Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January

Yun Chol (weightlifter) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was speedily closed but does not meet any of the speedy close criteria. Claims to meet criteria 2 but another editor had a good faith delete vote so criteria 2 does not apply. Also misinterprets NOLY: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable (emphasis added). The nominator may challenge that presumption in keeping with NSPORT (of which NOLY is a part of's) statement that "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." Closing sysop has been active on Wiki, in at least two clusters of editing, but has not responded to any of the three separate talk page messages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that why I had not formally !voted in this I had commented and think, based on the evidence I have on hand, that keep is what our guidelines suggest here so this is really about the suggestion it's borderline disruptive editing to have nominated it and the out of process close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There appears to be a contradiction between the view expressed at ANI and the standard practice at WP. ANI can not establish notability guidelines, so what was said there was not directly relevant. But there is curently a discussion at

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) that may well result in changing the current guideline. If it is changed, then there will be tens of thousands of articles to be considered for deletion, but for every one of them it would really be necessary to search if sources can be found--nobody usually did a full search when most of them were created, because it seemed unnecessary, and many of them are quite old, and sources may have become available--especially with the greater access to newspapers. At present the article remains, and the obvious thing to do is to simply continue the current status until the discussion on the guideline concludes. It's not presently listed as an RfC, but it is enough of a change in practice that it should be, so the discussion will take a while. I do not really agree with a speedy close in asituation like this, but the result was correct. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:SKCRIT #2 states that speedy closure can be made if The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion. The sole 'delete' voter was not uninvolved as they were involved in the ANI thread that caused the AfD. Number 57 19:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Number 57, I'd appreciate it if you ping me in the future when discussing my contributions. Now, I have to disagree with you on both parts of your statement. I don't believe that the nomination was unquestionably for the purposes of vandalism or disruption, and I don't agree that I cross the involved threshold. I commented on the discussion with my interpretation of the relevant rules, yes, not contesting that. However, in my opinion, those comments don't make me enough of a party to the dispute to cross the involvement threshold. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist (involvement disclaimer: delete !voter in the AfD): this is an out-of-process speedy keep, as mentioned above I don't believe that it was a disruptive nomination. This isn't a hill I'm going to die on, if the consensus is to keep then that's fine with me, but at least leave it running for the standard seven days. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - What is the issue now? This appears to be an appeal of the speedy close or speedy keep, but it appears that the speedy close has been reverted and that the AFD is listed still or again. I think it is clear that the nomination was made in good faith but was mistaken, and that the speedy close was also done in good faith but was also mistaken. The nomination should run for seven days, and it appears to be back on, and the stub should be kept, but that isn't the issue here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as above. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The speedy close has been reverted. While it's clear this was a POINT-y and disruptive nomination and you can make a case for or against speedy close, it's all moot at this point and this discussion should be closed so we don't waste any more of people's time than we already are with the AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot. The speedy close is reverted by the speedy closer. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarice Phelps (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since this article was deleted about a year ago, two important events transpired: Phelps was featured in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's Periodic Table of Younger Chemists and she was recognized by several sources (including the IUPAC and Physics Today) as the first African American woman to be involved in the discovery of a new element. These events generated some coverage in independent reliable sources (albeit mostly local), which push her over the threshold of WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC (criteria 1 and possibly 2). A more up-to-date version of the article can be reviewed at Draft:Clarice Phelps. Note that this version cannot currently be published since the title is salted. Kaldari (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said the last time this was at DRV: it's appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about Ms Phelps, and it's a disgrace that we deleted it. The fact that we did is an anomaly caused by overadherence to our poorly thought out SNGs. Don't follow a rule off a cliff, folks. Now that there's more evidence, the only right outcome is to put this draft in mainspace. Strong unsalt.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh boy, this again. It appears there were two new articles added to the article in the last two days - one is clearly not independent, which was the problem with the first AfD, and one is a who's who, which generally doesn't contribute to notability per our policies. I'm not great with notability on academic articles, but I'd appreciate if someone who wants to unsalt this could provide the best WP:THREE or four sources for review. SportingFlyer T·C 10:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to S Marshall Perhaps we need to formulate a better salting policy? I find that, too often, salting at administrator-level is too common, and the method to unsalt (by establishing new consensus) is too onerous, so I almost never recommend salting Draft: namespace at that level. Only do I recommend salting at that level in Main: namespace is when it's required. In most cases, though, it's not since the drafts are created by non-confirmed or, at most, autoconfirmed users. In such cases, the creation protection could've been at Extended Confirmed level so any neutral editor such as yourself, SportingFlyer, myself, et al., could've moved it back to Main: namespace when the article has demonstrated some semblance of notability. So, on that basis, without looking at the AfD, I concur with the need to unsalt here, particularly given the passage of time. If re-salting is needed, it should only be at the level necessary to prevent re-creation (that is, WP:AUTOCONFIRMED or Extended Confirmed). Doug Mehus T·C 13:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was an extremely contentious AfD which the community decided to salt (at least, according to Fram's move to draft space - haven't checked the ANI logs, but I believe it based on my memory of the drama.) Moving this particular article directly into article space without discussion would almost certainly cause more drama. SportingFlyer T·C 13:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of order: The community did not decide to salt it. The salting was a unilateral admin action. The salting admin later confirmed it was a unilateral admin action (I can dig up the diff if needed). At the 2nd DRV, there was explicitly no consensus regarding the salting. This isn't community salt, it's individual salt :-) (The community did uphold both deletions, however.) Levivich 15:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gentlemen, we're not the salting police. Our remit is to review deletion outcomes. The community has decided to grant sysops this tool to use at their discretion, and its use isn't within the ambit of our discussions here—except when we review appeals to restore pages that have been salted following a deletion discussion (which is actually an undocumented, easter-egg feature of this venue; it has ten-years-or-more as custom and practice but is still not mentioned in DRVPURPOSE).—S Marshall T/C 15:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation – I'm not sure at this point if she's more notable for her tennessine work or for having her Wikipedia page deleted, but it doesn't matter why she's notable–notable is notable. I'm not sure which of these constitute the WP:THREE best, but I am sure that these constitute significant independent secondary coverage of the article topic:
  • Published since the most-recent DRV: WBIR, Physics Today, Chemistry World, Oak Ridge Today. I would count this Telegraph article, but others won't because it's an interview with the Wikipedian who created the article, Jesswade88.
  • Published before the most-recent DRV: UnDark, Daily Dot, Knox News.
  • Per the above sources, this article subject meets WP:GNG. Or, at the least, there are enough new sources to allow recreation, and the recreated article could (God forbid, please no) be nominated again for another AfD. Levivich 15:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You forgot this article in The Oak Ridger, which was also published after the previous DRV. Kaldari (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't followed any of the past history, so I'm just looking at the current draft and working from that. My impression is that she doesn't pass WP:SCHOLAR. She certainly doesn't meet any of the eight bullet points under WP:NACADEMIC.

As for publications, I looked at the references in the draft, and also did searches on Google Scholar and JSTOR. I can't find a single peer-reviewed publication where she is the first or last author (those two positions generally denote the most important contributors). The only citation I found where she is first author is in the draft (Phelps, C.; Delmau, L.; Boll, R.; Hindman, C. (August 2016). Investigations Using LN, LN2 and LN3 resins for Separation of Actinium from Lanthanuum. Presentation for the 252nd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Philadelphis, PA.) but I can't tell exactly what that is, and haven't been able to find it in any of my searches. "Presentation" could mean anything from an invited keynote talk to a poster.

As for the awards she's received, the only one that's of any interest at all is the IUPAC Periodic Table of Younger Chemists. They gave out 118 of those, and the program accepted self-nominations. The awards were not given out for outstanding scientific achievement, but to people who, "embody the mission and core values of IUPAC". So, no, that doesn't make you notable.

And, no, you don't become notable by having an article about you deleted because you're not notable and the popular press pick up on that.

The other side of this is really more of a commentary on some of our more our deplorable WP:SNG's. We have articles about unknown athletes who played in a single game and did nothing of note. Two-bit porn stars. Pokemon characters. Trashy TV shows. Bands that play gigs in local bars. That's all crap. But, if we're going to pretend to have notability guidelines, let's at least pretend to follow them. There's no way Phelps meets either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: And, no, you don't become notable by having an article about you deleted because you're not notable and the popular press pick up on that. What PAG, RFC, AFD precedent... anything... supports this assertion? If multiple independent reliable sources publish in-depth articles about the deletion of a Wikipedia page, why isn't that GNG notable? – Levivich 04:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That statement was, of course, my personal opinion. But, as far as I can tell, the major press coverage of this was the Undark article, which was published as an opinion piece. The core premise is certainly true; women are under-represented as both editors and subjects of articles. Beyond that, it's a piece of sensationalistic crap. For example, "As far as we know, Phelps was the first African American woman to play such a pivotal role in introducing a new chemical element to the world.". Pivotal role? She's a lab technician on a team of probably 100's of people who worked on that project. This is worthy of a short mention at Criticism of Wikipedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If there was no consensus on the question of salting, then that was effectively an affirmation of the salt, since that was the status quo ante. Like SportingFlyer I would want to see the three best sources before supporting a motion to recreate. As chance would have it, I thought about Phelps earlier and did a quick check online then, and I didn't see anything too convincing. Most coverage is still media sources complaining about us deleting her, even though those same media sources have zero coverage of Phelps themselves. Look in your own backyard first, folks.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru That's reasonable, without requiring a full consensus discussion at the village pump or similar. What about, though, lowering the WP:SALT level to WP:ECP or WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, though, to allow any neutral editors, ideally involved with AfC to move the article to the Main: namespace upon reviewing the sources and ascertaining WP:GNG has been met? Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: I think the 3 best sources for establishing GNG are probably [1], [2], and [3] (all of which were published after the previous deletion discussion). Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is the local Oak Ridge newspaper rehashing a press release from her employer. The second one is an announcement from IUPAC, who gave her the award. The third one is basically an interview conducted by the local TV station. I can't even tell what she did on the project: "part of a team", "Phelps and her colleagues helped confirm", "associated with the discovery". Well, gee, I'm associated with the biggest encyclopedia in the world. I'm part of the team that wrote it. My colleagues and I administer it. Does that make me notable? Hey, look, I'm all for more STEM topics in the encyclopedia. I'm all for more coverage of women. But this person doesn't meet our notability guidelines. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Are you suggesting that any of those sources somehow don't qualify as independent reliable sources or are you suggesting that the coverage isn't significant, or both? Kaldari (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More than suggesting. WP:Interviews are primary sources. Press releases, and news articles which mostly rehash such releases, are not considered to be independent. These are the types of sources that get shot down at AfD every day. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: The WBIR story isn't an interview. Less than half of it is quotation, so I would not classify it as a primary source. Even if all the quotation was removed from it, it would still be a useful source (and actually wouldn't lose much usefulness since most of what is discussed in the quotations is also mentioned in the prose). So I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. You may have a good point about The Oak Ridger story, however, as it seems to be largely based on a press release. Was there any problem with the IUPAC content counting towards GNG, in your view? Kaldari (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC gave the award. An announcement on their own website about the award they gave is pretty much the definition of WP:PRIMARY. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit re-creation. I argued against keeping the article at the previous AfD. I would argue for keeping the present version. I want to congratulate Kaldari for getting us an appropriate article. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per my comment above, I agree with RoySmith's analysis of the new presented sources - none of them convey notability, and I'm not sure any of them come close. I understand why other users want this in mainspace, but she is not yet notable per our SNGs or the newly available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: The treehouse keeps on being built without a supporting branch. What enwiki is missing is connectivity to Phelps -- and this is needed regardless of whether or not her full article lives in mainspace. It's questionable that she should be added at tennessine for weight reasons ("part of" and "involved in" are weak and weaselish grounds for establishing notability, her teammates and probably hundreds of others have the same claim there, and her genetic heritage is incidental to the discovery), but her being the first African-American female involved with the discovery of an element is noteworthy and should be included in enwiki. In the time since the first AFD, additional sources have been released regarding the discovery of tennessine, including about the berkelium team. So: spin off the tennessine#Discovery subsection into Discovery of tennessine, in which due weight is fairly applied to the role of individuals and groups in the discovery per sources, and a more humanistic lens can be applied than should be at the main article. Phelps as first AAFIWTDOAE, and honours resulting from the Discovery accrued by anyone including Phelps can and should be included. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think there's a very good case for unsalting this. The major claim to notability is "first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element", along with things like "involved in the discovery". This source, which gives her about a paragraph, is cited five times for these claims. However it points out that 61 people could reasonably claim to be "involved in the discovery", and that the idea of crediting the discovery to one person or a small group of people is silly. I don't think it's reasonable to use the fact that somebody was part of a very large team that collectively discovered something important as evidence of notability, and it wasn't considered to be enough last time. I'm not sure the Periodic Table of Younger Chemists qualifies as an "award" as such, they seem to have done some biographies of young chemists to serve as inspirational examples, and she was one of the ones they picked to feature. I doubt most of the people on the list are notable. To pass WP:NACADEMIC point 2 it would need to be "a highly prestigious academic award or honor", I don't see evidence of that. There is some media coverage of Wikipedia deleting her article but don't think that should be enough to confer notability. I doubt it would get more than a sentence in an article about criticism of Wikipedia. Most of these issues, and the sources provided, are very similar to the ones previously discussed at great length in other debates. Hut 8.5 13:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "61 people" are just those at Oak Ridge. ORNL's part was to produce one of the precursors, and the final synthesis was done elsewhere. So, the circle of people who could reasonably be said to be "involved in the discovery" is likely more like 100's. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: If you want to rely on original research, Phelps was one of two people who physically performed the purification of the berkelium (which took 90 days). The only other precursor was calcium-48, which is naturally occurring. As explained in the Physics Today article, "the hardest part of the whole process is obtaining the starting materials." You can say 100s of people were involved in the discovery, but Phelps was probably among the dozen people most involved. Regardless, her main claim to notability is being the first African American woman associated with the discovery of an element, not just being associated with the discovery of tennessine. Kaldari (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, then why not an article about the first Muslim woman to be associated with the discovery of an element? The first disabled person? The first gay person? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if there are sources that think that's an important achievement. Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Everybody (myself included) has been assuming WP:ACADEMIC is the correct guideline to be evaluating. As I've read more, it's become apparent it may not be. The subject has an undergraduate degree and is working as a lab technician and/or project manager. That's not what ACADEMIC is about. If somebody could suggest a different WP:SNG that might be more appropriate, I'd be willing to look at that. I still believe she doesn't meet any of WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO, but I'm open other suggestions. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate Seems like a reasonable recreate with substantial notability for her work, Sadads (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Kaldari, your opening sentence: Since this article was deleted about a year ago, two important events transpired: Phelps was featured in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's Periodic Table of Younger Chemists and she was recognized by several sources (including the IUPAC and Physics Today) as the first African American woman to be involved in the discovery of a new element. implies two new sources. Please list them. Two new events. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: The new sources that have been added about Phelps are: WBIR, The Oak Ridger, IUPAC, Physics Today, and Oak Ridge Today. Kaldari (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You implied two. Now you toss me five, each not meeting the GNG for some reason. Non-independent promotion, or only mere mention. These do not support a biography. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SmokeyJoe: By "Non-independent promotion" I assume you're referring to the IUPAC source since they created the award. And by "mere mention", I assume you're referring to Physics Today. What's your take on the other sources? They seem adequate to me for GNG purposes. Kaldari (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oak Ridge Today isn't independent as it's a self-published newspaper that specifically says This story includes information provided by ORNL/Abby Bower. The Oak Ridger also refers to the press release several times in the article. The WBIR article is the best but it's an interview, which isn't sufficiently secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @SportingFlyer: The WBIR article is not an interview. You could delete every quotation from that article, and it would still be substantively the same. Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • “Not this again” indeed! This was deleted at AfD. There are no independent biographical sources for Clarice. She is a showcased staff member at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Post AfD, the onus should be on the proponents to present a concise case: WP:THREE. Not reference bombing with weak sources (weak with respect to meeting the GNG). Some think she deserves an article. I call that WP:ADVOCACY. Why does she not get a mention at Oak Ridge National Laboratory? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @SmokeyJoe: What strikes me as WP:ADVOCACY is people here bending over backwards to dismiss perfectly good sources and holding this article to a double standard. For example, we now have two people calling the WBIR article an interview so that it can be dismissed as a primary source. The WBIR article is a boilerplate local human interest TV news story. Of course it has sound bites from Phelps, but that doesn't make it an interview or a primary source. Can we at least agree that that one source is an acceptable source or do you have a reason to dismiss that one as well? When half the articles for sportspeople on Wikipedia are solely sourced to entries in a database, one has to wonder why this article meets so much resistance. Kaldari (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • ORNL is showcasing/promoting their staff member. Combined with a "good reason" to showcase here, that spells ADVOCACY, forbidden by WP:NOTADVOCACY. I am more than happy to review a source, or three, but per WP:THREE, only three, and they have to be explicitly linked. For local newspapers writing stories that include subject quotes, it requires paragraph by paragraph analysis to distinguish a re-formatted company release from genuine independent interest. The critical question in these cases is: Who is the author of the secondary source content that addresses the subject directly and in detail. Is it the subject or the company communications officer? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be no mention of Clarice Phelps anywhere on Wikipedia, which I find surprising, as the threshold for being mentioned in a Wikipedia article is usually much lower than that for having a standalone article. Is she not notable enough for inclusion in List of African-American women in STEM fields or in List of African-American firsts or Tennessine or Oak Ridge National Laboratory? —Kusma (t·c) 22:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. A WP:Orphan biography on someone for who most of the coverage is workplace promotion looks very bad. She shouldn't be listed in List of ... articles without being notable enough for a biography, but I advise the proponents to add sourced and WP:DUE mention to Tennessine or Oak Ridge National Laboratory as pretty obvious preceding steps. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If what's preventing you from supporting unsalting is a lack of incoming links, rest assured: I've gone ahead and added her to List of African-American women in STEM fields and List of African-American firsts, and I dumped Category:Oak Ridge National Laboratory people into a "Notable people" section of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and added her redlink there, too. Levivich 05:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Failure to make a WP:THREE case, yet again, prevents unsalting. When the answer is no, WP:Reference bombing doesn't help. WP:THREE is failed if you list more than three sources to be reviewed. It takes only two. If the best three fail, no number of additional weaker sources can suffice. Potential incoming links can be demonstrated by occurrences of "Clarice Phelps" in relevant articles. You can redlink Clarice Phelps, or just include as text so it can be found by searching "Clarice Phelps". List entries don't count (inclusion in a list is justified by being notable, not vice versa). She has to be subject of direct coverage in prose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. I know it only takes two, which is why WBIR and Physics Today were the first two I listed, and Chemistry World makes three. Agree or disagree that the coverage is sufficiently in-depth, those three new sources are enough to get past WP:G4 and should be enough to unsalt the title, let the draft be moved to mainspace, and then if someone wants to, they can AfD the new article, and editors can discuss whether the sources are sufficiently in-depth in a discussion that is properly advertised (WP:DELSORTed). I still think unsalting is a no-brainer here, YMMV. Levivich 06:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're not talking WP:G4, we're talking WP:SALT, and we need to get consensus here at DRV that the article should be unsalted. I think based on the above and SmokeyJoe's analysis that it's a no-brainer here to keep this salted, as none of the new articles are sufficiently independent of either the subject or her place of employ, and the Chemistry World only discusses Phelps in the context of the fact we've been bickering over whether we should have an article on her and doesn't discuss her in the context necessary that would make her notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • What is non-independent about Physics Today and WBIR? (And it doesn't matter what she's notable for, if she's notable. She can be notable for having her page deleted on Wikipedia. She can be notable for having the hiccups.) By the way, for WBIR, there's not just the article I linked to, but also the video on the page, which is two and a half minute local news piece filled with independent reporting in the journalist's own voice. – Levivich 06:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Mainspace the draft.

