Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I think this should not have been deleted as large non-free, but was actually a mislabeled PD-text file. I brought this up on the copyright discussion noticeboard and received little notice besides one concurrence from Aafi. I would like the original file (dated 04:12, 13 October 2024) restored at full resolution so it can be moved to Commons as {{PD-text}}. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The text on the image is well above the threshold to be copyrightable. So is the portico logo in the upper left. Endorse. —Cryptic 23:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The logo is on the Commons as a text logo: c:File:Internet Archive logo and wordmark.svg. I agree about the text. —Alalch E. 01:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the text on the image as it is in the most recent file is fairly long and copyrightable; however, I'm specifically requesting restoration of the first upload, which was a much simpler webpage that does not qualify for copyright. All four of the component logos are also text logos and on Commons already. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Cryptic. Restore as WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. The original 04:12, 13 October 2024 file was erroneously uploaded as a non-free work when it is in fact not copyrightable, and then it was replaced by successively more copyrightable files, as the outage notice was made progressively longer. The original notice is historically the most important, serves best as illustration, and the file should never have been "updated", which was an obvious editorial error caused by editors believing that Wikipedia should be "synchronized" with another website to deliver the latest notice from that website (???), when the image only serves to illustrate the historical event.—Alalch E. 00:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - There isn't any record of a deletion discussion or a deletion log. Is this a request to undelete a larger, higher-quality file? Also, if the purpose is to move the higher-quality image to Commons, is English Wikipedia Deletion Review even the right forum to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The revision with the full resolution 04:12, 13 October 2024 file was revision deleted subject to WP:F5: {{subst:Orphaned non-free revisions}}, {{subst:Orfurrev}} – for revisions only. This was done correctly. —Alalch E. 01:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No action. The image is clearly above the threshold of originality. Deletion of larger resolution versions was correct. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you clarify what you think passes the threshold of originality? The webpage text is extremely simple and I can't imagine a court even considering a claim to copyright over a standard "we apologize for the inconvenience" message. The text logos are already on Commons, so I feel like the community there has already made a determination that they are not copyrightable. As it is the low-resolution image is not useful for its intended purpose as it is too low-resolution to read the text. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to FfD as there is a reasonably articulated challenge to the speedy F5 deletion of the requested revision, which may or may not have the same copyright issues as later version(s). Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to FfD per Jclemens. It does appear to be above the threshold of originality, but I'm not expert and worth discussing. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Swaraj (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I would like to say that the deletion of this was unjustifible that it happned WITH OUT AN PROPER DEBATE and even the talk page was deleted I only have 1 question? why? I request for the talk page to be renstated and the flow debate to continue (it is to note no proper consisnes was reached) before the deletion of the article and again request the talk page to be renstated with also the article for the time being ( out of context - I swear if there is a loophole allowing this I don't even know what I will do to myself anyone likes cats here?) Sarim Wani (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected a spelling mistake in the article title given in this DRV submission. Thincat (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This was a G11 deletion, which does not require debate if it was unambiguous. Non-admins can't see the text, so an undeletion for review purposes would be welcome... but I'd say that about 75% of G11 deletions are sustained by the peanut gallery here, so an undeletion for review purposes doesn't mean you have a basis for complaint. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. This isn't as bad as this user's version of Jairam Kumar Mahato (also at DRV) was, and I think I'd have neither deleted nor declined this, but I'll endorse it now that someone with a thicker skin pushed the button. —Cryptic 23:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse G11. Even if described somewhat neutrally a particular party's initiative is per se promotional, and so even without wanton puffery, I see it as being sufficiently promotional that a deletion discussion was not needed. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens given that In this context, "unambiguous" means that the deletion was clear and straightforward, without any room for doubt or confusion. Essentially, it indicates that the content in question was obviously promotional or inappropriate, making the decision to delete it a clear-cut one.

  if this the meaning of "unambiguous" here then:

  this point should be clear that the deletion was not "unambiguous" and certainly had rooms of doubt. The following deletion was not justified without a proper debate Sarim Wani (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G11 and Send to AFD. If I had seen this at AFC, I would have declined it for failure to show notability, and probably for tone, but I would not have rejected it or taggedit for G11. If I had seen this at AFD, I would have written a source analysis if I had time or found time. If this is sent to AFD, I will write a source analysis. In my opinion, it reads like a draft on a non-notable organization, rather than an advertisement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I will restate that speedy deletions should be non-contentious, and contentious nominations for speedy deletion should be sent to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11, send to AfD. Definitely promotional in tone (and non-encyclopedic) but I don’t think it could be described as unambiguous advertising. If the topic were notable (I doubt it is) I think a neutral article could be written on it, so it’s not a case for G11. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarify I would like to clarify this that the subject is notable (I had provided proof in the talk page) :)
  • Comment I have edited the article please let me know if there is still some promotional tone in it :)

