Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July

Red Storm (webtoon) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this discussion as "no consensus" because my reading of the delete arguments was that they were mostly on the borderline, and with a late keep argument coming in it seemed the discussion had not clearly come to a consensus to delete the article. The nominator Neocorelight disagreed with the closure, so I am asking for second opinions here. I think Liz felt the same way as she relisted the discussion twice, during which time no further comments were added. I then decided to close it as no consensus because relisting an AfD more than twice is frowned upon. That said, maybe this was an overly conservative "no consensus" relisting by Liz and closure by myself. Happy to change the closure based on a second opinion. What do you think? Malinaccier (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it was an error to give any weight to the lone "keep" at all; it was thoroughly and correctly rebutted. —Cryptic 14:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The weak keep vote came a day after the AfD started–in no way it is late–and has been rebutted by me and Maplestrip. There are one comment each after both relists, one by MetropolitanIC rebutting a list of source and favoring deletion. Overall there are four delete arguments–including mine–against one keep voter who doesn't respond further after being rebutted. I see a safe consensus to delete here. Neocorelight (Talk) 15:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete per my comment above. Neocorelight (Talk) 16:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete Four deletes which include source analysis to one rebutted weak keep, that's a delete to me, even though I understand the no consensus. Non-English sources can be difficult to ascertain, but there were enough firm delete votes that it's a delete to me. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the one unqualified delete beside the nominator emphasized that the sources in Korean weren't "focused on" the topic, which isn't a requirement, weakening its rationale. Two relists clearly communicate that no consensus was on the table without additional opinions... which never materialized. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same editoredit said "I can't find any significant coverage". Which is a requirement. All the two relists show is that people are too eager to relist discussions that have reached a consensus. —Cryptic 00:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion was certainly within the realm of possible closes, but it wasn't required, and closing as NC is certainly not wrong after two relists. I've certainly seen inappropriate relists challenged on the relisting admin's talk page. Did that happen here? Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      What's the relevance of me not challenging the relists? It was because I generally trust the process but not the result here. I think the close doesn't reflect the essence of the discussion so I challenged it. Neocorelight (Talk) 07:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      As soon as there's a clear consensus, a relist is wrong, because the discussion should have been closed per that consensus. For it to happen twice without challenge implies that the discussion participants were fine with waiting for more opinions or, in the absence of any more input, an NC close. Now, it sounds like that wasn't the case here, but that's how I "read" unchallenged, back-to-back relistings. Jclemens (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (consensus to delete). I don’t think your closing explanation is substantive with respect to the discussion. Liz’s comment-free relists are meaningless. The late of the late keep is irrelevant, compared to its explicit weakness, implicit weakness, and threaded critiquing “only mentioned” and “single-sentence announcement”, which render the Keep !vote refuted. In contrast, the Delete !votes were well argued.

If I were to have participated in the AfD, I would have !voted “delete” on the basis of no independent secondary sources, and google hits giving only unreliable (for Wikipedia) user fan sites, and due to the native language Wikipedia article being unlisted and presumable nonexistent.

I would also criticise the AfD nominator for the weak nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak endorse The only real outcomes possible were delete and NC. NC was within closer discretion, especially with the weak nomination and fairly weak !votes. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to deletion – When I saw the 'no consensus' I was surprised, and strongly considered requesting a deletion review as well. I'm glad to see I someone else actually went through with it :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the finding of No Consensus, as a valid conclusion by the closer after an AFD with little participation and 2 3 Delete !votes and 1 Keep !vote. The Weak nature of two of the !votes is a further reason why No Consensus was a reasonable conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You forgot to count my nomination as a !vote, and the keep vote holds no weight because it is refuted. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, User:Neocorelight - I counted two Delete !votes and the nomination. Is there another one that isn't highlighted? I don't normally discount !votes because I am not reclosing but reviewing the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon: Me, the IP user, MetropolitanIC, and Maplestrip. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MetropolitanC was not obvious. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DVD interactive technology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The category was deleted at CfD recently. It seems the users voting delete were under the belief that the category was meant for games released on the DVD format which includes thousands of games and is indeed "not a defining characteristic". But the category was actually for DVD games, interactive movie games that are playable on a DVD player. Only a fairly small number games could be included in the category (there were maybe less than 50 articles in the category when it was deleted). This category is similar to other video game platform categories like Category:Xbox 360 games, in this case the platform is a DVD player. Pinging Zxcvbnm (talk · contribs), Marcocapelle (talk · contribs), QuantumFoam66 (talk · contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika1h (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep/Relist. Indeed, the concept is not merely about "games distributed on DVD", it's about games that basically exploit how menus of DVD movies function to turn them into an interactive experience.

Mobygames recognises the platform: https://www.mobygames.com/platform/dvd-player/

These are the 50 pages removed from the category as far as I can tell: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JJMC89_bot_III&target=JJMC89+bot+III&offset=20240727163759&limit=50 --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (as contributor to the discussion) I think it would be helpful to relist the discussion at CfD and continue the discussion there. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep. Even the nom wasn't advocating for deletion, only for a move. I agree with the appellant that both Delete !voters misunderstood the nature of the category, and with two other participants calling for Keep/Move, there was no consensus to delete anyway. Owen× ☎ 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be sent back to cfd to restart the discussion about the move, not just restored and abandoned here. —Cryptic 18:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A relist makes sense based on everything the nom presented. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - The close is a bad non-admin close that should be set aside. There wasn't a good way to perceive a consensus for deletion (or for anything else). Relist the CFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Invasion of the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was a clear consensus to delete this article, not draftify it. Despite the closing statement, no one had expressed any particular willingness to work on it. The closest was the second draftify vote, however, that's just the result of LLM slop (see WP:ANI#AstridMitch for context). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete Just because someone specifies an ATD does not mean the closer has to select the ATD when consensus to delete is so clear. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (Closer here) Three different participants, including the nom themselves, asked for draftification. Presenting this as someone specifies an ATD seems a bit disingenuous. Owen× ☎ 18:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With the benefit of hindsight, one of those draftifiers has been indef-blocked for paid editing concerns, and the delete !voters made clear that there's almost no chance of this ever becoming a mainspace article at its current title, and one of those supporting AtD seems to agree with that assessment. SportingFlyer T·C 05:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse only one delete !voter opined that draftification was inappropriate. Now, it may never end up being suitable for mainspace, but that doesn't mean that the consensus of that discussion was that no one should even be allowed to try. Denying draftification is really for things that are already borderline G10-11-12, in my mind, and I suspect that's why more of the participants did not opt to speak specifically against draftification. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count six variants of "start from scratch", and neither of the human-written draftify votes would have looked out of place with a "delete" stuck onto the front instead. Even if you were hellbent on a consensus-ignoring ATD supervote, a redirect to List of foreign military attacks on United States territory or maybe Invasion U.S.A., both of which were mentioned in the afd, would have been stronger. —Cryptic 20:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and "start from scratch" is not incompatible with draftify. Sure, things can be sent to draft for a few more references, but they can also be given a complete overhaul. More to the point, if there's a redirect, the content stays indefinitely, but if it's draftified, it's gone with G13 if no one works on it, so a draftify result actually puts the content in more jeopardy than a redirection. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while there was clear consensus that the article should not be kept in article space, there was certainly not a clear consensus to delete this article, not draftify it, as the appellant claims. Two voters explicitly support draftify as their first choice (not including a blocked sock), and only one delete voter made any case against draftifying, and it was a weak one (this article is a mess of pure WP:SYNTH, something can be addressed while in draftspace). This close was not in any way, shape, or form, a supervote. Frank Anchor 12:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse There were several participants that saw the requests to draftify and still supported the effort to delete. So, I think it would have been ok to close as delete (or redirect, which I think would have been more justified). However, as we do generally prefer ATD to deletion, so I understand the closing rationale, and do not think it was erroneous. --Enos733 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete to reflect the clear consensus.
  1. The delete recommendations were well reasoned and not rebutted or even engaged with.
     1. As Cryptic wrote above, several advocated starting over, such as one citing WP:TNT (shortcut to WP:Blow it up and start over, essay).
     2. There are two relevant WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion:
        1. 6: WP:SYNTH (shortcut to WP:No original research#Synthesis of published material, policy) was cited in three recommendations, and WP:OR (page shortcut) was mentioned in one.
        2. 5: WP:Content forks (guideline) was not cited specifically, but it follows from the redundancy with List of foreign military attacks on United States territory noted by two participants.
     3. I disagree with penalizing them for not addressing "draftifying" directly. They were clear that the article cannot be fixed ever, much less with the six-month G13 expiration.
  2. The draftify recommendations were reasonable, but I see no reason to give them extra weight.
     1. Excluding AstridMitch (blocked sockpuppet and LLM user), draftify was recommended by the first two participants, who did not return to react to the deletes. Also, as Cryptic wrote above, their rationales were not differentiated from deletes.
     2. In contrast with OwenX's closing statement, if there are editors familiar with our notability guidelines willing to work on the page in draftspace, I do not see offers or intent to develop the draft. It hasn't been edited in the two weeks since the AfD was closed.
  3. Is there a policy/guideline-backed justification for overruling WP:Consensus (policy)?
     1. WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD)
        1. I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions.
        2. Editing and discussion (shortcut WP:ATD-E): If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Even if this section applied to draftification, no one argued that the reasons for deletion could be resolved by any means.
        3. Incubation (shortcut WP:ATD-I): Recently created articles that have potential, but do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, optionally via the articles for creation (AfC) process. No one proposed even a rough idea for this.
  4. If it is deleted and the draftify supporters or anyone else wishes to work on it, they can request draftification or userfication at WP:Requests for undeletion. That paperwork should be negligible compared to the complete rewrite. Alternatively, the page overlaps with List of foreign military attacks on United States territory and TV Tropes Invaded States of America, which can be used instead.

  Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Welcome back, along with the same arguments that misunderstand consensus. Consensus here was to draftify, and your proposed multi-step process violates WP:BURO. To wit, if an AfD'ed article was eligible for draftification and at least one participant suggested that outcome during the discussion, then there is no legitimate reason for deleting and then draftifying that article, rather than just straight draftifying it as happened here. Or am I missing some hidden value in the extra step? Jclemens (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If anyone states their intention to work on the draft before this DRV is closed, I won't insist on deleting and undeleting it. I also replied to OwenX below. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm glad you're moderating your position somewhat, but I still see that as unnecessary bureaucracy. Why give them just a week, rather than six months? If this were a high-interest article, it would likely already have been noticed and addressed. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete in line with the very clear consensus at the discussion. When there is a clear consensus and a potential closer feels that the consensus is wrong, they should refrain from closing and instead !vote to try and convince others. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good advice, but I don't see the relevance to our case. I had no opinion about the article, and I still don't. I don't know if the consensus was "right" or "wrong"; I closed the AfD based on how I read the discussion, with no personal view on the article itself. Owen× ☎ 09:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're saying that with a totally straight face, aren't you. —Cryptic 13:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you believe I'm lying, I'd be happy to continue this over at AN/I. I don't take such baseless accusations lightly. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying I'm starting to think you honestly believe that the nearly 3/4 supermajority of participants in this discussion were lying when they said they wanted this page to be deleted. —Cryptic 15:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think any of them were lying. They all really wanted the page to be deleted. But I didn't see any valid argument against the draftification proposed by the minority. We routinely undelete to draft pages that were unanimously deleted at AfD. I saw no legitimate reason to deny such a request at AfD. The worst case risk of having the draft sit for six months before it gets G13'ed seemed minor. Owen× ☎ 15:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would endorse a closing statement like this: "The result was delete. To save [draftify supporter] from having to file at WP:Requests for undeletion, I have moved the page to [draft]." I believe that the difference in result is meaningful and that delete is more intuitive and less surprising than draftify. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's excessive formalism and against the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. What you describe is really just draftification. The "result" is not a particular verbal formula, the result is the practical outcome of the discussion (or lack thereof), and the specific words used to describe it do not matter. —Alalch E. 12:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It would require at most one small edit. I haven't used WP:XFDcloser, but it seems that draftify has to use the Custom option already. I don't see it as a built-in option when using Ctrl-F draft on MediaWiki:Gadget-XFDcloser-core.js. The effort is worthwhile because the closing statement may be read tens of times. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse. This would have been more easily justified as a “Delete” with explicit permission to start a new draft on the topic, on the basis of the mentions of Draftify, three mentions of SYNTH, A “delete with TNT” which implies permission to start from scratch, and a deleted as a rambling essay which aligns with the SYNTH rationales. Where the driving reason to delete is WP:NOR, it is very common that some skeleton of the article can be used to create a new article. If someone wants to rescue the article, it doesn’t hurt if they read the deleted article, but doing so requires the authors of that article to be attributed (best practice if not black letter required), and this fits with the old article and it’s authors remaining the history of a TNT-ed new version. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with this is that TNT is usually cited incorrectly, and this is no exception: WP:SYNTH is not referenced anywhere in WP:TNT. "Hopelessly SYNTH" is actually a great argument for stubbifying, but TNT is based on the religious belief (no empirical support) that red links generate better new articles--this assertion has gotten even more ridiculous since all the closing tools now appear to de-link to the deleted article by default. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse The bar for deleting a draft wasn't met. Of those that addressed drafting, 2 gave good reasons to move it to draft space, while 1 gave a weak reason (SYNTH isn't really a reason to delete a draft AFAIK) not do so. It is unclear exactly what to do with situations like this (draft suggested, other argue for delete but don't address drafting) and I think a discussion on that topic would be helpful so we can all agree on how to handle cases like this. For now, it's unclear exactly how to handle this so I think the admin could have gone either way. Thus, I have to endorse. Hobit (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. When someone has announced an intention to work with the content in draft space, the bar for draftification can be set reasonably low. This result keeps the page out of article space until the policy issues are dealt with, and the rules limit the time it can remain unworked on in draft space. There were no convincing arguments for why letting someone work with it cannot be done. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one announced such an intention, nor even provided a plausible way that the article could be improved. Indeed, multiple people even pointed out that the only content that might have been salvageable was already on a better article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was previously speedy deleted over copyright infringement. I would like to recreate it as a redirect to Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor since the organization is often referred to as the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor in sources.^[1][2][3][4]

