Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July

Soda Popinski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion is over two weeks old, but I've decided to bring it here for a review. Anyway, the closer said there's no convincing arguments for non-trivial mentions. Haleth and I provided ample evidence that the character has received significant coverage, while Oinkers42 and Smuckola agreed, but no one in support of the merge attempted to refute the specific sources brought up. I'm not saying all the merge votes were invalid, but I see more of an equal amount of weight between those who support a keep vs. those who support a merge. I think the discussion should at least be overturned to no consensus or be relisted. MoonJet (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep Of the 5 merge/restore redirect opinions, the last 3 provided no policy-based support for why it must be merged. Sure, it could be merged, but that's not an appropriate AfD conclusion unless there's no policy-based argument for keeping it. When Piotrus finds the reception section worthy of a standalone article, that's a pretty good indication that it actually is. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. Just because the article can be merged there, doesn't mean it should. We have tons of sub-articles that can easily fit into the parent article, but we keep them anyway, because they clearly satisfy the notability guidelines. Unless they can provide a reason why it must be merged there, then it probably shouldn't be. MoonJet (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a note that there is no contradiction between merging (copying...) some content to expand said list and keeping the original article too. Anyway, my vote was merge or keep, so whatever happens, I am fine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, absolutely. I do not object to the content being merged as an editorial decision. I do not think the discussion supported a requirement that it be merged, based on the rough consensus of the discussion, and I do not support folks using AfD in lieu of a redirect or merge discussion when there's really no reasonable possibility of a deletion outcome. Jclemens (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I assess the AfD in question as having a consensus that "what matters in terms of keep/merge is how many of the sources have non-trivial coverage of this character in question rather than the game as a whole", but widespread disagreement as to whether enough of the sources do have that coverage. Several of the comments on both the keep side and the merge side don't seem to be sufficiently focused on this to gauge consensus. The AfD would probably work better if it were reopened and focused specifically on the main point of contention. --ais523 10:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to see if rough consensus emerges between Merge and Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fine with a relist given A) it wasn't relisted in the past and B) things didn't get settled. I'd urge the closer here to try to direct folks to touch on the evaluation of sources that specifically describe this character. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dua Zehra case (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Ever since the incident took place, it has been in the news since March 2022. This was followed by many other incidents like suspension of police officer, court trials and protests etc. Definitely passes WP:EVENT (WP:LASTING and WP:COVERAGE) Ainty Painty (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the coverage cited in the article was news articles from between April and June 2022, which doesn't exactly refute the WP:NOTNEWS argument. And the nominator did have a point when they said the article "appears to be an unsalvageable BLP nightmare". Hut 8.5 07:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if the appellant wishes to overturn the close. If the appellant wishes to submit a draft, I haven't seen either the article or the draft and can't comment on the BLP nightmar. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Of note, the deletion rationale was "BLP nightmare" which is a perfectly fine deletion rationale. The supports were NOTNEWS which is a valid deletion rationale, but not anywhere as serious as the nom's. Iridescent is not known for frivolous or inappropriate deletion nominations, and was the admin who explained speedy deletion to me 15ish years ago, so the source of the deletion nom bears much weight in my mind. Having not seen the article, the fact that the appellant hasn't addressed the central cause for deletion means that this is an endorse from me, even though I haven't seen the article and know nothing about the subject. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumika Gurung (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please review the deletion of Bhumika Gurung. It was deleted back in 2018 and later protected with a note saying to ask here to recreate the page. I've created Draft:Bhumika Gurung and while it's been rejected several times by reviewers previously, It seems like a WP:BURDEN of proof has fallen disproportiontely on some of the editors like me who want to keep an article to find and demonstrate that there are reliable sources that prove notability while those seeking rejection can simply say that a subject isn't notable or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed). I feel I've addressed all the issues which lead to deletion of the article of Bhumika Gurung back in 2018. Also, Gurung meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. She's played lead roles in multiple television shows, starting in Nimki Mukhiya (TV series) for nearly two years([1])([2]), and it's follow-on show Nimki Vidhayak ([3]) and also in ‘’Humkadam’’([4]) She's had a significant role in Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2 ([5]) and she's currently playing lead in Hara Sindoor.([6]). The article has good sources that support these significant roles as well as the other roles she's played and some basic details about her personal life. Please review my draft as I think it's ready to be moved to the main article. Commonedits (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has 23 sources. Please choose the best WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe This[7],this

[8] and this[9] Commonedits (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, Stifle, Sandstein Can someone please respond to my plea? Commonedits (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 This is an interview, and all of the content is direct from Bhumika. It therefore fails the GNG as it is not independent of Bhumika.

2 This is almost good, but it is a bit promotional, and worse, there is not enough depth of coverage. See WP:100W, which although just an essay it reflects how people will judge this source.

3 On excluding Bhumika's direct quote, there is virtually nothing said about Bhumika.

These are not terrible sources, but I think none contain enough coverage of the subject to be called significant. Quotes from the subject herself cannot count as independent coverage of the subject. If these three are the best, she is not Wikipedia-notable. I suggest that you instead work at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8779797/. That is a much better site for covering her, and it is currently very thin. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are not terrible sources, but I think none contain enough coverage of the subject to be called significant. SmokeyJoe, Sir there are twenty other sources among which I'm sure there are enough which contain sufficient coverage of the subject to be called significant and for that you will have to review the whole draft.

Plus, Sir, she was the main lead in almost all of these shows which is:Nimki Mukhiya (TV series), Nimki Vidhayak, Humkadam, Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2 and now presently in Hara Sindoor.Bhumika Gurung clearly passes WP:NACTOR.

If these three are the best, she is not Wikipedia-notable. Sir, honestly, I do not know which are the best WP:THREE. I humbly request you to please review my draft, I'm hundred percent sure that after reviewing it you will surely find out that Bhumika Gurung is notable to have an independent Wikipedia article.

I suggest that you instead work at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8779797/. That is a much better site for covering her, and it is currently very thin. Sir, please have some empathy for my WP:BURDENed condition. I have been torchered brutally by this draft's earlier reviewers, who rejected it without even reading the sources. I am done all my best to make this an original wikipedia article and have been working hard on her article since January 2022.

Sir, please, please, please I beg of you please do not repeat what the earlier reviewers did to me. The last reviewer who had reviewed the draft had not even read or verified any of the reliable sources in the article and he had simply rejected the draft with no valid reasons in such a way that I can't even re-submit it for review. He had treated me very cruelly Sir.

Sir, I have been coming here again and again for justice but nobody is listening to my pleas. So please help me out 🙏Commonedits (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being paid to get the article into mainspace? Why care so much for a Wikipedia article and so little for the IMDB biography? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe Are you being paid to get the article into mainspace? No I'm neither being paid nor a sockpuppet. You can check my records to verify the same. I'm an ardent fan of Bhumika Gurung and I create WP:BLPs of all the actors whom I am a fan of.

Honestly, can't I ask the same question? Were the reviewers who reviewed this draft very UNFAIRLY being PAID not to allow this article into the mainspace?

Why care so much for a Wikipedia article and so little for the IMDB biography? Because I have been working on this draft since last January and been subjected to extreme tremendous torcher all throughout. Every petty editor will want his/her hardwork to bear fruits and so is me.

I have worked extremely hard on this draft and made it the best suitable form possible. I have gone through extreme pains when the reviewers rejected it simply for very invalid reasons . And what is wrong in having an article on the actress in Wikipedia when she's fully eligible passing both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG?Commonedits (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am probably too involved to !vote. There was an article on the subject in 2017. The article was nominated for deletion in March 2018, and was closed as Redirect on 17 March 2018. The article was then repeatedly restored by sockpuppets. On 3 July 2019, the redirect was fully protected with an edit summary that Deletion Review would be required to unprotect. The appellant submitted a version of the draft in March 2022. I declined the draft on 23 March 2022. The appellant resubmitted the draft, and it was declined by User:Theroadislong. The appellant then resubmitted the draft, and I Rejected the draft on 15 June 2022. I rejected the draft partly because I could not accept the draft even if I wanted to accept it, and so I did not provide a detailed review. (The appellant stripped the AFC history on submitting the DRV. Some of the AFC history was restored, but some of it is still missing.) I am the reviewer whom the appellant is attacking for not providing a detailed review. The appellant then came here to DRV on 27 June 2022. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 27. The appellant was then blocked while the DRV was open, so the DRV was procedurally closed with the note that the appellant could submit a new DRV request when they came off block. This is that new Deletion Review request. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If only the AfC history were recorded on the draft talk page, editors could be sanctioned for hiding. Unfortunately with AfC history and comments on the draft proper, it’s removal can be easily justified as an improvement to the draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If only the AfC history were recorded on the draft talk page, editors could be sanctioned for hiding. Unfortunately with AfC history and comments on the draft proper, it’s removal can be easily justified as an improvement to the draft.

SmokeyJoe I am not hiding anything nor am I trying to attack anyone! As I have already said several times, I have been subjected to extreme tremendous torcher all throughout while working with this draft. It was as if the reviewers were playing a game with my emotions and with my hardwork! And that's why I am venting out all my pains here!Commonedits (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you care too much about Bhumika, and this makes you unsuitable to be the leading person pushing for an article. Good editors are not so emotional. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe I think you care too much about Bhumika No I care too much about the efforts I put into the articles be it Bhumika Gurung or Pravisht Mishra or Anchal Sahu. There's a lot of time and energy put in behind those efforts and like any other editor, I too expect the good results of all those efforts.

And I ask once again what is wrong in having an article on the actress who passed WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG?

Good editors are not so emotional. Being emotional is not my choice, it's a part of my character which makes me who I am and differentiates me from the others.Commonedits (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If editing wikipedia is causing you significant emotional distress, then I'm sorry to say that it may be best for you to take a break. I am not able to confirm a GNG pass at this time, and a WP:REFBOMB significantly impedes any reviewer from doing so in a reasonable amount of time. This is why we ask for WP:THREE. Effort doesn't guarantee an article — if you need help in understanding what constitutes significant coverage, we can help, but unless you can provide 3 sources that definitely meet our criteria (not buried in a list of 23 on the draft or however many on the internet, but 3, right here, right now) then unfortunately there is very little any of us can do to help you here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Alpha3031 said, in its entirety. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha3031, Jclemens I am alright with the reviewer taking as much time as they want but I want a competent reviewer to do a complete review of the entire draft and then tell me the result.Commonedits (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer time is limited. You may be waiting for up to 4 months even if the current backlog shrinks slightly, or more if the backlog grows. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reviewed and found to not pass the NACTOR of GNG guidelines. I asked for THREE, he provided THREE, I reviewed them as, while not terrible, not one of them meets the GNG standard. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that I have blocked the nominator indefinitely for personal attacks in this discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close again. - If no one else is requesting that we unprotect the redirect except for the appellant, and he doesn't know how to present a case without getting blocked, we can close this, which leaves the redirect locked and in place. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow review of draft - With Bhumika Gurung having done several significant roles, the draft has the potential to become a good article---Creativitylove (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppeteer)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus was for “delete” or redirect. Respect that decision for at least six months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC). AfD was in 2019. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Ig, the consensus happened three years ago in 2019 and at that moment, Bhumika Gurung did not pass WP: NACTOR but now she does which should be considered.---Creativitylove (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoops, I missed the age of the AfD. Six months has long passed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If she passes NACTOR, I suggest the case for that be made on the draft talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done ✅---Creativitylove (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We are working on the draft talk page to collect the evidence of meeting NACTOR. This requires multiple articles to include her as main cast, and is not really a question of sourcing. Working through this is not a DRV matter, the old AfD is still to be endorsed, for the decision being correct at the time it was made. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:SmokeyJoe - I respectfully disagree with your statement that "Working through this is not a DRV matter". We are here because the protecting admin, User:ST47, wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhumika_Gurung&type=revision&diff=904624899&oldid=904589463&diffmode=source

Protecting redirect as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhumika Gurung, WP:DELREV is required to re-create this page. That is why we are here. That is one of the reasons, besides the surplus of low-quality sources, why I wouldn't review the draft. I couldn't have accepted the draft even if I wanted to, and I wouldn't even be able to request an administrator to delete the redirect to make way for the article, because the redirect said that DRV was required. So we are here. We do have to review the draft, or to decline to review it, or to ask to change the tagging of the redirect. Working through this really is a DRV matter, until we change the tagging of the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right. I hadn’t note ST47’s pronouncement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Creativitylove is now blocked for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was talking to undisclosed paid editors, wasn’t I? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe: I actually think just an overly-intense fan who dusted off an older account after I blocked the newer one. Can't say for sure, but 4 NPA blocks doesn't really match the UPE M.O. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It really felt like two different personas. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:SmokeyJoe, User:Tamzin - It is either two humans or Good Hand Bad Hand. Whether it really is two humans can be discussed at the unblock request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and list at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhumika Gurung was closed as "redirect" in March 2018. The DRV nominator has presented evidence that four years later, the subject has received new acting roles and has been covered by media sources published after March 2018. This is enough for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion to no longer apply because the policy "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I am supporting a restore and relist at AfD so that the community can discuss the subject's notability again. I am supporting this even though the nominator has been blocked, even though I have not formed an opinion about whether the subject is notable, and even though I am not familiar with the topic area and the reliability of the sources. G4 does not apply, and four years is enough time to revisit whether there should be a standalone article. This revisiting and the analysis of the sources should be done at AfD. Cunard (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also fine with unprotecting Bhumika Gurung without restoring and listing at AfD. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprotect - I agree with User:Cunard's rationale and with their reservations. However, I don't see what we would be discussing at AFD. So I think it is sufficient to lift the protection and to allow a good-faith neutral editor to submit a draft for review. AFD normally considers an actual article. What does Cunard want to list? The deleted article, the draft, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking that the AfD would discuss the nominator's draft at Draft:Bhumika Gurung. With new sources published in the four years after the AfD was closed, the draft would not meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion if it was restored to mainspace.