Clarify You all are open to edit it :)

Sarim Wani (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment obviously I'm not going to take part otherwise, given that I requested the G11, but just to point out that the subject of this article relates to an ongoing election campaign, which IMO makes it particularly promotional, in the WP:SOAPBOX sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I would have G11'd that as well: exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten if it were notable. SportingFlyer T·C 07:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  please tell me where the "promotional" material is I am edting it (open to edit for anyone)

  User:Sarim Wani/Mission Swaraj - Wikipedia will be waiting for you're response! Sarim Wani (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarify I believe that I have already heavily re-weitten the artice and believe it is now not in a "promotional tone" User:Sarim Wani/Mission Swaraj - Wikipedia

  Sarim Wani (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G11. While some content is promotional in nature,it is not exclusively promotional in nature. I don’t think this subject is notable and the article probably wouldn’t have any chance at AFD, but the G11 deletion is not correct. Frank Anchor 14:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• With a distinct level of regret, overturn G11 and list at AfD. This has little chance of surviving at AfD, and for that reason overturning here only to likely delete in 7 days time feels like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. However, this doesn't quite meet G11 criteria and I think achieving a final resolution via AfD based on community consensus might be better for everyone so that this issue can be put to bed. Any AfD will need to be closely monitored by uninvolved administrators to ensure it stays on track. Daniel (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Like Cryptic, I probably wouldn't have G11'ed it myself, but I'm glad someone else did. Sending it to AfD is a waste of participants' time. Now that the deleted content and sources are visible to all, we can exercise a form of certiorari, and adjudicate both the DRV and the presumptive AfD together. Even those here calling to overturn the G11 seem to agree that the article will most likely fail AfD. Sending it to AfD will not only waste time there, but the appellant's record makes it clear it'll end right back in DRV afterwards. The more I see from this appellant, the more convinced I am that we will not get a well sourced, NPOV article from them. Older versions of their User page make it clear they are here to promote, not to build an encyclopedia. I'm a big believer in due process, but not every POV-pusher needs a soapbox here. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I wrote my remarks, the applicant has been blocked indefinitely. If they remain blocked, I can get on board with this viewpoint. My perspective was I felt this issue wasn't going to go away unless the community spoke at AfD clearly to bin this content. But, without the editor pushing the cart along the path, we may be able to get away with not wasting the seven days at AfD. I'm easy with either now, to be honest. Daniel (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list per Daniel. Owen's not wrong, but.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Appellant has been indefinitely blocked per discussion at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. I still think G11 was not appropriate here, but given the appellant's block and the near-certainty of deletion once it goes to AfD, I wouldn't object to an WP:IAR outcome to let the G11 stand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jairam Kumar Mahato (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article "Jairam Kumar Mahato" based on new evidence and arguments not discussed in the original deletion discussion.

Jairam Kumar Mahato was responsible for launching a notable movement in Jharkhand, India. Specifically, his protests led to changes in the recognition of regional languages, where languages such as Bhojpuri, Magahi, and Angika were included in the list of regional languages for state-level examinations in 11 districts. He strongly advocated for promoting local languages and demanded that jobs in the state be reserved for Jharkhand natives, preventing individuals from other states from gaining these opportunities.

This qualifies him under Wikipedia's notability guideline for people as: 1. **Biography**: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." 2. **Politicians and Judges**: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

Additionally, he does not fall under "People notable for only one event," as his actions and media coverage span multiple related events (2 to be exact), thus meeting the threshold for separate documentation.

