Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March

< February 2019	Deletion review archives	April 2019 >

Proposed Portland Ballpark – Recreation as draft permitted (if the requesting editor can find an admin to do that). Sandstein 14:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

so it can be moved to Draft:Portland Ballpark SportsFan007 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

Endorse deletion. It was a two-sentence stub about a possible future project, with zero references. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: That’s why I want it be moved to a draft so it can be exanded. SportsFan007 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

It would make more sense to start by finding some sources. And, then, once you're found sources, you can start writing an article based on what the sources say. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Ok, but I would like to incorporate what was on the page that was deleted. SportsFan007 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

Surely you can do two sentences better the second time around in draft. Legacypac (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a whole infobox with a rendering of the stadium. SportsFan007 (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

The rendering, File:Portland Ballpark.jpg, is in the process of being deleted as a copyvio. Restoring the little snippets of unsourced material will just encourage it to remain unsourced. The sources are the key thing. The right way to write an encyclopedia article is to start with what WP:RS have said, and summarize that. Starting with some text that has no sources is pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I’m asking is that the page be briefly undeleted so I can copy and pastie it into a draft. SportsFan007 (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

Allow recreation as draft I don't really see what the harm in doing that is. If it still doesn't have sourcing, it's never going to get approved at AFC, and if it does, then this whole thing is moot. Smartyllama (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my position here, while I don't think it's either useful or necessary to use this as a starting point for a new draft, I can't come up with a good policy-based reason to deny draftifying it if somebody is adamant that's what they want. You can lead an editor to water, but you can't make him drink, I guess. However, if this does get draftified, don't copy-paste it as suggested above. That would be contrary to WP:CWW. Restoring the original and moving it to draft will preserve the history. As I said before, I don't think that's useful, but it is required to comply with our licensing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-create as draft per RoySmith immediately above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Kiwi Farms – Unsalted by Smartse. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This website has received substantial coverage from sources like New York magazine and News.com.au. In addition, this Heat Street article may be usable as well. There is a chance of this topic surviving an AfD discussion. For now I've created Draft:Kiwi Farms, which can be expanded if necessary. JzG, the original blocking administrator, has been inactive for two weeks. feminist (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as A7. Just create an article that credibly asserts the significance of the subject and you shouldn't get A7'ed again.—S Marshall T/C 12:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is salted, so I cannot "just create an article". feminist (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, now I see the problem. The draft doesn't say why Kiwi Farms matters, so I rather think it would be vulnerable to A7 if restored without further change.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The web's biggest community of stalkers" is clearly a valid WP:CCS. This will not fall under A7. feminist (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt. The NY Magazine article (which was in the original) should have been enough to disqualify CSD. Also, this was salted as an "attack article". I disagree with that; the site may be about attacking people, but the article itself wasn't. All of this is somewhat moot, since I see the title has already been unsalted and the draft accepted. If somebody feels this doesn't pass muster, bring it to WP:AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
overturn speedy and unsalt just overall a bad close. Not an A7 based on both claims and sources. Not an attack article IMO. I can see the argument that it's an "attack topic", but the article seemed fine. Sorry, I'd not realized that the deletion was of an article I can't see--I thought I was seeing the whole history. Current article is fine, topic is well past an A7. Hobit (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Three Men in a Boat – Snow Endorse -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I apologize. I don't recall ever being here because I overlooked a discussion notification and missed the opportunity to discuss an XFD. However at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#Template:Three Men in a Boat the close resulted in a ~~Delete~~ Merge. I contend that the close constituted a WP:VOTE rather than a reasoned discussion of relevant policies and guidelines. I.e., that there was no consensus for the closer to evaluate and thus the close should have been No Consensus. I have discussed this with the closer (JJMC89) and nominator (BrownHairedGirl) at User_talk:JJMC89#Sloppy_close. All TFD discussants (@JarrahTree, Legacypac, and Chiswick Chap:) were notified, but none chose to participate in my post close discussion. JJMC89 reminded me that the discussion had unanimous support. In my discussion with JJMC89, we went over various WP:PAG (policies and guidelines) that might apply to this discussion. JJMC89 mentioned the WP:TG (template guidelines). Since the nomination was posted under the false assertion of massive overlap, I noted that it should have been nominated as WP:T3, which is the relevant template deletion method if massive overlap actually is the case. However, people familiar with WP:CSD are probably aware that this would not have likely been a successful T3 nomination. The nominator chose to make an assertion of massive overlap, yet chose not to pursue the normal massive overlap procedure. I noted that the WP:NAVBOX editing guideline has many considerations for the use of navboxes on WP including a list of guidelines for templates, a list of advantages and disadvantages of templates over alternatives such as categories and lists. The issue of having multiple templates rather than a single one at WP:CREEP in the section Wikipedia:Avoid_template_creep#Do_we_have_two_or_three_templates_where_one_would_do? is not even a part of a policy or guideline. It is merely an essay. Thus, the nomination (made under the false assertion of massive overlap) relied on an essay (rather than a policy or guideline) and the discussion was without mention of any policies or guidelines. Thus, no consensus was met although the VOTE was unanimous. Why does all this matter? The result of the merge is an increase in the number of links on the pages at issue. I demonstrated at the post-close discussion that the merger results in the increase in the number of templated links on the set of pages at issue. Here are the numbers:

the pre-discussion Template:Jerome K. Jerome had 7 links:

the pre-discussion Template:Three Men in a Boat had 10 links:

The merged template has 13 links.

There were three pages (Jerome K. Jerome, Three Men in a Boat and Three Men on the Bummel) that had both templates before the merger. These three templates each went from 17 templated links (3 overlapping) to 13. Net reduction of 12 templated links (4 each).
There were six pages (Three Men in a Boat (1920 film), Three Men in a Boat (1933 film), Three Men in a Boat (1956 film), Drei Mann in einem Boot, Three Men in a Boat (1975 film), Three Men in a Boat (1979 film)) that previously only had the Three Men in a Boat template, but following the merger they had the broader 13-link template with 4 unrelated novels. Net increase was 18 total templated links (3 each).
There were four pages (Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow, Diary of a Pilgrimage, Paul Kelver, and All Roads Lead to Calvary (novel)) that previously only had the Jerome K. Jerome template, but following the merger they had the broader 13-link template with 6 unrelated films. Net increase was 24 total templated links (6 each).
There was one page that lost its association with the subjects it inspired (Three in Norway (by two of them)). Net reduction of 10 total templated links.

Overall the merger resulted in the addition of 20 additional templated links to the navboxes of the associated pages. It also resulted in the loss of association of a page with pages it inspired. Since there was no policy-based consensus (just a unanimous vote) and since the result causes bloating of templated links, I am requesting that the merger be overturned. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, as TFD nominator. The merged Template:Jerome K. Jerome has 13 links, all related to a single tightly-bound topic: Jerome K. Jerome, his works, and adaptations thereof. It is neither visually bulky nor confusing nor a forest of links. If it had started like that, nobody would seriously want to split it.

However, Template:Three Men in a Boat was created by @TonyTheTiger, who has dispalyed the most extraordinary set of WP:OWNership issue I have seen in a long time. See User talk:JJMC89#Sloppy_close (permalink) which started as as outrage that I had in my nom inadvertently miscounted the total number of links. I am sorry about that error, but I don't believe it had any material impact on the discussion. Tony continued on a bizarre rollercoaster of self-contradictions, changing complaints, a false claim that I acted as both nominator and loser, failed policy wonkery, an explicit claim of WP:OWNership, and a bizarre concoction of numbers whose point is unclear.
The walls of text above, at User talk:JJMC89#Sloppy_close and at WP:TFD/2019 March 16#Template:Three_Men_in_a_Boat are so over-the-top that I find it hard to AGF that this is actually just about one tiny navbox. What's really going on, Tony? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, It is about a template. I work hard creating them and am disappointed when they are deleted or merged away. What do you think it is about? Feel free to speak unless you have nothing to say.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger, thanks for confirming that these walls of wikilawyering text are indeed all about your unresolved WP:OWNership issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There was unanimous support for merging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what Tony states in the third sentence of the OP, I closed the TfD as merge, not delete. You can see the discussion on my talk page for the rest. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse we had a discussion. I see no reason to change the result when merge is a good result. That is not too many links. I never saw a ping to discuss this elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the resulting template seems quite sufficient. There doesn't seem much to talk about here, the merge was clearly correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the unanimous close. Furthermore, this is one of the most bizarre cases of wikilawyering I've seen in awhile. SportingFlyer T·C 05:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Merge was not only unanimous, but appropriate. --wooden superman 16:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as this filing appears to be vexatious litigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, with the recent content additions I don't have a problem with the merger.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 March 2019

26 March 2019

Extreme Fighting Championship – Speedily closed. No relevant arguments presented as to why previous deletions should be undone. Sandstein 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I feel the search term Extreme Fighting Championship should be redirected to EFC Worldwide as that is the original name of the company I also feel the same way about Extreme Fighting Championship Africa. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC) -->[reply]

Suggest this DRV be speedy closed. This has been already deleted multiple times, under various titles. I've WP:G4'd and WP:SALTed EFC Worldwide. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 March 2019

Mike Schmitz – Recreate as draft Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Following the AfD (January 2018), Schmitz's notoriety has accelerated. Here are some mentions which have arisen since the AfD:

