#2, for sale image agencies often do stuff like that. Getty Images is notorious for selling and claiming the rights to public domain images, this isn't a new practice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I do not agree with you here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On which part? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On Wikipedia there's an old and long-standing tension between those who want to build an encyclopaedia using only free content ("free content maximalists") and those who what to build an encyclopaedia by any lawful means ("get-it-done-ists"). FFD as a venue tends to attract free content maximalists, and its decisions tend to disfavour the get-it-done-ists, so here at deletion review we've often seen NFCC#8 overreach. I've often criticised FFD for needlessly and wilfully stopping us from getting stuff done. But in this particular case, I'm not seeing that, and I would endorse this particular example. I note that news sources around the world are using images owned by the victim's family, and I suggest that the family might well be willing to consent to our using an image. And more importantly, I note that for example, the BBC here managed to produce a perfectly clear and accurate article without a single image of the victim.
  And, finally, what the heck? We don't need an image of a six year old child to know that six years old is a horribly young age to be murdered at.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, but then do the images on all these kinds of articles (Murder of types of articles) need to be deleted? What is the standard for when the article about someone dying needs a picture of them? Because pretty much all of them fail it, then. And I'm not opposed to all of them getting deleted but I would appreciate knowing where the line is so I know what files to request the deletion of, considering this affects Good and Featured articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, 1, 2, 3 PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I may be missing your point with those links? On my screen, only the first one of those has a picture of Wadea al-Fayoume. We're not making a decision about all the other articles about murder victims. We're making a decision about this specific article about a murder victim. We take these things one at a time because the facts in each case are different.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For me all three of them do. Weird. Fair enough, but what about this case makes this any less contextually relevant? Yes, case by case, but precedent in high quality articles is a picture is included. I can't find any other GA or FA like this that doesn't include it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait I think I screwed up the links. Sometimes news sites are really weird about that. Here are the ones I meant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And again, even today, people make articles like this. This article is two days old and start class and has an image of the victim. Every article I've seen does. If this is inappropriate, then sure, but I don't think otherstuffexists applies when it is every article like this PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would just say that if other images exist that need to be deleted, then that is an argument for deleting those, not for keeping images that have been properly recognised as ineligible for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Non-free content must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria. This image was nominated as failing WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. Press agencies do sometimes claim to own images that they in fact do not own. NFCC#2 was challenged in the discussion, but not NFCC#8. Failing to meet one the two reasons in the nomination is sufficient to establish that non-free content criteria are not met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The FFD appears to have fallen into error by a misapplication of NFCC#2, and did not adequately discuss the NFCC#8 considerations. Given the low attendance (albeit common for FFD) I think it is appropriate to discuss this again with full information. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was sufficient clarity in the discussion that this failed NFCC#2. One participant sought additional explanation regarding the application of NFCC#2, but non-fulfillment of NFCC#2 was not serious questioned. The image can be captioned as being credited to the family but deals can be made that give other entities exclusive rights to the image, such as to use it commercially. Various arrangements are possible, and saying that the family is the copyright holder and the agency is selling what is not theirs is not a reliable supposition and not a robust approach to this question.—Alalch E. 15:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Shown Mills (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I just got to view my talk page and all I could see was red link of the article. Reviewing further, I saw the page deleted for Unambiguous advertising. I was also quite sure there was no advertising or promotional word. I do request undeletion for further review and clarification. Thanks! Otuọcha (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Temp-undeleted for review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If we remove "considered as the pioneer of genealogy" and get rid of the miscited quote, there's nothing promotional left at all. I thus think the article is a very long way from being "exclusively promotional", as WP:CSD#G11 requires. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 and list on AfD. NYT article is prima facie evidence of notability, and her book seems to meet our notability standards. Whether these amount to notability per BLP is a question for AfD, not CSD. I don't find the tone particularly promotional, and the claims are well supported by the cited sources. Either way, promotional tone can be fixed editorially; this is not a speedy candidate. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's not her notability I'm questioning but the promotional wording used without any evidence to back it up. Who says she is "the pioneer of genealogy"? Having written books doesn't automatically equal notability. Because of the history of COI editing, I'm doubtful that an article supported by a professional qualification, a primary source and a brief mention in a book on a related subject could stand alone; if the promotional wording were removed, this would be a very short stub. However, I don't object to it being restored pending a full deletion discussion, as there doesn't seem to have been one prior to the previous deletion. Incidentally, the article on Isle of Canes doesn't look great either. Deb (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  G11 states, This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. The page was not exclusively promotional. Only minor changes were needed to make it a stub compliant with our MOS. The subject can be argued to be notable, and the content can easily be fixed to be NPOV. I think G11 was an innocent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. I don't think anyone would object if you speedily undeleted/unprotected the page, chalking up the deletion to a clerical error, with or without listing it on AfD. But of course, you're welcome to let the DRV run its course. Owen× ☎ 19:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn It is written promotionally, and removing the promotional language would leave maybe a sentence of material. I have little patience for promotional articles on BLPs, but the speedy is quite borderline and one of those instances where simply fixing the promotional material would probably be about as easy as G11-ing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. But... The quote is miscited. There is no such thing in the NYT article. Fake referencing. For BLPs we have: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Being "the pioneer" of something and, more generally, talking about a living person in superlatives is inherently contentious. The "the pioneer" claim is unsourced. There is unsourced contentious positive material and fake referencing. The article is objectively promotional regardless of intent. But it is not exclusively promotional, despite being a pretty terrible article, and it would not need to be fundamentally rewritten to function as a permissible stub.—Alalch E. 23:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the G11. Repairing the article can be done by deleting the lede paragraph, which is flowery promotional language, leaving a stub of the second paragraph. My interpretation of G11 is that when most of the article including the lede paragraph is promotional filler, the intent of G11 is satisfied. Other reasonable editors may disagree with my interpretation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not only other reasonable editors will disagree, but the consensus participants who penned G11 would, too. You are basically writing your own version of G11 that has little to do with the one in our policy. Owen× ☎ 01:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. I am reading the one that is in the policy, just as you are. And my reading appears to be the same as that taken by User:Deb, so it is not just my reading. I don't know about "the consensus participants who penned G11". The consensus that matters is the consensus interpretation at DRV. There are two reasonable readings of G11 on this point, and the consensus here will choose between them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Overturn. The standard for G11 is whether the entire article is "exclusively promotional", not whether the lead paragraph is flowery, not whether you would be left with more than a stub if you deleted (rather than reworded) the promotional language. This was not close to a G11. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn I understand the G11 but disagree with it. That lede is pretty bad, but it's not exclusively promotional IMO. It is close. Hobit (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy there are parts of the article that are written an the tone of an advertisement, but the page is not exclusively promotional and would not need to be fundamentally rewritten. The content that is promotional in nature can be cleaned up rather than the entire article be deleted. I am concerned about the article's notability, but that is a topic best left to AFD. Frank Anchor 17:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submachine (series) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was deleted due to failing WP:GNG, but now more sources are available. For example, Rock Paper Shotgun, Destructoid and PC Gamer. Also, one of the commenters said that the games will no longer be playable online. This is not true as it's playable on Steam and on Kongregate with the Ruffle flash player. Jannaultheal (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation either as draft for AFC review or in article space subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that justifies undeleting this article about what we now know is a notable topic. It doesn't matter whether the new sources are included in it at the time of undeletion (not a BLP, the information is not going to be badly outdated et cetera). There is no need for anything else such as a procedural AfD.—Alalch E. 11:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After reading subsequent comments, I'd like to reiterate my view that this is undeletable to mainspace. Doing this entails overturning the AfD. It's not a judgement that the AfD was closed incorrectly at the time. That is better for page history continuity and attribution. Since notability is questioned even after these sources, a procedural AfD is in order. I am against DRV prescribing AfC. —Alalch E. 23:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No action needed, it's a five year old AfD. Jannaultheal is welcome to create a new article, which can go to AfD if folks feel notability hasn't changed. It would not be a G4 Star Mississippi 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. I wouldn't consider 2 5-paragraph articles and a 1-paragraph mention in a listicle to meet WP:SIGCOV. Are there more sources? (I briefly used the WP:VG/RS custom Google searches but nothing jumped out at me.) Happy to change my !vote if significant coverage is out there. Woodroar (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify if there is an editor ready to work on it. The appellant has a grand total of 10 edits to their name, all of which are AfD or DRV related, which makes me worry they don't intend to follow through with actual content copyediting. (@Jannaultheal: is this your primary account?) I doubt the sources presented here are enough to meet SIGCOV, but as Star Mississippi said, we're not bound by the 2019 AfD, and can leave the decision about the new article to AfC or a future AfD. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close but allow recreation. The close at the time was solid, and this probably should go through the Draft/AFC process for the reasons mentioned above, but I don't think with the new sources anyone is going to be jumping for the G4 stick. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What everyone else said. Deletions based on notability are always up for new information that demonstrates notability, which is the most common case of an old deletion discussion being disregarded when the reason for deletion no longer applies. New such information AFTER the date of the AfD is a great reason to change the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close I think this still could go to AfD if recreated based on the presented sources - listicles aren't great for notability - but this AfD shouldn't be the reason why it would be deleted, so a draft or new article is fine. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation either by refunding the deleted version to draft space or restarting from scratch. There is new information since the last AFD that demonstrates notability. Frank Anchor 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Unworthy of DRV. No nothing from here. If you are sure the reasons for deletion at the old AfD are overcome, and you are Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed, then create. Otherwise, use AfC. In both cases I recommend going to WP:REFUND and requesting undeletion to your userspace or draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since it's already here, I think an admin would be happy to provide it if consensus closes that way. No reason for them to go to a 2nd board. Star Mississippi 12:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• undelete without prejudice to a new AfD AfD closure was fine. Things have improved, probably to the point the GNG is clearly met. But others may disagree. But best to give the applicant the old article as a starting point unless it was TNT-levels of bad. Plus A) it's old and B) frankly, that AfD wasn't great. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reşit Inceoğlu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was speedy deleted as G7 while there was an AfD going on. The problem with the current outcome is that it makes it eligible for WP:REFUND because of the G7 (otherwise it wouldn't matter much) while that certainly wasn't going to be the outcome of the AfD. So it's used as a way to evade the AfD process. Can this be reviewed please? Tehonk (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Temp undelete and protect for the remaining six days to allow the AfD to complete. The closing admin was right: pages undergoing AfD are not immune from speedy deletion. But in the case of G7, there is a real risk of an author gaming the system, so as to allow REFUND or evade G4. As the article will be behind a temp-undeleted template, there's no potential harm, and participants can view it in the history to decide about future recreation. Owen× ☎ 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Or endorse and amend close per Alalch E.. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and continue the AFD, because, as the nominator and OwenX have said, interrupting an AFD for a G7 can be used to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but amend the close. Enhance the outcome to be of the same quality as an outcome of a full AfD based on a consensus achieved, by amending the closing statement. Do not relist. Apply WP:NOTBURO to the duration question (WP:SNOW—there is a snowball's chance in hell for an outcome other than 'delete'). This should always be done when a G7 (specifically this criterion) is actioned during an AfD with unanimous delete !votes in my opinion. Closes should reflect this.—Alalch E. 12:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I like this approach. We don't normally "SNOW" with only nom plus three !votes, but in this case, I agree with Alalch E. that it would be appropriate and avoid unnecessary process. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what I roughly meant with my last comment on the AfD, so I'd support this. Styyx (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No, look, none of this makes sense. Sysops have brains.
  When a sysop is asked to restore, they'll look at the latest revision. They'll see that there was an AfD in progress and refer the petitioner to DRV, because that's the process. And if they don't look because they're editing while medicated or tired and emotional, which unfortunately does happen because sysops are human, and they somehow miss that there was an AfD in progress, then the revision they restore will literally have a huge AfD template on it. It's not plausible that they'll miss that at that stage.
  And I do think that in the circumstances, it would be polite to ping David Eppstein and Explicit, don't you?—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, tbh, I saw an admin refund something that was not eligible for REFUND at all (3 AfDs with delete and salt result, and the last deletion is speedy, so in no way was it eligible for REFUND) and the admin did not "refer the petitioner to DRV" (even a DRV for that thing would be disruptive as there was no valid reason for the undeletion, I see that the requester was also recently blocked for disruptive editing for similar behavior.)