If required, I can provide citations for these claims. Thank you for considering this request. Sarim Wani (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Jharkhand’s youth rallying behind this 30-year-old political outsider? Jharkhand withdraws Bhojpuri, Maghi as regional languages from Dhanbad, Bokaro amid protests Jharkhand election: a young leader’s growing popularity leaves established parties worried JLKM

above are some of my supporting citations

I request for my and @Genius64868: deleted articles to be immediately converted to at least draft articles at least for the time of this discussion and the links of those articles to be posted here so that the merger and work of the articles can continue for the time being Sarim Wani (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure; it could not have been closed any other way. Having said that, I'd favor restoring to draft so you can add sources. I can't see what sources were in the article at the time of deletion, but nothing about the commentary on the article suggests GNG was met, and I'm also uncertain about whether the new sourcing would be sufficient in combination. Hopefully, the AfC process can be helpful, but at least that should clear the identical recreation hurdle (CSD G4) so that if you did decide to put it into mainspace yourself, another AfD rather than speedy deletion would be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarim Wani's recreation which was speedied as a G4 cited only this, a duplicate of the same article hosted on msn.com, and this. I'd've G11'd it even without the AFD; removing the nonpromotional sentences would've left it as an A7.
    The sources in the last revision deleted at AFD were [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. —Cryptic 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's pretty much as I expected it would be. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there are two related but separate matters at stake here: 1) the AfD closure which this DRV is asking us to review; and 2) (implicitly, at least) the events leading up to this DRV.

• RE (1), there is no doubt that the AfD was closed correctly as reflecting clear consensus; therefore (and saying this as an uninvolved editor) I fully endorse that closure.
• RE (2), I'll happily concede that the G4 speedy request which I executed on Jairam Kumar Mahato wasn't strictly-speaking valid, in that the new version wasn't "substantially identical" to the one deleted following the AfD. However, given the AfD concluded that insufficient evidence of notability had been provided, and since the new version (created only days later the AfD closed) provided even less of such evidence, I didn't see any point in taking the article to another AfD to re-litigate the matter on weaker grounds than before.

Arguably, I could have draftified the new version instead of speedying it, which is indeed what I offered to do here, but rather than taking up that offer the author of the new, G4-deleted version decided to open this DRV instead, in my opinion unnecessarily. The offer to restore the article to a draft still stands, assuming the author agrees to go through the AfC process rather than (re-)publishing it directly as it stands. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please don't G4 something that's not substantially identical. Draftifying it with instructions is perfectly valid, but a G4 speedy is a stricter bar than many admins apply in practice. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this clearly looks like a classic article on a political candidate actively contesting an election, which we also see from the "please don't delete before the election" plea in the AfD. I did have to look through sources to see if he was otherwise notable, but I would keep deleted unless he wins the election. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Now I am even more confused

  For everyone who has not heard my stance/ are too lazy to go up here it is in plain light

  I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article "Jairam Kumar Mahato" based on new evidence and arguments not discussed in the original deletion discussion.

  Context:

  Jairam Kumar Mahato was responsible for launching a notable movement in Jharkhand, India. Specifically, his protests led to changes in the recognition of regional languages, where languages such as Bhojpuri, Magahi, and Angika were included in the list of regional languages for state-level examinations in 11 districts. He strongly advocated for promoting local languages and demanded that jobs in the state be reserved for Jharkhand natives, preventing individuals from other states from gaining these opportunities.

  Additionally, he does not fall under "People notable for only one event," as his actions and media coverage span multiple related events (2 to be exact), The launching a notable movement and The recent elections coverage

  thus, meeting the threshold for separate documentation. (Please note that the following person has also got a lot of the obc vote in Jharkhand making him even more popular.

  some of the supporting recourses below:

  https://jlkmparty.org/ https://scroll.in/article/1075548/in-jharkhand-a-young-leaders-growing-popularity-leaves-established-parties-worried https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/Feb/19/jharkhand-withdraws-bhojpuri-maghi-as-regional-languages-from-dhanbad-bokaro-amid-protests-2421373.htmlhttps://www.newslaundry.com/2024/11/14/why-is-jharkhands-youth-rallying-behind-this-30-year-old-political-outsider

  Context End

  This qualifies him under Wikipedia's notability guideline for people as:

  1. **Biography**: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."

  2. **Politicians and Judges**: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

  Please understand that this user stands under 2 notability fields and a wining of an election is not mandatory for the candidate to be listed on wiki that's why I understand zero things which are listed under this please tell me if I am not getting something which I have to get

  thanks :)

  Sarim Wani (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I Think I you all are misunderstanding me or I am misunderstanding you

  more context

  I am trying to justify notoriety here (of the person) I am suggesting 2 options so that the work can still continue

  1. reinstate the article (no drafts and open the deletion review there that way this mess is avoided I will still continue working on it)
  2. reinstate the article as draft (no deletion review. I can complete and cite the article and the article can be reinstated as an article (my article not the other one)

  I also request my article to be sent to me by email asap Sarim Wani (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sarim Wani, I think you are misunderstanding what is happening here. AfD and Deletion Review are very different processes. In the AfD discussion, editors discussed whether they thought the article should be deleted or not. Here, in Deletion Review, the question is whether the person who closed the AfD was reading the consensus correctly. So if everyone at AfD was saying "we should delete this article" and the editor who closed the AfD said "everyone was saying we should keep this article", they would be wrong and editors here at Deletion Review would say "no, that editor made a mistake, and we should overturn the decision". Instead, everyone at AfD said "we should delete this article", so the closing editor said "everyone says we should delete the article", and so everyone here is saying "the closing editor was correct, everyone did say that".