• Comment I was just going to do this, but it appears the title has been salted, so an admin needs to address it. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  .... And it looks like NeilN has retired, and the current article proposed redirect target may have been the same organization created via title gaming after the original salting. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson Ramsdell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article, like a large number of Doug Coldwell's GAs, was delisted as a GA (part of WP:DCGAR) and deleted presumptively, on the basis that he had been close paraphrasing tons of stuff for a decade. Well, I was the reviewer for the GA nomination, and I suppose it is unusual to actually check all the sources during a GA review (??), but I did when I reviewed it, and I didn't see anything. If there is any actual evidence that this article was a copyvio, then fine, I have no objection to it being deleted, but otherwise, I don't think it is reasonable for it to stay in the shadow realm forever. The process of me doing a typical Doug GA nom involved the better part of a day extensively copyediting and writing, so it is fairly disheartening to have it all thrown in the trash without any actual evidence that the article is a violation. jp×g🗯️ 09:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging @Justlettersandnumbers:, who should have been notified about this DRV. I believe this is the relevant CCI. Owen× ☎ 13:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fine with any individually-suspected COPYVIO article being restored to sandbox for checking and updating for a reasonable period of time. CP gives 1 week initially, so I don't see why we can't undelete and dole out one week extensions as long as work is either verifying no copyright issues exist or identifying and remedying issues that are found. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is this a request to overturn the G12, or a request to recreate the deleted article for re-review? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I do not have a detailed knowledge of the Good Article Review process, but I think that the fact that hours were spent on copyediting or rewriting an article, rather than declining the article because it needed copyediting, illustrates that something is or was wrong with the process, that facilitated its abuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you're supposed to fix the problems, rubberstamping them is frowned on. Typically this would be a collaborative process with the original author, but Doug tended to be very slow about fixing stuff, so I just took to doing it myself. jp×g🗯️ 20:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is purely technical - it was deleted because it was at CP for more than 7 days. There is a good claim that it is NOT a copyvio, so we should handle this request carefully, but I do think it deserves a second look. I'm not sure how to suggest to do that. A sandbox seems like a good spot for it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An administrative review under COPYVIO rules may be a better option now that I'm coming back to this, possibly by the closer of this DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 05:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• JPxG, have you reviewed the offline sources more recently than Talk:Thomas Jefferson Ramsdell/GA1 in late March 2021? WP:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 was expanded in 2022 and 2023 because the true extent of the problems was not yet known. The article's listing at WP:Copyright problems/2023 March 29 mentions "numerous offline sources that can't be checked." (diff) Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I posted notifications at WT:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 (diff), WT:Good article reassessment/February 2023 (diff), and WT:Copyright problems/2023 March 29 (diff). Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm disinclined to support the restoration of anything with significant contributions from Doug Coldwell. The copying, misrepresentation of sources, and general low quality were very pervasive. I might support restoring the article as a draft if someone is willing to go through it with a fine tooth comb and really check for copyvio, close paraphrasing, and text-source integrity. My preference would be to have someone just grab the references and put those in draftspace or userspace, and then for jpxg or any other interested editor to write the article themselves. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. In short: While it was justifiably presumed that the page contains copyright violations, on a second look it's only reasonable to presume that it contains some plagiarism, but not much; it's also quite possible that there isn't even any plagiarism.
  I looked at the article here. During Talk:Thomas Jefferson Ramsdell/GA1 Earwig's checker [found] nothing from any online sources, per jpxg. Here, jp×g said that he actually check[ed] *all* of the sources, and then did some work on the article—presumably while continuing to look at some of the sources while making his improvements—so I believe that the situation with the online sources is okay. I did some checking of the online sources now and I don't detect close paraphrasing of non-free works. Still, "online sources" and "all the sources" don't match: It could be that there are problems of some sort in some passages with respect to the non-"online sources". (What does it mean for those sources to have been "actually" checked?) But most of the cited works that are not the "online sources" are not subject to copyright anymore, due to their age. Right? Due to this and in combination with the online sources being okay, the risk of actual copyright violations seems very low. Plagiarism of works in the public domain is different from copyright infringement and is not one of the WP:DEL-REASONs. Such plagiarism can be repaired without deleting the page, and can be treated as a maintenance issue. Of all the offline sources that can't be checked, is the content sourced to the The Lumbermen's Legacy the most questionable? That content can be removed.
  If restoring, I am against restoring anywhere other than mainspace, because problems of this sort are the same regardless of where the page is at.—Alalch E. 15:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Given all of the above, I'm okay with a restoration. There may well be issues with offline sources, but with no problems identified after some significant work, I'm okay with moving forward. If problems with copyright are found, we'll need to fix and maybe reconsider. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Chauhan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel it was an unjust deletion process as the article was blanked out just before deletion. Books sources and other credible references not considered. He is a billionaire and was voted most powerful business man in the middle east many times. Also he is a CEO of a global company in many countries with nearly 30000 employees 111.92.81.56 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tariq_Chauhan_%282nd_nomination%29

Books featuring him

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Learning_Ecosystems/aRWEEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA46&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Disruptive_Workplaces/VsoDEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT224&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_10_Best_Performing_Facility_Manageme/knLXEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA27&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Routledge_Handbook_on_Business_and_Manag/A6ATEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT182&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Handbook_of_Research_on_Supply_Chain_Res/xwBuEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA232&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Marketing_Communications_and_Brand_Devel/V0hxEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA197&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.81.56 (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some references that seem to be credible

1) https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/property/dubais-efs-in-talks-to-buy-cleaning-firm-in-india-1.147026

2) https://hrme.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/employee-experience/efs-group-announces-partnership-with-hr-tech-leader-darwinbox/100249355

3) https://gulfnews.com/uae/efs-navigating-covid-19-challenges-through-resilience-and-transformation-1.1604738189531

4) https://www.khaleejtimes.com/supplements/cornerstone-of-progress

5) https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/india-ambassador-to-uae-launches-tariq-chauhans-autobiography

6) https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-ae/leadership/impact-at-scale-tariq-chauhan-group-ceo-efs-facilities/316806

7) https://www.europeanceo.com/awards/2014/tariq-chauhan/

8) https://www.khaleejtimes.com/supplements/a-celebration-of-economic-growth

9) https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-ae/growth-strategies/efs-facilities-services-group-ceo-tariq-chauhan-presents/457761

10) https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-ae/leadership/leadership-redefined-tariq-chauhan-group-ceo-efs/459164

11) https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lists/top-100-ceos-2023/tariq-chauhan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.81.56 (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The appellant failed to notify the closing admin, @Star Mississippi:, of this deletion review, as is required by the deletion review policy. Frank Anchor 14:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Each of the links in the book section and #3, 4, 6, and 11 in the references section were discussed directly in the afd. I've looked at the first three of the others and they so clearly contain no biographical information that I'd consider them within discretion for an admin to G4 a recreation of the article. And I still consider the work we (and by "we" I mean User:Alalch E.) had to go through, assessing and documenting every single source used or even suggested, in order to delete an article that was cobbled together out of press releases and linkedin posts, an unconscionable theft of labor. —Cryptic 14:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to disagree on this. There was not even 1 linkedin post or press releases. Pls show me a LinkedIn post among 30+ sources. To say it was primarily LinkedIn posts is absurd to say the least.

  What about the continuous vandalism, bullying or aggression done on the page removing information about where he was born , what he does was, alma matter was unwarrantied to say the least(111.92.81.56 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

  It was the article whose text was partially pulled from linkedin, not your source dump. —Cryptic 15:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly again the statement is not true. Yes i am resigned that there is nothing i can do now as editors are unified on falsehood, vandalism, aggression and bullying 111.92.81.56 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Cryptic for the notice. Endorse my close. Sources were found to be insufficient and there was no viable AtD to consider. IP, please don't bludgeon this as you did the AfD. Star Mississippi 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the source analysis table made it clear that the subject did not meet GNG. Likewise, Alalch E's analysis of the sources presented by the IP keep voter showed they lack the significance/reliability needed, particularly for a BLP article. While the numerical vote total is a relatively even split, the delete voters make a much stronger argument. Frank Anchor 16:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, involved, as nominator. A statement by the closer would have been helpful, but the closer, like the participants, were tired of the filibustering by IP addresses, which, like a filibuster in a senate, was intended to interfere with or delay routine business.
  • • The IP Keep votes consisted mostly of URL Dumps, and were negated by the source analysis by Alalch E. A closer may in particular discount IP contributions when there is evidence of conflict of interest.
    • The article was not blanked before nomination. It was stubbed before nomination, because it had never been anything but a padded stub. The nominator said that the title was not being salted, and the originator could submit a draft with reliable sources. They chose to continue to filibuster from IP addresses, maybe because they don't have a plausible draft.
    • Recommend that this subpage be semi-protected.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved). A correct reading of consensus among P&G-based views. Owen× ☎ 23:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved). The WP:SPA "keep" !votes did not articulate policy-based reasons for retention, and were fully rebutted by "delete" !voters. The consensus was correctly interpreted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and this and recent past events make me wonder if we should consider taking away the ability of unregistered users to contest deletion decisions here. There is a possibility a true miscarriage of a deletion discussion might be missed, but when was the last time an IP address nominator actually brought forward a meritorious argument at DRV? Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt you'd agree with me if I said July 5, so looks like June 28. —Cryptic 04:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pretty widespread agreement on July 24 that the G4 was improper, even though we're headed towards endorsing on other grounds, and it's at least debatable whether to consider that IP solely as an IP. —Cryptic 04:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reality check. I guess the bad IPs overshadow the good ones in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I think that restricting IP editors from filing DRV requests may be a good idea, I think that readiness to semi-protect DRV subpages should be a useful earlier step. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to OP and IPs - DRV is not a forum for conduct complaints such as allegations of bullying and vandalism. Complaints of bullying should be made at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Complaints of vandalism should be made at WP:AIV. Editors who make empty allegations of conduct such as bullying or vandalism at DRV or AFD can be assumed not to be filing those complaints in a conduct forum because they know that there has not been bullying or vandalism. They are Yelling Vandalism to "win" a content dispute. Be aware that claims of vandalism when there is no vandalism are personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness, I haven't been able to regoogle the common text between linkedin and early versions of the article that I saw when I made my comment at AFD. There's one phrase that's still duplicated on linkedin, the "one of the most powerful businessman in UAE" (sic) one, but it's now only in a post that postdates its inclusion in the article. I didn't want to revdelete at the time, since the article was on afd anyway and I didn't want to make the pre-restubbification versions inaccessible. —Cryptic 05:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with acquired citizenship (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The parent (container) category and multiple subcategories for individual countries were merged with Category:Naturalized citizens by country. There are several ways to acquire citizenship of a country other than "naturalization", the precise definition of which varies by country but generally includes a requirement that the person is normally resident and working in the country, and may involve some kind of cultural knowledge test. Depending on local laws there are other ways to acquire citizenship of a country, for example by ancestry, or by investment, or even by outright bribery. Many have acquired Maltese citizenship by investment, for example, but that doesn't make them naturalized Maltese. This merge was ill thought out, had minimal participation, and has had many unforeseen consequences. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not much of a CfD follower, but it looks like this same argument was raised in the CfD and other !voters rejected it. That is, it looks like the argument here is that consensus was clear... but incorrect on the merits. Is that right? If not, what am I missing? Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous discussions was closed after very limited involvement and without proper consideration of the issues it would created, such as Category:Naturalised citizens of Saint Kitts and Nevis, all of whom are basically dodgy businessmen who've probably never visited the country in their life. This is a very ill thought out merge, and should be reversed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to User:Jclemens - That is how it looks to me. I don't think DRV is CFD round 2 either. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ... ... ... Is it common at CFD to add pages to discussions after they're already closed, like this? That wouldn't be tolerated at any other deletion venue, whether it had been tagged or not. —Cryptic 03:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly not normal, but appears to have been done by the closer, rather than a nominator. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It happens quite often in bulk nominations, when many pages are tagged, that one or two of them are then overlooked when manually compiling the list in the nomination. If anyone had visited the tagged category, they would have found the CFD template there with the correct link to the nomination, so they could have commented in the discussion – probably without even noticing that the category was missing from the list. It's my regular practice to belatedly correct the gap in the nomination in such cases, if I find it when implementing the rest, so that the discussion can be found by "What links here" rather than having to go through the page history. Likewise, I would belatedly correct other errors in the list, e.g. mistyped category names, for the same reason. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, DRV is not XFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support reversing merge "People with acquired citizenship" is plainly more neutral and accurate. I also question whether consensus was fully established in the first place; the jus sanguinis issue was mentioned but not clearly resolved. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Endorse - DRV is not CFD round 2. The result was wrong, but that is not within the scope of DRV. The close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as closer: I believe I correctly found the consensus of the discussion. It had been open for 3 weeks, and the principal opposer Buidhe had stopped replying. I implemented the close by redirecting the merged categories, which I hope will be helpful if a subsequent CFD discussion results in consensus to undo the merge or to merge in the reverse direction. I merged the Wikidata items in a few cases, but only where there were no other Wikipedias with both categories. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - to the people saying "DRV is not CFD round 2", is this catchphrase more important than improving the encyclopedia? Because a lot of people have now been defined as "naturalized" citizens of some country or other when they are nothing of the sort. This was a fairly obscure discussion that most people weren't even aware of and where valid objections were ridden over roughshod by the tyrrany of the majority. WP:IAR applies here, is the encyclopedia actually better as a result of the merge? Because I think it is significantly worse. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MaxBrowne2, if that is the problem, then the correct procedure is to start a new CfD discussion, not to contest a valid close. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Swift Retort (short film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Received a challenge to a G4-based speedy deletion basically claiming that the new article had been created with permission. The article Operation Swift Retort (film) was deleted in 2019 following an AFD discussion. Another article on the same subject was created in 2021, and I accepted the speedy deletion request in 2024 since I found the subject matter, and sourcing too be much the much the same, even though the prose was different. Submitting for review whether my application of G4 was appropriate, and as always with reviews on my deletions, I will take a neutral stance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer my perspective on this matter. This film is not self-promotional or fake; it is officially associated with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). The film's production was authorized by the PAF, as reported by Gulf News and other news outlets.[1]

The film has been broadcast on several television channels:

92 News (2020)

Samaa TV (2022)

ARY News (2023)

Channel 24 (2024)

There are numerous mentions of the film and the filmmaker in 17 Urdu newspapers (Roznama 92 News, Dunya News, Express, etc.)[2][3] Also Urdu news outlets (Daily Pakistan, Urdu Point, etc.)https://www.roznama92news.com/efrontend/web/index.php/?station_id=1&page_id=6&is_common=&xdate=2023-10-21. The film's notability is further evidenced by coverage in English-language sources:

Geo News[4]

Gulf News[5]

The News International[6]

The News International (Newspaper and In-step magazine)[7]

Pakistan Observer[8]

Dunya News[9]

These sources are not paid endorsements and do not include disclaimers. These are primary and I can provide 10 more references that are secondary.

In 2020, three editors suggested that while the film may not warrant its own Wikipedia page, it should be mentioned on the "2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes" page. Consequently, a brief, referenced description of the film was added. However, this edit was reversed by Saqib in 2024 approx after 5 years, who deemed it promotional and removed the film's name without providing a clear reason. I have brought this to the attention of an administrator, along with evidence of the film's prior inclusion on the page.

I question how an edit made in 2020 could suddenly be considered promotional in 2024, especially when multiple editors were aware of the film's presence and raised no concerns. It appears that Saqib may have a bias against content related to the armed forces.

I believe administrators should determine whether the film deserves its own page. If not, I urge them to revert Saqib's edit and reinstate the brief description of Operation Swift Retort on the "2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes" page, as it was originally added in 2020. The film is notable, official, and the only animated film produced in Pakistan in 2019. 182.190.223.129 (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--182.190.223.129 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting temp undeletion of both the (film) and (short film) titles. Public log shows creation in May 2023 and deletion in July 2024. I find it difficult, though not impossible, to believe that an article would stand and presumably be edited for over a year and still be subject to G4. Frank Anchor 13:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the pages are restored at Operation Swift Retort (film) (for the original version deleted in 2019), and Operation Swift Retort (short film) (for the version under discussion here). Access the page history for the contents. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! Frank Anchor 16:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The version deleted at afd (since there's been g4s at the (film) title too) is here. —Cryptic 18:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sjakkalle, May I ask if this undeletion request was made by email? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Yes, it was. I am not at liberty to discuss contents of emails however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Frank Anchor please add some Urdu references which are available in 2023 and not in 2020. Please also check 2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes section where this film has mentioned there as per the 3 editors who were agreed earlier on that a section should be there so it would be great if the section has been restore too.