    The DRV nominator is blocked so they would not be able to present their case at AfD for why the subject is notable. So instead of having DRV restore the article and list it at AfD, I am also fine with your suggestion of just unprotecting Bhumika Gurung and allowing any good faith editor to restore the draft to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unprotect Bhumika Gurung. New roles, with sources, overcome the reasons for redirection in the 2019 AfD. I think the subject can be shown to meet NACTOR, although some cleanup of the draft is needed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Fonoti (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This has been deleted again despite being restored just several hours ago with no further votes cast since. Should be relisted or Keep - no consensus. Current vote is 3 - 2 in favor of keep. Simione001 (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close as an active discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 25 Frank Anchor 23:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wood between the Worlds (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

3 Keep votes, which pointed to sources not currently in the article, versus 4 Merge votes. Looks like No consensus to me. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist the keep votes correctly asserted this article meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as a standalone article, including User:Daranios' vote which adds two additional references. No voters refuted that Daranios' sources as having established notability. This vote may have started a shift in consensus away from merge, as there was only one merge vote (which appears to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote) a couple other votes that reflect Daranios' opinion. Another week would allow for consensus to develop, if there is a consensus to either keep or merge. Frank Anchor 18:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - Not a consensus to merge, and there might be more Keep arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep Not a single !vote supporting deletion or nom's original deletion rationale. In fact, the only compelling merge argument after Daranios' sources were posted was from Johnpacklambert whose particular history any AfD closer should be aware of, and arguably in violation of his 2021 topic ban from religious topics: C. S. Lewis, the author of the book containing the concept and mentioned in the article lead, is one of the most significant and influential religious figures of the 20th century. This article could absolutely be merged into a broader discussion of Narnian cosmology, but not as a mandated outcome from this AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge is definitely the right result. Personally I don't see a lot of benefit in quibbling about how we got there.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll differ, in that I think poor deletion nominations should not be rewarded with an AfD-imposed outcome when deletion was never a serious policy-based outcome in the first place. As such, I agree with your conclusion, only contest that it should have the imprimatur of an AfD discussion behind it. Jclemens (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Fonoti (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting overturning of the decision to Delete this article. Vote was 3 - 2 in favor of keep. Simione001 (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist there is clearly no consensus to either keep or delete. There were three !votes on each side (counting the nom as a "delete" vote) with no compelling arguments. Basically the "keep" !votes say it passes WP:GNG and the "delete" !votes say it does not without much to support their claims. Letting the discussion continue for another week is the best way to determine if consensus exists. Frank Anchor 14:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Relist - Delete was not a plausible close. No Consensus would have been a valid close, but getting more input is even better. The close was a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There were no guidelines cited and supported with evidence by any keep !voter, while one delete !voter gave a compelling reason for why GNG was not met. It should not be surprising that !votes with zero specificity to the subject, or that lack any basis in P&Gs, are disregarded by the closer. JoelleJay (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The last voter made a compelling case against notability, and nobody made a compelling case for it (there's one purely procedural vote and two keeps by editors with problematic voting histories). No reason for a relist when the evidence is clear. Avilich (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The very fact that there are only two delete votes suggests it's not as compelling as you suggest. Simione001 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist is the reasonable thing to do here, no consensus close would not have been unreasonable (although unusual for a never-relisted discussion), but either keep or delete are not supported by that discussion. Jclemens (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The nom, delete vote #1 were WP:VAGUEWAVE, the third keep vote is WP:PLEASEDONT. So we only have 1 keep vote claiming they added sources which showed they were notable, and the last delete vote disagreed. A 1v1 is not consensus in any sort of the manner. Relist to evaluate the sources and determine if they are enough for notability. Jumpytoo Talk 05:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist given that the debate was evenly split, and almost all of the comments just assert that the subject is or isn't notable, there isn't much of a consensus there. Hut 8.5 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closer The vote count is neither here nor there because AfD is a discussion, not a vote. I completely discounted the comments from IdiotSavant as out of scope for AfD. In general, I weigh vote-like comments that offer no explanation as to why an article meets or does not meet the GNG extremely lightly. In the end, there was a single compelling point made from Devonian Wombat. This was lighter than I would have liked, but, based on the last few months, I did not see a relisting generating much more discussion beyond what is here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So in that case it should be Keep no consensus. Simione001 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No, but good try -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Remember, AFD is not a vote. It's absolutely valid to close a discussion based on strength of arguments rather than who showed up to participate.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I don't think there's any prospect of finding decent sources for this person, so a relist would be a waste of resources.—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tender Claws (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is a significant game design company that has won multiple awards, and the article had many citations. I unfortunately did not see the deletion discussion until yesterday, or I would have argued against deletion/redirect. If anything, it would make more sense to delete the separate article for The Under Presents, and redirect that to Tender Claws, because the game company has made MANY significant works apart from The Under Presents.

The reason for deletion given by User:Alexandermcnabb includes the statement "When you're presenting a gaming company as interesting because one of its games is unplayable, you're in the weeds, folks..." I completely agree that if that game is unplayable (I haven't tried) it probably shouldn't be included in the Wikipedia article, but that's easily fixable by deleting that line, which was added by an anonymous user on March 8, adding "VVR2 got released, should probably add that. (And the part about how terrible the game is)". This unsourced statement surely shouldn't lead to deleting the whole article. User:Alexandermcnabb states that the article fails WP:GNG but this is a game development studio, not an actor. He also states that it fails WP:CORP but I don't see how this can be the case, given that Tender Claws has extensive media coverage (the deleted article included references to a long article in the New York Times, a review in the Theatre Journal and several others, and several of their games have won awards - and the article that was deleted has citations for many of these awards.

I think both Samantha Gorman and the studio Tender Claws clearly deserve their own articles, and ask that the community reconsiders their deletion. I am also happy to help revise both articles to improve them. Lijil (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the redirect consensus was unanimous meaning there was no way this could have been closed.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect the redirect consensus was, indeed, unanimous (6 editors voting) which is why this close was appropriate. The company Tender Claws does, indeed, fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. There seems to be some confusion here about actors and WP:GNG - there was no mention of actors in the nomination or debate. The New York Times article is 1) not readily verifiable as it's behind a paywall 2) about a product, not the company. In fact sourcing is problematic in this article, failing to show a clear pass of WP:GNG let alone the more rigorous standard of WP:CORP - the company is simply not notable and it is NOT the subject of "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The sources presented are ALL about the company's apps, not the company. The first source is the company's website, the second is a Polish research paper which mentions the app Pry in a secondary mention in a footnote - and the other 11 sources are all reviews or apps featuring in listicles, or incidental mentions of apps (the Sundance source is a broken link, but searching Sundance's website shows that the Associate programmer and Festival coordinator likes Virtual Virtual Reality, a Tender Claws app - this is pretty typical of the standard of sourcing presented here). There simply isn't any evidence that the company is notable. The redirect to its most successful/well known application is therefore entirely appropriate and should stand. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with almost everything said though the bit about paywalled sources not being verifiable is wrong per WP:PAYWALL. That being said the New York Times article still isn’t useable since the article isn’t about the company itself.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I merely noted its not readily verifiable and did confirm that it is not about the company but an app, but yes policy is indeed that the source shouldn't be discounted just because it's paywalled. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if media coverage is about specific games rather than about the game developer overall, there could be articles for each of the games but not for the developer? Lijil (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean news coverage about Tender Claws unionising is the sort of thing that could support notability for this game development studio, but articles about the games they make cannot? Lijil (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:INHERIT. -- ferret (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I should make articles for each of their works instead? Lijil (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only if those works are themselves notable per WP:GNG. Each topic is looked at under its own lens. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse redirect There's no other way this AFD would have been closed, and the close is proper. Note that the OP has approached WT:VG about this review, perhaps unaware that most of the !voters at the AFD are from WP:VG in the first place. -- ferret (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm glad to hear that the voters are from WP:VG! I am trying to understand the system here and have not been able to find clear guidelines for notability for game developers, which especially in the case of indie studios surely have more in common with authors or artists than corporations in general. I'm a professor of digital culture trying to contribute to Wikipedia, so I have a lot of content knowledge but clearly have a lot to learn about the editing system. If the correct way to do this is to make an article for each of the studio's works and not have an article for the studio that's fine with me, but it does seem strange!! Lijil (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Studios are WP:NCORP. Specific indie developers, like say Eric Barone (developer), fall under WP:NBIO and Creative (Generally, but not always). Individual video games themselves are simply WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The redirect preference was clear, but I question whether it was correct. Looking at the redirected text--and thank you to the closing admin for NOT deleting it before redirection--the software Pry (or PRY?) appears to be itself notable based on the references included in the now-redirected Tender Claws article. One good reason to cover this non-notable company is that it has two separate notable products. This isn't invoked in NCORP, but is really an application of WP:BAND criterion 6. Our current iteration of NCORP is written terribly exclusionary, and I get that it's designed to keep corporate spam off of Wikipepdia. Still, there's a reason N is a guideline rather than a policy, and this is one instance of it. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that Pry is notable itself. I just revised the article on Samantha Gorman (co-founder of Tender Claws) to provide more reliable sources for this. Lijil (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid close and the only appropriate close. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, couldn't have been closed any other way. User:Lijil, the standard for reversing a consensus, for convincing everyone that everyone was wrong, is WP:THREE. Provide three quality sources. As the result was a redirect, the place to make the case is at the talk page of the redirect target. However, don't waste others' time making arguments without the WP:THREE sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for explaining about WP:THREE, I was looking for guidelines about how to do this, so this will be useful in future. Lijil (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It was a valid close given the lack of evidence of notability that was ever provided in the AfD discussion. See WP:GNG which is a general guideline across all of Wikipedia, not just WikiProject Video Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lancaster (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Request overturning or relisting of this deletion discussion. Closer did not take into account a lengthy article by Zaborona covering the subject very significantly and a discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 379#Zaborona where most editors said Zaborona is reliable. The Zaborona article was removed as an administrative action which I challenged on User talk:EvergreenFir#Your administrator actions on Patrick_Lancaster and the administrator subsequently changed their position in the aforementioned Reliable sources noticeboard discussion. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Overturn to No Consensus - I count 8 Keep !votes, and 8 Delete !votes plus the nom for 9, and guideline-based reasons for both, so that the closer's disregard of the Keeps was a supervote. That is enough participation that a Relist is not required or appropriate. The appeal would be stronger if the appellant hadn't bludgeoned the AFD. The bludgeoning may have, almost reasonably, made the closer think that the appellant was shouting because they didn't have a case. Usually shouting and bludgeoning is the sign of a lost cause, and the closer may have thought so. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus Solid policy-based arguments were made on both sides, and the closing admin incorrectly dismisses the NBC and Vice sources while also failing to acknowledge a few other reliable sources that came up in the discussion. Frank Anchor 17:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC the Task and Purpose profile, linked in the AfD, was sufficiently compelling to 'win' the GNG argument, but seemed to be lost in the back-and forth and accusations of sockpuppetry and bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Within admin discretion, "no consensus" and "delete" both defensible. Many "keep" !votes were not solid. Potentially this should be considered WP:TNT, it sounds like the article was littered by low quality source; consider trying again in draft with WP:THREE quality sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article already was rewritten through the AfD process. See latest version of deleted text here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t approve. This shows disrespect for Wikipedia and the deletion process and attribution good practice. Please have it deleted and wait for this DRV discussion to finish.

  If the outcome is to consider the deletion WP:TNT and allow a re-start, the only thing that can be re-used is the reference list, and even then the point is the discarding of all low quality sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If any other user had requested a temp undeletion, it would have been granted. Rather than griping at this editor, how about we do that instead, so all of us can see what the text was when it was deleted? Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what the gripe is about. Sometimes the Wikipedia deletion process goes astray, as was the case here. The only reason this article was deleted was because I was accused of being pro-Russian and a stock of another editor. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. There was no consensus in the AfD discussion about whether the sources were sufficient for the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The closing admin mentioned the NBC News and Vice sources but additional sources were discussed such as this comment that said:

  I actually recognized this name because his name has been mentioned in Dutch media more than once in relation to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 being shot down. This article in NRC (newspaper) (definitely a reliable source) for example mentions "Lancaster" 7 times: [10]. [11] by De Telegraaf about Russian media is also clearly more than a passing mention.

  Cunard (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC or relist. The close summary does have problems (per Cunard) and I just don't see consensus having formed in that discussion. That said, something does seem off about the discussion and I'd not object to a renewed (or entirely new) discussion. Hobit (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Business (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Same situation as CNBC programme Market Watch, which is another significant weekday programme on CNBC in early 2000s and it is divided into different versions in CNBC Europe and CNBC Asia. I cannot see there have any discussion to request delete in hereWpcpey (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this was deleted by Liz as en expired proposed deletion on 18 May this year. The prod was placed by TenPoundHammer on 11 May with the concern "Despite its longevity, this has yielded no sources since 2009". It does appear in the article alerts archive you link to, in the PROD section (search the page for "Today's"). If you want to contest the deletion of a PROD you should make a request at WP:REFUND, but if you do that then note that it almost certainly will be nominated at AfD unless you add sources that demonstrate notability. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Because Today's Business and Market Watch were deleted by two different processes (WP:PROD and WP:AFD) you need to request recovering them by two different processes. Thincat (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, come on. Requesting restoration of a prod doesn't require discussion, so declining here only to make Wpcpey ask elsewhere is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. The only reason no admin has restored this yet - as we're all but required to do if insisted upon, since the content isn't speedy deleteable - is because the chances of it surviving afd if undeleted are approximately zero, with no sources in the article and an ungoogleable name; and the usual assumption is that that's not the desired outcome. —Cryptic 09:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In this case it's not clear whether, with the knowledge they now have, @Wpcpey actually wants the page undeleted (now) or not - given their last edit was 2 hours before my reply it's entirely possible they've not seen it yet. If I were in their shoes and wanted the article, what I'd do is acknowledge the responses here and withdraw the DRV, spend some time finding sources, and only after I have them would I make a REFUND request, noting in the request that I have sources. I would hope that in such circumstances that people would wait a reasonable amount of time to allow the sources to be added before evaluating the notability. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Could be restored directly to draftspace. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy undelete as a contested PROD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as a contested PROD. --MuZemike 14:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Market Watch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Marketwatch is one of the most top-rated TV weekday prgramme on CNBC and it is divided into different versions in CNBC Europe and CNBC Asia etc. I have added some videos as references in 2002 and internet sources from the different regions CNBC website in the past (most of the references which is more than 15-20 years ago). I think it has sufficient evidence to keep it and should not delete. The previous delete makes most of the old TV news programmes have a very high chance to delete and it is very difficult to find the sources. The current article is without any information, just only "Market Watch" two words, which is unacceptable for this result.

Reference: CNBC Market Watch programme intro in 2000, Market Watch intro from CNBC Asia in 2001, [12], [13], from CNBC Europe in April 2003 and this is from CNBC Asia official website in 2007 Wpcpey (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. All you're presenting are YouTube videos (that I won't click on) and CNBC urls, which are WP:PRIMARY. I'll notify the deleting admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would want to keep the whole article, not delete and redirect it.--Wpcpey (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This page only has a few words because the decision was made to turn the article into a redirect at the AFD. There was no one advocating to Keep this article. Lately, there has been a move on the part of a few editors to PROD and bring to AFD old TV shows that filled up cable TV network schedules in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s and this AFD was part of all of that movement. Most of these efforts have led to article deletions but in this AFD, we had editors advocating a redirect that pointed to the network so that's how I closed the discussion.