  You should probably also read WP:SCAM, because you might be contacted by people pretending to be Wikipedia administrators or special editors who say they can get the article back if you pay them. Do not pay anyone money for a Wikipedia article. It's a scam that often targets people who don't want an article deleted. They cannot do anything, they'll just take your money and vanish.

  I hope that has been at least a little bit helpful to you, and wish you happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AFD deletion based on unanimous consensus. No opinion on the G4. Restore to draft to allow Sarim Wani or another user to improve this article to the point where it can be mainspaced based on several additional sources presented above that may or may not be GNG appropriate (DRV is not the venue to evaluate sources). I would highly recommend that any recreation attempt go through the WP:AFC process, though this is not a requirement. Frank Anchor 14:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to clarify this that the following desions were made

  1. the following persons meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) (proof above
  2. The fist article will be deleted
  3. my article to be Restore to draft until its ready

  or

  no this does not meet afc delete it

  which one is it? Sarim Wani (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  beacuse if it still does not meet afc even after that concrete proof I am willing to explain it all over again... Sarim Wani (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  or

  1. the following persons meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) (proof above)
  2. my article to be Restore to draft until its ready

  Sarim Wani (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  POINT TO BE NOTED THAT ENTIRE DEBATE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jairam Kumar Mahato IS BASELESS My analysis to the "debate" [16] Sarim Wani (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  google docs also uploded :) [17] Sarim Wani (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Points to be noted (from my side)

  1. the following person(s) clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jairam Kumar Mahato is baseless [18]

  I advise

  • my article to be restored (draft or normal) and re-open the delete discussion there so I can properly give it my peace of Mind (i.e) have concrete proof for any further debates

  or

  • the article (my article) to be straight up restored (draft or normal) Sarim Wani (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please slow down, you don't need to respond to every comment made, and you don't need to keep posting the same argument repeatedly. Half the edits to this discussion are now from you, which is starting to get awfully close to WP:BLUDGEONING. Just let the discussion run its course, please. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  got it... Sarim Wani (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last question (Pleas dont ban me here too) (here everyone have a free goat!)

soo there is no process to repon debates so that's why we have "recreate it" and then we can "re review it"

Am I correct? (I am new here don't know a lot of stuff please don't ban please) Sarim Wani (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun a discussion on Sarim Wani's talk page to explain the process to them and answer any questions they may have. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the only reasonable closure of the deletion discussion.
  • • The purposes of DRV include arguing that the closer was wrong, but not that the community was wrong.
  • Allow Recreation of Draft and review of draft.
  • Allow Undeletion of deleted article to draft space.
  • Caution to appellant: You have already been partially blocked once for bludgeoning a deletion discussion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus was correctly interpreted. There are no grounds for a DRV#3 review, since the appellant participated extensively in the AfD but failed to raise any of these arguments there (not that the arguments would have been successful). Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually, Sarim Wani didn't participate in the AFD discussion but the article creator, Genius64868, did. Sarim Wani then recreated the deleted article and that was deleted via CSD G4. If I was them, I'd be arguing that the original article be restored to Draft space as it was in much, much better shape that the recreated version was. But Sarim Wani, there is no point in continuing to argue here as many participants in this review already recommended restoring this article to Draft space.

Additionally, Frank Anchor, we always advise content creators who are working with versions of articles that have been deleted through an AFD that they should (even must) go through AFC rather than moving the draft article to main space. The AFC reviewer can check and make sure that the problems raised in the AFD aren't still present and also it avoids questions about a possible CSD G4 tagging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can we restore both and merge them then? Sarim Wani (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. Must have subconsciously conflated the bludgeoning in both discussions. Will strike. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for an independent actor to end debate with :

• Endorse. Allow Undeletion of both deleted article to draft space
• Allow Recreation of both articles to draft, and Meger them and then re-review of draft (after some more editing)