  So even if that can happen, this result is prone to being used to game the system more than that. Tehonk (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sysops have brains, but we know that some sysops don’t engage their brains when emptying CSD categories. If an AfD shows a consensus to delete, that should be reflected in the deletion log, and not avoided by a g7. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this is a potential GAME issue. Let me propose a change to G7 to fix this... Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if the author requested deletion in the midst of an AfD and G7 applies, whoever would go to refund it - and let's be honest, it is almost certainly going to be the person who requested G7 - should be able to see that there was an AfD open. I don't see this as potentially gaming the system. I'm a bit confused considering the author seemed to want to keep the article in the AfD, though. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to “Delete per consensus at AfD”. It’s a gaming route. User:Explicit Should have noted the page was at AfD, and take the option to close the AfD as “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy, relist AFD and let it play out for the full seven days. Four delete votes (including the nom) and roughly one day listed at AFD does not justify a SNOW close, even with the G7 request.Frank Anchor 23:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think an AfD discussion with no keeps and a G7 claim, if correct, amounts to a consensus to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not after just a single day of discussion. Frank Anchor 11:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But, an eligible G7 means there is consensus to delete it. So it is a waste of volunteer time to keep the AfD open. The G7 tagger can reasonably be assumed to be aware of the AfD, meaning the tagging is acquiescence. I think giving the deletion that status of an XfD consensus decision to delete is a good practical outcome. It can be REFUNDed to draft or userspace, but not back to mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see both sides of this argument. We routinely speedy-close an AfD after one day when the nom withdraws their nomination. By the same token, we should be able to speedy-close an AfD after one day when the author and only contributor asks for a G7, especially when there isn't a single !vote to keep it - provided we show it as an AfD close, not a CSD. That said, I also don't see much harm from allowing such an AfD to run its course. We've already spent more time debating this here than editors would have spent casting a few more "Delete" !votes before the page was finally given its mercy deletion. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closer. If we're going to introduce a new rule that G7's are disallowed during AfDs because bad faith "it's a gaming route", can we perhaps at least try to include that rule in the WP:CSD description of the G7 criteria, rather than pretending it's already included there when it isn't? FWIW, my own interpretation of a G7 mid-AfD (especially one like this that was clearly headed towards deletion) is not "I'd like to preserve the option of a refund" but rather "ok, I give up, it's going to be deleted, let's stop dragging it out". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is reasonable fine tuning. G7 tagging means the page will be deleted, but I think the deletion log should be accurate, and point to the deletion discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I made such a change, based on the discussion here, to CSD-G7 several hours ago. It has yet to be reverted. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I like the change but it seems a bit vague. Instead of If an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale. I might go If an author validly requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the speedy deletion may be carried out, and an admin may speedily close the deletion discussion as a "delete" outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 16:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't object to that. I intentionally used may and referenced the deletion rationale for it to be as generic, broad, and non-threatening as possible: CSDs shouldn't generally be messed with, so I only did so because I thought I had an approach (the closing admin may consider...) that not only reflected consensus, but didn't force or forbid anything, just gave everyone notice of what we've been discussing here. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's kind of misplaced. When a page is speedied during a deletion discussion, for whatever reason, the discussion gets a pro-forma close without consideration by the closer either way - at FFD it's actually done by a bot. Where the question arises isn't when the page is speedied, or when the deletion discussion is closed, but when it's requested to be restored; if we're not going to trust admins to have a little common sense, the place to make such a note is at WP:REFUND. —Cryptic 16:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If FFD is closed by bot after a speedy, then the clause I added wouldn't apply. I have no particular objection to this idea being mentioned at REFUND either instead of or in addition to what I added. I'm just pleased that a bold change I made to such a closely watched policy wasn't reverted out of hand, actually. :-) Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunatic Lateral (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don’t think delete would’ve been appropriate but this seems like a no consensus close (which there is a big difference, as a no consensus close allows rediscussion in 2 months whereas a keep closure requires a 6 month wait.) I think no consensus was a better call because the amount and the reasoning of the support and oppose sides cancelled each other out. If a keep was to be the right call, then the closer could’ve at least provided an explanation for keep over a no consensus closure, but they did not. 50.225.13.170 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer here. Happy to be trouted if this was out of line for an NAC, but I didn't think this was terribly controversial to close as keep, so I a) felt confident closing it and b) didn't write any additional explanation. We have two non-keep !votes, one being a redirect that acknowledges some possibilities, and one being a very brief delete !vote that was countered by later keep !votes. Two of the four keep votes are extensive and bring up numerous sources. I don't see a reason to close this as no consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the nominator rationale and the IPv6 comment counts? 50.225.13.170 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely the nom rationale is part of the consideration. It's just not a !vote, so I didn't tally it as one when I said we have two non-keep !votes. Likewise for a comment. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. The Keep views may very well have the upper hand here, but I'm counting three non-Keep views. Even with just one dissenting opinion, this would no longer qualify as an uncontroversial result, making it unsuitable for a non-admin closure. Owen× ☎ 02:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline/policy that suggests a small amount of dissenting votes automatically makes a AFD “controversial.” Frank Anchor 22:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a consensus there, but I'm not sure the two/six month window is as firm as IP50 is concerned about in their nomination here. It seems to have drifted. FWIW, I contemplated closing it as N/C as I don't think a 3rd relist was going to help, but asilvering got to it in the log before I did. I don't mind this as an NAC as the outcome was going to be retention, regardless, with a close right now and it had already been relisted twice. So while I see IP50's point, I don't see a need to overturn and reclose/relist. Star Mississippi 02:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Don't just look at the numbers, look at the timing. For the last week of the final relist there were three unrebutted keep !votes that provided evidence that previous delete !votes were incorrect. I'm not sure "no consensus" was even within the range of reasonable outcomes given the trajectory of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This definitely rebutted this. Also, trajectory of discussion usually does equate to a relist, or at a bare minimum a lengthy explanation in the deletion rationale especially for an NAC.50.225.13.170 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Trajectory indicates a forming consensus, and in cases like this, I assess it as sufficient to demonstrate one. Your judgment may differ. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid conclusion of rough consensus by the closer. No Consensus would also have been valid, but Keep was valid. Overturning a close just to allow another nomination a few months earlier would be silly. I would have !voted Keep. It was notable both in the usual sense and in the Wikipedia sense for its stupidity. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Jclemens.—Alalch E. 09:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I don't see a consensus to keep, and it was probably just contentious enough that it should have been closed by an admin. Would overturn to no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there is consensus to keep, particularly after the final relist, such that keep was well within the closer's discretion. No consensus would have probably been a valid close as well. The three valid keep votes with very little response after the final relist (two of the three stood for over five days prior to the close) shows that keep was a better outcome. I do not think this (or any relisted AFD) should have been closed by a non-admin, but it is pointless and unnecessary to reopen a discussion solely for an administrator to close in the same way. Frank Anchor 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Closer discretion only comes into play for admin closes. For non-admin closes, anything other than a unanimous result is a BADNAC. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rubbish.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the rule is that it has to be strictly unanimous, but it would have to be pretty close. The fact it would wind up at DRV is a pretty clear sign it's not uncontroversial. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned rebuttal, S Marshall. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And thanks for the thoughtful and well-reasoned comment that prompted it.  :)—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To expand on S Marshall's point: That isn't what our rules say and that isn't what we've ever done. Without evidence otherwise, that is an opinion about how things should work. And an opinion I disagree with quite strongly. Hobit (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no requirement that NAC is limited to unanimous discussions. WP:NAC explains that NAC should be avoided when [t]he outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. In this case, there was zero chance of any outcome involving the page not being kept. It makes no reference to non-admins not having discretion in such a close. As I already stated, a non-admin close on a relisted discussion is a generally bad idea. However, in this case the end-result is correct. Frank Anchor 22:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse I'd have endorsed NC too. Both are reasonable readings of that discussion. NAC does not play a role here--this was never getting deleted. Hobit (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was reasonable and accurately reflected the outcome of that discussion. I don't endorse OwenX's reading of WP:BADNAC to state that any AfD when there is not unanimity is prohibited; it only restricts when it is a close call or likely to be controversial. And, based on a plain reading of policies and guidelines in light of the sources (as I noted during the AfD), there is nothing that ought be controversial or a close call about this outcome. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the correct reading of consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Evans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Evans and her book Rikers Island were prominently featured in The New York Times. The deletion discussion centered around no independent sources available. Two independent prominent sources have been found and incorporated.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html

2. https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ PenmanWarrior (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should explain the source of your strong personal investment in this draft, because its getting to the point of being disruptive and as such a discussion about you is at WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were already told that the rockymountainnews ref is a puff interview, and therefore is not an independent RS to support notability. DMacks (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as correct. Assuming productive behavior following unblock, user is welcome to work on draft, however it should go through AfC due to the clear COI present here. Star Mississippi 01:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the only possible outcome of that AfD. The appellant hasn't raised any arguments as to why the reading of consensus was wrong. They're merely continuing where they left off at the AfD. Owen× ☎ 01:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the proper finding of consensus from the AFD. It isn't clear whether the appellant is arguing that the closer made an error (which they did not), or arguing that the community made an error (which isn't a reason for DRV), or saying that they have new information (which they have not introduced). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (NB: I originally nominated the article for deletion). Deletion was clearly the consensus outcome. If sources have now been found which would show that Evans meets WP:GNG, then Draft:Michele Evans can go through AfC – though I would note that the coverage of Evans in both the Rocky Mountain News article and the new New York Times article seems to be primarily based on quoting statements by Evans, and I am not convinced that either of those is an independent source for GNG purposes. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was only one possible outcome for that AfD discussion, and the first source shown might be okay even though it's interview-y, the second is not. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King K. Rool (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

As the original editor of the page, I was unaware that the article was nominated for deletion. There is nothing in the deletion criteria that mentions relative notability. Declaring that K. Rool is not notable because "he is not on the same level as Bowser"—the most well-known villain in video game history—is not a fair standard to measure against, nor does the general notability guideline make any such stipulation. Every claim in the article is meticulously cited and verifiable, with 61 citations in total—which is more than what Donkey Kong himself has. The article details K. Rool's history in great depth, including his appearances outside of the Donkey Kong video game series as covered by reliable sources.

Furthermore, by merging K. Rool's page into List of Donkey Kong characters, the character is not being documented accurately when a significant portion of his notability and fandom is centered around his appearance in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, the best-selling fighting game of all-time.

Characters derive notability from their source material, not because they are in some arbitrary number of pop culture articles. That being said, the original King K. Rool page is filled with numerous mainstream sources and online news outlets discussing K. Rool at length. His inclusion in Smash was even covered by a local newspaper^[1] and an episode of the Netflix TV series Inside Job.^[2]

Toadster101 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as the closing admin: contrary to your statement, the King K. Rool page was created in 2004, a full nine years before you joined Wikipedia. Your first edit to that page was in 2015, when the article had already been edited over a thousand times, making you, Toadster101, one of the latter editors to that page, rather than its "original editor".

I am sorry you were unaware that the article was nominated for deletion. The nominator did, in fact, notify the IP address from which the page was originally authored, admittedly a rather pointless exercise twenty years later, but that is how WP:Twinkle works. They also placed the notice on the article itself, but it seems you were on a wikibreak for the past six months. I find it ironic that while you complain about not being notified, you skipped Step #2 for the DRV, and failed to notify the AfD closer (me) of your appeal. Thankfully, the ever dilligent Cryptic did this in your stead.

As for the AfD you are appealing, even if you had participated in that AfD, if your argument was based on the two sources you cited above - a spot in a local newspaper (which?) and a single episode crossover in another show - it would likely not have changed the tide on what was a unanimous consensus to merge. DRV is not AfD-round-two, but even if it were, I doubt we'd see a different outcome. But by all means, let's hear what uninvolved participants think. Owen× ☎ 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not notifying you directly as per the recommended guidelines. I don't have an extensive editing history beyond pruning the K. Rool article and I haven't accessed this platform in over six months, as you correctly pointed out.

While it's true that I didn't start making edits until 2015, that's because the original version of the article was deleted for being badly cited and because K. Rool wasn't considered notable enough. However, the article was restored after I successfully plead my case to the editors and remade the article from scratch with well-researched citations and proof of the character's notability. As you can see, it was restored by @user:UY Scuti for "currently meet[ing] notability" less than an hour before my first edit on November 5th, 2015.

