Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• A prior administrative action does not normally render an administrator as 'involved', and I disagree significantly that this was an action that would be considered 'involved'. Further, it is totally out of the scope of DRV to consider whether a deletion is involved or not. I would encourage the applicant to strike that part of their statement above as unnecessary; if they genuinely believe this was an involved action, they should take that concern to ANI or ArbCom. Daniel (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daniel: Apologies if that is out of scope. I searched the DRV archives prior to this filing, and I noticed that such concerns had been brought up in previous DRVs as a reason to support overturning a deletion (e.g. [1]), hence why I included the concern in my request for review. I would also disagree that the prior action was an administrative one - I (albeit with limited experience) would have thought it would be classed as a content matter, over the title of a page. I am, however, happy to strike that sentence - if for no other reason than the fact that it's not necessary for deciding whether or not the speedy deletion was otherwise in scope. (Re. ANI/ArbCom, I wouldn't wish to file a case on the basis of this single deletion that I believe was out of process.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 21:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for striking. It allows for a cleaner review of the deletion without the spectacle of assessing if a deletion is involved or not, which is a totally other matter in today's editing and administrative environment (and probably has changed somewhat since 2018). Daniel (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And as a follow-up, overturn and send to RfD - on the principle that if a G6 is disputed by an editor in good standing and in good faith, it is no longer uncontroversial. Daniel (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to RfD. Whether involved or not, this was clearly not an uncontroversial G6 candidate, seeing as an experienced editor in good standing requested it. That's normally enough for a 'keep' in RfD, let alone prevent a speedy. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy undelete and send to XfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy deletion by a user in good standing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with overturning this and taking it to be deleted at MfD instead, but I strongly hope you reconsider. There have been hundreds and hundreds of useless Signpost pages subjected to speedy deletions in the last year as I've been cleaning up the pagespace, and consensus has always been in favor of doing this. Last year someone demanded that I take them through formal processes, to prove with complete thoroughness that the community accepted them being deleted. The main outcome of this was that all the maintenance processes were brought to a grinding halt for about a month while they percolated through XfD, and all of them were approved, and it just wasted a bunch of my time (as well as the time of all the XfD participants, closers, etc). Here is a list of all of those nominations that I had to type out:

jp×g🗯️ 01:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this DRV is not intended to hamper efforts to clean up Signpost-space - on the contrary, I think the work being done is genuinely admirable. I created the redirect (& asked for this deletion review) purely because I am concerned about the effects of not leaving a redirect after the move of a public-facing archive page (of a notable newspaper) that was at its previous title for 17 years.

Regarding the linked XfDs, they seem to be primarily for template redirects (albeit a few were regarding miscellaneous pages and/or templates themselves). Regarding RfD specifically, I've looked through the discussions linked above, and I believe that this redirect is substantially different from ones that have previously been discussed & deleted:

• Wikipedia:Signpost/Quick Start: this was an {{R from move}}, but the page in question had only existed at that title for just over a month before being moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Quick Start. The harm in deleting this was further minimised due to the fact that it's purely an internal Signpost-facing page.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/N&N & Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end/preload-content: the target pages existed at these titles for less than a day ([1], [2]), and could arguably have been deleted as {{db-error}}s. There was no risk of breaking links in these cases (in addition to the fact that they were internal Signpost-facing unused template redirects).
• It's unclear from the logs where exactly Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header/Single originated, but - in any event - it seems like it was an obselete, unused internal Signpost-facing template redirect, with minimal harm resulting from deletion (as far as I can see).
• Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end/preload: The page previously at this title was there for quite a few years ([1]), but potential harm from this redirect's deletion is minimised by the fact that it was (presumably) an obsolete, internal Signpost-facing template redirect.
• The rest of the template redirects bundled into this RfD had all been at the previous title in question for less than two months ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), were all obsolete internal Signpost-facing template redirects, & which I assume were all unused - all of which minimised the risk of harm from deletion.
• I can't find a creation log entry for Wikipedia:Signpost/Newsroon, but judging by the RfD, it seems to have been a typo that the creator may not have realized existed until the discussion (at which point it was G7ed at his request).

In my view, the redirect in question at this DRV - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years - is substantially different from the previous RfD nominations; for the reasons that the page at that title is/was a public-facing archive link, was being actively used (judging by the pageviews at the current title), and was there for over 17 years (in my opinion, significantly increasing the risk of creating dead links as a result of this redirect's deletion). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 06:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having a lot of redirects can be very confusing (I too experienced this when I created the v2 layout. Especially for the template-like pages, I think those redirects should be deleted. If you encounter a link like that, you are mostly likely interested in it for technical reasons, and you are probably more than capable to find the history if you really want to. For content pages, a redirect might make more sense. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, JPxG. I'm not sure what purpose this long list serves. It comes across a bit like the kind of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument that you, JPxG, would discard when closing an XfD, and rightly so. I think we all appreciate the massive cleanup work you did around Signpost, but in this case, it's fair to say you acted hastily. There may very well be valid reasons to keep that redir deleted, but "G6" isn't one of them. Since you are amenable to overturning, I think the right thing for you to do at this point is to undelete the page yourself, allowing any uninvolved admin to speedy-close this DRV. You or anyone may then start an RfD for it. I don't believe anyone here will object to this course of action. Owen× ☎ 14:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, may I politely suggest you collapse this list? ^Queenof_Hearts 18:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sure jp×g🗯️ 21:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to RFD only the one nominated page, without changing the others. Good-faith dispute means a G6 is no longer uncontroversial. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and start an RfD per above. I get everything, but that's how it should be.—Alalch E. 17:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn this is classic WP:!G6 and always has been. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, of all the CSD's, G6 is the one where the threshold for an objection sending to XfD should be the lowest. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Discussion about this particular file was split off between Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 22#File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 18#File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And? (edit).png, and there is no consensus that the deleted file should be removed from Eternal Sunshine (album). NØ 10:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Defer pending the closure of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 18#File:Ariana_Grande_-_Yes,_And?_(edit).png to avoid yet more split discussions. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Stifle: Someone has already made a duplicate upload, so I don't think anything is achieved from delaying the original file's restoration. The deletion of the file is objectively erroneous since its use on the album page was not disputed.--NØ 13:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MaranoFan, the reason why that file was deleted was because the image's primary purpose was not to be the single cover, but rather be the album cover. The two ways it could have gone after that was for the image to be reuploaded into a different, more accurate name - which I did - or contest its deletion and rename it to a name more accurate for the cover's purpose, which is a more lengthy and unnecessary process ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
  _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 13:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Your Power, the fix for an incorrect title is a page move, not a reupload. Cheers.--NØ 13:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MaranoFan: If your request were to be granted, what will happen is that (1) the file I uploaded will be deleted, (2) the file in discussion will be restored, and (3) the name of the restored file will promptly be moved to that of the deleted file anyway. This is redundant. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; let's not get too caught up in complicated discussions like this, per Stifle, in favor of being sticklers to the rules ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
  _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 13:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That does not make sense. The deleted file had a fair-use rationale present for use on the Eternal Sunshine album page. The original uploader did not make any error and as such their original upload should be retained. If there was consensus said file should be deleted from Wikipedia, your reupload a few minutes later is a standard WP:G4 case.--NØ 14:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MaranoFan: this does not address my point about WP:BURO. WP:IAR applies here. regardless of whether you agree or not, i heavily recommend this discussion be paused until the other open discussion regarding the cover art files is closed ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
  _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 14:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither WP:BURO or WP:IAR have an application here. The files are identical uploads so readers see the same thing. Accurately retaining the chronologically first upload does not prevent improvement of WP or make any functional difference in what readers see. You have gone ahead and uploaded the same file again(?) so why do you want this discussion to pause?--NØ 14:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  then what you are looking for is a history merge . again, i recommend deferring this discussion. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
  _{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 14:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not. I am looking for the first perfectly fine upload with a perfectly good fair-use rationale for the album article to be restored and not much else. Erroneous deletion from the admin who clearly did not see the other discussion should not be taken advantage of to supplant the file uploader!--NØ 14:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Viertel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

2. A speedy deletion is otherwise disputed. Hello, A theatre studies professor in conference mentioned the book of Jack Viertel as an important work on contemporary US musical theatre. I went to look him up on Wikipedia and found only a Simple English page, so I "translated" it, thinking it bizarre to have Simple English but not English. English page deleted by administrator Deb, so quickly that I couldn't respond (being in Australia, it happened overnight for me), and request for undeletion or draftication denied; no response so far to Talk page message to Deb.

I find that Viertel is widely covered as producer, lyricist, critic, writer:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/theater/jack-viertel-encores.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/theater/theater-the-brothers-viertel-a-theatrical-tag-team.html
• https://deadline.com/2022/01/jack-viertel-broadway-jujamcyn-theaters-retirement-1234908388/
• https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-05-05-ca-560-story.html
• (added subsequently as further Notability), I also notice he was nominated (as producer) for a Best Musical Tony: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Tony_Award_for_Best_Musical

I had nothing to do with previous creation attempts, so I don't know the history, but I think Notability is easy to establish and if people try to look him up (as I did) they should be able to. Obviously the page needs work, but that's not a reason for there not being a page. If the fact that the material was previously posted (the rationale of the speedy deletion criteria) by someone else, perhaps also from Simple English, makes the page impossible, then please propose some other route to a page. People are likely to recreate in good faith because it doesn't make sense to have one in Simple English and not in English.

I don't understand the code to notify Deb (when I did it looked like I was trying to delete her page), so please assist with that. I have messaged her on this matter previously, so far without response.

Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As I tend to, I've removed invalid arguments to {{DRV links}} here. One of them this time was "xfd_page=don't know". I don't know either. Best practice for G4 deletions is to link the previous deletion discussion in your deletion log comment; "WP:XFD" is insufficient. There's no hint of where it is in WhatLinksHere or the deletion tag, either.
  On the A7, I... don't know quite what to say. The first of the NYT refs above was in the article; so was this one. A7 is a lower standard than notability. An article with refs showing the subject plausibly meets the GNG cannot be an A7. And that's even if you don't accept either of "His writings on the American musical are widely-read." or "From 2000 to 2020, he was a producer at the Encores! series." as credible claims of significance, which I do. Overturn (the last two revisions only, ie not the G5able ones). —Cryptic 23:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I get that argument and it's a valid one. Deb (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning Overturn and unsalt here, but I'd really like to hear from Deb first. I don't understand what AfD led to the article being G4'able, and if we can get whichever article that was back for comparison, that would be great. I also note that past sockpuppetry was involved, and I'd like to understand how that played into what just happened here. Thus, I think we need more information about what all was going on that may not have been effectively captured by the log entries. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, leaving the G4 was a mistake. The salting was because this article has been created three times by newish editors, the first of whom was demonstrably a sock. The article on Simple English Wikipedia, created by Slowking4, is very little improved since then. That is the article User:Sheijiashaojun chose to "translate". I can see that the latter contributor, though a newcomer, has made constructive edits elsewhere, so I'm not labelling them a sock. Deb (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sympathetic to the G5 on the basis of who made it last and where it ultimately came from. I do think a full deletion discussion is appropriate before an article title is salted (except for obvious disruption, of course), but I appreciate your insight and thoughts on what might have been a better path forward. We really don't have a hard and fast rule on what to do if someone transwiki's an article from a disruptive individual on a project on which they are not disinvited, but I don't like to think Simple serves as our Belgium. I'm OK leaving it as G4 was a mistake and draftifying. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I realise I'm not very active or very good at the technical side, but FWIW at 1971 edits I don't think I'm quite a newcomer either. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The 2017 and 2021 speedy deletions were under G5 - created by a banned sock. This deletion is per A7. If the appellant is a suspected sock, place a one-week page protect while CU investigates. Otherwise, the Repeatedly recreated SALT reason doesn't apply to an article that has been, for the first time, created by a legitimate editor in good standing.
  The page was nominated per G4, which the deleting admin correctly rejected, as the page has never undergone AfD. Despite being little more than a stub, the article, like its Simple English original, cites seven sources, including substantial coverage from the New York Times. This may ultimately fail AfD, but I'd say it at least credibly indicates importance to avoid A7. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you think she rejected the G4? It's still in her deletion comment. I mean, it might have been accidental, if she used the deletion link in {{db-repost}}, changed her mind at the last second, picked A7 from the dropdown, and then didn't remove the pre-filled-out reason. I've made similar mistakes before. But when I have, they've stuck out in my mind; I wouldn't have failed to mention it if questioned about the deletion, even if the gaff was mentioned only tangentially, as here. There's no way I'd have ignored the question for more than a day while continuing to edit elsewhere. —Cryptic 00:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I assumed her manual choice of A7 reflects her reasoning more than the pre-filled G4. However, the SALT and her stated reason for it makes my assumption questionable. Owen× ☎ 01:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On question of G5ing it again instead, the version in simple: was openly written by Slowking4, who was behind both of the previous versions here. So there's reason to look askance at a recreation, but not to delete it on that basis if you're not also prepared to block its creator as a sock. —Cryptic 00:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 and Probably Overturn A7 - I haven't seen the deleted article, and would like to see it to see whether it is comparable to the Simple article, in which case it should be restored, because the Simple article makes a credible claim of significance. I don't see a deletion discussion cited to justify the G4, and G4 is only based on a deletion discussion, not some other deletion. This appears to be a case where a good-faith editor has used text that was supplied by Slowking4 and has made it legitimate text. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was identical to the version at simple: except it added the sentence "His writings on the American musical are widely-read." to the end of the first paragraph, and didn't have the notability tag Deb added after deleting the version here. —Cryptic 06:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If "His writings on the American musical are widely-read" is considered a credible claim of notability, then I was wrong; to me, it's subjective at best. That's the only thing I would call a claim of notability. I don't think that being "a producer" on a series is oneDeb (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • He wasn't merely a producer, he was for twenty years the artistic director of a Tony-award winning Broadway series, Encores! while also the vice-president of Jujamcyn Theaters, the third-largest theatre owner on Broadway. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/theater/jack-viertel-encores.html I realise that's not what the article said, but with the article salted, I also don't see how I can work on it. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheijiashaojun, the page will be unsalted in a few days, pending the result of this DRV, and you'll be able to work on it again. We still need to decide whether you'll be able to carry on where you left off, or start afresh using the same sources cited.

    I appreciate your patience, and apologize for you having to go through this. Admins handle dozens such cases every day, and we do occasionally make mistakes. In this case, the deletion was triggered by the use of text originally written by a now-banned sockpuppet. No one is blaming you for that. I hope none of this will dissuade you from your continued contribution here. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Owen× No worries, these things can happen. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• New draft please - I don't have a problem with him being included in an article, but the text of this article was only three lines long, and I don't see how it would have passed review. I should probably have draftified. Like the previous two versions, it was very short on detail and didn't make any claim of notability; there was no additional detail. I should, of course, have noticed that there was a version in Simple English Wikipedia - which you can all still look at if you want to know what was in the one I deleted. Deb (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to be admitting the invalidity of your speedy deletions? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn out-of-process deletion. It is an out of process deletion because the application of the cited criteria is not in any way grounded in the concrete facts concerning the deleted page (A7 very obviously doesn't apply, and there's no information how G4 could apply, and it appears that it doesn't apply). This is not a not-quite-correct speedy deletion where the criterion used doesn't quite apply to the situation, but it's not far from it, here the criteria applied honestly seem random.—Alalch E. 09:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn it's not clear this was a valid speedy. Take it to AfD if needed, but there's sourcing besides that identified by the nom and I think he'd probably pass. Star Mississippi 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 and A7, send to draft space (or AFD if someone challenges the move to draft space). Not a lot there but clearly does not qualify for A7 and the deleting admin already stated G4 was included in error. Frank Anchor 14:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I don't think the deletion was necessarily incorrect, though both of them seem like a stretch - a PROD probably would have passed. If the simple English page is the same as this one I think we can just restore to draft space? SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, send to AfD if someone wants to. The subject is plausibly notable, and sources that could be argued to meet the GNG have been presented. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The film is notable, has reliable citations and has completed filming phase. It is ready to be released. It was speedily deleted with incorrect reason. The first look of the film was released recently. Apart from 4 sources, I added a link to IMDb page as well. The said article was at GAAMI for a while which also was deleted. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources -

https://telugu.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tollywood-news-vishwaksen-as-aghora-in-gaami-movie-first-look-121706443280206.html

https://www.eenadu.net/telugu-news/movies/vishwak-sen-new-movie-first-look-poster-release/0205/124018396

https://tracktollywood.com/vishwak-sen-as-aghora-in-gaami-cast-and-crew-details/

https://www.123telugu.com/mnews/gaami-first-look-vishwaksen-looks-stunning-as-aghora.html

https://www.greatandhra.com/movies/news/gaami-1st-look-vishwak-sen-startles-as-an-aghora-135302

https://www.m9.news/movienews/vishwak-sens-gaami-very-different-attempt/

https://10tv.in/telugu-news/movies/vishwak-sen-first-look-poster-released-from-gaami-movie-778978.html Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not RS, the given references appear to be press releases, and the film hasn't even been released yet, so not sure why it's notable. Also, no plot summary. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The film isn't released yet. In that case, Tillu Square is also an upcoming film. Aren't upcoming films if notable enough can be created on Wikipedia? Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the plot in the lead section briefly. It is sourced. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long awaited - https://www.123telugu.com/mnews/vishwak-sens-long-delayed-film-aiming-for-summer-release.html

Filming complete - https://ntvtelugu.com/news/gaami-do-you-know-the-run-time-of-vishwak-sens-gaami-480507.html, https://www.cinemaexpress.com/telugu/news/2023/may/02/its-a-wrap-for-gaami-42922.html Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thewikizoomer, I assume you mean ...Karthik Sabareesh. He has a rare human condition and goes into uncharted territory to find a cure to it. Why is the producer in the plot? I assumed you were commenting on his health Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Thewikizoomer has a history of disruptive editing, and has been previously blocked under 3RR for edit-warring. Whenever they are warned about their disruptive behaviour, they blank their User Talk page with the notice "This user has left editing on Wikipedia" or suchlike. This happened multiple times.

As for this article, The user created it as a draft today at 10:48 UTC, and moved it to mainspace four minutes later. Three minutes after that, it was deleted by Jimfbleak under CSD:G11. Rather than discuss the issue with the admin, at 12:34, Thewikizoomer recreated the page. At 12:48, they renamed the page from Gaami to GAAMI, and tagged the redirect for speedy deletion under CSD:G7. Responding to the request, GB fan deleted the Gaami page under G7.

But the drama continued. At 13:23, Thewikizoomer replaced their User Talk page with the message, "USER LEFT WIKI EDITING." A minute later, Wikishovel correctly moved the article back to its standard spelling - Gaami. At 13:41, Jimfbleak deleted the page, yet again, under G11. Thewikizoomer then left a message on Jimfbleak's Talk page, and four minutes later, opened this DRV case.