Thank you Leviv, it is so much easier when someone appreciates the wisdom of three.

1. WBIR. It's a feature article, based on an interview of the subject. Does the author/interviewer (Gabrielle Hays) make any comment? "she broke a barrier"? This is very short but it is something. "While life as a scientist means the work never stops ...". While weak on independence, very weak on author-derived secondary source comment, with the information coming direct from the interviewed subject, there is enough input from the interviewer for me to say Yes, this is across the line from a reformatted interview. I judge this easier because she is not selling her own commercial product.

2. Physics Today. By Claire Jarvis. "Once technicians Clarice Phelps and Shelley Van Cleve are finished...". Is Shelley notable? "Julie Ezold, the program manager for 252Cf production, ensures ...". Is Julie notable? "That’s where Rose Boll comes in. ... Her team includes Phelps, one of many Oak Ridge scientists who came to the lab by way of the US Navy. Phelps grew up within striking distance of ORNL in Tennessee, but after earning her BS she decided the navy’s nuclear submarine program would be her best practical training ground." OK. A bit factual for a secondary source, but it is contextualizing. This information appears to not have come direct from the subject, which is the requirement. The information comes from her boss, not the subject, and the publisher is independent. This is good enough. Caption: "Clarice Phelps purified the berkelium-249 that was used to produce element 117, tennessine. She is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element. Credit: Oak Ridge National Laboratory". Good enough. The source is not mere interview content, and the publisher is not the employer. Yes.

3. Chemistry World. By Katrina Krämer. Notable for not being notable? Ironic. I don't know how to judge this one, wikipedia relying on a source for inclusion when that source refers back to Wikipedia is to take the path of navel gazing. Luckily I said yes to 1 & 2.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still have to disagree. Just because the information comes from her boss doesn't make that information independent, plus there's only three sentences in that article that are directly on Phelps. The local news source is literally just a repackaged interview. Neither of these are strong sources. We have no independent confirmation she's notable for what her employer thinks she's notable for - this comes from her employer's press release, and the phrase the secondary Physics Today source uses is "thought to be," she's not yet listed at our article on Tennessine, and she's not listed as a team member in the powerpoint. The notability claim itself is tenuous. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, yes, its a very close call. Information from the boss is not independent, but at least it is not direct from the subject. Three sentences about the subject is very little. The local news put just enough creative packaging comment to make it into a secondary source. I think it passes the GNG with paper thin clearance. I give it the benefit of the doubt because it is sciency. If it were the tiniest bit WP:CORP, if there were the briefest mention of any patent, then it would have been no. Contrary to Dmehus below, this is not a strong case on any angle, but an edge case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a WP:CORP case, but it is a WP:BLP article - and considering WP:NPF, I'd assume we'd want high quality secondary sources, not sources that are closely connected to her organisation/sources which are considered "paper thin". SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no BLP issues with the draft. As she actively participated in public outreach, was interviewed by appointment for television, WP:NPF is not a hurdle. If she were resisting, if she was a private person, that would be different. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep per the thorough source analysis of SmokeyJoe, as well as the comments of S Marshall and Levivich. If these sources existed at the time of its deletion, then we got it woefully wrong. The three sources identified by SmokeyJoe are the highest grade, reliable, and independent sources that are both in-depth and about the subject. There is no point in relisting this at AfD; both WP:GNG and SNGs have been satisfied. This is a definite strong case of overturn to keep. Doug Mehus T·C 10:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• One can argue that she's notable, in part, for not being notable. But yeah, those three sources identified by Leviv are enough to meet the letter and spirit of the GNG. Yeah, each source has its problems (local, not fully independent, etc.) but just those three are pretty darn good. restore. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simmeringer Had (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

All vote!s were either Delete or Merge but it was closed as no-consensus. The Original author is blocked as a sock, albeit after this article was created  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   03:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge- clearly consensus was against having a stand-alone article. Reyk _YO! 03:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I could see closing this as either Delete or Merge, or even Redirect, but NC just doesn't make any sense because it's effectively the same as Keep, and nobody wanted that. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with the original close, but the article has been sufficiently rewritten as to make that moot. I'm still not sure this is notable, but the current version is sufficiently well written and referenced that the original AfD should no longer hold sway. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Overturn to Merge - It is No Consensus as to whether to Delete or to Merge, but that isn't what No Consensus means. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• With apologies, I need to relitigate the AFD here. This was an AFD about the stadium of a Viennese football club, and the stadium had an article on de.wiki which rather strongly suggests there's more to this than "delete". The right outcome in en.wiki terms would be a merge to 1. Simmeringer SC and it's a pity there was insufficient discussion to reach that conclusion. I won't fault the closer for closing as no consensus when the discussion stalled without making a decision, though. I'd prefer that we leave the close undisturbed and just pop a merger template on the article; if no one else does, I'll merge when I have leisure.—S Marshall T/C 09:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, blah. I've gone ahead and added the best English-language source I could find given the DRV respite and cleaned up what appears to be some sort of machine translation. The German language article is frustrating because it's functionally unsourced and not helpful for finding sources. It was the largest stadium in Austria in the 1920s with a capacity of over 40,000 and hosted seven international games as Simmeringer Sportplatz. The rest of the sources I've found are in German, which I'd struggle with, but I'm sure you'd find stories about it in contemporary newspapers if someone can find an Austrian newspaper archive online. I'm also relitigating the AfD here, but it's clearly a notable topic and this whole AfD was a mistake, and this should have been an easy keep with just a little bit of cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C

• I've now completely overhauled the article. There's a great source at [4] but unfortunately it's a wiki, but it does cite Das große Buch der österreichischen Fußballstadien (The big book of Austrian football stadiums) which I don't have access to but should be considered a RS. I didn't include that source in the article, but there's a lot more to write here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - as the closing admin, I'm happy for this to be overturned to merge. Seemed pretty clear that there was no consensus to either merge or delete, given there were, including the nomination, only two proper delete votes (GS's one clearly misunderstood the nature of the article by questioning existence) and one for merge. Not sure about the comments about no consensus being the same as keep, its obviously not, it just means there was no clear consensus, and opens up the possibility for a relisting later. My view was that after two relistings gaining no further comment, there was no clear view one way or the other. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Two votes is not enough to establish consensus, and in any case per WP:HEY the article has been improved and the concerns addressed. Call the close what you want, but the article in its present form should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - after a (tentative) merge argument, it was relisted twice without comment. At some point, you have to get on with life. A NC result here doesn't really forbid merging. Announce on the talk page you intend to, then after a week or two without comment, do it. If you think it should've been deleted, re-nominate it, as it was NC with little discussion, and make an argument addressing the point about German sources. NC leaves open everything, and the combined minimal discussion and maximal chances give no consensus by lack of interest. WilyD 05:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think for an explicit Merge close we'd need somebody else to comment in support of that position. As Govvy did a good job of rebutting the delete !votes (especially the one which argued the subject doesn't exist at all) I don't think there's a consensus for deletion either. This doesn't mean the page can't be merged, there's nothing to stop somebody starting a merge discussion on the article talk page and just doing it if nobody objects, as WilyD notes above. Hut 8.5 12:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion is off the cards. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What exactly is being endorsed? I really didn't see anything too much wrong with Fenix down close other than I feel he could of written his close in more details. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Endorse" is jargon for "the closure was correct, and should not be changed". WilyD 10:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rundkvist (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Perhaps Martin Rundkvist was not notable a decade ago, when his page was deleted. But if it was "too early in his career for him to qualify for notability," as was suggested then, this is no longer the case. He has a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates—some 300 in total, approximately half of which have come in the last five years. And as a 20-year Managing Editor of Fornvännen (cite), he has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in his subject area. Times change, and it is time for the page to be undeleted. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the view that he has become more notable since the deletion in 2008 I believe it would make more sense to simply create a new article from scratch since I don’t see why need to restore the decades old article history.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. I was the closer of the AfD way back in 2008, and agree with Usernameunique that things have changed a lot. Being editor of the journal means he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics), this wasn't a criterion at the time of the previous discussion [5]. A quick search of Google News turned up several appearances of his work in the media too.