The Wall Street Journal (February 2018): "Fr. Mike Schmitz, who heads Catholic Campus Ministry at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, doesn't think..."
Don't Be Afraid to Say Yes to God! (April 2018): a book written by Pope Francis and annotated by Fr Mike Schmitz, a "highly sought-after national speaker"
The Catholic Spirit (October 2018): "Father Schmitz has gained widespread attention with his catechetical videos conducted in a casual style from his living room."
Catholic News Service (June 2018): Schmitz's most recent book is reviewed next to another by James Martin
National Catholic Register (August 2018): Schmitz's most recent book is reviewed, and his views are explained
The Irish Catholic (January 2019): "Some of the brightest and best Catholic speakers from across the globe featured, including Fr Mike Schmitz, Dr Scott Hahn"
Crux (February 2019): Among the speakers were "Mike Schmitz, director of youth and young adult ministry for the Diocese of Duluth, Minnesota"

There seems to be a lot more as well. Certainly there's not enough to write an FA on Schmitz, but at least he passes the GNG. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, but allow a draft/recreation A poorly attended AfD. Upon review of the sources presented I'm still not convinced WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR is satisfied because several of those are mere mentions and I can't tell which ones are reliable or independent given the specialised nature of the publications mentioned above, but I don't have any issue with trying to write a new draft. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate as draft. The AfD was under-participated enough, and none of the more severe content issues were raised, that it really doesn't need to come to DRV to recreate, IMO. Independence of the new sources will need to be demonstrated, but that can be done after some time in draft space. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate as draft. I probably would have relisted the AfD instead of closing it, but the actual close isn't unreasonable. More to the point, as always, if additional information comes to light after an AfD, an article can always be recreated. Writing a new draft would be a good way to get some input on the quality of the new sources. I wouldn't have any objection to it being re-created in mainspace, and if somebody didn't like the new sources, they can always being it back to AfD. As a practical matter, if it's re-created in mainspace and shot down again at AfD, you'll find it much more difficult to get people to accept a third attempt. Trying it out in draft space will get you some review in a less pressurized environment. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate as draft, noting that there is no prejudice against acceptance because of the AFD. This may be the same as changing the result to a Soft Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be fine to recreate as a draft. Killiondude (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate as draft per discussion above. Just Chilling (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 March 2019

Portal:Bacon – No prejudice against renomination. Everybody has found a different way to say it, but the gist is this was a defective nomination, which led to a defective discussion/close, so the results shouldn't be binding. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals

Closed three days early in a way that does not reflect the discussion or what happened. The discussion found that the Portals Classification system is too inconsistent to follow in batching nominations, so I withdrew the nomination about halfway through the 7 day discussion. Note all the Oppose votes instead of normal Keep votes, which goes to the heart of the merits of using the inconsistent classification system for MFD selection, hence the withdraw so individual pages or topical groups could be nominated instead. The closer is a member of WikiProject Portals, signed up for their newsletter, and appears to have jumped at the chance to finally tag a series of pages as Keep after so many have closed delete. I prefer a more accurate close of Withdrawn and a finding statement that most of the voters found the classifications to be inaccurate or inconsistent. Note this whole portal issue is now at ArbComm plus AN plus other places so getting an accurate close is important. Legacypac (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. The discussion was not closed three days early, it was closed eight hours early. The discussion was started on 11:19, 17 March 2019‎ (link) and was closed on 03:20, 24 March 2019 (diff). While it would have been optimal for the standard full 168 hours to have transpired, re-opening the discussion at this point for another eight hours likely won't change the outcome. There were also concerns in the discussion regarding the style of bundling that was used, and the number of users opining for some or all of the pages to be retained has more gravity compared to the nominator singly withdrawing. Furthermore, since the discussion did have a delete !vote present, a "withdrawn" close would be inappropriate, as these are typically only used for discussions that have no outstanding delete !votes (see WP:WITHDRAWN). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a strong advocate of portals spam your opinion is bias. There are three days of open MfDs below this and the old business section. Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion above is based upon objective logic and a deletion guideline. As such, my !vote is entirely valid, and stands. Also, please read and adhere to WP:AVOIDYOU. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to my !vote: Upon further consideration, no prejudice to changing the close to a procedural close. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and reclose as something other than "keep" (withdrawn, procedural close, no consensus, I'm not sure which, but it's not "keep"). This was a bundled nom of 18 portals assessed as "bottom importance" by the portal project. Various editors voted to keep this portal or that portal. Nobody voted "keep all". Several editors voted "oppose" (interestingly, they didn't use the word "keep") based on the argument that the bundled portals shouldn't have been bundled (which I see as distinct from arguing that the bundled portals should all be kept). The consensus was clear that these portals should not be bundled because their assessments weren't helpful. Once that became clear (early on), the nom agreed to withdraw (because it wasn't a good bundle) but asked to keep the discussion open for comments, a sensible thing that allowed folks to offer some more input about what people thought about those various (disparate) portals on the list. Closing the discussion as "keep" suggests there was consensus that all the portals should be kept, and I don't see that anywhere in the discussion. The point has been made that this nom can't be closed as a "withdraw" because there was one delete !vote. That vote was made by Robert McClenon, and I don't want to speak for him, but something tells me he'd strike that vote if that meant the discussion could be closed as withdrawn instead of keep. Although, in my opinion, having someone strike a delete vote so a nom can be withdrawn seems like a lot of BURO. In any case, this should be closed as withdrawn, or a procedural close for bad bundling, or maybe a no consensus close, but the discussion doesn't support a "keep" close because there wasn't consensus to keep those portals. (Indeed, once a nom announces they're willing to withdraw but asks the discussion to remain open, the discussion "fails" procedurally because passing voters–like me–won't bother to comment since they don't think it's a "live" discussion.) Leviv ich 15:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I commented so I'm not going to bold anything here, but Portal:Anime and Manga was clearly withdrawn earlier and separately from the rest of the batch and discussion didn't continue, so a "withdrawn" closure for that one specifically would not be incorrect. I see a consensus to keep Portal:Jane Austen and Portal:Harry Potter, and not much discussion about other individual portals. There was clearly no consensus to delete though so I don't see a problem with any of "keep", "keep without prejudice to unbundled nominations" or "no consensus" (other than for the three I've mentioned). I would likely have gone for "keep without prejudice" but the others are well within closers discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Set Aside as Withdrawn. In any case, Overturn. This is a case where the close could not possibly be derived from the !votes. There were multiple mistakes involved, first by User:Legacypac in bundling this bundle of unrelated portals, which is exactly what is meant by TRAINWRECK, then perhaps by me in supporting this trainwreck, then by Legacypac in making a confused close/withdraw which was neither a clean close nor a clean withdraw, but most importantly by the closer, because the conclusion of Keep the whole thing has nothing to do with what was said. Yes, I would strike my !vote if that is what is needed to permit a withdraw. These nominations should be permitted to be made again without being prejudiced by this MFD that should be viewed as having never happened. This train went into a ravine. Try again, or don't try again. In any case, wait and see if the ArbCom imposes a pause on portal deletion. Overturn as Withdrawn, or as nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An early mistake was in classifying these portals as bottom importance. That was clearly random and arbitrary. I should never have relied on the decision making ability of users who created so much trouble. It is impossible to get a "keep" out of the votes to "oppose". I think valid points were made about Jane Austin and maybe some other topics and particularly about the lack of proper classification so I withdrew the whole thing. I also find it interesting an Admin with so little MfD experience choose this one weird MfD to close out of process. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a pretty solid consensus in that discussion that those portals should not have been bundled in one nomination like that, along with opposition to deleting particular portals. I think the best result would be to set the discussion aside as fundamentally flawed, and allow individual portals to be renominated separately if someone thinks there will be a consensus for the deletion of that particular portal. Hut 8.5 20:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn to no consensus~~ Endorse, but clarify keep as without prejudice for renomination There's nothing wrong at all with the close ~~and I almost went endorse,~~ but I think the best way to solve the problem is to set this aside as a "no consensus" on whether the portals should be kept or not. I think "keep" works in the context of all of the portals bundled together individually, but from an absolutely semantic point of view a "no consensus" would allow the portals to be renominated. Keep it a keep but clarify you're allowing for immediate renomination. SportingFlyer T·C 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (Comment edited SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Endorse but reclose as procedural close, procedural keep, speedy keep, no prejudice keep, nom withdraw or whatever you want to call it. The discussion centered around the bad nom, and the closing rationale notes this. Since there wasn't (and couldn't have been) much discussion on the content, it shouldn't be taken as a close "with prejudice" IMO, instead analogous to speedy keep via WP:SK1. I feel changing the wording of the close to reflect that would be the most appropriate action. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the sole deleting !voter supports withdraw, the deletion cannot be withdrawn as there was a delete !vote and several merge !votes. I'm fine with an WP:IAR withdraw since there's support from the deleting !voter, but technically the initial withdraw shouldn't have been allowed, plus a "keep without prejudice" close is better anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Arbcom are capable of assessing the situation properly, whatever words appear in bold in the closing statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it behooves us to be clear "on the record" that these portals can be renominated, and the result was procedural consensus (about the nomination), not a substantive consensus (about the portals). Leviv ich 13:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but reclose as procedural keep/withdrawn etc. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 March 2019