If you would like to bring this article back, we typically advise editors to start a draft version, addressing the problems pointed out in the AFD, and to submit it to AFC for review. Do you see that as an option for you if this AFD decision is not overturned? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Where is this discussion? It seems it is a big damage for the internet since it is a huge challenge to find it now. If we delete, it will disappear in internet and everyone cannot find anymore.--Wpcpey (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market Watch. Someone who is better at templates than I (thanks @Liz for fixing my earlier mess) can fix the DRV to link to it. Star Mississippi 20:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean the discussion related to "AFD old TV shows that filled up cable TV network schedules in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s". On the other hand, it is extreme hard to find other link without CNBC's website since this programmed end more than 16-20 years. I am very worry there have more related article will be delete. Wpcpey (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wpcpey, this move to delete articles involving old cable TV shows didn't involve a formal discussion. I'm basing my comments on the articles that I see nominated for deletion at AFD and PROD'd. Like right now, there is a similar movement to delete articles on athletes that are considered "non-notable". It's just a trend I (and others) have spotted. It involves individual editors and what they are focusing upon. There has been one editor over the past few months who has focused on PROD'ding these old TV shows but I think they have moved on to other subjects. I know this answer will not be the one you like but I'm answering it honestly based on what I see every day as an administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Endorse close. Discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market Watch was not properly linked in the template (fixed now), and per Wpcpey's comment above, they apparently had not even seen it. A procedural close wouldn't be inappropriate here as their statement here is an AfD "keep" argument rather than a challenge to the validity of the close of the discussion as a whole, but even if the latter was assumed, the close accurately reflects the consensus of the (admittedly not extensive) discussion, and there's no indication of other circumstances which would raise any questions. --Finngall ^talk 20:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I spend many times finding the sources and some users even say end the discussion. I think it is not fair. It seems no one concerned and teaches me how can I revise back to the previous version of the "Market Watch” article that has sufficient information. --Wpcpey (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems no one concerned and teaches me how can I revise back to the previous version of the "Market Watch” article

    Only if this discussion closes with an action other than endorse could you do that. The consensus is this isn't notable enough to merit a standalone article and that's applicable to more than this program. At the moment you may not edit it at all because you were edit warring. Please take some time to understand what makes television shows notable as you don't appear to right now. Star Mississippi 21:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closer, Draft:Market Watch now exists as a copy/paste move and should be processed when this discussion ends. Thanks DanCherek for cleaning up attribution. Star Mississippi 02:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The request to Liz by Wpcpey for a link to guidelines explaining how we handle such AfDs is a reasonable and it is unsatisfactory that we seem to have de facto policy without adequate documentation. If we were to move XfD in the direction of a more precedent-oriented format, then the series of cases in which the de facto policy was formed could simply be linked to. In this case, can we at least find a link to a relevant AfD? If not, I am leaning to overturn and relist, so that this AfD, at least, can provide such a precedent. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the undocumented policy here? Not reversing the results of recent discussions without obtaining consensus? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Properly deleted at AfD (under the guise of Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection). Do not entertain contests unless per advice at WP:THREE. The sources listed here by the nominator are not good enough. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - A valid (and correct) conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khanjar: The Knife (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Found sources (better than nothing). The film is actually titled just Khanjar. Full review here. Production source here. Other source here. Please restore the old page as a draft. DareshMohan (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for DRV - as you're just asking to draftify the deleted article, WP:REFUND will serve sufficiently. I'm not in a position to do so rn, but happy for any other admin to unilaterally do so. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Here you go: Draft:Khanjar: The Knife. Star Mississippi 15:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music4Uonline (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The author of this article is a friend of mine, and asked if I'd be able to suggest how it could be made compatible with Wikipedia rules. To that end, I'd request undeletion and moving to my userspace. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend userification While requests for undeletion might also be an appropriate place to make this request, I think sending this there would be pointless bureaucracy. Since the deletion 15+ years ago (I didn't realize we had an NCORP back then...) was pretty benign, I see no reason we can't just restore the content for further work. Be aware, however, that coverage requirements for businesses have tightened since then: Wikipedia is pretty clear our job is not to be free advertising, but rather descriptions of businesses that have already made a significant impact that they've been covered by an independent (rather than pay-for-press-release) news source. There's more to it than that, of course, but feel free to ask for help if you're having difficulties meeting the notability threshold. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close as it appears WP:RFU is the appropriate forum for this request. Though if it were to remain on deletion review, I would support restoring to user space. Article was deleted in 2006 so a lot has likely changed since then. I would not oppose a good-faith attempt to rewrite this page if the notability is there. Frank Anchor 20:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies if this is the incorrect place to ask, I was told this was the correct place to ask. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was the one that directed Mattbuck here. WP:RFU says that it is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages ... that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria ..., or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. ... This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, ...—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process but through deletion review instead. In this case the page was not deleted following a PROD or CSD, but as a result of this AfD, so it wasn't uncontroversial. Therefore RFU does not apply and it's a DRV matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While we did have WP:NCORP fifteen years ago, we didn't have WP:G11, and this would absolutely be speedied as such if it were created today. The last sentence, "With over 30 years experience in the business-music industry, GMS has a very well developed customer service capability, offering a customer helpline 9am-9pm 7days, systems advice and general advice on choosing a music provider.", is typical of the content. Can be emailed if someone's feeling particularly merciful, but shouldn't be userfied as-is. —Cryptic 05:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't doubt it'll be bad, but I figured it would be easier if I had an idea of what was originally written. If someone wants to email rather than undelete that's fine, but figured it may break attribution history to do so. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Since your goal is to "suggest how it could be made compatible with Wikipedia rules", you don't need attribution. You only need attribution if you want to evolve this into something that can be hosted on enwiki while retaining anything at all copyrightable from the original version, which are almost completely incompatible. It's not an issue, anyway; all edits except adding the afd tag were by Hezza1506. —Cryptic 01:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted version was very promotional and would certainly be deleted under WP:CSD#G11 if created now, probably even in userspace. I think it would be best to start again as it would need a near-complete rewrite anyway. Hut 8.5 18:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow userfication, which is best requested by asking the deleting admin or at WP:REFUND. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• REFUND would probably decline a request to restore this because it qualifies for G11 (which also applies to user space). Hut 8.5 12:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would hope that REFUND would be responsive to a well worded explanation, such as has been given by User:Mattbuck here. If refused, I would hope there would be an offer to email. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Allow undeletion via email noting that restorations of AfD articles outside mainspace is typically uncontroversial and a purpose RFU is also intended to serve as a central location to request. It would be a bit BURO to move it to RFU now, especially since it's here after a decline by Redrose64 (however procedural), but I wouldn't really consider it a WP:RAAA or G4 issue. Of course, REFUND declines are likely for content meeting G11. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw my request - the wikitext has kindly been emailed to me, so there's no need for undeletion anymore. My thanks to everyone who contributed. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was closed as: delete. Can be redirected to time viewer if somebody writes it up there (with sources). However, the (brief) writing up with sources had already been done, and one of the participants had already noted that fact in the AfD, something the closer has evidently missed. The discussion should have been closed as "redirect", as that would address the concern of the "delete" side (lack of notability), while accommodating the "merge" option, which two editors presented (one as an alternative to deletion, the other as a second choice to keeping). I don't see any justification for deleting the history of the page: it's not enough here that some participants perceived its content as being of low quality (words like"hoax" were mentioned, but I think it should by now be obvious that what is a hoax is the topic of the article, not the article itself). – Uanfala (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect. At the broad brush level there is no consensus, especially when one of the delete !voters later said "I am increasingly supportive of a merge" (albeit without adjusting their bolding), but looking deeper a redirect would indeed seem to be compatible with almost all voter's comments. Discussions about what and how much about the topic to include at the target is a matter for the talk page of that article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any actual desire to merge the content anywhere? If not then there's no need to restore the history, just redirect it. The article was unsourced apart from two fringe sources written by people who believe that the subject actually exists, as a result they have zero credibility. Nor does the content sound very encyclopedic at all, as it relates various incredible claims without much criticism. Hut 8.5 11:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your assumption here seems to be that redirecting should by default involve the deletion of the history unless there's strong consensus to do something with that content right away. My understanding, on the other hand, is that the relevant page history under a redirect shouldn't be deleted unless there's a reason to, for example, if the content meets a CSD or if there's specific consensus that this content should be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding is the same as Uanfala's - "redirect" and "delete and redirect" outcomes are distinct, the first can be implemented by anybody the latter only by administrators. That there is no content worth merging is an opinion but not one that gained a consensus of those participating in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a reason to delete the content, which was echoed by many people in the discussion - the content was very poor quality and consequently shouldn't be added to any other article. If a merge is not an option then there is no reason to retain the edit history. Hut 8.5 07:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is that there was no consensus that the content was very poor quality so whether and if so what to merge needs further discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The consensus was to delete the article and a large part of the reason for that was that the content was very poor quality, so it's fair to delete the article rather than just redirecting it. The deleted article did take seriously the possibility that somebody managed to photograph the crucifixion of Jesus, this is not content which can be used anywhere else without a near-total rewrite and some sourced which aren't fringe. Hut 8.5 11:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While the discussion was closed as delete, the point of this review is that that wasn't actually the consensus of the discussion. The discussion concluded that there should not be a stand-alone article, but there were multiple comments that recommended a merge, with multiple comments indicating those advocating for complete deletion had misunderstood the article or its sources, indeed one participant explicitly moved from delete to merge during the discussion which does strengthen those arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually only one person supported a merge, and that person also supported deletion as well. One of the two Keep comments provided a source but that doesn't argue in favour of a merge because the deleted article didn't cite that source and (more importantly) wasn't based on it, so at best that's an argument to write some more content about it. The other Keep comment provided a link to a student programming contest, which definitely isn't a usable source. Delete is a far better closure. Hut 8.5 17:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the content also exists at Time_travel_claims_and_urban_legends#The_Chronovisor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I should note that's not the same content as the deleted version. Hut 8.5 18:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Time_travel_claims_and_urban_legends#The_Chronovisor is not the same content as the deleted version. It's less credulous, and could be sourced using a citation to Paul Nahins book. Unfortunately at the time of the AfD I overlooked that article. If I'd known about it, I'd have advised a redirect to it since, as a collection of unsubstantiated real-world claims, it is a much better target...whereas the focus of time viewer is fictional mentions of a hypothetical device. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are nine foreign-language articles available (Google results w/translation links) filled with potential references and starting material, including skeptical, for any editor wishing to create and publish a better article for English Wikipedia. If a redirect is set up in the meantime, I agree it should be Time_travel_claims_and_urban_legends#The_Chronovisor and not Time viewer. When you search for Chronovisor on Wikipedia, the Time travel claims article is at the top of the results, so it fits. 5Q5|^✉ 11:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritarian enclave (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although closer has waiver at their talk page directing AfD discussion to DRV, some discussion occurred with closer reiterating their close that WP:NOT trumps any other argument. Numerically !votes were 6:5 (including nomination) keep/deletion, with one of the latter a delete/draftify. Nomination's claim that concept could be covered elsewhere was refuted in the discussion (and not counter-refuted). Discussion hinged on whether or not WP:NOTDICT applied. Close appears as a supervote, drawing no analysis from the discussion for why the article's three-week status as a stub falls foul of WP:NOTDICT: "Both dictionary entries at Wiktionary and encyclopedia articles at Wikipedia may start out as stubs, but they are works in progress, to be expanded. " (emphasis added). No indication that this is not a work in progress (especially given the article creator), keep contributions all indicated adequate referencing available to allow expansion, which was not refuted. There was no discussion or reference to any policy that stub status alone requires deletion. Overturn to keep. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn there is no policy or guideline that favors the deletion of stubs about notable topics on the grounds that they resemble dictionary entries. There are plenty of sources so the article needs expansion not deletion (t · c) buidhe 01:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• :Overturn to no consensus the delete arguments are predicated on WP:NOTDICTIONARY with very little explanation. Several keep arguments provide explanations refuting this, and show that the article could easily be expanded based on sources available. Frank Anchor 01:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus, having not seen the original article. However, the argument that one sentence was only a dictionary definition can just as reasonably be an argument to keep in order to expand, so that the supervote was a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. The delete !votes were extremely weak and did not even attempt to refute the detailed arguments in favour of keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, it seems that little effort was made to reach consensus, through either expansion from the sources to show it could be more than a dictionary definition, or by refuting the claims of notability. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn bad close: we do not simply judge articles as is at AfD, but also their potential for improvement. The close statement appeared to misstate policy. Either keep, per the numbers, or relist would be acceptable outcomes; 'no consensus' seems to be at odds with the fact that keep !votes were an absolute majority and the delete rationale was effectively argued against by the keep proponents. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamata Kanojia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there was an effort to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Endorse. While this result was inappropriate per WP:LOCALCON it would not be appropriate to overturn per WP:NOTBURO now that StAnselm has provided evidence demonstrating notability. BilledMammal (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe AfDs are by definition a "community consensus"; so, I'm not sure WP:LOCALCON is applicable to them. The same pretty much applies to the two DRs listed below this one as well (but I'm not going to repeat the same post there). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant line is Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. While AfD's are a community consensus, it is among a limited group of editors at one place and time, and cannot overrule policies or guidelines which have community consensus on a wider scale. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was a bit slow to respond, but I pretty much agree with what Pawnkingthree and Hut 8.5 posted below about LOCALCON in the DR about "Subroto Das". -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Marchjuly: Then I have the same question for you as I had for Pawnkingthree; Can you explain that a little further? We have a policy saying that local consensus cannot override consensus on a wider scale, but you are saying these local consensuses are fine?. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • My opinion is that it's possible to argue that every consensus is essentially a "local consensus" if you base your argument on simply that it involved a limited number of editors. So, I think it's better to make the distinction based on where the consensus was established, and I think that's what LOCALCON is trying to imply. I also think that overturning the consensus to delete runs the risk of be seen (perhaps unfairly) as a WP:SUPERVOTE by whichever admin decided to to do that. It might be reasonable to request that the discussion be relisted per item 3 of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or even start another AFD per WP:RENOM (after a reasonable amount of time has passed), but there would probably still need to be more than the same two people !voting delete and the same core group of people !voting keep for the outcome to be any different. If there's been a change in the way the notability of these types of articles is now being assessed, then trying to implement such a change community wide asap is likely going to receive resistance until the change has had time to sink in and starts to be applied at the community level. Furthermore, nominating a bunch of similar articles for deletion for essentially the same reason in order to try and "enforce" such a change is likely going to be seen (perhaps unfairly) as WP:POINTY by some and lead to even more resistence. Perhaps it might take some time for whatever change was made to trickle down to the WikiProject and AfD level and maybe it's best to try and proceed a little more slowly until then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Marchjuly: It isn't about the number of editors, it is about the level of the discussion. For example, a consensus at an article - even if it involves a formal discussion with broad participation like an RfC - is below a consensus on a policy page. The same is true of consensus at a noticeboard, and a consensus at AfD. WP:DETCON speaks to this; consensus isn't a vote, but is instead determined by the quality of arguments presented, assessed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

          The reason this needs to be true is then established by the rest of your comment; the broader community has decided that it disagrees with how the editors at AfD have been assessing notability and found a consensus to change the relevant guidelines. This change now needs to be reflected at AfD and it would be disruptive to allow a small group of editors who opposed that change to stop that happening. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I participated in both of the deletion discussions for this article - the one started in May and the one from June. This year. Both of which were closed as keep. And now in July we're at deletion review? Blimey.

