endorse deletion but it's reasonable to ask for an e-mail copy of the work. As Roy hints, you're better off asking rather than demanding. The deletion was valid and correct on the face of it. If you've got independent sources (which I don't think you do at this time), then recreating the article is reasonable. But until the topic meets our inclusion guidelines (WP:N) it will stay deleted. Hobit (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist There is in fact no consensus about the acceptability of list articles on bus routes, and the decision in an individual case is apt to be erratic and unrepresentative. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist. Extremely rude DRV nomination aside, I would also have closed this as no consensus. The slight numerical majority in favour of deletion is outweighed by how insubstantial the arguments were ("unsourced" and bare assertions of WP:NOT). Relisting in the hope of attracting some more considered participation also wouldn't hurt, I suppose. – Joe (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn bus routes in a major city like Shenzhen are important, and also very likely to be sourceable in newspapers. Perhaps the references are poor, but I expect that Wikipedia should have this kind of article. The delete statements in AFD are very feeble. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm normally on the inclusionist side here, but I do think that we can't identify a single independent reliable source is a pretty bad sign. Now there is a language issue, but we really need *something* to hang our hat on wrt WP:N. Is the claim you are making that the bus schedules of all major cities are notable? I could perhaps get behind that, but I don't think that view has been shown to have consensus. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I think the delete arguments were pretty strong (basically WP:N not met), while the others were a WP:SPINOUT argument (which I think can be valid, but I personally think are fair to give fairly little weight in most cases unless the spinout topic has solid sources) and an OTHERTHINGEXISTS argument. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we reading the same AfD? Only one of four delete opinions even mentioned notability. The rest cited the fact that the article was unsourced, a classic surmountable problem, or gave vague nods to WP:NOTTRAVEL, a very weak and subjective argument unless you explain why the page cannot be turned into an encyclopaedia article. To be clear, I think the keep arguments were also weak, but since neither the nominator nor a single delete !voter indicated that they had looked for sources, their absence doesn't mean much. At the end of the day it is up to those seeking deletion to obtain a consensus to do so that satisfies policy; not on others to produce sources to justify the existence of an article. – Joe (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I took the "unsourced" to mean "doesn't meet WP:N", but that assumes a degree of WP:BEFORE that is likely missing. Still, given the nom above is pointing us to what I think is the official bus schedule as the best source, I think we likely have a WP:N issue (I can't find anything in a reliable and independent source, but the language issue may be the issue). Hobit (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Updated Hobit (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I voted keep, no idea why - probably because I'm not a big fan of WP:NOTTRAVEL to delete articles (this is just to make sure we're not written like a travel guide, it's easily surmountable, but you see it in a lot of transportation discussions.) If someone's found better sources that would help it survive AfD, why not draftify it? SportingFlyertalk23:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(After a lot of confusion, I think this is the right place to request restoration of the page per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. If WP:REFUND is the right place, forgive me because the distinction between the criteria for each is bloody difficult to work out.) I don't contest the previous deletion result, but I do think Challenor now warrants an article. Since the last deletion discussion, a wealth of new sources about her have been published, some related to her father being convicted of rape ([1]). I can't see the sources in the original article, but those created since September 2017 include this full length Times article, brief coverage in HuffPost, a Guardian profile, a misgendering incident involving the BBC ([2]/[3]), an open letter started by her (Mirror article) and news that she was standing for deputy leadership ([4]) and then pulled out due to her father's conviction ([5]). — Bilorv(c)(talk)23:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If you think the situation has changed, create the article yourself and see if it survives AfD. DRV is not a way to get around seeing if an article would survive AfD if it were recreated (the new information that has come to light post-dates the AfD, which means that a new AfD would be needed to assess them, not this forum.) You could also just have asked Premeditated Chaos to userfy it for you. Most admins will do this on request unless it is one of the G-series CSD criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD, of course. Usually, you should only come to DRV if a WP:REFUND request is refused and you disagree. As an experienced editor, it should probably be userfied for you, for you to decide when to put it back into mainspace, if ever. I am concerned that your new sources are running news coverage. Such sources are often found to not be good enough, too close to the subject to be called independent, too close in time especially. https://kualo.greenparty.org.uk/statements/ is a primary source and not useful for discussing notability. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/06/aimee-challenor-theresa-may-lgbt-inequality-transgender-green-party is an interviewed featured story, containing posed photos and CV. However, the sources are new, and if anyone including you considers the question of notability based on these sources debateable, the question is best examined in a new AfD. Therefore, userfy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but userfy as said above. The advice on these matters is somewhat incoherent and our behaviour is too. Some deleting admins, when asked to undelete, always refer you to DRV. At WP:REFUND in situations like this articles are quite often restored (but sometimes only to draft or user space). But the REFUND statement is confusing to many people (including me) because it seems to say the opposite of this: "This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion ... among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process". To me this wrongly suggests that deletions after AFDs where there was controversy (as in this case) will not be overturned. Thincat (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify, what I'm looking for is to be able to see the content of the deleted page. So undeleting, userfying, moving to draft space etc. would all be fine. I was also looking to see if there was consensus of notability, so we didn't end up with a third AfD on the same page, but looks like this isn't the place for that. — Bilorv(c)(talk)09:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but userfy - given that even the Nom agrees that the original close was correct, as well as everyone's own check, that seems reasonable to take as given. Since we have gone this approach, and DELREVIEW can userfy, and that seems to solve the issue - let's do that. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Endorse the !votes can be summarised thus: 2 Keep, 4 Merge, 2 Keep/Merge, 1 Delete/Merge. It's a little difficult, reading through, to grasp what level some !votes were suitably justified - they all have arguments, but some are not explained/supported. In any case, I would say that in the event of a K/M or D/M, and no indication they would specify if given further time (2 weeks in 2 cases), it is reasonable to say those saying so have had sufficient time and discussion. If so, then a lack of specification can reasonably be taken to be accepting of either option. That said, the !vote numbers condense to 4 Keep:7 Merge. Now I don't know if that was then further affected by argument weight, but it seems a reasonable consensus was demonstrated. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close – Over the discussion, a consensus has developed to merge. Closer made a correct assessment of the arguments. As OP, I also support the merge. — JFGtalk04:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft deleted as "advertising". Admin has refused to provide any explanation. Not only should it be restored to draftspace, but it belongs in mainspace. The New York Times article is very substantial coverage. I know Wikipedia doesn't like Blacks let alone Republicans but this censorship is disgusting and cannot be allowed to stand. I understand that articles on candidates are disfavored but General Notability is clearly met and this is a major national race and this individual has already won the major party primary and received very substantial coverage. We have several articles on Democrat House candidates (this man is a Senate candidate which is a much more powerful office). Being the wrong party and skin color should not be a limitation. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:G11. I doubt this would pass AfD; WP:NPOL says candidates for office are not inherently notable, but there's enough WP:RS in the article that it's possible he might pass based on WP:GNG. The draft was not so blatantly promotional that WP:G11 applied. On the other hand, User:FloridaArmy really needs to tone it down. This was an over-eager WP:CSD, nothing more. There's absolutely no indication that this is politically or racially motivated. Such insinuations are way out of line. -- RoySmith(talk)00:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on notability. This individual passes GNG. More generally, the nominated candidates of the two major parties in a pending U.S. Senate race are going to be notable, and any guideline that suggests the contrary may need to be reassessed. I agree that the nom’s accusations of bias are unwarranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding notability: before the campaign, John James appears to have been a low-profile businessman, no more notable than the Arkansas businessman John James. The common outcome at AfD is to redirect these pages to the article on the campaign in this situation. To change that would probably require an RfC. I note that the standard assumption at AfD that campaign coverage isn't sufficient to meet WP:GNG without having some elected office or non-campaign coverage doesn't appear to be based in policy, only the non-policy WP:OUTCOMES. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete the article, as it stands, fails a BLP source check (on top of NPOL/GNG). I don't mind a redirect, but I believe I declined a draft of this article earlier today from another user. SportingFlyertalk 06:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
If there was a BLP issue, leave deleted, otherwise undelete the history but protect the redirect. These NPOL failures can be regarded as premature spinouts from the election page. A policy covering this sort is thing is desirable, as a drive to create biographies for every ambitious candidate is to be expected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, yes, and pinged you also to give you the chance to re-assert that there was a BLP violation. If true, depending on the level of violation, the history should not be undeleted. NB. I have not seen it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at a number of the deleted revisions. I didn't notice anything which would be a WP:BLP violation. Could you be more specific? Maybe post a revision timestamp, and I'll look at it. -- RoySmith(talk)21:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I'm sorry, I can't - I don't know how to access the history here, and a tag search on my contributions brought up nothing. My guess was I probably thought there was some sort of citation issue. SportingFlyertalk13:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no worries. It's pretty obvious this is going to get restored. Take another look at it then, and if you find what you were concerned about, let me (or any other admin) know and it can be suppressed if necessary. -- RoySmith(talk)13:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this draft was egregious enough to be a G11 either, but FloridaArmy, you should be aware that a new user rewrote it into something much, much closer to that bar shortly before it was deleted. It's understandable you're upset that an administrator considered the neutral draft you wrote spammy enough to delete; that's not, however, the version RHaworth was looking at. —Cryptic05:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Restore first, it's not G11; second, I think major party candidates for Senates certainly, and House probably, should be considered notable--we rarely do an adequate job of searching before we delete. Like NYB, we need to reconsider the guideline. . DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - it's not anything resembling a valid G11. "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" would look like ad copy - a puff piece about the man. This is just a stub with a few basic biographical facts. --B (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not remotely a G11, especially in draft space. I also doubt the subject is notable, unelected candidates aren't usually considered notable and the polling for the race suggests he's likely to lose heavily. Accusations of racism are unfounded, this is just a case of an admin pushing a button when he shouldn't have. Hut 8.506:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As User:Bearcatwrote in 2016, "I foresee the definite danger that if we do that, it will be deemed as establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can always be kept in draftspace pending the results of the election — so then draftspace would turn into exactly the repository of campaign brochures for political candidates that we're trying to prevent mainspace from becoming." I presume this comment led to the deletion of the draft article. That said, we must be careful with how we deal with current political candidates generally. The community consensus (which can always change) is that unelected candidates who receive coverage only because of their campaign for public office, are not notable outside of the their campaign.