  Geo News, Dunya News, Gulf News are enough to show the notability while in extra it has 92 News, Daily Pakistan, UK Film review, Urdu Point, The News International and others. 182.190.223.129 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Firstly, if this SPI report confirms, the master account is Dj1kamal which was blocked in 2015, (see this) making these two creations (Operation Swift Retort (film) and Operation Swift Retort (short film)) violations under G5. However, if we disregard this aspect, this is an advertisement and PROMO article created by a blocked @Devoter and Memon KutianaWala, to boost the profile of DJ Kamal Mustafa, the director/producer/writer of this short film. Upon reviewing the sources cited on this article, much of the coverage either falls within the WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or consists of routine/ROTM coverage lacking independent, in-depth/significant coverage. Given that DJ Kamal Mustafa, the director/producer/writer of this short film, is also a journalist, he has been successful in garnering some press coverage for his short movie, however, the coverage still falls short of meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:SIGCOV. An article on same topic was created under different titles such as Operation Swift Retort (film), Operation Swift Retort (short film), Operation Swift Retort (2019 Film) and finally deleted in 2019 via AFD with a clear consensus in favor of deletion. It appears most of the references currently being cited in this article were also debated in the previous AFD and none of them could satisfy the GNG. Yet they're shamelessly promoting this and their other works on pages like this, this and this.
  Fwiw, these articles has seen significant editing activity by blocked socks, suggesting it was in clear violation of WP:TOU and and there was also repeated attempts to create a BLP on DJ Kamal Mustafa which was also deleted via AfDs here, here, here as well here. And I'm unsure what's this about? Furthermore, DJ Kamal has sent me multiple off-wiki physical and legal threats, with evidence available upon request via email.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 as the two versions are not sufficiently identical (There is at least one reference in the new version that postdates the version deleted at AFD). However, I would support speedy deletion as G5 as the article creator and most significant contributors are blocked socks. No objection to any good-faith attempt to recreate this page, though I am not convinced this DRV was made in good faith. Frank Anchor 18:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I oppose salting any title. Frank Anchor 10:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4/Keep deleted as G5 per Frank Anchor. Having the same defects isn't enough for G4, it really has to be substantially the same article--that is, without any substantive changes--for G4 to count. Anything else may well be a slam dunk at AfD, but should not properly be G4'able. G5 appears to have been discovered after the fact, but would still appear to be an applicable criterion. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Overturn the G4, and send to AFD - I don't like the overturn, and there has been a lot of misconduct, but I don't see a valid speedy deletion.

• Endorse a G5 or change the speedy deletion reason. I am now satisfied that the originator was already blocked. Striking previous !vote.
  • • The (short film) and the (film) are just different enough that this isn't WP:G4.
    • The changes in the title of the article are a clear case of the gaming of titles. See also Operation Swift Retort (2019 Film).
    • Too many of the edits to the article have been by sockpuppets.
    • Salt all the titles in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• G5 would have been correct and makes the rest of this largely academic, but since the deleting admin's asking for guidance, here's some.
  There's some minimal amount of discretion in determining what changes are substantive, but I think the last version at Operation Swift Retort (short film) barely squeaks by as substantive (I haven't examined the prior G4s). The prose changes really weren't: there's no new claims of substance there, so it comes down to the references. Of those, #2, 3, 5 and 6 were in the version deleted at AFD. #1 is trivial and #4 is a copy of our article at Operation Swift Retort about the underlying event; both are very plainly not substantive changes. #7 and #8 are both written by the film's creator, are fairly promotional, and are identical, so they don't pass the laugh tests for reliability or independence. #9 contains four very brief sentences that add no information not in the other sources; I consider it within discretion too.
  Ref #10, though, I don't. I'd be astounded if it made a difference at afd - I doubt the site would be considered reliable or discriminate (what with the nagging to let them "review your film" on every page view), and am very much not impressed with the tone, depth, or professionality of the review itself - but unless there's some obvious proof I'm missing that it's user-generated-content or such, I don't think it's a clear enough call for a single admin to make.
  Not that that should stand in the way of salting, further deletions, blacklisting, or other enforcement as appropriate; there's been enough recreation by known sockpuppets that if your AGF-o-meter isn't already exhausted, there's something wrong with you. If an established, known-legitimate user wants to recreate this, the afd won't stand in the way, but if someone tries again within their first dozen, or hundred, or even several thousand edits like the Memon KutianaWala reincarnation had, too bad. —Cryptic 02:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but please change to a G5 reason. I think both versions of the article wouldn't survive an AFD even without the socking as the promotional odor is strong here and the sources are weak at best. I think the two versions are different enough that G4 probably shouldn't have been used - there's a lot of the same junk sources and given the rather small amount of material available, a lot of the same information and given the history of this, understandable why G4 would be used. Ravensfire (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dewair (1582) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted because it didn't have in depth explaination of the page. According to the editor who nominated this article for deletion, no one added sufficient information in the article. Please Allow Recreation of the page as I'm ready to recreate the article with sufficient information. Hashid 05:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC) -->[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close (uninvolved). The result was “redirect” so the page history is still there; it’s unnecessary to allow recreation for an editor to resume working on this in draft space. The discussion consensus was correctly interpreted and the page title is currently (and appropriately) protected, but a new article can be submitted for review at AfC if the appellant thinks sufficient sources have been found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse and do not unSALT this has been recreated ad nauseam in the last three years. Work on Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582) and see if @Pbritti: is willing to undo rejection for new AfC consideration. Star Mississippi 13:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi Okay, i'll consider working on Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582).

  Thanks. Hashid 16:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Segun Toyin Dawodu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted after the individual who requested the deletion mutilated the page by removing key links and information on the notability of the subject and in the process skewing the page to look bad.

The page was created around 2008 because of the notability of the individual in many respects including:- 1. Earliest Nigerian blogger since 1997 and created the website Dawodu.com. There are more than 50 Wikipedia articles that reference this website to show its significance in contributing to discussion on Nigeria’s socio-economic, political and historical issues. 2. He was one of the pioneer editors of the Knowledge Now (https://now.aapmr.org), a repository of articles in physical medicine and rehabilitation in the world hosted by the American Academy of Physical Medicine (AAPMR)and also pioneer author of articles on this platform. Inquiries can be made to AAPMR through their website AAPMR.org. 3. He was one of the pioneer authors of various articles on Emedicine that later became part of MEDSCAPE (MEDSCAPE.com) which is the number one website of medical articles in the world and that was as far back as 1998. His article on spinal cord injury and causa equina on MEDSCAPE was a reference for Emergency Room doctors in managing such conditions.

Some of these were fully discussed in the past at a previous attempt to delete the site.

The question that the editor that requested deletion needs to answer is why did he delete relevant references and mitigated the article before requesting the deletion of the article. One can see this as evidence of possible malice.

I do hope that this will be reviewed as soon as possible and allow the discussion to continue for another week to enable more people participate. Attempts were made by me behind the scene to ensure that the person that requested deletion will consider the above and withdraw the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckanopueme (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If "and candidate for Masters in Global Healthcare Leadership from University of Oxford Reuben College, Oxford" is such a critical part of the article so as to constitute "key links and information" and removing it is "mutilat[ion]" and "skews the page to look bad", then this never should have lasted this long. Endorse. —Cryptic 13:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  More than that was deleted. In the process of the deletion, references were mismatched to create a false narrative. May be an error on his part or may be with some intent. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Temp undelete please so us non-admins can examine the edit history. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks and for all facts to be considered. I think his website created in 1998 after an initial bog from 1997 has contributed to knowledge even within Wikipedia. The website at a point in time was the main text and source of information for research in Nigerian universities and that is how he became known to some of us journalists and he became an hero at a time when such Information was not easily accessible elsewhere. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently the history is still at the page, so here's a link to the article. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for information by someone who was involved in the AfD: all the person who nominated for AfD did to the article was a) some recategorizing b) fixing some references c) the removal mentioned above. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Kindly review the Links below to buttress some of I have stated on nobility of the subject of this articles.

  Also a search through Wikipedia will point to many articles that referenced the Dawodu.com website making it a sources of resources on Wikipedia (that confers advantage to Wikipedia). It is also a good idea to look at time frame ie since 1997 as most of things pioneered then may look normal now but not on 1997 to 2009 when the article was first created.

  1. https://search.medscape.com/search/?q=Segun%20dawodu

  Articles that were pioneer articles written by him

  2. https://now.aapmr.org/?s=Dawodu

  Articles that were pioneer articles written by him

  3. https://www.whois.com/whois/dawodu.com

  WHOOS data on domain names

  4. https://reuben.ox.ac.uk/article/reubenites-inaugural-part-time-msc-global-healthcare-leadership-visit-college

  Article from Reuben College, University of London.

  The request or for deletion took a step to delete all association to Oxford in the article before mutilating references. This gives a clue of this is a coordinated effort by some individuals from Oxford.

  5. https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/segun-dawodu

  His connection to PHC at Oxford University with his Reuben college email.

  I do hope all these will be taken into consideration and more editors can see the facts for further discussions as a week did not give enough notice to get more people to discuss this.

  Thanks.

  Chike Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  “Fixing” the references was done with mismatch. That created a false narrative.

  Also a comment by another that because there were discussions in the past should not be relevant but past discussions are relevant if the issue discussed previously are being raised again especially on notability because the reference point was events from 1997 to 2009 when things done by the subject of the article were pioneering from the links posted so far. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear as day endorse for me, consensus from the debate is clear and the above nomination rationale is lacking substance. The references to debates from over a decade ago as a reason to overturn is wildly irrelevant. None of the three numbered points in this debate offer any kind of reasonable argument of notability, something consensus at the AfD agrees with. The description of the editing behaviours at the article is erroneous to the point of being misleading. Daniel (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Response’’’

Kindly review the Links below to buttress some of I have stated on nobility of the subject of this articles.

Also a search through Wikipedia will point to many articles that referenced the Dawodu.com website making it a sources of resources on Wikipedia (that confers advantage to Wikipedia). It is also a good idea to look at time frame ie since 1997 as most of things pioneered then may look normal now but not on 1997 to 2009 when the article was first created.

1. https://search.medscape.com/search/?q=Segun%20dawodu

Articles that were pioneer articles written by him

2. https://now.aapmr.org/?s=Dawodu

Articles that were pioneer articles written by him

3. https://www.whois.com/whois/dawodu.com

WHOOS data on domain names

4. https://reuben.ox.ac.uk/article/reubenites-inaugural-part-time-msc-global-healthcare-leadership-visit-college

Article from Reuben College, University of London.

The request or for deletion took a step to delete all association to Oxford in the article before mutilating references. This gives a clue of this is a coordinated effort by some individuals from Oxford.

5. https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/segun-dawodu

His connection to PHC at Oxford University with his Reuben college email.

I do hope all these will be taken into consideration and more editors can see the facts for further discussions as a week did not give enough notice to get more people to discuss this.

Thanks.

Chike

———————————————————————-

I went through some of the comments during deletion which some others who may be interested did not have a chance to review. Some of those comments have been addressed in my earlier postings. One of the comments was on fellowship being solely on paying membership fee which is not true.

1. https://www.aapmr.org/members-publications/membership/join-the-academy/member-applications

To be a fellow of AAPMR (FAAPMR), the individual needs to be board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation ie passed the specialty board examination first.

2. https://www.aanem.org/membership/join-renew/membership-eligibility-and-dues/categories-of-membership

A fellow of American Academy of Neuroelectrodiagnostic Medicine is required to also pass the board examination before being co sidères as FAANEM. The above are not different from the FRCS and FRCP in the UK.

3. https://www.bcs.org/membership-and-registrations/become-a-member/bcs-fellowship/bcs-fellowship-criteria/

The above lists very stringent criteria to become a fellow of the British Computer Society (FBCS) which is the highest level of membership in any IT field in the entire world. Becoming a fellow is not a mere payment of membership fee

4. https://www.rcsed.ac.uk/membership-information/member-search

Membership of the Royal College of Aurgeons of Edinburgh requires passing a rigorous examination.

The above in addition for he fact that the subject is one of two people in the world who are physicians, attorneys and clinical Informaticians at intersection of medicine, law and IT points to his notability and the reason why I created the stub for him.

As an editor, I don't think he needs Wikipedia to tout who he is as his presence in the World Wide Web is notable on many other platforms especially for his work on his blog(Dawodu.com), on MEDSCAPE and on AAPMR's Knowledge Now, the later two being the global leader on articles in medicine and in rehabilitation medicine respectively.

I think all these facts point on a need for an extensive review and also ensuring that the act of defacing a stub to hide nobility of the person in the article and then ask for deletion should never be allowed or tolerated. This act beings very one including Wikipedia into disrepute.

Thanks. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse With one exception, Wikipedia is not about what you have accomplished, but instead what others have written about you. The exception is whether you're in academics, which is not one I particularly agree with. The discussion was conducted and closed correctly, removing references before an AfD looks bad but there wasn't any malice there if you look closely (de-duplicated a link and removed a dead link which appeared to be substantially the same as the other articles), and a quick review shows there weren't any clearly overlooked sources or misapplication of WP:NPROF. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have made reference below to work that the subject did as an early pioneer at MEDSCAPE and Knowledge now. These are academic work. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Sounds like he's had a reasonably good and distinguished career. Don't see how he remotely meets notability guidelines, and the appellant clearly confuses accomplishments with notability. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the notability guidelines are reviewed, at least 4 were met if not more. We can discuss the notability guidelines in this regard.

  This includes the influence of Dawodu.com that he established which has Ben referred to on many platforms including Wikipedia.

  This fact has been well co weed on other social blogs where the site had significant influence.

  There are other grounds on notability including being part of pioneering work at Medscape and Knowledge that have been stated previously.

  The reference to other achievements were in response to previous comments like fellowship being paid for, etc and basically to debunk the premise on which those statements were stated.

  these are facts that should be viewed objectively in this regard and the site should be restored without hesitation. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, you need to read WP:BLUDGEON and understand your replies are not helping. You've got multiple editors chiming in who make a habit of dispassionately reviewing deletion decisions in which none of us were involved. Repeating the same stuff to each one of us isn't going to sway anyone. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Calm down and no need for your reaction. All I am doing is debunking some statements made falsely to justify deletion and pointing to the existence of notability for this subject.

  I will advise against your attempts to crowd-pulling by stating that everyone is against restoration and focus on replying to my response.

  Your reply is sad because you are basically stating that you and some others have made up your mind without listening to views that debunked your wrong premises.

  let me make it clear that this is a critical step being taken to see how sincere this platform is in adjudicating this type of issues The subject of this article does not need to be listed on Wikipedia as he is listed on many other platforms. His presence on Wikipedia is solid because there are many articles referencing his website. That alone is the irony of notability being defined to fit whatever purpose.

  i do hope the administrators will look deeply into this and apply the notability policy as it is defined and not just mere views or opinion of people who have their own reasons for whatever actions they are taking.

  The Wikipedia notability guidelines should be followed line by line to define final decision.

  As stated and for emphasis, his website was the earliest blogging on Nigeria and still a source of research on Nigeria’s socio-political, economic and historical issues, part of pioneer authors on internet publishing of medical articles with MEDSCAPE and Knowlesge Now with his articles referenced globally. What more notable than that?

  This is why I am urging the senior administrators to look at the notability guidelines line by line in making their final decision. I am not crowdsourcing or crowd-pulling for editors to come in and join the discussion because the issue is very clear in an unbiased mind. Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Telling a vastly-experienced editor (and DRV participant) that they are wrong about bludgeoning, by continuing to bludgeon the discussion, is a stunning demonstration of lack of self-awareness. Quite frankly, you are doing more harm than good to your own cause by writing extended, rambling missives like the above examples. Daniel (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your assertion of “vastly-experienced” is based on what? There are people who have vast experience in editing in other spheres that we need to focus on the issue and be less personal.

  My take on this remains emphasised that the notability guideline needs to be followed. I am not doing this to do anything other than emphasize the key points even if it has to be done repeatedly

  Remember that your premise for deletion and other excuses have been debunked and all I am hearing is more of personal attack on me. Let us focus on key issues of notability guidelines. Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you do not accept the statement that Jclemens is vastly experienced, then the rest of your arguments will fail on account of having absolutely no functional judgement whatsoever. Daniel (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We are now turning into insults. Very interesting bunch. Again, focus on the issue paramount to the discussion which is on notability. I can get the drift that you guys have nothing more to offer on notability and just hanging on to what was decided likely based on bias and prejudice. This makes the entire saga very sad on those editing for Wikipedia. I am here and learning. As a journalist, this is a great experience to write about later using this as a case study. Thanks. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't normally file an ANI on you for this, but you've been pushing this one article for 15 years... so I did. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair, this is a free world and not exclusively Wikipedia. The need to defend what is obviously injustice is what I have done.