On the issue of local consensus, there is a long established consensus, going back to the discussions around Chitty (cricketer) in 2018, that where sourcing absolutely cannot be found that we would redirect articles such as this to a suitable list. This runs through a variety of other discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer) from 2019, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Pitts (cricketer, died 1847) from 2020, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Selby (cricketer, born c.1765) from 2021, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Andrew from April 2022 and was most recently confirmed at this redirect for discussion from this month. That's a local consensus over a period of four or more years. And each of those articles are weaker by far than the one here - assuming we're even searching for all of the different transliterations of her name. So why on earth we'd overturn to delete I have no idea. And that's the worse case - there are pragmatic arguments in this case why we might keep this article - gender, ethnicity, broadening the scope of the encyclopaedia etc...

So, two AfD and now a DRV in a short space of time. Good luck dealing with this one. I note as well that there is a current ArbCom discussion going on about behaviour around deletion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Delete !vote is usually sufficient for soft delete of a stub with no SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is, if nobody else commented. Not when there are six valid "keep" votes as well... BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if we closed this as Delete we'd be saying that seven people supporting keeping the article made it more likely to be deleted, which is just silly. Hut 8.5 16:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: But are there six valid "keep" votes? If WP:LOCALCON applies to AfD, and if there is broad community consensus for WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, then none of them are.

Since WP:LOCALCON applies to formal discussions that involve a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, it applies to AfD. Thus, since there is broad community consensus for WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 none of these keep votes are valid. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Keep !votes were all complete gibberish it still wouldn't be possible to close this AfD as Delete. Hut 8.5 07:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if the Keep !votes were all complete gibberish it still wouldn't be possible to close this AfD as Delete." - No, really no. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is one of the longest-standing policies we have. WP:NOTAVOTEis a very long standing and high-acceptance explanation of it. If one person is talking sense and the rest are talking gibberish, then it is the job of the closer to go with the one talking sense. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the justification I'm using at all. For an AfD to be closed as Delete there needs to be an active consensus in favour of deletion. If you nominate something for deletion and the only other participation is one person supporting deletion then the debate would be closed as no consensus or soft delete, meaning that the article could be restored if anyone objects to the deletion for any reason (or no reason). Here the AfD got one comment in favour of deletion apart from the nominator, so we're in a similar situation. Soft deletion is definitely not an option because lots of people opposed deletion. If we close this as Delete then we are basically saying that the seven people who lined up to oppose deletion made it possible to delete the article. After all if they'd kept their mouths shut then the debate would have been closed as soft delete and any of them could have got it restored just by asking. Consequently closing as Delete makes no sense. Hut 8.5 12:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the WP:NOQUORUM options, for when a nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, is closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. This is an option that has been exercised in circumstances like these. As such, I believe such a result would be compliant with deletion guidelines.

In addition, the argument you have made is one against overturning to delete, not one against overturning to no consensus or relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't actually a NOQUORUM situation, the AfD had plenty of participation. Pointing to the close of another AfD is at best a very weak argument. Relisting is not appropriate here, it is mainly used in cases where the AfD did not get much participation (it did) or if there has been some change in circumstances during the course of the discussion (there wasn't). It certainly isn't appropriate for someone to relist an AfD just because they don't like the outcome and/or arguments. And I don't want to get in another argument about sports notability just to decide whether to close as Keep or No Consensus, since those have no practical difference. Hut 8.5 08:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were closed as soft delete, any editor could request restoration for any reason, which one of the keep !voters undoubtedly would. AGoing to a DRV to get a soft delete that's going to get restored anyway seems like needless bureaucracy to me. And "any reason" means "any reason." It doesn't matter if you disagree with the reason. It would still be restored. An editor could request restoration of a soft delete because the tooth fairy told them to and it would still be restored. So closing as soft delete (either at AfD or DRV) is pointless when there are multiple people wishing to keep the article. Smartyllama (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, that could not have been anything other than "keep." BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment courtesy ping for those who took part in that AfD - @BilledMammal, StAnselm, Blue Square Thing, Johnpacklambert, Joseph2302, AssociateAffiliate, Abecedare, Rugbyfan22, CT55555, and Explicit: Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse (Involved, I voted keep) Almost everyone argued to keep. The AfD followed one about a month ago that was closed WP:SNOW keep. Indeed it's not a vote, indeed minority arguments can win, but the consensus seems clearly as keep. CT55555 (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AFD should have been speedy closed as a bad-faith re-nomination of an AFD kept with overwhelming consensus less than a month prior and no new deletion rationale, but that is beside the point. Like the first AFD, there was consensus to keep. Both the nom the sole "delete" vote cite WP:NSPORT, but their claims are successfully refuted by User:Lugnuts' vote (along with his/her argument in the first AFD). Frank Anchor 15:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Where did Lugnuts "refute" the requirement that all sportsperson articles include a citation to secondary independent SIGCOV in RS? The second sentence in NSPORT is for asserting a claim of notability (to avoid speedy deletion), as is explained in the NSPORT guideline at FAQ5. JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This seems to be another WP:POINTy renom from Dlthewave, who seems increasingly incapable of accepting any opinions which differ from their own. This renom seems to question the WP:AGF of the closer too. StickyWicket (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The appropriate conclusion from the closer after review of the AFD. At this point the gender of the third trout doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn local consensus cannot overturn the broader consensus that articles should not exist if there is no significant coverage of the subject in independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Policies and guidelines are subject to interpretation in each individual case, and applied to these cases by consensus. Nothing wrong with the closure. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How does one interpret differently the clear requirement for a SIGCOV source to be cited in the article? JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - AFD is not supposed to be a pure head-count (nor, incidentally, is DelRev supposed to be a pure repeat of AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this case the "keep" faction were using a essay (WP:NCRIC, or WP:CRIN as it is now), whilst the "delete" votes were relying squarely on WP:NSPORT which is a very recent, higher-level guide decided through large-scale and exhaustive participation. Allowing a "Keep" result to stand in this case would render the entire process that WP:NSPORT pointless and be an example of exactly the kind of failure to respect policies/guidelines in assessing AFDs that is currently the subject of an ARBCOM case. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Even if we completely discount all keep !votes (which we shouldn't), one delete !vote other than nominator is hardly a consensus. At most that gives us a soft delete and anyone could request its restoration anyway, which the keep !voters undoubtedly would. So there's really no point in doing that even if we were to completely discount every single keep !vote, which is nonsense. Smartyllama (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the application of a purely numerical count that has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines and very core policy says we should not apply (WP:NOTADEMOCRACY/WP:NOTAVOTE). What about the very large consensus in the WP:NSPORT discussion this effectively over-rules? FOARP (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One !vote besides nominator is not consensus. I don't care what else has happened elsewhere. You still need consensus at an AfD to delete an article, and even if we ignore every keep !vote entirely, we didn't have that here, at most we would have had a soft delete which could have been restored for any reason. If you really want to do a soft delete and then immediately restore it when one of the keep !voters inevitably requests it, fine. But that seems to violate WP:NOTBURO to me. Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Consensus should be based on guideline-compliant !votes, and very much not on guideline-rejecting !votes. The relevant guideline is NSPORT, which, per a recent, extremely well-attended and strongly-supported RfC consensus, now requires at least one SIRS of SIGCOV be cited in the article. Per ROUGHCONSENSUS, suspension of guidelines should be "no more exceptional in deletion than in any other area"; because a keep outcome literally does suspend a guideline, !votes advocating for such should robustly demonstrate why suspension is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. However, most of the keep !votes in both AfDs instead argue she should be presumed notable based on NCRIC criteria (or for procedural reasons) rather than for IAR reasons. Since these appeals to NSPORT did not coincide with the source addition required by NSPORT, nor did those !voters even address that reason for deletion, it does not make sense to keep the article on the grounds of "meeting NSPORT" when it objectively, unambiguously does not. JoelleJay (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The close could be invalidated solely on the grounds that the closer did not bother justifying it, but in addition to that, there recently was a well-attended RfC which ruled that articles on sportspeople must have SIGCOV to establish notability. It's about time that administrators start enforcing it. A local consensus against that should be ignored. Avilich (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think the points made above by Avilich and JoelleJay are excellently argued. Let me further add that if AFD won’t enforce high-level consensus because of numerical counts of voters then we essentially allow WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The keep !voters made many of the same points they made in these AFDs at the NSPORTs RFC where they were dismissed, but because they all watch the sports bio/cricket delsort they can create a majority on a less well-trafficked page such as these AFD discussions. That shouldn’t mean that they get to overturn the NSPORTs RFC. FOARP (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no path for any closer to close this as delete, even with all keep votes discounted. The keep votes are not complete garbage either, they argued that Significant coverage is likely to exist, for example one voter noted e2a: There appear to be a lot of passing references (at least - I can't access full versions, but inaccessible to the keep voters due to not being available in an digitalized format. No one challenged the keep voters either, so to the closer eyes it would seem that the reasoning was accepted. Jumpytoo Talk 07:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jumpytoo, I think it's still important to consider that the same guideline the keep !voters invoked (which would provide the presumption of SIGCOV they're advocating) also requires that sportsperson articles have a source of SIGCOV cited in the article, independent of the requirement to eventually meet GNG. This criterion has to be met for the sport-specific guidelines to actually apply. If we're just going to ignore that and rule in favor of local majority opinions every time (also in violation of ROUGHCONSENSUS), then why have global community input on P&Gs at all? Why not just let every wikiproject design their own guidelines that can never be contested by outsiders? JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JoelleJay: Even if that is true, if the subject already meets GNG (which does not require sources to be cited in the article, only that they exist) then it should be kept regardless of whether it meets the relevant SNG. You can't have it both ways - GNG doesn't only trump NSPORT when it's convenient for you. Smartyllama (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And how does she meet GNG?! Sources have to be demonstrated to count towards GNG, while any presumption of meeting GNG will be afforded by an SNG -- and the relevant one here requires a source of SIGCOV be cited in the article. Your argument makes no sense. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody has shown verifiable evidence that SIGCOV sources exist, as required by WP:NRV. –dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: FWIW, this particular player is also known as "Mamta Kanojia", and searching for that name did lead to a news article with significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can confirm this, both with the source StAnselm added, and with other sources I have been able to find searching for that name; while the result of this AfD was incompatible with policy, WP:NOTBURO applies and I don't think anyone would support overturning the result now that new evidence has been provided.

  However, I think we should delay the closure of this discussion until the other two are ready to be closed, as to avoid bludgeoning I made some rebuttals here that also apply to the other sections and I would like the closer to consider those rebuttals in their assessment of consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Kausar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there were multiple efforts to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - per my comments on the DRV above this:

On the issue of local consensus, there is a long established consensus, going back to the discussions around Chitty (cricketer) in 2018, that where sourcing absolutely cannot be found that we would redirect articles such as this to a suitable list. This runs through a variety of other discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer) from 2019, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Pitts (cricketer, died 1847) from 2020, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Selby (cricketer, born c.1765) from 2021, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Andrew from April 2022 and was most recently confirmed at this redirect for discussion from this month. That's a local consensus over a period of four or more years. And each of those articles are weaker by far than the one here - assuming we've even searched for any different transliterations of her name. So why on earth we'd overturn to delete I have no idea. And that's the worse case - there are pragmatic arguments in this case why we might keep this article - gender, ethnicity, broadening the scope of the encyclopaedia etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Policies and guidelines are interpreted and applied to individual cases by consensus, and the consensus here was to keep. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, that could not have been anything other than "keep." Also, I find it a bit ridiculous (for all three of these discussions) how after the first AFD was closed as "keep," dlthewave then nominated it for AFD a second time, and when that did not go his way he brought it to DRV! BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment courtesy ping for those who took part in that AfD - @BilledMammal, StAnselm, Blue Square Thing, Joseph2302, Stifle, Rugbyfan22, and Explicit: Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The close reflected the consensus. A female {{trout}} to the appellant. These salmonids, like other vertebrates, are capable of reproduction. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - AFD is not supposed to be a pure head-count (nor, incidentally, is DelRev supposed to be a pure repeat of AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this case the "keep" faction were using a essay (WP:NCRIC, or WP:CRIN as it is now), whilst the "delete" votes were relying squarely on WP:NSPORT which is a very recent, higher-level guide decided through large-scale and exhaustive participation. Allowing a "Keep" result to stand in this case would render the entire process that WP:NSPORT pointless and be an example of exactly the kind of failure to respect policies/guidelines in assessing AFDs that is currently the subject of an ARBCOM case. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As I said or will soon say on the other two related DRVs, even if we completely discount all keep !votes (which we shouldn't), one delete !vote other than nominator equals a soft delete at best and it could be restored upon request for any reason. So one of the keep !voters would undoubtedly have requested restoration for the same reason they !voted keep and it would have been restored. "Any reason" means any reason, whether you agree with it or not. So whether their reason to restore the soft deleted article is correct or not is irrelevant. No way there was consensus to delete here, and a soft delete would have been pointless, so no reason to overturn this. Smartyllama (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Per my argument at the Mamota Kanojia DRV. Just because the same bloc of editors who vehemently opposed the successful NSPORT2022 proposals and obstructed their implementation happens to have high participation at AfDs and DRVs (including this one) where they continue to make guideline-rejected/non-compliant !votes, doesn't mean global consensus can just be overturned. This is especially true when none of the keep !voters even address the overarching requirement for SIGCOV cited in the article that is literally stated unambiguously in the very guideline they invoke. JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The close could be invalidated solely on the grounds that the closer did not bother justifying it, but in addition to that, there recently was a well-attended RfC which ruled that articles on sportspeople must have SIGCOV to establish notability. It's about time that administrators start enforcing it. A local consensus against that should be ignored. Avilich (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no path for any closer to close this as delete, even with all keep votes discounted, a soft delete is the farthest you can go which would be immediately opposed. Keep votes also argued that Significant coverage is likely to exist and provided evidence why that this may be the case, one voter noted If foreign newspaper is writing about her then surely there would be some articles about her in local language. Jumpytoo Talk 07:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subroto Das (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there were multiple efforts to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as involved editor. This is all extremely disruptive. The article was nominated for deletion less than a month after a previous AfD had closed with a consensus to keep. So the arguments in that AfD should be weighed as well (and maybe they were). StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - per my comments on the DRV above this:

On the issue of local consensus, there is a long established consensus, going back to the discussions around Chitty (cricketer) in 2018, that where sourcing absolutely cannot be found that we would redirect articles such as this to a suitable list. This runs through a variety of other discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer) from 2019, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Pitts (cricketer, died 1847) from 2020, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Selby (cricketer, born c.1765) from 2021, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Andrew from April 2022 and was most recently confirmed at this redirect for discussion from this month. That's a local consensus over a period of four or more years. And each of those articles are weaker by far than the one here - assuming we've even searched for any different transliterations of his name. So why on earth we'd overturn to delete I have no idea. And that's the worse case - there are pragmatic arguments in this case why we might keep this article - ethnicity, the very high probability of finding written sources if we had access to them, broadening the scope of the encyclopaedia etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hut 8.5: I'm struggling to see how a keep result isn't a WP:LOCALCON violation given WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Can you explain why you disagree? BilledMammal (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:LOCALCON is about a WikiProject's guidelines not being able to override a wider community consensus. It's not really applicable to AfDs, all of which are "local consensus" by their very nature - the views of the participants of each one carry the day.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If nothing else, this debate only had one person supporting deletion other than the nominator. That's not enough for a "delete" closure. Even if the debate had only consisted of the nomination and that one Delete !vote, and nobody had supported keeping the article at all, the debate still would not have been closed as Delete but as either No Consensus or soft delete. And of course those weren't the only comments, as far more people supported keeping it, so soft deletion is definitely not an option. There are situations in which the closing admin would have been justified in ignoring the participation and deleting the article anyway, but they relate to core policy problems such as BLP violations rather than sports notability guidelines.
      • Since there isn't any way the discussion can be closed as Delete, I don't see much point in going further, since Keep and No Consensus are the other closures and they have the same practical effect, and as I've said I don't think this AfD should have taken place in the first place. Hut 8.5 16:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Hut 8.5: It appears you aren't presented an argument that the result was correct, just that there weren't sufficient votes for "delete". I disagree with that, on the basis of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:DETCON, but I can understand where you are coming from. However, doesn't that mean to avoid WP:LOCALCON issues this closures should be overridden to no consensus, or the discussion reopened? BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't want to get into yet another argument about sports notability guidelines just in order to determine whether this AfD should be closed as Keep or No Consensus, as those have no practical difference. But if you insist, the argument that the subject's career means that sources are likely to exist and that these may not have been found due to the subject being from a non-English speaking country and being active in a pre-internet era does have some basis in WP:NEXIST, so I don't think it's fair to ignore those comments. Relisting this AfD would not be appropriate, as there was plenty of participation and there haven't been any changes late in the discussion. It isn't appropriate to relist an AfD just because you don't like the outcome and/or arguments. Hut 8.5 07:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • You would be correct if WP:SPORTCRIT #5 did not exist but as it does sports biographies must have at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. If one example can be found then WP:NEXIST does allow for the article to be temporarily kept on the presumption that more can be found, but in the absence of that one example it does not. BilledMammal (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Pawnkingthree: Can you explain that a little further? We have a policy saying that local consensus cannot override consensus on a wider scale, but you are saying these local consensuses are fine? BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, good close. There was no consensus to delete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment courtesy ping for those who took part in that AfD - @BilledMammal, StAnselm, Blue Square Thing, BeanieFan11, AssociateAffiliate, Rugbyfan22, and Explicit: Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AFD should have been speedy closed as a bad-faith re-nomination of an AFD kept with overwhelming consensus less than a month prior and no new deletion rationale, but that is beside the point. Like the first AFD, there was consensus to keep. Both the nom the sole "delete" vote cite WP:NSPORT, but their claims are successfully refuted by User:Lugnuts' vote (along with his/her argument in the first AFD). Frank Anchor 15:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The correct conclusion from the second AFD. A maletrout to the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, on what basis do you endorse the outcome? You haven't addressed any of my points, and !votes that do not include a rationale are likely to be disregarded. –dlthewave ☎ 21:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that the closer correctly reviewed the results of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that it should be overturned on the basis that the closer incorrectly reviewed the results of the AFD, and I've provided P&G-based reasoning to support that. –dlthewave ☎ 22:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Discussion presented strong, reasonable grounds for the existence of sourcing given the extent of play engaged. This was not refuted. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Goldsztajn, reasonable grounds for the existence of sources does not overrule the guideline requirement for a SIGCOV source to be cited in the article at all times. That requirement was the product of an extremely strong and well-attended consensus, and should not be suspended every time the same editors who opposed that consensus make guideline-noncompliant !votes at AfD and refuse to even acknowledge that reason for deletion. Why have guidelines or attempt global consensus at all if any and every local consensus can just overturn them without discussion? JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @JoelleJay. Thanks for the ping. I'm conscious of not engaging in relitigation here and would note point A1 in the FAQ of NSPORT: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it" (emphasis added). I interpret this AfD on the basis of the arguments presented. Quoting myself: "strong, reasonable grounds" were presented for the existence of appropriate sourcing, this means a WP:LOCALCON issue does not arise. If the issue of "sufficient time" had been raised, the question of systemic bias in access to sources would need to be considered in elaborating what is "sufficient time" (also taking account of the very recent adoption of NSPORT). Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Goldsztajn That FAQ applies to NSPORT's relationship with GNG (note that it specifies multiple RS); the requirement for at least one source of SIGCOV being cited in the article from inception is independent from the requirement to meet GNG "eventually". JoelleJay (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (The relevant guidance being Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.) JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @JoelleJay - the GNG applies to *everything*; we can't apply conditions which set a threshold above or below it. If there had not been not "strong, reasonable grounds for the existence of sourcing" presented in this discussion, or if those "strong, reasonable grounds" had been effectively refuted, my view here would be different. I would emphasise that I believe we should studiously try to avoid a discussion *about* policy or guidelines, but rather focus on their application in this case. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd note that it is possible to set tighter restrictions on topic areas than the GNG; WP:NCORP is an example of this.

  However, that isn't what is happening here; SPORTSCRIT requires that articles include at least one reference to a source with WP:SIGCOV; GNG requires multiple such sources.

  What is happening here is that the community has decided to limit the ability to assume sources exist for sports biographies; in this topic editors are required to prove that at least one suitable source exists before they are permitted to assume the existence of others. This limitation represents a broad consensus of the community and cannot be rejected in local discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Goldsztajn, as BilledMammal noted, this isn't about the GNG, which requires multiple sources. This is about the requirement for at least one SIGCOV source being present in the article in order to make any of the presumptions of further SIGCOV accorded to athletes by sport-specific subguidelines. In order to even apply the "strong, reasonable grounds" for sourcing from meeting NCRIC criteria, the article must include a source of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the original closure and yet more mounting evidence of Dlethewave's WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour, whereby they cannot accept any opinions outside of theirs. StickyWicket (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - AFD is not supposed to be a pure head-count (nor, incidentally, is DelRev supposed to be a pure repeat of AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this case the "keep" faction were using a essay (WP:NCRIC, or WP:CRIN as it is now), whilst the "delete" votes were relying squarely on WP:NSPORT which is a very recent, higher-level guide decided through large-scale and exhaustive participation. Allowing a "Keep" result to stand in this case would render the entire process that WP:NSPORT pointless and be an example of exactly the kind of failure to respect policies/guidelines in assessing AFDs that is currently the subject of an ARBCOM case. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Even if we completely discount all keep !votes (which we shouldn't), one delete !vote other than the nominator equals a soft delete at best at which point one of the keep !voters would have surely requested restoration. And they can do so for any reason. The fact that some people disagree with that reason is irrelevant. So it would have been restored even if it were closed as soft delete. No way this could have been closed as consensus to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Per my argument at the Mamota Kanojia DRV. Just because the same bloc of editors who vehemently opposed the successful NSPORT2022 proposals and obstructed their implementation happens to have high participation at AfDs and DRVs (including this one) where they continue to make guideline-rejected/non-compliant !votes, doesn't mean global consensus can just be overturned. This is especially true when none of the keep !voters even address the overarching requirement for SIGCOV cited in the article that is literally stated unambiguously in the very guideline they invoke. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The close could be invalidated solely on the grounds that the closer did not bother justifying it, but in addition to that, there recently was a well-attended RfC which ruled that articles on sportspeople must have SIGCOV to establish notability. It's about time that administrators start enforcing it. A local consensus against that should be ignored. Avilich (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse or NC overturn As like the other sports DRV's, no path for deletion is possible here, nom + 1 !vote isn't enough for anything other than a useless soft delete. Unlike the other AfD's though, no one showed evidence that Significant coverage is likely to exist, and the keep voters seemed to be closer towards WP:IAR appeals. Thus, the endorse is weaker, or an overturn to NC can also be considered. Jumpytoo Talk 07:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added a couple of references regarding his work as a selector - but as often happens, he was known by another name. Which is why we had the concept of presumed notability in the first place. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was canvassed at the Polish Wikipedia with messages that were far from neutral. (For example, in Google translation: Can I ask you to vote in favor of it if you share my position? [14] And, more blatantly, If you agree with my position, please share your thoughts on this topic [15].) Two of the "keep" !votes were from single-purpose accounts; the others were from the article creator, who named the page after himself and his PhD advisor, and two editors who are active at the Polish Wikipedia but hardly at all so here. The nominator and the three "delete" !voters are all active editors of math and physics topics at en.wiki. Just counting noses, and even including the SPA who made an argument based on more than Google hits, that's 3 "deletes" to 4 "keeps", which hardly looks like consensus. Given the evident canvassing and conflict-of-interest concerns, this should not have been closed so quickly. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Checkuser note: The creator of the article, Guswen, has socked using a confirmed sockpuppet SicilianNajdorf. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Relist due to canvassing and sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that the accusation of one-time editing raised by XOR'easter is going too far. One can infer from it an accusation of ignorance in the subject under discussion (" !votes were from single-purpose accounts"). I am an old-school electronics engineer, and I have worked for many years scientifically in the field of device durability and metrology having to handle issues related to the metric under discussion. PawełMM (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist despite the presence of socks and canvassing, legitimate "keep" arguments were made and WP:SIGCOV was provided, though there were also solid "delete" arguments. I think the best case is to relist, strike the arguments made by confirmed socks, and see if consensus can develop over the next several days. Frank Anchor 12:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist (I participated in this discussion) I agree with XOR'easter that the closing was a bit premature. I'm not sure what PawełMM means here by "going too far." It's easy enough to look at the edit history of an account and see that the only post the account has ever made is on this one AfD. PianoDan (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. On the face of it, this could easily have been a no-consensus close, which would have had the same effect as the actual close, but the canvassing and sockpuppetry finding motivate increased scrutiny rather than the easy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist since facts have emerged that suggest the !vote was flawed. I have not formed an opinion on whether the close was sound. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. My name is Szymon Łukaszyk. I am the author of both the article and the metric and contribute to English Wikipedia as Guswen and to Polish Wikipedia as Gus~plwiki.

I hope that the following list summarizes the objections raised during the discussion:

1. Lack of notability (Tercer original objection for deletion, PianoDan, XOR'easter, jraimbau).

"no evidence of sufficient coverage in independent sources" PianoDan, "insufficient evidence that people have cared enough about it for us to write an article" XOR'easter, "citations do not directly relate to the topic" jraimbau, "Novelty and usefulness are also unrelated to notability" PianoDan.

I believe that I have refuted this objection by providing references to numerous publications reporting on successful applications of this concept (mainly in various interpolation algorithms), as well as its further analysis, improvements, adaptations, recoveries, etc.

2. Misconception (Tercer original objection for deletion)

"the conclusion is that it is a misconception", "if you had done it correctly it would satisfy the 'identity of indiscernibles' and would be a metric", "your function is not a distance"

This objection is based on an econometrics preprint, whose author himself admits that his consideration does not greatly affect the merit of the article, where otherwise conclusive results in applied physics are presented. Furthermore, the LK-metric proved to be useful in practical applications. Thus, it is not a "misconception" and this objection is refuted.

3. Lack of novelty (XOR'easter)

"things that already existed"

This objection is based on a 1995 publication concerning "The generalized Weber problem with expected distances" and disclosing an expected distance between two regions that indeed corresponds to the particular 2-dimensional form of the LK-metric of mutually independent random vectors for bounded distributions.

I believe that I have refuted this objection by non-exhaustively comparing the scope my PhD dissertation with this equation. Even if this concept was hinted by this 1995 publication (of which I was unaware, until XOR'easter brought it to my attention), it was not further researched and generalized, until 2003.

4. Triviality (jraimbau)

"the mathematical content of the article is entirely trivial, judging from the article itself the work it describes consists in putting one's name on (a particular case of) what should be named 'expected distance between two random variables'"

This is not true. Such an "expected distance between two random variables" was hinted only in 1995 and further researched and generalized only in 2003. Furthermore, this objection also contradicts the misconception objection: clearly an "expected distance between two random variables" is not a misconception.

5. Name invented on Wikipedia (XOR'easter)

"we would fail as a community if we let that stand"

This is not true. This distance function was discovered and researched by me (Łukaszyk) and revised by the supervisor of my PhD dissertation (Karmowski). That’s the origin of the name of this function, under which it is prevailingly known in the literature.

6. WP:COI

That’s a fact. But is that a sufficient, standalone reason to delete this article from Wikipedia?

7. WP:CANVASSING

Indeed, I asked on Polish Wikipedia for engagement in this discussion, as I stood alone against many (Prof. Karmowski, the supervisor of my PhD supported me but - by not being Wikipedian - did not see any possibility of his personal involvement).

Nonetheless, my request for engagement in this discussion might have led to the provision of further arguments to delete this article. Those who engaged might have agreed with already submitted arguments to delete this article and, perhaps, provide new ones.

Furthermore, as I announced at the end of the discussion, I have presented a friend (SicilianNajdorf) with my WP:COI issue and asked him to improve the article, which he did by adding "Earlier research", "Practical applications", and "Further research" sections. SicilianNajdorf and Gus~plwiki are separate accounts belonging to different people.