This was prior to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's release in 2018, which revitalized the character and increased his notability significantly. For certain editors to suddenly conclude that K. Rool is no longer "notable," despite previously meeting the criteria eight years ago before the release of this major game, feels arbitrary. Has the criteria recently changed? Toadster101 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there's no other way to close that discussion. I've also taken a look at the last version of the article to appear in mainspace and in spite of 67 references, I don't see any obvious pass of GNG, suggesting the merge !votes weren't in error. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the proper finding of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The DRV nom makes argument that could be relevant in an AfD, but the AfD is over, ending with a consensus to merge, and a merger was performed. Mergers can be reversed by splitting.—Alalch E. 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• relist A) the applicant is correct, he really should have been notified. Yes, he wasn't the creator per se (since it was restored) but still. And B) this is so far past the GNG it's not funny. Newsweek has an article about the character including some history of the character's creation. [1]. [2] is a RS solely about the character. [3] is another. The addition of this character to Super Smash made news in the mainstream (non-gaming) media including [4] Esquire. When the creator tweeted about the character's name and history, it was picked up by what looks like a dozen news outlets. I think we need a new discussion that is actually informed. Heck, the links provided above darn clearly show we have newspaper articles on this topic. Folks might be able to argue "game guide" or ONEEVENT or something, but "not notable" just isn't something we should be entertaining given the actual sourcing. Hobit (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There seems to be off-wiki canvassing concerning this DRV. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LilianaUwU: I'm not seeing evidence of that here. What are you seeing? Hobit (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hobit I've seen a post on Twitter linking to DRV and encouraging to make comments. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not commenting on whether the close was right or not, but I think this is probably notable enough for it's own article based off the sources above and others that are probably out there. The character has been around for decades. It's section at List of Donkey Kong characters is huge. Should probably be WP:SPLIT. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Folks, while in general we aren't here to relitigate the AfD, have you all actually looked at the sources? We have a 1/3 page newspaper article ([5]), non-trivial coverage in Newsweek and Esquire, and a huge amount of coverage in the gaming press. Yes, most of it is for A) inclusion in Super Smash or B) to discuss a comment by the creator of the character. But the coverage is ignored by the AfD. It's a bad AfD. And yes, the cite flooding of the article contributed to no one being able to find the good sources, but that too isn't a reason to delete. This is way over "receiv[ing] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Recall that "significant coverage is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In this case the subject *is* the main topic of literally dozens of articles, some in the broader press. @Alalch E., Robert McClenon, LilianaUwU, SportingFlyer, and OwenX: Hobit (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article you posted had a link which actually somewhat undermines your argument, if a blog is posting that a local newspaper reported on it: [6] I don't think this was incorrectly decided. SportingFlyer T·C 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I find that reaction fairly frustrating. I chose that link because it shows the article in the context of being actually printed in a real paper. The fact the the link of the picture came from a blog is irrelevant to if the article in question is reliable, yes? The article in question counts as a reliable source that has fairly detailed coverage of the topic, yes? So counts toward WP:N? I'm really unsure what point you are making here. Help? Hobit (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does the notability of the article now rely on a photo of what some blog claims to be a local newspaper? Does anybody else still remember when there used to be a stand at amusement parks and state fairs where you could get a fake newspaper front page printed with your name, photo and a headline? Of course, you can now do all this at home with Adobe or free software. I think we'll need a pretty radical interpretation of WP:RS to accept a photo of a local paper whose name or publisher we don't even know as a source. Owen× ☎ 16:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding some two-cents here, GoNintendo is marked unreliable on WP:VG/S, due to no evidence of an editorial policy and many posts being submissions. So even with a relist if it was presented as a source, it'd be shot down.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Extended Comment - Replying to @WikiOriginal-9 and Hobit: and others - The real issue here seems to be what should we do at DRV if it is semi-obvious that the AFD was wrong? We at DRV are not here to re-litigate the AFD, but some of the most difficult cases at DRV have to do with an AFD where the AFD was wrong. There are two varieties of such cases, both of which are difficult. The first is where the AFD was wrong, and the closer correctly assessed the incorrect consensus; this is such a case. The second is where the AFD was wrong, and the closer supervoted against the incorrect consensus. Merging and then splitting seems like process for the sake of process. The question before us at DRV should, in my opinion, be whether to overturn the close of Merge and instead Relist the AFD. For the time being, I will strike my Endorse, and consider whether to !vote for a Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously, my opinion is that a significantly flawed AfD should be relisted or (in extreme cases) just started over. I'd hope we'd all agree on that. The question is where the bar is for "significantly flawed" and if this one has that characteristic. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As an uninvolved party who considers VG characters under my area of interest, I find the argument that reliable sources were not considered unconvincing. The examples you provided were largely not something I would use to argue for a character's notability. The Esquire source isn't talking about K. Rool, it's talking about the Nintendo Direct, which, for obvious reasons, requires mentioning K. Rool. The Polygon source says virtually nothing to show notability, and the argument that having this article made is a show of notability is, once again, unconvincing. Looking into it, every character added to Smash Ultimate got their own article in Polygon. The only exception I saw was Richter, who shared an article with Simon (for obvious reasons). This tells me that the article was written not because K. Rool was notable, but because the Smash roster is notable as a collective. Now, where I will admit you've made a good argument is with this - [7] it has a lot to say about K. Rool, it's not trivial, it's not excessively game guide content. It covers a lot of ground, and it's clearly made because the writer considers the character notable, which is what I love to see. However, that's all I'm seeing that would tell me the character is especially notable. If you could present more like this, I would agree that K. Rool's article should exist, but not that the AfD was faulty. The AfD, going off the info it had at the time, was the appropriate decision. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the first I've ever heard of the subject, and - as you know from my above comment - I don't think there was anything flawed about the AfD. There were 67 references in the article, so there was plenty of opportunity to perform a source review, and my spot check of the most promising ones didn't make me think there was anything wrong with the result. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While twinkle did inform the IP in question, I will counter the argument that Toadster is the "original editor", as several editors appear to have been working on the article along the way, so it would be difficult to presume they are *the* editor to notify over others. Additionally LilianaUwU is correct that there is an attempt at canvassing going on, as can be seen here, here, and linking to the DRV process here, where the primary complaint is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that they feel are less significant. That second link in particular is interesting because it's boasting that they "created the King K. Rool article from the ground-up during the Smash Ballot", which definitely at least indicates it's an editor on here, and it is questionable the time of the tweets line up with the deletion review.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist: With the sources Hobit provided in here, I feel this is worth a relist to gather input from others on whether King K. Rool passes notability for a standalone article or not. MoonJet (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As one of those who voted in the AfD, my opinions are still the same. The merge could definitely have been carried out better, but that's not grounds to relist the AfD. As covered by editors above, very little indicates that notability standards are met, especially so given there are very few in-depth sources on the subject that aren't just random listicles and rankings related to Smash. The nominator should also be called into question here given the very blatant canvassing attempts that interfere with the discussion at hand. In any case, I don't see a need to relist the discussion. The AfD was carried out utilizing what sources could be found, and nothing of note was scrounged up. K. Rool simply does not meet the threshold, as sad as it is. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. (!voted above) Too late for anything: The merger has been performed and is not contested at the target page after several days. AfD can't undo this addition to the target page (out of remit of AfD which is not a suitable forum for forming a consensus on matters of editorial judgement on a completely different article) so the AfD bears no promise of a desirable alternative outcome; a nominal AfD 'keep' now would not effectively lead to keeping, it would lead to creating a redundant content fork so we should not reopen the discussion to explore an alterantive that is an aberration.—Alalch E. 02:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If the afd clothes is undone, you will be trivial to restore the article. And in fact the summary at the merge target is fine anyways. So I disagree with that pretty strongly, if this eventually gets overturned it is quite important and quite easy to restore. Hobit (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The target article contains more detail now than a summary would/should. How much detail it should contain is not an issue of whether the deletion process was followed correctly, or whether the close was reasonable or inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. It's a completely separate question of editorial sense that's outside of the boundaries of any deletion process.—Alalch E. 22:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And that's trivial to fix editorially. Hobit (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As long as we know that it's something that needs to be fixed. —Alalch E. 08:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. With 3 merge !votes and no keep or delete !votes, the consensus was clearly to merge. DRV is not for taking another bite of the apple. Yilloslime (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is for things like new information and how to deal with really bad discussions. DRV is not just for nose counting... Hobit (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Pandey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A non-admin closure of a controversial AfD with views evenly split between Keep and Delete. As with two other recent non-admin closures by this editor, this comes across as a supervote. I suggest a speedy Overturn and relist. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist as that would have been the most likely action of an admin if it had been handled by an admin. Tehonk (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per my suggestion in the other DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chikki Panday (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Another non-admin closure by this editor where they cast a supervote ("keep per WP:HEY") in a controversial AfD, which doesn't reflect the actual lack of consensus. Owen× ☎ 18:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist - the best close there is no consensus but the discussion on both sides isn't great, so another week may help clear this up, and this was a clearly controversial close per BADNAC. SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as a BADNAC as it was clearly controversial and "keep per WP:HEY" is clearly a supervote rather than a consensus. Tehonk (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Katchanovski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion just one week after the nomination. The projects were notified selectively and the users who participated in the previous AfDs weren't notified. Alaexis_¿question? 13:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I see only one coherent argument for keeping the article, versus two clear Delete views, two more that imply a lack of notability, and of course, the subject of the article himself, who is entitled to call for the deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Normally, this level of participation and distribution of !votes might allow for an extra week of relisting, but in the case of a BLP that contains potentially disparaging assertions, time is of the essence. Kudos to the closing admin for doing the right thing, and not letting this drag on beyond the minimum seven days. We normally notify the author of an article when it is listed in AfD, but it is neither required nor common practice to notify participants in previous AfDs for that page. Owen× ☎ 14:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, does seems like a bit of a rules for thee but not for me on the OP's part; i.e. ignored the Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer portion of the instructions. Curious. El_C 18:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't initiated deletion reviews for a long time and didn't notice this recommendation in the Instructions section, my apologies. I'll do it next time, but since the review has been opened, I think that this should be decided on the merits of the case. Alaexis_¿question? 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think delete was not only a perfectly valid conclusion but the best conclusion. Selective notification doesn't make for a defective AfD except in very specific circumstances (selective canvassing) not met here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A week is the standard period, it is not necesary to ping previous AfD's participants, and there was a consensus to delete. A normal number of editors participated and exhibited an above-average level of interest and activity, making this a well-attended AfD. In my opinion, which projects were notified never matters to the extent that a close should be overturned only because of that, because assuming that members of a particular project would have !voted contrarily to the outcome reached (keep instead of delete in this case), is conceptualizing them as a voting block and assuming that they have a particular tendency, so under that premise it would be better never to notify any such project harboring noticeable tendencies, and if the idea that one voting block is needed to oppose another voting block (the projects that were notified), that is contrary to how consensus is reached, and is an implicit accusation of tendentiousness directed at the actual participants (even if a very mild one). I'm of a view that DRV should be agnostic as to which WikiProjects were notified.—Alalch E. 22:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah. The usual standard for DRV to overturn a deletion discussion due to insufficient notification is if there's no meaningful notification to anybody at all - usually this means no {{afd}} tag on the article (or the process's equivalent), but we've also done so for noincluded {{tfd}} tags and once or twice for images with neither {{ffdc}} in their captions nor notification on the article talk pages. Participants in previous deletion discussions are almost never specifically notified, nor should they be. If they care about improving content and not just scoring points in the inclusionist-deletionist wars, they should be watching the article anyway.
  That said, we might be willing to reopen this if you've got very strong, substantive reasons (ie, not the purely-process ones you raised above) to keep this content that you were unable to express because the afd closed before you saw it. Do you? —Cryptic 01:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both as a case of a deletion request by the subject and as the rough consensus conclusion. I also concur with the comments by Cryptic and Alaich E. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks like the same four DELSORT lists were notified in the most recent AfD as were notified in the previous. Was something else expected? Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn this person is hugely quoted in the press (as was shown in the AfD) and cannot be considered "non-public" per the requirements of WP:BLPDEL. If you are regularly giving quotes to major news sources (which they use) and doing interviews online, you're a public person. Hobit (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lion of Oz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This non-admin closure says that the consensus found the film passed WP:NFILM and WP:NFO criteria 1. To my eye, the consensus was that it did not meet criteria 1 (or any other NFILM criteria), but that those in favour of a keep considered the sources sufficient for WP:GNG. I think the closing rationale does not accurately reflect the consensus, and I think the discussion overall was too controversial to be suitable for a non-admin closure. I request that an admin review this close. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (disclosure: I was the nom) I agree that this was a poor close. The closer's statement, The sources provided, including reviews, adequately establish the film's notability under WP:NFILM. Additionally, given that the film received reviews from major publishers, it fulfills the requirements outlined in WP:NFO#1, looks to me like a supervote, especially considering that everyone agreed the case for WP:GNG was stronger than the one for WP:NFILM, even the respondents who thought it met both of them. I would grumble at, but accept, a keep closure; however, I agree with LEvalyn that the closing rationale does not accurately reflect the discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by the rationale behind my closure. As highlighted by multiple users in the AfD discussion, the film has received reviews from notable publishers, thereby meeting the criteria outlined in WP:NFO#1, a crucial component of WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬
    • Point one, the question isn't whether your assessment is a correct identification of the film's notability: the question is whether this close accurately summarized the consensus of the AfD discussion. I can understand a conclusion that consensus was for a GNG keep, but no one in the AfD said it was a pass of NFILM#1. That is because, point two, NFILM#1 requires full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, and this film has zero of those. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems you might have overlooked the comments by those who !voted to keep (there are four of them), referencing reviews that automatically point toward WP:NFO#1. GSS ^💬 07:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure of Keep, which was a valid reading of consensus, and the most plausible reading of consensus. With 6 Keeps, citing reliability of sources, and 3 Deletes including the nomination, this appeal appears to be saying that the closer should have supervoted by ignoring consensus.
  • Comment - It makes no difference whether the film passes film notability if it clearly passes general notability, which it does, since general notability is the encompassing guideline, and film notability is subordinate. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I don’t object (too much) to a closure of keep, which I agree is a plausible reading of the debate, and there’s no need to pass NFILM if GNG is met. However, I strongly object to the closer’s stated rationale, which inserts its own supervote by making assertions about NFILM#1 which are not supported by the AfD. It is the citation of NFILM over GNG that I contend interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I don't think a pass of NFILM#1 should go "on the record"; I'm not asking for a different decision, but for a more accurate statement of closure rationale. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as a WP:BADNAC, as the close has become controversial, and re-close by a competent administrator. The closing statement reads like a vote instead of reflecting the result of the consensus. I'm not sure there's a better outcome for the initiator of this DRV, though, even with a couple keep !votes that I read as weak. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and get an admin to close, without relisting. I appreciate GSS's transparency, but this transparency allows us to see the improper reasoning behind the close. An XfD closer's job is not to assess the article and its sourcing, and it is certainly not to come up with their own fresh arguments. Their job is to read the consensus of the participants. And participants excludes the closer, who is expected to be neutral and impartial as to the page being discussed. If we had any doubt that this was a supervote, GSS's comments here, doubling down on their mistake, removes that doubt. This is a classic WP:NACPIT situation. Relisting would be a waste of time, but the current closure cannot be allowed to stand. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reason for closing the AfD should not be treated as a super !vote. It's a standard practice to summarize the consensus outcome, which is why I indicated it when closing the AfD. Additionally, it was crystal clear that the subject is notable and meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:NFO, which is what I mentioned while closing the AfD. Thank you. GSS ^💬 13:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again, you prove my claim. If it was crystal clear that the subject is notable and meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:NFO, then you should have !voted that way as a participant in the AfD, rather than imposed your view as a closer. You did not "summarize the consensus outcome". You took bits and pieces of the views you agreed with, added a bit of your own view that wasn't reflected in any of the participants' comments, and closed it based on that. That, GSS, is what we call a supervote. And as SportingFlyer mentioned, this was clearly not an uncontroversial AfD, which means that it should have been left for an admin to close. Owen× ☎ 14:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, your response makes it crystal clear this was a BADNAC close, even if Keep is a viable option. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep closure as the correct result, but I agree this close would have been better left to an admin. The wording of the close is more appropriate as a “keep” vote rather than a close, making the close a (likely unintentional) WP:SUPERVOTE. That said, there is consensus to keep, and the discussion does not need to be reopened so an admin can close it the same way. Frank Anchor 15:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is true that the close was less than ideal, but any other close would need to be brought to DRV and overturned. Reopening the AFD so that it can be closed by an admin would be process for the sake of process. Either this DRV or the close of this DRV should serve as the non-controversial close of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I may seem to be usually in favor of what seems to be process for the sake of process, but that is because it is important to get the right answer, that is, the answer that improves the encyclopedia, so that it is important to ascertain what the {rough} consensus is if there is a (rough) consensus. In this case, we know what the right answer is, and can ignore any process for the sake of process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the only result that could be reached in the discussion (as even a no consensus close would be a stretch). I think the problem here is not with the close but the rational provided. I find it helpful if a closer summarizes the discussion with works like "Participants say" or "Supporters of keeping the article" or something similar to indicate to readers that the closers comments are a summary of the discussion, rather than a statement that appears to be a comment in support or opposition to deleting an article. --Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as a WP:BADNAC as it was not an unambiguous closure and became controversial. As a side note, I also find some of GSS's non-admin closures problematic and rushed. These two recent closures were also not appropriate as well and bothered me as they were clearly controversial and not unambiguous Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chikki_Panday, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deanne_Pandey Tehonk (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Both of those should have been left to an admin. The second one should probably have been relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Tehonk! I listed both here at DRV. These out-of-process WP:BADNAC non-admin supervote closures need to stop. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing wrong with a non-controversial non-administrative close, but as soon as there's a delete or it's a close call the correct thing to do is to cast a vote in the AfD! The most valuable thing someone can do at AfD is participate. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and close by an administrator as a BADNAC. The closer's rationale is an excellent argument for !voting 'keep', but is a distinctly poor rationale for closing as keep - closers are responsible for assessing consensus in the debate, and referring back to that consensus in their closure. I would have done this myself under the provisions of Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions ("an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity") but given it's being discussed here with some split opinions, would rather leave to the closure of this debate to take action if that's where consensus lands. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn bad non-admin closure. NOTBURO was mentioned, but vacating closes is not very BURO because it just takes one person to reclose. It is not running the whole process again, and while overturning a BADNAC can also lead to a relist (not in this case), if a relist is truly needed, that would especially not be a BURO moment. So overturning such closes is usually worth the community resources as having more certainty in the correctness of the outcome and a better written closing statement is not quite so insignificant.—Alalch E. 00:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for an admin to close. Bad close verging on Supervote. Correct result, but closing summaries must close per the consensus of the discussion, not introduce the closer’s rationale. NACers when challenged should not stand their ground and force a DRV case, that is not a net positive to the project. NAC closes should be restricted to closes that will not be challenged. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone please reclose as we seem to be split on leaving vs. reclosing, but that the ultimate result was correct. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a case of a non-admin close that shouldn't have been a non-admin close, but was ultimately the correct result of keep. So let's just move on, endorse the end result, WP:TROUT GSS for the BADNAC (and the other BADNACs brought up in this discussion), and trout LEvalyn for the futile challenge to the result. Carson Wentz (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree. LEvalyn did the right thing in bringing this to our attention here. The two other BADNACs have since been speedily overturned, and hopefully GSS has finally received the message. None of this would have happened had the appellant not spoken up. Owen× ☎ 15:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  LEvalyn has also been clear that the desired outcome is not a futile challenge to the result. From a reply above: I'm not asking for a different decision, but for a more accurate statement of closure rationale. -- asilvering (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Owen and others above that this absolutely isn't a futile challenge. This isn't the equivalent of swapping keep to no consensus, and the minimal change that comes from that difference. A faulty AfD close rationale is something that should absolutely be corrected at DRV, especially when done by a non-admin. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oyi, closing statement didn't reflect the discussion but the final result (keep) was easily justified by the discussion. Eh, I'm okay with a new closer, new closing statement, or just an overturn so someone else can close it. The NAC doesn't play a role--it's just a bad summary of the discussion and should not stand. Hobit (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. The keep and delete votes were both reasonably strong and had a reasonable disagreement on interpretations of policy. Accordingly, as there is a 2/3 majority for keep, it should have been closed as keep and not NC. But the close is erroneous, it's not up for the closer to decide whether NFILM is met. The closer can write There is a consensus that the references below meets GNG, which would have been fine, but as it stands it is a supervote. I still don't really see whether it's worth it to oveturn and then re-close with a different statement. VickKiang (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reclose yes the result will likely be the same, but that is not the point of DRV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This debate has had one comment in the past 14 days. I think it's ready to be closed. (Sadly I offered an opinion and are therefore no longer uninvolved, so I have to pass on doing it myself.) Daniel (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sills Cummis & Gross (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Based on this New Jersey Law Journal article, Sills Cummis and Gross is one of the top 5 law firms in New Jersey based on profit. Our competitors, both above and below our firm have Wikipedia articles with reference links that are similar to those provided on the Sills Cummis and Gross Talk Page. How can we have our page reinstated? Gdavis22 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse that was the correct close for that discussion. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements, it is a place where we cover organisations that have been deemed notable by secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as redirect. Gdavis22, am I right in assuming you are Mr. Giavonni Davis, the law firm's Marketing & Business Development Manager? If so, you should start by reviewing our conflict of interest policy. Then, you may wish to familiarize yourself with our notability guideline. Being among the most profitable law firms in the state does not automatically confer notability on a firm. The inclusion of those other firms likely has nothing to do with their rank in the profitability lists, not to mention that "similar articles exist" is not a valid reason to keep an article. If you manage to find coverage about the firm that wasn't available to the participants of the AfD that closed earlier today and amounts to our standard of significant coverage, I encourage you to share your findings with an experienced editor who is not affiliated with the firm, and if granted, they will take the necessary steps to add the content to the section about the firm in the Arthur J. Sills page, and weigh the possibility of spinning it off to a separate article about the firm. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close of Redirect as reflecting consensus. Having read the redirected article, I would have !voted to Delete, because the article did not establish notability and was no more than a profile entry. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was overwhelming consensus to not keep the article, with redirect being a suitable WP:ATD in this case. Frank Anchor 15:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X-42 Pop-Up Upper Stage (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