(It doesn't contribute to notability, but I'll also note there's an article on Swedish Wikipedia which could help provide some content for a recreation). the wub "?!" 08:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been twelve years, if he's notable now no reason not to recreate it. Is this salted at all? SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation, for the reasons explained above. There's nothing in the deleted version that's objectionable, so Usernameunique, if you want, I'll be happy to restore it to your userspace where you can bring it up to WP:PROF standards and move it back to mainspace when you're ready. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks all. RoySmith, that sounds good to me. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Forecast Applications Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed. Another interested editor Jlevi discussed notability on the talk page, and asked how they could help improve the article, but did not express any concern about spam/ad/promotion. I've written several new articles recently, and this one is not significantly different in how it was written. It uses book, journal, and news sources. A small part of the content was taken from material prepared by others at Wikipedia, at Peter_J._Webster#Climate_Forecast_Applications_Network. Attempt to discuss on admin JzG talk page was summarily rejected with unhelpful response, "please don't write advertorial on Wikipedia." Yae4 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with Yae4 that the speedy delete was unjustified on the basis of WP:G11. I think the article may have been taken out of draft space too quickly and that it likely had some work to be done, but that the article was not promotional and did not justify a speedy deletion. Jlevi (talk)

Draftify Just to clarify. There are some structural problems with the article, and I was probably too indirect in my first comment here. I highlighted what I think remains a notability concern because I see it as a basic stumbling block to mainspacing the page, but this highlight doesn't mean other problems don't exist. Jlevi (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we non-admins get a temp undelete please? SportingFlyer T·C 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to get you a mop of your own, but in the meantime, happy to oblige. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used to wonder (with a bit of annoyance thrown in) why some admins protect pages after they tempundelete them. I guess now I know why they do that. And since I'm here, yeah, endorse the WP:G11, with no objection to moving this back into draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. We can't have that in the mainspace. It really is an advertorial like JzG says: it reads exactly as it would if it had been bought and paid for by Judith Curry -- although I do see, and accept, that the primary author's userpage says he has no associations or affiliations to declare. Yae4, please would you consider reviewing some of our good and featured articles about corporations before you put anything like that in the mainspace?—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall:, I just had company (non-profit, and for-profit) articles, Precious Plastic (Grade C) and NearlyFreeSpeech on Did You Know, and I previously helped identify promotional sock puppets being used for articles I won't mention here (but you can find from my user page). I understand there is a major problem at Wikipedia with paid editors and promotion of companies. Based on DYK reviews, I know most people who say things look "advertorial" (or similar) cannot explain why, and the changes they suggest are mostly minor. The fact is Jlevi created a red link, and I spent some hours finding some sources and giving bland (aka neutral) summaries of what they said. In the past I've asked for a couple "notability checks" (particularly from Newslinger, but I now have criteria: A book source or two, a journal article or two maybe, and several "news" articles with at least one having "significant" discussion of the article topic. Climate Forecast Applications Network meets those criteria easily. Getting a Draft to Article status will bring it attention of editors who wish to expand and improve the article, sometimes. In my opinion, in this case, speedy deletion has ONLY to do with JzG aka Guy having a very strong personal bias in the area of climate change and associated politics, and Judith Curry and Peter_J._Webster (co-founders) are on the "wrong" side, so CFAN must be suppressed. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To summarize: you can't see what was promotional about the article and you think this is about JzG's bias. Right?—S Marshall T/C 21:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to this going to draft space, but it was advertorial. Guy (help!) 18:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the article definitely had a promotional tone throughout. I'm sure it can go back to draft space but that was a perfectly reasonable call from the deleting admin. Hut 8.5 19:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Does not appear to be unambiguous advertising or exclusively promotional. More like a new user trying to write an article. Certainly needs work but does not fall under G11 from what I see. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Again happy to restore this to a draft but I would have G11'd it myself. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as valid, per the above, though this isn't the worst of the spammy, promotional articles I've seen, but allow restoration as a draft, either in Draft: namespace or, perhaps better, into User: namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 13:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Not ready for mainspace but likely notable. —PaleoNeonate – 14:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Why was the draft deleted? Restore it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify This is why we have draft space. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ​​​​​​​​​​ Please bring back the Talk page as well. It shows the productive, collaborative discussion going on before JzG aka Guy got involved. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Support restoration to Draft: namespace of the talkpage, as I always do. Talkpage discussions are (almost) always helpful. Doug Mehus T·C 21:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support you not following me around the project giving the benefit of your uninformed opinions. Guy (help!) 11:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​​​​​​​​​​So what does it take to get the Draft and Draft Talk back? Also, I invite all those who said the G11 was obviously valid to give some specific suggested changes on the talk page or with edits, because, frankly, it's not at all obvious to me, or to Jlevi or PackMecEng. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the discussion expires, an uninvolved editor (usually an admin but not always) will evaluate the consensus and close the discussion, noting the outcome. —PaleoNeonate – 21:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What @PaleoNeonate: said. Typically, if restored to Draft: space, if the talkpage isn't automatically restored in tandem, you need only ask the administrator who restored the draft article to also restore the talkpage(s) as well, as @SilkTork: did for me when I requested the talkpages to a draftified article also be restored. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're serious about not understanding how to fix that: (1) Remove the company's contact details from the top of the article because we're not a directory; (2) Remove everything about the directors except a maximum of one mention of their names in one place. The company isn't its leaders. Information about them belongs in their articles if they're notable, otherwise it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. (3) Give facts and figures: turnover, profit, staff numbers. (4) After making these edits, get someone else to look at it and tell you whether it belongs in the mainspace, because you seem to be having more trouble with that than I would expect from a person who fights promotional editors.—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall:To summarize, the article does not look promotional compared with other articles I've been involved in, or read, and I was cautious to write neutrally, because I am aware of some active suppression and "gutting" of articles at Wikipedia. Thanks for your suggestions. Feedback: Honestly, those are relatively trivial edits (except maybe adding company statistics). So, if that's all, it doesn't justify speedy deletion. (1) No contact details were included; only a link to the contact page. It was going to be the source for their location in an infobox, unless an independent source was found. (2) See a contrasting example below. This suggestion is not entirely consistent with other articles I've worked on with other editors including for Did You Know, but I'm not saying you're wrong. (3) All that sounds like Original Research unless independent sources have it or their About is referenced. (4) I make it a practice not to "fight" at Wikipedia, although I encounter plenty of editors who seem to have trouble with baiting, instigating and insulting.

Here is arguably an absentee vote for Not Endorsing Speedy Deletion. If you look back in this article history, you may notice Keith D made a small helpful edit, fixing a cite date error. Diff At that time, the article was written substantially as it now stands, except it has been expanded. Diff I asked Keith D on their talk page to give an opinion here, but they chose not to. Keith D is an admin; did not tag the article with promotion or similar; did not leave a Talk note saying it was "advertorial" or suggesting changes to make it less promotional.

Compare and contrast this Speedy Deletion with Climate Feedback[6] when I was going to RSN for help.[7] And JzG aka Guy (and PaleoNeonate) were involved in discussion. Glowing (aka promotional) statements in the article: It "seeks out top climate scientists". The Guardian referred to it as "a highly respected and influential resource". "each reviewer has to hold a PhD and be published in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals." (Note: These have mostly been toned down in the current version.) The founder, Vincent, is named 5 times. Their About page is used as a source. (In my opinion, it is weak regarding significant "reliable" source coverage.) Was it Speedily Deleted by JzG aka Guy? Tagged? Criticized for promotion? Nope. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there's nothing trivial about the edits required to that article. Lede: delete everything except the first sentence, and then provide an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies the first sentence. Background: In the first paragraph, delete everything except the first sentence because everything else isn't about the corporation. In the second paragraph, the first sentence requires in-text attribution. The second sentence is fine. I find the third sentence unintelligible. The third paragraph is not about the corporation and should be deleted. History: The first paragraph isn't about the corporation and should be deleted. The second paragraph is redundant to information that's already in the article and should therefore be deleted. The third paragraph is a long quote by a company director, entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted. The fourth paragraph isn't about the corporation and should be deleted. The fifth paragraph is very trivial and in my view including it is poor editorial judgment. The sixth paragraph is about the director and not the corporation, and should be deleted. The seventh paragraph is very trivial and in my view including it is poor editorial judgment. And the eighth paragraph is about the director and not the corporation, and should be deleted. Once you've removed all the stuff that doesn't belong, there's very little left.—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 3 Februaryry 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Are you saying as a general rule when a source says person A or B from OrganizationC said UVW, and did XYZ, you do NOT interpret that as OrganizationC says UVW and did XYZ? Or is this only a rule applied to selected organizations such as CFAN, but not applied to other organizations such as Climate_Feedback? Same question applies for information taken from organizations' About pages. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of other articles are ghastly pits of promotional material. This doesn't mean that those other articles are acceptable. It means that we consider articles one at a time and we haven't got to them yet. But I'm now concerned that you're addressing a perceived double standard on Wikipedia. Do you feel that there should be an balance, whereby climate change skeptics are given more equal treatment with the mainstream scientific view?—S Marshall T/C 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: In this case, Climate_Feedback was previously, recently discussed by JzG aka Guy, the speedy deleter here, which is why it supports the case that the Admin's bias did play a part here. We're not talking about "more equal treatment" here. We're talking about Climate_Feedback being allowed to violate all the same "rules" while this article is being 100% suppressed, even though you'd have to go read Judith Curry to see she was branded with the "D" label there. Here we're talking about an organization that has been recognized in books, journals, and news, and is notable for predictions, etc. that have saved lives. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are, indeed, great wrongs that need to be righted.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More likely WP:POVFIGHTER and WP:USTHEM. Reference User:JzG/Politics (TL;DR). -- Yae4 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yae4, if you had understood any of that essay, you would realise that my problem with climate change denialists, creationists, white supremacists, MAGA hatters and the rest is that they demand we "balance" factual information with propaganda from terrible sources. I have exactly the same issue with antivaxers, anti-GMO kooks, homeopathists and other woo-mongers. Wikipedia reports facts, they prefer Truth™. But the right wing media bubble is far more dangerous than homeopathy, for reasons that any student of 20th Century Europe could readily enumerate for you. I've been here 15 years. The changes to the right wing media since around 2015 have been profound, and not in a good way. Guy (help!) 18:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh. overturn deletion. Yae4, I'm both an academic and view climate change as a very real and important thing to address. That article, while not speedy eligible, is not a good article. It does feel like it was written by a PR person for the company (or by one of the founders). It's easily fixable, so not speedy eligible. Too many name drops, too many words that feel like they were pulled from the promotional part of the abstract of an academic paper ("inundated", "devastating impacts", "unheralded often with devastation" all feel like the belong in promotional material, not in an encyclopedia's voice). It's an article on a company, there isn't a need to repetitively name who did what, just that the company did it. I don't think this should go to draft space, just because I don't think we should be forcing articles that meet our inclusion requirements into draft space--that's not what it is for. But I'm a pretty horrible writer of articles and I think I could fix it in 15 minutes. But it really needs fixing. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Arnold (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer concluded, correctly I think, that there was a consensus to keep, "or likely a stronger argument that this results in no consensus", but then overrode the consensus and deleted the article, doing so on the ground that it was a biography of a living person." While the article was lightly sourced (not unsourced) when the AfD began, additional sources were brought forward at AfD, such that WP:BLP does not provide grounds for overriding consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to NC I just don't see how WP:BLP prevents this article. There are plenty of sources, it's not like we are looking at an unsourced biography. There is a perfectly reasonable argument (which I agree with) that he doesn't meet the SNG due to a lack of meaningful national coverage. But that's not where the discussion got to. I can see a WP:NPF argument, but that doesn't require deletion. We don't just take NC outcomes and move them to deletion due to being about a BLP. A negative BLP might be a very different thing, but that's not what we have here. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC. I suspect the policy TParis was thinking of is WP:BLPDELETE, but that only applies to negative articles. I don't see anything negative in the article, unless playing for Arkansas State counts. And, may I suggest we delete the bit in WP:DELREVD where we suggest talking to the closing admin, since nobody seems to bother anway. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd go the other way and make it mandatory, to be honest. SportingFlyer T·C 00:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC I can understand erring on the side of delete if there were any actual BLP-based concerns, but there weren't. The AfD was a normal debate about whether the subject meets our notability standards. There is definitely enough coverage of the subject in reliable sources to support every statement in the (very short) article, it wasn't at all negative and it did not state anything even slightly contentious. Hut 8.5 23:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There wasn't a consensus to delete, but equally, those sources don't support a biographical article. We've got nothing about his life, no date or place of birth, nothing about his education or upbringing, nothing about family. They're just tables of sports results framed in prose; I mean, great for him and he's clearly sportsed very hard, but we've got nothing biographical to say about him so we shouldn't have a biography.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources brought forth at the AfD focused directly on Arnold and his accomplishments. The article in its pre-AfD condition was of poor quality (though it actually did included Arnold's date of birth). Assuming the result is overturned, I will commit to beefing it up with additional information from those sources. Also, I understood that deletion review is a process-based review, not one in which we superimpose one's preferred result. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus "Keep" arguments look slightly stronger to me; this is, possibly, closer to a "keep" but a no consensus is likely the most accurate close. Doug Mehus T·C 01:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus - The closer acknowledges that there isn't a consensus to delete, and then made a supervote based on an incorrect interpretation of policy, as stated by previous editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus - it's a noble instinct to want to protect individuals, but absent either anything negative or an indication the individual wants privacy or the like, it's not what's accomplished. WilyD 12:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus "However, because its a biography of a living person, I'm going to err on the side of delete until additional sources are available to support an article on a living person" is not WP policy. What is policy is that the sources need to be particularly reliable, but whether the admittedly reliable sources are sufficient is not a matter of BLP policy. In any case whether the sources are adequate in a good-faith argued instance is a matter for consensus, not admin fiat. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - When there is a consensus to keep an article, an admin is required to close that discussion as keep. This admin did not do that. Someone should post a warning or something on their talk page saying that they can't overrule a consensus. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Queen's Park F.C. squad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Queen's Park F.C. squad template was deleted in 2015 because, at that time, Queen's Park were an amateur club and had few (if any) players who warranted a Wikipedia article. They have recently adopted professional status and have since signed several players who do have an article. I think it would now be worthwhile to recreate the template. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Wrong forum for the question. Raise it at Talk:Queen's Park F.C. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If things have changed 5 years later, just recreate it (in consultation with the right folks). If for some reason you really want the old template back, just ask for it from a passing admin (ideally the deleting one if active). Hobit (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per nom, if it now serves a purpose. GiantSnowman 20:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, but Restore per GiantSnowman. The close may have been correct at the time, but per WP:NOTBURO, I see no reason to making the nom re-create this template now that sufficient bluelinks can be potentially included. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, nothing wrong with the original close btw! GiantSnowman 07:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy/procedural close – Maybe I misunderstand, but the 2015 deletion isn't being challenged, and the template is not protected, so there's no reason that an editor can't just recreate the template if the new version would be substantially different and address the AfD concerns (in this case, if the new version had sufficient bluelinks). I don't see why this needs consensus at DRV to be recreated, so I think this thread could be speedy or procedurally closed? Levivich 04:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich My understanding is that a procedural close cannot apply in this case. As the original TfD was not closed as a "soft delete," the applicant would likely be unsuccessful in an undeletion application at WP:REFUND. Thus, rather than having to spend a few hours to many hours, depending on their technical skill level, they are just essentially asking us to permit the draft to be restored. Note you can endorse the close as valid, as I and others have done, but allow recreation (that is, undeletion) as a draft. I see no problem with that, and am not sure why anyone would? Hope that helps. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd happily restore the template - but doing so might be seen to go against community consensus from the TFD discussion, hence why a DRV is acceptable. GiantSnowman 07:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find the TfD mob a bit weird. Why do they obsess with deleting unused templates? You need to look at the template to decide whether it is now appropriate to use it. I suggest userfying the template. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to this; I mean, I can see the point in deleting a template that only links to one or two bluelinked articles, or to using TfD to merge redundant templates, but on the other hand, navboxes are cheap and consume such little storage capacity, why bother? That reminds me of a discussion currently at TfD on whether to delete an rcat, which has spawned a separate discussion at WT:RFD on whether TfD, RfD, or CfD is the most appropriate venue for discussing the rcats. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman I get that, but TfD participation is usually extremely light, such that "consensus" typically consists of between 1 (the nom, sometimes after two relists) and 3 participants. Sometimes there's a fourth person who makes valid arguments, but gets "drowned out" by the SNOW nosecount of the other three. Doug Mehus T·C 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• restore I'm not enough of a template person to know the best path forward (userspace? mainspace?) but consider this an agreement that it should be made available for editing. That said, this DRV !vote isn't saying we *need* this template and can't be played as a trump card in a discussion about having the template. Rather it makes sense to give any editor the ability to have it as a starting place. But if a WP:BOLD addition of the template to articles gets reverted, this DRV (and this DRV !vote in particular) isn't taking a side on if it should be used in articles. Sorry that was so wordy. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I disagree with the CSD for YouthHax. G11 is used for blatant advertising, and the page for YouthHax was written factually and objectively. I have contacted deleting administrator user:Anthony Appleyard on his talk page, and have been ignored. Raymo111 02:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to AfD. There's WP:COI problems here, and I doubt this would pass WP:N, and the author's user page probably fails WP:UPGOOD, but none of those are valid WP:CSD. I've tempundeleted the page. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, as the nom has requested, down below. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't look like a G11 to me, but I'm not seeing any assertion of importance or significance (or, for that matter, notability - only ref 2 is independent, and it doesn't mention the subject even in passing) either. Endorse as an A7. —Cryptic 03:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the G11 as per User:RoySmith. Also disagree with A7; probably not notable, but makes a credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? —Cryptic 03:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, are you looking at "As of January 2020, the only hackathons held in Markham have been YouthHax events"? If so, your CCS-ometer needs calibration. The article text implies meetings of about a dozen-and-a-half students in a public library, and the photos on their website bear this out. —Cryptic 18:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD to be deleted. Reference 2 is a gratuitous reference, supporting only a throwaway line and not mentioning the topic. Refs 1 & 3 are to the organisation’s website. That makes for one irrelevant link, and four links (inc. infobox and External links section) to the organisation website. It is blatant promotion. Until WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Remove “Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.", I’d have supported the G11 deletion, but apparently the community is sure that G11 requires blatantly promotional POV language. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to draftify should be made at AfD, not DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any way we can use common sense and just keep this deleted? I also think it's promotional, but agree with SmokeyJoe's analysis of G11. Possibly qualifies for an A7 as well. An AfD would be a waste of time. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We could draftify and then MfD the draft?—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  S Marshall My preference would be to overturn, move to draft, and let it sit for six months, then we can G13 it. There's no harm in letting it sit in non-indexed Draft: namespace. SmokeyJoe, your reticence to delete drafts except in extreme cases is rubbing off on me. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 00:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn but Draftify This application of WP:CSD#G11 was incorrect; this may have some modest WP:NPOV issues and it likely fails WP:GNG, but it's not unduly promotional by any reasonable stretch. On a related noted, I noted this was tagged by PrussianOwl for speedy deletion on the same day they tagged Draft:Pendyrus Male Choir for G11 + G12, but was declined by Espresso Addict and which is still at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pendyrus Male Choir. I have managed to convince PrussianOwl to make more use of the "MoveToDraft" script and {{copyvio}} tagging instead, which have the same practical effect as WP:CSD and which are, notionally, less BITEy. Looks like, in this case, a different admin (incorrectly) took up PrussianOwl on the speedy deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 00:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A7 – This does not contain a CCS as far as I can see ("hosted a hackathon" is not a CCS). It's pretty close to a G11 too but I think what makes it seem like advertising is its total lack of CCS. Levivich 02:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - Thank you all for agreeing that G11 is incorrect. Upon further review of WP:COI and WP:CSD, I would like the page to be draftified if possible. I realize that in its current state it may not notable. If and when it satisfies WP:N, I will then resubmit the draft. Raymo111 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn G11 - obviously unsuitable for that. Levivich is correct, I think, that A7 could be applied - organised event, no assertion of significance, no independent sources. So, draftifying would be the only hope to go forward. WilyD 10:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. This does not meet G11 as it is written fairly mostly neutrally, and I suppose being the only hackathon organiser in a large city of Canada is a claim of significance which exempts it from A7. However, I am hesitant to restore this straight to mainspace due to the apparent conflict of interest and lack of independent sourcing. Until it properly establishes notability, it can stay in the draft space. Glades12 (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify In mainspace its a valid A7, and possibly a G11, but in draft space A7 does not apply and G11 is interpreted more permissively in order to give articles a chance to be improved. Unfortunately, it is extremely unlike that this article will end up by being kept, but that's not a speedy criterion. For deletion, procedure is important, because otherwise it will eventually lead into admin idiosyncrasy. (not that I think the nom or the deleter to blame here--the situation is a little ambiguous) DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I respectfully decline to vote, but I do want to say that, while the article seems like it was written a little bit like an advertisement, I'm not 100% sure if it was blatant, like G11 states. Therefore, I remain neutral. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In what way was it at all like an advertisement? Raymo111 00:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The article in question had a very ad-like tone in my opinion. I'm not sure if anyone else saw it, but I did. I wasn't sure if it was blatant, either. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. This is actually an A7 not a G11. Guy (help!) 18:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor James (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi this page was delated as another user said Taylor James is not notable enough and that Justin Bieber stopped touring. DJ Tay James, (Taylor James) has been Justin Bieber's dj since 2009 until present. He will be the tour DJ on his new tour Changes. DJ Tay James was a guest DJ for Barack Obama's Inuguration. He can be found and featued on Billboard J-14 TeenVogue Black EnterpriseDJ City Washingtonpost Nonetheless he travels internationally to DJ on hi own. He was Christian Loubitin's DJ for their capsule collection in Dubai HERE I would like his page re-instated! As he is notable for Wikipedia. Hanapricebc (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal. No error by closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation in Draft if this is a request to create a new article based on more recent activity by the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:REFUND to draftspace. The nominator lists reasonable looking sources that would not have been in the article discussed at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no problem with allowing a recreation of the article as long as it passes our notability standards, but I don't think we need to reissue the deleted copy. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone should check the deleted article, the AfD makes it sound really bad, requiring WP:TNT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh look, another AfD closed by me in which I was neither contacted beforehand nor notified about the DRV. Accordingly, I endorse my own closure. Consensus to delete was unanimous. At a glance, at least some of the proposed sources were already present in the deleted article, such as the "Washington Post" source. I would decline draftification because it is clear from the text of this nomination that the requesting editor is not proficient enough in the English language to write an acceptable article. Sandstein 11:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The AfD was unanimous so obviously it was closed correctly. On the other hand, it was almost two years ago, so if there's new sources, there's no fundamental reason a new article couldn't be written. As far as restoring the old version, it's no better or worse than most contemporary musical artist articles, which is to say it's mostly trash. I've tempundeleted the article so people can draw their own conclusions about whether we should draftify it or require a clean start. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest draft-ifying, from a related OTRS request it sounds like the notability of the subject may have changed but it will need review, also the requester may have a COI. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Sandstein's close from May 2018 is so obviously correct that it's trivial to endorse it. I suggest we agree not to waste any more time on that.