Guswen (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. The discussion was closed before I managed to reply on XOR'easter objection of 20:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC) stating that "Brutovsky and Horvath use a different distance between probability distributions and say that the topic of this article 'should also be mentioned' in the last two lines of the appendix".[reply]

That's not true. Brutovsky and Horvath clearly state (cf. p 9(240), l. 34-40) that "A further perspective in the analysis of tumors consisting of several spatial compartments should also be mentioned". They point that in "such case, the consequences of random switching could be readily quantified using Lukaszyk-Karmowski distance". Guswen (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guswen under point 7, you note you raised it on pl-wiki while completely avoiding any mention that you did so in a fashion that was i) a biased message ii) a biased audience iii) non-transparent (you didn't note its activity at the afd). Between that and the sock @Dreamy Jazz I am surprised you haven't been sanctioned Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was amazed that this article is considered for deletion 20 years after I defended my PhD dissertation and 13 years after it has been created on English Wikipedia. No doubt, I reacted emotionally, which was a shoot in the knee, in a way. For example, when the article was put under the deletion discussion I was invited to improve it. And I should have done so (e.g. by introducing "Practical applications" and "Further research" sections), prior to voting on the discussion page. However, as soon as I voted, I was thanked by PianoDan for acknowledging my WP:COI and deprived of the right of further edits to this article. Clearly, I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, and I don't know the intricacies of all the procedures.

But what do you mean by "biased message", "biased audience", and "non-transparency"?

I placed a question on Polish Wikiproject:Math saying “Czy mogę prosić o Wasz merytoryczny udział w tej dyskusji na angielskiej Wiki?”, i.e. „Can I ask for your substantive participation in this discussion on the English Wiki?”.

What's biased and/or non-transparent in this question? And to what kind of audience should this question be addressed?

As PawełMM correctly pointed "the content of the article deals with a rather hermetic field such as higher mathematics" and "discussing such specialized issues as the article raises should be done by those with expertise in the field under discussion".

And as I said, those mathematicians who participated might have, as well, agreed with already submitted arguments to delete this article, instead of voting "Keep". Guswen (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were not "deprived of the right to edit the article." You should never have edited the article in the the first place. PianoDan (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave two examples of biased phrasing in my statement above. As for the rest of that wall of text, I will only say that if you wish to reply to arguments raised in the deletion discussion, you should !vote for it to be relisted. See the purpose of deletion review. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I do not see how the keep !voters demonstrated the concept, as described in the article, has received significant analysis in independent RS to the extent that a standalone article on it is merited (and much less so at the invented citogenic title). As several delete !voters noted, most of the "implementations" in other papers alleged by the author don't actually use or discuss the L-K metric in a substantial way beyond mentioning/citing it. The fact that this topic seems to have already been described previously, as acknowledged even by the (sole?) valid keep !voter, further weakens the argument for a standalone with this treatment. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It was a good close and a good result. Yes, the author has made several blunders. But the topic has been adequately sourced, and COI and other problems are now dealt with. The suggestion above to the author that You should never have edited the article in the the first place [16] is very sad and seems to reflect the annoyance others are feeling too, but that annoyance has no place in this discussion, nor has that claim any basis in policy. Andrewa (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrewa ?? Except for the BLPSELF policy Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page and the COI guideline COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Not to mention the socking and canvassing in the AfD, which invalidates many of the keep !votes... JoelleJay (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the COI problems have not been dealt with. The additional COI text recently added by a puppet was removed, but the article was top-to-bottom COI when the deletion discussion started, and it's still in that state now. If resolving the COI concerns was a prerequisite to closing the discussion with a keep, then the discussion shouldn't have been closed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as a reminder, this is a deletion review. The point here is NOT to argue over whether the article should or shouldn't be deleted. The point is to evaluate the Article for Deletion process ITSELF. Was the discussion closed too early? Were there problems with the AfD process? Should the discussion be reopened because of those procedural issues? Whether or not the article is notable is not the topic under discussion here. PianoDan (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli (2nd nomination) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The speedy deletion of this page per WP:G3 appears to be outside of the criteria. It is also otherwise disputed, because 1) concerns about editor conduct can be addressed in other forums, and 2) it seems best for the encyclopedia to allow this AfD discussion to continue. I discussed this with Bbb23 at their Talk page after they deleted the page. Beccaynr (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - I participated in this AfD and !voted to delete the article. Per WP:G3, this AfD does not appear to be pure vandalism, i.e. blatant and obvious misinformation or a blatant hoax. Concerns about conduct have been addressed in discussion with the nominating editor, and based on the circumstances of this article and the deleted discussion, it seems best for the encyclopedia to allow this AfD discussion to continue. Beccaynr (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Request temporary undeletion - access to the AfD history may be helpful to participants here. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn. Just as we would not delete an article that was created for vandalistic purposes but then updated and contributed to in good faith, nor should we do so to an AFD. The absolute most that should be done is the AFD closed as speedy-keep. Bearing in mind the 2nd AFD was opened less than an hour after the first closed, that would probably be appropriate. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Overturn speedy deletion, but speedy keep. I'm not immediately seeing anything in the AfD that constituted vandalism, it was disruptive (the same nominator almost immediately starting a new AfD with the same rationale after the first discussion was closed as keep) but that is a reason to speedy keep the article rather than speedily deleting the AfD nomination. The speedy keep would be procedural - I've not looked at the article and so have no opinion about the notability of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the WP:SKCRIT basis for this AfD? During the AfD, I provided further reasons for deletion and the only keep !voter withdrew their !vote after a review of sources and discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't seen the 2nd AFD but if it's as described then it would be 2c I guess "making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.164.154 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SKCRIT#2 includes "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion" so it does not appear to apply. Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and reopen or at worst speedy keep and let someone relist with a better deletion rationale if there is one. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It was certainly disruptive, but it wasn't vandalism. It should probably be speedily kept though as we shouldn't allow editors to immediately re-nominate just because they don't like the result. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the deletion and close as speedy keep - while the creation of the AfD wasn't vandalism it was started less than an hour after the previous discussion was closed, which is clearly inappropriate. If the nominator wanted to contest the closure of the previous AfD they should have come here instead, and otherwise they should have waited a while. Hut 8.5 11:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The page was not vandalism and there was a lengthy discussion between CT55555 and Beccaynr as well, so this did not qualify for G3. ✗plicit 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with @Beccaynr that letting editors see the conversation might better inform this conversation, because while I voted keep at AfD#1 and complained about the renomination at AfD#2, I was also persuaded with withdraw my keep vote at AfD#2. Was this "vandalism"? I'm not sure. Was it bad process? Absolutely. Should we be forgiving to new editors who make process errors? I think yes. CT55555 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, procedural keep, and take to DRV Creating a new AFD for the same article just hours after the first one was closed is bad process and disruptive, but it is not vandalism. As such, the deletion of the AFD should be overturned, the AFD should be closed as Procedural keep with a short note about the renomination, and a DRV discussion should be opened. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:6D9F:EF76:E543:D571 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Renominating so quickly is certainly disruptive, but the editor in question was new and likely just wasn't familiar with the procedure for challenging deletions (see here)—there was no intent to harm the encyclopedia, so the AfD wasn't vandalism and the speedy was, in my view, unnecessarily BITEy. I agree with the 2601 IP that a procedural close with a pointer to DRV would have been the best response. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Extraordinary Writ, thank you for noting WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE, and I am sorry I managed to miss this, but now I know how to better proceed if a similar situation arises in the future. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and reopen. I can't see what was in the AfD originally, but if the whole reason for speedying the discussion was that renominating so soon was vandalism, then that was clearly an improper response after other editors had engaged. It also seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to overturn to procedural keep and then make participants relitigate everything in another DRV, especially if the first AfD didn't have a problematic close. We should instead just reopen it so people can participate with the prior arguments intact. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Perry (politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Incorrect interpretation of consensus Trimfrim20 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep. I played an active role in supporting keep in the deletion discussion. I think most of those commenting (on both the keep and delete sides) were very well aware that Mr Perry was not the Mayor of London, but the dispute was whether or not he met notability criteria as a local politician (Mayor of London is automatically considered notable). As Goldsztajn (talk) referred to in the initial discussion there is significant notable media coverage (including BBC, ITV etc.) that would result in Mr. Perry passing WP:GNG and WP:NPOL in his own right - and not for the reasons mentioned in the closing of the deletion, or a mistaken assumption that he was Mayor of London (which I don’t believe anyone in the discussion believed was the case). Trimfrim20 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep or no consensus (not a participant in the discussion) I'm not sure how I would vote in the AfD, but the majority of editors participating in the discussion argued that the politician had sufficient coverage after he was elected to be notable either via NPOL or GNG. Close reads like a supervote (t · c) buidhe 16:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep or relist. Not counting the nominator (see below) there were two delete !votes, one of which was a reasonable but disputed interpretation of WP:NPOL, the other stated that because the subject was not Mayor of London they didn't meet the GNG, which is clearly incorrect (no office can preclude someone from meeting the GNG). On the keep side, there were four !votes, only one of which was possibly under the mistaken assumption they were mayor of London - and even that is not completely clear given they start by saying "London Boroughs means...". Together with the other comments by those favouring keep, the assertion that they fail NPOL is clearly fully refuted. The other argument made for deletion was that they don't meet the GNG but additional sources mentioned, especially those presented in the discussion by Goldsztajn, at the very least show that is not clear cut. Closing as keep or relisting for further commentary on the additional sources would have been valid outcomes (no consensus wouldn't have been wrong, but given discussion continued right up until the day of closure a relist would be the better choice). Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I !voted keep in the discussion. Close is a supervote, absent of any analysis of the discussion (and FWIW I cannot detect any keep contributor having any confusion over the status of London Borough mayors). There was no refutation of the sources presented in the discussion. At minimum a no consensus close or relist. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus the closer misinterpreted consensus and incorrectly discounted the “keep” votes. Sources presented in the discussion were not refuted by the nom or any “delete” vote. or relist to allow more time for consensus. But there clearly is not consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 23:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus I do not think the close was accurate in saying that the keep voters were confusing Perry's position with the Mayor of London - it seems clear they were referring to London Borough mayors. They should not have been discounted. Pawnkingthree (talk)
• Overturn to no consensus or relist (involved) I was surprised by the close, even if I agreed with it (Note I mistakenly said fails GNG when I meant NPOL). A relist could determine whether the sources provided (and they came late in the discussion) are sufficient to meet GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist - There was no consensus after one week, and the participation was in between minimal (usually relist) and extensive (don't relist), so that a relist is the best idea. The reason for discounting the Keep !votes appears to be a !vote. It doesn't look as if they actually said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the views here I have no objection to a speedy overturn of my decision and relist of the debate. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep (involved). None of the keep votes confused his post with Mayor of London as the closer claimed. Clearly no consensus to delete. Consensus appears to be to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Definitely a bad close. I think this would benefit from further discussion, as I don't think there is a strong enough consensus for either keep or delete. Curbon7 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. It's quite clear that the close was not a faithful summary of the discussion nor that it weighted votes properly. I weakly prefer a relist to closing as no consensus; either would work, but giving the discussion a bit more time seems to be apt given the controversial close. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There is not, and never has been, any consensus that London's borough mayors are "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass NPOL #2 on substance, and the argument that such a consensus exists did hinge on citing a precedent that explicitly talks about the citywide Mayor of London without ever extending that to sub-citywide borough mayors. There is, in fact, no size of community (not small towns, not megacities, not anything in between) where mayors get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors — regardless of the size of the community, a mayor's notability always hinges on the article being far more substantive than this was, and far more reliably sourced than this was. If somebody can write a better article about him than this was, then that's fine and doesn't require the original deletion to be overturned before it can happen — but there is not even one city on the entire planet whose mayors would ever be deemed "inherently" notable enough to keep an article that was as unsubstantive and poorly sourced as this. Even an actual citywide Mayor of London would still need more substance and sourcing than this had. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your response seems to ignore WP:NEXIST and it is worth noting that you !voted Delete in the Deletion Discussion. It also totally ignores the reasons that this close was poor - regardless of your views it did not represent the debate that took place in any way, shape or form. Your comment here also ignores a number of views put forward after your original comment, most notably those by Goldsztajn.Trimfrim20 (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Goldsztajn's arguments weren't strong ones.
  For one thing, they were simply incorrect about how mayoral notability works. Firstly, the size of the community that they're mayor of is irrelevant to the process, because there is no population test in WP:NPOL #2 at all — the notability of a mayor is a factor of the sourcing and substance present in the article, not of how many people do or don't live in the community. Secondly, the fact that the community might be larger than a House of Commons constituency is irrelevant — even for MPs, notability isn't extended because of the number of voters in their constituency, it's extended because they sit in a nationwide legislative body and have equal voice in passing laws applicable to the entire nation, and are thus notable to the entire country and not just to the voters of their own constituency. Thirdly, the number of votes that a person did or didn't get in an election is also irrelevant to notability — it's entirely possible for a person to get more than 95,000 votes in a run for office but still lose the election because somebody else got even more votes than they did, and it's entirely possible for a person to win an election with far less than 95,000 votes, so no part of our notability criteria give any consideration to how many votes a politician did or didn't get in the process of winning or losing an election.
  And even the sources Goldsztajn listed weren't strong evidence of NPOL-passing notability either: this one briefly mentions his name without being about him in any non-trivial sense, and thus isn't contributing any notability points; this one is just coverage of a mayoral debate, not giving Perry more attention than it gives to seven other candidates he was running against; and the others are all just the run of the mill local-interest coverage that any mayor of anywhere is always going to receive as a matter of course.
  All of those sources would be perfectly fine for verification of facts, but they aren't all equally valuable as evidence of notability — WP:GNG is not simply a question of counting up the number of footnotes it's possible to add to an article, but also takes into account the depth of any given source, the range of sourcing and the context of what each source is covering the person for, so sources can add verifiability without actually building notability, because those are two different tests.
  Mayors aren't automatically notable just because you can show a piece of "mayor elected" and a piece of "mayor misses meeting due to illness" and a piece of "all the mayoral candidates debate" and a piece of "mayor reopens local pool" — every mayor of anywhere can always show that sort of cursory and minor coverage. Mayors become notable when you can write a substantive and well-sourced article that analyzes their long-term political impact, by detailing specific major projects they spearheaded and specific effects they had on the long-term development of the community, and on and so forth, but nothing of that calibre was really possible to extract from the sources Goldsztajn offered. That might certainly become possible in the future, but it wasn't evident in the sources Goldsztajn actually offered. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Closing on the same day that a substantive !vote with sources was made seems poor form. Relisting would give others a chance to analyze those sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to give time to evaluate the sources provided. I'm also not convinced that the closing statement that the keep !votes are mainly predicated on the incorrect inference that Mr. Perry is Mayor of London really represents the discussion. The first keep !vote explicitly says Mayor of a London Borough; the second says London Boroughs means pretty big mayors; the third mentions Directly-elected mayors in the UK (which could include boroughs). These arguments were not predicated on the subject being Mayor of London, but on him being mayor of someplace big enough to count. XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Rose Abad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).