WP:A7 applies only to articles covering a specific set of subjects, of which experimental vehicle is not one. Request to the deleting administrator to undelete was archived without comment, as such I am bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn as an incorrect application of CSD:A7, which clearly states, it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software (emphasis mine). Owen× ☎ 15:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's hard to say what the topic actually is. It was described in the article as "a program" but in the category as "a vehicle". I'll be happy for anyone to restore it as long as the requester is able to add some meaningful detail. If they're not, I'm sure another admin will be able to come up with another criterion for deletion. Deb (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither program nor experimental vehicle is covered by WP:A7. We actually have a brief sourced explanation at List of X-planes as an "Expendable liquid propellant upper-stage rocket". I do not know if it is notable, all the other projects on the list have articles, and other language Wikipedia's have additional sources than the one questionably reliable one that was present in the English article prior to deletion. However many of those sources are primary, others have limited coverage or uncertain reliability. Coming in to this cold I probably would have been inclined to redirect, even if only as an interim, as it is clearly a valid Template:R to list entry. Regardless it is not covered by any CSD, and so the deletion decision is not one to be made by me, you,or anyone else unilaterally, but is instead for the community to decide at AFD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I'm seeing the difficulty here. The article clearly states it is about a US military development program for a rocket stage. It may still be a hoax, in which case it should be deleted under G3 (assuming it's a blatant one). But A7 is not a catch-all no-indication-of-importance criterion. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn and send to AFD if desired. A7 does not apply per nom and Owenx's rationale. And even if A7 did apply to products, there is enough content on a Google search to make a credible claim to significance, (but in my opinion, not enough to survive an AFD). The Google search includes reliable content from NASA, so I don't see this as being a hoax (therefore G3 would not apply either). Frank Anchor 20:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A claim of significance to defeat A7 has to be in the article, or at least in a reference or external link in the article. That said, the Related Content section (in previous revisions) should have made it clear this wasn't an A7-eligible subject. —Cryptic 20:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD the discussion so far makes me believe that A7 does not apply or was ambiguous (possible event from the sounds of it), this should probably remain deleted, albeit within process. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7 and send to AFD, or Temporarily Undelete so that we can see that the subject fell within the scope of A7. It appears that it did not fall within A7, and so should be restored to be sent to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and send to AfD where it will almost certainly be deleted (for now). But yes, it's important to only speedy things that qualify. I'll send it to AfD if the closer doesn't feel they should. Just let me know. Hobit (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Hobit originally I was going to let the PROD patrollers decide how to handle this. Now that is no longer an option obviously, but once this is over I was going to just redirect to List of X-planes once an anchor is in place, with AFD as an option if that doesn't stick, but I have had less time for Wikipedia recently so if you want to take the lead here I am fine with that. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E060:85E7:995E:97EE (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems like a fine plan. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted as an WP:R3 but fails both prongs, "pages older than about 3–4 months almost never are" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=155091595) and as a channel offered by France Télévisions it cannot be considered implausible. From their one terse reply the deleting admin seemed to believe that the fact the page was briefly converted to an article by an inexperienced user reset the R3 clock. I believe that interpretation is incorrect as that would allow anyone to reset the clock by simply inserting nonsense onto a page, thereby removing the recently created requirement. The deleting admin declined to engage any further with my concerns over this deletion and archived the thread without comment, as such I am bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've seen nothing to suggest that Okoo actually is a channel offered by France Télévisions, therefore I have no reason to think that it's a plausible redirect. Deb (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Easily verified by a quick search which should have been done prior to pressing the deletion button, see [8]. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list last non-redir rev on AfD. The page is new, having been created on 13 November 2023, just over three months ago. But it is not an implausible typo. In fact, it is not a typo at all. "Okoo Francetv" is the official name of the channel, which can be easily verified by an abundance of sources. Whether it is notable or not is a question for the AfD to adjudicate, but it certainly doesn't qualify for R3. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. R3 does not apply, as Okoo is not an implausible typo, but rather an abreviation for "Okoo Francetv." Frank Anchor 20:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• R3 excludes redirects with article content in the history - even properly re-redirected, single-sentence article content, like here - so the question of resetting a clock can't arise. Don't bother sending to AFD per Frank Anchor. —Cryptic 20:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hidayat-ur-Rehman Baloch is elected ([9], [10] [11]) as a member of the Balochistan Assembly in the recent elections, now he meets the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Ainty Painty (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I closed the AfD, but was asked to restore the bio because of the election. I recommended Ainty Painty to go here, as I'm not sure that being a member of the Balochistan Assembly meets NPOL. --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD closure but allow undeletion due to the subject's new position. NPOL confers a presumption of notability to elected provincial legislators in Pakistan, but the sources cited by the appellant don't offer any significant coverage. Hopefully we'll get more soon. Owen× ☎ 12:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been a year, but the nom was a sock and the non-weak delete vote may have been a sock, leaving one weak delete. I'm not sure what the article was like before but I don't see any reason to not allow a new article to be created here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I temp-undeleted the page to allow all here to see it. Owen× ☎ 14:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, there's not much there. If they won an election, it's probably still usable information though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closure, which was a valid closure.
  • Allow Recreation either of article subject to AFD or submission of draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per WP:POLITICIAN; a provincial legislator in Pakistan ought to be notable, as Pakistan is a very populous country with very few provinces. The previous version of the article was only three sentences long, so I hope that a better version can be created with appropriate sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to soft delete as the nom is a confirmed sock and that only leaves two delete votes, which is not a quorum to delete an article. Soft-deleted articles should be speedily restored upon any good-faith challenge to the deletion (e.g. this DRV). Further, with the subject's recent election win, he now has presumed notability under WP:NPOL. However, adequate referencing must be added to the page or it is subject to another AFD. Frank Anchor 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: just as an aside, the fact that socking was a problem only emerged after the AfD was closed. --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, there is no way you were expected to know that when you made your close which was 100% correct based on information known at the time. Now that the sock information has been made available, the close can be modified. Frank Anchor 01:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore There are significant RS about Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch. He is elected a member of the provincial assembly. So he deserves WP page. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete to draftspace instead of mainspace because it's an outdated BLP. To interested editors: Update the information while the page is a draft and then move to mainspace. Alternatively, if you don't want to use any of the deleted page's content, just create a wholly new and up-to-date article (if doing it this way, a deletion review wasn't needed).—Alalch E. 01:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• restore Meets our inclusion guidelines at this point. Someone should close this... Hobit (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Paging Sandstein, Star Mississippi, Extraordinary Writ or any other uninvolved admin to close this, please. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While I do not personally think it's that important whether this redirect is kept or deleted, I feel that closing as keep was inappropriate and that no consensus (and perhaps even delete) would have been more appropriate. I am not here out of a very strong feeling that the redirect has to go, just that there's a mismatch between the discussion and the result. While Wikipedia is of course not a vote, keep was the slim minority position in this discussion (myself included as the nom, delete !votes were a majority of 1), and both sides provided valid arguments to support their positions.