22 March 2019

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality – relisted — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Ok so this is a bit of an odd one... I was the one who nominated this template for deletion and the outcome of the discussion WAS to delete it. So... Why am I challenging? As I started to actually look at performing the conversion, I discovered a lot more about the template and how it worked. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, a deletion review may be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. I want to be clear, I do not believe that ANYONE acted in bad faith here. Hhkohh I am NOT questioning that you acted in good faith when you closed the discussion. At the time, I obviously 100% supported it. I think the only fair thing here is to reopen the discussion. At the end of the day, I want to make sure we get this right. If anyone has any questions or would like me to explain something more, please {{ping|zackmann08}} and I will be happy to answer! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I discovered a lot more about the template and how it worked" Perhaps you could share those findings with us..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: great question. The biggest thing was the discovery of Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Infobox_Finnish_municipality/. While in general I am opposed to the use of templates to store data in this way, right now it is the best solution there is. Until such time as all that data is able to be ported over to something like Wikidata in a more supporting way, I think that converting the infobox will cause more harm than good. Whether or not you agree with that, I strongly believe this point warrants further discussion. In the interest of fairness and transparency, I think we need to hash out that part of the discussion before choosing to delete the template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse there is nothing that needs changing here; there is clearly consensus to not use a wrapper infobox, and it seems like there is consensus to continue to use the data subtemplates. Those two outcomes are not incompatible, as data subtemplates can be passed directly to the infobox, see Template:Metadata Population BE for an example. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I want to reiterate that I'm not suggesting that ANYONE acted in bad faith here or did anything wrong. I mean I guess I could say that I failed to really do my WP:BEFORE here, but that really isn't my point. To some extent I actually agree with what you said. However, I feel that the best/most fair course of action is to at least re-evaluate the discussion. I don't see any downside to re-opening the discussion with a bit more information. If the same decision is reached, then we move forward and implement it (I'm more than likely going to be the one to do so and I'm fine with that!). I just want to make sure that I do this right. Would you be willing to support a relist so that we can at least further discuss this new information? You and I don't always see eye to eye on these discussions but I have always appreciated the way that you lay out the facts for clear discussion. I'm just asking for a chance to do that here as well. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist This is a unique procedural request, and I don't see any harm in granting it. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Templates are a highly technical area, and I'm not at all up on the details. But, if the person who nominated it for deletion has changed his mind, I can't see how it hurts to let the people who actually understand the technology talk about it for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a relist given the reasoning. IAR etc. etc. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist since the TfD nominator has changed his mind about the deletion nomination. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 March 2019

Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine – Endorse. The decision to delete the template is endorsed by a wide margin. I note that the issue of the religious significance of the colors only came up after most of the endorse comments were made, but it looks like everybody concerned was still active in the discussion after that came up, and it didn't change their opinions.

There's also some discussion of using technical means to switch colors based on the subdivision name. That seems outside the scope of what DRV should be deciding, so it should be worked out on the various talk pages. Such discussions appear to already be in progress, so that works out well. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

the new settlement template are all (standardised) blue, while the old Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine was green, matching the Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This is a colour that we have decided on after many discussions over the years. Unless the settlement template can be modified to include the old green colour, then please undo the deletion decision for Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine Huldra (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Good close. Settlement infoboxes don't need to have a green colour. Number 5 7 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to reopen I'm trying my best here to WP:AGF but based on everything I've seen and the numerous messages left on my talk page, this is a pretty clear case of someone who didn't get their way and therefor is challenging the outcome. The TFD ran its course. The decision was to merge. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see anything wrong with the close. SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? The color issue was not raised by you or anyone once in that discussion, and in fact, "standardized" was an argument 2 editors used, which in this context means "use the standard color and not the green one". Don't try and game the system. --Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (!voted in the discussion). I too do not recall colors being discussed. The whole rationale was to use a project wide infobox and standardize - abandoned settlements exist everywhere and there is no need for separate infoboxes types. Even if there was some local long ago consensus somewhere for the color green, that would not have affected the discussion and should not affect the DRV.Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Edits in the Israel-Palestine topic area are immensely contentious and difficult, and that's why I'm cautious about treating this purely as a standardisation issue. I note that, for example, the national flag of Israel is blue and white, and the national flag of Palestine is black, green and white. I don't know if this change could be politically sensitive? The nominator is invited to give us more reasoning to work with, if there's any more to say.—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Israel is a darker blue, although it would be trivial to add a #switch based on the value in |subdivision_name= to change the colour for |subdivision_name=[[Mandatory Palestine]]. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, thank you. I didn't know it was so simple. Why don't we do that?—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mandatory Palestine used the Union Jack (as well as a very blue postal flag) which is red, white, and blue - the later being most of the flag. There were abandoned Jewish settlements as well in the Mandate. Not that color is a DRV issue - I would wonder (irony) if we want to color code settlements by ethnicity (should we color historic African American towns in the deep south)?Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at Template talk:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus - it is mainly Huldra agreeing with herself it should be green - vs. challenges from other users (deviations, accessibility) Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only rationale for the infobox heading being green seems to be WP:ILIKEIT – see the comments here when a related template was first created – it wasn't done for any particular purpose. Number 5 7 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lets just do that, make a switch for Mandatory Palestine. I think that would satisfy everyone's concerns. nableezy - 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nableezy: this really isn't the place for that discussion... Discuss it on the template's talk page. This is for deciding if the closure needs to be undone. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. We discuss closes here; if a consensus to amend a close happens here, we would normally enact it. You could certainly could pop a pointer on the template's talk page, that's a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Discussing it here and not on the talk page of the actual template, without even notifying watchers of that template that a change is going to happen to it, is very much how we do not do things here. Also, since the op has now started a discussion there, and that one is the 3rd one happening at the same time, this WP:TALKFORK should stop. The scope of this discussion is if the actual closure was correct or not - and since it was open for 17 days (much more than the minimum) had 6 editors commenting with only 1 opposing and an involved closure, there is no reason to revert it. Any change to the actual style of the template now has to be discussed at the template's talk page. --Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it OK for a consensus of half a dozen editors on a template talk page to make a change that affects tens of thousands of articles, but wrong for DRV to have a discussion without consulting template editors?—S Marshall T/C 12:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- User:S Marshall: this is now being discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#Colour_change. Incidentally, I did not find it helpful when editors just wrote something like "take this up at the correct venue", without giving a link to the correct venue. For people who are totally ignorant about templates (like me), it is not easy to find, Huldra (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked closely, but if I'm understanding correctly, this merge resulted in a color change some might find controversial without directly discussing that in much detail. If that's correct, a technical solution which keeps the colors the same but does the merger seems optimal. Sorry, wanted to give my 2 cents but not sure I'll have time to put into this to be sure I'm understanding correctly. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: there are whole academic books written about the blue vs green issue, take "Petersen, Andrew, 2018, Bones of Contention: Muslim Shrines in Palestine" gives a good introduction, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I just read Wikipedia's articles on Blue in Judaism and Green in Islam. That gave me enough context to understand how a change from green to blue could be controversial when applied to a template in the I-P topic area.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The colour in and of itself isn't a reason to overturn the deletion discussion, but if we can change the colour of the new template, I agree we should do so. Thank you S Marshall for taking up this viewpoint on the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 01:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dorothy Hague – "Delete" closure endorsed (even though to the regret of some participants) Sandstein 07:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hague was Ontario's first female reeve, and the first female member of Metropolitan Toronto's executive council making her one of the most powerful politicians, and perhaps the most powerful female politician, in Metro Toronto in the 1950s. Deletion occurred after minimal discussion, that was not unanimous, and was premised on a misunderstanding of what Metropolitan Toronto was and the false assumption that Metro and Metropolitan Toronto council were less significant than the current amalgamated city of Toronto. They were not. Metro Council was an upper tier municipal government and its executive council was even more so. Hague was accordingly a significant local figure in Canada's largest municipality. 157.52.12.31 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Plenty of participation at a 5-1 vote from experienced AfDers, I see no reason to overturn or relist this. SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete as reasonable. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn and relist - the nomination is reasonable but the other delete comments are variations on WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM. Since AfD is not a vote, I do not see sufficient consensus to delete at this time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's sad that we don't have articles on topics like this. I view it as a failure of our inclusion guidelines. I suspect with enough work a short and reliable biography could be assembled. I hate to see history like this removed from Wikipedia. That said, the close reflected the discussion and the discussion appears to reflect our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as presented. This appears to be a re-argument of the deletion, rather than of whether either the closer was in error or there is new information. The closer does not appear to have been in error. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 March 2019

File:VinesauceJoel.jpg – Endorse. There's some question about which specific WP:CSD was the correct one, but there's clear agreement that the file should have been deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

AwesumIndustrys (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the F9 deletion isn't technically valid because there was a fair use rationale, but it clearly wasn't a valid rationale. The subject is a living person and that alone is usually taken to mean that the image is replaceable (because it is possible to take a picture of him and release it under a free licence). You said on the deleting admin's talk page that "he seldom shows his face", this isn't typically considered sufficient. Also the image was only being used in one page, Draft:Vinesauce, and we don't allow fair use images to be used outside mainspace so it shouldn't have been in the draft. We do also delete fair use images which aren't being used in articles so it would have been deleted for that reason anyway. Hut 8.5 23:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an F4, too, give or take the week-long timeout; the source given (https://vinesauce.fandom.comview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_March&sq=Qlik&lang=&file=File:FabulousJoel.jpg) is plainly invalid. —Cryptic 02:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 March 2019

User:Rockstone35/list of banned users – There is no consensus about whether the speedy deletion was appropriate. in such cases, we generally refer the page to XfD, which is what I am doing. Sandstein 14:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I contested the speedy deletion, and the page was restored. Another admin has speedily deleted it without addressing the reasons for contesting its deletion and has thus far not responded to my attempts to communicate with them. If it is the consensus of the community that this page, which is in user space, should not exist, then that's okay, but I would like for consensus to actually be established before a deletion occurs. At the very least, it shouldn't have been speedily deleted without a consensus being built. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn CSD. WP:G4 requires that the page be substantially identical to the deleted version, and that it is not a user space copy. This fails both of those. I can't see any reason why somebody wants to maintain this list, but I also can't see any reason to object to it. And, even if somebody does have a good reason to object to it, take it to WP:MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Roy, where G4 discusses userspace, it says it excludes things in userspace "...for explicit improvement". I can't see this article, but my sense is this isn't an article being improved, but something intended to live in user space. Would you agree with that? Hobit (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is identical except for paragraph breaks. The idea that you can claim a list is nonidentical in substance because, while you don't include any of the entries that were on the deleted version, you link to an offsite archive of the deleted version, is patently absurd. And while G4 exempts material moved to userspace for explicit improvement, listing "newer bans" is not an improvement in the context of the discussion at MFD. This isn't even a close call. Endorse. —Cryptic 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee, where the consensus was to place Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee under the sole discretion of
"of any Arbitrator or Clerk. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)".

