Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October

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

Moyrourkan Orange Hall is located within the townland of Drumnamether, surely this is enough notability for Drumnamether to have a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkzy (talk • contribs)

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. If this is a DRVPURPOSE3 request, then it appears that the appellant is trying two different remedies at the same time, because they have also boldly restored the article and added a reference to the hall. I don't think DRV should decide whether the addition makes the place notable. That can be decided by normal editing or by another AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close per the unclean hands doctrine. The article was created last month by the appellant, although their first attempt was REVDELed for copyvio, and turned into a redirect by Justlettersandnumbers. The appellant immediately restored it after changing a few words, at which point it was nominated at AfD.

The appellant, who participated in the AfD with an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type vote, could have discussed the issue with the closing admin. They could have submitted a new draft to AfC. They could have come here to DRV first. They didn't do any of that. Instead, they undid the result of the AfD one week after it was closed, and only when alerted on the Talk page, they finally came here with this surely AfD-round-2-type "appeal", without bothering to notify the closer. This isn't BOLD, it's disruptive and persistent, and shouldn't be rewarded with another kick at the can, especially as there is no material improvement in sourcing. Recommend temporary page-protect or p-block, as the appellant hasn't shown any intention of following process, and seems to have a single purpose in mind. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse and protect, as needed. Disruptive request. Star Mississippi 13:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and protect redirect. Draft space and the WP:AFC process are available for good-faith attempts of recreation. The current recreated version is similar to the deleted version, with a little more info and a reference about Moyrourkan Orange Hall. I do not support a speedy close. Frank Anchor 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No, the location of the hall doesn't make its location notable. If the Eiffel Tower were in Drumnamether, that wouldn't by itself make it notable either.
  The word "notability" is jargon on Wikipedia; the short version is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Nearly every word of that statement is itself jargon - see Wikipedia:Notability#GNG for the long version. The source added with the statement about Moyrourkan Orange Hall, whatever that is, was this database entry. In Wikipedia terms, it would be a stretch to call it significant coverage even of the building; the townland barely even gets a passing mention, so there isn't any question of it helping out with that. —Cryptic 17:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See point 10 of 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. This is not the right forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close, but I honestly don't think this is disruptive per se. I think this is just a mis-understanding of notability from a relatively new user. Townlands are not considered presumptively notable, meaning they have to pass GNG to be able to have a stand-alone article. This means secondary sources have reliably reported on them. We could have an article on the townland if those sources can be shown to exist, but I'm not sure they do after a quick search. SportingFlyer T·C 05:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse, notionally, as the close has not been challenged and no significant new information has been revealed. No opinion on protecting. This is a new editor situation. The editor was given useful and sufficient explanation in this discussion.—Alalch E. 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miyu Takahashi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed as draftify despite the fact that, as I pointed out in the discussion, Takahashi passed WP:NBADMINTON having finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament stop. Since then, she has won the 2024 Vietnam Open (also part of the BWF World Tour, causing a red link). The !vote count in this discussion was 1 drafity along with my keep and a comment providing some additional sources.

Notably, Takahashi is competing alongside Mizuki Otake who was nominated for deletion alongside Takahashi. Star Mississippi closed that discussion as "no consensus" with 2 keeps and 1 delete. I don't think "draft" is necessarily a "wrong" outcome but with two BWF World Tour wins, the subject passes NBADMINTON and I would like to seek a consensus to undraftify this article. It is also odd that, of the two, more sources were identified for Takahashi yet her article is the one which is redlinked. DCsansei (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be saying that factors have change since I closed the AfD. That does not require an overturn of the AfD. If you think she meets requirements now, improve the draft sufficiently that it won't be a G4 and move it to mainspace. Re-reading it, I could make a case for my having closed it as N/C but I read @JoelleJay:'s comment as explaining why yours wasn't quite the right reasoning. I don't see re-closing now as helpful when we have a different route back to mainspace, but would not object if others disagree. So endorse my own close, but support improvement and restoration since factors have changed. Star Mississippi 01:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The appellant is providing a mistaken vote count by neglecting the nomination. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_reviews#Incorrect_vote_counts. The nomination is assumed to be a Delete vote unless otherwise stated, so the count was 1 Delete, 1 Draftify, 1 Keep, and 1 Don't Know. Draftify was the best close. Since the page is in draft space, the appellant should improve the draft and resubmit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Good close. Improve sourcing in draftspace and use AfC, mandatorily if within six months of the close of the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that suggests AFC is mandatory (outside of specific cases of COI or where the article is salted in mainspace), however I would strongly encourage this go through AFC as well (refer to my !vote below). Frank Anchor 13:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the whole NSPORT guideline? Meeting the criteria in NBAD or any other sport is not sufficient to pass NSPORT: the subject must meet GNG, and an IRS source of SIGCOV must still be identified and cited in the article -- which is what I referenced in my !vote -- for us to even consider the likelihood of GNG sourcing existing. Coverage of high school-age athletes rarely passes WP:YOUNGATH, so any new sourcing will need to focus on her senior career. JoelleJay (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There was a rough consensus to draftify.—Alalch E. 11:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Draftification was the correct, "minimally-invasive" outcome to that poorly attended AfD. As Robert McClenon points out, the appellant conveniently leaves out the nom's Delete !vote. The appellant doesn't need our permission to improve sourcing and submit the draft to AfC. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC) (P.S.: I'm semi-involved as a relister on the AfD. Owen× ☎ 14:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
• Endorse Sport SNGs have been functionally deprecated, so simply meeting one does not guarantee a page will be kept. The correct thing to do to be able to publish this article is to demonstrate sources exist. SportingFlyer T·C 05:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. SNGs related to sports only suggest presumed notability and have lost a lot of influence after consensus at WP:NSPORTS2022 was implemented. Draftification is an acceptable outcome for a low-attendance AFD (two delete/ATD including the nom statement that the appellant inadvertantly forgot to include vs. one keep). The history is still available for improvement. The best course of action for the appellant is to improve the draft to a point where it would pass an AFC submission. This is not a requirement but I would strongly encourage going through AFC to ensure a quality article and avoid a second AFD. Frank Anchor 13:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Wolk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is a purely WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 appeal. I am requesting that recreation of this article be allowed, as I have completed an AfC review of Draft:Ivy Wolk, and the submission has passed my review. I believe that the draft speaks for itself, that the included references demonstrate notability, and that it's a little too late to claim "too soon". Since the last time this was at DRV, an additional article was published: The Cut, October 25. —Alalch E. 02:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. I have no qualms about trusting Alalch's judgement on this. Owen× ☎ 08:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt. The new sourcing, although not outstanding, is a clear improvement on the sourcing discussed at the AfD, and so G4 is overcome.