Thank you

Best regards Sarim Wani (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Appellant has been indefinitely blocked per discussion at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II weapons of Turkey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Inscurtible explanation given upon close, was not able to extract a sufficient explanation from the closer on their talk page so here we are (please excuse if there are errors in the formatting, I am a regular at deletion discussions but a novice at contesting them) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Once you discard the non-P&G-based !votes, you're left with no quorum to take any action, let alone consensus to do so. Merge and Redirect are great alternatives to deletion, but in the absence of consensus against keeping the article, they are not valid alternatives to retention. Closing that AfD as anything other than no-consensus would have been a supervote. I also commend Asilvering for their patience and civility in the face of incessant bludgeoning by the appellant on their Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: can you explain how a redirect is an alternative to deletion not a type of deletion? Often after I see a discussion closed as delete the page is turned into a redirect, is that not supposed to happen? Note that the substance of the redirect vote is "No compelling reason that it should exist." which leaves me to wonder how three editors (myself, Conyo14, and Geschichte) don't make a quorum opposed to retention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No compelling reason that it should exist is not a P&G-based argument against retention, and Conyo14 didn't even argue for deletion. One !vote isn't quorum. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to argue that it lacks sufficient coverage to be kept. Nobody found more sources, so they're saying it doesn't meet GNG. Wikipedia:QUORUM seems to be met. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They said nothing of the sort. You are trying to ascribe your own views to them. Neither you nor the closing admin is a mind-reader. Let's stick to what was actually said there. Owen× ☎ 01:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"but nevertheless the article might not maintain WP:GNG." followed by "I mean I've only found the one source" (indicating that they have not been able to establish that the article meets GNG) and you didn't address the point about QUORUM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of WP:QUORUM is met, apart from the fact no one ever tried to PROD it. Someone opposed deletion and the AfD had decent participation. QUORUM is for instances where there's an AfD with little to no participation outside of the nominator. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to get on the same page, OwenX's entire argument is based on quorum applying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, their argument isn't. They're saying not enough people agreed to delete this in order to have an alternative result to "no consensus." They are not quoting the Wikipedia policy on poorly attended AfDs. SportingFlyer T·C 02:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do you need more than one person to agree if there are no policy or guideline based arguments that disagree? What quorum is that then and where is it written down? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking the closer to conclude your interpretation of the AfD is the only correct interpretation, which is not how the AfD process works. Given the nature of that discussion, a delete close would clearly be a WP:SUPERVOTE, especially considering no one else specifically agreed with you. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm asking where I can find this claim about quorum written down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I don't see any other way this could have been closed, honestly. Furthermore, reading the closer's talk page, you were able to extract a sufficient explanation from the closer. Trying to claim this should be overturned for not getting a sufficient explanation is not only not a reason to overturn a close, it's wrong on its face. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No correct deletion rationale was articulated. SKCRIT#3 applied the entire time, as "not participating in the war" is not a rationale supporting "not notable" which would, if true, be a rational reason for deletion. Really, it would be nice if some of our new admins could go around patrolling AfD for similar inadequate rationales and just closing the discussions (even NPASR, although I think RENOM's waiting period is an appropriate consequence to discourage frivolous nominations) so as to not waste time. Even if "NN" was a valid standalone rationale, no BEFORE was described--again, lack of effort on the nominator putting a greater burden on everyone else in the process. Disappointing all the way around. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Two wanted to delete it, two wanted to keep it, one said redirect it, another said merge it, and one didn't vote at all. No consensus to delete. Dream Focus 05:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as no consensus. Not seeing a consensus to do anything emerging in this AfD after two relistings, and I can't see how it could have been closed differently. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There is a numerical majority to not keep the article (4 delete/WP:ATD vs. 2 keep), however there were no compelling, policy-based arguments to delete or even merge. No consensus was certainly a viable option and possibly the best option. As the closing admin stated, a merge discussion can be held at the article's talk page. Frank Anchor 14:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources not a compelling policy-based argument to delete? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No proponent of delete/merge made the argument that there was a lack of significant coverage, so such an argument can not be considered. The arguments made were I don’t think this is notable in the nom statement, No compelling reason that it should exist without any justification in Geschichte's redirect vote, a somewhat-valid WP:NOPAGE argument by Buckshot06, stating that the equipment can be listed in an already-existing list article, and a delete argument that explains there is no policy-based reason to keep the article but fails to make a policy-based argument to not keep it. Frank Anchor 16:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is that not a policy-based argument to not keep it? No reason to keep is a reason to delete because not being notable is the default, demonstrating that it is notable is the responsibility of those arguing for notability (and is generally accomplished by providing in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources) and they failed at that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have the burden of proof backwards. We have DEL#REASON, not KEEP#REASON. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:N says: "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty of arguments against notability. None of them were made in the AfD. Not that we're a court or anything, but you can't raise an issue on appeal that should have been argued, but wasn't, in the prior proceeding. Closers are to evaluate the arguments made, not the arguments that should, could, or might have been made. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I clearly see that there is endorsement for the close (although the grounds appear to differ as they normally do), for my own education could you please explain how the plain reading of WP:N is incorrect and there is no burden to demonstrate notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The burden is on those who recommend deletion to show that this action is the right action. Articles existing is the stable equilibrium. You need to introduce force to the system to get something moving. The force is the argument that there is a reason to delete, and if the specific variant of that argument is that a list topic is non-notable, the arguments needs to explain that the necessary conditions for notability weren't fulfilled. —Alalch E. 09:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what those before you should have said but didn't, and you didn't notice that they hadn't said it, and then you didn't say it either, meaning that no one said the only thing that needs to be said. —Alalch E. 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, now I see that you did say I have not been able to locate any independent significant coverage of the topic and there is none on the page, so unless I'm missing something it doesn't meet the requirements of a stand alone list, which is a fine argument. —Alalch E. 10:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• comment FWIW, I was able to scrute the closer's reasoning on his talk page just fine.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Sometimes when the arguments for both keeping and deleting are inscrutable, there really is No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  😵 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. If you think it's appropriate to close an AfD with two keep votes, a redirect, a merge, and only a single affirmation for deletion as anything other than "no consensus", you're welcome to take it to WP:DRV for a sanity check" from the talk page (from the talk page)—bad explanation. That is not why there was no consensus. There was no consensus because we don't know why the page should be deleted. Should it be deleted ... because Turkey hardly participated in WW2 ... but it did, kind of? Comments like: I don’t think this is notable, No compelling reason that it should exist, or There is currently no policy or guideline based argument for keeping the article don't contain enough information about why the page should be deleted.
  Edit: I am striking a part of my comment, as my assessment of this discussion has changed after finally reading Horse Eye's Back's comment under the nomination (sorry for missing it the first time). This could have been closed as redirect. I can't advocate overturning because a no consensus close was still reasonable and under discretion. I disagree with many statements that underpin and endorse this particular close, and what I don't agree the most with is the mention of "quorum" (... I'm starting to gripe about this, I'm aware) —Alalch E. 07:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By all means, how many valid, P&G-based Delete !votes do you see in that AfD? I see one. That would not normally be sufficient for a closing admin to take action, unless it was unopposed, which wasn't the case here. Quorum, like consensus, isn't based on counting noses, but on weighing P&G-based arguments. If an argument like "No reason to keep this" doesn't count towards consensus, it doesn't count towards quorum either. With one legitimate !vote to delete, the best we can do with this AfD is treat it as a contested PROD. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Duki coal mine attack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Firstly, AfD is not the right forum for MERGE or REDIRECT discussion. Let me also remind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE.