In my time editing Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever seen a majority position be overridden without a clear and obvious difference in the quality of the arguments, no matter how slim the difference in !votes may be. Usually only in situations where the majority was the result of a discussion being flooded with nonsense !votes from unregistered canvassed users. And even then, I may have never actually seen an example of the majority being overridden, as even extreme cases like that tend to result in fresh discussions.

While one could argue in good faith that the strength of the arguments was not equal on both sides in this discussion and the 1 !vote majority is not sufficient for a delete consensus (though at Redirects for Discussion it is incredibly normal for every discussion to be low participation and decided by slim majorities like this), I feel that even a most charitable assessment of the discussion would conclude that no consensus is a more appropriate close than keep. Functionally the same thing, as no consensus to delete means keeping by default, but it matters that this would be a more accurate reflection of the discussion as there was certainly not a consensus in favor of keeping.

Initially, the discussion was simply closed with a statement reading that the result was keep and had no further elaboration. I reached out to the closing administrator to discuss this, and to their credit, they did amend it with a rationale note, but I was disappointed to see that the rationale note simply stated that "All arguments were countered by participants who voted to keep the term as a redirect" as I felt this didn't really say anything specific about the merits of the arguments. Again to their credit, the closing administrator took the time to reply to me with examples of editors replying with counterarguments. But while I appreciate their time, this reasoning baffled me. Never before have I seen it implied that one editor simply expressing disagreement with another editor is enough to nullify the !vote of another editor. The examples the closer gave were things like: one editor says the title is not a plausible search term, a second editor says it is a plausible search term. But according to the closer, "the deleters were countered by the keepers, but the keepers weren't countered by the deleters", as if to suggest the consensus is determined by whoever gets the last word in?

In short: to me this looks like a no consensus situation at most, and given that it's normal for redirects for discussion to be decided by even 1 !vote majorities, delete would have also been a valid close, but I think the closer's decision to close as keep is very strange and confusing.

Even shorter version: no consensus > delete > keep. Thank you for taking the time to read my ramblings, I know I'm not good at being concise. Hope my train of thought made sense at least.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as a pointless exercise. What possible difference would it make if we change "Keep" to "No consensus"? We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not interpret Scripture. The closing admin was right in his decision. Unlike articles, redirects don't need to establish notability. They just need to be found useful by some users, and not be found harmful by a consensus. The Delete views in that RfD did not amount to a consensus, and the redir was correctly kept. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, I think this reply has an unnecessarily scornful tone. The first bullet-point of WP:DRVPURPOSE states that deletion review is for situations where one believes the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, which is the case here as I personally believed "keep" was the least accurate interpretation of the discussion we had. It's a bit much to give a disdainful response condemning this request as a pointless exercise equivalent to "interpreting scripture" incompatible with the goal of building an encyclopedia. I simply expressed that I didn't see sufficient reason for overriding the slim majority for delete or stating that there was a consensus for keep as I saw no such consensus. Both sides made policy-based arguments, both sides asserted that the term either was or was not a plausible search term, but neither side substantiated those claims with evidence beyond one !vote making the circular argument that the existence of the title is in and of itself evidence of it being a plausible term. I respect that you disagree, your perspective is entirely valid, I just would have wished you delivered that disagreement in a way that didn't sound so contemptuous as I don't think asking for a review here was such an unreasonable thing to do.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The purpose of DRV is to correct XfD closing mistakes so as to improve the encyclopedia, per WP:5P1. Your appeal is an honest attempt to correct what you see as an RfD closing mistake, but even if it succeeds, it will have zero impact on the encyclopedia. This is an effort driven by your sense of justice or aesthetics, but it serves no practical purpose, hence my comparison to theology. Also, I dispute your assessment of the Delete views on the MfD as being policy-based. "Per the AfD" is not a valid policy-based argument. The original AfD achieved consensus for renaming the article, but any views expressed there about the subsequent disposition of the resultant redirect page have no relevance to the RfD. But again, the question is purely academic and pointless. I urge you to withdraw your appeal, not for being incorrect, but for being a waste of editors' time. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Final thoughts:

I will agree that without context, "Per the AfD" might read as a confusing statement with no relation to any valid deletion criteria. In context, "Per the AfD" seems to be a roundabout way of expressing that the editor believes in their subjective opinion the title is sufficiently offensive to warrant deletion, which is a valid rationale. Of course, it would not be reasonable to expect a closer to read what the user had to say elsewhere to understand their !vote, but I just wanted to briefly mention that to defend the legitimacy of their rationale.

There are a few reasons why I disagree that this a waste of time:

1. Most importantly, as I outlined in the nom comments, I believed there was a nonzero possibility of a second opinion finding that delete should have been the outcome as it was in fact the majority opinion, and that certainly would not have been a waste of time. This request was not simply "please change it to no consensus", it was more broadly "please take a second look at this and tell me what you think."
2. I also believe no consensus results are more inviting to future re-discussions. Not to say that "keep" is in any way inherently prejudicial to the possibility of future re-discussion, but no consensus results recognize that the issue remains unresolved, as opposed to suggesting that the issue has been settled already. This is a meaningful difference which has value to the goal of building an encyclopedia.
3. Lastly, I also think the question of "was this correct" is in and of itself a valid and constructive reason to pursue a review.

But, in any case, I do intend to withdraw this because it is clear that a consensus will not develop in favor of a change to the outcome. I appreciate that some of the endorsers, especially the weak endorsers, seemed a little more sympathetic to my reasons for bringing this to DR. Thank you to those who took the time to respond to this request.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this shows the topic is used in academic discourse. Redirection to a more neutral title is appropriate, but this redirect is clearly talking about a legitimate topic covered by RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was no *effective* rebuttal to the keep arguments of it being a reasonable search term. Keep argumnts provided grounds for it being considered a reasonable search term, delete arguments simply asserted it was not. FWIW, I'd concur with the suggestion in the discussion to use {{R from non-neutral name}}. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have gone no consensus myself, but keep is functionally equivalent. Weak endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse valid outcome, and no change to the ultimate result. SportingFlyer T·C 09:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I am obviously biased here so will not be bolding anything, but I see this close as correct. There were multiple reasons given for why this is a plausible and indeed likely search term (being a redirect from a move, this and similar titles being created multiple times) and Jclemens above provides another reason why it meets the standards at WP:RNEUTRAL (the relevant guideline). It was also noted that it's not a very non-neutral term relative to the target. These fully rebut the only relevant part of the nomination (not a plausible search term) - what AfD or RM said about the title of the article is not relevant to any resultant redirects. The only other argument given for deletion was "superfluous" but as (I) noted that's not a reason to delete any redirect. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 12:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I think that No Consensus was the best closure, but overturning a Keep to a No Consensus would be meaningless process for process. Redirects are cheap. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Utsunomiya (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Withdraw. My mistake and lack of understanding regarding notability. I will support the keep of page again, and just will let discuss about user problem in other place.I previously recommended keeping this article in response to a previous deletion request. However, when I think about it again, I think this person is not noteworthy enough to be listed on the English version of Wikipedia. The number of papers he contributed to is not large. As far as I could find, this[12] was the only formally published paper that he contributed to. He has published numbers of thesis, but I don't know if they will be noteworthy. (Compare with Yasuhisa Nakajima, who collaborates with him and has published many papers, have many of media appearance, but does not even have a Japanese Wikipedia article.) He has a lot of media exposure in Japan, has published several books, and is often mentioned in the Japanese news about paleontology, but it is unclear whether he is an important enough person to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. Of course, I appreciate his achievements so much as Japanese paleo-fan, but I think the Japanese version of Wikipedia's article is enough. The editor of this page (User:山登 太郎) only makes edits about him and his contributions, and causes problems such as negative statements about other researchers, publicity, copyright violations, etc in Japanese Wikipedia.[13] This user also created a page on the Chinese version of Wikipedia, but it has since been deleted, and got the comment "There is no need to translate the same article into other languages." It is about the user just created Chinese language version to Japanese Wikipedia. I mistook, so I will overturn this.[14] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The appellant has not presented any argument for overturning what was a unanimous AfD, discounting the unreasoned nomination there. Notability is not language-dependent. If the subject of this article is notable, it is notable in Japanese, English, Chinese or any other language. If the zh-wiki admin deleted the page based on the argument, "There is no need to translate the same article into other languages", then that admin's action should be examined. We encourage the translation, with attribution, of all articles into all languages. And unless the appellant uncovered evidence that was not available to the participants of last week's AfD, I suggest they wait six months before renominating for deletion. That said, 山登 太郎 should be looked at in terms of being a SPA/COI editor, with a possible indef page/topic block. Owen× ☎ 13:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that none of the users who voted for these opinions specialize in paleontology articles. Look at deletion request of another paleo-related person Emily Willoughby, in this discussion users who specialize paleontology/biology articles are commented. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely mistook, Chinese version of page was contributed in Japanese Wikipedia, so that is removed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Participants in an AfD aren't required to be subject matter experts. They are merely required to be able to assess available sources, and be familiar with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies and guidelines. Several highly experienced editors participated in that AfD. You are attempting to dismiss them all based on your claimed expertise in palaeontology. That is not how things work here.