There are several reasons for this - first, in many cases, candidates for elective office are low-profile individuals before and after their campaign, and any relevant, verifiable biographical information can be added to the relevant election page. Second, Wikipedia should not become a place for campaign propaganda, where a subject's article is full of campaign slogans and issues. Third, as a community, we can and should not make determinations between major and minor candidates. --Enos733 (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of that. However, Bearcat said that in the context of a an AfD discussion, which is the correct place to be discussing notability. This was a WP:SPEEDY, where, due to the fact that a single person is making the decision on their own, the criteria need to be strictly enforced. There is no WP:CSD which says, fails WP:NPOL. -- RoySmith(talk)16:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I do not think that any of the nominated candidates for US Senate form the two major political parties have ever been a low profile individual. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the CSD - G11 isn't breached (and it would have to breached via both major history options to count as such). God knows why we are discussing all this candidate stuff here, which would be an even worse forum than an AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Normally, undeleting and userfying something like this would be a no-brainer. But, the AfD raised concerns that this was a hoax. The source cited above does not appear to be a WP:RS, and (via the auto-translation) says, The release date is still unknown. So, I'm not excited about undeleting this. -- RoySmith(talk)20:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - DTF indicates that the information is reliable. As a way, the article must not be just undeleted, but moved to user namespace to rework. This is not a hoax, but the information is not enough to restore the page back to main namespace. 46.72.30.254 (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move to drafts: verefiability of the article confirmed, but number of RS are not enough to save the article as a page in main namespace. 46.72.24.21 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and close: nominator was indefinited but this case does not meet to deletion policy. Find out another user, who can save this page on drafts. KornerMatrix (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
In the above deletion discussion, I voted keep and provided multiple published sources to satisfy the notability guideline. The subsequent comments don't argue notability, but instead the quality of the current article (with one user suggesting it be merged into Tezuka's article). However, AFD is not cleanup! It is only meant to discuss notability and this article was clearly notable. That's why I'm really perplexed about how it was allowed to be pushed into incubation. No specific user said they would work on the article in draftspace, and lo and behold Draft:Story manga was deleted six months later for being abandoned. Why is this allowed to happen? A clearly notable article, albeit in a bad state, was pushed off into a space where no one would obviously edit it, which is tantamount to deletion anyway. Now we not only have no placeholder article readers can use and improve in the meantime, but no one will know it ever existed because it was just pushed under the rug and silently deleted, despite many references proving its notability. Opencooper (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts deleted by G13 can be restored on request if there are no critical problems. I have therefore done so. You have two options: develop the draft by adding references and addressing other problems noted in the AfD, or merge the material into the article on on Tezuka. I think the decision could be based on whether there are 3rd party references independent of Tezuka or his work. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see I closed the AfD. I'm confused; if you wanted the article, why didn't you work on improving the draft? That's the whole point of draft space; to give people a chance to work on fixing substandard articles so they can be moved back to mainspace. Not fixing it, and then complaining that nobody else fixed it, is disingenuous. -- RoySmith(talk)11:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly acceptable to move an article to draft space if it's on an encyclopedic topic but the content currently there has serious problems. AfD isn't "only meant to discuss notability", there are other reasons why articles are deleted at AfD, some of which you can see raised in this one (the original research concerns and the view that the subject should be better covered in a different article). If you feel the topic should have a standalone article then you can improve the content to address the concerns and it can be moved back to mainspace. Hut 8.518:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Story manga has been restored; as always, anyone may promote it to the mainspace at anytime provided it is "not substantially identical to the [draftified] version" (quoted from G4). On a side note: @Opencooper: If you plan to work on this draft, I would recommend reading WP:DUD and then considering userfication (the redirect would remain intact for those who might search for it in the draftspace). — Godsy (TALKCONT)07:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kane Tanaka – This is not a venue to repeat the AFD discussion; it is an opportunity to examine whether the subsequent AFD close appropriately judged consensus, rooted in policy. There's a consensus here that it did not, and that the closure was an inappropriate reading of the consensus. The closure is therefore overturned as no consensus and the article restored. Fish+Karate10:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much like Chiyo Miyako below, this was closed as delete despite the consensus being for keep, or at least no consensus. She is currently the world's oldest person, but there seems to be a group of editors that wants to delete most supercentenarian articles. The AfD's closer, User:Spartaz, pretty much gave an WP:IDONTLIKEIT response and said the arguments for meeting GNG had been refuted time and time again by delete voters. This is patently false if we examine the sources provided. While some were routine, not all were. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 15:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Closer correctly dismissed most "keep" !votes that just blandly asserted that this person should be automatically notable because of her great age. This is not based on any policy or guideline. All sources boil down to routine coverage. AFD is not a vote, so the numbers of "I like it" !votes were correctly dismissed. Disclosure: I was the nom of this contested AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The number of I like it votes is around three. Several votes mentioned the news coverage of her, including a Newsweek article on her. One user speculated that this was based on the Wikipedia article, which is untrue. It seems that non-english sources were casually dismissed. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources went beyond WP:ROUTINE and nothing beyond some trivia could be sourced on them, apart from date of birth/birthplace, which can easily be accomodated in a list article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn An outrageous supervote contrary to WP:DGFA, "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete". The raw voting was 21 Keep, 5 Delete and 4 Delete or Merge/Redirect. The outcome of "delete and redirect" was advocated by just about nobody in the well-attended discussion and so was obviously not the consensus view. Andrew D. (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as I said in the similar DRV below I think you can reasonably argue that being the world's oldest person is a "well-known and significant award or honor", which WP:BIO recognises as evidence of notability. This means the main keep argument isn't baseless and given the heavy numerical majority I don't think it can be closed as delete. Given that the subject is from a non-English speaking country we should give more weight to SNGs then if she wasn't. Hut 8.518:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an "award or honor". Nobody decides to make you the oldest person, nor is it something that you work hard for to attain. It's something that just happens to you. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true, there are organisations which attempt to figure out who the world's oldest person is and certify somebody as being the world's oldest. It is a major achievement of the type which an average person would consider to be significant. You don't have to agree with this, but you can't ignore the fact that the bulk of the people who took part in the AfD disagreed with your position. The closing admin shouldn't override that unless there is a strong, compelling reason for doing so. I'm not seeing one here. Hut 8.518:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an "achievement", it just happens. For someone to win, say, the Tour de France, they'd have to train hard for years in order to achieve that. That's an achievement. However, even if this were not the case, being "good" or "bad" or achieving something does nto automatically mean that a subject merits an article. There must be something of note to fill the article. All of note that we have here is date of birth... All the breathless "but it's a supercentenarian!" doesn't change that. --Randykitty (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work like that. We don't get to decide not to have an article on someone because editors don't consider their accomplishments to be sufficiently worthy. All our notability standards are phrased in terms of what other people consider to be important or significant. I agree that merely being a supercentenerian does not create any sort of notability, but that's not the argument here. Hut 8.520:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the argument here, that being a supercentenarian makes one notable and that we therefore should have an article filled with trivia. My argument is 1/ Coverage is only routine and any notability is related to the one event of reaching a high age. 2/ Even if the preivous argument is held to be invalid and the subject is judged to be notable, we do not have anything to write except some trivia. Notability does not mean that we must have an article. --Randykitty (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anybody in the AfD arguing that being a supercentenarian makes somebody notable. There are plenty of people arguing that being the oldest person in the world makes someone notable, but that's a much stronger claim. Supercentenarian includes estimates that there are hundreds of supercentenarians alive at any one time and that over 1,500 have been documented. Very few of those people will attain the status of being the oldest in the world. I can see your argument regarding notability, but the balance of opinion in the AfD was against that view and to overrule this we would need to accept that the counterargument was so flawed it should be given minimal weight. I don't think it's that bad. If you base an argument on the article content being "trivia" then it becomes harder to ignore the majority opinion because trivia is a lot more subjective than notability. Hut 8.521:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose as Keep This was another ridiculous deletion with the overwhelming majority voting Keep the closer User:Spartaz along with User:Sandstein who closed the Chiyo Miyako AFD have a history of bias against longevity related articles and ignored the arguments made by people who voted Keep. Tanaka clearly passed WP:Basic and WP:GNG. Drunk in Paris (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted in the AfD so will not be voting in the deletion review, but the closing of this article is consistent with the current status of the other article recently at deletion review, which redirected the limited biographical information to another page. AfD is not a vote. SportingFlyertalk23:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the deleted content, but at this point my reading of the AfD is that "keep" would have been defendable, "no consensus" very easily defendable, "redirect" defendable and within admin discretion (but not NAC discretion), but that there was not a consensus for "delete". There were many "delete" !votes that were really "merge" votes, all the "notable"/"ONEVENT"/"NOPAGE" !votes, and many delete !votes were weak. The nominator's statement was even consistent with "Redirect and protect". So many delete !votes were failing WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. It was understandable that the strong and common "not independently notable" sentiments being rejected by others meant that an AfD discussion was needed for the formality. I am leaning to Overturn to "Redirect with history intact and protect", but I really should look at the deleted history first, just in case it was worse than what anyone in the AfD actually said. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the history under the redirect. I can't see any reason it should have been deleted before redirecting. The only reason to do that is in cases of WP:BLP, copyright, or other serious issues which make it impossible to host the content on a wikimedia server. If it's just a lack of notability, leaving the history intact and redirecting is the usual practice. -- RoySmith(talk)11:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would agree, it’s just a notability issue (much as many AfD !voters argued), nothing more, there is no reason to to stretch the discussion close to a consensus to delete. Much more than a stretch. I’m guessing the motivation to delete was to enforce the decision, noting the article was recently created (recreated??) and the general controversy over old people articles. If that was the concern, the solution is to protect the redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gingerly suggest that because these closures were made by very experienced admins, this might not be as straightforward and ridiculous as you would think at first sight. --Randykitty (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse since Spartaz properly weighed the comments that staving off death for an abnormally long time inherently generates notability. The comparisons to athletics are grossly misguided, and speak to the problem I raised at the Chiyo Miyako DRV; happening to live for some arbitrary length of time does not confer notability unless independent, secondary sources discuss it in non-trivial coverage. The keep votes did not explain what coverage actually met that threshold. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The delete !votes didn't explain why sources in the article don't meet that requirement. We have an article in Newsweek (for example) focused on this person. There aren't a massive number of details, but generally speaking, Newsweek counts as an "independent secondary source" and being the topic of the article makes the coverage "non-trivial". There are a number of sources like that linked in the article. None stellar but coverage isn't "trivial" even if it mainly covers what you consider to be trivial parts of her life. Hobit (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two sentences in a long Newsweek article about longevity is hardly significant coverage, though, and the Newsweek source was rebutted in the AfD. SportingFlyertalk05:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC. A redirect without delete might also have been reasonable (and what I'd have !voted for as I think editorially it's the right outcome). But there clearly are sources that cover her (the Newsweek article, for example, has a couple of paragraphs though they are quite fluffy) so I don't agree arguments that she meets WP:N can be entirely discarded. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The deletion of this Wiki article is a blatant example of supervote and a total disregard of the AfD process and its purpose. There was no consensus for delete, and, in fact, it was quite the opposite. Overturn to keep or NC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - There was no consensus to delete the article. The timing of the close is of interest, because at the end a consecutive stream of keep !votes were clearly establishing momentum. Agree with the supervote complaints. A classic example of a wrongheaded closure following a flawed AFD nomination. Endorsers utterly fail to convince me. Jusdafax (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Many keep !votes actually asserted that the subject met the requirements of the GNG (especially in the later half of the discussion); this was not represented in the closer's comment. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)21:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is nothing notable about Tanaka living longer then is typical for humans and we don't even know if she actually even is the worlds oldest living person. All she is is the person at the top of the GRG's list, while reliable sources state there are other living people older then her, such as Tava Colo. The article was full of fan trivia and provided nothing encyclopedically useful that doesn't fit snuggly into a table, where it's more easily viewed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources say Tava Colo is older - it is not for us to determine on our own who the oldest is. In time, Guinness will announce who the oldest is, which very well might not be Tanaka. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm trying to be impartial as I've edited pages in this topic a bit, I'd still personally vote Overturn, per reasons given by nominator and others above. If the page isn't kept, then the content previously held there should become A SECTION of the List of Japanese supercentenarians page. As mentioned above by SmokeyJoe, "[...] "keep" would have been defendable, "no consensus" very easily defendable, "redirect" defendable and within admin discretion (but not NAC discretion), but that there was not a consensus for "delete"." Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - clearly a WP:IDONTLIKEIT supervote, by someone with a bias against longevity articles no less. The article was improved significantly over the course of the AfD, and Kane Tanaka does meet the GNG anyway - I'm not suggesting an article about every single supercentenarian as that would lead to hundreds of articles about various barely-notable-at-best people who just happened to make it to a certain age, but there should be an article about the oldest verified living person as that is very much a notable title so to speak and is a topic of significant public interest (note the news coverage across the globe whenever the oldest living person dies). Up to and including Nabi Tajima, every oldest living person dating back to 1987 has an article, so while some people frown upon WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, they do bring up a valid point in showing that the deletions of articles on Chiyo Miyako and now Kane Tanaka present a double standard. Delma Kollar is considered notable enough for an article even though she, at 114, was over a year younger at her death than Tanaka's current age (Kollar not even being in the top 100 oldest people of all time as of this writing) and never made it higher than the fourth oldest living person. What I'm gleaning from these recent AfD's is "supercentenarians from the 90s and 00s are better than current supercentenarians", which is complete nonsense - hopefully whoever closes this actually reads through and picks up on the actual consensus as opposed to overriding it based on his or her own dislike for Kane Tanaka. 65HCA713:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your referring to "bias" from the closer and insinuations that "delete" !votes were based on some dislike of Tanaka are insulting. Come up with proof of bias or strike those comments. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about an almost 3 year gap though, its just interesting how consensus changes on some things. Why are some articles about really old people kept while others aren't? Would the oldest person currently living in country x automatically warrant an article for example? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep - I'm missing the policy-based reason for a delete - the GNG is met. Certainly, the view expressed by a strong consensus of !voters in the AFD that the oldest living person is inherently notable is a valid, reasonable view and should not have been disregarded. --B (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is twofold. One, as is documented above and at the Chiyo Miyako DRV, this area is beset with SPAs who have badly distorted the actual consensus on this. Secondly, the reasoning is circular; being old is inherently notable because it's notable for someone to be old, not because actual secondary sources are producing meaningful coverage of said person. The sources are of no substance, and the new ones here don't significantly change that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think that it would be baffling that the outcome desired by two-thirds of the participants would be baffling even if you felt the endorse side had the stronger argument (which I suspect we disagree about). Hobit (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It looks to me that a notability argument of "keep" is defensible: there are some arguably adequate sources (at least [6] and [7] and maybe more, I haven't looked). Of course some people may quite reasonably think these fall below GNG requirements. On policy issues I am also seeing that opinions may reasonably differ. WP:BLP1E is likely to be the strongest argument but even here we are instructed on what "[w]e generally should avoid" so people may think this article is a situation where we may legitimately decide that avoidance it not necessary. A lot of "keep" arguments do seem to based on inherent notability (WP:ILIKEIT) but I suspect quite a lot of those complaining about these !votes do not realise the extent to which they are disclosing their own WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitudes. It is, therefore, very difficult for a closer to weigh up all this. My natural inclination would be to say that any close ranging from "delete" to "keep" would all be within reasonable, though broad, discretion. However, as the AFD nominator said, "redirect" was a possibility, indeed the title is a likely search term. I therefore think that all the "deletes" should be construed as "redirects". Fine, that's how Spartaz closed it but then he went and deleted as well. There was no argument put forward that the content was abusive – the content should not have been deleted on the closer's personal decision. I think the deletion aspect of the close should be overturned. I can't personally decide between favouring a close of "redirect" or "no consensus" combined with protection if it turns out to be necessary. Thincat (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A number of folks here appear to be interested in relitigating the AfD. This isn't the place for that. The question here is did the closing admin read consensus correctly? and the answer is yes, they did. Admins have to enforce policies and guidelines as they are written. Claiming that being the world's oldest is inherently notable isn't codified anywhere, and as such should be given little weight in an AfD. And if that sounds bureaucratic, please remember that we need our guidelines to be created by the community at large, not ad hoc in an obscure AFD. If you strongly believe that being the world's oldest (known) person is inherently notable, then begin a discussion to make this a WP:SNG. Until then, this argument must be given little weight. Vanamonde (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we do that, when there was no such discussion for the notability of the world's shortest, tallest, and heaviest people? SBHarris23:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed that somebody could read that AfD and conclude that it was "approaching consensus that WP:N was met"... Now of course if you ignore everything that Vanamonde has said, yeah, then you might arrive at a different conclusion. I gingerly suggest that it is not very helpful to ignore well-founded arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something that I'm missing in Spartaz's closing argument? He stated that "claims of adequate sourcing have been well refuted". We go by policy and guidelines when it comes to notability, not opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He did state that. But that wasn't the consensus of the discussion. There were a number of sources provided and while some found some of them insufficient, others disagreed. AuthorAuthor for example countered the "local" argument (a California paper isn't local coverage for someone living in Japan). Hobit (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth pointing out again that the close came after a consecutive string of keep !votes. I am not charging bad faith, but the timing was poor, to say the least. In contrast, this page has been now been open two weeks, when the admin instructions state that one week is standard. Here we have another dubious situation, especially since, as I see it, a close to endorse sets a deletionist-weighted precedent across the Wiki. A decision needs to be made here in a timely manner, and I urge the closer to consider these factors. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, a "string of keep !votes" based solidly on policy like: "She is the oldest living person in the world. Revisit when she dies, given that she isn't anywhere near being the oldest person ever (she'll be irrelevant)." Yup, that one tipped the scale. --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per [8]. The only new issue would be that this is PRESENTLY a living person (hence a BLP is considered) and BLP1E may apply if the person shuns all publicity and wants to be left alone, and thus is a "private person" and not a public personality while she is alive. (This changes some decent time after her demise). As for extreme documented age being "inherently notable," that's ridiculous to hold otherwise when WP has lists of shortest, tallest, heaviest people ever and in various countries (none of them achievements but all medically interesting), with a number of these people have BIOS based on the one fact alone. (We have a BIO of the tallest person in Puerto Rico, for example). I would direct the deletionist armies to all these BIOS and let them hack away. If they can get them all killed, then I will listen when they come back to OLDEST PEOPLE. SBHarris23:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we have WP:WAX. if you want to go down that route then why was Anna Eliza Williams deleted? "Being the oldest person in the world does not grant an automatic notability presumption." Kane's article contained (name, nationality, age, birth/death dates) that are also easily displayed on a list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can note WP:WAX or WP:OSE all you like, but in fact precedent is a major way in which the WP community "discovers" consensus in murky WP:N questions. We even have for this purpose a list of "common outcomes" for WP:N debates which includes examples of things now generally decided as "keep": [9]. It is there so you can look at it, and not just mumble "OSE." The illustrative examples certainly cannot be logically figured out from the five pillars. The reason we look at president is that WP "consensus" isn't just a matter of who shows up on a given page on a given day. It needs a larger presence over time and content which must transcend ephemeral (and soon forgotten) arguments between a few dozen people about some small thing, if we are to have any basic harmony in a work written by untold thousands over a generation now (and counting). WP does have its own version of stare decisis, and it is not trumped by the ever misused WP:OSE (a self-contradictory essay I wish had never been written). Precedent and prior examples of consensus and arbcom rulings, in fact, are how we got all these legalistic guidelines everybody keeps quoting. Most of them didn't even exist in 2005 when I started here. Somebody invented them, and other people saluted them. Finally the last holdouts had to shut up, or else were blocked and even banned for disruption. That's the way WP works, to the extent that it works at all. It doens't work by IAR, but only occasionally pays lip service to it. I think for the humor. SBHarris07:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I linked you to arguments to avoid in AfD by referring to WP:WAX, the closer I'm sure takes these things into account. This section in turn links to WP:INN, and WP:E=N, yes these are essays but the point is that referring to other articles has also been discussed on Wikipedia in regards to AfD outcomes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Canvassing?" Notices are often posted to editors/admins' talk pages if they have worked on an article that is AfD'd in case they want to participate. A standard Wiki notice is hardly an example of canvassing. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this on the talk page of an editor who did not participate in the AfD, nor the DRV, nor edited the article. Check for yourself... --Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notifications were left for participants in the Chiyo Miyako DRV who supported overturning the AfD result. That definitely looks like inappropriate canvassing to me. Hut 8.518:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Umar Khalid – Nothing left to do here. As far as I can see, the page has been recreated, and the protections on both the article and talk pages have been removed, so I think we're done here. -- RoySmith(talk)20:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I'm not needed for this discussion, since I merely handled a protection request. If the DRV ends with consensus to restore, then the same admin who restores the article can undo my protection of the title. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Allow Recreation, considering that new events have occurred that give the subject probable notability, although the draft looks like a stub at the moment. funplussmart (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure if I would accept that draft, but there is at least a plausible claim for notability that didn't exist when the article was last deleted. I've therefore lowered the protection to semi-protected and would suggest that this can be handled by AfC/AfD as normal. – Joe (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