I think the problem here goes beyond just the disputed article or questions of notability. The type of disruptive editing exhibited by the appellant is incompatible with the project. And the persistent pattern of blanking warnings on their Talk page, and the belligerent reaction to attempts to reason with them, with announcements that they are "leaving wiki editing", makes it clear this user will not collaborate with others. As a short-term remedy, I suggest we remove their Extended Confirmed status, which would force them to go through AfC, and prevent them from doing disruptive page moves. As for the article, I would allow recreation by any editor unrelated to the appellant. Owen× ☎ 15:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I have not seen the deleted article, but I know to trust the judgment of User:Jimfbleak over that of an editor who has tried to game the titles by changing the capitalization. A good-faith editor may create a draft, knowing that the film is only notable either after it is reviewed or if production itself is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This was poorly written (the tracktollywood ref makes it clear that the "He" Jimfbleak quotes from the article above is supposed to be the main character of the movie, who isn't mentioned in the article except in the cast section), and it may well not be notable, but I'm struggling to see how it was exclusively promotional at the time of either G11. Or promotional at all, unless you're counting the refs, some of which are, yes, entirely content-free hype. The author's behavior is immaterial, too, unless someone cares to credibly accuse them of UPE or evading a block or ban. And, Robert, there's no reason to think the name was gamed - it wasn't created at different titles, and certainly not to evade salting; it was placed in mainspace a total of two times, both at Gaami, whence it was briefly moved to a different title.
  I think articles like this should be speedyable. They provide essentially no information and amount to a request for someone else to write an article. But the community hasn't authorized individual admins to do that on their own recognizance. The first deleted version even used to be speedyable, under the old wording of A1 (very short article with little or no context), but that's been deliberately made a lot stricter. The right call here was to move the page back to draft; failing that, the only options are to futilely prod it or send it to AFD. —Cryptic 19:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good point. The case for G11 was marginal. The question is, what do we do with it now? We could send it for seven days through the AfD mill, which will likely result in the same outcome, except with the added G4 protection. Or we could invoke a form of wiki-certiorari, and adjudicate the matter here as if it were an AfD. I went ahead and temp-undeleted the article, so that Robert and other non-admins can see the content and history, and weigh in on the notability issue itself. Owen× ☎ 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV is not AfD. I don't really agree with the G11, either - it's not unambiguous. So the answer is treat like a contested PROD and send to AfD, or as another possibility, remove extended confirmed AND send to draft? Is that possible? SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV is not AfD round two. But there was no round one, so I don't think we'll be violating any wiki-tenet by treating this review as an AfD. Not the most orthodox way of handling things, but perhaps the most practical. Sure, we can remove EC rights and send back to draft, but this only makes sense if someone is prepared to work on the page. The appellant's fickle editing history doesn't inspire confidence such draftification will produce anything other than edit-wars. The article will likely be reacreated anyway once the film is released and covered by notable critics. I see nothing in the current history worth preserving, and no rush to create it before notable coverage appears. Owen× ☎ 23:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Or we can just send to AfD and we'll see if the editor's conduct wins over hearts and minds of anyone who might be interested in making an article that at least arguably passes WP:NFF within a week. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with that too. Seems a bit like a waste of time, but so is arguing about it here. If consensus is trending towards sending to AfD, count me in. Owen× ☎ 01:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A7 - Saying that an unreleased film is about to exist does not make it notable. Any G11 was a harmless mistake by the deleting admin. It isn't advertising or promotion, but it doesn't make a credible claim of significance. The appellant may create a draft. I would advise the appellant to leave it alone and let someone who isn't their own enemy create a draft when the film is reviewed, but I see that the appellant is not in the habit of listening to advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  CSD:A7 specifically does not apply to movies: This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software, or other creative works (emphasis mine). Owen× ☎ 13:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and start an AfD. A7 doesn't work on films, and the content is not exclusively promotional for G11. In a slightly different alternate universe, it would have been ideal if this had been draftified--under a hypothesis that the creator would not move it back--but in an alternate timeline of this universe, they would have moved it back, most likely, similarly to how they've been recreating, and then an AfD would be in order. So it could be that there is no way to avoid an AfD and there is no need to try very hard to avoid an AfD.—Alalch E. 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Speedy and send to AFD the appellant makes a claim to significance above such that A7 (or A9) does not apply. This is borderline G11 but the tone can be addressed via cleanup rather than deletion if there is desire to keep this article. I would vote delete or draftify on an AFD of the article in this condition, but I do not think speedy delete is the right option here. Frank Anchor 19:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD Best thing we can do here - it's not a perfect article by any means but treating the speedy like a contested PROD makes the most sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD. I entirely agree with Cryptic and OwenX in that the article creator has engaged in problematic behaviour (including a recent 3RR block). Further, this article is not something that will survive AfD, and the references are basically press-releases and advertorial-like pieces. However, I don't believe that the latest version of the article is unsalvageably and overtly promotional for G11 to apply. Other editors have cited A7, which explicitly says that films doesn't apply. A9 also clearly doesn't apply because this is (obviously) not a musical recording. I think overturning the CSD is probably futile because it would very likely be deleted or draftified anyway. On another note, my experience in general from past NPP work (as someone who isn't really conservative when it comes to nominating articles for G11) is that this deleting admin is very liberal in accepting G11 deletion requests and tends to apply it broadly to articles that won't survive AfD or are written by editors that have exhibited problematic conduct. As such, I understand where the admin is coming from, but still struggle to see how any CSD criteria apply here- so, overturn. VickKiang (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elshad Mamedov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The person is a National Hero of the Republic of Azerbaijan, ([1],[2]) which make him "worthy of notice”. The topic fairly pass GNG having "significant coverage". The absence of existing sources during discussion does not mean the topic is not notable. There are several secondary sources covering the topic directly and in detail, for example: [3], [4] , and also, Vugar Asgarov “Azərbaycanın Milli Qəhrəmanları” [National Heroes of Azerbaijan], II , 2010, p. 194. The person is National Hero (there are evidences for this claim) and there are enough reliable sources available to make original research unnecessary to extract the content, so the topic fairly warrant its own article. I believe that sources were not identified during the discussion. --Surə ^🗯 14:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't appear to have discussed this with Liz as closing administrator. Can you advise on why? Star Mississippi 14:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies, I missed it. Thanks @Cryptic for the notification. Star Mississippi 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Five Delete views anchored in policy, and one Keep view based on "He's a national hero". I'd say consensus was pretty clear. Of the four sources provided here by the appellant, two are merely an entry in a list, one is a brief interview with his family, and one is a 150 word official announcement about posthumously awarding him the title of National Hero of Azerbaijan. Nothing in the way of SIGCOV to justify draftifying for further work. Owen× ☎ 18:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus was clear enough in the discussion, so I'm not going to even second guess a good close. Since this was a failure to consider GNG argument, I did a BEFORE search using his name in Azerbaijani sources and could not find anything clearly - I am not convinced this was an incorrect result. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify User:Sura_Shukurlu makes some impressive claims. Draftify the deleted page if it will help him to substantiate these claims. Follow the advice at WP:THREE. When done, either wait six months, or submit through AfC. In the meantime, endorse and respect the AfD as properly run. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Subject to copyright concerns of course. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and allow recreation as draft from scratch. There was overwhelming consensus to delete and the four sources brought up above do little to change that. The one describing Mamedov receiving an award is probably the closest to GNG-passing but that alone is not enough to warrant an article. Moving to recreating on draft space will allow any user time to find more sources if available and develop the article to move back to mainspace, either by AFC or by just moving it, subject to another AFD. Frank Anchor 16:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modified to reflect copyvio concerns brought up by Cryptic. Copyright infringement can not be restored, however I have no objection having a non-copyvio draft. Frank Anchor 18:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted version appears to me to be copyright infringement via translation of its first cited source, [5]. At the very least, it's quite close paraphrasing. Do not restore. —Cryptic 17:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as a good call by Liz on both policy and consensus, do not restore to draft or elsewhere per the copyright issues raised by others, allow recreation from scratch, with the feedback noted here. Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Without using the term, this article seems to have been TNTd or something close to it due to serious reservations participants in the AfD had around copyright, writeup, notability, and sourcing. The closer made a good call that reflected the debate. No objection to recreation via appropriate methods if indeed better sources were found. gidonb (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Principality of camside (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was deleted due to it being a hoax, however it is not a hoax and should not have been deleted. Tosatur (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I guess this depends on your definition of "hoax". Claims made by conspiracy theorists like David Robert Siminton can, theoretically, be notable. It is covered by academic literature. I'm sure Mr. Siminton doesn't consider this to be a hoax, but the Principality is, per se, still the product of one man's pseudolegal imagination. Dozens of such fabricated sovereign entities have been declared, and the more notable ones receive a mention in Sovereign citizen movement. I don't believe the Principality of Camside has received enough SIGCOV to qualify. And while we're at it, we should probably consider removing File:Crest of the principality of camside.gif. Owen× ☎ 16:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Obviously the Principality of Camside doesn't "exist" in a legal sense, I wanted to revive the article because David Siminton and his actions surrounding the micronation, particularly the fraudulent bank he founded (Terra Nova Cache), and the jail time he received for his crimes, were covered by multiple news articles and on ASIC's website. It is an example of the Sovereign citizen movement in Australia, but it is also notable due to Siminton defrauding investors of around $6 million AUD. Other Australian micronations have their own articles, I don't see why this one shouldn't. Tosatur (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral having not seen the speedily deleted article, and not asking to see the deleted article. I see that the Principality of Camside is a self-proclaimed micronation, and that its so-called founder is being prosecuted for some sort of fraud. Self-proclaimed micronations are only notable if they have received significant coverage by independent secondary sources, such as regular Australian newspapers having a real circulation. I am willing to rely on the judgment of the two administrators who have deleted articles about this so-called micronation that it doesn't have the required third-party coverage. Do not salt the draft title, and do not admin-lock the mainspace title. A good-faith editor should be able to submit a real draft about real coverage of this claim, and a good-faith AFC reviewer should be able to review a draft about real coverage of this claim. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as very probably within discretion. Articles and drafts about notable hoaxes and scams are only acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax or a scam. Terra Nova Cache / David Siminton / "Principality of Camside" make for a notable subject, and it seems possible to write an article about this that is not a hoax and doesn't take a scam-POV. However, I believe the deleting admin's judgement when he assessed the content of the draft as failing this requirement.—Alalch E. 17:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Not sure where else to write this, but I also believe the user who was blocked indefinitely for writing this draft, User:Driver4567, should be unblocked seeing as the reason for the ban is incorrect. Tosatur (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Tosatur - I have posted on the blocked user's page to request that the blocking administrators assume good faith, in particular that the author was trying to describe a micronation as a notable hoax rather than to use Wikipedia to perpetuate a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As amenable as I am to limiting the use of blocks and bans, after seeing edits like this one, I can't help but agree with the blocking admin that this user isn't here to improve an encyclopedia. Owen× ☎ 20:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't review the content since it's deleted, but I also don't want to request the content to be temporarily restored. The fact it was previously deleted as G11 (and G12) only a few hours before the second deletion makes me think this was probably proper. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This was the only source cited by that article, which is really all we need to know here. POV or otherwise poor content can be fixed, but to recreate we'll need to find fresh sources. The two I provided above likely aren't enough. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I can look at the deleted content. The treatment in the draft is not writing about the hoax as a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and send to MfD. There’s a reasonable contest by an editor in good standing. That means it is worth a discussion, and the place for the discussion is mfd, not DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The most recent version of the draft was a full-throated statement of the hoax as fact, not as a hoax. (So was the previous version, but also a copyvio that must not be restored.) It doesn't need to be restored to create the kind of draft Tosatur describes above. Endorse. —Cryptic 11:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Alalch E., Whpq, Cryptic: if the problem is with the content of the deleted page, rather than with the topic being inherently non-notable, then we must allow recreation, or at least send the page to MfD per SmokeyJoe. A simple "Endorse" close will have a chilling effect on recreating the page with encyclopedic content. Yes, the deleted version was a hoax, but the topic itself is not. Owen× ☎ 12:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you think that the possibility of recreation with encyclopedic content was even a question? It hasn't been to MFD, it hasn't been salted, and DRV has not ever been in the business of declaring every endorsed speedy deletion must be a permanent redlink until it decides otherwise. If it's recreated with content similar to the deleted versions, it'll be deleted again, for the same reasons, and rightly so; but that's not what we're talking about here. It would be like saying we can't ever have an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories because someone created CIA DID 911. —Cryptic 12:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no chilling effect. No need to say the same thing Cryptic just said. I won't object to sending this to MFD as a challenged speedy deletion, but to be blunt, the appellant would be better off starting their own draft on the topic. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with no prejudice against anyone writing a a usable article. It's fine to write about a hoax, but the article in the deleted form was the hoax. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Reaper Eternal. Perhaps there could be an article on the topic of the hoax, subsject to coverage in reliable sources, but the deleted article is not it.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, and reprimand the appellant for wasting our time. This was correctly deleted as G3 because it presented the micronation "in-universe" as a state, which is a hoax. ("Principality of Camside (Also known as H.M. Government of Camside) succeeded the Principality of Caledonia and took over their lands. ... On the Principalities website it's noted that they declared War on Australia as part of their establishment exercise. It's pointed out in the video Young and Free, that Australia was not correctly federated and thus there is legal room for Micro nations to be created.") It is apparent from these extracts that this content is garbage that has no prospect of being useful or being kept in an AfD. Moreover, the creator, Driver4567, is indef-blocked as NOTHERE after apparently creating several pages like this one. Nobody will want to do anything with this "draft". Sandstein 10:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of free Epic Games Store games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted in 2019. While it looks like this decision was legit back then, currently there're enough sources to re-consider notability of this standalone list.