  And please move your "Overturn" !vote to the nomination, where it belongs, or else it comes across as a duplicate. Owen× ☎ 14:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this ok? I am not used to closing deletion request... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're arguing for an overturn in your nomination, and then you have a separate bolded "overturn" below. If you need help combining the two, I'll be happy to do it for you. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this ok now? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @OwenX What I tried to do was to withdraw this deletion request and keep the page again. Probably I did it wrong sorry... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Monteiro Jardim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted at AfD due to lack of inherent notability of ambassadors. However, it is the same person as Maria Monteiro Jardin (the incorrect spelling comes from the source used in the page). Confirmation of the wrong spelling can be found in official documents. As a former minister of Angola, the subject meets WP:NPOL; the previously deleted content should be restored and the two pages merged. Courtesy ping to the users involved in the AfD LibStar and IgnatiusofLondon. Broc (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see the deleted page, and am fine merging any information as a result since I don't know what's there to merge, but there's a possible contradiction between the WP:NPOL assumption and what is currently written in the Maria Monteiro Jardin page, which is just one line sourced to a yearbook, meaning that article is also potentially deletable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer why do you think a minister does not qualify for WP:NPOL? If expanded with the content of the previous article (which listed Jardim's positions as ambassadors to Malta and Italy, if I remember correctly) the page would not be a one-liner directory listing and become a nice looking stub. Broc (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply that NPOL gives a presumption of notability. If the only thing we can say about this person is that they were a minister once, it's better off mentioning in a list than as a stand-alone article, even though it is likely there is more information out there. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood. I tried digging a bit deeper, I found [15] her speech at the signature of the Paris Agreement as Minister of the Environment and [16] her full biography until 2017. IMHO notability is shown and there is enough material, including her posts as ambassador covered by the deleted sources mentioned elsewhere here. Broc (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After looking at your rewrite, I agree. Would concur with moving the current article to the old title. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm hesitant to just restore this because it turns out also to have been a G5, but its sources were [17] [18] [19]. —Cryptic 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and recreate as a redir to Maria Monteiro Jardin over the deleted history move Maria Monteiro Jardin to Maria Monteiro Jardim. While this was a soft deletion, the G5 history and the non-notable content makes REFUND a poor choice here. But if anyone wishes to add a sentence about the ambassadorship to the target, Cryptic listed the sources above. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I've understood the sources correctly, the point is that Jardin is a misspelling, so the redirect should be from Jardin to Jardim, not the other way round, and incorporate also the document that Broc has found. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right. Either way, the deletion should stand, and the history should be the one of the moved Jardin page. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've never participated in a deletion review and I'm consequently reluctant to provide a definitive recommendation. But OwenX's suggestion strikes me as a straightforward solution that circumvents the G5 concern (and makes this deletion review moot?). WP:NPOL is met through the ministerial position, and it seems likely that more sources can be found to avoid a permastub. That being said, the Portuguese-language Wikipedia has the same coverage as us (same sentence on the misspelled Jardin, no article on Jardim), so we might not expect a more satisfying coverage anytime soon. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a rather odd deletion review, but as a participant in the AfD endorsing the deletion but also the subsequent move back to the deleted page does hold some weight. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there is a time for WP:IAR, this is the moment. What we have is a deletion of a page that was a duplicate of another page. That original page had a misspelling in the title, the page deleted had the correct title. Our job is to get this right for our readers. My thought is that we unwind everything to before the AfD, merge the content from the page with the incorrect title to the correct title, and then (if necessary) open a new AfD on the merged title. --Enos733 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be fully in support of your proposal if it weren't for the G5 aspect. Regardless, nothing of value was lost in this deletion, and I doubt we owe the blocked sock an attribution. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Was the deleted article substantially edited by others? But, either way, I think we need to get this correctly sorted before we address the AfD close (which to be clear was not in error based on the information provided in the discussion, but other factors should be addressed first). - Enos733 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd love to be corrected, but as far as I remember, the deleted article was a few sentences at most, so it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to write it from scratch using the sources shared here. I suspect that this is one of those discussions where, between AfD and DRV, we might be expending more time talking about the content than there is actual content to discuss :)) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The deleted article was exactly two sentences, 47 words in total, with her name alone - Maria De Fátima Domingas Monteiro Jardim - making up 15% of the entire article text by character count. And yes, as you correctly point out, in the time we've spent discussing this here, we could have rewritten this several times over. But it looks like Broc already did the necessary work. Owen× ☎ 22:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wasn't expecting to initiate such a large discussion! Following the general consensus, I expanded the page at Maria Monteiro Jardin including the sources previously used in the deleted page, as mentioned by Cryptic, as well as newly found ones. As it seems admins are reluctant to recover the previous page because of G5 concerns, if no additional significant edit history is to be recovered, I would suggest closing the discussion and redirecting Maria Monteiro Jardin to Maria Monteiro Jardim or, even better, Maria de Fátima Monteiro Jardim. As the creator of this DRV, I will let someone else wrap this up. Broc (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! I agree. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Broc: wait a second, what's the WP:COMMONNAME here for the title move? SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm seeing Fátima, perhaps even over Monteiro. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. It seems the "shorter version" is Fàtima Jardim, although most sources go with the full name (see Portuguese name). Broc (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think that I agree with User:Enos733, and in any case we should ignore any rules that interfere with the proper outcome (that is, the good of the encyclopedia). The proper outcome is one article with the most common correct form of the subject's name, and redirects from all shortened or lengthened forms of her name and all misspelled forms of her name that have been seen. The blocked sock is a distraction, not a real issue. The subject was a minister in a cabinet and passes notability. Create the best possible article and put it where it belongs. I am not saying to Endorse or Overturn because that is less important than the final result. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify undeleting the deleted page, but sources were copied from the deleted page and some or all have already been reused, so there is no need to undelete. Since the (other) biography of this person sat at the wrong name, which simply isn't something that can be tolerated for multiple days after being discovered, I moved that article to Maria de Fátima Monteiro Jardim as a temporary name which is not concise but at least isn't incorrect.—Alalch E. 02:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Phillips (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Savannah Phillips (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am bringing up for review a close of a discussion about REVDEL-ing the diffs of two redirect pages. I think that there was consensus to revdel the diffs here, for the following reasons:

• One keep !vote argued that one of the children was notable and so the diffs for that page should not be revdel-ed, whereas three editors (myself and two others) explained why the sourcing that was provided was trivial tabloid coverage.
• One keep !vote argued that These are great-grandchildren of a sovereign, members of the most famous family in the world, in line to the throne and easily meet WP:GNG. This is clearly incorrect per WP:INVALIDBIO,^[a] which I cited in the discussion, a well as WP:NRVE and WP:NOTINHERITED.
• Another keep !vote argued that the diffs don't look that bad to me compared to examples from REVDEL categories 1-4; this argument was contested with policy-based reasons by myself and another editor, who argued that it's "bad" per WP:NPF and that Trivial and tabloid coverage are not acceptable for biographies, and the fact that these keep getting recreated suggests the potential for BLP harm from their existence in redirect history.

In sum, two of the keep !votes were based on misapprehensions of relevant guidelines (SIGCOV and GNG) and one was a gut check based on a misreading of an informational page. By contrast, the three delete !votes were all rooted in policy (WP:NPF) and a proper understanding of what constitutes SIGCOV. Thus, there was a rough consensus rooted in P&Gs and the keep !votes that ignored the P&Gs or misinterpreted them should have been discounted.

• Endorse and permit recreation of full articles if sourcing is found to be arguably sufficient. Pretty much all celebrity coverage is non-encyclopedic, UK Royals are no exception, and redirection with history intact is appropriate. We don't REVDEL redirect revisions that could be part of a future encyclopedic article. If there's some argument that the revisions per se are harmful, it hasn't been made compellingly there nor here. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Savannah Phillips was deleted at AFD five years ago (discussion), so in hindsight you might have had better luck asking for revdeletion on that basis. The bundled afd at /Isla Phillips supersedes it now, though. —Cryptic 23:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is just a WP:DROPTHESTICK instance. Both articles have already been redirected. There's no need to delete the page history. Let's just move on. There wasn't a clear consensus to delete the revisions. Sionk (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the No Consensus if I understand correctly. This is not really a deletion review but an argument about redacting history and therefore hiding deleted articles from view. I am involved in the history of a previous article on Savannah Phillips which is currently hidden from view. As a reviewer, I accepted a draft five years ago, promoting it to article space, but it was then nominated for deletion, and I !voted to Keep, but it was deleted. However, this doesn't appear to be about whether to create articles on these girls, who may or may not be royalty. They will always be subject to argument over whether they are or are not princesses, because they really are and are not princesses.
  • The real issue seems to be that two articles were created without consensus, and were then cut down to redirects, and an editor wants to redact the articles from the history. There is no compelling need to hide these redirected articles, which have been blanked for lack of notability and not for biographies of living persons violations.
  • I don't think that DRV is meant to be a forum to discuss revision deletion of articles that were cut down to redirects, but there may not be a forum for the purpose, and here we are. There is no need to redact the redirected articles.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse redaction is a strong tool, and in order to get to an overturn I think those opposing have to be shown to be clearly wrong on policy, and I don't think that was the case here. I think it's a pretty simple no consensus that the diffs were not bad enough to redact, albeit maybe another support would have tipped the scales. I also think the article that was deleted could probably have been redacted on its own before the AfD discussion was made, in line with Cryptic above. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse "no consensus" result generally per Jclemens and Robert McClenon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Asunción (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Four people wanted this gone from the mainspace: myself as nominator, a delete voter and two redirect voters. Only one wanted it kept, plus a PERNOM voter. Yet that is, in effect, what happened.

This outcome is even more odd given this very similar discussion. There, the participants’ alignment was the same, except there was one redirect voter, not two. And yet the outcome was a redirect. Why the discrepancy? — Biruitorul ^Talk 23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but allow early renomination. Even if we ignore the PERX, there are still three on that AfD who didn't want the history deleted, versus two who did. Personally, I would have closed this as a redirect. But with a 2-2 split between the Delete and the Redirect views, and at least one well-reasoned Keep view, a No consensus is well within the discretion of the closing admin. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (or overturn to keep). The discussion should have ended as "keep" at the time of the first relist. Pilaz demonstrated notability and this was not substantively contradicted. The two last editors recommending redirection argued that the content is non-topical, i.e. that there is a mismatch between the subject as denoted by the title of the article and the actual content, but that wasn't entirely true because there were at least two sentences talking about the embassy, and that is enough for a stub (The Embassy of the United States in Asunción is the diplomatic mission of the United States in Paraguay. ... On June 29, 2023, a new embassy was opened on the same 14-acre site as the previous building). Offending content could have been cleaned up by anyone by simply removing it, as an editorial action, which doesn't require an AfD redirect. Topical content could have been written by anyone to expand the article from a stub, using the sources identified in the AfD, which doesn't require for the article to have been redirected first.—Alalch E. 03:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - If there isn't a consensus on what to do, sometimes No Consensus really is a valid close, and this is such a case. A closer needs courage to take on an AFD that has a scattering of !votes. If they tease a close out of the scattering, someone is likely to disagree, and ask DRV to overturn to No Consensus. If they close it as No Consensus, because there was no consensus, someone is likely to ask DRV to overturn, and say that the closer should have reasoned a closure. I will seldom !vote in DRV to overturn a close of No Consensus, which is almost always a valid close when there is a scattering, and is sometimes the best close. There really was No Consensus in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I wouldn’t have opened this discussion had there not been a different result in a similar discussion just a couple of days later; I assumed the inconsistency was a problem. But seeing how my proposal is headed nowhere, I would like to withdraw it, if that’s possible at DRV, rather than prolong the inevitable. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you can absolutely withdraw your nomination. I commend you for doing the right thing. An uninvolved admin will soon close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jahanshah Javid (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I cited several credible independent sources covering him in depth, that were ignored in the previous AfD. They were not in English, but reliable regardless. I request for the sources to be reviewed and deletion to be reversed. Drako (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin we discussed, and I encouraged/support this user to file as I believe I read the close correctly. I have re-read my close and the participation and don't see another way to have closed this. Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the correct reading of consensus. Given that at least one commenter opined delete after evaluating the proffered sources and one previous delete reiterated his opinion after reviewing some of them. No one other than the filer has found them to be sufficient. As for myself, I tend to view interviews such as these where the subject is being interviewed about themselves and their work (as opposed to being used as a subject matter expert) as better than nothing from a notability perspective, even though others prefer to discount them entirely. In any event, I don't think that a relist would have any reasonable chance of reaching a conclusion other than delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It's not clear why the appellant believes they are entitled to a supervote against an otherwise unanimous AfD. Owen× ☎ 08:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is to handle cases of deletion process not being properly followed, not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as correct reading of consensus. I have no objection to a restoration to draft space if Sicaspi wishes to improve the article and submit via WP:AFC, but such a draft would not stand a chance at AFC with the current sources which are not WP:SIGCOV (as many are WP:PRIMARY interviews with little secondary non-interview content). Frank Anchor 14:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The appellant believes the article is already sufficiently well sourced for main namespace. Being an EC editor, I doubt they'd abide by the AFC process any more than they're willing to abide by the AfD result. I don't think draftification is the way to go here. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I reviewed the sources as requested - this isn't AfD round two as noted, but this is a venue to look to see if mistakes were made. The problem is that all of the sources I looked at and translated were interviews and therefore not secondary, and consensus was clearly to delete. That being said, the amount of interviews he's giving may mean he actually is notable, meaning that there may be secondary coverage of him, so I don't really oppose draftification, but you cannot use interviews to prove notability. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : I believe the closing was not correct because according to WP:CLOSEAFD, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." In this case my reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments were ignored, and as endorsers above have argued deletion is based on "one commenter opined delete" and me not having "supervote." I just want my logical arguments be heard, and refuted if wrong; which has not happened. No explanation has been offered why several reliable sources were dismissed. Please read my arguments and judge for yourself:
  • Sources I have offered might have included interviews, but they also include plenty of secondary and independent material covering and paying attention to this person. Such material is what contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline. Even in the interviews, He is the subject of the interview. That's what matters. He is not being interviewed about some third person or subject, he is being interviewed about himself because these reliable international sources who have been independent from him, are giving him "significant press coverage." He is the main subject of an episode of this BBC programme and publish an article exclusively about him. This programme is covering him in depth, and significantly. Of course the BBC producer would want to talk to the person he is covering, that does not reduce the significance of this coverage! If a biographer is writing a book about a notable person, of course they would want to talk to subject of their book and they may quote him/her. Significance of coverage is because of the producer choosing to cover him in depth. VOA Persian's main host interviewing him on his show and asking him hardball questions is hardly not a secondary, indpenendet source.
  • Numerous reliable sources have cited him for his historical contribution of establishing one of the first websites in a country. For example, The Radio Farda journalist calls him one of the "prioneers of publishing on internet [in Iran]" This is what WP:ANYBIO postulates as a sufficient condition of notability.
  • It is not necessary for English Wikipedia articles sources to be in English. This person has made most of his contributions in a different language, and he should not be punished for that. WP must be written from a global perspective, and emphasizing on English-only sources as in this review risks adding to the WP regional bias. Drako (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per the other editors. The appellant apparently either expects this to be AFD round 2, or expects DRV to say that the closer should have supervoted. The close of Delete was the only close possible. The appellant asks for a reasonable, logical, policy-based discussion, and at this point the mechanism for that discussion is the submission of a draft for review. Also, the editors here at DRV are providing reasonable, logical, policy-based criticisms of the appellant's sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The appellant is bludgeoning this DRV, just as they bludgeoned the AFD, and the editors at AFD and DRV often Use Common Sense and ignore the bludgeoning. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. When there is one keep and four delete votes (including the nom), the keep vote would need to be exceptionally strong (and the delete votes being very weak) for a NC or keep close to occur. In this case, the sole keep vote cites a reasonable interpretation of guidelines, but so does the delete votes. As such, with the strength of the arguments equal, the closer should defer to the numerical majority- in this case delete. VickKiang (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unsatisfactory rationale by the closer. Since last relisting, this had received 2 Keep votes and 0 Delete votes, and should be relisted again or closed as no consensus. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "No Consensus" or relist. I don't see any consensus in that discussion, and as 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 notes above it is odd to close as a "Delete" after a relist period with no comments supporting deletion. In particular I find the comments in the AfD by 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 and Timothy reasonable and a sufficient rebuttal to the delete comments to prevent the finding of a consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The same admin who relisted it chose to close it as delete after two new keep comments. Not seeing a consensus to delete this long-standing list. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that in prior DRV's, including recently, it has been held that a prior relist, with subsequently no or little/adverse participation following the relist, does not bind another administrator from subsequently finding consensus and closing a discussion as such. That being said, that principle has (to my knowledge) not been tested where it is the same administrator who relisted then subsequently found consensus after no or little/adverse participation following that relist. Daniel (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: much seems to be made of my 26-January relist. To be clear: consensus to delete already existed at the time, but wasn't clear to me. It was a mistake to relist this AfD, but a harmless one. When I went over the views more carefully earlier today, it became clear that most of the Keep (and the "Oppose") !votes had to do with the notability of the term Familicide, and the difference between it and other types of murders, neither of which are relevant to the notability of this list of familicides in the US. We already have a Familicide page. Once you give those arguments the weight they deserve, you're left with relevant arguments based on P&G, the vast majority of which are for deletion.