endorse The discussion was clearly for delete, maybe redirect (which one could still do). Looking at a Google scholar search I'm only seeing two papers, by the same group, on the topic. And news coverage is very limited at this time. So topic probably doesn't meet WP:N due to the lack of independent sources. That said, I think a redirect would be reasonable at this time (and not in violation of the spirit of the AfD). And once we start seeing independent coverage (ideally both in scholarly work and in the press (probably Science News or something)) then recreation would be reasonable. Hobit (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment Known as ferrolens in academia however in public domain it is known as ferrocell which more than 12,000 instances and more than 5,000 youtube videos and DIY for example here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zEWJzglN0 and here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHTwS6Cxr50 . Also ferrolens or else ferrocell closely related and variation to a Hele-Shaw cell WP article entry which has many entries in google scholar. References [2] and [3] are using it without mentioning its name directly in the title. Reference [3] has 36 instances of the name ferrocell in the body-text and reference [2] is using the Hele-Shaw cell name instead. Notable enough in academia and very much so in public domain whereas other related existing WP articles have no academic references like this, magnetic viewer film. That is injustice and not fair play. Ferrolens or else Ferrocell device is already 10 years around first patented at 2008, https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246356B2/en and has a strong community around from public domain and as well know from academia. Also present in science conferences, lately won best poster awards in magneto optics topic at the San Francisco International Conference for Magnetism (http://www5.each.usp.br/premios/professores-da-each-se-destacam-em-conferencia-sobre-magnetismo-nos-estados-unidos/). Since Afds are not votes. I don't see with less than 10 participants and so many opposite opinions present this to be consensus?... Please Relist at least. 147.95.130.109 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC) — 147.95.130.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Endorse I count 11 participants, other than the sockpuppet. That's plenty, AfDs can be closed with three if they all agree. Most participants favoured deletion and the ones who wanted it merged didn't seem that enthusiastic. The close doesn't prevent you from redirecting the title somewhere else or writing about the topic in another article if appropriate. We don't care how long it's been around or how many times it's mentioned on YouTube. Hut 8.517:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose speedy procedural close. Per Newslinger's links, the filing IP has self-identified as a sock of article creator Markoulw, who is indef-blocked. As such, this whole discussion is the result of their block evasion. Even if this were to be disregarded, given the lopsidedness of both the original AfD and this discussion, it seems to me a WP:SNOW close would be in order. --Finngalltalk20:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chiyo Miyako – The result was overturn to no consensus. Whilst many editors agreed that Sandstein was correct in discounting keep !votes that were not rooted in policy, the majority view is that closing the discussion as delete went too far in the other direction. The article has since been restored, merged and redirected to list of Japanese supercentenarians anyway, which is not inconsistent with either close, so in the end it is something of a moot point. – – Joe (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The raw !voting was 16 keep; 4.5 delete; 1.5 redirect. To claim that there was a consensus to delete offends commonsense and natural justice. The close was contrary to the guidance of WP:DGFA, "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete."
The supposed reason for ignoring all those keep votes was that they were variations on the idea "anybody who is among the oldest persons is automatically notable". That claim was false as I and several others cited WP:BASIC, which is a standard notability guideline, and gave examples of sources providing coverage. The logic of the close was that of the straw man -- only cherry-picking one argument and ignoring all others.
The closer suggested that the keep voters go and hold another discussion to establish their position. That advice is erroneous because this discussion was already well-attended by a variety of experienced editors and so holding another discussion would be contrary to WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:NOTLAW.
Endorse close. I was the nom on this case. The closer, IMHO, quite justifiedly dismissed a (admittedly large) number of !votes that claimed notability based on the age of the subject alone, which is not based in any policy or guideline. In addition, WP:NOPAGE applied, as there was basically nothing of interest to write about, apart from the subject's birthdate/birthplace and dead date/death place. AFD is not a vote, so the numerical majority of non-policy/guideline-based !votes was justified. --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - There was nothing in the article other than that she was born, became the oldest person in the world, then died. WP:NOPAGE applied as the only other content was that she enjoyed eating eel. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the close here is based on the statement that WP:BIO doesn't recognise any age-based presumption of notability. I think that's at least debatable. The subject of the article was the oldest (verified) person in the world, and WP:BIO does allow "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". I think this arguably qualifies. In any case I don't think this argument is bad enough to be discounted with a sizeable numerical majority. Hut 8.517:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was/is that there was/is no bio on the person. Right now she is listed under "World's oldest verified people" with her date of birth and date of death, what else would you have included? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The close was based on notability grounds. If it's just an editorial judgement about how to best present the content then it's a lot harder to ignore the fact that most people in the AfD did not agree with that position. Oh, and being the oldest person in the world is not an "event". WP:ONEVENT isn't a general catch-all about people whose notability derives from one thing. Hut 8.519:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose as keep this kind of supervote should not be tolerated. Conjure up whatever justification you want, but I'm not going to side with an admin who discards such a sizable consensus. Lepricavark (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close – Once WP:ILIKEIT arguments were discarded (super-old ≠ notable), the discussion clearly did not support the maintenance of an individual article for this particular supercentenarian. A redirect to the list would probably have been a better solution, and this is what later spontaneously happened. Wikipedia is fine, Chiyo-san is documented, and we can move on. — JFGtalk18:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - There was nothing close to consensus here. The closer had a viewpoint and chose to overrule the community. Dismissing votes without a valid argument is one thing, but many of these made policy-based assertions, which were nevertheless dismissed because they didn't match the closer's prejudices.Jacona (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undelete. A large variety of !votes were given during the AfD discussion. They were ignored and lumped together, as if those editors were one and not 16 individual editors. This felt like a strong-arming and hijacking of an AfD, with a total dismissal of a variety of editors citing valid reasons to keep the article per standard notability guidelines. It did not matter, however, what those presenting reasons to keep the article said. The decision had clearly been made despite valid reasons for keeping. The age of the subject was NOT the only reason given for keeping the article, and saying that does not make it so. The article met WP:Basic and WP:GNG. The way this was closed flies in the face of what AfDs are intended to do. The AfD was hijacked and closed as Delete. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. There was no article here (WP:NOPAGE) except information on her birth date, death date, age, what she liked to eat and she liked to travel. The last two are mere fan trivia of no encyclopedic value. The admin was correct in closing as delete. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close We've been here a number of times. The vast majority of the Keep votes did not reference any policy whereby being very old means someone is notable (which is unsurprising because no such policy or guideline exists). Also, a number of people here seem to be under the impression that XfD is a vote and whoever gets the most votes wins. Which, again, is false. Practically no imformation has been lost here, because the article now redirects to a page which contains all the important facts that were contained in the original article. Obviously, if sources showing more coverage of her before her death could be unearthed, that would be good, but this was not done during the AfD, so it was unsurprising it was closed as it was. Black Kite (talk)18:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there are 20 bad keep arguments, 10 good ones and 5 delete arguments, there still isn't consensus for deletion. The bad keep arguments don't somehow negate the good ones, which seems to be where you and the closer are heading. And the delete arguments, on the whole, just argued "not automatically notable". Which while true, doesn't address the WP:N argument for keeping (which was made by more people than made any argument for deletion...) Hobit (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. An AfD discussion is not a vote. A large quantity of !votes with no basis in policies or guidelines should not take precedence over even a single sound argument supported by a policy or a guideline. — Newslingertalk21:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as the close failed to similarly discount arguments to WP:NOTINTERESTING made by delete !votes. It is not up to us to judge what reliable sources found worthy of note. If the Associated Press says that eating eel and sushi is notable and Newsweek found that travelling with her husband is notable, who are we to override that and say it is not. As several of the keep !votes pointed out, and were ignored, the article met the guidelines of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. My vote which ended with "the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources" was summarily ignored. It is no surprise that my fears that significant information would be lost were fully realized. Notable information sourced from reliable sources were erased from Wikipedia only on the argument that it is not interesting.--- Coffeeandcrumbs21:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm trying to be impartial as I participated in the discussion and supported keeping it: even if I supported deleting it, I'd personally vote overturn. While the delete voters made pretty strong points, it wasn't really a consensus in any way. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Yeah, a lot of the keep !votes were week, but most of the delete !votes were not much better. I don't appreciate my own well-reasoned comment (which amounted to "there's a lot more usable media in Japanese covering her as the oldest person in Kanagawa than is being noted by the delete !votes") being thrown out because some others who !voted keep had weaker arguments and because something else I said happened to look kinda similar to the weaker argument that other editors made later. That said, I'm a bit concerned about Andrew's counter-policy stance, not just here but overall: is he going to open a deletion review every time the majority is overruled? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-ish, maybe overturn and relist. I think this is a fine enough close, although I might have relisted it with some version of the close in the text, as there was/is clearly a healthy discussion ongoing. Sandstein clearly laid out their rationale, and while some of the arguments made in that close are a little close to opining as a participant, I think it's reasonable to find a delete outcome in the discussion below it. Not for nothing, but if I had to choose, I'd probably have !voted to keep, for essentially the same, weak reasons as those provided in the AfD. ~ Amory(u • t • c)00:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with pretty much all of the above, and I think Andrew is essentially gaming the system in order to undermine WP:NOTDEMOCRACY in a case where it didn't go his way (which hardly ever happens at AFD). Notifying everyone who already !voted in the AFD gives everyone, the majority of whom didn't want the page deleted, an opportunity to modify their previous comments post-close in order to retroactively pretend like the close was baseless. The problem here is I agree with Andrew on whether the article in question should be redirected/deleted in this case, and I think that there were enough reasonable "keep" arguments to rule out the NOTDEMOCRACY/OSE rationale for deleting. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Being the oldest verified person in the world is a powerful claim of notabilty which has not been refuted. There is a very big difference between being just another supercentennarian and being the world's oldest verified person. Incorrect statements about the article content are being made in this very discussion, which is quite sad. In addition to birth and death places and dates, the article had biographical information including that she did not smoke, her dietary preferences, her long time avocation of calligraphy, her marriage, her husband's career, and their travels together. This biographical prose has been lost (temporarily I hope) due to this deletion. The article was in full compliance with our core content policies, and as Hijiri 88 points out, there are Japanese language sources available for possible expansion. The closer failed to take into account my criticism of "delete" !votes who cited "policies" that are actually guidelines (I got accused of wikilawyering for observing that fact) and for using judgmental language such as "hobbyists", "fancruft" and "silly permastub". The failure of the closer to discount this type of rhetoric by the advocates of deletion is really quite troubling. The notion that topics like this must comply with subject specific notability guidelines is also troubling. There are countless notable topics that are not covered by such guidelines and we continue to write acceptable articles about topics completely outside subject specific guidelines, and that is entirely appropriate. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is no established policy I can find saying one is automatically notable for being the oldest person in the world which the vast majority of keep votes were based on and the closer correctly identified. It's not clear from the AfD the article satisfies WP:GNG, either, as sources don't really get discussed - so much of the discussion was about the presumption of notability instead of sourcing. SportingFlyertalk03:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, no such policy exists and those arguing it should be that way are, at best, making an IAR argument. That said, keep !voters claimed that the sources met WP:N and I don't think anyone disputed that. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Most people who vote 'close' here seem to have an apparent incapability or unwillingness to perform proper research, or are too focused on sources in the English language. If one took the trouble to delve into Japanese material, one would actually find this book[1] (called "Stories of One-Hundred-Year-Olds"), which included an entire chapter about her when she was 102. Undoubtedly, more information about Mrs Miyako's life is available in this book. In addition, there are sources dating back to 2012, such as this one[2], that already referred to Mrs Miyako, showing that there is definitely more material available. Thus, I think it is saddening to see that so many contributors here solely focus on sources in the English language and seem to think that the world ends there. Fortunately, much more is available on the web. Fiskje88 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. She was apparently "locally famous" -- in the largest city in Japan -- for a lot longer, so the AFD nominator's reasoning, that she was "only" the oldest person on earth for a few months, was void from the start. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the arguments of the people who wish to delete this article is that there was not much coverage in the media. I am only pointing out that there are more sources that have not been delved into yet. Moreover, what in the sources that I have provided states that she was only "locally famous"? As far as I am aware, a book which is published is usually available in a larger part of the world than only "the largest city in Japan" (nice to see that you know your geography regarding Yokohama). Fiskje88 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. Being "locally famous" can be enough to merit a Wikipedia article if the sources are there. She is locally famous in one of the largest urban centers in Japan. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn She was the WOP, the 8th verified oldest person ever, the 2nd verified oldest Japanese person ever, the last remaining verified person to be born in 1902 and one of only nine verified people to have reached the age of 117. She wasn't just another supercentenarian. RightGot (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder – Deletion review is not the place to re-litigate the dispute. Please focus your comments on checking whether the closer did a proper evaluation of arguments presented in the discussion. — JFGtalk14:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda stepping on my own earlier point there. But it's not relitigating to point out that that the original AFD included good keep arguments that the closer dismissed because some of what they (we) said resembles a weaker argument others made later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I was not addressing your well-reasoned comments pointing out sources for her notability in Japan, rather people who just come here to say "This can't be right: the world's oldest person is automatically notable." — JFGtalk09:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to keep There is a BLP1E argument for deletion that can be made here and would be reasonable. But the closer appeared to ignore the arguments that said that WP:N was met and instead focused on a single, bogus IMO, argument about age being some form of automatic notability. Even if we entirely throw out those "automatic notability" arguments (but keeping in mind that some who made the claim that 'oldest' is enough, went on to note that WP:N is met) there is a strong still a enough argument for keeping (sources, meeting WP:N) that wasn't refuted. I could certainly have accepted a NC outcome based on BLP1E arguments not being addressed by the keep voters. But given the numbers and strength of argument (deletes mostly didn't touch BLP1E), this should be a keep even though NC would be within discretion IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC) updated for clarity Hobit (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC Just as we make by consensus the policy and the guidelines, we make the exceptions. AfD as always been a place where it is possible to make exceptions, and the only test of whether an exception should be made is the consensus of those considering the issue. (this does not mean I am necessarily in favor of keeping the article--I do not particualrly care about the topci one way or another). DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin I don't believe the nom or any canvassing has been going on, but bringing attention that this deletion review was the subject of off-Wiki canvassing on the 110 Club where a "Ryoung122" and a "Waenceslaus" (both topic banned from longevity) were encouraging users to take the AFD to deletion review. The link is ( https://the110club.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=20583&p=40052472&hilit=wikipedia#p40052472 ) but if the posts cannot be accessed or viewed, then screenshots can be provided upon request. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the posts have since been moved to the private section so the screenshots are here ( one, two and three ). As correctly pointed out below, this topic area has a huge and long history of off-Wiki canvassing. I've also noticed that the contents of the article have since been merged entirely to List of Japanese supercentenarians#Chiyo Miyako which I believe goes against the AFD result of delete. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just by way of context, there was an arbitration case about the topic of very old people, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity, and I understand it revealed that there are organized groups of people out there promoting their own theories about longevity and using Wikipedia to do so, in part by attempting to include as much longevity-related information as possible. This may be why the AfD was so well-attended and had an unusually high number of problematic opinions. Similar circumstances may apply to this also very well-attended DRV. Sandstein 07:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not Sandstein, I was one of the people involved in that at the time. The practice of the GRG acolytes at the time, then as now, was to treat this as a sort of contest to stave off the reaper the longest, and accordingly descriptions of them used all sorts of terminology most familiar to sports and sporting events (examples upon request). Except that professional athletes at the top levels actually organize events and routinely receive regular coverage, whereas people who just happen to have a pulse longer than most are not competing against each other and accordingly do not receive the same consistent coverage. The longevity people refused, and still do refuse, to accept that the two situations are incongruous. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)22:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Blade of NL. Although I can see that you and I differ in opinion, I doubt your explanation covers the "own theories of longevity". Mainstream media, particularly in the last couple of years, do seem to have picked up on the issue and also see the scientific value of it: [1], [2], and [3] are only a small number of examples that show this. In other words, although I agree with you that longevity is not comparable to sporting events, I disagree that these supercentenarians and the accompanying field of research are not worthy of Wikipedia coverage when the media do increasingly report on the topic. Fiskje88 (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn because a close of "delete" was unreasonable. The nomination and some "delete" !voters clearly recognised "redirect" as acceptable and this should have prevailed over deletion. If the closer thought "keep" was an unacceptable result (it wasn't as the above shows), a close of "merge" was within discretion even though no one recommended merging. It is foolish to have battles over notability when merging or redirection is feasible – experienced editors should know better than to nominate at AFD such articles on topics they consider non-notable. I commend the present situation at List of Japanese supercentenarians and List of the verified oldest people but the AfD can claim no credit for this. Thincat (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close subsequent developments aside, which are fine by me, there was no problem with the stated rationale. Many of the comments here reflect the same mentality of the keep votes, and fail to explain why having a 3 digit age with the first two digits as "11" inherently generates notability. And to people getting worried about the term "fancruft", it's not a comment about the article subject; it's to do with the hordes of fanboys who have for more than a decade (and which I've personally worked against for almost 8 years) engaged in completely unabashed, unrelenting, belligerent, and self-aggrandizing POV pushing. The history is laid out in links above, and this is exactly the sort of situation they seize upon to try to force reams upon reams upon reams upon reams of beyond useless information about non-notable oldsters into Wikipedia (my personal favorite, from a while ago but very demonstrative, is this). Incidentally, though it is beyond the scope of this DRV, I do not find any of the new source material above persuasive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)21:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be "belligerent" myself here, but how does this comment, which seems to demonstrate - note the verb 'seem'! - a certain personal mission or endeavour to eradicate material that the editor in question does not deem 'Wikipedia-worthy', confirm a WP:NPOV? To counter the personal favourite, for instance, science does research longevity in twins: here are [1], [2], and [3] as examples, for instance. Now, I am not saying that Wikipedia should cover every supercentenarian or every minute statistic in the field that exists (much like Wikipedia fortunately does not cover every tennis player outside the top 100 or without any significant achievements such as [4], [5], or [6]), but the balance does seem to be off when editors' votes who have "personally worked against [this topic] for almost 8 years" are taken into account. I fear that Wikipedia's coverage of longevity no longer does justice to the coverage the field receives outside of this encyclopedia. Fiskje88 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's lots of research on lots of twins. There's also lots of research on, say, schizophrenics. That doesn't mean, however, that we should cover every individual twin pair or every individual schizophrenic. Such research is almost always (barring a rare case study) carried out on groups of subjects, in order to get the statistical power needed and does not add any notability to the subjects of those studies. --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removing unencyclopedic information is core to NPOV, and it's always going to be a judgment call as to what is and isn't encyclopedic. My goal has never been just to eliminate information, there are plenty of instances I helped keep/merge an article. The problem is that there are people (not yourself, as is clear from your comment) who actually argue that being a supercentenarian confers automatic notability, regardless of whether actual reliable sources wrote anything about someone, and the result was a massivewalled garden that has needed an immense amount of paring back. The comments in the AfD reflected the aforementioned mentality, hence my concurrence about not giving them much weight in the close. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While AfD is not a vote, the sheer volume of keep to delete votes should ensure a no consensus. Being one of the oldest people ever is generally fine for an article, and there are sources there. The fact that there is a Japanese book partially about her is the clincher. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 18:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep or no consensus. Let me note a few things by way of that opinion. The first is that WP:OSE is somewhat self-contradictory essay, but it does make at least one valid procedural point, which is that comparisons of precedent can be very useful when trying to decide matters somewhat "on the line" such as whether or not high schools are inherently notable, but junior high and grade schools are not. We see that in this discussion: in the case of oldest persons above, I've seen many references to sports figures as being the closest precedent, but they aren't. Biomedically the closest would be list of tallest people, list of heaviest people, list of shortest people, and so on. I'm referring to the “list articles” only by way of compactness here: my point is that they are not ONLY list articles, but consist of at least 50% people whose names show as linked, because they have a full BIO (not a BLP, since they are dead—we’ll get to that). There are (for example) some 60 full BIOS of tallest MEN, and I haven’t even gotten to women, or small or obese people. I have looked at BIOs of tallest men, and most of them are notable only for being tall, or media/fame consequences related to being tall. There are articles on people just because they were at one time the tallest ever, but just the tallest person at one time for their country, like one guy from Puerto Rico. I hope you see the point. The yellow-boxed people, some of who have full bios, haven’t even been authenticated, so on some cases we have a full bio on a person REPUTED to be the tallest person in his country, but nobody ever officially measured him (!)