• The deletion happened as a result of the WP:AN/I discussion. The problem was the sheer scale of creation by an unapproved automated process of over 1000 redirects. It was the R part of WP:BRD. I think Guarapiranga needs to have a reason for creating each individual redirect so that thought is given to each one. Guarapiranga has also failed to listen to the community discussion on WP:AN/I where no one supported creation of redirects for the name of very person that died in the 9/11 attacks. Sure if someone is notable, create an article on the person, or if there is some real information on the target, then make a redirect. I will see if I can find the ANI discussion in the archive. Out of the deleted set I have already restored one: Christine Egan as it was converted to an article which at least has a claim of importance.
• See all the logged deletions at this URL on 27th June: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=&limit=5000&type=delete&user=Graeme_Bartlett&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters[0]=newusers
• Discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102#WP:MEATBOT and Guarapiranga Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Graeme; I had linked the discussion at AN/I in my intro (as well as that at the AfD, and at the redirects' target talk page). I did listen to the community discussion on WP:AN/I, and accepted your bulk deletion of the redirects; as I said, I'd just like to better understand why these redirects, and other similar ones, need to be deleted on their own merit. It's not true, however, that no one supported creation of redirects for the name of every person that died in the 9/11 attacks:

  1. BilledMammal said current policy tolerates these redirects;
  2. While some editors argued the redirects were a problem bc they taxed the NPP backlog, Hey man im josh, who reviewed them, said he didn't whink we should take the NPP backlog into consideration when deciding whether articles or redirects are valid or appropriate to create;
  3. While some expressed fear that any living person who shares a name with any of those victims will instantly become known for sharing a name with a victim, if these redirects hit google, HumanxAnthro argued that how accurately non-notable individuals are presented on Google searches is Google's problem, not Wikipedia's;
  4. Regarding the sheer scale of creation by an unapproved automated process of over 1000 redirects, Qwerfjkl said mass creating redirects shouldn't be considered a problem, as he's also done it in the past.

  Finally, the core of that discussion at AN/I was WP:MEATBOT, as indicated by the incident heading, not the redirects in their own right (even the editor who reported the incident said that the merits of the redirects at that point were the least of her concern). That's why I raised the question here, so we can discuss the redirects in their own right, whether they can be created, even if by non-automated means, and, again, to better understand why they need to be deleted on their own merit, if that's the case. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would note that my full comment was On one hand, this is clearly a WP:MEATBOT and WP:FAIT issue. On the other hand, my experience at AfD and RfD regarding non-notable early Olympians suggests that current policy tolerates these redirects, to the point of sometimes creating disambiguation pages when there are multiple articles mentioning different non-notable individuals by the same name.

  I would also note that I wasn't entirely correct; such disambiguation pages are forbidden by WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

  Moving forward, I would suggest that if you wish to recreate these redirects you seek consensus to do so by submitting a bot approval request. Before doing so, I would also suggest you work out which redirects would be inappropriate due to multiple non-notable people with the same name being mentioned in Wikipedia, and excluding them from your creation processes.

  This doesn't guarantee that you will get consensus for their creation, but it does make it possible. BilledMammal (talk)

  I would suggest that if you wish to recreate these redirects you seek consensus to do so by submitting a bot approval request.
  I'd first like to understand what exactly is the policy in this regard, independently of them being created semi-automatically or not (and whether WP:POLICY requires that manually created redirects to non-notable people in lists and articles—e.g. Mary McKinney, Grace Nelsen Jones, Mary Margaret Smith, Margaret Skeete, etc—also be deleted).

  Before doing so, I would also suggest you work out which redirects would be inappropriate due to multiple non-notable people with the same name being mentioned in Wikipedia, and excluding them from your creation processes.
  The notable people on that list don't need redirects; by definition, they have articles of their own (or should have). The issue is precisely with the redirects to non-notable people names in the article. Why do you say that would be inappropriate? Doesn't WP:N establish that when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them? — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, Robert Chin. A man by that name was one of the victims in 9/11, but a different man by the same name was a candidate in the 2020 Jamaican general election. A redirect should not go to the list of 9/11 victims, because it will confuse and surprise readers looking for the election candidate. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't that what dab pages are for? — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No - see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. However, even if it was, you would need to make sure you create dab pages there rather than redirects. BilledMammal (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What I see in WP:NOTDIRECTORY regarding dab pages is that Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith, which is not the case here (of listing every person named Robert Chin in his dab page, to take your example), just the notable ones, but that this is [under discussion], and clearly contradicts the very WP:N policy it links to:

  when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).

  — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Except these redirects are clearly not notable people...? Why would we create a DAB just for collecting non-notable topics with the same name? JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of the deleted set I have already restored one: Christine Egan as it was converted to an article which at least has a claim of importance.
  There we are; that was precisely one of my aims: for the redirect pages to work as placeholders, and be progressively replaced by articles as WP acknowledges people's notability. — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that, given the controversy around this situation, it needs a BRFA or at least some sort of clear consensus, even if it's not explicitly disallowed by policy. Also, re 4. above, mass-creating redirects still needs consensus. See Novem Linguae and Rosguil's comments in the linked discussion. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse After reading the ANI (not formally closed), there appeared to be consensus to delete the mass creation of redirects. From a process standpoint, the redirect target, List of victims of the September 11 attacks was created by the nominator on May 28. By June 21 several thousand redirects were created. The creation of the redirects were brought to ANI on June 27. By June 28, all of the redirects were deleted by Graeme Bartlett. On July 12, Guarapiranga brought the redirect up for discussion, where it was closed a couple hours later. --Enos733 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Overturn I'm not sure what I would think on the merits, but there should have been an RfD rather than deleting thousands of pages out of process due to a discussion at a conduct venue. The RfD brought up by Enos733 would have been the right process, but the deletion being reviewed here unduly short-circuited it This, incidentally, is another instance of the "strict CSD regulars like me say that a certain type of deletion is disallowed, admins in other parts of the community carry it out anyway" give-take that I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Adding to Non-criteria list section.
  I was hoping that the list would be deleted and this would become moot, but the AfD was closed as keep in a closure that IMO doesn't reflect the consensus but I couldn't be bothered to bring it to DRV, so here we are .... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering WP:FAIT, WP:ONUS, and WP:MEATBOT, I don't think the onus should be on editors to get consensus for their deletion; instead, it should be on editors to get consensus for their creation. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ONUS is a section of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and there is no dispute that all of these names are verifiable, so is inapplicable here. WP:MEATBOT as written, is inapplicable here since it only requires that human editors [...] pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity, and there's no evidence Guarapiranga didn't do so. The WP:FAIT argument is a reassertion of Hut 8.5's claim about the feasibility of a mass RfD, which I've already responded to below. Anyway, as I see it the only thing relevant to determining whether a speedy deletion is valid is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and mass creations shouldn't be special enough to ignore the standard way deletion on Wikipedia works, which places the onus on deleters. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  there's no evidence Guarapiranga didn't do so.
  Thanks, Pppery; indeed I tried my best at ensuring I was expanding WP in a positive direction, while fully complying with policy (particularly WP:N and WP:MASSCREATE). Unfortunately, it wasn't well received. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ONUS talks about the fact that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion; the names are verifiable, but that doesn't guarantee inclusion, and the onus is on Guarapiranga to get a consensus for that. As for WP:MEATBOT, the issue is that these are large scale and high speed edits that are potentially contrary to consensus; consensus should be demonstrated first. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What I read at WP:ONUS is that:

  1. It's talking about information for inclusion in an article, which is not the case here; and
  2. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, thus placing the requirement of consensus after dispute, as usual, not before it.

    — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes; ONUS doesn't suggest that your bold creation was wrong, but as the creation has since been disputed it tells us that:

  1. It was correct to revert the creation
  2. To restore the content, the editors seeking to include it need to get a consensus.

  BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, and here we are. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse while ANI definitely isn't a usual venue for deletion discussions, it is occasionally used for bulk deletion in cases where one person creates a lot of problematic pages. I remember a case a few years ago where one user created a few hundred articles with serious original research problems, and it was eventually decided that they should all be deleted instead of expecting editors to AfD them one by one. There is a general expectation that large scale page creations should be discussed somewhere beforehand, something reflected in the bot policy, and I suspect an RfD of several thousand redirects would not have been feasible. Hut 8.5 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would it be any less feasible than, for example, the mass discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 10 which totaled to thousands of redirects which seem to have worked just fine? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  By my count there are under 900 nominations on that log page, so a lot fewer than the approximately 3,000 9/11 victims, and the nominators didn't actually follow proper procedure since none of the redirects were tagged (at least none of the random sample I picked were). More importantly there were a lot more differences between each of the redirects which led to some being kept. Hut 8.5 17:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • the nominators didn't actually follow proper procedure since none of the redirects were tagged
    What would've been the proper procedure? Do you mean in creating or deleting them?
  • There is a general expectation that large scale page creations should be discussed somewhere beforehand, something reflected in the bot policy
    Where is that expectation expressed? The policy you linked states that it initially applied to articles, but has since been expanded to include all "content pages", broadly meaning pages designed to be viewed by readers through the mainspace, and the linked discussion there explicitly excludes redirects from the policy, as Lugnuts pointed it out in the discussion, and Qwerfjkl to me before that. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hut 8.5 means that the nominators of the 2015 discussions I linked to as an example to try to refute his claim that RfDing these redirects instead of deleting them out of process would have been infeasible failed to properly tag the redirects they nominated with {{subst:rfd}}, and that specific sentence is not making any comment about the redirects you created. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, I see. Thanks, Pppery. I clearly dived into the deep end in this whole adventure. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussions you've linked to suggest that it is sometimes OK to create large numbers of redirects without discussion. That doesn't mean that it's always OK - if people object to it, or might object to it, then it ought to be discussed somewhere first. Hut 8.5 12:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For sure, Hut 8.5. Except that discussion at AN/I wasn't a calm and collected debate over the pros and cons of the redirects that people might disagree with, but felt rather more like a public lynching, in which some editors expressed quite a lot of anger, as if I had broken some very fundamental rule, not as if it were part and parcel of the usual WP:CYCLE, as you say, Hut 8.5. What I'm asking here is: what is that rule, if it exists at all? Your answer indicates to me it doesn't, as the redirects are simply subject to editors' consensus, and those accusations at ANI were absolutely unfounded and unfair. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Refer to RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and if the RfC supports the creation of these redirects, restore them. The approximately 3,000 redirects that were deleted did not meet any of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The guideline Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects says: "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include: ... Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)"

  Using Marie Rose Abad as an example, there is a good faith argument that this is a valid redirect since Marie Rose Abad is one of the people listed at List of fatal victims of the September 11 attacks. If only a handful of redirects had been created, I would say the redirects should all be undeleted and discussed at a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. However, approximately 3,000 redirects were created without prior community consensus.

  Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation says:

  Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. This requirement initially applied to articles, but has since been expanded to include all "content pages", broadly meaning pages designed to be viewed by readers through the mainspace. These include articles, most visible categories, files hosted on Wikipedia, mainspace editnotices, and portals. While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed. It is also strongly encouraged (and may be required by BAG) that community input be solicited at WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects. Bot operators must ensure that all creations are strictly within the terms of their approval.

  Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of content pages include creating the pages in small batches or creating the content pages as subpages of a relevant WikiProject to be individually moved to public facing space after each has been reviewed by human editors. While use of these alternatives does not remove the need for a BRFA, it may garner more support from the community at large.

  Note that while the WP:MEATBOT-like creation of non-content pages (such as redirects from systematic names, or maintenance categories) is not required to go through a formal BRFA by default, WP:MEATBOT still applies.

  Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot-like editing says:

  Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.

  The "large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation" of 3,000 redirects violated Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation because it did not go through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. The "large-scale edits" violated Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot-like editing as they ended up being disputed and could end up being "contrary to consensus".

  There was a strong community sentiment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102#WP:MEATBOT and Guarapiranga that the redirects were inappropriate, but I would prefer for content decisions to be made at XfD, talk pages, or a village pump instead of a noticeboard that focuses on conduct. While the speedy deletions of the 3,000 redirects did not comply with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, I cannot fault the deleting admin for doing so to enforce Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation.

  As suggested at Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation, mass page creations should be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) first. I recommend that this DRV is closed with a referral to starting an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to discuss whether these 3,000 redirects should be created. If the RfC supports the creation of these redirects, the 3,000 redirects should be restored. If the RfC opposes the creation of these redirects or achieves no consensus to create these redirects, the 3,000 redirects should not be restored.

  Cunard (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is more than one review (four in total): here, here, here, and here. There are release sources: here, here, and here. All in all, sufficient sources to restore the article. DareshMohan (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't anything stopping you from recreating the article. If you want the deleted version restored to draft space to serve as a starting point then I'm sure that can be done, but there was hardly anything in it - just an infobox and a cast list. Hut 8.5 19:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there isn't, but the question is that other than the Rediff review, are any of the other sources considered reliable? DareshMohan (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to try WP:RSN to get opinions on questions like that --81.100.164.154 (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the closure. Otherwise it isn't clear what is being requested. The title isn't salted and the author can always prepare and submit a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation and re-submission through AFC. I don't see a good reason to prohibit re-creation and re-submission through WP:AFC given that there's been a good faith effort to find new sources. I'm not 100% convinced of its notability, but that's something that can be demonstrated by an article creator rather than required to occur here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Either way please save the deleted version as a draft to work on. DareshMohan (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Site passes GNG. The "News & Observer" and "Honolulu Star" articles are multiple examples of significant coverage from independent sources for the site to pass GNG. Jinnahsequaid (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. DRV is not AfD round 2. These sources were considered in the discussion where consensus was that they were not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are alot more sources that were being missed in the previous review. I think we should consider it again. It includes many major newspapers, including Anderson Independent-Mail, Birmingham Post-Herald, Austin American-Statesman, Santa Maria Times, Eastern Wake News, Ventura County Star, The Miami Herald, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, The Miami News. (And all of them has covered it for multiple years and in multiple times). Further, I added a news clip of 2010 of News & Observer so no one can say it' for only 2-3 years. I don't have the full subscriptions to fetch the whole lists. Hope, you will be satisfied with it @Thryduulf

  For me, it's enough to pass the GNG. Jinnahsequaid (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just rewrite the article as a draft from the ground up based on the supposedly GNG-compliant sources. I do not think a deletion review is needed to get permission to recreate a deleted article; WP:G4 (which states that any copies of AfD-deleted articles can be deleted ASAP without warning) doesn't apply to recreations that don't copy anything from the originally deleted article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the right summary of the AFD. Significant coverage was considered in the AFD. The title has not been salted and the appellant can submit a draft for review with the better sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Syed_Basar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[17]]|restore)