This should not come so quick to DRV. The AfC review approving the draft should first go to the protecting admin and request unprotection. If the protecting admin is unresponsive, then go to WP:RFUP. Reserve DRV for appeals against a process failure or a dispute. There is no appeal here. DRV must not become a routine tickbox forum for recreation where the reasons for deletion are overcome.

-SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that DRV must not be the article creation committee. However, this is here for the second time, and in the previous DRV comments included: "keep salted", "leave salted", "retain salting", "If this were AFD again, I would say to Delete again. If this were AFC, I would Reject it", and "the draft is not ready for AFC at this point", so I had a feeling that it's more stable to rediscuss this, or rather, to continue the discussion, as the last one was closed early and is recent. But you definitely have a point. —Alalch E. 11:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 16. You should have linked that DRV. Both that DRV and this DRV are out of scope for DRV, and I disagree with much of your closing statement there.

If this were a proper DRV, both User:Explicit and User:Liz should be pinged, and you should be explaining what they should have done differently.

Another common mistake is people believing that DRV will offer the recreated article some protection. It doesn’t, if the draft is mainspaced, it may be immediately renominated at AfD. AfD is the right place to reevaluate the new sources, DRV is not a good forum for source analysis.

I believe that as there are multiple new sources, and an AfC reviewer has approved, the mainspace title should be speedily unsalted on request and the draft mainspaced, without serious source review or second guessing of the AfC reviewer. See if it gets AfDed, and see how the AfD plays out. I will watch, mainly because I think the sources are of dubious independence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say I agree. However, User:Cryptic said: It's already been G4'd twice and protected from recreation. This isn't just a DRV matter; there's no other place appropriate to discuss it. If someone explicitly said it was a DRV matter last time, the comments were majorly against recreation, which had been sought by an established editor, an NPP with autopatrolled (the nature of Hameltion appeal was the same as mine now), and responding editors weren't pleased with what they're being shown, would it really be ideal for this to be recreated based on what is objectively just one additional source, enabled by a purely formal unsalting from an AfC pass? There is a latent dispute around the eligibility of an article on this topic, and such actions did not feel like would have led to the stable point quicker than what I did with this DRV nom. —Alalch E. 12:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is overcome. It’s worth a fresh AfD. DRV should not run reverse AfDs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G4 had also been overcome the last time this was at DRV and comments were as I have quoted them above. —Alalch E. 10:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt, which should be a formality after an accepted AFC of an article with new sourcing. Frank Anchor 12:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt, I'd even say speedily if not for the DRV earlier this month. I trust Alaich's judgement as AfC reviewer. Star Mississippi 01:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt and I specifically endorse DRV as an appropriate venue for this based on the prior DRVs and G4s. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you really mean that an AfC reviewer should not ask the admin who protected the title to unprotect, and that a salted title means that the question must come to DRV? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was already at DRV; coming back here is fine. Asking the admin in question would also be OK, as I said this would be "an" appropriate venue, not "the" appropriate venue. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This DRV is being used to reverse User:Liz’s SALT of the title. It is inappropriate that Liz was neither asked nor pinged.