Okay, I can hear the shouts of WP:OSE, but as noted, OSE is a double-edged (and very dull) sword. It is dull because it’s not even a pillar, policy or guideline-- just a mere guidance essay. More powerful to me is CONSENSUS of very many editors who know the pillars: we have records of very many (I estimate several hundred) BIO articles on short, tall, and obese people at the edge of the human scale for these things, which were kept and not deleted, as meeting the important standards of WP:N under WP:NPOV with WP:RS. If that isn’t a pretty clear record of CONSENSUS in these matters, what is?
Why do we have the usual suspect group of deletionists for age-related articles, and none of these people are going after height and weight record articles? They seem to have an agenda related to aging, and it’s not to make WP better over all, or else we’d see them everywhere, deleting every article in the above lists. They seem to be editors with a bias against a particular topic. Beware. I will freely admit my own bias as being interested in the habits and condition of really old people (it’s my profession, after all), but I’m also interested in the habits and conditions of really tall people, and would vote against deleting one of these BIOs if anybody tried to. Can you get over 8 feet tall without having a pituitary tumor, for example? Medically I think it’s interesting, and would not show in a LIST article. The arguments for deletion because something is NOT interesting to given a group of people, are usually poorer.
And now, I want to remind before I quit, of a separate issue, which is BLPs of living “oldest people” (not the case of the woman under discussion here). The standards for BLP are necessarily tighter than for BIOs of dead people. I’ve seen some mention of BLP1E issues, but those only apply to LIVING people, not dead ones. For example, WP has a full BLP for a living person because he has the largest penis anybody acquainted with him has ever seen, even though it hasn’t been measured: Jonah Falcon. He keeps his BLP on this one issue because he’s an attention-seeker who has basically made a living from it. If he in all matters had tried to avoid the limelight, we would have a good WP:BLP1E argument for deletion, even if he was very notable for this (i.e., lots of RS discussion from his friends and former lovers). BLP1E is trumped by public profile and attention seekers: see Low Profile Individual WP:LPI.
Okay, this applies to living people with huge ages, too, not just living men with huge schlongs. I can certainly see a case for keeping a BLP of an oldest person who gives interviews, accepts awards, and enjoys the limelight, as Jeanne Calment did. But for living ones who shun the press, I think that’s a very good argument for deletion until they are “safely dead” for a seemly length of time, and then I think they deserve a BIO (not BLP), IF there is some NPOV and RS material about them (for example, again, Calment). Which is also the case now with this deceased Japanese woman. It is no longer a BLP1E issue, because not a BLP issue at all, since no LP (living person). SBHarris08:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually per WP:CON, the phrase "quality of arguments" or the like is sprinkled throughout. This is why a keep vote explaining how much you like the article is not nearly as noticed as one that explains why policy or guideline x applies for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my view, opinions that focus on how this is an outrageous miscarriage of justice that this is now at DRV should be discarded. It disheartens me to see some here not assuming good faith when it came to the original nomination. Please focus on why the closer is in the wrong here from a guideline/policy point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, WP is even exegesis to its own Jeremiads, as in WP:NOT. Oh, we're working on the sum total of human knowledge to make it available to everybody, are we Mr. Wales? Except what valuable fancruft and game stuff that has gone to Wikia, and all that stuff on WP:NOT? And WP is legalistic talmudic comment on our own Torah, too. Complete with excommunication for heretics. Spinoza would be vastly amused by Wikipedia. SBHarris21:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus, and discuss further It appears to me that the people working on this topic do not have a consensus for what should be the criteria for an article on WP; the results at any give AfD will reflect the people who happen to appear there. The acceptability of the references can be argued either way, and as someone who has no particular interest in this area, I think that there needs to be a discussion not limited to the usual editors. Whether we want to make a strict or flexible interpretation of the general rules on sourcing for this area needs to be settled,and until it is, I don't se the point of pretending there's a consensus. When there is no consensus, a closer should say so, not perform their own evaluation fo the arguments. (I'll mention that if I were forced to give an opinion for whether the rules should be flexible or strict here, I would say that they should be strict, but that's just my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such a discussion can still/should happen even if this is deleted. The sources just weren't there in depth on this person, I struggled to find sourcing (in both English and Japanese) on a bio even when Chiyo was the 2nd oldest living person. Are articles about people meant to be placeholders, or biographies? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what a waste of time. I recuse from comment on the close; I attempted to SNOW keep this to avoid this excessive debate. Perhaps an RFC is necessary, as there doesn't seem to be any agreement as to whether the extant sources can be considered to meet the GNG. I also believe the Longevity Discretionary Sanctions are applicable here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the discretionary sanctions in that case were rescinded in 2014. The basic finding was to ban one editor for a year, and topic-ban Ryoung122 forever. I'm sure ArbCom would topic-ban Albert Einstein from relativity articles if his ghost came onto Wikipedia and edit-warred. But as for the rest of the epidemiological and procedural questions in longevity topics that are all discussed above in relation to this article, ArbCom said they were all outside its perview. It did say "membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics." Two cheers. But then, after topic-banning one of the world's main experts on human longevity authentication, the ArbCom generously opined that WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms." As if anybody was going to step in front of that bullet in 2011 with the discretionary sanctions still in place and Ryoung122 gone forever. In some ways that led to where we are. ArbCom wasn't going to say what was WP:NPOV and WP:RS in World's Oldest People, but they were sure that Ryoung wasn't going to be heard any more. Rather, people more civil were to come to consensus about the length of the emperor's nose, when none of them had seen the emperor. Wikipedia in a nutshell. It operates on reliable sources, and it decides these by reliable sources on reliable sources, and those on reliable sources on reliable sources on reliable sources, and so on, all the way down. At the bottom of this endless recursion are people who actually have no clue about it, but have come to a consensus.SBHarris09:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion was inappropriately closed as "speedy keep" by an involved non-admin (Wumbolo) after 53 minutes. (See Talk:Sarah Jeong for involvement.) The rationale for the close was that "this is a BS nomination" without addressing the nominator's original WP:BLP1E argument. A review of the contribution history for the Sarah Jeong article shows almost 7 months of inactivity before August 2. The latest revision before Jeong's recent Twitter incident was on January 9, and cites mostly passing mentions and non-independent sources as references. The discussion should have been allowed to run for the full 7 days. — Newslingertalk13:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.