TimothyBlue's Keep view, added after that ill-conceived relist, certainly made my decision harder, but it wasn't enough to swing the balance. The appellant's !vote was about the notability of the familicide concept, not about the notability of this particular list, and therefore didn't add much.

Unanimous !votes after a relist will tip the scales towards those !votes if the scales were balanced beforehand. That was not the case here. Owen× ☎ 04:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC there clearly was enough gray area to not delete prior to the last relist, even if the closer claims after the fact (and ONLY after their close was challenged), that the relist was made in error. There was unanimous support to keep afterward including a very well-reasoned vote by TimothyBlue. And neither of these keep votes were refuted. There is no realistic way this could have closed as delete. Frank Anchor 14:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think delete was a perfectly reasonable reading of that discussion and would have closed it that way myself, albeit maybe with a bit more explanation. SportingFlyer T·C 21:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC The admin's mistake, such as it was, wasn't harmless in that it caused two editors to spend time participating in good faith. Consistency and logical outcomes are part of the community's faith in the process. If two more 'delete' !votes had been cast, it would have been just as wrong for the most recently relisting admin to close this discussion as Keep. So yes, per Daniel's comment above, I believe an admin's relisting does create a presumption of neutrality such that a contrarian close should be remediated here. Don't want to risk that as a closer? Don't relist without assessing that there's not a current consensus, and if you do end up doing so, let someone else close it if you disagree with the outcome unanimously supported by post-relist comments. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You make a valid point about harm. My apologies to Ficaia and to TimothyBlue for wasting their time participating in a debate that I could have--and should have--already closed. But I don't see how from that you've arrived at the remedy of overturning to NC. Wouldn't such an outcome effectively waste the time of all the participants on that AfD? All of them participated in good faith, and--I believe--arrived at a consensus prior to Ficaia and TimothyBlue joining the discussion. I fail to see how an overturn corrects my own mistaken relisting. If I erred in my process, DRV should step in to correct the process and arrive at the consensus result, rather than toss out several valid Delete !votes to restore the appearance of consistency. I'd willingly take my WP:TROUTing for the pointless relist, but I don't see why JMWt, Buidhe, JPxG and Bearian should have their valid opinions tossed out due to my process mistake. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, although I was involved and !voted to delete so my opinion here is likely worth bupkis. jp×g🗯️ 00:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. I was one of the keep votes, but I think the close reflected consensus. As far as my !vote, I think @OwenX: saw that it was a rather weak rationale (I think it was valid, but I can see the weakness in my points). While I disagree with the outcome, I think the close was valid. I do not feel that my time was wasted because I think Owen× assessed my !vote along with all the others, nothing else is needed.

I probably would have closed as delete on 25 January 2024, I can see the disconnect between the close, the relist on 25 January 2024, and the results from the relist, but I think this is a very minor issue and again I think the OwenX assessed all the !votes.

The other keep vote included no valid rationale; the existence of a notable topic does not mean associated lists are notable. My rationale was weak, this no valid rationale at all, I would have assessed this as an ILIKEIT vote, without sources or guidelines. I don't see how these two votes could outweigh the others.  // Timothy :: talk  00:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus - I disagree with the idea that a consensus to delete existed before the relist, at least not if Oppose is interpreted as Keep. I interpret Oppose as meaning opposing deletion or Keep. A consensus did not exist to delete before the relist, and the additional !votes to Keep certainly did not create that consensus. I don't like to overturn a close at DRV, but I don't see how to sustain the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as the nom I appreciate my views are not worth much here - however I do not understand some of the rationale given above. We are assessing the notability of the list, and I have given several policy reasons why a) it is not notable and b) it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in other ways. These haven't been refuted, indeed the main editor working on the list explained in depth how it is original research. No amount of relisting changes the fundamentals that almost everyone agrees with - it's OR and doesn't follow the published literature in terms of defining the reasons for inclusion. Indeed it sets up its own ideosyncratic inclusion criteria as a subpage of a talkpage. The only other possible reason for a !keep vote is essentially WP:IAR and if we are going to start using that as a reason for NC then we might as well stop having AfD. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, what we're actually discussing here is more about process and fairness than the specific content of the discussion: Did the admin conduct create a 'party foul'--for lack of a better term--and, if so, does that make the closure, as closed, sufficiently off-base that the result should be invalidated? The actual nomination makes almost no difference here, because at this point it's about the reasonableness of the outcome on the basis of the admin actions, not even the discussion of the nomination. That may sound weird in light of IAR, but if it's a fatal process boo-boo, we're not going to prohibit a new listing where these sorts of considerations can and should be addressed. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well then I don't understand this discussion. User:Frank_Anchor says:

    Overturn to NC there clearly was enough gray area to not delete prior to the last relist, even if the closer claims after the fact (and ONLY after their close was challenged), that the relist was made in error. There was unanimous support to keep afterward including a very well-reasoned vote by TimothyBlue. And neither of these keep votes were refuted.

    Which makes it sound like there is no consensus because there were two !keeps after a relist and that they were not refuted. I didn't refute them because there didn't seem any point, they shed no further light on the central policy issues of whether the list was notable or met the inclusion standards. One of them failed to address the question of whether the page could ever be written without significant WP:OR. The other appears to have been disowned by the author in this DRV discussion.

    And in your comment above, you said Overturn to NC The admin's mistake, such as it was, wasn't harmless in that it caused two editors to spend time participating in good faith. Consistency and logical outcomes are part of the community's faith in the process. If two more 'delete' !votes had been cast, it would have been just as wrong for the most recently relisting admin to close this discussion as Keep. So yes, per Daniel's comment above, I believe an admin's relisting does create a presumption of neutrality such that a contrarian close should be remediated here. Don't want to risk that as a closer? Don't relist without assessing that there's not a current consensus, and if you do end up doing so, let someone else close it if you disagree with the outcome unanimously supported by post-relist comments.

    To me this makes even less sense when read alongside your most recent reply to me. You appear to be arguing that the page should essentially be kept (via an overturn to NC) on the strength of two !votes which do not address the fundamental problems with the page. One of which has been essentially disowned here at the DRV.

    You're not even arguing in the original comment that there should be a relist (which to me would also be pointless, unless someone could come up with a published source which the list was using as a criteria for inclusion), you are asking for the page to be kept.

    I ask everyone to think through the ramifications of keeping pages that are clearly OR. It is not inconceivable that this list would be used by media - and possibly even sloppy academics - as a source. When it is just a bunch of words put together by individuals using their own selection criteria.

    Keeping this page on any basis without a proper accounting of the major ways it breaks the deepest and most fundamental policies of Wikipedia bring the project into disrepute, encourages misinformation and makes a nonsense of the concept of consensus.

    The page was literally written to correct the wrong that the original (and main) author/editor saw in the published literature on the topic. I don't understand why this isn't a slamdunk, end of discussion. At very least that's a WP:TNT right there. JMWt (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The closer was correct. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current National Football League staffs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Taking this to DRV as agreed upon by me and the deleting admin (at my talk). This is not exactly requesting to overturn the deletion discussion, but to allow for a restoration to project-space, e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of current National Football League staffs. This list is useful for editors in updating, writing, etc. work relating to NFL team staffs, and thus I think it would serve purpose in project-space; similar has been done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League players with unidentified given names. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Good close but eh. I didn't comment at that AfD because I couldn't come up with a guideline-based reason for keeping but I think it's a useful navigational aid. It's been around for 15+ years, and there's no upkeep (it's just transcluded templates). It's not everyday a reader complains about an article that was deleted. That list probably got a fair amount of views. Not sure it's too different from the lists in Category:Lists of current team rosters. I know none of this is really a guideline-based reason to keep it but I thought I'd leave this comment. Also, technically you could just transclude the templates yourself in projectspace but that's not going to help readers. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and move to project space as requested. The closer correctly noted a consensus that this page doesn't meet inclusion guidelines, but if it is useful to some editors there is no reason to prevent it's existing in project space. In general, "it's useful" is a poor reason to keep a list in mainspace but an excellent one to keep a subpage of a wikiproject. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issue. Weird, that User:Star Mississippi hesitates to move it into a WikiProject. Deleted from mainspace per NOTDIRECTORY is absolutely no issue for the list in a WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore as requested. I actually don't think WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies here, this was a template transclusion article and served a valid navigational purpose and provided context beyond mere simple listings, but this isn't the AfD, and this sort of page could be useful to the project. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not much to add here as I said most of what I wanted to at BeanieFan's talk (and thank you for opening this as I hadn't had the chance). My hesitation in restoring this vs other draftifications I have and will continue to be willing to do was that I felt it could be perceived as a supervote, but it was also due in part to the AN requester's userpage re-creation having been speedied. I do think that would have been less likely to happen if it had been Beanie or another established editor doing so. If consensus here is that this should be restored, please do so with an early close as I am not at all against that happening and 100% against bureaucracy. Star Mississippi 01:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As my primary concern of this being a supervote close is alleviated with the input here, I've restored the content and moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of current National Football League staffs as requested by @BeanieFan11/blessed here. Sorry to make you do this extra step, Beanie. Star Mississippi 23:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid closure, but:
• Allow projectification (That's a word because we know what it means and language is descriptive.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow move to project space per the above request. Beaniefan and others at Wikiproject NFL have historically done well at maintaining articles on NFL players and coaches (particularly lesser known ones) and adding this list to the project is a useful tool to allow that. I endorse the close as unanimous consensus to delete, but will not "bold" that, since the deletion itself is not being challenged. Frank Anchor 14:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus has been against maintaining similar constantly-out-of-date lists like "oldest" anything, but I see no reason why that can't exist outside of mainspace. It may not be what we want in a list article, but Wikiprojects or interested editors can keep a far wider range of things outside of mainspace, and that's unquestionably a good thing. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jclemens: FWIW, the list requires no maintenance, as it is a list of templates. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. And the templates themselves require no maintenance? Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Considering they're templates on the pages of the most watched sports league in the United States, there's absolutely no problem with keeping them up to date. The oldest lists are weird. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore as requested by the OP. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bouriema Kimba (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

We do know that SIGCOV exists for Kimba, here are the bases for this claim:

We know that Kimba was a national champion at least two times, and was one of the most successful sprinters in Nigerien history including holding the Nigerien national record. We know that Kimba twice competed at the Olympic Games and was once the only sprinter representing Niger, in the marquee event of the marquee sport of one of the most notable sporting competitions in the world. We know that there are several daily newspapers in Niger, some of which are listed at Mass media in Niger. Looking at the list on that page, it seems like not even one of them was searched in this deletion discussion so far...We know that Kimba led an extremely active post-Olympic career, including becoming the national sprint coach of Niger and being the president of the Association Nigerienne des Olympiens. This is unusual even among Olympians – most of them only have limited involvement with the sport after retirement. We know that Kimba was still recognized years after his death, to the point where he received a posthumous trophy from the L'Association des Anciens Athlètes du Niger in 2014. We know that Kimba died in 2013, and that his exact date and manner (road accident) of death are known. The tradition of newspapers is to publish such information in obituaries for notable people; it is all but certain that such information would have been covered in one of the above media sources.