  The premise for you asking for deletion has been debunked and sad that you next step is being personal and that is telling Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you the article subject? You uploaded the photo in 2012, which appears to be a selfie, and called it your own work. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Now, you are clinging to straw. And looking for little reasons to win an argument and again running from the core issues. I solicited for information from independent sources and the initial picture posted was rejected because it came from a k own site that led me to use the one that was sent to me. As a journalist, I have been using the website Dawodu.com for years to do my research on Nigeria and reason for my interest in the subject. On your question, the answer is obvious and I am not going to even waste my time on the ridiculous question. Waiting for your ANI. Hopefully this discussion stays on record to show how things are handled in Wikipedia. Running away for the core discussion on issues should not lead to personal attack except of afraid of the truth being told exposed. Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, that's NOT your own work, and you uploaded it and falsely claimed the authority to license it for free worldwide use? I mean, if we ask that Commons delete it as fraudulently licensed, it will disappear from all of your... err, Segun's Wikipedia pages in other languages, too. Your call. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure what you understand by own work. You need to get a good hand on what means. This explains why some are not showing I derata di g of the notability guidelines. So we have you as a “vastly experienced “ editor, running around meaning of notability and now also running around meaning of “own work”!! And on top you threatening and trying to shut up others with ANI. That is telling and very sad.

  Again, let us focus on discussing notability guidelines as you sound scared of that and bring other extraneous issues into this Very sad but very interesting to see the huddle at the back end of Wikipedia. Not encouraging and those higher in the hierarchy should as a matter of urgency look into this. This is why I am here engaging in this discussion ie to see the underbelly and behaviour pattern in decision making of allowing or not allowing certain articles and whether bias or prejudice is part of the dealings. Very sad indeed. Still waiting for your threat of ANI sir. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply put: if you did not take that photograph, it is not your "own work". Therefore, uploading it as your own work was false. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because DRV is not AFD round 2, and we are not being asked whether , in our opinions, the subject passes general notability or academic notability. Answering that question would require detailed review. I haven't done that detailed review because I am not required to do that detailed review for this purpose. We are being asked whether the closer assessed consensus correctly. That's an easy question. The closer evaluated consensus correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The request was AfD and routed to the closer for that purpose. Kindly address the issue of notability. We all need to be careful trying to dodge this key question because it tells on what Wikipedia is all about by some of the editors. Which is why O think this issue needs to be looked into at a much higher level and also reason why I have provided a lot of information repeatedly on this. Thanks. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ckanopueme, I think you misunderstand the purpose of DRV. It's not for arguing about notability but assessing whether or not this AFD was closed correctly. That's why Robert says that DRV is not AFD round 2. More importantly, your attempts to argue for this article have not been persuasive so it's time to take another approach rather than arguing with everyone you disagree with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A persuasive argument will be to counter the opposing argument. You guys came up with frivolous unsubstantiated reasons for lack of notability, I spent time debunking those reasons and then someone threatened ANI and others like you now bringing new reasons to stop the discussion without debunking my own argument. That is the persuasive aspect. I think it is disgraceful seeing the way things have been conducted so far with obvious bias and prejudice glaring. As stated prior, it is a shame that everyone of us in Wikipedia should bear and we need to go deep into our soul and ask on humans can go to this extent. Again, the outcome is less of concern but rather focused on proving that the subject of the article met all my ability guidelines and I hope the higher hierarchy of Wikipedia will look into this. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: With the other non-SPAs who've commented, I agree that the purpose of DRV is not to relitigate the AFD, but to determine whether the close was properly done. It was. It is also not to cast aspersions at fellow editors. I understand that Ckanopueme's near-sole purpose on Wikipedia over the course of fifteen years is to promote this obscure figure -- it's been years since they've made a single edit for any other reason -- but they would be better served by learning how Wikipedia works. Ravenswing 05:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No aspersions on fellow editors while on the other hand, reasons for lack of notability have not been properly stated while I have been threatened and insulted by others. Read the threads and judge by yourself. I can sense that few of you are crowding for this purpose. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You really do seem to have a problem with understanding that issues of notability are not within the purview of DRV, no matter how many editors tell this to you. We do not have to state that to your satisfaction. We do not need you to approve to endorse the close. Do you get any impression that repeatedly demanding we read threads when you show no signs of paying heed to our advice is getting you anywhere? Ravenswing 15:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but it looks like we need to Relist the article. The AfD nomination was not legit it first place, it looks like.

Because, the nominator did remove some refs (see here)-- not any material, just the ref, which generally would only be done if the source is unreliable or skeevy -- right before nominating. But the refs were to Legit.ng, which looks, well, legit, and does have an article here here which says that in 2018 it was the 7th most visited website in Nigeria (which is one of the most populous countries in the world), so it's not chopped liver. And it looks serious to me. And there's nothing in its article that says it's been called out for being biased or sloppy. And one to mynigeria.com, which doesn't have an article here and is more downscale, but is clearly a professional-looking real news operation and not somebody's blog or something; they say they make original content. So I don't know why they were deleted. There's not much in the way of edit summaries, but one says "remove dead link" but the removed link is not dead. And is a link to a reasonably meaty biographical article on the subject in the 7th most visited website in Nigeria... this puzzles me.

If the refs were deleted as part of a deletion of the ref'd material because the material was too trivial or too biased or something, that might be different. But they weren't. Without knowing more, it looks like the edits did not improve the article, which basically renders the subsequent deletion nomination illegitimate IMO. We would not want that to become a general thing, so why make an exception here. Unless there's something I'm missing this is a trout for User:Uhooep; I'm assuming all this was done in perfect good faith, but it's an own goal, and we need to relist the article.

(If, on the merits, the article has no legitimate reason to exist and will surely be deleted in an new AfD, I suppose I could be like ennnh whatever. But, tho I didn't drill a lot, and there is plenty of fluff, but if it is true that he is really the founder of dawodu.com well, dawodu.com looks to be a serious newspaper, so that right there along with the biography at legit.com looks to be the beginning of a place to start building a legit article of a couple-few paragraphs. (This might require User:Ckanopueme to be topic-banned from the article to prevent future re-bloating, and just do that if you want to.))

It's not a popularity contest, or about which editors we do or don't care for, or who does or doesn't talk too much. It's about whether the edits the nominator made right before the nomination corrupted the nomination (by mistake I assume, but motive doesn't matter). Looks like it to me. Herostratus (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed missing something. Version before, version after. It's true that the (single) legit.ng article is cited three times in the before version, and twice in the after; but the first two of those citations were right next to each other referencing the first sentence, and so it was proper to combine them.

The mynigeria link 404s, and was never archived; that's the one that was removed as dead. It had the exact same title as the legit.ng article, besides, which doesn't inspire much confidence. In either source. —Cryptic 11:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic:OMG you're right. I didn't see that. OMG I'm so sorry. I just looked at the highlit text. Very poor of me. Nevermind me. Herostratus (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is erroneous as those links are from other bloggers in the Nigerian blogosphere who are aware of the pioneering contribution of the article subject. When you remove such links it shows deliberate attempt to belittle the subject. It looks like a group of people constituting themselves into a Mafia gang and promoting bias and prejudice. This needs to be looked into and stopped. Isn’t it sad that no one is talking about the notability guideline anymore but more on extraneous issues.

Again, the subject has met the notability guidelines over and above and that article should be relisted immediately otherwise it becomes victory to those showing bias and prejudice Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These other editors are making it a popularity contest and probably pals as their approach is not to focus on the issue but attack the messager with additional threats of ANI.

You have articulated better than I did the removal of references pointing to notability prior to request for deletion This is ground for that editor to be sanctioned and for sake of justice that the article be fully restored. It is a very shameful thing that one is seeing and as a journalist, this experience needs to be shared to the world

Also, the guy who did the deletion (UHooep) has not been in ok Ed in any of the discussions since the deletion and it is likely he has multiple handles that he is now using to argue his case This is another very sad thing. I hope the senior cadre in Wikipedia will take notice of this method in promoting bias and prejudice. I am calling it as it is and it is very shameful. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm calling it like it is, because it's very shameful for you to resort once more to reprehensible personal attacks. Of the editors who Endorsed before this crack (myself, Cryptic, Jclemens, Daniel, SportingFlyer, Robert McClenon), we all of us have been on Wikipedia nearly twenty years. Uhooep's first edit came eight years after the most recent of us made our first. This isn't "it is like he has" anything. This is you making stuff up in your head, and we await you retracting this at once. Ravenswing 05:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse No evidence presented that the AFD closure itself was wrong, just an SPA that disagrees with the outcome. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This is not AfD round two; the consensus at AfD was correctly interpreted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Daniel, Jclemens et al.—Alalch E. 14:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Can’t fault the closure. The closer evaluated consensus correctly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An editor in good standing says that the AFD should be Relisted. It appears that User:Herostratus thinks that the nominator acted improperly. I am ready to consider that, but would like a clear explanation of what the issue is. I see that the version of the article that was nominated for deletion had 28 references. A slightly earlier version of the article had 31 references. So I infer that Herostratus is saying that the nominator deleted the 3 key references. Is Herostratus saying that the deletion of those references invalidated the AFD by removing the reliable sources that established notability? If not, would they please clarify the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which version had 31 different references?
    If you mean this version, which I linked above as "Version before" and which is the first in the diff Herostratus linked as "see here", it only has 29: the refs numbered 2, 3, and 16, "Segun Toyin Dawodu specialises in pain and sports medicine in US, also a lawyer" from legit.ng, are identical.
    The one missing from "Version after" is number 22, "Segun Toyin Dawodu specialises in pain and sports medicine in US, also a lawyer" from mynigeria.com; it reports that the article does not exist, and so does its only archive on the Wayback Machine. Which is why it was removed for being a dead link. —Cryptic 01:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Cryptic - I didn't say that a version had 31 different references. I wasn't analyzing the references for duplicates, only looking at the number of numbers. As I said earlier, I haven't done a detailed review, and don't plan to do a detailed review, because DRV is not AFD round 2. The version with 31 references is this one, and the version with 28 references is that one. I didn't review the references in detail because I didn't review the notability of the article in detail, because that shouldn't be the issue here. I hope that this clarifies my comment, but it was a question for User:Herostratus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is an unusual situation, in that an article with 28 references was found not to satisfy notability, without a source analysis table that questioned the references. But DRV is not AFD round 2. We are not assessing notability, but are assessing the validity of the close, which was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the reasons the close wasn't wrong is that what is substantiated is not a notable achievement. Scopus and ORCID are simply not that impressive: no recent articles, nothing that appears to be seminal, no huge impact. Verifiable? Sure. Contributing to notability? Unclear to no. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. I have already Endorsed the close. I am just commenting that it looks odd. We agree that the article was reference-bombed with low-quality sources. But notability is not the issue anyway, in spite of all of the efforts of the appellant to demand that we discuss notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Consensus was evaluated correctly. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright. I was apparently careless and wrong in thinking that the nomination was not legit. It was. And I'm double sorry cos this was insulting to the nominator. I'm not going to endorse because reasons, but I'm not going to vote for a relist either. It was a legit AfD and a legit deletion. However, here is full biographical article in what I think is a major publication -- 7th most read in the world's sixth most populous nation, according to Wikipedia. Quite long, way way more than a "passing mention". So that alone is getting close to meeting the WP:GNG. It's not we are overcovering the country of Nigeria, which after all has 230 million people and the official language is English. So even tho the AfD was legit doesn't mean it was correct.

I mean, sure, we don't have AFD 2 for articles, but that's only because we don't have the resources and interest. That's not a virtue tho. It's a shortcoming. If we had the resources for a two-stage consideration on the merits before some articles are deleted, that would not be a bad thing.

But besides all this there is WP:IAR. Supposing the article is relisted. Supposing it then wins. If the whole situation is just an annoying time sink and forever war, well... Wikipedia is not a suicide pact, we don't have to host any article we don't want to. If the guy is wikinotable, he's only marginally so, and if its not worth the hassle... I know that we have deleted a few articles over the years just cos they were time sinks.

FWIW over at ANI it was proposed that User:Ckanopueme be topic banned from the article, which I endorse, which I guess could fix that. But we don't have to spend the resources on rescuing this article if we don't want to, and that's quite understandable. Herostratus (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one paper wrote an article on him doesn't mean the AfD is incorrect. If he were notable, there would be other articles written on him in other newspapers, not just one article in one paper which reads like a CV in prose form. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a legit nomination! I was wrong, dead wrong, to say it wasn't, and went off half-cocked about that and, again, sorry. By our rules it should not be relisted, no. That doesn't mean the person is actually not wikinotable -- necessarily. But we're not adjudicating that now (understandably), and fine. Herostratus (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lonsdale (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted in 2021 with only two non-sockfarm !votes — one from an editor who wanted to avoid rewarding apparent UPE, and one from an editor who felt the coverage was trivial. I don't think the deletion was unreasonable given the !votes, nor do I think the trivial coverage concern was unwarranted given that some editors had stuffed the page full of ~60 references that were largely trivial. However, I think some of the old sources combined with substantial available new sourcing justify undeletion, and I'm happy to do the cleanup necessary after the page is restored.

Lonsdale is notable as a founder of Palantir and later OpenGov and University of Austin. He is also among a group of politically active tech financiers who are pretty regularly covered in the news (most recently in a spate of coverage about a new super PAC for which he is evidently helping to fundraise — see NYT, etc.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Recreate, or undelete it yourself if there's anything you find useful in the deleted history. You are experienced and trustworthy enough that you don't need to go through a draft, which is what we normally prescribe in such cases. Owen× ☎ 21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• DRV unneeded Any admin is trusted to undelete any article, to draft, sandbox, or straight to mainspace when they see that a past consensus no longer applies, and demonstrate that, through their editing, to the rest of us. Really, you've got the tools for a reason: go improve the encyclopedia and don't stop here to ask permission. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No action. Agree with Jclemens. Undelete when ready to make the edits that prove the case. G4 won't apply if the result isn't a sufficiently identical copy.—Alalch E. 14:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I do think it wise to bring this to DRV first before doing the undelete. But in any case, yeah, go for it, just avoid being a G4. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't see the need or value for bringing things like this to DRV, because I don't see why it should be undeleted. If a requester doesn't know how to write a new article from scratch and has to have it refunded, then they aren't an experienced editor. The requester in this case is an experienced editor and admin and does know how to write a new article from scratch, subject to AFD. Oh, okay. The undelete isn't an undelete, but a view deleted article to verify that the new scratch-written article isn't a clone of the deleted article. And I have occasionally asked for a deleted article to be refunded so that I could compare a draft against it, and the usual result is that the admin tells me that the draft is a clone of the deleted article, so the draft gets rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Concluding Comment - Can the checking of new articles when titles have been deleted be done at Requests for Undeletion rather than DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per all votes above, either as a draft or directly into mainspace depending on how quickly GorillaWarfare wishes to update the page to include new information. I commend GorillaWarfare for seeking clarification on this topic via deletion review rather than unilaterally restoring the article. Some users could consider that an abuse of administrative privileges (I do not). Frank Anchor 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I've created an undeletion request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader.

In the process writing up a reply to Template talk:New discussion#Edit request, I went to read up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header and found that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader was its previous iteration.

Would it make sense to undelete the old revisions of the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader (and its talk page) to the current page title Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, so that we have a longer history of how the header looked like, who edited it (attribution), and discussion about it?