If you have new sources to present, please list them here. But, also understand that I can't make any promises the AfD result will be changed. Please also read WP:DRVPURPOSE, and WP:DRV#Instructions which requires that you discuss this with the closing admin before opening a case here. -- RoySmith(talk)14:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the closing admin, and I pointed them here. There are a few new sources on my talk page, but I'm not sure if they're reliable or not. ansh66617:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zambia Daily Mail, Zambian Eye, Tumfweko, Luskatimes are reliable sources in Zambia and they have been used by most if not all Zambian articles to mention a few. See these articles
1. Chef 187
2. T Low
3. Macky 2
4. Kan 2
5. Mampi
6. B Flow
7. Cleo Ice Queen
8. Petersen Zagaze
9. Ruff Kid
Another thing is despite user Chabota Kanguya had a conflict of interest hence voting the page to be deleted despite having notable reference, see the pages he created and you shall find that he actually use the same paper. Otherwise the decision to delete the page was rushed hence there was no consensus. See these www.daily-mail.co.zm/mic-diggy-signs-cd-run written by one of the paid and senior editors of the paper. See also the new source https://zambianeye.com/mic-diggy-apologies-to-slap-d-on-znbc-radio-4s-hip-hop-eardrum/ written by the papers news desk. Also note that the artist
Has had a single (s) on the country's national music chart and also he Has performed music for a work of media that is notable in Zambia ZNBC Born n Bred award's Cypher 2014 - 2015 (more like BET awards cyphers in the US) which aired on national television [7] this reference is from youtube not to contribute on notability but to pin point factsVicmullar (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse I've spent a lot of time on this AfD reading carefully all of the arguments presented for keep and carefully examining the sources provided, even when I did not directly respond. Let me start by saying judging notability with a Zambian subject presents challenges and I am more cautious here than I would be in a similar situation with a US or UK article subject. It's always seemed to me that WP:MUSICBIO criteria 11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. is the strongest claim to notability. [10] does seem to provide some sourcing for such a claim (and also MUSICBIO criteria 2, though there's no currently accepted chart for Zambia). I've had a devil of a time trying to establish whether Zambian Eye is RS. My efforts to date say it's not; if I were convinced otherwise (and I'm open to being convinced) I would likely !vote to overturn. This is the only evidence provided by Vicmullar above that makes me reconsider (rest is either WP:OTHERSTUFF, not WP:RS, or not significant enough to help establish WP:GNG). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this is an excellent potential example where WP:MUSICBIO is a useful SNG shortcut for GNG given that if we can establish one of its criteria it can, reasonably, absolve us of the difficulties I noted above about dealing with the Zambian subject matter. Felt I should note this given that I spoke against sources helping towards WP:GNGBest, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. These are the same sort of low level non-RS sources that were rejected in the AFD. Much like the AFD, it seems no one in favor of keeping actually understands how Wikipedia defines a reliable source, it’s just WP:OSE type stuff. The AFD ran for multiple weeks with no policy-based keep rationales. If it wasn’t kept there, it shouldn’t be kept now, as this isn’t just another AFD. This should be closed out. Sergecross73msg me22:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: the arguments above are not new, they are the same ones that have been repeated more than once (and dismissed) on the original AfD. No proof shown of a single on the country's national music chart, and I don't believe an official national chart actually exists. The only new "source" is a YouTube video which features Mic Diggy among a group of rappers in a pre-recorded video, and it's not clear how it links to the award ceremony suggested by Vicmullar. As pointed out on the original AfD, the Tumfweko article is a carbon copy of an article on another website, suggesting it's just a news harvesting website. The Zambian Eye doesn't pass Wikipedia's definition of an RS – it's hosted on a Wordpress blog site (not a good sign), and has no named authors or editorial control. The Lusaka Times is not an RS – it explicitly states on its website that "our day to day news content comes from known Zambian sources like Zambia Daily-Mail, Times of Zambia, ZNBC and ZANIS" and that it "provides a platform for any Zambian who want their article published"... in other words, it copies from other sources, and allows anybody to write whatever they want on the website. So the Daily Mail is the only reliable source, and all it tells us is that he released three non-notable singles and signed a distribution deal for his own self-released records – there is no non-trivial content from reliable sources. I would also add that no evidence has been provided for the accusation that Chabota Kanguya "had a conflict of interest", and I can't see any COI. Richard3120 (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A mess of an AfD, unfortunately. It's probably harder for someone to show musical notability in Zambia than it is in other places using our methods due to source reasons. That being said, I don't even see a benefit of a doubt here: the closer acted appropriately. SportingFlyertalk05:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation If you were to go on facebook and search for his real name and add wikipedia, you will find a post of B Flow thanking him for the wikipedia article and he actually tagged him. Does that mean something to you ? More followers for examples. Or maybe i just i mislead everything, i stand to be corrected, he was also the first person to nominate the Mic Diggy article for deletion, Kindly see the articles written by him and see the sources he used. Ps, I don't see anywhere on wikipedia stating that a website hosted by wordpress is automatically not a RS, the article on Mic Diggy was written by the newsdesk(the department of a newspaper or a broadcasting organization that is responsible for collecting news and preparing it for publication or broadcast) of Zambian Eye, and it covers a lot of things that points out the artist is notable as at 2018. Also note that Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies but that does not mean its not reliable. Do some research on born n bred awards zambia, and their cyphers in which Mic Diggy took part as rookie. Vicmullar (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People already know you want recreation. You're the article creator, and the person who started the DRV.
Whatever you're talking about with that Facebook example has no bearing here.
If you read and understand WP:USERG, you'll understand why a Wordpress is generally not a usuable source. Anyone can make one and write whatever they want without any editorial oversight. That goes against WP:RS.
You keep going about this wrong, and that's why we keep having a consensus to delete: You keep demanding people prove that your sources are unreliable. That's backwards. As long as the article is up for deletion, you need to be proving how the sources are reliable. And you haven't. You've given every backwards reasons why its potentially not unreliable (ie "well just because they don't have editorial policy posted doesn't mean they don't have one") without providing any valid reason on why they are reliable. What reason is there to believe that they have editorial policy without it being posted? What reason is there to believe they are professional writers, with credentials. All you do is try to come up with various loopholes.
People have done research. And they've come to the conclusion that the sourcing isn't good enough to meet the WP:GNG. And you haven't given a valid counterargument, you've just thrown a bunch of "What about this?" scenarios that don't help this discussion. Sergecross73msg me14:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't even be a "second AfD discussion" – it ought to be a review of whether the closer made the correct decision when closing the AfD. Nobody has yet agreed with the DRV proposer, and no further reliable sources have been provided, which suggests to me that the original decision was correct. Richard3120 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is correct. DRV isn't a second AFD, it's a review to make sure the right close was made at the AFD. There was no other valid decision an uninvolved admin could have made based on the discussion that had taken place at the original AFD. Sergecross73msg me16:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page meets all standards and was deleted when I made mistake editing and trying to expand his page which I thought would help not get it deleted. I would very much love an unbias review and reinstatement. I believe Wikipedia will benefit from having this information, not losing it. Thank you Ktthatme (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the contributors of the AfD weren't familiar with the RC helicopter world because the T-Rex line of products is surely the best known one, with parts available at any RC shop. There doesn't seem to be a lot of books about the RC manufacturers. Here are examples of references: [11][12], three small German books by the same author: [13][14][15]. I'd like the article to be to userfied so I can try and add references. The RedBurn (ϕ) 17:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
In the deletion review mentioned above, the determination was made to not restore the article due to a lack of sufficient sourcing which was independent of the LDS Church. I am again requesting a deletion review for this article in view of an entirely different reason. During the April 2018 General Conference, Dallin H. Oaks, First Counselor in the First Presidency led the Sustaining of Church Officers on Saturday Afternoon. Among the changes he presented were new members of the Presidency of the Seventy, who are assigned to assist the apostles in their ministries, and who have oversight of all current seventies in the Church. One of those presented for sustaining vote, whom Oaks noted would begin serving in that Presidency on August 1 of this year was Terence M. Vinson. Given that his new assignment as such puts him in a much higher profile (as members of that Presidency are generally among top considerations when a new apostle needs to be called), and given that other members of that Presidency, who were far less notable for both religious and secular reasons, have had articles maintained about them, I propose that the article about Terence M. Vinson be restored ASAP. If the consensus decides that should not occur, I will accept that decision. But given these new reasons for restoring the article, I hope it can be reinstated. Thank you for the privilege of your time and for your consideration of this matter. Jgstokes (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Have any new sources, outside of the LDS church, covered this event in any detail? If so, could you provide links to the sources? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for the question, and sorry about any delay in my response to it. It depends on what you mean by "outside the LDS Church". The Deseret News is a subsidiary company of the LDS Church, but is operated independently from it. That paper published
this article covering changes in Church leadership, including the two new members that started serving immediately, and the 2 others (in addition to Vinson) that are now serving. Vinson's call is significant to the Church (and by extension to the Saints in Australia) because he also happens to be the first Austrailian leader called to the Presidency of the Seventy.
The lack of sourcing independent of the leaders in the LDS Church brings up a difficult quandry indeed: They are notable because of their assignments to serve in such high-profile capacities, and if they were not serving in a high-ranking leadership position in a church of 16 million members and counting, the world would likely take little notice of them. Therefore, finding independent sources for LDS leaders has been a bit of an ongoing headache.
That said, as I noted above in my initial request, members of the Presidency of the Seventy are particularly notable because of their direct mandate to assist the apostles in the day-to-day business of the Church. And it has often happened that the Presidency of the Seventy has been somewhat of a "training ground" from which apostolic candidates have been picked. Of the currently-serving members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a whopping majority of 7 were called to the apostleship while serving in the Presidency of the Seventy.
The fact that the LDS Church is 16 million members strong makes it one of the largest Christian denominations in the US, and the Church is rising in popularity throughout the world. So asking for sources outside of the Church to be cited to prove that the leaders of the Church are notable is akin to suggesting that no Catholic leader can have articles endorsed or published by the Catholic Church used in the source material about them, and we know that an exception has been granted for Catholic officials in this regard, from the Pope, to cardinals, to bishops. If that holds true for other major Christian denominations, why is it so unacceptable to make a similar exception to policy for a Church that, at last check, was the 4th largest Christian denomination in the US, and is increasing its' international outreach? And why would the LDS Church be held to a different standard than Catholicism or Judaism, or any other denomination for which such exceptions have previously been granted?
A while back, I had made a motion here on Wikipedia to establish a separate standard of notability for LDS leaders. But the paradox that notability could not be determined outside of sources independent of the LDS Church became problematic, and essentially killed the motion for that exception to be made. But if a standard that applies to other Christian denominations fails to also be applied to a Church whose membership may exceed that of some denominations that have been granted such exceptions here, what does that suggest about those who make such regulations?
Either the exception applies to all Christian denominations, or else it is incumbent on all who uphold such policies to apply the same mass-deletion practice to articles of every other Christian denomination whose articles are not sufficiently independently sourced. Where should that line be drawn, and to what extent should these deletions go? How much trouble would such decisions cause? It is beginning to sound to me as though those who have voted for and upheld such deletions have a bias against the LDS Church and its' notable general leaders, which certainly does not conform to Wikipedia's neutrality principles.
It is true that I am a member of the LDS Church that has a somewhat personal interest in seeing an exception to the rule be granted for LDS leaders such as Vinson. But if the membership of the Church and its' prominence, which is ever-expanding, is not sufficient to warrant an exception to the rule, then I have to ask why else exceptions are granted to other faiths but not this one.