• PC Gamer (reliable source according to WP:VG/S) is maintaining a similar list, keeping it up-to-date for almost 4 years. TechRadar and Rock Paper Shotgun (also reliable sources) had such lists as well; these aren't updated as frequently, but still grant notability per WP:NLIST ("The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been"). Additionally, Game Rant (situational source, okay for non-controversial areas) hosts an alphabetical list of games that were free on the Epic Games Store, split by year.
• So far, the media covered every single individual giveaway. For instance, most recent Love giveaway was covered by IGN, Gry Online, Igromania, among some other sources that are not presented in WP:VG/S (yet?), but are considered reliable in other wikis, like Kanobu (reliable source per Russia Wikipedia's ru:WP:АИКИ). Keep in mind that Love is a small indie title, so it was the EGS giveaway that brought media attention, not the game itself. Such news articles might provide additional sources and disambiguation.
• Some sources published additional analysis: PCGamesN in 2020 evaluated total price of free games, The Verge and Polygon analyzed the documents that were published during the Epic Games v. Apple lawsuit in 2021 and evaluated the price Epic Games paid per user. Might be a nice addition to the page.

You can get the general idea of how the list might look like by visiting Russian version of this list.

I also want to address one of the Masem's reasonings: "because these are free for a limited time, it really doesn't help anyone after the fact". While evaluating helpfulness is not a valid argument (WP:USELESS), I do agree that the title of the page was misleading. I'd rename it to "List of Epic Games Store giveaways". If you have another title idea, feel free to suggest it. Cheers. Facenapalm (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems pretty uncontroversial. As the original deleting admin, I've restored this to draft. I have no opinion on whether it qualifies for mainspace, but there's certainly no reason not to treat this as WP:REFUND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's still clearly inappropriate - WP:CATALOGUE applies - but if it's been refunded, this can probably be closed. SportingFlyer T·C 00:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 delete, 1 keep, and 2 merge !votes does not a merge close make. It's hard to say this discussion came to a consensus, or that any argument can be easily discounted. It is probably a textbook example of a forced-compromise supervote - to quote the closer, "Merge was chosen by me as the closer as a valid ATD". A (first) relist would have been in order here to clarify community consensus. Pilaz (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There was a single !vote for Keep - the appellant's. This view rested, at least in part, on a single event related the article's topic, an event that isn't notable enough for its own article, and therefore cannot, by itself, support a standalone article about the embassy. The other views were evenly split between Merge and Delete. While relisting may have solicited more opinions, I doubt we'd see enough Keep views to turn that from a single outlier into the consensus. In weighing between the Merge and the Delete views, the closing admin correctly picked the obvious ATD. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was consensus to not keep (one well-refuted "keep" vote against four delete/ATD votes). The close was in no way, shape, or form a supervote. When there is a split between delete and an ATD (in this case two merge, one delete which stated merge was an acceptable ATD, and one delete with no opinion on merging), the ATD is used in order to allow for the most community involvement on covering a topic adequately. Frank Anchor 16:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse accurate reading of the debate. Clear consensus not to keep, and WP:ATD recommends looking at alternatives where possible. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer, rather than this being a "textbook example of a forced-compromise supervote" as the nominator claims, I feel this is a case of correctly assessing consensus as not to retain an article (combining deletion and merge contributions) and picking 'merge' as an alternative to deletion. I had already advised the editor of this fact when they enquired. Daniel (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. 2 delete, 1 keep, and 2 merge !votes given that none of the arguments can be easily discounted precisely make for a merge close, because delete !votes are cognate with and "convertible to" merge !votes, due to WP:ATD.—Alalch E. 16:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I respectfully disagree with the appellant, and say that 2 delete, 1 keep, and 2 merge !votes is a reasonable rough consensus to merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balochistan Youth Action Committee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi @HouseBlaster, let's make edits to make it less promotional please. It is an account of a not-for-profit that is working in some of the remotest regions of Pakistan. The Wikipedia would certainly help people to know more information about the organisation. Please correct if anything in the article is against the wikipedia guidelines.
— 202.141.250.250 05:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster@Shellwood I don't understand why this page is under deletion request. Is there anything specific that the page is violating? Appreciate if you can be more clear with the suggestion.
— User:Tribal Explorer (the article's creator) 12:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Reading over this AFD, I can't make sense of my closure either. All I can guess is that I was reviewing a different AFD and closed the wrong discussion by mistake. Admins tend to close AFDs quickly, one after another, bing! bing! bing! I apologize for my mixup during my closure duties, I have no issues with overturning this closure as it looks like it was a mistaken closure on my part. I will try to not let this happen again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me! I have no idea how to close a DRV, so I will leave that to someone else. (I assume a closer can amend their close without further input here?) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan_Lučić (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The administrator considered that there was consensus for the deletion, but the dispersion in the number of votes and added sources demonstrate that there was no consensus. A review is valid in this case. Svartner (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I agree that the result was marginal, and you are well justified in bringing this here. That said, going over the views expressed in that AfD, the Delete !votes are well anchored in policy, relating to the lack of SIGCOV in the numerous sources cited. And numerically, the Delete views outnumber the Keep ones two-to-one. Not a vote, I know, but these are valid views backed by substantive arguments. The closing admin was right in their read of consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 20:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The numerical vote count favored Delete, and there were policy-and-guideline-based arguments both ways, so Delete is a valid conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closure is within the bounds of reasonableness. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: closed based on guidelines and policy.  // Timothy :: talk  09:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Close was a perfectly valid reading of consensus. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per all the above. Admin could not have closed any other way without being legitimately dragged here to explain. Jclemens (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As mentioned, it's close to a no consensus, but the result of the AfD was correct. I've also done some sleuthing and couldn't find any additional sources which jumped out at me, in part because the search function on Serbian web sites generally is not great, but I would not mind this being draftified if anyone thinks additional unmentioned sources exist. SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable finding of a rough consensus, seeing how the delete arguments point to specific issues with the sources, while the keep side tried to argue that there is significant coverage without rebutting those arguments; or that, assembled together (interviews, questionable-sources-in-a-BLP and all), the coverage somehow meets GNG; and that the footballer is a significant figure, which wasn't met with much agreement.—Alalch E. 13:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Peder Jalland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a deletion that happened during another era, where the main motivation for AFD'ing it was a depecrated guideline (WP:NFOOTY). GNG/SIGCOV was an issue, but today I believe the actual quality of the sources would have been discussed with more insight than the comments at the time, which seemed superficial to me. Nonetheless, the subject is a football manager whose career has developed significantly since then; he took over Norway U21. Some online sources about his takeover and the start of his tenure (from national outlets this time...) include [6] [7] [8] In addition there are in-depth pieces about his earlier life, somewhat focused around a bout with cancer, written in Norway's two largest newspapers (paywall): [9] [10]. Among others since I can access the paywalled articles, I request that this article be draftified (or userfied) so I can flesh it out. Geschichte (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Recreate it When there are substantial new sources that cause a reasonable editor to think that GNG is now met when it wasn't before, any admin should feel free to restore the deleted version to draftspace of userspace for improvement. As long as you've added the sourcing and made it a different article before mainspacing it, G4 doesn't apply. Of course, trivial changes or marginally improved sourcing may be seen as gaming the system, but it doesn't sound like that applies here. It's been 4+ years and there's more coverage? Go write an awesome encyclopedia article incorporating the new sourcing. WP:TOOSOON is all about this. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy restore to draft. Close was good, but three+ years later we have an established editor requesting it to work on and improve it based on new information before restoring it to mainspace. If needed when moved, can be addressed via another AfD. Star Mississippi 22:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draft. The original closing was correct, but the situation has changed. No reason to deny the appellant access to the deleted version, preserving attribution. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As the deleting admin, I have restored this to Draft:Jan Peder Jalland. In general, unless there's some strong reason to keep the history deleted (i.e. WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO), restoring a long-ago deleted article to draft so somebody can improve it is a no-brainer. Especially if the reason it was deleted is no longer valid, as appears to be the case here. RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! If no one objects, I believe we can now speedily close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that the keep arguments were were too repugnant to policy for the discussion to be closed as anything other than delete. In particular, Headbomb's vote (and thus the associated "per x" vote) starts off by referring to WP:PURPOSE, effectively a version of the fallacious hyper-inclusionist argument rebutted at WP:NOTEVERYTHING. He then makes the argument that Indexers are by very definition third party reliable sources, which, while true, only adreseses non-existent verifiability concerns, rather than the actual notability concerns. Seeing as how 2/3 keep votes have effectively no weight, I see clear consensus to delete Mach61 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse While the nuance of differing word choices will vary in local dialects of English, to characterize a difference between interpretations of essays as "repugnant" strikes me as reminiscent of Reichstag-climbing. It's a notability dispute; we have those every day. And, in fact, we have two groups of editors who disagree here. The nom isn't great--I don't think sockpuppet is likely the correct word to use in this context--but we have evenly-numerically-matched editors, one set referring to an essay that deals specifically and in detail with this particular topic, while the other side makes references to higher level policies and guidelines where good editors can differ about how they apply to this specific topic. Classic no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Repugnant" as in regards to the law Mach61 (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clarification. As not-a-lawyer, the word connotes something worse than merely being unseemly or odious in my lexicon. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no consensus close. The AFD ran for 20 days (extended 2x) and mustered only 5 participants, who split 3 keep and 2 delete, neither side using unreasonable arguments. I can't see how a reasonable closer could close in any other way than No Consensus. A no consensus close does not preclude renominating for deletion at some point in the future, and I would not be surprised that a more robust discussion at that time might lead to a Delete close. Martinp (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Revisiting to read points made after me (as I try to do whenever I comment early in a discussion), I think there are solid arguments below why a more robust and well-attended AFD would probably have reached a consensus to delete, and that would have been the "right" outcome. However, such a discussion did not happen in spite of the 2x extension. Therefore no consensus was reached, and in such cases we default to no action, not deleting this article. I think the meta-discussion here demonstrates we have inconsistencies to resolve regarding various policies, essays, and guidelines regarding academic journals. We should resolve them, following which it will be easier to reach consensus on articles like this. Then someone can renominate this article for deletion, and I expect it is quite likely to get deleted then. Martinp (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my close but of course defer to whatever consensus emerges here and have no issue with the close being brought for a broader look. I have re-read it and don't see another way I could have closed it. This discussion, IMO, is a micro version of the broader discussion about N:Journals last year. The community hasn't quite landed on whether Scopus et al are sufficient and that was reflected here with editors making valid cases in both directions. Star Mississippi 14:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there's a reasonable case that meeting NJOURNALS is the same as being notable at all. One of the most unambiguous dictums in WP:N is that articles must meet either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). It is very bad for the rule of law at AfD if people can just claim inherit notability for any subject they want to without gaining the consensus necessary for a {{guideline}} tag, and if they're persistent enough closers won't downweight their votes. Mach61 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For a not insignificant period of time in Wikipedia history, being indexed in Scopus was generally considered sufficient. (Not saying it was right or wrong, just was. ) This is not dissimilar to the changes in guidelines for schools and athletes in the last few years. My opinion is the community remains split since the change was recent. We're humans, we're slow to change. In my opinion as closer, the consensus in that discussion reflects that split. NB, it may be helpful for you to look at it from less of a legal POV. We really don't have any "rule of law" here, even when it concerns policy. Not saying this to dissuade you at all, but it might be a different frame. Star Mississippi 19:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. The participants who recommended keeping did not say that the journal is notable, they said that the article meets WP:NJOURNALS criteria (Headbomb and Randykitty) and that the page is helpful (XOR'easter). Saying that a subject passes NJOURNALS is not saying that that subject is notable, because that essay is not about notability, it's about preventing pages from being deleted by saying that their subjects qualify for a stand-alone article irrespective of being able to establish that the concerned subjects are notable. This is evidenced in WP:JOURNALCRIT which are patently and notoriously not about notability while purporting to present reasons for page inclusion and retention, completely bypassing the fact that lack of notability exists as a reason for deletion (none of the three criteria has anything to do with notability). The nomination correspondingly failed to express a cogent argument that the article should be deleted, lacking an argument that it is non-notable. However, during the discussion a relevant delete argument did form eventually, with two editors saying that the journal is not notable. After that point, there needed to have been comments saying that the journal is, after all, notable. But there were no such comments.—Alalch E. 17:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Despite two relistings, consensus failed to materialize. None of the views expressed in the AfD can be summarily WP:DISCARDed as invalid. Headbomb's "Keep" relies, inter alia, on the journal's evaluation in the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, a legitimate method of assessing notability. Similarly, XOR'easter's reasoning relies on sourcing per GNG. Randykitty agreed with Headbomb's reasoning. The appellant may not agree with those three, as indeed they and two others hadn't in the AfD, but I see no valid reason to discard those Keep views.

As for WP:NJOURNALS, while not a policy, it--especially WP:JOURNALCRIT--is the standard by which we normally measure the notability of journals. It seems disingenuous to turn around and claim that we are to ignore years of "case law" on hundreds of AfDs based on this essay simply because it does not have the power of law. WP:JOURNALCRIT, in its various iterations, has been used as our practical guideline for over a decade, and is our de-facto standard for academic journals. I will not overturn a valid AfD closing based on the claim that "NJOURNALS is merely an essay", especially seeing as one of the Keep arguments was anchored in GNG. Owen× ☎ 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If "NJOURNALS is merely an essay" is a reason to discard a vote, then so is "WP:HEY is merely an essay", and so all "keep per WP:HEY" !votes can be discarded. Likewise for "delete per WP:TNT". Procedurally, none of these would make sense to do. Suggesting a course of action per some essay is just giving an argument in abbreviated form, i.e., stating that in one's opinion, the essay contains good advice that is applicable in the present circumstances. The fact that an essay is not binding like policy means that there is of course room to disagree with it; but a consensus of arguments written in abbreviated form is still a consensus. XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY and WP:TNT are arguments, arguments with detailed reasoning in their text. They save editor time. WP:NJOURNALS is written as assertion, as if it were accepted among the community that meeting its criteria is enough to justify an article, when in fact NJOURNALS has not gained consensus. Mach61 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call WP:HEY "detailed", and WP:TNT reads to me like a bunch of "assertions", but so what? Functionally, they're all essays being invoked as arguments. That is the role they play. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HEY and TNT are arguments that invoke specific P&Gs. NJOURNALS does not attempt to align with any P&G. JoelleJay (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NJOURNALS criteria recently failed to gain consensus on its own talk page. That a very small number of editors have been misrepresenting it as a guideline for a decade is the definition of LOCALCON and is explicitly disallowed by WP:N. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time an essay was promoted to a policy? It is now almost impossible to change policy. GNG and other policies have sadly attained the status of Scripture, making them effectively untouchable canon. Any such RfC is doomed to end up with views equally divided between those who don't like the proposed change, those who don't think it is needed, and a minority who see the change as an improvement, even if it isn't everything they hoped for. Consensus is nigh near impossible. So we end up with broad, vague policies like GNG, and a long list of topic-specific essays and a history of "common law" in the form of AfD results, which are followed closely despite not having the power of policy. The fact that NJOURNALS failed an RfC to turn it into policy tells us nothing. We are still using this "essay" as our only consistent guideline when it comes to the notability of journals. Ignoring it while embracing GNG is a bit like ignoring WP:N while embracing WP:IAR. We don't ignore rules - or common practice - if we want consistently applied inclusion criteria. If you have a valid reason why we should ignore NJOURNALS in this particular case, then the AfD was the place to raise it. Claiming that someone's !vote on AfD should be discarded because they listed, among other things, a common practice we apply every day that isn't policy strikes me as baseless. Owen× ☎ 00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has failed multiple times. And there is a consistent guideline on the notability of journals: GNG. And consensus for drastic changes to P&Gs have occurred in recent years -- take NSPORT as an example. Automatic notability for simply being listed by an indexing company that the journal applies to join just means that Wikipedia hosts a copy of the journal's own self-description that will appear at the top of search results. That is not the secondary independent coverage required for a neutral article. JoelleJay (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say this, but even after all the discussions we've had on this topic, you clearly still don't know how these databases work and what inclusion in it means. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a participant; I can't see any other way to read the final result than as a "no consensus". XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse clear no consensus case here. "Keep arguments were were too repugnant to policy" is simply utter nonsense. We have no deletion notability policy, we have guidelines, and guidelines are not absolute. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean “We have no deletion policy”? We have WP:Deletion policy”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant no notability policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a key point: policies like V are non-negotiable, N--which is at issue here--is negotiable. It is entirely within Wikipedia's not-rules for a consensus to form that overrides a guideline in a specific case or set of cases. Academic journals are a set of topics that are clearly important, but (and I'm not sure from whom I'm stealing this observation, but I'm relatively certain I read it in a past Wikipedia discussion) if they do their jobs well, no one writes about the journal. Thus, it's perfectly OK for an admin to consider !votes that say "The cited guideline is wrong for this application and leads to a less-than-encyclopedic result" as was done here. Had they been in the clear majority, it would have been acceptable to close this discussion as Keep--but they were not. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I would have preferred a "keep" here, but given the discussion and the arguments presented, "no consensus" was the only reasonable outcome. --Randykitty (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete I think the close itself wasn't necessarily bad, but it ignored the fact GNG has clearly not been met, which was clearly demonstrated by those wanting it off the site. If that's the argument for keeping a journal, then journals have become the new cricketers. We shouldn't put up with spam... SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. NJOURNALS is not a guideline, its "notability criteria" cannot be used to assert notability any more than any other project essay, and especially not in the demonstrable absence of the required secondary independent SIGCOV for GNG. Keep arguments were not based on P&Gs.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are not even notability criteria. According to the essay, an article about a journal should not be deleted, because it is deserving of a standalone page, if the journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area, is frequently cited by other reliable sources, or is historically important in its subject area (and there are reliable, independent sources on the subject, but significant coverage is not required). And only if all three of the following conditions are met: The journal is (1) not influential, (2) not frequently cited, (3) not historically important, then and only then need notability be considered. See the sentence: If a journal meets none of these criteria, it may still qualify for a stand-alone article, if it meets the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria. So whether it meets the conditions of notability is irrelevant as long as it meets at least one of the three "don't delete" criteria. The essay is literally saying that notability only need be considered for journals that are not influential, not frequently cited and not historically important. Absurd. This essay is not a notability essay. It's an anti-notability essay. —Alalch E. 01:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It may be a journal, but none of the sources support a Wikipedia article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC) WP:HEY. The current state of the article includes many sources, none were analysed or addressed by the nomination (obviously). Wait two months and WP:RENOM. GNG not met? The GNG is just a guideline, deletion requires consensus at AfD, such as a consensus that the GNG failure means this article should be deleted. There was no such consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This reasoning seems circular; the entire point of my DRV is that I see a consensus to delete. May you elaborate? Mach61 (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was not a consensus to delete. You probably overweight your own !vote. I read your !vote as weak. No single guideline is every the “only” one. You didn’t address the sources that were added.