Graeme Bartlett recommended (Special:Diff/1235028837) getting consensus here first. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably shouldn't be history-merged due to the parallel histories from February - April 2008, but I can't imagine why it shouldn't be restored and redirected. —Cryptic 12:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The current version is quite similar to the old version and would have been based off it, so it is required for attribution. So I support some kind of restore. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It was an out-of-process deletion. There’s no good reason to have it deleted. If attribution is required, that’s another reason to undelete. Neutral on undelete and redirect vs history merge. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree this makes sense. While I appreciate the referral here, I don't think that was necessary... unless you wanted us to publicly agree that our consent for such an undeletion wasn't necessary. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy undelete and redirect. This is uncontroversial. If it's undeleted and redirected it can still be history merged, and that does not have to be decided in a DRV.—Alalch E. 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group L.L.C (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Global company with more than 10000 employees. Innumerable credible inline news sources and books . New articles with new sources , should not be deleted due to old article as innumerable credible sources have emerged 121.242.91.74 (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group was deleted last week as G11; I believe that is what this is referring to. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and this has been before us twice before and endorsed on similar grounds: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 9, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 8. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy Close and semi-salt all relevant draftspace titles so that only registered users can create drafts in the future. Enough is enough. Given the history, I'm not even wanting to ask to see the deleted material before assuming that G11 is once again valid. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it doesn't mention the company's "economic journey", but it has most of the other hallmarks. In particular, most of the external links in the absurd refbombing are showing up as already-visited to me (though I don't remember taking more than a cursory look in previous visits to DRV); this is typical of the new ones.

  The sad thing is, the claims in the draft are such that I'd expect there to be usable sources on it somewhere, but you'd have to be daft to try looking for it among all the shallow promotion they've paid for.

  I'll try to work out a regex less gameable than the one I tested in November, but something's changed such that these queries, which used to complete in minutes, have been running for more than an hour now and show no signs of stopping. For just an autoconfirmed+ blacklisting, it seems like wasted effort. —Cryptic 13:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (And, as usual, it completed almost immediately after I complained that it wasn't going to complete. The public version at quarry:query/84908 should eventually get populated, maybe quickly if it cached well, maybe not. There were a couple new deletions since the November try, no new false positives, and nothing that would be caught by the wider regex that wouldn't have been by the old.) —Cryptic 13:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, endorse and salt all relevant titles per Jclemens above. I would do this myself but I closed the last DRV so, with no pressing need to intervene, would rather another administrator do it. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Do not SALT. SALTing in draftspace encourages the game of cat and mouse with using variations on the title. Draftspace exists to attract and contain unworthy content, let it serve its purpose. It’s easier to keep deleting the same title than variations on the title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, speedy close, and title-blacklist for non-autoconfirmed users. Enough now. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yeah... title blacklist is probably the better solution. Never used it myself, so I keep forgetting it exists. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER (a recommendation from the previous DRV). I feel like blacklisting is going to be robust enough of a solution to figure as a net postive.—Alalch E. 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Off-topic: Tariq Chauhan slipped through. —Alalch E. 16:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Alalch E. - Not entirely off-topic. The one sentence that is left about Tariq Chauhan is not enough to pass general notability, and has been nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse all previous deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Title Blacklist and list at WP:DEEPER (as recommended in previous DRV). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Salt in draft space. Useless drafts that cannot be accepted are harmless in draft space. Salting in draft space encourages the gaming of names. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ECP Salt in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If people have been reluctant to close this because they're unfamiliar with the technical side of blacklisting, feel free to punt that part back to me, or an edit request on Mediawiki talk:Titleblacklist. About half of the specific variants suggested above are feasible. It's prohibitively difficult to blacklist in mainspace only, or in all namespaces except mainspace; other namespaces, or even combinations of namespaces, don't have either problem. And AFAIK it can't limit creations to extendedconfirmed, only either autoconfirmed or admin/pagemover/template-editor. —Cryptic 06:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A non-admin closure was performed after just two days on grounds of WP:SNOW, which is disallowed under WP:NACAFD. While I don't disagree with the outcome, there were several "redirect" !voters in the discussion who (a) might have changed their !votes on their own premise (once opinion polls began to be available) or (b) perhaps had reasons to maintain their positions during the remaining discussion period, who knows. Given the procedural error, I propose re-opening the discussion and allowing an admin to interpret whether a SNOW closure is appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too disagreed with the SNOW closure. In addition to the points raised above, there seemed to have been some manipulation of the keep !votes with two new members joining and immediately !voting in the AfD.

John B123 (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate and relist. The Redirect views present valid arguments. I don't see the need to rush and close this out of process. And if the BADNAC isn't bad enough, I'm also troubled by the closer's prior involvement in editing the page and other related articles. I do give them credit for admitting their mistake, but they had ample chance to revert it, yet failed to do so. And their suggestion of getting the nom to withdraw the AfD after valid !votes to delete or redirect have been entered also suggests the closer isn't familiar enough with the process to handle NACs. Owen× ☎ 14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak relist not a terrible close as consensus is clearly leaning keep, but there are valid redirect arguments and this close is probably better left to be done by an administrator. Frank Anchor 14:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Removing "weak" after reading OwenX's vote and his concerns of the closer being WP:INVOLVED. Frank Anchor 14:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote to keep an article like this needs to be created at some point and now we have the first opinion poll this is the time to do it, buy the end of August there will likely be around half a dozen. Kalamikid (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone here is arguing that "keep" wouldn't be the outcome. We're discussing whether the early close was appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Matthew Crooks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A user SNOW-closed a discussion after just 5 hours, so short some people in certain time zones can’t respond, and on their talk page, refused to re-open the discussion. And while keepers cited how BIO1E does not apply, this does not take into consideration the WP:RECENTISM concerns, which went unaddressed.Downerr2937 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Relist Absolutely zero rationale for such an early closure. Based on the policy arguments there wasn't clear consensus for keep. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kcmastrpc Which action do you support from WP:DRV#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – the consensus was quite overwhelming. Considering the deletion request was based on WP:BLP1E, it stands to reason the majority of 'keep' votes would be addressing it. I would also disagree that concerns regarding WP:RECENTISM were unaddressed; plenty of editors highlighted the article's notability and widespread coverage, particularly with reference to past assassination attempts. I fail to see the value in reopening it, to be honest. GhostOfNoMeme 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The close of this AfD was blatantly inaccurate. There were no "strong policy-based arguments" for an aricle, only for inclusion. Qwirkle (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as closer. WP:SNOW is a shorthand for taking decisive action to avoid "long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions". I felt, reading over the discussion, that consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keep, and backed by policy-based arguments. From my point of view, we could spend a full week arguing over the AfD, which would then be closed as keep, or I could close it as keep immediately, reflecting the consensus and saving a lot of editors a lot of time. I did not see any scenario in which this AfD was closed as anything other than keep given the !votes of editors so far, our policies, and the simple fact that over the next 7 days, *more* information is likely to come to light about Crooks, and *more* reliable journalistic profiles are going to be written about him. This is not a case of WP:IAR, but it is a case of WP:NOT a bureaucracy. We are not a bureaucracy, and my close was intended to reflect the discussion's overwhelming consensus and save us all some time and thousands of words of argument. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which, put another way, was to ignore the strengths of the arguments, and treat this as a simple vote.Qwirkle (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I was not clear, what I mean is that the policy-based arguments for 'Keep', specifically, were stronger than the policy-based arguments for 'Redirect' (by far the second-most common position). This was not a vote and I did not read it as such. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Looking at the first few votes, I see blatant "other crap exists" arguments. Mmoving downward, I see notability arguments - which do not, at all, justify a separate article, only inclusion . I see a great many people whose balls are apparently crystal, justifying retention because surely an article's worth of information is bound to surface in a day..or a week...fortnight...century.

Vote, done to lessen Dramah. That I get, but I do not think it s a good idea.Qwirkle (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is important due to the third condition of WP:BLP1E, on which the deletion proposal was based. The third condition is clearly not satisfied, owing to the significance of the event and the perpetrator's notability.

"John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented."

This is why the notability discussion.

Continuing the AfD seems like a pointless exercise considering the consensus and weakness (in my view) of the arguments to redirect. GhostOfNoMeme 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, the process was short circuited and closed with a rationale that clearly endorses WP:NOTAVOTE ideals than actually looking at the consensus of arguments for and against. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The vote was overwhelming. Also, I will add that it is a bit strange that the nominee has very few edits and the account was made only 2 weeks ago and they are already aware of terms like "SNOW-closed", "BIO1E" and "WP:RECENTISM"... suspicious is all I'll say.... Inexpiable (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You may be onto something. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - While it was preferable that the AfD be kept open longer, there was no way a consensus to delete or redirect were going to happen. --MuZemike 18:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is a worldwide project, your comment fails to address the fact that editors in some timezones were never given a chance to participate. Your comment also fails to address that it was not a WP:SNOW close, as even by the numbers, there were a not insignificant number of !votes to merge, redirect or delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - It is possible the AfD vote can be revisited at a later time once the fire dies down, but the consensus to keep was there. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not a WP:SNOW keep, which is what was done. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The AFD was only around 2/3 in favor of keeping, with strong arguments on both sides. There is a consensus to keep at the time but that close, so early is inappropriate especially when certain editors will not even get to participate, myself included, who would’ve voted redirect if given the opportunity.Downerr2937 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The odds of a strong consensus to redirect emerging were astronomically remote. 'Keep' was a clear majority, and the longer the AfD remained open the larger, IMO, that majority would have become as coverage inevitably grows over the coming week. That you didn't get to participate is unfortunate, but I question the value in relisting the AfD. The conclusion was never going to be anything other than to keep. It seems like an exercise in pointlessness. GhostOfNoMeme 18:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy close. Based on the discussion, and precedent on other attempted assassins, there is zero chance that the result would be an outright deletion. It is possible, albeit very unlikely, that a "redirect" outcome could emerge, but that is a discussion for an article talkpage, and does not require an AFD to be open. Keeping the AFD open is a time sink. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the guy that shot Robert Fico on Wikipedia? Why are we giving the Trump assassin any publicity? He is not famous or notable. No reason he should be on Wikipedia. Kyūka96 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, he has his own page on the Slovakian-language Wikipedia: Juraj Cintula [sk]. Donald Trump is the former president of the United States; considerably more notable, especially for the English-language Wikipedia. :) GhostOfNoMeme 19:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no reason to run 7 days when it predominantly snow. It was a clear GNG pass with sigcov. Bruxton (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the snowball close and Relist:
  • • The appellant's point about timezones is well taken. Editors in some parts of the world would not have been able to participate in the AFD.
    • There is a distinction between a Speedy Keep and a Snowball close. The guidelines for Speedy Keep state that they should not be confused. The closer has confused them. A closer who confuses a Speedy Keep close and a Snowball close is a closer who has not reviewed the relevant guidelines in sufficient detail to be making either a Speedy Keep close or a Snowball close. There is no way that this could have been a Speedy Keep. It might have been a Snowball close, but calling the two types of close the same thing shows undue haste.
    • I have tagged the article with {{delrev}}.
    • 56-32 isn't overwhelming. There were policy-based arguments for both Keep and Redirect, and no need for an early close. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse/Keep, What a waste of time. The idea of RECENTISM is hardly a reason, as many historic and notable events are routinely cited with recent news stories and such. I've seen no "strong arguments" that support deletion of the article, before, or now. All assassins and would be assassins have articles for the same reason this one has. What is so unique about this article that it should be deleted?? If an another discussion was initiated, we would only have to relist the prior voters, and wait for the same overwhelming consensus to keep the article all over again. Someone should SNOW close this peckish and ridiculous discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse/Keep For the same reason as the previous deletion. "John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." Self explanatory! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would apply when other stuff does not follow policy. Other stuff was used as an example of policy. Also, not all three prongs were met. More people saying the same thing more and more could not have helped the closed-circle discussion; it could only have progressed that way per WP:SNOW. BarntToust (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't necessarily agree with the KEEP decision (personally I think the redirect arguments based on WP:BLP1E have some weight), but consensus is never going to be anything other than KEEP even if the article is relisted, which is why SNOW was appropriate in this case. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Most keep votes assumed that there will eventually be enough info for a separate article, ignoring that there isn't such information now. Consensus on a bad position is not what we are about. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To note, the article has gotten much more expansion now. the most votes were right! BarntToust (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All the expansion amounts to is point-scoring about his political position, what a great BLP compliant article we have! Traumnovelle (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's already enough for a separate article; by the end of the AfD - 7 days later - there will be even more. It was always going to be a Keep vote. GhostOfNoMeme 18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia gives this guy an article and a smiling picture, meanwhile Brenton Tarrant gets no article and no picture. Speaks volumes about Wikipedia's inconsistency and bias... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counter comment — In other words, we should give every perpetrator of a mass shooting his own article?? I don't think so. We are discussing assassins and would be assassins of presidents, etc. It is perfectly "consistent" and "rationale" to have an article for this individual on that basis alone. Even if we get a 50/50 vote between redirect and keep, it would result in 'no consensus' to delete. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, don't just bemoan it. Propose a split. WP:BEBOLD. BarntToust (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse More time wouldn't have changed anything. The involved editors on both sides had stated their case. Participation was high. Killuminator (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. ...Unless most of the prior voters chime in again here, which is highly unlikely, this discussion will not amount to anything worth ever mentioning again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Strong arguments were presented throughout. Even if consensus wouldn't have changed with time, the discussion was closed prematurely, in my opinion. That being said, it'll probably take less than the standard 7 days to come to a clearer consensus. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The strongest argument we saw for a Delete/Redirect was the idea of RECENTISM, which, once again, is routine for highly notable historic events. Also, the whole idea of a SNOW close is to acknowledge the hopelessness of turning a 2/3 vote to keep into a 2/3 vote to delete and redirect., requiring about 200 additional votes above and beyond those that have already voted.   Fat chance.   Hence a SNOW close. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, per arguments above. Moncrief (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As I said previously, there is absolutely no way that this person isn't going to be documented and/or written about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse further discussion will not lead to a different result; this is a poor time for pointless bureaucracy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as explained in a variety of places by Gwillhickers. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beuys (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

G14 is not applicable, Joseph Beuys does disambiguate the term "Beuys". Paradoctor (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: I'm not sure I understand the issue here. The page was created as a redirect (to Joseph Beuys), despite the confusing "(disambiguation)" in its title. Joseph Beuys is an article about the man, not a disambiguation page. It includes a hatnote to Beuys (film), but that doesn't make it a DAB. You could argue that Beuys (disambiguation) should have been speedied under R3 rather than under G14, but that's hardly worth arguing over. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (by deleting admin): G14 permits deletion of "A redirect that ends in '(disambiguation)' but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)." Paradoctor relies on the phrase in italics, saying that Joseph Beuys performs a "disambiguation-like function" simply because it contains a hatnote linking to an article about a film. However, they ignore the parenthetical -- Joseph Beuys is plainly not a set index article or list, or even remotely similar to either of those. If merely having a hatnote were enough to justify a "(disambiguation)" redirect, then the majority of substantive Wikipedia articles would require such redirects. And once nearly every article has a "(disambiguation)" redirect pointing to it, I'd suggest that such redirects would have little to no value. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No, I think G14 does apply since Joseph Beuys does not satisfy this criteria : A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists). While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page (such as set index article or list). Such redirects with {{R to disambiguation}} are expressly intended for use in links from other articles that need to refer to the disambiguation page. Using this redirect in such a context to identify an intentional disambiguation would be misleading if not outright incorrect. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page