And the fact is that most sources independent of the Church tend to look on it with a suspicious eye and biased reporting, so finding balanced sources not endorsed, owned, or operated by the Church will be a headache for every other deletion discussion or review that will ever take place here. I do not suggest in any way that Catholic articles should be subject to deletion if the sources cited for them are maintained or supported by the Catholic Church. Rather, I would suggest that for any denomination that ranks in the top 5 world denominations (Christian or not), there should be an exception, and there clearly isn't. This to me seems hypocritical. But as a Wikipedia editor, I know I am bound to abide by consensus decisions. I have always gotten along with my fellow editors. But I fail to see why the LDS Church is held to a standard here on Wikipedia that so clearly doesn't apply to religions that have gotten exceptions, some of which are smaller in membership and worldwide presence than the Church. Thanks for taking time to read these additional thoughts. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't got any new independent sources then there isn't really anything to talk about here. If you're telling us that this position is likely to lead to sources being written in the future, then great - we can write the article when those appear. A newspaper is not an independent source for the organisation which owns it. Just as The Times would not be considered an independent source in a biography of a director of News Corp, so the Deseret News is not an independent source here. The claim that "asking for sources outside of the Church to be cited to prove that the leaders of the Church are notable is akin to suggesting that no Catholic leader can have articles endorsed or published by the Catholic Church used in the source material about them, and we know that an exception has been granted for Catholic officials in this regard" is not correct. There would be nothing wrong about citing the Deseret News in an article about this person. It's just that you can't use the Deseret News to demonstrate that this person is notable, and the article should not be primarily based on non-independent sources such as the Deseret News. Notability is supposed to be based on the existence of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources about this person. We do sometimes use positions or achievements as proxies for this if the position is one which leads to it being very likely that suitable source coverage will exist, especially if we might have trouble tracking the sources down. The Pope, for instance, is the subject of enormous press coverage and the fact that someone is Pope will therefore mean that the person is notable. If there are no sources about this person to pass WP:GNG, and you've admitted that such sources often don't exist for senior LDS officials, then that essentially means that the person is not notable. Hut 8.506:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything to talk about here full stop. None of the above wall-of-text is relevant; cry persecution and WP:OTHERSTUFF all you want, Jgstokes, there are no exceptions to WP:V or WP:N. The last AfD/DRV was four years ago, so it is entirely possible that Vinson has become notable since then, and in that case there is nothing stopping you recreating the article. If there are independent sources that show notability – otherwise, it will just end up deleted again. – Joe (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I closed the previous DRV, so I'll remain neutral here. I just want to note that in my DRV close, I said, it would be useful to have a clearer policy statement on notability of clerics. I don't know if that happened. If it did, it would be useful to include a link to that here for reference. -- RoySmith(talk)16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: A few additional comments here. First of all, I apologize if I went overboard in my initial comment. It has been frustrating to see articles about LDS leaders deleted, and knowing that any argument which is presented may not be sufficient to get around the lack of independent sources. As one who has edited Wikipedia for over a decade, I do understand the reasoning behind the policies cited here which do not support my proposal. I also know that without independent reliable sources, there is not a lot that can be done. I checked out clergy outcomes, which I believe I had done when the whole situation started. I believe I made an attempt to request such an exception for LDS leaders, but it proved to be somewhat fruitless, as I was merely told again that the relevant policies would not apply in this case, and I was basically redirected many times. Each time, I was referred elsewhere, and never got anywhere with it. If there is anyone here who knows anything different I can try, the trail of things I attempted is fairly easy to follow. My post on clergy outcomes still appears in that section of the page, and from there, anyone can see where all I was redirected. It has been, as I said, a difficult situation to make any headway on, since I never got a straight answer about what actually needed to be done. My first comment above was a reflection of the frustration I have encountered as I have failed to make any headway. Again, I apologize for that. If anyone can review what I have done and offer any additional suggestions on this issue, I would be happy to take the new ideas on board. Thank you, and sorry again for any misunderstanding for which my original comment may have been responsible. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to be done, is that you need to build consensus that WP:N should be ignored in this (and similar) cases. That's very unlikely (to say the least). So pretty much you are trying to fight a fight you can't win. Imagine someone trying to change the rules in the LSD for something like premarital sex. Sure, there are ways you could get your proposal heard, but you aren't going to win--it just goes too far against the core values of the place. You are better off having LDS push for coverage in other sources. Basically, urge their press office to try to push stories about the leadership more. A lot of that coverage might get rejected as "just a press release" but getting others interested enough to write real articles is what you'd be looking for. And if no one cares enough to write an article, it really doesn't belong here--at least not as a stand-alone biography. That's the whole point of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As background, there are 8 members of the presidency. That makes 1:2 million. That's a similar proportion to other churches. The core value of the place is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, not the particualr way of measuring it by the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The discussion was closed and the redirect deleted at a point when the discussion had been open for less than 48 hours (contrary to WP:DPAFD) and before anyone but the nominator had !voted. The deleting admin has not (at the RfD, in any edit summary, or at his talk page) cited any CSD or speedy close criterion. Points 1, 2 and especially 5 of WP:DRVPURPOSE all apply. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is clear so I'm happy to withdraw this. My concern was exclusively procedural – I would've !voted to delete this at RfD given the chance – but I suppose it isn't unreasonable to prioritise the obvious good reasons for deleting this over the procedural reasons for revisiting it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseDraft:Sugondese → PewDiePie clearly not plausible and also only one day old, having been created as a redirect. CSD R3 applies. Although this is stretching the definition of 'typo', Sugondese is a very bad misspelling of Sweden that may have become a meme. Why it was pointed to Pewdiepie and not Sweden is a mystery, but meme related. Regardless, the redirect should never have been created and speedily removing it was entirely justified. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this falls under R3, which covers misnomers as well as typos. Nobody is ever going to search for a title in draft space. I could understand if it was a draft which was moved to mainspace or kept as a redirect for attribution reasons, but it was never anything other than a redirect. Hut 8.521:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does Sugondese have anything to do with PewDiePie? Wave a fish about the appearance of improper XfD process and failure to mention the applicable WP:CSD#R3, which I don’t doubt was in the deleting admin’s mind, but really should be noted for the benefit of others. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Yeah, RH should have noted in the close and deletion rationale that it was under WP:CSD#R3 but other than that sloppiness, this was an appropriate CSD tagging and deletion. G3 could also have been appropriate, this is just disruptive behavior du jour a la BOFA and ligma. ~ Amory(u • t • c)16:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Closer's comment: As noted on my talk page, I don't think that the quote referred to establishes notability for the organization, because it's not about the organization but about its leader's opinion about the Brexit negotiations. I apologize for the lack of a closing statement but considered the outcome to be relatively obvious: only two out of nine people favored retention, and their attempt to address the problem identified in the nomination – the lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources on which an article could be based – was not particularly persuasive, depending as it did on an aggregation of brief mentions in various media articles. Sandstein 09:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse First, this could not have been closed in any way other than delete, and many clear AfDs do not feature an explanation for the close. Second, identifying another passing mention in another article isn't enough to create a presumption the article should be kept. Significant new information needs to come to light - I'd want to see multiple feature articles specifically on the organization, myself. SportingFlyertalk10:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review addresses cases where the deletion process has not been followed correctly. It is not a "second bite at the cherry" if a properly argued, attended, and closed AFD didn't go your way. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle According to WP:DRVPURPOSE there are 5 different reasons for review including if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. If you don't regard the information as significant enough then say so. It is extremely rude of you to assume bad faith that I want a "second bite at the cherry" because I didn't get my way. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There's two different questions here.
First, was the AfD closed correctly? Without a doubt, it was. Many of the arguments to keep were simply wrong. User:Jonpatterns argued, the nature of the subject means that media coverage talks about BoF along with other groups that collaborate. That's the same as saying, the subject has no independent notability, and thus it fails WP:N. Additional arguments demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding on what a passing mention is. There's no other possible way this AfD could have been closed.
Second, has anything changed since the AfD? Sandstein is correct in judging that the provided quote doesn't change anything. The quote is about fundamentally about Tom Brufatto, and secondarily about the anti-Brexit movement in general. This is a quintessential example of a passing mention.
Lastly, I have to ask, @The Vintage Feminist: do you have any WP:COI here? Note that the expectation to disclose COI extends beyond simply paid editing. If you are a member of, or political supporter of an organization, that's a COI as well. -- RoySmith(talk)13:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, the review is not being sought for how it was closed, that was merely an additional observation at the end of my comments. I have now struck through them to avoid confusion.
Second, if you don't think that the significant enough to justify recreating the deleted page that's fine.
Lastly, I do not have a WP:COI, I did not create the article, but as stated at WP:YESPOV: Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. - a view I support. A look at the section for "Withdrawl" and the section for "Calls for second vote" in Template:United Kingdom in the European Union shows how it is struggling for neutrality. When this AfD was closed Britain for Europe was also removed from the template diff with no viable alternative was sought. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Note, I did not say every source mentioned other groups. I did not say or imply the article has no independent notability. On a side note, I was surprised by the way people voted in the AfD. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The consensus at the AfD was clear and I don't think a one more passing mention in a source would have made any difference to the outcome. – Joe (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD could not have been closed any other way, most of the opinions were for deletion and the strength of argument favoured deletion as well. The FT quote cited would not have made any difference and doesn't qualify as significant new evidence. Hut 8.521:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Vintage Feminist, you may not have a COI on this topic, but you do seem to have become emotionally overly-invested in it. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or wrong. I'm fairly sure that that the half dozen admins and experienced closers here were already aware that AfD is not a vote. Similarly, whilst you might disagree with the AfD participants who judged the sources to be insufficiently in-depth, they are valid arguments that carry just as much weight as yours. You've tried your best to save this article. I'd suggest you now step back and let this DRV take its course. – Joe (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe Roe, thanks for commenting. I do not regard myself as emotionally overly-invested nor do I believe that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or wrong. As a proud member of WP:GGTF I intend to continue responding politely to points raised by other editors as is my right. Thanks again. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, though as often I wish closers would give explanation to closes of contested discussion. If “obvious” then the explanation is easily composed. To the nominator here: Not every new source justifies a new standalone article, that is called content forking. Also, news stories are not the best for basing a new topic, as they are too close to the topic. Try adding the new information to the redirect target. Does it fit, noting WP:DUE. After adding, is a WP:SPINOUT justified? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check Tsma73's contributions, which only include voting in a sock-filled AfD, adding DataMelt to a list of software packages, two threats on HelpUsStopSpam's talk page, and this nonsensical deletion review post. SportingFlyertalk06:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion- the AfD could not have been closed any other way. It's also not clear what Tsma73 is asking for. ReykYO!09:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