  Much more interesting is the question of whether that close still applies. Discussion closes on Wikipedia expire. How quickly they expire is very fact-dependent---so for example, if there had been a significant occurrance that was widely covered in reliable sources, then we could rightly overturn a discussion from last week. But in cases where that hasn't happened, they last a whole lot longer.

  From my observations of DRV, I've found that we usually say that a close more than about three years old has expired through the natural effluxion of time. We're usually happy to sustain a close less than six months old. Between those two extremes there's a discretionary zone and this falls in there.

  DRV is rightly a conservative venue, so when we're in the discretionary zone we usually look for some kind of compromise. The idea of restoring to draft space seems quite tolerable to me. The draft should be reviewed as normal before it can be moved to mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Yes it was two years ago, so I apologize it took so long to do something about it. If it temporarily undeleted? I can add all the new resources to it? Apologize if I sound amatuer to Wikipedia, it's because I am (haha). Thank you, I will update so it is a better artist page. Please let me know if I misunderstood the comments above? Thank you And no COI, just thought it was notable now to be published :)

• Endorse close in that it was an accurate close for the evidence presented and on a strict nosecount (that is, there were no counter-arguments presented). WP:GNG is likely not established, but I concur with SmokeyJoe here in that the deletion rationale and evidence presented was very weak to non-existent. Nevertheless, I strongly request that we:

Allow Recreation to Draft: namespace Doug Mehus T·C 01:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore – On the one hand, how can you close any way other than delete when the delete !votes are unanimous? On the other hand, everyone is wrong.
  1. The AfD nom states ... no secondary references. Subject body of information largely from subjects own site with no unpaid third party sources such as newspapers etc. These statements are flatly incorrect. The references in the article at the time of the AfD include a 2010 article in The Baltimore Sun and a 2011 article in Black Enterprise. These two full-length write-ups are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. There are other secondary sources in the article such as HBCUBuzz 2014, and the interviews: 2013 J-14, 2011 Washington Post blog, and 2010 HipHopWired. "No secondary references" is simply false.
  2. The first delete !vote argued the subject doesn't meet WP:NMG, but did not address GNG or any sources in the article at all.
  3. The second delete !vote stated Self prophesized 'We Know the DJ' site, owned by none other than the subject 'Taylor James', is the main source of content for this article ... Lack of third party coverage in sources ... Also not accurate statements. In the article at the time of the AfD, The "We Know the DJ" reference is only used once, and it's to reference a sentence about We Know the DJ. The most-used reference is the Baltimore Sun article linked above. Second-most-used are the Black Enterprise, HipHopWired, and Washington Post articles linked above (along with Parle Teen, though the link to the article doesn't work for me). These are definitely "third party".
  4. The DRV filer linked to Billboard 2017 and 2013 TeenVogue interview. A WP:BEFORE search conducted during the AfD in 2018 should have found these. The Billboard 2017 article is another GNG source, even if you don't count the Teen Vogue (which is hugely mainstream coverage) interview as independent. Additionally, DRV filer linked to this 2019 DJ City podcast.
  5. TLDR: this topic's notability is evidenced by WP:SUSTAINED in-depth coverage in national and international media. The WP:THREE are Billboard 2017, Baltimore Sun 2010 and Black Enterprise 2011. Honorable mentions for the WaPo blog and Teen Vogue interviews. The AfD should have been relisted, and at this point, the article should just be restored. Levivich 04:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow restoration - really, it's not that bad (I can't see the Baltimore Sun article, being in Europe). Discussion seems to have been defective, given the source analysis (I won't repeat what Levivich has already done better). I can't fault the closing admin here, but neither can I endorse it when they've endorsed their own closure and ruined at least the perception they were acting as a neutral party. WilyD 06:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WilyD: Here's the Baltimore Sun article at archive.org in case that's accessible to you (or anyone else looking for it). – Levivich 06:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does, thanks. These kind of intergrated story/interviews usually get bad raps for not being secondary/fact checked, but of course any responsible news org reaches out to people they're writing stories about, so it requires a little finesse to read it (and, of course, your biases in what you're expecting colour how you read it). But it looks like a pretty reliable source, considering. WilyD 06:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interviews rarely fail for not being secondary sources. They fail in that they fail to meet the WP:GNG because the interview is not independent of the subject. However, an article may contain both non-independent interview in addition to independent secondary source comment. I think this is best explored in a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • WilyD, a closing admin at DRV is never a neutral party, since it is their closure that is being contested. I think that it is normal for closers to stand by their own closure if they remain convinced that they made the right decision, which they normally are, and which I am here. But I usually only state this explicitly if, contrary to instructions, I am not contacted prior to the DRV request. Sandstein 16:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, obviously admins believe they made the right close, but that's different from wanting their closes to stick. To the best of my recollection, I've never had one of my closes overturned here, but if I mess a close, I hope it would be overturned and I'd learn from my error. Sure, if it's not completely obvious why a discussion was closed a certain way, it's beneficial if the closing admins explains themselves, but taking a position on whether a close should be overturned or not is akin to taking a position on what the close should be, and ruins the appearance of uninvolvedness (if not the actualness). WilyD 16:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Ugalde (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus was not interpreted correctly. The result was only 2-1 and both of the deleters' arguments were wrong. They said the article "fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL", but the WP:NFOOTBALL policy states that "players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded AS NOTABLE. (See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.) So according to that the subject is notable. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AUTO1_Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi! This user account is handled by the AUTO1 Group Communications Team. We would like to restore the English version of our company wikipedia entry. Previously this entry was handled by another department that was not aware of the rules and guidelines in place on Wikipedia. This was also the reason for the previous reinstatement (and subsequent second deletion) of this page. We would like to request a Deletion Review followed by the article been put into Draft mode. We would further request guidance in how to avoid marketing and advertising-leaning content while still providing useful information about the company. We believe by cooperating fully with experienced Wikipedia members we can create knowledge for the community. In our opinion AUTO1 Group is a major player in the European automotive market with enough coverage on independent newspapers etc to warrant an article in the English-speaking Wikipedia. AUTO1GroupCommunications (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse close and block the spam account. Nothing wrong with the close and no reason for a DRV. Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto; 331dot could you wrap this up for us? ——SN54129 17:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Ghost Productions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted, mostly because it needed more work and more details added. Since its deletion, the production studio has continued to work on movies, television, and comics. This article should be reinstated, because it is a notable production studio. If it's reinstated to a draft page, I can continue to work on it. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Probably unfortunate DisneyMetalhead did not engage with talk with Nosebagbear upon Nosebagbear's first reversion; or perhaps on the article's talk page, or perhaps even before raising the DRV. Assuming the DRV is not struck for failing to discuss with Nosebagbear (closer) before coming here. The problem with the initial article remaining in namespace was notability, and the reasoning for the article to return and remain is namespace is a demonstration of notability. @DisneyMetalhead .. please read WP:THREE and prepare your best three (and only three!) sources demonstrating notability of the subject. Present them here, or as otherwise directed. It you wish to develop the article it should be possible to copy and paste from Old revision of Mad Ghost Productions to a page in your own userspace (dont copy the categories though!) where you can continue development and when you have it ready for mainspace it can be shown to Nosebagbear for comment first and then taken to DRV if necessary and then copy/pasted back over by yourself (This is the neatest way and pretty well avoids copy attribution problems that might occur in draft space). That's my suggestion anyway. (On a procedural note I dont see a link to Xfd discussion on the talk page of the redirect).Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm happy to have this discussion out here now we've got this far, though if recreation was on the basis of new notability I'd happily have looked at it again. This isn't an incorrect decision-overturn DRV, but for what it's worth this was a NAC decision by me. Djm gives the correct approach. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation in Draft as per Djm. There doesn't seem to be an issue with the close, but a request to be permitted to create a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly, users: @Djm-leighpark:, @Nosebagbear:, and @Robert McClenon: - I simply would like the article reinstated to a draft article, to where I can continue to work on it. It was originally deleted (from the discussion that was brought to me), for lack of sources. I would have preferred it be moved to draft, than to be deleted; but I'm asking if we can begin that process now. Thanks friends!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DisneyMetalhead Please don't say exactly when you don't get my point. It is perfectly possible for you to followed the link to Old revision of Mad Ghost Productions; go into the editor and do a copy paste (Do not save and ideally miss the categories; and save it to a page in your userspace and work on it there. This doesnt require action from anu administrator if you have the requisite skills. The reason for keeping it in your userspace as opposed to draft is that nobody else will likely make any significant change to the article while you develop it which means you can copy/paste it back when consensus is agreed and the attribution is good. Doing this via draft is trickier as potentially would require a histmerge to move back. The page could be moved to draft but this risks the whole thing being deleted in 6 months if you give up on it. But all you have to do is simply establish notability, best with your three best WP:RS sources here per WP:THREE and it should be possible to re=instate the article as it stands. No amount of article editing will help the re-introduction to mainspaces, it is the establishment of notability which is independent of article content which is the crucial point. I am of course assuming you have no conflict of interest with the article subject, but even if you did establishment of notability is key. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Directory information about a recently made one man company. It was a premature WP:SPINOUT. Do not encourage DraftSpace, all coverage belongs in the biography until there is consensus to spin it out. It should never have gone to AfD as there is a single obvious merge and redirect target. There is no prospect for delete, so this doesn’t rise to the scope of DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deprotection of the redirect until there is a consensus at Talk:Geoff Johns in support of a spinout. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don’t want to encourage the practice of coming to DRV for permission to start a draft (spinout or otherwise). In this case, a spinout, get consensus to draft, or just do the spinout in mainspace, on the article talk page. Content expansion discussions go on article talk pages. Before getting serious about the spinout, the spinout topic should be a solid section. Once there is a talk page consensus for the spinout, put in a request at WP:RFUP. That time is not now. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a discussion from around a year and a half ago and came to a redirect result. No DRV is required to make it back into an article if there is now satisfactory sources etc. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMH may be asking here due to the full protection on it - when I was trying to implement the original result I ultimately had to ask @Courcelles: to check I'd closed correctly and protect to prevent it from being reopened despite the AfD. Courcelles is inactive, but either this DRV could agree to reduce the protection, or an RFPP request can be made, whatever is ultimately easier. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Djm-leighpark is spot on - make a draft that shows notability and the article can be restored. It's easier if you do this from scratch, IMO. (This is a good example of why we should embrace AfC as part of the DRV process, but I digress.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Your comment suggests a mild irritation with the DRV proces with respect to draftification and requiring AfC. Can you expand on this a bit? I personally agree with you here, and think we should allow re-creation to draft or userspace more often and, in the closing rationale, mandate that any move back to the main namespace go through AfC. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who does a fair bit of work with AfC, I see it more as a peer review than "just" a place where new users can get help with articles. If there's an article that's been salted, I don't really see any reason why we can't submit a draft to peer review and then move it to mainspace once it's ready. It's just not that onerous of an ask. The opposition seems to be that experienced editors know what they're doing, but an experienced editor should be able to ping another experienced editor and get something peer reviewed very quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer Yeah, I think of AfC that way, too. My only concern with AfC is, potentially, the turnaround time to having a submitted draft reviewed. As an experienced editor, I'd consider writing articles and having them go through AfC, but not if it was going to take three months to have it reviewed. Moreover, I suspect that AfC-submitted drafts have a much higher "keep" rate at AfD. "Peer review" is a good way of thinking of it, except it's peer review that isn't broken. Our current peer review process is inactive to bordering on defunct; I've requested peer review for an article three months ago, and it continues to sit. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the above; nothing wrong with the close, per se, but the closer noted only a "rough consensus" which suggests we've not ruled out notability. Thus, allow-ing recreation as a draft, either on request at WP:REFUND or at close of this DRV, is a reasonable approach. If the editor moves the article to main namespace without going through AfC, I'd support salting the main namespace with the protection level required (i.e., confirmed, extendedconfirmed, or administrator) to prevent that. Doug Mehus T·C 16:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a combination of answers/direction. Can a new draft page be made, or do I need to work on it in my sandbox? Thanks for all the help!! --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMetalhead Not at all, the closer would move this article to draft namespace, without leaving a redirect, and you would access it at Draft:Mad Ghost Productions. It's not indexed by Google, so won't show up in web search results. As such, it doesn't have to meet our general notability guidelines, though it will to be moved back to the main namespace. When you're ready to have it reviewed, you just click submit like in your sandbox. Don't too this too often, though, without major revisions that show you're attempting to follow the feedback, or it could end up at MfD. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DisneyMetalhead, yes ... there are a variety of options you are being presented with here. The choice is yours. Some are attempting to force down the AfC route. While may be recommended is not to be forced, and ultimately AfD/DRV is the decider not AfC, and should remain so. Ultimately AfD and DRV are not to be taken lightly and I am minded edit warring; unnecessarily bringing this to DRV without checking/meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE and failing to present 3 notable references here or to cut/paste off a version to your userspace or sandbox gives me low assessment of your probability of achieving any success. Given you likely won't have clue what I am talking about you are best advised to use the WP:TEAHOUSE or other help channels, whihc are often good though occasionally otherwise.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: also remain salted; add appropriate Template:R shell categories R with history, R printworthy, R with possibilities; and add Old XfD multi to talk. The close of the AfD was properly conducted and the closer helpfully commented about being somewhat near to proving notability. No content merge has taken place so there is no need to worry about a split and the entities are different albeit related. I'm concerned about the suggestions to more re-directs with history to the draftspace where loss and abandonment might occur. Moving to an article WP:Workpage for development would be better but nonstandard and has many its own issues. From a DRV viewpoint however the the key outcome is a straightforward endorse.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: I don't understand what your directions are, especially when you are using abbreviations I've never seen before... this is the first time I've submitted a review of a deleted article. I will attempt to follow the instructions provided by @Dmehus: however.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DisneyMetalhead: I do not give you directions I give you options, of which there are several, though some restrict you to one. The underlying basic key for and procedure to get this article back into mainspace is to have three WP:RS sources identified which confirm WP:Notability per the excellent essay WP:THREE without which your purposes are doomed whilst having those makes the path relatively easy. Apologies for the abbreviations, if you put WP: in front of most of them and then to a search in the the search search wikipedia box it should work. The WP:DRV closer should understand most of my !vote (endorse) statement that I did omit the justification for the salting (protection against update) which essentially was because there had been conflict against the WP:AFD closer force in a newer version without respecting the WP:AFD result by one who may not have temperament or WP:COMPETENCY to do so and might become frustrated by the WP:AFC process.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – as stated above, a straightforward endorse of the close, but it doesn't even seem that the close is really being challenged here; rather (as also stated above) it's more of a request to recreate in draftspace. Levivich 01:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: Thank you for the more indepth and detailed explanation. I will attempt to follow these ideas later this weekend when I have a moment. In the meantime, #goChiefs!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Boot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Boot is a member of the House of Keys, which is a legislature, and passes WP:NPOL 1, but the closing admin, no longer an admin, closed as delete without comment. ミラP 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) ミラP 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Have you made any attempt to ask the closer about it? I've restored the article for review, honestly I don't think there was much of a delete consensus at that AfD, and if there's sources available I'd see no issue with recreating it. There wasn't much in the article in the version that was deleted. ~ mazca ^talk 16:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mazca: User:Euryalus? I thought it would matter only if they had admin rights by now. ミラP 17:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Miraclepine: Yeah, sure they don't currently have admin rights to restore it, but it's still often the quickest and politest way if you think they made a mistake or that the situation has changed - even if they technically can't, another admin would likely be happy to speedy restore it if everyone agreed. ~ mazca ^talk 17:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• These are the two sources that show he is an MHK: [8] [9] ミラP 17:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Comment who cares that the closer is no longer an administrator? They were not desysopped for improper closing of AfDs, they voluntarily handed in their tools and would be eligible to get them back at this time. This AfD was 3 years ago. Why not just write a new article and see if it sticks per WP:CCC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without the admin tools Euryalus can't see the deleted article anymore and, after three years, it's a good bet they won't remember what it was like. So contacting them, though polite, might not end up very productive. Reyk _YO! 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation- I can't really fault the close since the discussion (and probably the article) focused on his status as a sportsperson. But if there's a case to be made for political notability I don't see any harm in allowing recreation. Reyk _YO! 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Well neither the deleted page nor the AfD mentioned a political career, so I can hardly fault the AfD participants for not discussing it, but the argument that he meets WP:POLITICIAN is definitely enough to justify revisiting it. I'd support allowing recreation and restoring the deleted version if someone thinks it would be helpful. Hut 8.5 22:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hut 8.5: I'd recommend restoring the deleted version so I can improve it. ミラP 00:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore in that case. Hut 8.5 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation based on political notability. The article as deleted does not mention his membership in the legislature, which is a reason why the close should not be overturned as such. The close wasn't in error; the article was inadequate to sustain notability, and can be upgraded. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Rough consensus at AfD was fair. Re-creation is allowed if the reasons for deletion can now be overcome. Encourage use of AfC if the topic proponent is unsure. DRV is not for pre-judging notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the House of Keys an international, national, or sub-national legislative body? The Isle of Man is a bit weird. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you can make a reasonable argument that it's a first level sub-national one, since it's not an independent country but it is mostly self-governing. Hut 8.5 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - agree with Robert McClenon and a few others: the article as deleted three years ago was not notable but there's no reason a new one can't be made if anyone has WP:RS to support a fresh notability claim. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment do we really grant automatic notability to members of a sub-national parliament representing 83,000 people? SportingFlyer T·C 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy answer: No. "Automatic notability" is never granted by anyone to anything. AfD judges notability, and the decision at AfD is the role of AfD. WP:N and the WP:SNG guidelines are mere predictors of what will happen at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood. My point is, if someone meets WP:NPOL as a member of a legislature, though, they almost certainly will be kept even if the sourcing in the article is subpar, regardless of WP:GNG, which isn't always a bad thing - but I'm questioning why this specific legislative body would qualify. It's more of a district council than anything. SportingFlyer T·C 03:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SmokeyJoe and SportingFlyer: The Isle of Man is a crown dependency somewhat independent of the UK - no MPs, no EU citizenship - and is practically just like the Cook Islands. ミラP 04:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – I don't understand why this 2016 AfD is at DRV. If a deleted article can be recreated within policy, it doesn't need to go to DRV. Anyone can just recreate the article with new sourcing, etc., and the recreated article can be re-nom'd at AfD of someone thinks the topic shouldn't have a stand-alone. I'm not seeing what DRV is needed for here. Levivich 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist churches in Leicester (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

to facilitate discussion, I have temporarily restored the article history so the final version can be seen DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable nomination criteria

"There's a category for this, and most of these would not meet WP:NOTE. I feel it does not serve a purpose." There is no category, most do not need to meet WP:NOTE, and an opinion (without policy/guideline backing it up) is not relevant.

No consensus to delete

The majority of responses were neither keep or delete, they were alternatives for deletion & that is not consensus to delete. There have been various suggestions offered as preferred alternatives to deletion, including merging, partially merging, dratifying, etc. that are not addressed in the closer's statement. Given the myriad of suggestions which were not to delete, this closure is flawed because it interrupted the community from further discussing those alternatives.

Closer's taken position

In the closing statement, the closer makes it clear that s/he has a preference and dismisses a valid argument over the vague nomination claim & has taken a position in favor of the nominator's who says the list does not meet GNG and doesn't feel it serves a purpose. S/he acknowledges in the closing statement that (at least) one contributor says that the list does meet GNG and provided proof by adding it to the article. Neither the nominator (who provided no rebuttal) nor anyone else claimed that RS did not bring the list over the GNG. The closer has chosen an opinion of one editor over that of one who has offered verifiability.

Closure was premature & discussion should have been relisted

The history from 18:07, 17 January 2020 to 06:22, from 18 January 2020 clearly indicates that the discussion ongoing before the closure at at 06:52, 18 January 2020,

while this entry 06:52, 18 January 2020 (exactly the same time) shows that a participate wished to respond, demonstrating that the discussion had not come to a conclusion.

Complex lists require more time

While giving lip service to it, the closer has not into account the fact WP:LIST that there no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, and may take more time than others, and that discussion at this particular AfD was not complete.

Similar AfDs

The closure does not take in consideration two very similar AfDs, which are clearly noted on this AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, and which contributors to this AfD clearly believe have bearing.Djflem (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As the (unnotified) closer, I stand by my closure of this discussion as "delete" based on the strength of the arguments being made, in the light of applicable guidelines.

This was a pure, bulleteted list of Methodist churches in Leicester, with their address and no other information (and rather few sources). WP:LISTN makes clear that there is no consensus about whether there are notability criteria for "x of y"-type lists other than the general notability criteria of substantial coverage of the list topic in reliable sources. That being the case, to be counted as valid at AfD, a "keep" argument must make a reasonable case why the inclusion of the list is a benefit to Wikipedia readers in the light of general inclusion policies such as WP:NOT. Few of the "keep" opinions in this AfD made such arguments, or indeed much of an argument at all. Djflem made a pure vote at 21:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC). Pure votes are disregarded at AfDs. Atlantic306 at 16:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) and Bookscale at 06:22, 18 January 2020 called for an expansion of the article, but made no argument for why it should be kept at all. Only Pontificalibus made something approaching a reasonable argument for keeping the article, but explicitly as a set index article, not as a list.

The closure was also not premature. The required seven days had elapsed, and sufficient people had commented in order to be able to assess consensus.

Moreover, the other AfDs about similar lists of churches, still ongoing at the time of the closure of this AfD, did not need to be taken into account. They were not part of the same deletion discussion, and it is conceivable that there are better or different sources for churches of one denomination or another in a particular city.

For these reasons, if one assesses the discussion in the light of the strength of the arguments presented, I am of the view that there is rough consensus to delete this list. Sandstein 09:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One sees from Sandstein's evalauation of the article that s/he has clearly taken a non-neutral position and is applying his interpretation of a guidline for which there is no consensus. He has not addressed that the weak nomination mentions only notability, which numerous others in the discussion believe to be fulfilled. The nominator has not satisfactory countered with reasons why the the list is not notable other than a claim and has not disproved the contributions of other editors. Sandsten has again not addressed the many alternatives to deletion, which were the majority of comments. He has taken a position favorable to the nominator making the closure flawed.Djflem (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closers always evaluate consensus by their arguments. There’s nothing wrong with that; in fact, that’s what a closer is supposed to do.