  If you really don't see the contradiction in terms here, then there is really nothing to say. SMH Paradoctor (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a contradiction, it's a statement of fact. Having a disambiguation header on an article does not equal said article being a disambiguation page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Joseph Beuys doesn't look like a set index article or a list to me, either, and it never has. The entire purpose of ... (disambiguation) redirects is when there is no primary topic for a term and so links to that term normally need to be disambiguated, but there's occasional need to deliberately link to the disambiguation page (such as in a see also section in another disambig). Endorse. —Cryptic 19:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The entirety of set index and list articles perform a disambiguation like function whereas the article on Joseph Beuys performs an information article function that has a hat note at the top. -- Whpq (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD. Slap User talk:R'n'B for not having done so immediately on challenge at his talk page. Speedy deletion is for where deletion is Uncontestable. Someone wants to contest it. Either the deletion was wrong, or someone needs a discussion to have stuff explained. This discussion belongs best at AfD, and does not belong at DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Normally, you would be right and I would support XfD for a challenged speedy. But there's simply no value to the not-disambiguation redirection in the first place, so there's really nothing to RfD about: a page ending in (disambiguation) which neither is a disambiguation nor redirects to a disambiguation page isn't a valid page. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The value lies in learning, by the appellant, by others in seeing how the documentation of policy can be improved. If someone wants a discussion, within reason, let them have it. At AfD the discussion focus would be on the facts of the disambiguation page. Here, the focus is on whether the deleting admin did the right thing, which misses the problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What disambiguation page? —Cryptic 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s for User:Paradoctor to explain at AfD. It doesn’t belong at DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV should not be the primary forum for discussing CSD minutiae. Send these questions to XfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse G14 seems to clearly apply based on all of the facts. There's no reason to send this to further discussion when this was a technical deletion, properly performed. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Clearly correct application of G14 clause 3. Slapping a hatnote on a page does not make it a disambiguaton page. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if the page really was a redirect. A redirect is not a disambiguation page. A real disambiguation page, Beuys (disambiguation) is probably in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really was. You can see from the creation log that it was created as one; the only other edit made to it was to correct the typo in its target. —Cryptic 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To properly see, some of us need a temp undelete. Even if to see that there is nothing of interest to see. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See Draft:Beuys (disambiguation), which is a draft of a real disambiguation page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought someone might yell WP:PTM at you. One needs to know about WP:PTM to understand why the reviewer Declined (not Rejected, implying some editing could improve it!) with the reason being WP:ONEOTHER. Oh the jargon! SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The draft was declined by an AFC reviewer, and the reason seems correct. That is even more reason why a redirect posing as a disambiguation page is not a disambiguation page, because, as the reviewer pointed out, we don't need a real disambiguation page, let alone a fake one. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because Joseph Beuys is simply not a disambiguation page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Correct and proper application of speedy deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above.—Alalch E. 08:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Popular Consciousness (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the arguments put forward by the participants to deletion discussion do not conform to the Wikipedia guidelines. The main argument was that if the article was not notable it would not have so many sources -I think the issue is not the quantity of sources but the engagement with the subject. The article has many sources that simply reproduce each other, without going deeper.. Also, I pointed out that the sources that do exist do not refer to the party but to its leader, which is not the same thing.

I have the impression that the user who closed the discussion was just counting votes not arguments. D.S. Lioness (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, unanimous save for the nominator. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, unanimous agreement on retaining the article. Michalis1994 (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse , unanimous agreement to retain . None of your arguments make any sense. Also this is number 1 on the NOT to do list AlexBobCharles (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there's no other way that could have been closed. SportingFlyer T·C 13:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, but allow immediate renomination. While superficially unanimous, two of the Keep views relied on weak arguments, which isn't surprising considering their limited experience on the project. Discounting those two would leave us without a quorum. A fresh AfD will hopefully attract better participation. Owen× ☎ 14:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Read advice at WP:RENOM. Get some experience participating at WP:AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  RENOM advices includes a six month moratorium. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and I oppose an immediate renom. Overwhelming consensus to keep including reasonable arguments presented. Frank Anchor 02:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The right closure. Even if I agreed that some of the !votes should be ignored (and I do not), that would be an AFD round 2 argument rather than a DRV argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox person (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On second read, I think this discussion should have been a "no consensus" closure on the merits. The last two delete votes say the redirect has "no purpose" without elaboration, despite Metallurgist explaining that it improved accessibility, and thus hold no weight. Two valid delete arguments, (nom and Thryduulf), two valid keep arguments, and two invalid delete arguments is not a consensus to delete. Mach61 15:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse RfD closure and salting. The linked RfD is from May 2011 and could not have been closed in any other way. Subsequently content at this title has been deleted three times:
  • October 2015: A single-line "article" (consisting only of a malformed reference tag) was deleted under criterion A7 by RHaworth, criteria A1 and arguably A3 would also have applied. It's probable the author did not intend to place the content at this title.
  • January 2017: A page consisting of just "This is My site" was correctly deleted under criterion G2, again criterion A1 would have been applicable too.
  • February 2018: An article consisting only a filled-out infobox was deleted by RHaworth under criterion A3. This was the incorrect criterion (as there was content) but deletion under A7 would have been correct as there was no assertion of importance. The author clearly did not intend to put the content at this title.

  Following the last deletion, RHaworth salted it to prevent further recreation. This is presumably what is being appealed, but it is entirely unrelated to the RfD. If the desired content was an article or something else I'd almost certainly be recommending the appellant create something in draft to be moved to this title which could then be unprotected (the history suggests that keeping the title salted until content was ready to take its place would be beneficial). However, what the wants to create is a redirect identical to the one that was correctly deleted at RfD - and if that were created I would be nominating it for deletion again using the rationale I gave as my comment in 2011 as nothing has changed since then. Bare infoboxes are not content that is useful to readers, and an editor who has not yet learned about namespaces is not yet ready to deal with even basic template syntax (and template:Infobox person uses some pretty advanced syntax). Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf

  • This is presumably what is being appealed, but it is entirely unrelated to the RfD Even if the page wasn't salted, a recreation of the redirect would fall under G4. Better safe than sorry
  • an editor who has not yet learned about namespaces is not yet ready to deal with even basic template syntax (and template:Infobox person uses some pretty advanced syntax) I would dispute that. In the source editor, infoboxes have code that resemble the finished product (a vertical list of fields and values), and the visual editor holds editor's hands with the TemplateData system. As an AfC reviewer, I have seen many more instances of broken citations than broken infoboxes, and I recall being able to "successfully" vandalize an infobox as a young child.

  Mach61 17:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You were not at all clear what you were appealing. None of your second paragraph relevant to a redirect to the template namespace page, what you want to recreate, but about uses of the template in an article which is very different. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf You argued that a user who wouldn't know how namespaces work when searching shouldn't be accessing the template, and I gave counterarguments to that poistion. Mach61 20:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say they shouldn't be accessing the template. I said they shouldn't be editing it and wont benefit from viewing the template's code. This is very different from using the template in an article - compare:

{{Infobox person
| name         = Halle Berry
| image        = Halle Berry by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg
| caption      = Berry in 2017
| birth_name   = Maria Halle Berry

{{#invoke:infobox|infoboxTemplate|child={{{child|{{{embed|}}}}}}
| bodyclass  = biography vcard

| above      = {{#if:{{{honorific prefix|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific-prefix|{{{pre-nominals|}}}}}}}}}}}}|<div class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size: 77%; font-weight: normal;">{{{honorific prefix|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific-prefix|{{{pre-nominals|}}}}}}}}}}}}</div>}}<div class="fn">{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}</div>{{#if:{{{honorific suffix|{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific-suffix|{{{post-nominals|}}}}}}}}}}}}|<div class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size: 77%; font-weight: normal;">{{{honorific suffix|{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific-suffix|{{{post-nominals|}}}}}}}}}}}}</div>}}
| abovestyle = {{{abovestyle|}}}

• The two are very different, and the latter is not something that a very new user needs a cross-namespace redirect to. New editors should learn about namespaces before creating articles with infoboxes or adding infoboxes to articles that don't have them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and keep salted per Thryduulf. This should not be a cross-namespace redirect, nor should anything else exist here that's not a cross-namespace redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and keep salted there's absolutely no reason for there to be a page here, and I can't see a new RfD reaching a different result. SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It probably makes more sense to look at cite web at RfD. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer I would argue that bolsters my case for unsalting the title now and starting a second RfD later. Imagine if a new RfD for cite web found consensus to keep (or no consensus) but infobox person was still salted. Mach61 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mach61 such an outcome is very likely and entirely unproblematic, because the two templates are very different. Read the arguments presented in the RfDs and you will understand this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Relist per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_30#Cite_web. The very different results for CNR's with, IMO, very similar low utility suggests that consensus may have changed. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a big difference between a citation template and an infobox template so I don't think one is applicable to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Jclemens. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Thryduulf. -- Whpq (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the RfD, endorse the SALTing. Procedurally, the request to removing SALT should not come straight here, but should go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Come to the Review page if you think the request for deSALTing is improperly rejected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the RFD, Keep Salted - Close was and is correct. Agree with Jclemens and with Thryduulf. The argument about cite web is other stuff exists, and Sporting Flyer may be right. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OSE is about Articles for Deletion. I am making an argument from internal consistently, but that isn't inheritly fallacious outside the context of AfD. Mach61 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  missed ping @Robert McClenon Mach61 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Kharodia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The article was deleted and directed to redirect because it was unsourced. However, the subject has become notable now with his multiple lead roles in Kandy Twist, Pandya Store, Suhaagan (TV series) and his prominent role in Awasthy Vs Awasthy. I have created a draft Draft:Akshay_Kharodia which supports all these roles with reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES but a reviewer has rejected the draft. Please move the draft to the mainspace and relist it in AFD. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both the deletion at AfD and the rejection decline at AfC. None of the sources presented offer SIGCOV per GNG, let alone the elevated requirements for BLP. Most are Bollywood gossip column blurbs, or routine press releases. Whether they are reliable or not is beside the point, as they offer nothing in terms of notability. Pinging Robert McClenon who reviewed the draft. Owen× ☎ 10:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer, not much to say beyond I believe my close at the time accurately reflected the consensus of the debate, and the protection of the redirect was in line with both the protection policy and with the support of a number of participants in the debate. On the second matter at hand, I would tend to agree with OwenX above that the draft rejected at AfC does not meet the GNG criteria. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I didn't reject the draft. I declined it. There is a difference. A decline permits editing and resubmission. A rejection does not. It is true that I advised the submitter to obtain advice before resubmitting, because the title is a locked redirect that was locked due to disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Duly noted and amended. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AFD - Requesting Deletion Review of the deletion of an unsourced biography of a living person is vexatious litigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't have a separate venue for contesting the declination of a draft at AfC, which I believe is what the appellant is seeking here, rather than contesting the deletion at AfD. While I believe their appeal is without merit, I don't think it rises to the level of vexatious litigation. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The AFC Help Desk exists for submitters to ask about declines of drafts. Questions about drafts can also be asked at the Teahouse. I didn't say that the questions about decline of the draft were vexatious. It does appear that the unregistered editor is both asking to have the draft moved to article space and to have the AFD relisted. The latter is the vexatious appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I declined the draft because, in my opinion, it does not satisfy acting notability, which requires multiple major roles. The title is redirected to the major role in Pandya Store. I did not consider the coverage of their role in Suhaagan (TV series) to be sufficient, and paid very little attention to roles in series that do not have their own articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse largely based on the comments of the AFD closer and AFC reviewer. The sources provided were not sufficient for a standalone article at the time of the AFD and still are not. I do not consider this request to be vexatious litigation as it appears to have been made in good faith. Frank Anchor 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pragati Chourasiya (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article is a redirect to the page of one of her shows. Now she has already done several significant roles and is also playing the lead in Suhaagan (TV series). Ideally a recreation of the article should be allowed. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close; wrong venue. There was no deletion or XfD. This is a content dispute. Owen× ☎ 08:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division III independents football records (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not sure what should be done here. If the closer really felt that the keep votes should have been discounted as mentioned and that there was "a clear consensus to delete", then it should be deleted. The given merge target was only suggested by one person and thus feels like a supervote. Moreover, the given target very clearly won't support the giant off-topic stats dump that this would bring to it. As desperate as relists can be sometimes, maybe that would be better here to get some more eyes on this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as the closer: if the appellant isn't sure what should be done, what is the remedy being sought here? When Delete is a valid outcome, and the content isn't in violation of policy, then both Redirect and Merge are valid alternatives. My use of "selective merge" in the result makes it clear there is no intention to include all, or even any of the content in the target, which may simply degenerate into a Redirect. The choice of what, if any, to merge is an editorial--not an administrative--one. There's no harm in relisting, and I had likely done so myself had the appellant contacted me directly prior to filing this DRV. But as said, it's not clear this is what they want, and I don't believe an outright deletion is correct with a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was being generous with the relist suggestion. ATD doesn't require that you avoid a "delete" outcome if it's called for. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, ATD doesn't require avoiding deletion, it merely allows it, and I exercised my prerogative to pick an ATD that was minimally destructive. If you are arguing for deletion, as you now seem to be, please show us which part of the article's content violates policy to the point where it requires deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse-ish, I personally would have closed it as N/C, but a merger is an editorial action and not an admin one so it's one anyone could have taken, including OwenX following the close. While there wasn't support for retention as a standalone, nor was there a case that the information needed removal-just relocation. I don't see this as a super vote so there's nothing wrong with the close which certainly falls within closer discretion. Star Mississippi 14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - not a single participant !voted "merge". This wasn't a close, it was a super vote. Absolutely unacceptable close. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you may have missed Jweiss' unbolded merge suggestion (I did too at first) Star Mississippi 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I saw that. But it wasn't even their preferred stance, let alone the consensus of the discussion on a whole. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closing statement correctly dismissed the keep votes, which were primarily based in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, showing a policy-based consensus to not keep the standalone article. Merging was suggested by one user and there was no stated opposition to a merge from the delete voters. Frank Anchor 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (to Redirect, with history available to optionally merge‎ to NCAA Division III independent schools). Unless the closer immediately performs the merge. AfD consensus to merge requires a strong proponent of the merge who has a plan for how to do the merge. Leaving the article with that tag on top is a pretty poor presentation to readers. AfD should not be used as an alternative to Requested merges but with imaginary fairies who will complete the merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It doesn't matter. AfD "redirect" (the usual "redirect" outcome whereby history remains accessible) and "merge" are the same. If the outcome is "redirect" the content from history can be copied, and if someone does that, that will constitute a merger. If the outcome is "merge" and the page is not initially replaced with a redirect, the would-be performer of the suggested merge can decide to replace the page with a redirect saying "there's noting to merge after all, as this content according to my independent editorial judgement does not belong on the suggested target page". The latter can be followed by someone copying all or some of the content from history and adding it to the suggested target article, and this can be contested by reverting that addition, and that makes for a regular content dispute which is resolved by identifying the minimum of transferable items, and through incremental editing. No need for a DRV.—Alalch E. 21:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It does matter. “Redirect” means the page is no longer live. “Merge” means that the page remains as before, except with a variation of a mergeto tag, indefinitely. The “Merge” result is functionally the same as a “No consensus” result. If it was a “no consensus”, it should be closed as “no consensus”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it functionally the same as "no consensus", when, in the end, an AfD "merge" equally turns the page into a redirect as the "redirect" outcome, with the only difference that there is not a set time for doing it after closure and tagging. But there is a general expectation that it will be done. It's not like someone can say "okay, well, this shouldn't be merged after all, in my opinion, so I will remove the merging tag, and the AfD should be interpreted as a 'no consensus' discussion from now on"; or: they can unilaterally remove the tag but only if something significant is done with the content while the page is tagged, which is claimed to address the cause for the AfD's outcome -- equivalent to how an article can be restored from a redirect, given a reasonable effort, which can be contested in a new AfD. —Alalch E. 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  “Merge” doesn’t turn the page into a redirect. It leaves the page as it was but with a new tag on top. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which has to resolve into the page being turned into a redirect. It can't resolve into the status quo ante with the article staying the same as it was sans tag. (It can however, resolve into the article being relevantly changed and kept, which is the same as restoring the article from a redirect; that's a rarer scenario, not the primarily intended thing to happen.) —Alalch E. 23:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it does not have to resolve. And with not a single editor having expressed a wish to do the merge, it was a bad close. I read a consensus as per by bold !vote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I do a zero-byte merger now by copying the content over to the target article and self-reverting and redirecting the source article (one way to do it; another way would be to say in the summary at the source article: "redirect - nothing to merge as none of this content makes the target article better, and no one else has identified any such content"), that redirection can't simply be undone, and has the same status as a redirection from a "redirect" AfD. —Alalch E. 23:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You could do that zero byte merge, but it would be an independent editorial action. It would not reflect the close and could be reverted at any time on that basis. A zero byte merge is called a redirect, and the close does not say redirect. The Keep or Merge !voter, or anyone agreeing with them, would be justified in reverting you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A merger is at least two actions, one on each side. Anything that happens at the target side is an independent editorial action but the redirection at the source article isn't: the page stops being a live article per the AfD consensus that the page should not be retained as a standalone page; that's one part of the "merge" outcome. That part of the merger is fixed. The variable part is what exactly happens to the target article. That's the area of normal editorial decision-making. The editor unhappy with what if anything was merged can make the desired changes themselves by copying the content over from history under the redirect and by simply editing it. There's never a need to undo the redirection. —Alalch E. 12:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist – I intend to participate – or overturn to no consensus and allow renomination. Closing as merge was a WP:Supervote (essay) with aspects of both "Forced-compromise" and "Left-field".
  1. The AfD was relisted once, and two relists are permitted by WP:Deletion process#Relisting discussions (guideline, shortcut WP:RELIST).
  2. As 35.139.154.158 and Sergecross73 wrote above, Jweiss11 suggested merging without justification or bolding. The recommendations of WP:Merge what? (essay) were not followed.
  3. Since OwenX gave merge extra weight, I expect him to have checked that it was reasonable or, in his words, "valid". I skimmed the articles and identified obvious issues in two minutes, and I confirmed them in a few minutes more.
     1. List of NCAA Division III independents football records is a historical list of season records going back to 1973. Very few schools are included in recent years: 2024, 2023, and 2022 each list one or two teams.
     2. NCAA Division III independent schools is the current list of independent schools. The Football section contains only Maine Maritime Academy, which is highlighted in pink because it will join the Commonwealth Coast Conference in 2025. No records are included for any sport. There is a historical list of former full (all sports) independents under Former members.
     3. A comprehensive merge would create WP:WEIGHT (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, policy) problems. Merging only 2024 would have the same problems, only less pronounced.
  4. If no content is merged, I believe the redirect would be deleted at WP:Redirects for discussion as "not mentioned at target".
  5. If the merge outcome is not overturned, a merge discussion to reject merging the content and another deletion discussion will be required.
  6. Deleting List of NCAA Division III independents football records has a low cost, as recreating it from scratch would be easy. It's boilerplate and transcluded Category:NCAA Division III football independents standings templates formatted in a table. Side note: template transclusions are not creative content requiring attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline, shortcut WP:NOATT).

  Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Two follow-up comments:

  1. This is Jweiss11's recommendation at the AfD: Keep per Thetreesarespeakingtome. At the very least, this article could be merged to NCAA Division III independent schools. It includes no details beyond the destination's title and makes no argument for merging, so it should be given very little weight toward a merge outcome.
  2. Regarding WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions, but no material policy changes.

  Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Admins making ATD decisions consistent with the points made, rather than bolded !votes, in a discussion are not supervoting. They're doing their policy-based job by determining the rough consensus. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - As Jclemens says, Merge is a valid alternative to deletion based on the comments in the AFD. It is true, as SmokeyJoe implies, that Merge can be a problematic ATD because it leaves the merging to be done by gnomes. (We don't know whether to believe in fairies, but we know that gnomes are very real and do a lot of useful work.) That is, closing admins are given an option that can be incomplete. That is a policy issue that doesn't need to prevent admins from following standard closing instructions and selecting Merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (or overturn to redirect) - there is no explanation for how anything other than a "zero-byte merge" would be appropriate. A merge isn't just a "compromise" between keep and delete, it is actively making a different article worse, in a way not considered by discussion participants. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or overturn to delete - although in general I think closers should be able to implement reasonable ATDs, merging here is not desirable because the content would be undue for the target, and a redirect would violate WP:RASTONISH. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 17:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Supervote. WP:ATD is not a carte blanche to ignore a consensus, and merge closure is effectively equivalent to keep because nobody actually performs the merge. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or overturn to delete (involved). This is a supervote as others have already mentioned. WP:ATD does not override other notability guidelines since editing does not address the reasons for deletion, the merge wasn't even the first option of the one user who suggested it, and it is problematic as is per the points made by Flatscan. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• On two different days I've read this entire discussion with an eye towards closing it. Analytically, I end up at no consensus, which I find a strange outcome in this instance when relist has so much support. A no consensus close means there's still work to be done (the actual merge) so if there's going to be more work post close here, why not relist it and see if some outcome that doesn't require post-close work that may or may not ever happen can be found? Except every time I start to type up a close along those lines I end up feeling like I'm supervoting more than doing a proper IAR. So instead I just note all this down here for when someone else comes along to close this. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm reading you right, you feel you can't both close this as no consensus and relist at AFD? That's not the case, even if you're specifically seeing no consensus as to whether to relist; WP:DRV#Closing reviews, second bullet point. —Cryptic 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, as Cryptic pointed out, closing a DRV as "no consensus" and relisting the AfD is fully supported by policy. It is not a supervote, nor does it require an invocation of IAR. And as I mentioned above, I would have gladly relisted the AfD myself had the appellant approached me before coming here. I don't think your comment here deems you WP:INVOLVED, but if you prefer to leave this for someone else to close, so be it. Owen× ☎ 21:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Owen and Cryptic. This shows how my DRV skills are rusty. I will indeed close shortly. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down-ball (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion after AfD was re-listed for that express purpose. Closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly Rockycape (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You do not appear to have discussed this with or notified @Drmies. The latter is required. That said, endorse. It ran more than sufficient time after it was relisted on 28 June. Please do not bludgeon this discussion as you did the AfD.Star Mississippi 03:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Star Mississippi I could have done without a notification: tired of it already, haha. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've pinged Drmies as I was unable to add to Drmies User Talk due to restrictions Rockycape (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi: I thought this too (and originally drafted a reply to the user on my talk page that pointed them to Drmies' user talk page), but in their defence Drmies' user talk page is ECP so they can't edit it. It was discussed with Drmies here instead: User talk:Rockycape#Nomination of Down-ball for deletion. It is for this reason I assume they couldn't post the talk page notification either. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After the AfD was re-listed it was not the length of time (one week) that was the issue per se but it was that re-listing for one week did not result in any new voices. Closing did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion of AfD. Rockycape (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's allowed as part of the discussion here I'd like to raise the following point. "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." was not discussed on the Down-ball page. This was a new page and would have benefitted from time to develop. Before being listed AfD this author would have very much appreciated being given more time to develop the article. Rockycape (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "20 June 2024 Rockycape created page Draft:Down-ball": This means the page existed for approximately two weeks. The expectation that a newcomer has two weeks grace to get a newly created page up to scratch is not reasonable.Rockycape (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. You should have gotten it up to scratch before putting it in mainspace. —Cryptic 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree in principle about putting a draft together first. Have you seen the complexity of trying to follow the processes? The Deletion Review for example is not that straight forward. Rockycape (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Discussions are not relisted indefinitely until a preferred outcome is attained. I'd support a restoration to draft with a lock on moving if an independent editor thinks sources actually exist. @Rockycape I really think you should edit about something else.

  Thanks @Daniel for the correction on not advising the closer. My error. Star Mississippi 13:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi I get why you would say that I should edit about something else. I'm also passionate about Tennis, Pickleball, Table-tennis. All those sports are already well covered. It is is my other passion Down-ball that we are discussing here. It certainly would be easier to edit on other topics than Down-ball. Rockycape (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – The AfD was properly closed. The policy-based comments were quite consistent in saying that the article's sources were insufficient to distinguish that there was a specific game distinct from other similar and similarly named games and thus the offered sources failed to establish notability. If new sources were to be discovered, it would be possible to create a new draft based on them, but it should not be accepted into mainspace until the issues brought up at this AfD are properly considered. My involvement was at IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help where a question was raised about behavior of another editor. I read through the AfD at that time and saw no reason to pile on. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The two earliest revisions, which had been happily living as a redirect to Four square since 2006, should be restored, since they're unrelated to the article properly deleted at afd. (It can then be sent to RFD to determine whether Downball is a better target.) —Cryptic 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've undeleted those two revisions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate and re-close by an admin in good standing. Locking out your Talk page from an entire class of editors is effectively a request for desysop, per WP:ADMINACCT. As with a compromised admin account, any administrative action taken by such an account can be reverted by any uninvolved admin acting in their independent capacity, with a notice left on WP:BN. If you're tired of interacting with the editing public, you are no longer an admin. Changed to Endorse after reviewing the exchange with the appellant that resulted from them emailing the closing admin. Thank you, Star Mississippi, for moderating this.

As for the substance of the appeal, it is without merit. WP:RELIST clearly spells it out: A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. There is no need to keep that AfD open just to give the appellant more time to bludgeon participants. Owen× ☎ 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was an involved editor and have been dealing with the requester's sealioning at my talk page for the past few days, so I'll refrain from offering a !vote in this review, but I do believe the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. I will point out that despite the requester's protestations of being a "newcomer" and invocation of WP:DNBTN, they have been editing since 2018 and in every discussion seems unwilling to understand core Wikipedia policies on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, which is why the page was worthy of deletion and why they were unable to persuade other editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They are an SPA only here to promote this game (and badger editors about it), which is why I believe we'll need an edit/move lock if this goes to draft space. Star Mississippi 14:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is as good a place as any to refute accusations of being a badger-er. In real life I'm passionate about Down-ball (school yard game played against a wall). That's it in a nutshell. As per your suggestion stopping someone from edit/move in advance of something going into the draft space seems like over-reach. Rockycape (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  stopping someone from edit/move in advance of something going into the draft space seems like over-reach it's not, because you continue to badger and prove you don't respect the community consensus that Down-ball is not notable. The alternative is you losing any access to edit it. Star Mississippi 00:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. After reading through the lengthy discussion which includes a lot of back-and-forth (including some bludgeoning by Rockycape), I observed there is only one “delete” vote outside of the nom, therefore can not be consensus to delete. If all of the keep/ATD votes are discarded, there is not a WP:QUORUM to delete, and would have to be closed as no consensus or relisted (not eligible for soft delete as it was previously prodded by the AFD nominator). Add in support for redirect, there is a quorum supporting this page not being kept as a standalone article. Consensus to delete or redirect could come with further discussion, thereby making relist my preferred option, though I would also support an overturn to redirect. Frank Anchor 14:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect added by McMatter is a reasonable outcome, largely per Cryptic above. So changing my !vote to neutral. Frank Anchor 18:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - There were only 2 options to interpret the policy based points in that discussion delete or redirect. The deletion has occurred and it can once again be redirected to one of the other games which both claim to be same game but yet not. I would also support moving the article to the draft space, that is technically outside the scope of this discussion. @Rockycape the constant badgering, didn't help your case at all and it is probably time to go through the WP:AFC process or move on to other topics. The only 2 keep votes were WP:IKNOWIT or WP:ILIKEIT votes and had zero bearing on the discussion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As a side note I have since re-added the redirect back to Downball McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mcmatter: Down-ball now redirects to Downball. As this is a Deletion review on Down-ball, making Down-ball redirect to Downball is over-reach of this Deletion review. I am objecting to this because it has the effect of burying Down-ball and shortcutting any discussion of whether this adds or detracts from both Downball page and Down-ball (Draft) page which I plan to recreate if not restricted from doing so. Rockycape (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please undo redirect from Down-ball to Downball. I do not see any benefit other than burying Down-ball (Draft) page Rockycape (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rockycape, not one thing in your statements above is factual or correct. If a suitable version is drafted, then all of this can be overcome fairly easily and nothing I have done is technically out of process. Follow the WP:AFC process and the team there will be able to get everything situated that needs to be. Once again I recommend you stop replying to everyone's comments and let the community do it's thing without your continued badgering. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In one foul swoop you both refute everything in my statements above and try to reference my arguments as badgering. I will state my argument more compellingly. By redirecting Down-ball to Downball prevents someone from easitly recreating the Down-ball (draft) page as it adds the task of removing the redirect. McMatter's action shows how someone who is savvy with wikipedia can put up additional steps to frustrate another editors intended actions. I am deliberately avoiding casting aspersions on McMatter as I cannot know there motivation but the impact of their actions remains. Rockycape (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I should add that you took action and reported it here in this Deletion Review. If it's ok for you to take action out of process and mention it here then it is fair game for me to take issue with your actions. Finally please refrain from labelling my discussion points here as badgering as this is the current Deletion Review process here. Rockycape (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid summation of the discussion. Also WP:QUORUM is for discussions with 'very few or no comments', I don't see that as a concern in this instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse probably the correct outcome. It's clear from the few available sources there's a sport called down-ball which is different from four-square, but it appears to be just too colloquial enough to pass GNG right now. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, the close was a WP:Supervote. Not enough participants argued for “delete”. Notability unproven is not notability disproved. Non-notability is not necessarily a reason for deletion, especially when it is a common topic with very similar topics with articles; probably a redirect (keeping the history available) was a better outcome. In any case, the discussion has to support the outcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a supervote? Wow--I guess there's a first time for everything. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Drmies. Yes. One person, User:Walsh90210, said “delete”. It was an OK !vote, but the “redirect” !vote was stronger. Little else spoke to delete versus redirect. Liz’s relisting comment was particularly on point. Then you ignored Liz’s comment supervoted “delete” over “redirect”. However, I am yet to look at the content that was deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did look at the deleted content, an hour or so ago--not while I was looking at the AfD. Delete, redirect--sure. Calling that a "supervote"--well, I don't have a preference. Redirects are cheap, as DGG used to say. And there's a big difference between "delete" and "redirect" vs. "delete" and "keep". Drmies (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        I read the discussion as headed toward Redirect. Between Redirect and Delete, but much closer to Redirect. Subtle? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • @SmokeyJoe I was the redirect !voter and I only proposed it because it was a variant of a page title we do have (downball). Regarding the content, it warranted deletion and I think that was an appropriate outcome and consistent with my !vote and subsequent comments down-thread. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Request temp undeletion. User:Pppery‘s selective undeletion of two old versions is confusing. The AfD includes warnings to not confuse with downball, and it seems too hard to not confuse with downball. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not confusing. It's the desired end state if this DRV closes at endorse, which is what seemed at the time to be the consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Pppery, it was the right thing to do, going forward, yes, no issue with the redirect and undeleting the old versions. But, for the purpose of this DRV, I’m confused as to what was deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This is a clear WP:1AM situation, in which Rockycape (and one editor with three total edits) made their case but failed to convince the Wikipedia community. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the hardest things as wikipedia new page contributor is gathering support from other editors. This is something I have failed to do spectacularly. It's been an uphill battle to create a non-controversial page about a schoolyard ball and wall game. I genuinely don't know the answer of how to create a non-controversial page about a schoolyard ball and wall game and gather support of other editors. I thought it was by addressing arguments and making my case but others are very quick to shout badger-er. If others genuinely have advice on how to build support for a new page then I'd appreciate you dropping by my talk page. Rockycape (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is one thing, really, and one thing only, and that's reliable sources establishing notability. I just looked at the deleted version: it simply doesn't have any, and that's really all there is to it--and that's what the participants in that discussion pointed out. I think you disagree with them on what was reliable etc., but if you want to claim to be new to all this, then at some point--and I think this is the point--you will have to accept that more experienced editors aren't talking nonsense, and you should listen to them. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Drmies: Could you please show me how to look at the deleted version? (post the link?) I am having a lot of difficulty doing that. I would like to have the content so that if in the future I get the chance to build a draft then I don't have to start from stratch. Rockycape (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't expect any who flagged the page or participated in the AfD or Deletion review to lose any sleep over this. Wikipedia is not going anywhere and will only continue to grow. But wikipedia is no different to other places on the internet where trust is lacking. We should be having a tournament of arguments. Unfortunately here it was more of a "stacks on". Rockycape (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was expected to argue for the page I created to be kept in this Deletion review. That I have argued strongly has been used against me. That's the rub I guess.