As ArbCom has purview over all banned users (note that Wikipedia:Clean start excludes clean starts for blocked or banned users), that decision should apply to all lists of Banned Users. Other's maintaining live lists of banned users are too much of a privacy problem, and no random user should have good reason to maintain this negative list (cf WP:POLEMIC). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it a WP:LTA matter? compare Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The intent here is obviously to maintain, in some form, a list of banned users. The community said very clearly it did not want that in a series of MFDs. Normally userfying stuff that was in project space is fine, but this case is an obvious exception as we have a pre-existing consensus that this material should not be hosted on Wikipedia at all, and that discussion was clearly cited in the deletion log. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I may be missing something. I see 6 MfDs. I believe all but the last resulted in "keep". Was there some other discussion I missed? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're not missing anything. It's kind of crazy that a single MFD can result in a deletion of an article and past decisions can be ignored. It's like retrying someone in a court of law until you get the result you want. I really disagree that there ever was consensus for it in the first place. But of course, if consensus is against me, I'll have no choice but to abide by it. I still think whether or not WP:LOBU should be recreated in the project namespace should be discussed somewhere where more eyes can see it, though. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CCC. And it did. If you want to change it back, fine, but this is not the way to do so. If you look at those old discussions, you'll see me arguing to keep in one of them, but in the end the community decided it didn't want it. In retrospect I do now agree, but even if I didn't consensus is the primary means of decision making here and the current consensus is that we shouldn't have this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think the consensus did change, as the margins were 33 keep 35 delete. However, that's all in the past, anyway, and consensus could of course change again. I'm not sure where to post if I want to change it back, other than the village pump, where I already posted it. Rockstonetalk to me! 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per Cryptic, Beeblebrox, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee etc. -- Begoon 01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This seems to be a straightforwardly-valid G4 speedy deletion. The community legitimately decided to delete the log of banned users as harmful, so continuing to maintain it in one's userspace would seem to directly betray the community's intent, and is undoubtedly an improper use of the userspace anyway per WP:POLEMIC. So, the argument that it's "in my userspace" is not valid. Secondly, the argument that "it should be discussed" is not valid either. The whole point of CSD is that they're uncontentious "quick fail" criteria for pages, and do not require "discussion". If the CSD applies, which it does in this case, then there is nothing more to discuss. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Banned users are people too, even if their editing puts them at odds with the creation of an encyclopedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close was a correct interpretation of the MfD and a correct reading of community norms. Maintaining lists of bad people provides no benefit for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't endorse a speedy deletion enforcing a MfD that old. Also, I can't agree with the fallacy that deleting this stuff off the encyclopaedia is in any way helpful. The practical effect of deletions like this is to drive discussion about Wikipedia's governance and procedures off-wiki.—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 4.5 years since the MfD. That's long enough it seems reasonable to discuss again, especially considering it was kept 5 times before that deletion in 2014 and the discussion was close (close enough NC was the most obvious close). Does G4 apply? Maybe, I can't see either article. But after 6 tries to delete over the years, one successful one shouldn't end the discussion forever. overturn speedy Hobit (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the previous discussion pages? It requires more assumption of good faith than is healthy to call them six tries to delete. —Cryptic 02:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you mean. I'd not looked closely before, just at the bold !votes and the closes. But it *was* kept and #5 was a pretty darn strong keep. Hobit (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly I think reversing the MfD should be discussed again, although I have a feeling that the discussion should not be done here in WP:Deletion Review, but rather somewhere that more people can see it. I really was disappointed when the list was deleted the first time, as now it's impossible to tell why someone was banned. It's always possible that someone could make the ban reasons more neutral (perhaps simply a link to the discussion that resulted in their ban, and nothing more). Rockstonetalk to me! 05:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment.

The contrast between MfD5 (20 July 2013) and MfD6 (2 October 2014) is startling. However, the last formal discussion was this (23 October 2014), which although addressing a slightly different scope, and involving far fewer people (including me), I believe should be considered decisive. If it was the wrong decision, that the community generally should not be maintaining this list, then I think it needs a serious discussion, not a unilateral recreation, from unknown sources.

A small number of people at Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse#Lists_of_Banned_Users seem to also be saying that such lists are not a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a reasonable thing to send back to MfD after 4.5 years, that's all I'm saying. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second this notion Rockstonetalk to me! 06:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist- -it's the only way to see the current consensus. Then we can discuss whether or not it should be kept or deleted, not the previous processes and their implications. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 March 2019

Threatin – Moot. Already resolved. Hair today, gone tomorrow. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Article was substantially different than previously deleted article, so G4 speedy grounds is invalid. Subject of the article has received considerable press coverage since original deletion and now meets notability criteria. Article was properly sourced. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close The deleting admin has already reverted the deletion. The deletion was despite the admin liking the subject's hair (diff) but I suggest there is no need to review whether that liking is firmly based on policy. Thincat (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 March 2019

Talos the Untamed – Endorse. There's clear consensus that the close was correct. There's also agreement that, while in theory, this subject could be spun back out into its own article (i.e. undo the merge) on the strength of a talk page discussion without need for DRV involvement, there's no evidence right now that such a spin-out would be warranted. There's also a side-discussion on the allowable limits of WP:NAC, but that's not really germaine to the outcome here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Article was taken to AFD before the release of the film and concluded as a merge. I have since added a few sources, and I will note that there are many more about both the film and comics version of the character on a simple Google search. This should be overturned to Keep, although I am not disputing the original close, only noting that it has not been invalidated. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:EC2A:AD59:8F97:77DE (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I believe this should have been closed by an administrator. The close was accurate, though, and I do not believe the merged content could stand alone at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 06:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD result looks fine, alll participants were happy with a merge outcome and this is the sort of uncontentious cose which non-admins are allowed to do. Regarding the question of whether the merge should be undone, in theory this is something to be discussed at the relevant article talk pages (although in practice there may not be many people watching that discussion). I am a bit dubious about having an article on a fictional character whose only claim to fame is appearing as a secondary character in a high profile film. Detailed discussion of the character's portrayal in that film is normally done in the article about the film and the rest of the OP's version was only sourced to comic books. Hut 8.5 19:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close. The merge and redirect should until there is a consensus at the target talkpage to reverse the decision. Do not come to DRV to reverse old merge decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In general I do not believe non-sysops should be closing any AfD except SNOW keeps. There was basically consensus among participants so maybe it's an exception but maybe not. I will note, as I don't have the article watchlisted, that I don't see any substantial change in notability from when I made the nom even with the release of the film. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Often I will agree, ~~but in this case the AfD should have been speedy closed due to lacking a delete rationale. AfD is not for proposed merges. Remind User:Barkeep49 of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD.~~ --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Struck after reviewing the article history and reverted redirection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

@SmokeyJoe: What do BEFORE and ATD have with any of this? The topic is not notable. I know this because I conducted a BEFORE in addition to looking at the sourcing that was present in the article. However, because I believe in AtD I attempted to implement a redirect. When challenged I went to a community process to establish its notability (or not). The community agreed with me the topic was not notable but also agreed with me that there was a suitable AtD. BEFORE and AtD were thus fully honored. What you really seem to be saying is that AfD is not a place to use to make non-notable topics into a redirect. Because it's late I where I live I'm not going to find more recent examples but will simply reuse this from the last time I was challenged about the appropriateness of using AfD to have community consensus for redirect as a proposed outcome, the point of which was later agreed to by the sysop who had challenged me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE requires you to consider merge/redirect targets. You obviously found at least one. WP:ATD requires you to redirect, not delete, unless you have a compelling reason that would justify deletion of the history behind the redirect. If you were challenged in making the redirect, that is a good reason for AfD, but, the onus is on you to mention it in the AfD nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_72#Has_AFD_become_"Articles_for_Discussion"_?. Ping User:Masem, to ask if there is confusion in the advice being given. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to use AfD to enforce the disputed merge and redirect, but please mention the dispute in the AfD nomination. Some regularly check the history, but it is very helpful to mention it when so relevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 March 2019

15 March 2019

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes – The result was overturn and restore. There is a consensus that these deletions are not uncontroversial and therefore should be discussed at an appropriate venue, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC) – Joe (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Clearly inappropriate speedy deletions. Previously restored through this venue, see here. These are also transcluded on many userpages. Discussed here. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a speedy criteria stated as a reason for the deletion. And I don't see how waiting for MfD would be harmful--these have been around for years I believe. overturn for now, but I'm open to the idea that there may be an applicable speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the rest of these deletions by me. As a Quaker I find the sentiments expressed in the No Gun Ctl and SAC templates totally abhorrent. However as a Wikipedian I say that since both these templates are used by several users, they should be allowed to remain. It simply does not matter who created them.