  Work though the added sources. Give it two months. Read WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mach61's comment comes after the WP:HEY exclamation of Dec 24, and he responded to it by saying that significant coverage comes in paragraphs of prose and that articles can't be based off of databases and indices. What was added were databases and indices, to verify fulillment of JOURNALCRIT, discussed previously. Self-evident and not in dispute that these are indices and databases as he said. So when reading in context -- a participant did address the later-added sources. Ultimately, there was a consensus that the GNG failure means that the article should be deleted, because after two editors said as much, no one was able to relevantly oppose these recommendations, and the only later comment was that the page is helpful. —Alalch E. 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That wasn’t my reading of the AfD. Ok, should I read through the sources? They are all junk, for Wikipedia notability, all primary sources. At AfD I would !vote delete. Or “Merge to publisher”, ThinkBiotech. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not in the habit to re-affirm my !vote if somebody else !votes opposite. That doesn't mean that I consider myself rebutted. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not rewrite history, Alalch E.. There was no consensus at the AfD. The three Keep !votes are here with us, and do not need you to second-guess their intentions. True, they didn't come back to badger the Delete !voters on that AfD. How you construe that to be acquiescence is beyond me. We don't give extra weight to an opinion just because it was expressed later in the discussion. In the end, six editors expressed a valid opinion on that AfD. Slice and dice it any way you want, there was still no consensus there. What's next - discard the seven "Endorse" views here because they didn't come back to argue with you? Sorry, that's not how consensus works. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD's participants are not individual stakeholders in the matter of an article's retention (the totality of the project is the single and only stakeholder), so I did not mean to say that they acquiesced, and whether they did or did not is not what I consider to be important. It's not a negotiation, and reaching consensus, with its particular meaning on Wikipedia, is not about consenting, as in waiving an objection. Any other editor or editors could have opposed the best deletion-supporting argument during the extended relist periods, but no one did. Why? Because the issue with the sources is self-evident. I respect everyone in the AfD and here, and I appreciate and value the opinions that articles about non-notable journals should be kept based on WP:JOURNALCRIT and that helpful articles on non-notable subjects should be kept, and I have no doubt that these editors only make these arguments in the best interest of the encyclopedia, and do not second guess their intentions. —Alalch E. 15:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said, Any other editor or editors could have opposed the best deletion-supporting argument during the extended relist periods, but no one did. Why? Because the issue with the sources is self-evident - I'm sure the issue was self-evident to you. But until you get the WP:OFFICE bit, you cannot simply override lack of consensus by decree. Owen× ☎ 15:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think there wasn't a consensus, I think there was, we think about this differently, and that is all there is to it. No need to second-guess my intentions involving a supposed desire to enact decrees. —Alalch E. 16:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? I certainly did assess the sources that were in the article (and did my own GS search), as should be evident from my !vote. Should I have spelled out that specifically the primary trivial info from the databases and indices cited were not sufficient? Do I need to quote the notability guideline Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). and consensus policy For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. every time, or can I assume any closer is aware of these? Two editors noted that there was no coverage that suggested meeting GNG. (Also pinging @Enos733) No editors made any claim that GNG was met or put forth an explicit IAR argument; sourcing was purely evaluated by keep !voters in the context of verifying the journal met the essay criteria, not that it met the policy requirement of secondary sources or the relevant guideline requirement for SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find your !vote looks confusing and weak. It does not suggest that you did your own thorough analysis. Had have you asserted that you looked yourself at the sources and they they are all “primary trivial info from the databases and indices”, I think it would have closed as “Delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct response to your point per se, but this comment reminds me of Joelle's remark (at WP:ARBDEL) about how A lot of frustration arises from AfD participants never having any idea how particular !votes are weighted by closers, or to what degree policies and guidelines (or just policies?) trump numerical majority. This encourages many !voters (me included) to respond to each argument that is not P&G-compliant or that makes inaccurate claims with rebuttals, out of concern that a closer unfamiliar with the guidelines (and consensus interpretation thereof) in the area will be misled. Mach61 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would point to Headcount's rebuttal "Indexers are by very definition third party reliable sources," RandyKitty's point toward WP:HEY (suggesting the article was sufficiently improved since nomination), and XOR'easter's comment "Adequately sourced" as claims that GNG was met. From one end of the spectrum, they are ambiguous statements that coverage exists. But, to me those statements in the discussion go a step beyond hand-waving and could not be dismissed out of hand by the closer. To your question, the burden on an AFD is usually from people who do not believe a subject should have a stand-alone article - and once supporters to keep the article argue the sourcing is sufficient, the burden really falls on supporters to delete the article to point out that the sourcing is insufficient. - Enos733 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733 I believe I did that with my comments referencing WP:IINFO and claiming that notability, as opposed to verifiability, was the issue Mach61 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. I just think your argument was contested and there was no consensus on the matter. --Enos733 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - the outcome was well within the closer's discretion of assessing the balance of arguments. While contrary to GNG, keep !votes made reasonable arguments in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia's core policies and can't be dismissed outright; no consensus is a reasonable call to make given the balance of arguments made. The applicability or lack thereof of WP:NJOURNALS is a longtime point of disagreement within the editing community that needs to be resolved more clearly at a project level before arguments made on that basis are a priori tossed out as invalid; irrespective of what the correct path forward is for future English Wikipedia P&G, Star Mississippi made the correct call as an individual admin here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are we just going to ignore Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). and For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. for AfDs relating to this particular area? JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one's ignoring that, we're talking about a discussion where a numerical majority composed of experienced editors argued for an exception to a guideline, which I believe includes in its definition Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Reference to NJOURNALS in this discussion isn't laying down the law so much as it is referring to a condensed argument. Misuse of an essay would be more along the lines of ruling in favor of a minority that wants Foo because there's an essay that says to do Foo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I struggle to see any different way to close the discussion. As it was the keep comments did inculde suggestion or implications that GNG was met. No consensus was the correct close. --Enos733 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Given that WP:IAR is policy, comments that ignore, stretch, or (arguably) misapply a guideline must be given reasonable weight. AfD's are not debates settled by unrebutted arguments but discussions which are closed based on consensus. Arguments may be devalued if they ignore policies, are in bad faith, appear to be canvassed, but not simply because they weigh guidelines like WP:N or judge encyclopedicity differently than others. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying the close was IAR? No one argued for IAR in the AfD so an interpretation that the !votes supported IAR retention would not be valid. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not saying that the close was IAR. I believe that the close was a correct reading consensus. I am saying that IAR status as a pillar of Wikipedia means that Mach61's argument "that the keep arguments were were too repugnant to policy for the discussion to be closed as anything other than delete" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between project guidelines like WP:N and consensus. Core content policies like WP:V and WP:BLP cannot be ignored by a local consensus, but it is simply not the case that closers should devalue opinions that argue for exceptions to WP:N or WP:GNG based on there own preferred criteria. Guidelines have exceptions determined buy consensus, and the way to determine consensus is by having discussions at AfD not forcing every possible exception be hashed out at WT:N or a similar policy page. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is unreasonable to say that the "flexibility" of our notability guidelines come primarily from the several existing SNGs that supplement the SNG, or to expect that IAR arguments be held to a higher standandard of consensus than was found at this relatively low participation AfD. Mach61 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the event it needs to be said, explicitly saying my close was not IAR. When I do that (and I do at times), I say that I have and why. I did/do not believe there was a consensus to be found here, and I closed it as such. Others see it differently, which is all good and why we have DRV. Star Mississippi 03:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse After three weeks of this AFD being open, it was clear that consensus did not form. The keep voters made a credible case that GNG was met, and the delete voters made a credible case that it was not. No consensus was certainly within the closer’s discretion, and I believe the correct choice. Frank Anchor 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding that the original nominator was later indefinitely blocked for disruptive edits. Take out the nomination statement, and there are only two delete votes remaining. If all keep votes were discarded (which is clearly not the case), it would have been closed as a soft delete or no consensus. Now add in a few valid keep votes, and no consensus makes the most sense as a result. I maintain my endorse vote and add prejudice against an early re-nomination. Frank Anchor 18:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak endorse, favor a new AfD This appears to be a for-profit entity without sourcing to meet WP:N and with no relevant SNG met. I like academic journals as a notion. But this one doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines and I'd !vote to delete it at AfD. This isn't AfD, it's DRV. And I think the discussion was leaning toward delete, but the close was within discretion. I get why people want these academic journals to have articles. I don't think *this* has any redeeming qualities and I'm seeing no evidence it meets our inclusion guidelines. It has an impact factor of around 0.2, which basically is really really bad. https://mdanderson.libanswers.com/faq/26159. It looks like a "write-only" journal (people write articles and no one reads them). Hobit (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection to a shorter than normal re-nom window as closing admin. I didn't see the point in an additional relist because of the less than normal AfD traffic at the holidays but if (generic) you feel can get input later this month or early next, feel free. Star Mississippi 23:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:*I don't know where you got that 0.2 figure, but this journal has no IF because it's not indexed by Clarivate. The link to mdanderson is a bit misleading as it is written from the point of view of oncology, a high-citation density field. IFs are very much field-dependent. Oncology journals have some of the highest IFs around and an IF of, say, 5 would be quite average. The same IF for a mathematics journal would indicate a top journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]