Secondly, the over a dozen references within the article itself assert notability while fulfilling and meeting the WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:NEVENT which reads:

"Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."

Thirdly, at the expense of being called out for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'll still say that having articles on street brawl and stabbing incidents in the West but not one on a terrorist incident that occurred outside of an active warzone in the Global South is a pure example of WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse Restore/allow recreation First, AfDs frequently result in outcomes that are short of deletion, such as merges or redirects. Second, I agree with you on the WP:GEOBIAS. However, I'm not voting to overturn for two reasons: first, consensus was generally against keeping by a 2:1 margin, and second, it's difficult to distinguish this from an event which doesn't qualify for its own page, because WP:LASTING was not clearly met. I don't think it's that far away from a keep, though, and it can be merged into the target article and spun off again if additional coverage is found. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met? — Mister Banker (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. "Enduring" is often the key word in deletion discussions for articles about temporal events. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated to "restore/allow recreation." There's nothing wrong with the AfD, but I'm satisfied there's been enough continued coverage that this no longer fails WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. AfD a poor forum for a merge discussion, but is not the wrong forum. AfD is the right forum on whether to turn a page into a redirect. Sources can assert notability but that notability, i.e. real-world notability, is not wiki-notability. There was a rough consensus to stop the article from being live, redirecting was a valid WP:ATD, and the closer noted that the content can be merged from history.—Alalch E. 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as the consensus is concerned, there were 4 Keep, 2 Merge and 2 Delete !votes (excluding the nominator) before @Liz: decided to re-list the AfD discussion for the second time on 28 October. So, there was a rough consensus to Keep the article at that point in time. — Mister Banker (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Youre actually admitting there was not consensus to keep at that point. This is based on numbers and not looking into the reasoning (since AFD is not a vote). Four keep !votes and five delete/WP:ATD !votes (including the nom) is not consensus. A relist at that point was a reasonable choice. Frank Anchor 13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was a poor nomination, people should not go to AfD with a vague merge proposal. And doing so is usually a train wreck. However, in this case the discussion recovered and I agree that it is a consensus to redirect. AfD is not not good for merges, but is perfectly good with redirection. Elements in the discussion were strong on the points that the article should not continue, and that there is no great ongoing need to merge anything, as the content is already at the target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. AfD is the perfect place for redirect discussions. For poorly sourced articles that have a natural redirect target, a redirect is the best outcome. Once you discard the VAGUEWAVE !votes in this AfD, the redirect result reflects consensus well. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Care to clarify how the article was poorly sourced? — Mister Banker (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would gladly do so if this were AfD. But this is DRV, where we are asked to review consensus among AfD participants, not to rerun the AfD. Owen× ☎ 07:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Many of the keep !votes were weak while the redirect/merge !votes were more based in policy. Consensus to not keep appeared to form after the final relist. Frank Anchor 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for User:Mister Banker - What is the right forum for redirect discussions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, the article's talkpage. This attack has also received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, thus merits an article. (see: ANI, DAWN) — Mister Banker (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally think those articles clear the continued coverage issue, and would vote to restore. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Nominator's statement Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met[19] makes it clear to me that they do not understand that routine events like this do not have or get enduring coverage, AFD is often the venue where the consensus for merging/redirection emerges so the closer was correct in redirecting this article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Endorse - Appellant has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but ...
  • Allow Submission of Draft by a good-standing editor for review, using additional sources listed above. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-admin closure with no reason stated other than "the result was keep." Attempted to discuss but was told to come to DRV. Relisting admin requested a source analysis which was then done and discussed between editors. Would feel more comfortable with an admin closure as the debate is about interpretation of WP:NMUSICIAN, with keep votes claiming an award is sufficient for notability. CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Not a WP:BADNAC. The AfD nominator expressed disagreement with many keep !votes, so there was some contention, but that's about it. The close is inherently non-controversial because the discussion could not have been closed any other way, obviously. An explanatory closer statement is not required, and that should not be a reason to overturn a non-admin closure.—Alalch E. 23:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This is a clear instance of you making your case but it failing to convince any other members of the community. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Sometimes "the result was keep" is an explanatory close statement, and this is such a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Just because the nominator says a lot, doesn't mean a close is contentious, nuanced, or needs an admin. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I feel like I will yell WP:BADNAC more often than most people, but even though I would not have closed this as a non-admin myself, the close is so obviously a keep that WP:BADNAC does not apply. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse overwhelming consensus to keep and overwhelming rejection of CNMall41’s source analysis, despite CNMall41’s attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the process. This seems like a fine NAC and there is no requirement for an in-depth closing statement. Frank Anchor 04:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. At worst, it could be changed to “Weak Keep”, but not “no consensus”. Good close. If you don’t like the outcome, read advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO "Weak keep" is more often a !vote. I don't recall seeing it as an outcome; have I been missing these as closes? Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't remember ever seeing an explicit "weak keep." I've certainly seen keeps where the closer has noted that it was just enough to be a keep, but that's different from a "weak keep." SportingFlyer T·C 01:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was just struggling for words. It was not an emphatic keep, but it was a keep, definitely a keep. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Deletion review handles cases where a closer has failed to follow deletion process. It is not for cases where the deletion process was followed correctly but you do not like the decision that was arrived at. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: There is a clear consensus to keep here. CNMall41 seems not to be satisfied with the outcome and that is fine but that’s not what DRV is for. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Yundt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Circumstances have changed. Yundt entered politics and is now a state senator-elect (see here and here), which is normally a clear enough basis for notability. A proactive approach of restoring the deleted article and allowing it to be worked on before he takes office is preferable to the standard practice of letting deleted revisions stay deleted and recreating a vastly inferior new article at some random point in the future. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to draft. The eleven year old AfD shouldn't stop us from having an article now, if sourcing supports it. Owen× ☎ 15:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete to draft if it seems like the deleted article is an okay starting point.—Alalch E. 15:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draft I don't think we need to have a deletion review of years-old discussions when circumstances change and the article is not salted. --Enos733 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but our current policy still requires this step. That said, as Frank Anchor suggests, we don't need seven days for this. I bet Star Mississippi will be here soon enough to speedy-close this. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose draftification — We continue to tell people that we're a collaborative environment and We continue to tell people that state legislators(-elect) are inherently notable, which hasn't changed for many years. Content in draftspace can only be found if someone is specifically looking for it. Draftification = tacitly expecting me to do all the work under an implied threat that the entry will be deleted again if I don't comply, which ≠ collaboration. Please don't waste my time like that. Trying to make this all about the mere presence or absence of sources lacks legs, as article space contains plenty of subpar entries on state legislators, backed by some of worst excuses for sources imaginable. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @RadioKAOS: I don't think draftification is a bad thing at all here - it would just restore the old article, which would be 11 years out of date, to draft instead of mainspace. No one is going to oppose moving it to mainspace, this isn't "send to AfC." So we'd draftify the last version, you could update it to say he's a state senator and move it over. There's also nothing preventing you from just straight recreating it. SportingFlyer T·C 17:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. At minimum, all that is needed is for an editor to change the lede to "senator-elect" and restore it to mainspace. I don't think we need to overthink this (but the underlying reason for deletion was correct). I also note that WP:REFUND may have been used instead. - Enos733 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy restore to draft per above, to allow any interested editor the time to add more recent sourcing so it is acceptable to be moved into article space (with or without the AFC process). I think this is a largely uncontroversial WP:REFUND request that does not need a full seven days' discussion time. Frank Anchor 16:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Draft, but this doesn't require DRV. In DRV Purpose, point 10 says:

  Deletion review should not be used… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a possible conflict between DRV not point 10, above, and DRV purpose 3:

  Deletion review may be used … if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;

  . Maybe DRV purpose 3 should be revised, because DRV is only needed if the article was salted. Do the editors at Requests for Undeletion send requests here unnecessarily? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The nominator claims this is a fork, but as was explained and unchallenged on the talk page, it is a subarticle. The nom does not seem to have noticed that explanation or the discussion at all. There may be a valid argument that some content should be merged somewhere, but probably from the parent article to this subarticle. Given rather minimal participation, I'd suggest this is at the very least relisted; if I was pinged (I was the one who commented and restored this before; I wasn't) I'd have voted to keep, and the result would likely be no consensus or a relist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, we didn't have any participants arguing to Keep this article which is one reason why I didn't relist this discussion. It's possible that relisting could have resulted in a different outcome but based on the participation in this discussion after a week, opinion didn't seem to be divided enough to warrant a relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist minimal participation, clear argument for keeping made in the DRV, relisting is easily done. SportingFlyer T·C 06:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse-ish if the argument had been deletion, there would have likely been enough consensus to do so. Three participants with a nomination suggesting redirection, one delete, and one merge/redirect is not a sufficiently anemic participation that we can assume consensus is invalid. But that brings us back to the question of how long and what sort of editing it would take to un-redirect an AfD-mandated redirect. What's the process for doing that other than DRV? I don't know that we have one. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the natural outcome in that AfD. Yes, zh-wiki, with their different guidelines and conventions, has a separate article on this. Is that a reason to fork it here? Relisting seems like a waste of time, but if that's what is needed to convey a sense of broader consensus, so be it. Owen× ☎ 09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse Neutral there is consensus to not keep the article. With a split opinion between delete and a WP:ATD, the latter is usually the preferred option. However, I consider relisting to be a valid option as well based on the DRV nom statement and somewhat limited participation in the AFD.Frank Anchor 14:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my weak endorsement. Generally when the DRV is significantly longer than the AFD, it is likely that is more that can be discussed at the AFD. I do believe the close was correct but a relist can be useful in this case. Frank Anchor 18:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Editors agreed around "Most of the content here duplicates". It is possible to restore the article so that the content does not duplicate.—Alalch E. 15:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to allow User:Piotrus to argue his point. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid reading of consensus. It should of course be noted that redirection is not deletion and should there be sufficient content to support an independent article it can be spun out upon reaching consensus at the talk page or by application of WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just wanted to point out that People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plate that you have listed here has only two edits and has never been the subject of an AFD discussion. Piotrus, I think you meant People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plates. The whole content history is there beneath the redirect should you wish to access it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• relist per SportingFlyer and SmokeyJoe. Participation was minimal and so I'd treat this much like a softdelete. Hobit (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]