Same principle goes for all the others. I have not restored Anarcho Syn, Lib Soc and No Darwinism because my deletion of these was done in response to speedy tags placed by Legacypac. All the others I deleted without anyone else's suggestion.

I have left Taste, UBX War and Userboxes deleted because they are only minimally used. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the deletions cited U5, which I don't think is actually unreasonable. The author has 153 contributions, all to user or user talk space and almost entirely to userboxes, particularly those associated with contentious political or philosophical views. I suspect that a lot of them were created to make a point about Wikipedia's stances on userboxes, which were controversial at the time. If an editor made only this type of edit now and didn't make any attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia then I think they would probably be deleted under U5 and that wouldn't be questioned. Yes, they were discussed at DRV in 2006, but that might as well be ancient history now, the deletion policy has changed since and the discussion was about whether they met criterion T1 (which was repealed ages ago). I'd be happy with restoring any that someone wants to claim as long as they are moved into that person's userspace. Hut 8.5 22:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There may be a need to discuss these, but that should be at MfD , not here. Speedy is for use in uncontestable deletions, not for those which "may not be actually unreasonable", which is much to low a criterion. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Unless my detective work is mistaken, these all survived their most recent deletion discussion. So, speedy deletion is not allowed except where WP:CSD explicitly makes an exception. None of the exceptions apply here. Thincat (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted I tagged a few U5 because the user had zero controbutions outside their own userspace and no interest in developing Wikipedia. Crating a Nazi userbox is clearly WP:NOTHERE behaviour. It is a good example of using wikipedia to host stuff no one needs or wants. U5 is used for a lot more possibily useful but unused random pages then these "userboxes" no one is using or needs. Legacypac (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend an RfC on userboxes for social-political expression vs editors’ declaration of biases vs POLEMIC. XfD and DRV are ill-suited for developing community consensus. It has been a very long time since the userbox wars, there is no rush. In the status quo, there is nothing wrong with User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Gun Ctl on a userpage, and tranclusion of userboxes is probably better than a proliferation of altered substed userboxes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all, not speediable, very far from IAR justifiable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grudging overturn. These userboxen don't help us build an encyclopedia, so I agree they should be deleted. I also don't think the prohibition against CSD for pages that have survived XfD should have force if the XfD was 13 years ago. And, looking at TMoT's contributions, it's pretty obvious they are/were a WP:SOCK. But, the real bottom line on CSD is that it should be for uncontroversial deletions; the very fact that this has generated controversy should be enough to overturn. There's no rush. After all this time, a week at XfD won't hurt. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 March 2019

ThinkMarkets – No consensus to relist or otherwise review further. Sandstein 12:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Following the review of ThinkMarkets page, I would like to share with you another source https://www.cricketworld.com/glenn-mc-grath-partners-with-thinkmarkets-to-promote-cricket-and-female-empowerment/55423.htm. ThinkMarkets is a licensed and regulated broker in UK and Australia. ThinkMarkets' Financial Conduct Authority information is listed on their website https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000000aRiH0AAK

References: https://www.sportindustry.biz/news/industry-shorts-purple-sport-thinkmarkets-fitbodo-lta http://www.cityam.com/270300/amir-khan-interview-british-boxer-his-last-fights-before https://techfinancials.co.za/2019/03/04/uk-online-brokerage-firm-thinkmarkets-awarded-sa-trading-licence/ https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/thinkmarkets-integrates-trade-interceptor-core-offering/ https://www.afr.com/technology/online-trading-broker-thinkmarkets-targets-100-million-listing-20180626-h11wcj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddendigits (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist at AfD~~ Endorse. Allegations of WP:UPE aside, the AfD was pretty marginal. Other than the nom, only one person commented. Closing a 2-user AfD as delete isn't strictly against the rules, but I don't like doing that. I would have relisted it. There's ostensibly better sourcing now, so my recommendation is to restore it and immediately bring it back to AfD, where the new sources can be evaluated properly. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize this had been at DRV before. I see I commented at both of those, but didn't remember that at the time I wrote the above comment. We're not here to endlessly re-review things. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per RoySmith. No comment on whether it will be kept after the relist or not. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist needed more discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's changed since the last two times you asked for this to be reviewed a month and a half and a month ago, using substantially similar (and in some cases identical) refs? —Cryptic 00:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided two new references, also, Thinkmarkets has been operating for nearly a decade, the Retail foreign exchange trading market grew significantly post 2008 financial crisis as investors explored alternate products, the traditional asset classes like; bonds, equities and real estate were on 10-year lows and the nature and structure of currency derivatives meant investors could hedge and speculate on the volatile and liquid products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddendigits (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 March 2019

French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports – "No consensus" closure endorsed. Sandstein 12:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This redirect, which is a made-up translation of the name of a French organisation, was closed as 'Keep'. Despite a relisting, there was only one objection to my nomination. The objection rested on a mistaken assumption that a reader would use the made-up translation as a route to the article, which is patently a very weak argument, since the translation does not exist anywhere in the literature. The closer incorrectly assessed the strength of that argument in reaching his decision to keep. As "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", I have attempted to simply renominate and refute the earlier objection. However, the original closer has now objected to my renomination and closed that as a "Speedy keep", I'd like to see the issue debated properly, and I request that the decision be overturned. RexxS (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The translation is as made up as all translations are. It is a literal translation~~, and is also what a user would find if they inputted the French name into Google Translate.~~ The statement that the translation does not exist anywhere in literature is also false. This specific translation has been used in both books, academic journals, and various other online sources. This redirect is a plausible search phrase and useful to users. MarkZusab (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the reason that your second RfD was closed as "speedy keep" was due to you nominating the redirect for discussion less than 24 hours after the previous discussion closed. The closer of the first RfD did not "incorrectly assessed the strength of that argument in reaching his decision to keep". One person said it should be deleted and one person said it should be kept. The first discussion was not closed as a consensus to keep, but as no consensus. MarkZusab (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck out text above after learning that Travix had gone back and changed the result of deletion discussion. I had been going off of the most recent edit to the closing discussion. MarkZusab (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translations that are commonly used are not regarded as "made-up" in the way that this one is. It's not a literal translation. If you input the French name into Google translate, you don't get "French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports"; you get "French Federation of Studies and Underwater Sports", so your assertion is wrong. You are technically correct that the phrase does exist on the web, but leaving out mentions on Wikipedia, there are 412 Google hits. Compare that with 63,800 Ghits for "Fédération Française d'Études et de Sports Sous-Marins" and 1,520,000 for "FFESSM" - which is what any English reader would use to search. the redirect is clearly not a plausible search phrase and the redirect is worthless, as well as a magnet for well-meaning gnomes to move the correctly-titled article to a made-up translated name.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and common sense says that renomination in order to discuss the unresolved issues is more sensible than jumping through hoops here. The closer clearly did assess the strength of the sole objection incorrectly in reaching his decision to keep.

You need to check the history before asserting "The first discussion was not closed as keep, but as no consensus." I'm not stupid and I'm not lying. The discussion was closed as Keep, but Travix changed the close after telling me to go to DRV and while I was composing the DRV. --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I was unaware that Tavix was going back and changing the results of deletion discussion ~~with possible malicious intent~~. I was going off of the most recent edit to the closing discussion. MarkZusab (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see where that "possible malicious intent" comes from. As far as I can see from Tavix' talk page, he changed his close apparently as a conciliatory gesture. – Uanfala (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS' comment gave me the impression that Tavix had changed the result of the discussion while RexxS was in the process of creating this DRV with an intent to deceive people reading the original comment by RexxS. After looking at the discussion on Tavix' talk page, I agree with you that it appears to have been a conciliatory gesture. MarkZusab (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this and the following one. The bar for deleting redirects is usually quite high: to get deleted, a redirect needs to be either misleading, or getting in the way of searches, or just plain silly (like having a series of implausible typos). Conversely, it's easy to find reasons to keep a redirect: if it's useful at least to some people and it aids in searches. Even if this name weren't present in sources, it would have been an easy keep: we can't assume all readers will know the exact title of a foreign organisation, or that they will know the native name of that organisation. English translations like that would be quite plausible even without exactly following the wording of the native name. And also, if one of the premises of the nomination is correct – that editors might be tempted to move the article over the redirect – then this is a clear indication that the redirect is plausible, and its existence will actually prevent editors without advanced permissions from making such a move. Yes, at the time the discussion was closed, it hadn't received a lot of participation, so if you, RexxS, had simply asked the closer to reopen it to give you the opportunity to advance your argument, chances are that might have been granted. But even then it's very difficult to imagine the discussion arriving anywhere other than "keep". – Uanfala (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with these redirects is that they are creating an artificial neologism. WP:NEO warns us ""Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create an uncommon neologism in English." Over 99.9% of Google hits are for the actual French/Spanish names or their common abbreviations (FFESSM/FEDAS). Those abbreviations are the obvious search terms, and we don't need to have a redirect for searches like "French underwater federation" to find our article.