The nominator not arguing to your own liking is not relevant. The nomination itself is also not the key point for evaluation, since even an AfD with a blocked nominator can close as delete if there is consensus in the other editors' discussion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I take issue with Sandstein's accusation that my comment was a "pure vote", and, with great respect to Sandstein, it is bad faith to accuse editors of doing so when that was not their intention. The discussion in the AfD centred around whether the article met notability requirements for lists and that was what my comment addressed. Sandstein's comment in closing was that particular editors (which I can now safely assume would include me) didn't address reliable sources at all, and that was the reason that their comments were disregarded. Now he says that they were disregarded because they called for an expansion of the article and made no argument for keeping. I don't know what is supposed to be the real reason?? Bookscale (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookscale: The closer's point was that your keep !vote didn't give any reasons for why the article should be kept. You did say as AfD is not cleanup, that's not a reason to delete, but that's not an argument addressing why the article should be kept. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-consensus to delete:relist overturn per reasons stated.Djflem (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC) (typo fix 20:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

  Above !vote is by the nominator. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Djflem is not the nominator of the AfD Djflem (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the DRV, not the AfD. The comment was to avoid accidentally reading the above !vote as double dipping. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What was the matter with Postdlf's suggestion, Sanstein?—S Marshall T/C 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Postdlf suggested redirecting to Places of worship in Leicester. One other editor agreed. That's not enough for consensus, but of course editors are now free to create such a redirect on their own. Sandstein 16:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm. My reading of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD is that we can only delete content when we've exhausted all the reasonable alternatives, and in this case I can't help feeling that there was a reasonable alternative before the closer when this decision was reached. Am I missing something?

Equally I don't feel our encyclopaedia is improved by our patchy and inconsistent coverage of religions. Where we do have something about Christianity it's often drawn from the 1913 Catholic encyclopaedia and therefore horribly in-universe. I feel we should treat religions like any other fictional topic, and I don't strongly want to overturn this close. I just don't see it as completely on all fours with our normal deletion practices. Difficult one.—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite ridiculous to call this a "fictional topic". Churches are usually solid and substantial buildings with a significant history as centres of community activity. The many places of worship in Leicester are the subject of academic study. Secular prejudice should be dismissed per WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Secular prejudice", by George! Thank you, Andrew. I have a new favourite oxymoron.—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "anti-religious prejudice" or "atheist prejudice" were the actual accusations there, rather than "secular". — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There was no consensus for deletion and so this was yet another Sandstein supervote. As there are many parallel articles, the outcome is an inconsistent outlier. It makes no sense for the Methodist denomination to be singled out for deletion when we have the Baptist and Congregational cases being kept. We also have pages for the Anglican and Roman Catholic denominations and an umbrella page for all religions – Places of worship in Leicester. The latter provides a clear alternative to deletion, as noted in the discussion, and so WP:DGFA was not followed, "When in doubt, don't delete". Andrew🐉(talk) 17:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Err, the other two AfDs were closed after this one, and they're separate AfDs so they can have different results. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominations were all tied together with explicit links. It makes no sense to close them separately with inconsistent outcomes. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but any inconsistencies arose after this close so that's an issue with the latter two AfD closes. This one was closed when its 7 days had elapsed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those two AfDs have also been un-closed by the closer due to them being controversial WP:NACs, so that's now moot. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closes have been reverted because the nominator (MarkH21) badgered the closer. Fiat lux. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closer agreed that it was WP:BADNAC#2. Don't baselessly accuse me of misconduct. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite User:MarkH21 concurrence with the rationale of the closer here which he stated 'closed when its 7 days had elapsed', two others closed unfavorably to User:MarkH21, the original AfD nominator, needed to be open again and took it upon him/herself to do so.Djflem (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blatant lie. The original closer re-opened the AfDs because of BADNAC here and here after a discussion with me. I did not personally re-open the AfDs. What you linked is me adding the AfD tag back to the article itself as you’re supposed to.