    I have worked out for myself that one of the options of this Deletion review is for additional references/sources to be added to the Down-ball page. I have in fact being doing this in the background. I can't add these anywhere yet as I can't even see the deleted content, but I plan to add these to a new draft if I'm not locked out of doing so.

    I'll add "Allow recreation" content below here.Rockycape (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    01. Hyndman, B., Mahony, L., Te Ava, A., Smith, S. and Nutton, G., 2017. Complementing the Australian primary school Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum: exploring children's HPE learning experiences within varying school ground equipment contexts. _Education 3-13_, _45_(5), pp.613-628.

    02. Hunt, H., 2007. Counterintuitive problems in dynamics and vibration.

    03. Hyndman, B. and Chancellor, B., 2017. Are secondary school environments conducive for active play opportunities? An objective assessment across Australian secondary school playgrounds. _International Journal of Play_, _6_(1), pp.40-52.

    04. McKinty, J., 2016. Losing our marbles: What's happening to children's folklore in schools?. _Play and Folklore_, (66), pp.37-44.

    05. McKinty, J., THE HIDDEN HERITAGE OF THE SCHOOLYARD.

    06. https://ctac.esrc.unimelb.edu.au/biogs/E000139b.htm

    07. https://ctac.esrc.unimelb.edu.au/biogs/E000415b.htm

    08. https://www.kingsvilleps.vic.edu.au/page/215/Lunchtime-Clubs

    09. https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g4358011-d13226327-i718687930-Lehmanns_Farm_Park-Epping_Greater_Melbourne_Victoria.html

    10. https://www.facebook.com/kilsythps/posts/our-middle-students-have-been-discussing-the-area-of-different-shapes-and-surfac/2133337860064809/?locale=zh_CN

    11. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=5DNAEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT56&lpg=PT56&dq=%22downball+wall%22&source=bl&ots=Akb3nG_Hta&sig=ACfU3U2GKEKblNbvHVLgcRtuhh_axXEJkg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLm-DqnpSHAxVn4TgGHedHC9w4ChDoAXoECBwQAw

    12. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/downball_n?tl=true

Rockycape (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockycape, DRV is not a forum for re-arguing the AFD, providing more sources and asking that the article should be kept. It's for assessing whether the closure was reasonable. That's all that it is about and your comments have ranged all over the map from complaining about the redirect to complaining that other editors didn't help you enough. This verbosity doesn't reflect well on you or swing other editors to your point of view. Your best bet right now is asking, nicely, for the article to be restored to Draft space. Perhaps if you changed your attitude and were not so critical, editors would help you out more. This is a collaborative platform, so collaborate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair call @Liz and thank you.

Undelete to draft - For the record. Dear fellow editors (& Deletion_review contributors), I'd like to ask for the article Down-ball to be restored to the Draft space. For those following along I've added an additional five (5) references specifically about Downball Wall.

Thanks, Rockycape (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently having more collaborative conversations with other editors than I've had before and am deliberately avoiding combative ones and also avoiding replying to votes against here. If there is any mechanism to extend this Deletion review then I would very much appreciate it very much colleagues. Thank you Rockycape (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when you stop taking everything personally and making up your own rules about how things should run vs learning and understanding how to they do operate on the site. Now to answer your question you have already taken this way outside the scope of deletion review, which is just meant to review the close of the discussion. I would recommend you either take all of this to Talk:Downball or the talkpage of the draft if you are still considering going that way. Looking at the consensus that has already formed here there will be no extension for the review. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to disagree with you McMatter. In regards to next steps following the closure of this Deletion Review, I'd appreciate being sent a copy of the now deleted down-ball page. Rockycape (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting as I did on @Rockycape's talk that I think a draft should be move protected to enforce AfC and avoid this whole cycle again since while there's split on redirect or not, there's no clear consensus that downball is a distinct & notable sport Star Mississippi 12:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi I created the draft based on a discussion with Rockycape on my talk page. Please move protect it: Draft:Downball (wall and ball game). —Alalch E. 14:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done if an AfC reviewer or other established, independent editor feels it's ready, the protection can be removed without discussing it with me. Star Mississippi 01:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a restoration to draft space would ultimately be futile for the reasons discussed ad nauseam in the AfD. Of the sources the page creator brings to DRV, Hyndman and Mahony et al, McKinty 2016, and McKinty's "Hidden Heritage" describe downball as the existing wiki page does: a game played on a flat surface similar to four square. Hyndman and Chancellor includes a passing mention of "downball" with no reference to how it is played. The University of Melbourne sources were discussed in detail in the AfD and are fieldwork observations from folklorists. One describes downball the way the page creator does (with a wall); another describes the wall-based game as different from downball. Hunt 2007, a physics paper, describes a variant of downball that involves a wall. As others have noted above, and as participants in the AfD decided, there is insufficient support in the sources for a separate "down-ball" page, but it seems like there is room for the page creator to add (or perhaps better, propose on the talk page to add) a section to the downball page called "Variants" about the version of the game involving a wall, using Hunt and the U of Melbourne folklore page as sources. There's evidence that some people play it with a wall, there's just no evidence that it's a completely different game with an identical name. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rockycape, after this DRV, it might be undeleted to draftspace. If that happens, read advice at WP:THREE. On moving forward, my suggestion is to look at merging these variants of schoolyard ball games together. It is not best to have many similar articles on vaiants of much the topic. They should be compared and contrasted in a main article first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @SmokeyJoe. Also thank you for your suggestion. Rockycape (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It will never be the case that we will stably have the following two articles in the encyclopedia at the same time: (1) an article titled exactly "Dowball", about a game; (2) an article titled exactly "Down-ball", about the game downball, but in one of its variants. That's just not going to be. Moving on... So the content was about an ostensible discrete variant of the game downball that has no specific name ("downball" and "down-ball" are obviously arbitrary spelling variations and if the-thing-with-its-real-or-purported-variant(s) that is dowball and is spelled "downball" or – as any such A+B word will necessarily also sometimes be alternatively spelled – "down-ball", any of its variants will also certainly be spelled downball or down-ball, unless they have a specific name), which if truly identifiable from the sources as a coherent variant (doesn't seem to be so according to Dclemens1971), is probably only one of downball variants all equally spelled downball/down-ball, as they would all simply be nothing but downball in its ostensibly varied forms...

I understand how this may seem like a classic ATD moment; this would have been a redirect from alternative spelling (hyphenation) with some potentially merge-able topical content underneath. But I believe that it must have been bad content of the WP:SYNTH kind. One participant did !vote redirect; still, the outcome was to delete, which at first doesn't seem great. But, presuming that the content was bad, there is a reason against applying an ATD, which is how I understand Dclemens1971 suggestion not even to undelete. So, in totality, it was fine to delete this. The sources are accessible and if any statements need to be added to the downball article backed up by those sources, it should probably be done from scratch.—Alalch E. 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" - from specific notability guidelines

( https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Notability#Subject-specific_notability_guidelines:~:text=reliable%20sources%20generally.-,Notability%20is%20based%20on%20the%20existence%20of%20suitable%20sources%2C%20not%20on%20the%20state%20of%20sourcing%20in%20an%20article,-%5Bedit%5D )

I have a new argument based on new information that has come to light about wikipedia page noteability. Down-ball page should not have been deleted when Noteability is being based on the state of the sourcing in the article. (see section and link immediately above).

The editor who listed the AFD has been a lone figure who states that they went searching for suitable new sources. This is admirable but unfortunately they were unable to uncover suitable new sources. However, since then and in a short time new sources have been found which would indicate that other new sources are out there and just need to be found. To be clear I can't be certain that new quality sources will be found but more importantly others cannot be certain that they will not be found. The benefit of the doubt needs to be on side that new sources may be found. "Innocent until proven guilty" if you would allow me. The finding of new sources listed in this Deletion review necessitates that the Down-ball article should be restored or at least sent back to draft. I appreciate fellow editors taking the time to consider this new information and I apologise in advance if I am raising the ire of some. Yours faithfully, Rockycape (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockycape, this is not AFD 2, reasons for keeping will not be considered in this discussion. This discussion is only about whether the closer read the consensus correctly and whether the close of the discussion be overturned or not based on that discussion. The notability of the subject is not a part of this discussion and the way to prove whether it is notable or not, is to re-draft the article out at Draft:Down-ball and I recommend then having that draft reviewed by an experienced editor. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@McMatter, I agree this is a Deletion review and not AFD 2. However I disagree with your conclusion about the admissibility of that information in this Deletion review. My reason for raising this Deletion review remains the same as when I raised it in that "The Closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly". The newly raised information (specific notability guidelines) is relevant because it relates to Consensus.

"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus. Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant."

The closer in determining consensus should have paid closer attention to the new sources that were added in the AfD discussion and determined the result as no consensus.

For completeness, no editor has yet contented that this is an exceptional case requiring "a local consensus to suspend a guideline.

( Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. )

In summary, the newly highlighted information is relevant to this Deletion review as it adds weight to the argument for the reason behind why this Deletion review is being considered in the first place. Rockycape (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No these are arguments that were meant for the AFD, not deletion review. Read through the purpose at the top of WP:DRV. Again it is time for you to step back and go work on the draft or add your content to the Downball article as suggested by others. At this point it is very close to becoming disruptive to the process with your constant selective interpretation of policies and guidelines. The closer's job is to determine the consensus of the discussion had based on the policies in the arguments in that discussion. You brining up new arguments here to "keep" the article is moot and does not belong here, instead stop wasting your time in this discussion and follow the advice given to you by myself and others in this discussion and elsewhere. It is time to drop the stick. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - We have a situation here that we occasionally, but too often, have at DRV. There is an Article for Deletion discussion which has become difficult to close because one editor has filibustered the discussion. Sometimes the disruptive editor is arguing for deletion. Sometimes the disruptive editor is arguing against deletion. The situation is essentially the same either way. An admin is bold enough to close the problematic discussion. The same editor then appeals to Deletion Review seeking to overturn the close. The same editor then resumes the filibuster. What should be done at Deletion Review? I think that, unless it is obvious to the editors at DRV that there was an error, the editors at DRV need not review the filibusters in depth, but can Endorse the close, because bludgeoning a discussion should not be rewarded. If another editor whose participation in the AFD was not disruptive (or who did not participate at all in the DRV) wants to appeal, DRV should give them full attention. This is such a case. The same editor who filibustered the AFD is filibustering the DRV, and this conduct should not be encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both because this was a correct closure and because the appellant should not be rewarded for filibustering. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point I'm happy to put a line in the sand and withdraw from providing further input. If an individual is suggesting sanctions then I think that is over-reach. It's embarrassing to review the large blocks of text that I've added to this deletion review so I've removed multiple comments. I'm also ok if they are undeleted.Rockycape (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have given Rocky a final warning for, among other things, So instead of the easy low blow of impugning my motives please take a look at yourself. and the ongoing bludgeoning. If it continues, I strongly suggest a p-block to allow consensus to form. Star Mississippi 01:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Star Mississippi, I apologise unreservedly for the comment and have removed it now. regards, Rockycape (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to offer an general apology to all for bludgeoning of this Deletion review and the preceding AfD. It wasn't my intention to bludgeon and it would have been much better to stop earlier than this Deletion review. When I most recently read about bludgeoning with a clear head I realised my mistake. I'd like to add that several fellow editors were trying to help by messaging directly to warm me. You particularly have my thanks. Rockycape (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and go build an article in draft or sandbox space that demonstrates notability through sufficient independent reliable sources. Please. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1971 East Central State Academicals: Manuwa/Adebajo Cup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of the deletion of the page 1971 East Central State Academicals: Manuwa/Adebajo Cup. The page was deleted and moved to Draft:1971 East Central State Academicals season by reviewers User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Classicwiki. I did not create this title or the content in the draft, which is invalid.

The original content I created under "1971 East Central State Academicals: Manuwa/Adebajo Cup" meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. The move and deletion were done without proper consensus or discussion with me, the original creator.

• Reason for review: The original title "1971 East Central State Academicals: Manuwa/Adebajo Cup" specifically highlights the important event and is more precise than the draft title. The reviewers created the title "Draft:1971 East Central State Academicals season" and added invalid content that does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines.
• Attempts to resolve: I have tried discussing the matter with the reviewers on their talk pages, but we have not reached a resolution. I have also sought input from the article’s talk page but have not received a satisfactory response.

--Msogbueze 12:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative close. Deletion Review is not an appropriate forum to discuss a page move/draftification during new page review. There is no deletion decision to review. Discussion needs to take place on talk page. There is no evidence that the nominator discussed this on the other editors' talk pages either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close - I am not entirely sure what the filer is requesting, but it does not appear to be within the scope of Deletion Review. There may be three content issues, none of which are in scope of DRV:
• 1. The article was draftified. Either it can be submitted for AFC review, or it can be contested by unilaterally moving it back to article space, which can then in turn be contested by AFD.
• 2. The page was renamed. The title can be discussed on the draft talk page or article talk page, or it can be Moved, or a Requested Move can be used.
• 3. The filer says that the content in the draft is invalid. The content in a draft can be discussed by normal editing and draft talk page discussion. If the draft is moved back to article space, the content in an article can be discussed by normal editing and article talk page discussion.

Deletion Review is the wrong venue for whatever the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail DHP1 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was not a consensus for deletion in this discussion. The initial comments were all either "there are no sources" or "there is no proof this exists", which I fully refuted by finding multiple reliable sources that demonstrate existence. After I presented those sources there were only three comments left, one of which clearly had not read anything other than the nomination statement. One comment from the nominator favoured merging or deleting on the grounds that few people had engaged with the discussion, and one !vote recommending a straight keep (indicating the existence of additional sources I did not present, and which nobody engaged with). The closing summary clearly does not accurately represent the discussion - nobody mentioned the sources were scattered, and 50% of the people engaging with them wanting the article kept and 50% open to a merge is not evidence that I'm "almost alone" in thinking it warrants keeping or merging. Outcomes of merging, no consensus, keeping or relisting for more input would have been reasonable readings of the discussion but straight deletion was not. In the discussion with the closer Sandstein started by claiming that sources conclusively demonstrating existence do not invalidate !votes based on sources not existing and no proof of existence and since then has not responded at all in about 4 days despite engaging elsewhere on their talk page. Black Kite's comments at Sandstein's talk are ones that might have been useful discussion points in the AfD but were not made there (and are not entirely correct anyway). Andy Dingley also states that it might have been closed as delete because they !voted keep, I don't have an opinion about whether that is true or not but iff it is then it's significantly problematic even ignoring everything else. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partially struck per Special:Diff/1234905812. It is factual but continues to be remarkably drama-causing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (to no consensus, or possibly redirect). I didn't see this discussion until it had closed, or I would have commented that there is enough here to keep something, even if it's only a redirect. Every one of the commenters who !voted "Delete" pre-dated Thryduulf's sources, and I suspect that some of them might have re-assessed their comments in the light of them, especially as one said "I'd maybe merge this ... but we don't have a source", another said "if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention..." and a third said "Not a single source provided to support the locomotive's existence". Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for additional input or overturn to no consensus. Andy Dingley's keep is the decider here - if that vote doesn't come in, it's clearly a delete, with only one person advocating for an ATD. But the delete !votes are that it's unverifiable or unsourced, and that's definitively wrong. It's not the closer's job to assess the sources, either, which was suggested. A third relist would be painful to the nom as expressed in the discussion, but would allow for more perspective. SportingFlyer T·C 13:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to allow additional responses now that good sources have been found. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - User:Andy Dingley's parting comment on User:Sandstein's talk page is just S**t stirring. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]