The person is a notable billionaire businessman Aaeeshaaadil4 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of cities of the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article is actually a redirect to Wikimedia Commons, which means maybe the page has been deleted for over two months ago. Means the gallery of the images of the flags is WP:LISTCRUFT. Heraldrist (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As you say, this is not a list so WP:LISTCRUFT does not apply. It was not a recreation so WP:G4 did not apply (on either occasion). It is a soft redirect so if you want it deleted you need to refer to Wikipedia:Soft redirect#Deletion which tells you to use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If you think the list on Commons should be deleted then seek deletion over there which would, I expect, lead to deletion of the soft redirect here. I don't see any of this as beneficial but DRV is not the place for me to venture such opinions. Thincat (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The XfD could not have been closed as anything other than delete and the G4 speedy deletion was correctly declined both times. A (soft) redirect cannot be "substantially identical" to anything that is not a redirect, and once speedy deletion nomination has been declined or reverted by someone other than the creator then it cannot be speedily deleted (under that criterion or for similar reasons, unless there is some change in objective facts) because deletion is not uncontroversial. If you think the redirect should be deleted, then you should as Thincat says nominate it at RfD (this could go either way). If you think the gallery itself is inappropriate for Commons then nominate it for deletion there - I'm not familiar with their policies on galleries so don't know how likely it is to be supported, but if the target is deleted and there is no alternative target, then the redirect will be eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G8. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Heraldrist:Um - I am not sure what you are asking for here. Is it: The delete close of the AfD to be overturned? It seems like it accurately reflects the consensus and the delete arguments are reasonable interpretations of the policies they cite. Paul 012's removal of your and Praxidicae's G4 tags be reversed? As far as I know independent editors are not banned from removing speedy deletion tags. The tags wouldn't be correct anyhow - G4 only applies to "substantially identical" pages (h/t Thryduulf) and a soft redirect to the place where galleries are allowed (commons:Commons:Galleries) is not quite equivalent to hosting a gallery on-wiki. Alexphangia's soft redirecting to Commons being reversed? I think you'd need to do this at WP:RFD, not here - the soft redirect isn't a deletion nor was it done pursuant to a discussion, so WP:DRVPURPOSE wouldn't apply here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - What is being requested here? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the closure, but it doesn't seem to be. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What is actually being requested here? Stifle (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's the G4 speedy deletions being declined, but @Heraldrist: please clarify what you are asking us to review. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The g4 would only be justifiable if a soft redirect to Commons had been discussed at the afd and explicitly rejected. Even then, most admins would decline to speedy without a trip to RFD too. Take it there. —Cryptic 01:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Sviblov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please consider this removal. This article has already been deleted before and I disputed the deletion. It was indicated that additional sources should be added to the article and work on the text in the draft should be done. I created an article in the draft, improved it, added additional sources, and the reviewer moved the article to the main space. The same participant put it up for deletion again. Only one participant spoke and did not take into account my arguments and my adherence to consensus.

Here is the link for first deletion [18]

And the second [19]

Валерий Пасько (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a proper close, again. Evidently the additional sources and additional text were not sufficient to establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Submission of Draft - The title was not salted, although one participant in the AFD recommended that it be salted, so a reviewer can accept the draft if the body of the article as resubmitted speaks for itself. It is normally not enough just to add sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Properly deleted at two AfDs. The article was reference bombed and lacked independent secondary sources. DO NOT encourage submission of draft, but respect the AfD decisions, until at least six months after the second AfD. Do not encourage “additional sources”, further reference bombings makes it worse, instead require less and better sources. Do not entertain any protest that does not follow the advice at WP:THREE, and also demand that the native language Wikipedia article (Russian) exists and is linked. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Russian language article exists (ru:Свиблов, Владислав Владимирович) Валерий Пасько (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Every project has their own guidelines. English's are among the most stringent, notability wise. Star Mississippi 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. En.Wikipedia seems very strong on insisting on quality independent reputable reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in depth. The Russian article lacks this. I wouldn’t call the Russian article “reference bombed”, but is thoroughly referencing every little fact including. It is very primary-source biased, and incompatible with WP:PSTS. I think en.Wikipedia is so insistent because it is sensitive about being regularly abused by companies, companies CEOs, and company products being advertised in en.Wikipedia.

  It’s good that there is a Russian article linked. Next required are the WP:THREE best sources for demonstrating notability. Scanning the translated Russian article, I don’t see them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The person is mentioned on sites such as forbes.ru ([20]), kommersant.ru (]), [https://www.interfax.ru/business/767770 interfax.ru (]), [https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/19131394 .bloomberg.com ([https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/19131394]). And in the magazine "Золото и технологии". Are all of these sources irrelevant? Валерий Пасько (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse incubate in draft does not mean immediately resubmit when the underlying issues haven't been addressed. Is there a reason you're so focused on this article? Courtesy @Liz: as closer of last AfD. Star Mississippi 18:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Huntsman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I discussed concerns about the close at the closer's Talk page but continue to have concerns that consensus was interpreted incorrectly and the result should be overturned to delete, or in the alternative, that a relist would be appropriate due to the circumstances of the discussion and a possible procedural error, as discussed with the closer. Beccaynr (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I definitely don't think a move was the right outcome there, given that nobody suggested that in the discussion. There was voluminous disagreement about whether she met BLP1E or not but I don't think it came to a consensus. Ritchie333 relisting the discussion suggests they were of that opinion too, so the finding of consensus by the closer after no further discussion is surprising. I'm leaning towards opining this should be overturned to no consensus (without prejudice to RM) but I'm going to think a bit more before bolding anything. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think an overturn to no consensus would be right, given the complete lack of policy based justification from the keep !voters. I'd much prefer a relisting. ––FormalDude talk 04:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks Thryduulf. Although a move was not explicitly mentioned, I felt (as the closing admin) that it was the logical implication of a discussion which, in my mind, seemed to conclude that the individual does not meet notability but that the event might. I feel that the discussion was bogged down by the fact that some were discussing BLP1E, some EVENT and some a bit of both. My reading of the discussion, is that this will either end with an event article and a individual redirect, or a deletion (for which there is not yet consensus). The most efficient way forward would be, in my opinion, for there to be a discussion on the event, after the event article has some slight reworking so that it is clearly about the event (as discussed with Beccaynr on my talk page [21]). The problem is that if it is relisted as the article about the individual, then we are back to the original issues with the discussion. I don't think that a no consensus close would best serve resolving the issue because, again, I think that the consensus will eventually move to "event article + individual redirect" or "delete" and we should find the most efficient way to facilitate that. TigerShark (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this. I feel that the article as it currently stands is really about the murders than the perpetrator anyway. Reword the opening sentence, remove the infobox and change the "early life" title to "the perpetrator" and you effectively have an article about the event (which arguably should be listed, as previously discussed). I see no point in deleting the article and then inviting it to be recreated (with a redirect) as has been suggested as an alternative, because that puts the article exactly where is it now (or would be with those minor changes). TigerShark (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - I !voted delete in the AfD. From my view, arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact and/or are logically fallacious should be discounted. This includes the use of original research to support keeping this article, e.g. asserting it is "highly unusual" without RS support and with RS contradicting this conclusion. Even as an event article, BLP issues related to sensationalist coverage still exist and are also contrary to policy. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. Beccaynr (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems like there was (a) a consensus that an article on the individual was not appropriate and (b) no consensus regarding whether or not an article on the event (i.e. the murders) were notable. It's not the best phrased close, but I'm not exactly sure what this practically means for whether to move the page (there is a notable event and not a notable person) or to delete the page (there is no notable topic here, article title be damned). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with that analysis, and I think it lends to a delete closure without prejudice to someone creating an event article. The article as it stands is about the individual and not the event. ––FormalDude talk 07:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved). There was very clearly no consensus to delete here. I am neutral on the move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From my view, your !vote should have been discounted because during the discussion, you did not address the second prong of WP:N, i.e. whether the subject should be excluded per WP:NOTNEWS, also used personal opinion/WP:OR to support keeping the article, as well as a logically fallicious argument related to WP:BLP1E, and did not address the WP:BLP issues. Asserting WP:GNG based on sensationalist news churnalism and academic WP:RS with only superficial coverage also seems to be an unsubstantiated argument. Beccaynr (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you should review WP:ONLYESSAY: Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Something many deletionist editors in recent years seem to have forgotten in their zeal to delete, delete, delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The link to discussions, not votes leads to the Polling is not a substitute for discussion essay, which includes, If Wikipedia were to resolve issues through voting on them, editors would be tempted to also use voting with respect to article content. This might undermine Wikipedia policies on verifiability, notability, and the neutral point of view. From my view, opinions such as WP:ILIKEIT, unsupported assertions of significance and WP:VAGUEWAVES at policy should be discounted, especially when an article is based on sensationalist coverage of living people and there is extensive discussion of sources and P&Gs by delete !voters. Beccaynr (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to “no consensus”. There was no consensus to keep or delete the article. There were not BLP violation noted (BLP1E is not a “BLP violation” but a lesser issue), so the no consensus defaults to keep. There was no consensus for the move, that was a Supervote. Feel free to submit a rename proposal through WP:RM, but I note an abundance of sources name the person, and the location is incidental, so the merits for the move are dubious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My references to BLP issues in the AfD includes the sensationalist churnalism; the BLP1E aspect is a separate issue that keep !voters do not appear to have addressed with P&Gs or support from RS. Beccaynr (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see how that is on point to anything I said.

  I just reviewed your 20 posts to the AfD. I note that there is no evidence that you persuaded anyone. Your “references” did not achieve consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "no consensus". I was involved. I argued to keep. I was surprised by the result. I noted that slightly more voters wanted to keep (but also note some arguments were brief), but that the delete advocates also provided credible arguments. I was curious to see how this one was closed, to see what people made of my counter argument to BLP1E delete argument (but that wasn't mentioned by the closer) and I assumed it was heading towards no consensus. The "move" result did surprise me, because we were making polarised arguments and while it is never nice to fail to reach reach consensus, that appears to be the only outcome here. I don't think the current move is an improvement to the encyclopedia. I would find re-opening for more time a good outcome too, as I think we needed more input, rather than the primary contributors just repeating our polarised opinions. Peace. (P.S. I hope this is okay to comment here, I'm not an admin). CT55555 (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Deletion Review is open to anyone's well-reasoned opinion. Well I guess technically it's open to any opinions, but you know what I mean. Star Mississippi 13:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. Following on from my comment above, and having read the comments from others, I'm now firmly of the opinion that no consensus was the correct outcome for that discussion. Move is a valid opinion, but not one that was discussed at all by the participants so the closer should have expressed that as a !vote. There wasn't consensus that the article should be about the event rather than the person, as otherwise there wouldn't have been strong arguments in favour of keeping, and most arguments made did not express an opinion one way or another. It would be an appropriate question to raise at an RM, but given comments here I don't think it would find favour. I think a new discussion would be preferable to reopening the closed one, so that arguments for and against BLP1E being met can be made without the bludgeoning that was a large part of this one. (Beccaynr you are getting dangerously close to that here). Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Move is consistent with the original recommendation ('move or improve') of CT55555, which was only changed to keep following a poor quality argument by FormalDude, and where CT55555 continued to maintain a preference for some ATD outcome over keep. Closing with an ATD outcome that has been proposed and not refuted in the course of the AfD is defensible when neither 'keep' nor 'delete' are good outcomes. While 'no consensus' would also have been a reasonable close, I see no positive case for overturning the close that does not involve relitigating the AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  CT55555 said merge, not move, so no, this closure is not consistent with their "original recommendation". Even if it was, it would still be a supervote, considering it was supported by only one editor. ––FormalDude talk 15:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right about merge/move: I misread the !vote, as perhaps did Sandstein. You are wrong about ATD closes, however: choosing the best ATD suggested outcome is not a supervote if there is no consensus for either keep or delete. Next time, please acquaint yourself better with our policy on closing deletion discussions before lecturing DRV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A close in favor of a solution that no one even mentioned, or which was mentioned only in passing but not supported, is the definition of a supervote. If one has a solution to propose, it should be included in the discussion as a comment. If it's too late, it can be suggested in a later discussion. The extant discussion must have a close that reflects its actual contents. Clearly you are the one who's struggling to understand our policies here. ––FormalDude talk 11:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to either "no consensus" or "keep" Solid policy-based arguments were made on all sides. There was little to no discussion regarding a move so I believe restoring its original title is most appropriate. Frank Anchor 12:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I mistakenly closed this DRV too early and undid the move. I've reverted the DRV and AfD (re)closures, but not the move, so as to not to generate too much confusion. If the closure is endorsed, the article should be moved to its new title again. Sandstein 12:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, almost per Thryduulf, although it seems that some ATD outcome is appropriate and there is some value to improving the XfD record with a less toxic conclusion to that AfD. Also singling out FormalDude for overzealous behaviour in the AfD with a WP:TROUT: please cool down if and when the article is relisted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you serious? Two other contributors both commented more than me. I'm not sure what you feel the need to single me out for. ––FormalDude talk 10:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • TROUT is meant to be less serious, but since you insist on raising the temperature: if the AfD is extended and I see you carrying on as you did before, I will notify AN/I. Your behaviour was worse than editors who wrote more and injured the AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TROUT is meant to be humorous, but with that threat, I am now laughing, so I guess it worked out. ––FormalDude talk 14:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. I certainly do not see consensus that the serial murdering was notable, much less a reason to bypass RM. Overall, neither the perpetrator nor the event seems notable in light of our guidelines and the quality of sourcing found (a whole lot of primary and self-published pieces). A relist might encourage addition of other viewpoints to the discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the closer may well have reached the right outcome, but should have !voted rather than close. I'd prefer a relist (yes, I know the last one got nothing, but maybe now it will) but okay with an overturn to NC and the move being discussed on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot News 18 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I want to write something about this topic, allow me to write on it. Here is my write-up about this topic which I want to publish. Please check it and everything is good, then only allow me to proceed ahead if any changes or suggestions are welcomed.

Spot News 18 is a digital news publishing website and media production company.^[1] It was founded on 30 June 2019, by Ashish Kumar Mishra who also serve as the CEO. The company is headquartered in Mumbai, India.^[2]

Spot News 18 was one of the first digital publishers in India to offer 24-hour news coverage, and it was also one of the first all-news digital publishers at the time it was launched in 2019.^[3] 103.204.161.102 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close and this would be a G4. AfD was a sock mess, so this should only be created by an established editor and/or go through Afc. Courtesy @Liz: as closer. Star Mississippi 13:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spot News 18

Improve existing content before attempting to write new articles. Writing new articles before gaining experience improving content is too hard.

WP:Register before you start to attempt new articles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I don't think that there is such a thing as a Speedy Endorse, but if there were, this should be done. When the review of a topic has been polluted by sockpuppetry, an unregistered editor should not be appealing the closure of an AFD. There is no error by the closer, but there is an error in this DRV request. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]