The re-open was procedural and independent of anything you may perceive as being unfavourable to an editor. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: There was clear consensus for not keep, with many editors between delete, merge, and draftify. Among editors suggesting some form of not keep, only Doncram and DGG give non-keep non-delete !votes, with Doncram advocating for merge and DGG advocating for a draftify with a possible post-draftification merge.
  Unless the closer makes it clear that they did not consider alternatives to deletion (which is distinct from not explicitly mentioning alternatives in the closing statement), there is no reason to overturn. Most of the overturn arguments above (particularly the DRV nomination) seem to be AfD arguments rather than DRV arguments. This isn't AfD round 2. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equally there was a clear consensus for "not delete". There were only two pure delete votes, neither of which addressed the sourcing or whether the topic was notable. A relist for further discussion or a "no consensus" close might reasonably have been supported. However, endorsing a delete close in such circumstances is somewhat generous.----Pontificalibus 19:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see six editors with delete, including the nominator. On my stance on the DRV here, I wouldn't be opposed to relist. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four of those weren't opposed to some alternative to deletion, so shouldn't be considered as part of a consensus to delete unless the alternatives are shown to be unworkable. I appreciate decisive closers, as relisting is often an easy option that doesn't always help. However a relist would help with some appropriate guidance as to what to focus the discussion on.----Pontificalibus 21:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be confused: Not keep does not mean delete, and to suggest so is a misunderstanding of the AfD process.Djflem (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has suggested that those two are the same. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So as you've stated above you "wouldn't be opposed to relist" Djflem (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there does seem to be a general feeling in that discussion that the page wasn't suitable for Wikipedia in anything like that form. The opposition to deletion came mostly from people who wanted it merged somewhere else or completely rewritten to be an article instead of a list. If someone wants to have a go at either of those than I suggest we draftify it, but if not then these comments are in line with the view that we shouldn't have this page. The discussion was open for longer than required and had come to a consensus so I don't see a good reason to relist it. WP:LISTN does indeed say that there's no general consensus on the notability of cross-categorising lists, but that's hardly an argument that we can't come to a consensus on this list. It also says that non-notable lists can be kept for navigational reasons, but that clearly doesn't apply here because none of the list entries were bluelinks. Hut 8.5 19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that LISTN explicitly defers to the policy WP:NOTDIR#6 where there is consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(To quote MarkH21 above:"This isn't AfD round 2." So what's this?)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Yep, like in the quote, this isn’t AfD round 2. This is about the attempt to use WP:LISTN to say that there is no consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made the point in the AfD that this is not a list article. The topic as per the title does not begin with "List of..." - sure, the article did contain a list, but this could have been reworked as prose focusing on the churches for which there was significant coverage. I had already begun this process, adding sources and detail to the article. It's a mystery to me why people focused on the list aspect, instead of on the topic as per the title, and on whether a decent article on that topic could have been achieved through improvement. Sandstein alluded to my keep arguments in the close but did not address them, and has mischaracterised them above as something to do with set index articles, which again is a mystery to me. Quite simply the topic is notable as demonstrated by the sources I had added to the article by the time it was closed.----Pontificalibus 19:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They focused on the list aspect because it's a list. It consisted almost entirely of a list of churches, along with a few pictures and a short piece of introductory lead. The fact that a few of the entries had a sentence or two of detail doesn't make it not a list. If you'd like to turn it into an article, with actual paragraphs of prose, about Methodism in Leicester or something similar then I'd be happy to support moving it into draft space. But it will necessitate an almost total rewrite. Hut 8.5 22:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the main role of AfD is to determine whether we should have an article on that topic, not whether the current content of an article is suitable. I’d be happy to improve the article, but only if there is a consensus that we should have an article about these churches. Draftifying only to end up here again would waste a lot of people’s time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontificalibus (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - I'll rephrase: there was consensus that we shouldn't have this as a standalone page. However a consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone list of churches in Leicester doesn't mean that we can't have an article about Methodism in Leicester, or something else which is fundamentally a different page with a different scope and function. If someone would like to use some of the contents of this page to write that page, or to improve some other page, then I don't have a problem with it being restored to draft space for that purpose. But if nobody is interested in doing that then the contents are no use and we've decided to get rid of it. Hut 8.5 22:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any consensus, it was on the content of the page prior to nomination. But of course AfD is not cleanup and any objections to a plain list of churches had already begun to be addressed. The vast majority of contributors failed to address the topic under discussion, but focused on the list element. Imagine if New York City had previously been nominated for deletion because it contained only a list of buildings, even though someone had started adding referenced content about the Empire State Building and the New York Stock Exchange. The logic exhibited at this AfD would have seen it deleted, rather than improved. WP:TNT is not a policy however.--Pontificalibus 06:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically the same as what you said above, and again the page amounted to a list of churches in Leicester, whether that was the title or not. AfD participants will have commented on the page at the time, not on the pre-nomination version. Most of the changes were made on 11-12 January, which is before a good deal of the AfD participation. The changes don't amount to adding paragraphs of text or anything like that, instead they mostly consist of adding references and very brief annotations to the entries. If someone took a list of buildings in New York City and changed "Empire State Building" to "Empire State Building, a skyscraper completed in 1931 [citation]", along with a few similar changes then that doesn't magically make the page into an article about New York City. Plenty of lists have such annotations. Making the page into an article would have required writing paragraphs of actual prose, nobody was doing that. Hut 8.5 07:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it was not the state of the article that mattered, but whether the sources exist to enable improvement, which they clearly do.----Pontificalibus 07:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the AfD, I don't think the notability of the list, or that sources exist which clearly demonstrate the notability of the list, has been clearly demonstrated. While some delete voters were delete/merge or delete/draftify, there's more of a consensus to delete or to move the information elsewhere than there is to keep the article on notability grounds and improve it. A simple count of the exact votes were 3 delete, 2 merge, 1 delete first and rename second, 3 keep outright, 1 delete or draftify, 1 delete/partial merge, and 1 draftify. The two keep !votes that were not yours did not explicitly discuss the notability of the list. One of them was also fine if the list needed to be draftifyed. There's a clear consensus this page is not okay as it is, there's a rough consensus the page isn't notable and that some or all of the information should be moved somewhere else, and there's no consensus on where to redirect or merge the information, making the delete outcome proper here. Part of this comes down to the difficulty of determining the notability of lists. I think Methodist Churches in Leicester could potentially be a valid article, and I don't think the close of this discussion prohibits that. The only change I would make to the close would be to make that point clear. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Ignoring the delete !votes that fail to address the sources I added to the article during the AfD, there aren't any valid delete !votes left at all. Relist for a further seven days with the instruction to determine whether the topic "Methodist Churches in Leicester" satisfies WP:N.----Pontificalibus 19:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, or close as Non-consensus Statements that "there was consensus that it wasn't suitable in its present form" does not mean that there was consensus to delete it, considering the multiple other options. The only thing that was really clear in hte discussion was that there was no consensus. I would normally just suggest "non-consensus" but it is possible with the sources now added to the article the consensus would be keep. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or close as non-consensus per DGG. There really was no clear consensus to delete, and the sources that have been shown to be added to the article would show that the article can be kept. It would also give a chance to take into account the other AfDs. Bookscale (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse That was a difficult discussion, but I don't have any issue with the close and I think it's proper - there's not consensus on a merge target, there's not consensus on a redirect target (though postdlf does make a good suggestion), and from a reading of the discussion I think Sandstein is correct in saying only Pontificalibus makes an argument that would actually merit keeping the article. The clarification I would make is that there shouldn't be any prejudice on including this information somewhere else, but the article as it stands does not appear notable. Also, I know whoever closes this will be competent, but most of the participants in this discussion were involved at the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And why, since it was an apparently difficult call, did one need to be made, especially considering that the discussion was still very very active. Why isn't a re-list more appropriate?Djflem (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It had been open for ten days by my count, and relisting isn't proper when a discussion can be properly closed. (Also, the close wasn't difficult, the discussion was difficult. I'd be in favour of better guidelines for lists.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the history shows that the discussion was still quite active. If relisting isn't proper then, closing when wasn't either. It is clear the it had not concluded and had been better left alone.Djflem (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at WP:RELIST would suggest relisting a discussion because active participation is occurring (and to note again, discussion ran for a couple days after it should have been closed.) I know you're passionate about the subject, but there was no error on the closer's part for closing the discussion when they did, which is what we're reviewing for. SportingFlyer T·C 07:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that a AfD is required to be closed by a deadline. In a "difficult discussion" which clearly had not come to an end, giving more time - by doing nothing - may have allowed a consensus to gel & we wouldn't be here. Djflem (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist as there was no consensus for any decision, neither keep nor delete, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn based on the fact that there is no consensus to delete. I did not participate in the AfD. A Sandstein WP:SUPERVOTE should be overturned and the close should reflect the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. An article can be renominated multiple times, however Sandstein wrongly gave this one the death penalty. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC I can't see anything resembling a consensus to delete the article and I don't see the policy-based arguments to be so heavily leaning in the delete camp to justify deletion. Hobit (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reslist I spotted this AfD on my rounds, saw that consensus would take time to assess, and when I came back to relist, it had been closed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but why would a relist be preferable to a close here? There was plenty of participation, and a consensus the article shouldn't be kept in its current form. SportingFlyer T·C 14:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to deletion were being discussed and no action was required or needed by a closer. Djflem (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No Consensus to delete or indeed to do anything else - User:DGG argues this above better than I can. Having said that, if it does remain it needs huge work v quickly. Ingratis (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and allow someone to work on it in draft form. SportingFlyer captured my thoughts about the close. What did emerge from the discussion was there was a consensus to not keep the article. While I think there was probably generally agreement that the content should come back in some form, there was a strong sense that the current article is not notable as written. --Enos733 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention by a closer who aborted an active discussion about which direction to take the material was inappropriate and disrupted the community from finding, or not finding, a consensus. Misconstruing not keep (which was far from certain) to mean delete is non-neutral position.Djflem (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion would benefit from less participation by you, Djflem.—S Marshall T/C 16:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Clear among participants that article should not be kept in its form as a mere directory of a particular type of church in a particular place, regardless of notability. Voters recognized that the topic did not need its own article rather than listing only the notable/historic churches in a page with inclusion criteria besides mere existence or previous existence of non-notable churches in limitless combinations of places and types. Reywas92^Talk 10:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete, maybe even a consensus to not delete the history. The combinations of “redirect” “partial merge”, “merge” and “draftify” do not fit the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus - It wasn't an easy close, but deciding that there was a consensus to delete was an easy way out. The views of the community were all over the place, and that is what No Consensus is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Mall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Bad A7 speedy. While there may not have been an apparent claim of significance, there were 17 references. As noted at Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, even if there is not an in-text claim of significance, references need to be taken into account; If the references within the article discuss the subject or provide a possible claim of significance as discussed in #1 above, then too the A7, A9 and A11 tags should not be applied. There was a previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunshine Mall, but it is now 12 years old, and since this wasn't G4'd, somewhat irrelevant. The right course of action was to send it to AfD, not speedy it. I note that I am opening this after page author User:Pokemonprime mentioned on Discord that it had been deleted, and was confused. I agreed with them, and thus opened this DRV since they were unfamiliar with the process. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to AfD are we seriously challenging an A7 over references that amount to “It physically existed and was torn down”? Hell, the references in this case contribute to the reason A7 was appropriate: none of them remotely approach making a claim of significance at all. I also don’t buy the “physical mall that’s rented as a business vs. business” distinction, and think it’s covered by A7. Also, CaptainEek, you should have discussed this with Bbb23 first, rather than starting this without on-wiki discussion with the deleting admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TonyBallioni: The greater concern is that it had significant, third-party coverage going back for many years. The article had seventeen newspaper articles all of which covered some facet of the mall in depth. For this to get completely overlooked and shrugged off as "insignificant", and ignored to the point of an A7 getting dropped in mere minutes, is preposterous. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: See my comments below. This should have been a good A7, but we’re in controversial territory because we apparently have a special exception for malls. I’m all for SNGs/OUTCOMES precedent so I respect that, and would be fine with this going to AfD. At the same time, I’ll note that this has A7 written all over it, and I’d personally have deleted it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, what's happening here isn't in any way related to this being a mall, it's a failure to read the whole of A7 and understand how and why it works. No article, on any subject, should be A7'd when it has significant, reliable sources on the subject. It's not clear, of course, whether this will be kept at AfD, but determining that takes a serious analysis of the sources, to which AfD is suitable and CSD is largely not. WilyD 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I noticed that the corresponding talk page wasn't deleted. I'm not sure what our policies are with respect to timeframes of applicability for the previous AfD. I'm inclined to agree with TonyBallioni per WP:NOTBURO if the incorrect CSD tag was used, but which Sunshine Mall are we talking about? That would help in assessing whether WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are met here. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was the first mall of its kind in Clearwater. People drove for miles to visit. Not sure what sort of coverage it got outside Tampa Bay Area, but it was something at the time. (Personal recollections don't count toward notability.)-- Deepfriedokra 03:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Over turn. this did meet significance, though I doubt notability.-- Deepfriedokra 03:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC) There were many malls torn down in Pinellas County over the last forty years. I think what distinguished Sunshine Mall was its firstnesss, and the fact that it was turned into apartments., rather than being renovated and relaunched as a retail venue. Mere existence does not amount to significance., and while personally significant to me, ( I loved the place.) the local coverage amounts to little more than fluff.-- Deepfriedokra 03:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Did anyone even look at the sources? They were all newspaper articles that discussed the mall's history in depth. The "firstness" is a valid claim to notability, and WP:OUTCOMES has constantly dictated that malls are almost always notable. Why is this the one that gets thrown to the wolves three seconds after the article was created, with 17 absolutely reliable, in-depth sources shrugged off as nothingness? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question TenPoundHammer, can you restore the page for DRV so we can look at the sources? Doug Mehus T·C 03:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @TenPoundHammer: I have no knowledge of other people's orbital platform deployments. It would probably be best to ask Bbb23, who AFAIK was not contacted prior to requesting here. BUt you are right. A7 did not apply. And yes, fluff. I read the sources when they first came out.-- Deepfriedokra 03:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dmehus: I am not an admin so I can't do that. However, in mere seconds on Newspapers.com, I did find at least one valid claim to notability: this article claims it was the first mall in the country to have a Christian Science Reading Room, and the first mall in the South to have more than 100 stores. This claims that the mall was at 100% occupancy before it even opened. This is a pretty sizeable article on the mall's development. @TonyBallioni:, @Bbb23:, @Deepfriedokra: I suggest that you peruse these sources, as I feel they establish notability and show significant depth in coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer: all of this screams complete and utter insignificance. Seriously, none of that is near significant, much less notable. Good A7, and I’d argue that the sourcing produced makes it an even better A7 than if no sources were provided in the article: it shows how utterly impossible it is this historical business that has shut down could be notable, as there is nothing the average reader would consider significant. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't think "first mall to have X" is in any way an assertation of notability? There is a long-standing precedent that the coverage I linked above, combined with what was already in the article, is exactly the kind of substance that makes shopping malls notable. WP:OUTCOMES states that malls are almost always considered notable, and the existence of this level of coverage in GA-class articles such as Lansing Mall, Meridian Mall, Colonial Plaza, etc. shows that this is exactly what makes a suitable shopping mall article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don’t. It appears that shopping malls are apparently like railroad stations in that almost every one should be deleted but we have a special set of rules for them because editors who like them want to write about them and they aren’t harming anything so it’s not worth the fight. The first claim to me isn’t significant: there are tons of firsts. The reading room might be significant for being the first in a mall, but I don’t think the mall is. I’d be willing to see it returned to AfD over this, but really, I think Wikipedia is better off without this article, and that if any other business had these sources, no one at all would be questioning this A7. If OUTCOMES says there’s a special rule, though, I’m fine challenging that at AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the fact that we're debating whether this mall was potentially significant means that we should at least have a new debate at AfD with respect to notability as the WP:CSD#A7 was likely incorrect. Doug Mehus T·C 04:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For what it's worth, G4 does not apply. This is much better. And a bit of irony, as TPH nominated for AfD back in 2007.-- Deepfriedokra 03:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra Indeed. That is ironic. I guess there's a bit of an inclusionist in all of us. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 03:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Not because of the wrong CSD criterion, but because TenPoundHammer and CaptainEek have convinced me this needs a second look. This article by Pokemonprime may be better than one deleted in the previous AfD. Doug Mehus T·C 03:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily restored for review-- Deepfriedokra 04:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra Thanks. It looks like this will probably end up at AfD. I wonder if we should temporary undelete Talk:Sunshine Mall pending the DRV and/or AfD outcome? Doug Mehus T·C 04:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I too think based on the discussion of the sources that the article did not qualify for speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is a collection of facts, backed up by a long list of what appear to be WP:RS. None of that makes any claim that this mall was significant or important. There's absolutely nothing in the article that's not totally routine for a strip mall. It was built. It had stores. It had a movie theater. It was renovated. It was torn down. Good A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @RoySmith: did you see the additional sourcing I cited above? The mall does have a few claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I didn't look at them. A7 is about what's in the article. There was nothing in the article that indicated the mall was important or significant. Therefore, it was a good A7. The fact that you may have found sources which show the mall is notable, doesn't change the fact that it was a valid A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just not aware of it, but I don't think we've ever deleted a notable article for failing the significance test. SportingFlyer T·C 06:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Obviously unsuitable for A7, given the sources. Nobody familiar with speedy deletion acting in good faith could argue otherwise. Just terrible. Completely indefensible. WilyD 06:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think this was an abjectly poor use of an A7. I believe significance is a very low bar, and this not only vastly exceeds meets that threshold, I think it'd also pass an AfD on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 06:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Agreed. I'm looking at sources #3-4 and, possibly, source #1 as possibly enough for a weak keep if not an outright keep so I could very easily see this passing WP:GNG. We've kept articles with worse sourcing than this! --Doug Mehus T·C 06:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Ghu! This is why it used to be that pages with 3rd party sourcing were not eligible for A7. Evaluation of sources should be made by consensus.-- Deepfriedokra 06:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not eligible for A7. This falls under WP:NBUILD, not WP:ORG. The article is about the place, not whichever company or companies happened to own or operate it.----Pontificalibus 06:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificalibus Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't sure whether it was for the building' or the building corporation that owned it. In that case, it's likely a lower test as there's no WP:CORPDEPTH element for it to pass, correct? Doug Mehus T·C 07:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes absolutely. NBUILD explicitly includes commercial developments while CORPDETH specifically applies only to companies as a legal entity and other groups of people forming organizations. This is about that big building that everyone visited, it's not about some subsidiary operating company of FUSCO Property Management Inc that no one has heard of. ----Pontificalibus 07:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A7 is supposed to be a lower standard than notability: any article which shows the subject is notable is exempt from A7. This means references are relevant since they can establish notability. In fact any article which suggests the subject might be notable should also not be an A7 candidate, because speedy deletion is not the main mechanism we use for determining notability and because speedy deletion should only be applied in obvious cases. I'm not sure the references cited indicate notability, but they are at least worth considering at AfD/PROD. Hut 8.5 07:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Send to AFD. A7, like other speedy criteria, is for uncontroversial deletions. User:RoySmith has given an excellent argument to Delete in a deletion discussion, but this is not a deletion discussion. Anything with multiple low-quality sources makes a credible claim of significance, and that is why A7 and AFD are different burdens of proof. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I wrote an article which said, "I exist", and provided as references, links to my Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Wikipedia pages, an article in my hometown paper covering my high school graduation, and a link to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles database showing all my parking tickets, that would be enough to be A7-proof? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but A7 is explicitly "... a lower standard than notability." So if there is a reasonable argument that a topic meets WP:N, then it is A7-proof. I don't think your example would hit that, though if that hometown paper was covering *you*, in significant detail, I'd claim that A7 would probably be unwise (arguments about sources being too "local" probably should be discussed rather than fiat-ed at CSD). If that article just listed you as a graduate, yeah, that's no where close enough to hold off an A7. Hobit (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other important thing to note is that A7 does not require you to look "outside the article" to make that determination, but sources that are included in the article at the time of the A7 nomination should be considered to be part of the article. The article "RoySmith ({date of birth}) is a {nationality} {occupation}" would be eligible for an A7 if unsourced or only sourced to LinkedIn or a high school graduation notification, but if someone has done a terrible job at writing an article but a good job of finding references, and the references demonstrate a level of notability, then A7 would be inappropriate even though the article's terrible. SportingFlyer T·C 04:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as not meeting the standard at WP:A7. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There's enough here to suggest GNG might be met. At that point, the appropriate solution if people believe it isn't is to take it to AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think that User:Deepfriedokra has re-upped their honest deletionist credentials with the above statement about A7. In other words, I agree with them that the time to be a deletionist is at AFD. A7 is for crud. I can't define crud, but I agree with Judge Stewart that we know it when we see it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD. American malls are a 12+ year old memory of contention, up there with schools. See Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers). CSD#A7 probably shouldn't be used on historically contentious articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and point the tagger User:Red Phoenix to WP:AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn& Restore I usually speedy delete the typical promotional or totally generic mall article, but this is one that I don't think qualifies for deletion at all. I think it shouldn't automatically be sent to afd: the people who now want to delete it might well want to read it again. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn& Restore If someone believes it deserves an AfD it can be nominated. Lightburst (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sushree Dibyadarshini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As the editor who argued keep, I was surprised to see the AfD closed as keep. Relisiting or closing as no consensus seemed more likely to me - I don't think my argument was obviously more relevant and/or strong enough to cut through the other opinions in such a way to lead to a clear argument for closing as keep yet (there are plenty of occasions at AfD where I think a minority argument is clearly much stronger fwiw and I am unconvinced of the merit of vote counting, but there you go). Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. BADNAC. That was not a consensus to keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to relist The SNG issue wasn't really addressed at all and there were no relists yet. Hobit (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist – Divided opinions + new sources to analyze + no prior relist = relist – Levivich 00:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or Delete It was a terrible non admin closure where the consensus was assigned to keep the article despite majority of the votes going in favour of delete. On the other hand just for a reminder, 2018–19 Senior Women's Challenger Trophy is a women's List A cricket tournament which passes the WP:GNG and those who play in List A matches also count to be notable according to WP:Cricket. Sushree Dibyadarshini has also featured in such a tournament. But the subject hasn't been much covered or recognised so it is WP:TOOSOON. So I believe it was wrong to close the Afd in contrast to the votes of majority. According to my knowlege women cricketers who have played for less popular cricket teams such as Uganda, Maldives, Philippines, Indonesia, Tanzania in international level are not covered in Wikipedia. So there is no point in keeping a biography of a woman cricketer who has not even played in a domestic competition according to the Cricinfo stats. Abishe (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: I'm slightly confused by your point about List A matches. WP:NCRIC gives a list of matches that would confer notability, in which the subject has played none. I also don't see how the tournament passing GNG has to do with her passing GNG or NCRIC. But I'm also confused because you're arguing for deletion? I think I'm misunderstanding something here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Sorry for my error which I made regarding List A appearances. The tournament that I mentioned above passes notability but the subject in focus hasn't played in any of the matches according to Cricinfo which I just went through. Clearly it is WP:TOOSOON. I didn't mean that she played in the domestic competition but just wanted to say that she had featured in one of the squads and she is yet to make a mark at professional level. Hope you got it clear. Abishe (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn- as well as being a textbook WP:BADNAC, endorsing this would set the precedent that drip-feeding sketchy sources into a debate to invalidate previous !votes is a tactic that works. That would not be a benefit to the encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 10:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with arguments above that this was, perhaps, not an appropriate non-admin closure but weak endorse close and support weak keep per the arguments presented by Missvain and Blue Square Thing, which were the stronger arguments that appeared to be supported by evidence. It does seem difficult to find sources on female Indian cricket players, but this one from In.com that is a partnership/joint venture with CNN likely qualifies as an in-depth biographical featurette. I did not search through all of the results, especially those omitted by Google Search. There are a number of passing mentions in published print books, so I tend to think there is a high likelihood of being only one other qualifying source to meet WP:GNG, which is the first "test" a subject must pass before the SNG(s) are assessed. On WP:NCRIC, concur with the above that the subject easily meets WP:NCRIC. --Doug Mehus T·C 10:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus or relist. Opinion was split and the arguments for keeping aren't that strong. The fact that women's cricket gets less coverage than men's is unfortunate but we don't lower the notability standards as a result of bias in the world in general. Blue Square Thing's comment does give sources which weren't explicitly rebutted, but the analysis admits that most of them are "short" or "passing mentions", which doesn't help much for notability, and they don't look great to me. If we have to close it in that state then it would be no consensus, but I'm happy with relisting for further participation. Hut 8.5 18:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 I'd be supportive of the overturn to "no consensus," which would also have the practical effect of keeping the article in question and also allowing the Notability tag to be retained at the top of the article, per the consensus at Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts and elsewhere. A reasonable compromise result. This, in turn, might spur those with interest in the article to look into other sources, including offline and walled garden sources, to get the article the 1 other source it needs to pass WP:GNG. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 and others: I feel that I should explain that the specific issue I have with the notability of women's cricket, is not necessarily of media coverage - there is quite a lot of that for Dibyadarshini. It's to do with the way that NCRIC is written and its reliance on matches being first-class, List A or official T20. Women's cricket doesn't have that same level of "official" rating yet in stats websites such as CricInfo. At the same time, it's clear to me that Dibyadarshini has played in matches at a higher level than people such as Bhavya Bishnoi (see current AfD) - his single "first-class" match is realistically nowhere near first-class status whereas Dibyadarshini's matches for India A (basically the Indian national team's next eleven), for example, are way beyond that level. Essentially it's almost impossible for women to meet NCRIC without playing internationally whereas men can play in a pre-season friendly and meet it without any real media coverage whatsoever (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Balac for example). The problem is with the ways in which women's cricket is classified and the reliance of NCRIC on that.