I don't agree that going to the closer and asking for a re-open would have been successful, judging by the response when I actually did that. Is it a good use of my time to argue with the closer to re-open the discussion, and then have to make the same argument again in the RfD? Surely, a simple renomination is the least bureaucratic and most efficient way to debate the pints I was able to raise? I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's less hassle to leave these useless redirects and clean up the consequent recurring problems every time they happen, than to try to explain that the redirects are a net negative to the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about articles for neologisms, but about a redirect from a plausible translation that's also actually attested in sources (as MarkZusab's links demonstrate). If this name is not commonly used, then that's an argument for not mentioning it in the article (or for mentionining it with less prominence), not against the redirect. There are widely used classses of redirects that are less "correct" than this one (from misnomers, or wrongly disambiguated titles, or misspellings, to name a few). And again, simply asking the closer to reopen is quite likely to work, but ignoring the close, immediately opening a new discussion (without notifying anyone involved) and, after the inevitable speedy keep, posting an indignant message to the closer, is much less so. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I am talking about neologisms for article titles. What you seem to be missing is that the very presence of such a redirect is an invitation for the article to be moved to the title of the redirect. How many times are you willing to see other editors have to clean up after that before you understand the issue? Simply asking the closer to reopen is not at all likely to work, no matter how many times you suggest it. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, simply asking me to reopen the discussion was going to work until you decided to ignore the close and immediately opened a new discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are, but editors' time isn't. --RexxS (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you wasting it on two of the most pointless discussions I've seen at deletion review? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly because he believes he is saving (lots more of) future editor time, no? - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No consensus is a reasonable close. Could've have relisted again, sure, but after 2.5 weeks, there's a law of diminishing returns; nobody else opined and we already relist enough. The change from keep->no consensus makes this a clear endorse, in my mind. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Clearly no consensus. Relisted once, which is also reasonable. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I was going to close this as SNOW Endorse (which I suggest somebody else should do), but wanted to say some things. First, this is a waste of time. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. The idea that you want to delete one because maybe somebody in the future might take that as an invitation to move the article is just plain silly. Wikipedia is a huge project. In all huge projects, trivial little issues will come up all the time. If every single one was litigated to this extent, we'd never get anything done. Don't sweat the small stuff, concentrate on the main mission. I also want to give a very small minnow to Tavix for this edit. If you want to update your close, better to ~~strikeout~~ the previous material rather than remove it entirely. That leads to less confusion, of the sort we've seen here. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you're really worried about what somebody might do to the redirect in the future, ask for it to be protected. I don't think that's necessary, but it would be a more reasonable way to achieve your goal. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good advice to use strike when updating the close. I had realized I should have done that when reading the exchange between RexxS and MarkZusab. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably self-evident that I endorse both of these closes. I'd just like to add that the idea that these redirects could encourage editors to move the articles to those titles is wildly spurious. If the redirects were deleted, any autoconfirmed user could move the pages to those titles. As such—given that they're redirects with page history—an administrator needs to be involved. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

or a page mover if they do a round-robin move. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is really far from being a plausible search term, folks. To me, it looks like a clear example of WP:RFD#DELETE ground 8. Surely anyone who has the French to translate the very specific title so accurately would just look it up in French?—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, somebody might have been reading this book, seen "French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports" mentioned in the text, and wanted more information. Or this website or this one, or read this paper which gives the abstract in both English and French, and was working off the English version. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes of course: it could have been machine-translated.—S Marshall T/C 01:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I doubt any of those I cited above were machine translations. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the (second) closing. Though I would have voted to delete, with the discussion as was (one nomination, one objection), closing as no consensus is just fine - Nabla (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities – endorse close by unanimous agreement with original closer. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This redirect, which is a made-up translation of the name of a Spanish organisation, was closed as 'Keep'. Despite a relisting, there was only one objection to my nomination. The objection rested on a mistaken assumption that a reader would use the made-up translation as a route to the article, which is patently a very weak argument, since the translation does not exist anywhere in the literature. The closer incorrectly assessed the strength of that argument in reaching his decision to keep. As "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", I have attempted to simply renominate and refute the earlier objection. However, the original closer has now objected to my renomination and closed that as a "Speedy keep", I'd like to see the issue debated properly, and I request that the decision be overturned. RexxS (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The translation is as made up as all translations are. It is a literal translation, and is also what a user would find if they inputted the Spanish name into Google Translate. The statement that the translation does not exist anywhere in literature is also false. This specific translation has been used in various online sources and newspapers. This redirect is a plausible search phrase and useful to users. MarkZusab (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of use in online sources and newspapers: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Many more can be found with a simple Google search. MarkZusab (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the reason that your second RfD was closed as "speedy keep" was due to you nominating the redirect for discussion less than 24 hours after the previous discussion closed. The closer of the first RfD did not "incorrectly assessed the strength of that argument in reaching his decision to keep". One person said it should be deleted and one person said it should be kept. The first discussion was not closed as a consensus to keep, but as no consensus. MarkZusab (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck out text above after learning that Tavix had gone back and changed the result of deletion discussion. I had been going off of the most recent edit to the closing discussion. MarkZusab (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translations that are commonly used are not regarded as "made-up" in the way that this one is. You are technically correct that the phrase does exist on the web, but leaving out mentions on Wikipedia, there are 234 Google hits. Compare that with 29,600 Ghits for "Federación Española de Actividades Subacuáticas" and 293,000 for "FEDAS" - which is what any English reader would use to search. the redirect is clearly not a plausible search phrase and the redirect is worthless, as well as a magnet for well-meaning gnomes to move the correctly-titled article to a made-up translated name.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and common sense says that renomination in order to discuss the unresolved issues is more sensible than jumping through hoops here. The closer clearly did assess the strength of the sole objection incorrectly in reaching his decision to keep.

You need to check the history before asserting "The first discussion was not closed as keep, but as no consensus." I'm not stupid and I'm not lying. The discussion was closed as Keep, but Travix changed the close after telling me to go to DRV and while I was composing the DRV. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I was unaware that Tavix was going back and changing the results of deletion discussion with ~~possible malicious intent~~. I was going off of the most recent edit to the closing discussion. MarkZusab (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse No consensus is a reasonable close. Could've have relisted again, sure, but after 2.5 weeks, there's a law of diminishing returns; nobody else opined and we already relist enough. The change from keep->no consensus makes this a clear endorse, in my mind. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Clearly no consensus. Relisted once, which is also reasonable. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, per my comments at #French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, per my comments at #French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports - Nabla (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 March 2019

Project Pegasus – No action taken. There's not really anything to do here. The standard procedure is that for a sufficiently old XfD (and this one certainly qualifies), if new sources have appeared since the XfD, which address the issues raised, then anybody can go ahead and recreate the article without need for DRV involvement. That being said, there's agreement that the sources presented here are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. My suggestion is to continue to research sources and socialize them at Talk:Features of the Marvel Universe to see if you can form a consensus to spin this back out to its own article. User:SportingFlyer suggested draftifying the existing version; if somebody commits to working on this, I'll be happy to do that. Ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

When this page went to AFD five years ago, the result was a merge and I am not challenging that. At the time, there were no secondary sources. Project Pegasus had been included as more or less an easter egg in a few Marvel films at that time. However, since then, it is now featured as a huge part of the plot in the newly-released Captain Marvel film, and as such it is being discussed in independent reliable sources, five of which were added to the article recently before it was redirected again. There are plenty more sources that come up on a Google search, and there may be more RS articles there that I did not see. Based on item #3 at DRV, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", I believe it is time to consider overturning the AFD. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily specifically endorse a six-year-old AfD, but none of the sources on the page that was most recently redirected make any sort of showing of WP:GNG. I think this should remain a redirect, but don't have any problem if the revision right before the redirect gets moved to draftspace. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have moved this discussion to the correct date as it was incorrectly placed at March 11. Today is March 12. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using those sources to expand the list entry before splitting it off. In the version you link, the reliable sources are only used to say it was a location in a film. That's not enough to pass GNG. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump – I'm reopening this in my capacity as an individual administrator. The nominator is correct that this non-admin closure should not have taken place. Sandstein 17:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This discussion was closed less than 6 hours after it began. Although all the votes so far were keep, this was not a sufficient amount of time to judge consensus. Furthermore, this was closed via a WP:NACD by User:Serial Number 54129, a user who previously contested its speedy deletion [7] and therefore had no business closing the discussion. As per NACD, "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion, or for a page in which you have a vested interest " I asked the editor to revert the close and was refused. SerialNumber, also has a misunderstanding of the definition of WP:ATTACK, thinking that only poorly sourced articles are attack pages. Rusf10 (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 March 2019

Ephixa – Allow recreation. The discussion here is a little unusual for DRV. It's not DRV's remit to accept drafts. So, what I'll say here is that the finding of the previous AfD should not be taken as barring a reviewer at WP:AfC from accepting the draft if they find it meets all the usual AfD acceptance criteria. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The original page (before deletion in 2016) was not very good, so it was deleted. Since then, I had re-made the deleted page as a draft and it may now show enough notability to have a mainspace article. This deletion review was recommenced to me by Robert McClenon, who had declined the article for AfC and instead directed me here. Micro (Talk)

Comment - I have tried to rename this to review the deletion of the article in article space. The draft currently exists and is not up for deletion. I am not !voting to endorse or overturn the deletion at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - The current draft does make the case that the subject satisfies musical notability criteria 2 and 5. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as the subject passes criterion 2 and 5 of WP:MUSICBIO, though I don't know why the chart position mentioned in the draft isn't accurately covered in Criteria 2, as it only explicitly mentions songs and albums. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as per the above criteria in WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 March 2019

Dagger (zine) – Withdrawn - NorthPark1417 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