• Regarding this being a "write only" journal, looking at GScholar, I see a rather robust citation record, with several articles cited over 100 times and many others 56, 60, or even 80 times. Looks like the people writing in this journal get read (and cited), too. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as much as I enjoy the debate about whether the journal is notable or not, this isn't what the DRV is meant to adjudicate. The only question before us now is whether the opinions expressed at the AfD were prima facie valid or not. Even if those Keep views are ultimately found to be misguided (which I don't believe is the case), as long as they were made in good faith by established editors relying on policy or common practice for the benefit of the project, they cannot be legitimately discarded. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You're absolutely right, I've struck my last two comments. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Further discussion at Randykitty's talk page. Hobit (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow immediate renomination. The AfD is defective, if only due to the nominator now being blocked. It was a weak nomination, and the sources added during the discussion were not reasonably discussed in the AfD. End the end, I see the discussion having been closed as “no consensus” primarily due to confusion. On how to renominate, see advice at WP:RENOM, namely, make it a good thorough renomination that summarises what happened in prior AfDs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an interesting point. The AfD nominator was indef banned for disruptive deletion nominations during the AfD, which allows us to discard their view. If we do so, it leaves us with just two legitimate !votes for Delete. With this in mind, claiming there was a clear consensus to delete is just ridiculous. Owen× ☎ 09:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Their indef was a little more complex than bad AfDs. Star Mississippi 14:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand, but the fact remains that this was not an editor in good standing at the time of closing. We have the option to legitimately discard it. Owen× ☎ 14:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already said I have no issue with a speedier than normal re-nom. A relist didn't make sense, but with distance from the holidays we may get more input. Star Mississippi 14:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - If a closer finds No Consensus, and an appellant comes to DRV, it is sometimes because the appellant thinks that the closer should have supervoted. it is very unusual for a close of No Consensus when the !vote count was approximately even to need to be overturned. This is not the special case. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, accurate closure. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, and a trout to the opener of this discussion. I have mixed feelings about WP:NJOURNALS, but the idea that this AfD could reasonably have been closed as anything other than NC or K is ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hucksters.net (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

citation Foweirp (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High profile corruption scandal in Australia cites Hucksters.net: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/01/12/gina-rinehart-censor-crikey-trademark-request/

• Endorse and speedy close, the "new information" presented in this application for review is clearly insufficient to overturn the recent consensus at AfD. Daniel (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Participation in the AfD was limited, but the result was unanimous. The appellant hasn't raised any argument for overturning. The new source changes nothing. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The "new" information is that a report by Hucksters.net was given a two sentence mention in an article on another website. That is not substantial coverage of Hucksters.net, and doesn't even vaguely begin to make a case for overturning the outcome of the deletion discussion. JBW (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• More scrutiny needed When a new account is registered just to start a DRV, something inappropriate may well be afoot. Of course, the rationale presented is so ridiculously inadequate to overturn the deletion that this may be exactly what it appears to be. Regardless, endorse. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above - no new information here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid close. The originator may submit an updated draft for review, but that is almost always permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse. No valid rationale provided to overturn the deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claude J. Pelletier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claude J. Pelletier was closed in 2016 by User:MelanieN as "Userfy" to my user space, and I moved it to Draft:Claude J. Pelletier with the intention of improving it over time (better late than never, maybe). I asked User:Cunard to see if Pelletier had any additional reliable sources, and these are the results:

I would like to see if this is enough to get the draft moved back into article space. I am going to continue to work on the draft article as time allows (although I admit I will struggle with incorporating the French sources). I am sending a courtesy ping to all the AFD participants to allow them the chance to review the new sources: User:SephyTheThird, User:AngusWOOF, User:SwisterTwister, User:Jclemens, User:Atlantic306. BOZ (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close: there's nothing really to overturn here. You followed the path decided by the AfD, and now you can submit the improved draft for review via the standard AfC/review process. If approved by the reviewer, the draft will be moved back to main namespace, replacing the current redirect. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: or seeing as you are an experienced editor yourself, apply our standard article creation acceptance criteria and determine whether your draft is ready for main namespace or not. CSD:G4 shouldn't apply here, and you don't need to run this by DRV. Owen× ☎ 00:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Submission of Draft or Allow Recreation, subject to AFD, but those actions were already allowed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Should we revise the introductory language for DRV to clarify when improved versions of articles that were deleted for inadequate notability or inadequate sources do not need to come to DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. Claude J. Pelletier passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria based on the sources I found and that BOZ listed in the DRV nomination. The sources were not discussed in the 2016 AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claude J. Pelletier.

  Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says "Deletion review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". When recreating articles that have been deleted at AfD, I sometimes have taken them to DRV first (if I feel recreation could be controversial) or sometimes just directly recreated the article (if I feel recreation likely would not be controversial). This is up to editorial discretion. It is fine for BOZ to seek the community's opinion at DRV on whether the sourcing is sufficient, especially since the 2016 AfD was very divided.

  Cunard (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I was going by criterion 3 when I decided to submit to DRV. I figure that if this does go to "allow recreation" that essentially voids out the previous AFD in case anyone wanted to challenge it later. It may not be necessary, but if there is no consensus here then I can submit for AFC after building up the article with the new sources. BOZ (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRVPURPOSE criterion #3 specifically talks about articles that were deleted. When an article is draftified (or in older days, userfied), the explicit intent is to improve it and move it back to mainspace. No appeal or overturn is needed to follow this prescribed sequence. BOZ chose to err on the side of caution, which is fine. When I said, "you don't need to run this by DRV", I didn't mean they mustn't, but that the original AfD result gives them the option to assess the article and skip DRV.

  At this point, seven experienced editors have chimed in, five of whom are or were admins or new page reviewers - including BOZ themselves. Not a single one objected to the procedural move BOZ requested, for which BOZ doesn't really need our permission, and already has our blessing. There's no harm in keeping this DRV open for another six days, but there's no real point in doing so either. Owen× ☎ 18:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This really needs to be an FAQ. Someone want to draft an essay that can be linked? Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be a reasonable decision for you to decide to move that to mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 08:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the amended article now passes WP:GNG so is ready for mainspace in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We've already got WP:DRVPURPOSE #10. If people aren't reading the instructions, repeating ourselves in them won't help; if people are reading the instructions but being a bit more cautious than they need to be, repeating ourselves in them still won't help. —Cryptic 09:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, I see that, while the original title isn't salted, it'll still need the intervention of an admin or pagemover to get the draft back there with its history intact. I was already an admin before WP:RM/TR came about and have never followed it; is it usual practice there to refuse requests to re-mainspace previously-deleted content without looking further? —Cryptic 09:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EFS Facilities Services Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New credible sources have come to the fore from main independent news ~

https://theshillongtimes.com/2023/08/30/global-leader-efs-to-set-up-upskill-at-ustm-ceo-tariq-chauhan/

https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/industry/efs-facilities-services-to-invest-rs-300-crore-in-india-by-2020-acquire-3-firms/59219359

https://ddnews.gov.in/international/nsdci-and-efs-facilities-services-group-ink-mou-skilled-workforce-mobility

https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/brandvoice/efs-facilities-services-group-1

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/corporate/dubai-top-companies-for-workers-honoured

https://www.gdnonline.com/Details/632838/EFS-Facilities-Services-wins-over-$46m-contracts- (120.89.74.94 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