None of that changes my surprise at the closure of the AfD as keep. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the notability standards for cricketers aren't very good, but I suspect any attempt to reform them will consist of getting rid of the automatic pass given to anyone who has ever played first-class cricket, rather than extending it to similar levels of women's cricket. Although I suspect that women's cricket is much less likely to get substantial coverage than men's at the same level. Hut 8.5 19:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect any attempt to reform them will consist of getting rid of the automatic pass given to anyone who has ever played first-class cricket- good. A huge number of these articles (particularly the one-match players) are match scorecards disguised as biographies, about people whose full names we often can't determine, and who sometimes can't be reliably distinguished from similarly named people. Reyk _YO! 07:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Void close and relist. WP:BADNAC applies. There's no reason a close can't go against the nosecount, if the minority arguments are squarely grounded in policy. But, the two keep arguments here do not fit that description. The fact that women's cricket doesn't get as much coverage as men's cricket is unfortunate, but not a reason to keep per our policies. The argument that, there are some interviews with her, is clearly non-policy; interviews are generally not considered good sources. One of the arguments admits, it's not clear and obvious; well, clear and obvious is what we need for a good WP:NAC. If this had been closed as keep by an admin, it would have still been a bad close. I could see closing this as NC, or Delete, or relisting. Pretty much anything but keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we put a ban on non-administrative closures for this user? There have been many questionable NACs by this user in the past weeks. Natg 19 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19:, that's not something for WP:DRV as I understand it. There's a couple of proposals at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nnadigoodluck and WP:BADNAC, which may or may not be of interest to you. Hope that helps. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has absolutely nothing to do with this user. SportingFlyer T·C 03:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate This discussion clearly should not have been closed by a non-administrator, and especially without discussion. I have no opinion on what ultimately should be done with this as it's a topic in a difficult grey area with good arguments on both sides (I would have relisted had I been in charge of the close), but the close itself desperately needs to be vacated. SportingFlyer T·C 03:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For those suggested closing this as no consensus, I don't see why that is preferable to relist. The AfD was never relisted and there's clearly potential for further discussion here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• That close doesn't reflect my reading of the debate or my understanding of policies and guidelines in this topic area. There's an opportunity for one of our sysops to provide some support and direction to this closer, who's rather active in deletion related matters and isn't always displaying good judgment.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer. Sorry I'm late due to a laptop issue. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is determined better by the merits of the votes than the counts, which I did. ミラP 16:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and allow an admin to close. Unfortunately, the closer has just made an additional argument to overturn, because the closer appears to be saying that they supervoted. This is a contentious close, and any contentious close may be a bad non-admin closure, and a contentious close that goes against a headcount may be a right !vote but is almost always a bad non-admin close. In my opinion, No Consensus or Relist would have been valid (and a Keep by the closer would have made No Consensus a more obvious close). It isn't obvious what the right close is, so Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Maybe the special notability guidelines for cricket and association football are too low. If so, take that to the sports notability talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The close appears to violate WP:BADNAC#2, as there were a couple valid outcomes of the AfD. However, while no consensus is a possible close here - a no consensus close defaults to keep. I am also not sure that a relist would significantly change the discussion - as it is not likely that there would be a consensus on the open question of whether playing in the 2019 Women's T20 Challenge is enough to meet WP:NCRIC. As it was two of the delete votes suggested a preference to have a broader discussion of WP:NSPORTS, rather than apply the current consensus of when athletes pass the SNG. Void close to allow an admin to close. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enos733 Thanks. Is the AfD back on then? If so, I'd like to add my comments that this is the weakest of "keeps," per WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR that it's only one source shy of a WP:GNG meet. Failing that, draftify or userify seems right. Doug Mehus T·C 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Void close. NACs are specifically limited to non-controversial cases. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emin Boztepe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Australianblackbelt insists on reviewing this ten-year-old afd because, to quote, "Subject has only been in two articles inside two martial arts magazines never on a front cover or ever mentioned in news sources, doesn’t pass notability", and won't accept that a new afd is the place for that. So we're here, at least briefly. —Cryptic 01:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toks Asher Young (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the page was wrongly deleted because he passes general notability criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia. And also have received some awards and recognitions in his field. I don't understand why he is not notable, I asked the admin to explain but he said is because of the number of votes for delete but I think, the reasons which are given in the AFD discussion by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note User:Techwritar 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how this page works, User:Techwritar. You need to say why you think it was wrongly deleted. Wrongly in what way? Bishonen | talk 21:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Note. When I wrote my comments, here and in the two discussions below, Techwritar's post in all three read simply "I believe the page was wrongly deleted". Don't worry about it, User:Techwritar. I see below at Blessing Williams that you now know not to change comments after they've been replied to. As you say, we're learning all the time. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse - This AFD raises two questions. The first is whether to overturn the deletion. The appellant has not raised any issue of any error in the close, and the close was correct. The second is whether to take action against the appellant for filing frivolous DRVs, but DRV is a content forum, so Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As we're dealing with a new user here, I do hope that we'll be able to take this opportunity to explain what's happened in a way that would be intelligible to a non-Wikipedian. With a tempundelete, I'd be happy to try.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to Cryptic for the tempundelete. And no, I'm not content to defend what we've done here. The nomination statement, supported by two editors, appears to be wrong, in that this source and this source, both of which were cited in the deleted article, both look editorially independent from the subject. Given the debate we had, I can't fault Sandstein's close, but the close relied on a debate that didn't fully examine the facts.—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to relist Yeah, the sources look just fine and he appears to meet WP:N. Given the sources appear quite reasonable and there was never a relist, I'd say relist was a much better choice°, ideally asking participants to examine the sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep as a bold close that avoids bureaucracy or, as a second choice, overturn to relist, for a fuller discussion, possibly with a link to this DRV deletion discussion diversion. I concur with S Marshall and Hobit here, respectively, in that the closer can't be faulted too much in that, based on the discussion provided, "delete" appeared correct. However, just because Techwritar was the author of the article doesn't nullify, or discount, his or her vote at AfD, as far as I'm aware. Based on my review of Google web and news searches, I'm able to provide two sources here and here, from Guardian Nigeria and News Ghana respectively, that meet our common sense definition of reliable, independent sources. Moreover, the articles themselves are both at length and in-depth; thus, an easy WP:GNG pass here. Doug Mehus T·C 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, without bias against renomination - AfDs are discussions, not votes, and we see nothing but bare assertions that he does or doesn't meet WP:N, with no discussion of the sources, but certainly sources enough that meeting WP:N is plausible (at least, the Vanguard, Guardian make it plausible). Assertions but no real arguments, either side "plausible" does not a consensus make. I don't see the point in re-opening over allowing renomination when there's essentially no existing discussion to build on. WilyD 16:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, that said, I don't really fault the closer here. I think it's a very easy and natural error to make. WilyD 17:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Cid (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the page was wrongly deleted because Firstly, third party sources (independent source) are sources that have no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. All the sources there are third-party sources that have editorial independence. Secondly, he passes WP:ENT because he has a large fan base, one million subscribers and about 2.2 million views on one of his videos on YouTube. I don't understand why he is not notable, I asked the admin to explain but he said is because of the number of votes for delete but I think, the reasons which are given in the AFD discussion by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note Techwritar (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how this page works, User:Techwritar. You need to say why you think it was wrongly deleted. Wrongly in what way? Bishonen | talk 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse - This AFD raises two questions. The first is whether to overturn the deletion. The appellant has not raised any issue of any error in the close, and the close was correct. The second is whether to take action against the appellant for filing frivolous DRVs, but DRV is a content forum, so Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse sources don't appear to meet WP:N and the AfD concluded the same. A relist for discussion of WP:ENT wouldn't have been a bad idea (and I'd have endorsed that too), but I don't know that "lots of youtube subscribers" counts as "large fan base", nor do I know if we did take that as meeting WP:ENT, how many would be "large". Given [10], I'd imagine the number needed is more than a million. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the sources here are really tabloid-y. I'd normally expect if there are tabloid sources, there would be good ones, but I can't seem to find any. So I don't see any overturn option here. WilyD 08:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Williams (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the page was wrongly deleted. First of all Miss Bikini Nigeria International, is a notable award in Nigeria. Secondly When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both but If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. She is the winner, I don't think there is a role larger than that of this event. Thirdly, there are significant views about her published on reliable and independent sources and lastly, She has made a unique contribution and achievement to the field of entertainment as the first Nigerian model to be on a Dubai Magazine Cover. I don't understand why she is not notable, I asked the admin to explain but he said is because of the number of votes for delete but I think, the reasons which are given in the AFD discussion by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note Techwritar (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how this page works, User:Techwritar. You need to say why you think it was wrongly deleted. Wrongly in what way? Bishonen | talk 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse - This AFD raises two questions. The first is whether to overturn the deletion. The appellant has not raised any issue of any error in the close, and the close was correct. The second is whether to take action against the appellant for filing frivolous DRVs, but DRV is a content forum, so Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Techwritar, please stop editing your comments after people have replied to them. It's confusing and rude. —Cryptic 02:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Cryptic, thanks for the correction and I hope you understand learning is a continuous process. Techwritar (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here, the sources are pretty weak sauce, and I can't find any better. I worry that the fear of anything that looks remotely spammy is pushing us towards something here that's probably more like systematic bias, but I don't see any way out of it here. WilyD 08:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious endorse With the exception of the nom (who is also the article's author), strong and unanimous consensus to delete. There's no other way the AfD could have possibly been closed. Of course, as always, there's nothing to prevent a new article from being written, provided the concerns raised at the AfD are resolved, which in this case means finding better sources. Due to the copyright violations in the article, a fresh start would be required (i.e. do not restore to user or draft space). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article had redirected as a result of the AFD outcome, however the article is making back and forth to be remove redirect, but it was protected from editing. Now a review will check the entire Now! album discography as a result and it is likely to be passed WP:NALBUMS and explain MBisanz that how the article was redirected. 2600:6C4E:580:A:3D45:956F:8F4A:D67B (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close/Endorse WP:NALBUMS says in the first sentence: "all articles on albums, singles or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Since no significant coverage was shown in the IP's post, and the AfD closure itself isn't in question either... this doesn't meet WP:DRVPURPOSE. Please make a new version at Draft:Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) and submit for review. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for Jovanmilic97 or nom: It more or less sounds like this is a UK television series and the deleted article was for the companion discography, do I have that right? --Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a series of albums per my searches, not a TV series. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that reassures me that my DRV !vote and rationale is correct. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as I see a clear consensus to redirect and per Jovanmilic97 above, who also rightly notes DRV nominator could draftify (or userify) the article boldly. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) an[reply]
• I remember buying the original US release. I loved that CD, it had all the hits of the day. Now I've learned that they're currently on volume 73. Seventy-three! I suddenly feel old. Thanks, Wikipedia. Anyway, endorse, there was clear consensus to redirect; it could not have been closed any other way. No prejudice against creating a new draft and submitting it through AFC. – Levivich 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is the wrong forum. To challenge the old redirect consensus, discuss at the redirect target talk page, Talk:Now That's What I Call Music! discography. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the close isn't defective. If someone wants to write a draft that demonstrates notability, that'd make the old AfD inapplicable, and they could place that page at the target. In that case, forcing editors to go through AfC is just plain bully and would be completely intolerable (though if they wanted to, of course, bully for them). WilyD 09:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think the consensus decision was made based on the voting not on the real facts, also there were only few votes in AFD discussion, should take more time, please reconsider the 'deletion review' or relist into AFD discussion. The main reason for 'deletion review' or relist is, (and, would like to add some more notes here on AFD) like, subject isn't notable now If you Google the subject, you'll see only some social profiles, her own links etc. and there are some old news links which are even too old and now the subject is low-profile individual. Moreover, if you closely look at the page, it look like some kind of news site page cause there's nothing informational on page and Wikipedia is encyclopedia. There's no reason to keep this Wikipedia page. So request you kindly re-consider the decision to 'Delete' or kindly re-list page in AFD.2409:4055:505:1D69:1520:73BA:9B54:9DD8 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)juppalsingh[reply]

• Endorse - the two "keep" !votes provided clear evidence in the form of links, that the subject met WP:SIGCOV and that the assertion that she isn't notable, according to Wikipedia's WP:GNG, is untrue. The two delete comments simply state that the topic is "not notable" without providing any evidence or policy-based notability analysis. The "keep" !votes further noted that the issue of article quality (which was raised in the nomination statement) would be better addressed through talk page discussion, and certainly there was no consensus that a WP:TNT was required for this page. All in all I think the evidence was plentiful that this should be kept, and there was no need for it to be relisted - a further week would not have led to a different outcome.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse very clear result, the Keep comments provided sources which rebutted the nomination and which nobody tried to reply to. Notability is not temporary, it's entirely possible for someone to be notable on the basis of old sources, and the sources listed were published over a long time period. Hut 8.5 19:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close per the above and Hut 8.5. Though this AfD had few participants and I'm not speaking to the soundness of the "keep" arguments, there was no consensus to delete here (there was no support even, other than from the nominator). I note, though, that consensus can change and there may be consensus at any time in the future to to delete this article. The result of this AfD does not necessarily establish WP:Notability, but deletion review isn't the place for this as it was an accurate close at the given time. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - Right close, wrong closer. It would have been better to Relist, but a Keep is a valid result, and the closer should learn that if two of their non-administrative closes are at DRV in a week, maybe they should learn something about contentious non-administrative closes. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in re: to Robert McClenon, this is the close I felt was valid in the ANI discussion involving Nnadigoodluck. I actually contemplated making my bolded !vote a "weak endorse," but felt it was an accurate close even if other options or a different closer might've been preferred. So, it's reassuring to know I wasn't wrong to have contemplated a "weak endorse" here. Doug Mehus T·C 01:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correct result and exactly the type of close a non-admin should be able to close without having to worry about being DRV'd. SportingFlyer T·C 07:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and preferable to a relist although I would also have endorsed that. The close predated the ANI but that discussion has not put me off from supporting the close here. Thincat (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clear consensus, no BADNAC flags. WP:RENOM might be the answer. It is a near-orphan, and feels like a BLP problematic page, but, as said in the AfD, there is sustained reliable source coverage. Also, the subject has published about herself, so she is not a private person, as per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Consensus was clear. Dream Focus 01:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Percy (politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Another case of WP:BADNAC, as WP:SK Criteria 4 isn't applicable. The nominator was blocked, but "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed". Which is what happened in the AfD. The nominator's opinion should be discounted, but closing AfD was not appropriate. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As the closer, I'd like to note that the policy says "subsequent editors", but there was only one other person voted in the AFD. ミラP 00:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in general, so it doesn't discount cases with 1 editor only. Besides, that is not what you have practiced at another closure Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victor_Lau_(2nd_nomination), which should be speedy reverted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ask the sock-blocking admin User:Bbb23 to look at the other account !voting "delete", NotButtigieg (talk · contribs). I think it looks suspicious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It was a weak AfD nomination, as is the delete !vote, as there is an active and very viable merge proposal. I don't think "delete" is a reasonable outcome, it would be at worst a "Redirect". It should not be at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There are other similar cases. eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Lau (2nd nomination). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I already boldly reverted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Burke (Canadian politician), I probably would have brought it here as well. The active merge proposal was added by Miraclepine after they closed the AfD only today and does not link to any active discussion, so I don't think that should have any bearing on the outcome of this. The simplest solution here would be for Miraclepine to self-revert these closes where a discussion continued in good faith. SportingFlyer T·C 10:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]