~~Requesting overturn~~. The article has been improved, see Draft:Dagger (zine) NorthPark1417 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was just deleted earlier today. A quick look at it shows large parts of this draft are identical to the deleted version, and much in common between the sources. There's enough difference that WP:G4 probably doesn't apply, but it's close. What, specifically, makes this draft worth keeping when the previous article was found to be lacking? I'm also curious if you have any relationship to the subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is expanded roughly three times in length. I have no relation to the article, as staff or otherwise if that's what you mean. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Nomination fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Close accurately reflected the discussion, which noted a lack of reliable sourcing to prove notability that was not overcome. Too bad, it seems interesting enough, but the decision to delete is well supported. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is well sourced. It has dozens of reviews in reputable magazines. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how my !vote could be confusing so I'll clarify. I'm not necessarily saying that I personally find the article to lack sourcing, but rather that the people commenting in the discussion did. The closing administrator correctly the got the gist of the collective arguments and rendered the outcome they favored. That's how consensus works here. That also is why the editor who first commented said your nomination failed DRVPURPOSE - this is not supposed to be second deletion discussion, but instead a review of whether the administrator followed consensus in closing the first one. I admit that we don't perfectly follow that rule and sometimes it does turn into a "retrial", but that is not the intent. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was unaware this was the wrong place. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 March 2019

Template:Infobox spacecraft – overturn - This was a clearly involved, bad NAC. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closer voted !delete in this TfD. However, he also relisted and closed as delete this discussion. So this closure is in questions and violates WP:INVOLVED. I did not leave messages/discuss about this on his talk page. Because there is already a DRV about his closure which opened today Hhkohh (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just note Gonnym is a nom of this TfD Hhkohh (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Two editors opposing deletion - one claiming it is still being used, which is a non-argument, as the proposal was to replace current uses with another template. The second opposed as it wasn't stated by the user adding the deprecation notice, why it was done. I found the discussion that resulted in consensus for that decision but the editor opposing ignored my finding (he commented later on that same discussion). A pretty much non-controversial closure, which was re-listed twice and the second didn't get any other comments. --Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonnym: I think we should leave other editors close it not by himself. He is an involved editor. No matter whether the outcome is keep or delete, he should not close the discussion Hhkohh (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonnym: You should read WP:INVOLVED. Closure is an administrative action. So WP:INVOLVED applies here Hhkohh (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd probably leave it for other people to close, but I'd also never close any disscussion as I just don't want to deal with any backlash of any kind. There is enough drama even from regular editing. However, if you want to get technical, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions does not mention WP:INVOLVED. Maybe it should, but currently it doesn't. Also, I don't appreciate using Wikipedia bureaucratic tools as a means for warring with another editor, which to me seems to be the case, after he yesterday took you here, you opened two cases against him. --Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Gonnym: Per WP:NACD: Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion, or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e. a page that you have edited heavily). So he is still not allowed to close this TfD Hhkohh (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. WP:INVOLVED is fundamental (and a policy). Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions is a helpful guide for people who understand all the policies and guidelines which inform the actions they're about to take. Zackmann commented in the discussion; even if he were an administrator it would be improper for him to then close it. While we're on the subject, he shouldn't have relisted it either. I wouldn't consider that discussion a good candidate for NACD either. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and WP:TROUT. I don't work with TfD much, so I don't know what culture has developed there, but this looks like one of the worst WP:NAC's I've seen. It violates WP:INVOLVED (regardless of whether the closer is an admin or not), ~~and violates WP:NCD in multiple ways~~. The close should be reverted, and left for an uninvolved admin to re-close. I'd revert the close myself, but not being a TfD regular, I'm not sure what the right process is to do that.

I see that WP:NAC#Templates for discussion allows NACs at TfD to be closed as delete. But, still. WP:INVOLVED is pretty basic. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closing a discussion that you participated in with the result you advocated is blatantly inappropriate and clearly violates WP:INVOLVED and WP:NACD. Relisting it was also not a good idea. An admin closer would be expected to know this and frankly if you consider yourself experienced enough to close these discussions then you should know it as well. Hut 8.5 21:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Clear bright-line violations here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year – Overturn. Unanimous consensus that these WP:NACs were inappropriate, and in some cases violated WP:INVOLVED, which applies to all closes, NAC or not. I'm going to undelete the templates and relist the existing discussions. I'm only marginally familiar with WP:TFD procedures, so if I get some technical details wrong in the relisting, please just go ahead and fix whatever I messed up. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, looks like backing out a TFD is more complicated than it appears. Please see User talk:Evad37/XFDcloser.js for further discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closer has supervoted as WP:NENAN in Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year discussion while closing and even commented in one discussion in a discussion and then closed those discussions. Since he is involved, he should not close those discussions by himself Hhkohh (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also WT:TFD (Frietjes and Primefac raised this concern), closer has replyed there, but he did not unclose it Hhkohh (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes and Primefac: Hhkohh (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those discussions have one !keep vote separately. Additionally, for example, in Template:NGC Series banknotes and coins, closer commented your comments on this and other TFDs show you are completely missing the point. No one is saying to delete the content, there is just no reason for there to be a template. Place the image and the link on the one article in question directly, no reason for a template.. That is regarded that you give your own opinion in TfD. Therefore, it is WP:INVOLVED case Hhkohh (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn at least Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year and probably all the others as well. Did you ask the closer to withdraw their close? Neither the nomination nor the keep argument had anything to do with what is said in WP:NENAN so that was an incorrect closing rationale. Anyway, NENAN is an essay (and, after its first sentence, a very poor essay) which does not mention deletion. In NENAN's (monstrous) navbox it is included under "construction" – it is offering an opinion on how navboxes could be constructed and used, not how they should be deleted. If used at all, NENAN should be a starting point for discussion about a template, not a conclusion. Thincat (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've only now looked at the 8 March DRV for Template:Puke and I see there has been irresponsible behaviour at TFD. That aspect is outside the purview of DRV and may make any policy-based deletion review impossible. Thincat (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, seeing Hhkohh's later comment above, the matter was discussed. Here is the best diff I can provide. Thincat (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
overturn the Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year discussion. in the other cases, the content was kept (just merged with the article), so I don't see this as serious of an issue. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all of them. Inappropriate non-admin closure. Only one editor expressed an opinion and it was directly contrary to the close. Consensus was not reached in any of these discussions. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re-open As the closer I agree that this should be reopened for further discussion. Should be noted that Hhkohh made NO attempt to contact me and ask me to reopen the discussion or withdraw my closure. This is also clear retaliation for me opening a DRV against their closure which is pretty lame. That being said, if others feel this should be re-opened, I have no issue with that. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as above. In particular, Template:NGC_Series_banknotes_and_coins, which has the closer commenting in the discussion, with a clear opinion on the matter, then closing 24 hours later. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 March 2019

Template:Puke – Overturn and delete by unanimous agreement and with consent of original closer. WJBscribe (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am at a loss for why Hhkohh would non-admin close this TFD with no-consensus. I totally understand that TfD is NOT a vote, but the discussion had 4 !Votes for delete. The only person who !voted to keep, then commented saying that they agreed the template should be deleted and re-purposed as an emoji wrapper. A number of this user's WP:NAC are highly suspect in my opinion. They are relatively new and inexperienced with the process. I would argue that per WP:NACEXP this user should not be closing ANY TFD discussions.

I also want to be very clear, this is not a matter of "I didn't get my way". I think anyone who actually looks at this discussions would see a clear consensus for deletion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Absolutely blatant supervote, given that not a single person was actually supporting keeping it (the only person supporting keeping it changed his mind later on and just neglected to strike out the earlier comment). Given the closing comment of Hope this template will be used in some articles, to be frank I'm more inclined to block the closer for intentional disruption since this is patently not only a supervote but a bad-faith supervote. ‑ Iridescent 21:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Premature? – The nom asked the closer to unclose on the closer's talk page, but the closer hasn't edited since that post was made, and the nom has posted a DRV anyway without waiting for a response. Shouldn't we wait to see if the closer will just agree to unclose before going forward with a DRV? Leviv ich 21:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich, although the instructions are to wait until the closer has had a chance to comment before coming to DRV, given that in this case the close was so clearly in bad faith I don't see a problem with skipping that step. This is essentially an issue of intentional disruption rather than a typical disputed close. ‑ Iridescent 21:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: To be clear, I'm overturn on this, and it's a NAC close that can be unclosed by any admin, right? I'm just saying this doesn't need DRV. This needs the closer to self-revert, or barring that, an admin to "assist" the closer with self-reverting. Leviv ich 21:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the (ahem) 'heated' background here, this is something of a special case, and while I technically can unilaterally overturn the close it should probably wait for further input just in case there's anyone who does feel the close was proper. It's unlikely, but otherwise we'd probably end up having the same discussion for a third time but this time at ANI with every crank and crackpot trying to say their piece. ‑ Iridescent 21:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The consensus was clearly for deletion. No one, in the end, argued to keep it but me (the only person it's ever been used toward), and my comment was rather "ILIKEIT"; I think the template's funny. I also argued that low use of an "editorial communication" template for userspace, rather than a "practical utility" template for mainspace or project space, didn't seem like powerful rationale. But that objection isn't a powerful one either. Despite me getting a laugh out of the template, the overwhelming majority of respondents thought the template inappropriate to keep, for arguably legit WP:CIVIL reasons. It didn't offend me personally, but I can buy their arguments that it has high potential to offend, especially in a WP:BITE situation. To the extent one could do so in a DRV, I'm inclined to rescind my own keep on this. My argument that its use toward me might inspire broader use of the template ends up being an argument against it from the civil side, even if it's a keep argument from the not-used-enough side. As for bad faith: I think it's likely that the closer didn't mean "Hope this template will be used in some Wikipedia articles" but "... in some [comments at] Signpost articles", expressing some fairly common (and heated) community displeasure at the publication's editorial choices of late. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Premature, but overturn If you look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28, the page where this debate took place, you'll find 130 nominations, about 90 of them by Zackmann08. You'll also find 106 NACs by Hhkohh. I suggest to Iridescent that looking at the closes, you'll find that Hhkohh made reasonable calls in almost every case. They did make a mistake here, but errare humanum est and 1 error in 106 closes doesn't seem to me to be so bad as to deserve a block or ban from closing. On the other hand, perseverare autem diabolicum, and out of the 90-odd nominations by Zackmann08, 4 were declined as 'keep' and 2 others were sort-of "withdrawn" by Zackmann08, not to mention their attempt to re-open the closed TfD debate themselves. That's a much worse strike rate than Hhkohh's. By the same logic, perhaps we should also be considering giving Zackmann08 a break from TfD nominations – and particularly from trying to be the arbiter of decisions to close when they are also the nominator? --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1/106 (0.94%) is a good error rate, and while 6/90 (6.7%) is seven times higher, it also seems like a good error rate. Leviv ich 23:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. A 93.3% success rate in any XfD is remarkable, unless you're doing something like trying to "pad your stats" by hunting down things to XfD that are nearly guaranteed to be deleted. Anyone who brings edges cases to XfDs, to help determine where the edge lies, is going to have a much lower success rate, but will also be acting in good faith and sensibly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need for any punishments to either editor. Mistakes happen, and both editors are contributing a lot at TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer comment I am okay with overturning but please read Feel to userfy it for Legoktm if you still believe it should be deleted. as I said while closing TfD and Lego comment in TfD Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Hhkohh (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @RexxS, SMcCandlish, Iridescent, and Zackmann08: Hhkohh (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have overturned. Hhkohh (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per SMcCandlish. If the only person who !voted to keep (and the only person it has ever been used on wants it overturned, and the closer is OK with overturning, that's pretty much a slam dunk. Would it be possible within the rules for deletion reviews to do what Kusma suggested late in the TfD, which is to delete and then re-purpose it as 🤮? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Once it's deleted, anyone is free to re-purpose the title for pretty much anything within reason. If it's done in good faith, I doubt anyone will object. --RexxS (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great purpose for it, Guy. Leviv ich 02:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would still appreciate the template being userfied, as I requested in the TFD. Legoktm (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 March 2019