• None of those are new, all but one are patently unusable even at a glance, and the remaining source accepts payment in exchange for coverage. Plus, we just reviewed this in November. —Cryptic 06:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Time to resurrect WP:DEEPER, perhaps?—S Marshall T/C 08:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DEEPER is still around :) Stifle (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but can we restrict the filing of review requests to registered accounts who can at least be asked whether they have conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Submission of Draft subject to review (and knowing that reviewers may be inclined to ignore the draft rather than decline or reject it). Robert McClenon (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Was the title salted in November? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only at the EFS Facilities Services title. —Cryptic 09:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this is another form of the gaming of titles. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse should be a salted title, no new information. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closing was based on unanimous, well-reasoned views, and none of the newly presented sources establish notability. Owen× ☎ 00:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Properly deleted by consensus. Do not encourage drafting. It does not meet WP:CORP. It’s routine. It’s highly actively promotional. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This isn't new information, per Cryptic.—Alalch E. 09:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. Clear consensus at the AFD. I have no objection to a recreation as a draft, but a draft based on the above references would stand no chance at WP:AFC. Frank Anchor 15:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Somers-all-the-time/MyMilitia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

If my memory serves correctly, this draft in my userspace contained a list of citations and notes on those citations. I intended to use these in the future to write out a full article. No further information was given when I reached out to the deleting admin User:Anthony Bradbury when I contacted him on his talk page. Further the admin who took the action originally is now deceased. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn looks like an article draft to me. Some references are just mentions, but others look to be independent and on the topic. SO it could even be notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Restore as a valid draft desired by an established editor. Move to draft space if needed, but seven days when the actioning admin can't speak to their actions is pointless bureaucracy. Star Mississippi 20:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. As User:Somers-all-the-time was a contributor at the time, the page was not WP:U5-eligible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queer Wikipedians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The last decision on this category was made over 15 years ago. In that time, there has been consensus to bring back Category:Asexual Wikipedians, Category:Pansexual Wikipedians, Category:Bisexual Wikipedians, Category:Gay Wikipedians, Category:Lesbian Wikipedians, Category:Genderqueer Wikipedians, and (spiritually) Category:LGBT Wikipedians. The original deletion decision is questionable as well, as the admin closed the thread based on their subjective view of the "strength of arguments", despite there clearly being no consensus. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation That AFD close was dubious, and could be a no consensus, but after all this time probably not worth overturning. My opinion is that users should be able to categorise themselves, so reasoning here is just opinion. Categories for users are not just about collaboration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close and allow recreation - I see no point in re-litigating a 2007 decision, BOLDly recreate it and see if there's any objection. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been salted since 2008 (and the protecting admin is not someone I recognize as one of the user category police of old, oddly enough). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the above violate WP:USERCATNO in at least one way. If the LOCALCONSENSUSes in such discussion are really a global consensus that USERCATNO is out of step with the will of the community, then USERCATNO should be altered appropriately by RfC. Until there's an appropriate discussion, then G4 appears to apply. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What part of USERCATNO do these categories violate? The Midnite Wolf (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm against all user categories, but I don't see USERCATNO applying here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While the individual criteria are not numbered, criteria 6-8 of the 9 enumerated would be the ones at issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me like OC/U intentionally avoids taking a stance on the above categories. Being LGBT isn't a like, an advocacy of a position, or inherently provocative. I agree with the editor below who said that an RfC is needed to amend OC/U and clarify whether or not identity-based categories are allowed. For the time being, they're not discouraged by any policy and consensus seems to be in favor of them. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly have no idea how you're applying any of those criteria to the category at hand. SportingFlyer T·C 10:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation - I personally think that these user categories and most user categories are undesirable, but policy allows them, and a deletion debate 16 years ago should not be decisive because consensus can change. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Gender- and sexuality-based user categories and userboxes are among the most popular with Wikipedians. It makes no sense for us to try to second-guess the intent of whoever penned WP:USERCATNO item #6 (any grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building) to figure out whether it applies to things that aren't a preference, but are still in most cases irrelevant to encyclopedia-building. This issue is important and widespread enough to be properly handled via an RfC to amend WP:USERCATYES and WP:USERCATNO, and spell out whether categories such as Category:Queer Wikipedians are welcome here or not. I can see valid arguments for both sides, but CfD or DRV is not the place to debate the issue. Owen× ☎ 20:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation. Who are these shadowy userspace category police anyway, and how are they helping us write an encyclopaedia? Can we refocus them on something more productive?—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The CfD regulars of old.

  What is the role of categories? To categorise? To navigate? To help organise maintenance? Pageviews indicate that no one uses them. (Like Portals).

  A huge amount of maintenance goes into categories, from a very few volunteers. Non category wonks fiddling with categories adds to the maintenance load, and user categories encourage editors to play with categories, and so the category wonks merged usercategories into all categories and have enforced extremely esoteric and restrictive usage criteria. For trails to stories and evidence of attempted resistance, see Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, personally I'm a member of Category:Wikipedians who think the userspace category police could probably be doing something better with their time. This disruptive pointy gatekeeping rubbish has been going on at CfD since forever. Remember Wikipedians who say CfD is broken from 2009?—S Marshall T/C 23:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. After being told I need to participate at CfD, I put in a few years of at least reading the nomination of every CfD. I feel I learned a lot about categories and category policy. I think the category system is more work than it’s worth, that it burns more users than it helps, that no reader uses it, and that it (like Portalspace) should be deleted, barring some creative large scale renovation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the point? Why do we need three separate categories for "LGBT", "Non-binary", and "Queer"? Regardless begrudgingly allow recreation since I can't think of any actual refutation to the nominator's argument, although I would definitely advocate for a merge or deletion at CfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  People identify differently, I don't see that as being the reason to begrudge anything. SportingFlyer T·C 04:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of us grew up during a time when the term in question was clearly and only a slur, and are unimpressed with the efforts of some to rehabilitate it as empowering. Thus, divisive and clearly USERCATNO, no matter how noble the intentions of those desiring to so self-describe. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang in 1937 suggests it had been a claimed term for self identification since 1914.

  The claims that usercategories can be divisive, I have always found very weak. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We were once told (and I see you were also involved slightly, SmokeyJoe) that to categorise yourself under Category:Logical positivist Wikipedians or any of 155 other categories was to be "divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive".[11] Thincat (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That misrepresents the linked nomination. It claims that the creation of Category:Logical positivist Wikipedians and other categories like it was the divisive action, not the decision of any one user to add themselves to those categories once they existed. Adding oneself to a category is not an endorsement of its existence, and in fact my userpage is in at least one category that I would probably support deletion of if it were nominated at CfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Thincat. The Usercat police were pushing logically contorted arguments that were in that discussion properly ridiculed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tonight Awards 2020 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe this award list's AfD deletion discussion, which was nominated by @Boneymau, was closed in the wrong way, as both the 2021 and 2022 awards list pages, which I nominated for AfD in the first place, for failing notability guidelines ("having no significant coverage outside of the TV Tonight website itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG"). Those award list pages were properly deleted, while this award list page was redirected to TV Tonight, by @Liz. I believe that this page should be deleted, for my reasons. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• TechGeek105, please advise the administrator who closed the discussion, Liz, as required by Step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect was a viable option (and in my opinion, the correct option). While there was consensus against keeping the article, there was certainly not consensus against a redirect, as neither delete vote stated an opposition to a redirect (and the nominator even supported a redirect as a WP:ATD). I also support restoring the history of the 2021 and 2022 pages as redirects, but DRV is not the place for that argument. Frank Anchor 01:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The appellant mentions "reasons" for the appeal, but doesn't list any. Having two other pages deleted isn't a valid reason on AfD, and certainly not on DRV. The AfD had two Delete !votes, and two Redirect, including the nom. Redir was the natural, correct way to close it. At this point, the appellant's petition amounts to an RfD, which is even more unreasonable. Owen× ☎ 02:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominator comment: My reasons why I support a deletion of the page, include having no significant coverage outside of TV Tonight itself, hence no secondary sources, and the TV Tonight Wikipedia article does not mention the awards at all. I will let the AfD closer admin, Liz know about this discussion, because @Daniel, said it is required by Step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 04:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an argument for an WP:RfD, not a DRV. DRV is not AfD/RfD Round 2. You haven't suggested that the debate was closed incorrectly based on the consensus evident in the discussion, just that you disagree with the arguments levelled in the debate and therefore the end result. I fail to see which of the five DRV purposes listed at WP:DRVPURPOSE apply here. Specifically, "Deletion review should not be used...because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Daniel (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daniel, I have let Liz know. I agree that the discussion was closed incorrectly, because the consensus in the discussion was redirect. I believe a delete consensus would work just as well, because the awards are not notable to add to the TV Tonight article and there are no other secondary sources. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 04:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the statement "I agree that the discussion was closed incorrectly" is confusing; it indicates that I said the discussion was closed incorrectly and the editor is agreeing with my statement, which is patently incorrect - I said no such thing, and (given my endorse below) clearly do not think the discussion was closed incorrectly. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daniel, I meant, I believe that the discussion was closed incorrectly, because the discussion consensus was redirect and that a delete consensus would work just as well, because information on the awards is not on the article TV Tonight, and there are no reliable sources besides TV Tonight. Hence why I support an overturn, as the DRV nom. I will go back to editing and reading other articles now. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 04:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as a viable AtD that was proposed by two editors and not objected to by the other two. I would go so far as to say that the close was clearly the best close, and any alternative may possibly have been deemed as not ideal. No procedural or other DRV-applicable argument has been advanced by the applicant, as per OwenX. Daniel (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have much to add but if you disagree with the closure to allow a Redirect, I'd suggest taking this to RFD. It's much simpler to get a Redirect reevaluated than to overturn an AFD decision at Deletion review unless there is a groundswell of support for your stance (or unless I seriously screwed up which I don't believe is the case here). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as well within the closer's discretion given the status of the discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a reasonable action by the closer. When the responses are split between Delete and Merge, Merge is less drastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as within discretion, but there's no mention of "TV Tonight Awards" at the target, and if someone were to try adding that mention they would find that it is not trivially easy (I tried).—Alalch E. 09:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with limited participation, redirect was clearly a harmless option for the closer, and a "redirect versus delete" outcome is a lot less worrying than a "keep versus delete" debate as they both functionally lead to the same result. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]