Based on those points, we know that significant coverage exists – it's simply a matter of finding it now, and WP:BASIC allows us to keep the article with that knowledge in hand.

Habst's comment was not rebutted, and neither was my vote which provided in-depth reasoning as to why it should be kept, after which the only comment was another user voting keep in agreement with us. In giving due weight to each vote, I do not believe that the "delete" argument is sufficiently strong to overcome the "keep" argument, especially given the closeness in numbers, and suggest this be overturned to no consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. GNG requires concrete sources of a certain quality, and the SNGs such as NSPORT require that such sources exist in the abstract, i.e. that it can be reasonably assumed that they exist, and instruct when such assumptions are reasonable. But when in an AfD such an assumption is probed, and during the full discussion period, no such sources can actually be concretized (not even one), despite sincere attempts to identify them, the assumption is pierced, and it can no longer be considered that the subject is notable. When the newspaper articles are dug up, just recreate with suitable sourcing.—Alalch E. 21:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, no one looked at relevant sources. Not a single 1990s Nigerien newspaper was searched. Not one. Zero. When none of the relevant sources are searched, it only makes sense that the presumption that such coverage exists should stand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We also did find sources on Kimba - while the blog was debatable, Olympedia is a reliable source that gives over 50 words of coverage. WP:100WORDS states that Fifty such words would likely be significant, and it especially should be considering how insanely difficult it is to find sources on these kinds of topics. Though this is not the place to rehash the discussion; this is on whether four "delete" votes with little reasoning aside from "fails GNG from google search" can not only equal, but overcome three "keep" votes with very in-depth and strong reasoning as to why coverage exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      You don’t seem to have read that the reliable source needs to be a secondary source. The source needs its author to add comment of some kind. At the very least, look for adjectives. Otherwise, it’s just facts, and facts don’t meet the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Facts don't meet the GNG Huh? Its the coverage of a subject that counts. Also, Olympedia is published by the preeminent Olympic historians years after Kimba died, I don't see how that isn't secondary? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Read Secondary source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I still don't see how your statement is true; if the only way one could get notable was author's commentary (and not coverage of actual significance), then there would be a very severe lack of articles on historical figures! Would you mind providing relevant Wiki-policy stating that coverage without opinionated commentary cannot be considered for notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:PSTS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia-notability means that others, in reliable sources have demonstrated the topic to be of interest by covering it. “Covering” implies, although not so obviously, that these others have generated creative content on the topic. Generated creative content is necessarily transformative of the basic facts. The basic facts are always, in the field of historiology, to which enclopjedias belong, primary source material. Collecting facts without commentary conflicts with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Including unsourced commentary conflicts with WP:NOR. There has to be sourced commentary, beyond sourced facts. The commentary doesn’t have to be “opinionated”, but it has to have evidence of opinion from the author. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. User:BeanieFan11’s !vote was worthless. Many words claiming we know he is the greatest, with no suitable sources, is a worthless !vote. If no reliable source has covered this person, Wikipedia must not be the first. Wikipedia is not an original publisher. If you can find GNG meeting sources, start a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: FWIW, Habst's vote explains why he was the greatest - one of the only Olympians for the country (of 20+ million), multi-time national champ, national record-holder, and Olympedia states that he was one of the best as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We don’t care if he was the greatest. We only care if there’s a source that says he was the greatest. Habst didn’t supply links or proper citations. He alluded, but didn’t substantiate. That’s a reason to Draftify. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, thank you for commenting. All of my statements in the AfD were substantiated with sources, properly cited with links to WP:RS. The links were all in the article.

For example here is the source that Kimba is a national champion in the 100m and 200m and of his posthumous award: "Activités de l'Association des Anciens Athlètes du Niger : Promouvoir la pratique de l'athlétisme". Niger Express | Le Site d'Informations sur le Niger (in French). 2014-12-16. Retrieved 2024-02-02.

And here is the source that he was the president of the Association Nigerienne des Olympiens: Encyclopedia of associations. International organizations : an associations unlimited reference : a guide to more than 32,400 international nonprofit membership organizations including multinational and binational groups, and national organizations based outside of the United States, concerned with all subjects or areas of activities. Internet Archive. Detroit : Gale, Cengage Learning. 2015. ISBN 978-1-57302-248-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

And here is a source for the rest of the information about his coaching career: "Boureima Kimba". Sports-Reference. Archived from the original on 2020-04-17.

This is excluding the dozens (hundreds?) of newspaper citations that list him as competing in both the 1992 and 1996 Olympics in the marquee event of the Olympics (sprinting). What do you think about these sources? --Habst (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Habst. The first doesn’t load for me. The second doesn’t discuss the subject. The third is something but is too brief.

In terms of WP:THREE, thanks for limiting to three sources that you ask me to review. I suggest continuing this in draftspace. It isn’t always easy to explain why a source isn’t good enough. For difficult to access sources, I might ask you to quote the pertinent coverage.

I note that I ask for quality secondary sources, and you respond by linking WP:RS, which is not the same thing.

I would like to see this historical deceased athlete covered, and I think the only route to that is via draftification and finding two or three qualifying sources. Follow the advice at WP:THREE, after the close of this DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—potentially misspelled name: Unrelated to everything discussed above, a thing worth noting: Bouriema Kimba could be a misspelling. Boureima Kimba could be the correct spelling. See ProQuest 108919574 and ProQuest 109657241. Newspapers.com has him as Boureima too.—Alalch E. 22:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Seraphimblade's reading of consensus was correct. WP:IAR is not a valid notability argument, nor is the PERX that referenced it. BeanieFan11 makes a valid argument about the scarcity of sources in places like Niger. However, their presumption that such coverage exists is contrary to WP:BURDEN. In the end, especially with biographies, saying that sources must exist is not enough, unless we can cite them. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh. We've got a mis-spelled name on a two-time Olympian, with coverage of his tragic death on a blogspot site which is probably a blogspot site not because it's a blog but because it's Nigerien media, and by my count four dead links to former web pages about him, though three only look like databases - the fourth being the link in the German wikipedia article for him. None of the Nigerien newspapers I've found are searchable or even load. I think there's clearly enough hints that there have been significant coverage for there to be an article and while I can't fault the result I'm kind of frustrated the discussion was very much a hard no without discussing just how grey this discussion was, because it's not clear to me if anyone tried to look for sources. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your point, SportingFlyer, but what would you have the closing admin do in such a case? Go, "Consensus is to delete, but that's because you're not trying hard enough to find sources, so I'll ignore it"? The AfD went through two relists, with eight participants, including some very experienced editors relying on policy and guidelines, putting in time to look at it. I agree with you that this is an unfortunate outcome, but it was the only possible outcome given the consensus in this case. Owen× ☎ 23:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no problem with the close, but I don't think that's the issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer when a majority of editors said that the sources did not establish notability. But:
• Allow Draftification - Since the deletion was for notability reasons, there is no reason not to put the article into draft space so that the appellant or other editors can find the sources that we are confident exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse - While I fundamentally disagree with Owenx's claim that IAR is not a valid notability argument (IAR can be used to argue that any policy/guideline, including notability, shouldn't be rigidly applied because it explains the rules are not always perfect) and I find Beanie's IAR keep vote to be valid (and the perx underneath it), I still find consensus to delete. The only other "keep" vote cites presumed notability via NTRACK only. The failure to find SIGCOV to meet GNG takes precedence. I have no objection to restoring as a draft per Robert McClenon. Frank Anchor 16:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  IAR can hardly be a valid notability argument. Notability loses meaning when you apply too much IAR to it, because it's a wholly artificial construct that only has meaning as a "creature of PAG", and means nothing when its meaning is improvised ad hoc, becoming just an empty husk of a word. It can't revert to the natural meaning of eminent, prominent, famous, renowned, because those are completely divorced from any practical application on the project. IAR can be applied to the deletion policy in the following way: "This article about a non-notable subject should be kept in spite of its lack of notability". That's a meaningful IAR-derived statement. —Alalch E. 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, yes there could have been argument along the lines of keeping in spite of lack of notability, meaning ignoring the rule that articles on non-notable subjects are deleted, because keeping the specific article is good for the encyclopedia for reasons XYZ. Then a consensus might form around how it's good for the encyclopedia. But an argument that the subject should perpetually be assumed to be notable and when someone visits the Niger national archive and finds the printed articles there, the subject will be confirmed as notable (which will have been the same as the subject being assumed as notable for all practical intents and purposes, because he was unassailably assumed as notable, so why even bother), and doesn't explain how it's great for Wikipedia that this subject lacking coverage should be somehow encyclopedically covered after all (and how its even possible), and no consensus around that viewpoint forms, that's different. That's not IAR. That's alluding to notability without substance. —Alalch E. 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's where the problem here lies - if you look closely, there's evidence of substance, even if the Nigerien article cited in German Wikipedia is no longer online, and even though the blogspot was instantly rejected as unreliable. Even the BEFORE search here was flawed - using the name as printed is incorrect, and both search engines I just tried don't recognize it was flipped. There's more here than just the "well there's probably coverage." We know there's coverage, it's just inaccessible, but the coverage that's out there allows for a valid stub. I think that's the nature of my frustration here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus Notability can be disregarded on any encyclopedic basis, e.g. systematic difficulty obtaining sources in the subject's country. !votes that treat N as a policy should have therefore been accorded less weight, because it isn't. "Fails GNG, we must delete it" is erroneous: notability isn't required unlike V, NPOV, NOR, etc., and keeping representation of notable Africans in a systemically under-reported context is a reasonably pillar-compliant reason to ignore N in this context. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Failing notability doesn’t necessarily mean delete, true, but someone has to suggest a plausible merge target. My best find is Nigeria at the Olympics Niger at the Olympics, where he doesn’t fit but could be made to fit if that page covered the subject of its title, rather than just medal winners. No one at AfD argued like that, so the next best thing is to Draftify. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW it would be Niger at the Olympics. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. My apologies. Fixed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Failing notability doesn't mean anything of the sort. Since N is a guideline, not policy, a local consensus can decide that there's a good reason to not apply it in a specific case. Now, in practice, that's going to be rarer than hen's teeth and an ATD outcome is going to be far and away more common... but notability is still an overridable, if strong, consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I think that the keep side is weaker than the delete side. The keep votes included one keep vote citing a 4-sentence blog article for SPORTBASIC, another largely based upon IAR and another that qualifies the vote as a "very weak keep". I don't see how that is stronger than the delete votes, but even if the keep side is given equal weight, the numerical majority of 5 delete to 3 keeps is enough for a consensus IMO. As such I think the closer made an entirely reasonable decision here. VickKiang (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any opposition to restoring and moving this to User:BeanieFan11/Bouriema Kimba, in case we ever find better coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong support for this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Same.—Alalch E. 00:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to userfying/drafting as well, provided of course that it would only be moved to mainspace if new and better coverage is found. VickKiang (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I endorse the close as a correct reading of consensus, this outcome here makes sense. To me the AfD reads as "not notable based on the sources to which we have access" rather than "impossible for him to meet notability" so draft or userfication makes sense. Star Mississippi 00:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What if we just voided the AfD and started over on the basis of the misspelling alone? SportingFlyer T·C 21:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems like a better alternative than draft- or userification to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]