Marianna Yarovskaya – unsalted Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Articles on this filmmaker have been deleted twice, basically as WP:TOOSOON both times, and has been salted against creation due to repeated re-creation. In 2018 the subject was the producer-director of Women of the Gulag, which was nominated for the Academy Award for short documentary. That is sufficient reason to unprotect the title and to accept Draft:Marianna Yarovskaya. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick look, the sources draft justify an article. unsalt and allow move to article space with an understanding that this still could go to AfD (where I should think it would be kept). Hobit (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 March 2019

5 March 2019

Draft:John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance – No consensus to do anything here on the part of DRV. Sandstein 07:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Once notified that the direct quotes (with citations) were an infringement of Wikipedia's copyright policy, the appropriate adjustments were made. Shortly after re-submitting, the page was deleted without any reference to new issues. Jjeifa (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing by querying the deleting admin on their talk page, but be patient. Only a couple of hours has passed between then and when you opened this review. Give him at least a day to respond. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I see that a few minutes after you opened this DRV, you went ahead and re-created the article, in mainspace this time. You came here asking for people to invest time and effort reviewing an admin's actions, and then you went ahead and did an end-run around us. That was not cool. Looking at the article, it comes close to being WP:G11 material, and it's certainly inadequately sourced. Every single reference is either to UDel's own website, or to press releases issued by UDel. I'm going to move this back to draft space as clearly not ready for mainspace. Given the current sourcing, it would clearly be deleted at AfD as failing WP:NORG. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 March 2019

Module:String2 – Endorsed Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There clearly is consensus to merge here. Even treating RexxS as opposing the nomination and discounting Gonnym's support !vote as based on a conditional that cannot come to be (Module:String is used on the main page, so it has to be fully-protected), it's still a 3:1 majority in favor of merging with neither side presenting substantially better arguments (No clear policy I am aware of exists either way on template consolidation vs. having separate templates for the sake of lower protection levels). Overturn to merge all {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the other !voters: @BrandonXLF and Kraose: {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment per WP:NOTVOTE: So a reference to a "!vote" or "!voting" is a reminder and affirmation that the writer's comments in a poll, and the comments by others, are not voting, but are just offering individual views in a consensus-building discussion. Unfortunately, some Wikipedians are unaware of this convention and use "!vote" to refer to their actual votes, which can cause confusion, though votes are 3:1, Kraose raised no concern. But why Kraose and Pppery did not answer RexxS the last question: I assume that whoever performs the merger will clean up all of the #invokes that will break?? Hhkohh (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also my talk page where RexxS left a message before DRV Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually assumed that whoever executes a TfD deals with any transclusions of a template (or in this case module) before deleting it. I didn't answer that because it wasn't a clear question. As I said, the merits of keeping templates seperate for protection level reasons aren't codified in any broad consensus, but the fact that BrandonXLF and Kraose supported the merge even though that point had already been brought up earlier demonstrates to me that the participants in that discussion did not agree with it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I agree with drawing conclusions like that. It's perfectly possible that the other contributors didn't think that the issue would pose a problem and that the protection level could be lowered; no doubt if they are bothered, they will tell us. As it turns out, the protection level can't be lowered because Module:String is transcluded onto the Main page and is therefore cascade-protected against editing by a template editor. It looks like the side effect of this merge will be to prevent template editors from maintaining the code as they used to. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: Could you provide the request you referred to in your amended close? It took me a while to read through this all, and it's a little difficult to follow since you changed your close after the fact and didn't update any of the related documentation. I think it'd be helpful to the participants, myself included. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this is a difficult DRV from my point of view, but I don't see anything wrong with the close. The advancement for merging was "not necessary," and while this was supported by everyone except one of the template creators, Gonnym and RexxS brought up a significant concern with the merge that wasn't rebutted by the other support !voters. This needed to be accounted for by the closer, and I feel as if overturning this on consensus grounds would create problems, especially since the consensus seems light generally due to relatively low participation. I have no problems if someone proposes an alternative solution to this merge. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "not merge" was the correct outcome, but I'm going to be picky about how we get there. I feel the right close is "no consensus to merge", and that's currently how the close is described with respect to some of the templates we're discussing, but it's quite how the close is described with respect to string2. I feel that the explanation for the no consensus outcome is that the numerically superior side in the debate loses a certain amount of weight in the close because it doesn't counter RexxS' points. In other words, I'm broadly content where we ended up but I feel the closing statement could be improved.—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wikipedia is the wrong place to argue that everything must conform with an ideal. RexxS explained the practical issues concerning why String2 is a separate module and the closer recognized that no one had addressed those concerns. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse at the very least there was no consensus for merge. A good counter-argument was presented and not rebutted. If merging the modules leads to them being unmaintained then that may well counteract any benefit of consolidation. This isn't about the existence of a widespread consensus on the issue, it's a question of common sense. Hut 8.5 20:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with everyone above about the unanswered strength of the argument about maintainers. This is conceded by the sole opposer, who indeed said that the modules don't need much maintenance. It's a reasonable concern, sure, but we have plenty of functioning things are only updated via edit requests, and it's not clear to me why this one has to be special. Moreover, I take the unanswered invoke question as a concern about process, not directly opposing the merger, and one perhaps tinged with a bit of snark; I'm not certain that I would have responded. At any rate, this isn't me disagreeing with the outcome: I think the name String2 is unfortunate but it's not clear to me why Module:String and Module:String2 would be merged anyway, since they don't seem to have much overlap in function aside from being related to strings. In short, I concur with the judgment as to Module:String2 but dissent to the reasoning. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for giving the impression of 'snark' in my question, although I was not pleased by the prospect of no longer being able to improve or add to a module where I'd invested a lot of time and effort. It is my genuine concern that it is not such a simple task to find all of the places where a given module can be called from. A module may be #invoked, usually from template space, but potentially from other namespaces as well; it may also be called inside other modules by the require() or mw.loadData() functions. This makes the cleanup following a rename or merge a not-trivial task and I felt that the closer ought to be aware of the potential work that may be involved following a decision. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 March 2019

itel Mobile – Consensus is against restoration and unsalting. Sandstein 10:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This page was deleted in Dec, 2018, and then protected and salted. Now the article is recreated(now in user space: here) and has many latest authoritative media coverages to support the statements including CNN News[8], Counterpoint Research[9],IndianExpress[10] and so on. Please help to review it. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumkin Ding (talk • contribs)

Two questions. First, do you have any connection with the subject company? Second, have you ever had any other user accounts on wikipedia? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection and no interest relationship with the company. I don't have other user accounts, but I tried to create this article once upon a time without log in. I think whether the content is up to Wiki's standard and rules is the first thing to consider. Please help to focus on the content and inform me whether it is improper or not enough to unsalt or not. Thank you! Pumkin Ding (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Submitting the sandbox for approval while this Deletion Review is in progress is a nuisance to the reviewers, who wouldn't be able to accept the sandbox even if warranted acceptance. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Salting. The current draft in the sandbox is not ready for mainspace and is not about to be ready for mainspace. In view of the history of repeated re-creations, it isn't worth letting the editor have the title to continue resubmitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remain Salted - I don't believe the reliable sources actually cover Itel in sufficient detail - they generally talk about Transsion Holdings and mention Itel. I would suggest including relevant content of the Itel draft into this article, as it is not currently sufficiently notable to be free-standing. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.