  DRVPURPOSE needs fixing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If SmokeyJoe is referring to WP:DRVPURPOSE3, then I agree that it needs clarification. DRVPURPOSE3 is qualified by what DRV is not for, point 10: to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation.. Most of our requests to recreate an article to add information or add sources involve articles that have not been salted, and the author can either submit a draft subject to AFC or create a new article subject either to G4 if nothing is new or to AFD. What is User:SmokeyJoe recommending? Should we take this discussion to the DRV talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Liz participated last time this came up, commenting in part I wouldn't object to restoring this version of the article to Draft space so it can be reviewed by AFC. This is the standard procedure for putting an article back into main space after it has been deleted through an AFD but I'm guessing many editors do not know that this is the case. I see that as tacit permission for AFC to lead to unSALTing in precisely these circumstances. Liz has never struck me as an admin who would be opposed to this sort of an orderly, consensus-based unSALTing, but I'm pinging anyways because it doesn't look like anyone previously has on this thread, which appears to be an oversight shared amongst several of us. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dunno what this fixation on pinging Liz is about. She doesn't respond to them (one such statement), and has gotten a talk page pointer here as usual. I seem to recall Explicit doesn't see pings either. —Cryptic 06:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Liz create-protected the title. Alalch wants it unprotected. Alalch doesn’t ask Liz to unprotect, but instead comes to DRV to have the create-protection reviewed and overturned. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the strong "keep salted" sentiment expressed in the last DRV, does it not count for anything? —Alalch E. 16:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I note some such sentiment. It is not binding. The most important facts are that an AfC reviewer (you) has accepted the draft, and that there are new sources that possibly have overcome the reasons for deletion, which were primarily a lack of GNG sources (my interpretation). It may be deleted again at AfD, but that is far from certain, and so I support it being mainspaced, and being freely AfD-ed by anyone at any time, without reference to or protection from these DRVs. The system here is working fine as it is, except how it has come needlessly to DRV twice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would not have accepted this at AfC. There are seven sources. Three are tweets from the actor, one is a listicle, one is a mere mention of a character she's portraying, and two basically long-form interviews. I would have asked for an additional secondary source. SportingFlyer T·C 05:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also I completely agree this is the correct forum for this, it's not as if we get a lot of requests like these here. SportingFlyer T·C 05:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV not getting many requests like this is not a reason to welcome them. WP:RFUP gets requests like this. Most people know that an AfC accept is sufficient reason for a speedy UNSALT.

  DRV is not the right forum for second guessing AfC accepts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also am not particularly impressed with the new sources, I think they are not independent significant coverage, none of them, but I am now sure that it will be deleted again at AfD, which means it should get another AfD. (And DRV is not an alternative for a fresh AfD). SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with SportingFlyer that the sourcing on the draft still leaves quite a bit to be desired; the only new source since the last DRV is an interview with limited independent analysis. I don't have an issue with unsalting (which I think should generally be done pretty liberally), but I'd probably still be a delete !vote at AfD at the moment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And this is probably the way it should be. SALT is for persistent incompetent or bad-faith recreation. Unsalting should be a lower bar than being willing to !vote keep in an AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question: How long do deletion reviews usually last? AfDs usually last a week. It's been almost a week-and-a-half. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone who has not participated should be closing this. Since it's ranged back-and-forth, it ought to be an admin. Finding admins who frequent here often enough but haven't commented on a particular discussion can be hard sometimes. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think it’s time for it to be closed, you can list it at Wikipedia:Closure requests. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the answers, @Jclemens and @SmokeyJoe.  Done I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a note that it's been a couple of days, and still no response. Perhaps we just need to be patient. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because no admins watch Wikipedia:Closure requests. (In fact, I'm the only person consistently active there.) I suppose I could close this myself and then make a request for unprotection citing this, but I've cross-posted to the main administrator's noticeboard. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note I have dropped the protection level. If someone needs a salted page to be un-salted for AFC-related purposes, drop a note at WT:AFC or on my talk page; if a draft is good to go, we shouldn't need a DRV to get it to the article space. I am seconds away from going to eat so I'll unfortunately have to leave it to someone else to hat this formally (as I don't do enough of these to remember off the top of my head how to do so). Primefac (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 31 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

April 31 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

September 31 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

BusterD wrongly deleted a redirect with totally different target. If they wanted them deleted, they should have started a RFD process. Also, November 31 is mentioned in the target page, it would be easily kept if RFD'd. Web-julio (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the G4s. The recreated redirects have nothing in common with the ones deleted in the 2017 RfD. They might still suffer the same fate at RfD, but G4 does not apply here. But why wasn't this brought up with the deleting admin first, as required by policy? Owen× ☎ 20:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean "not required" by policy? I didn't know user talk pages could resolve the issue. Web-julio (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It actually says on this page to talk to the deleting admin first. It’s pretty rude to expect contributors to spend their volunteer time to review your concern when you either don’t understand the instructions, cam’t be bothered to resd them or don’t think they apply to you. Your snippy response to Owenx just reinforces that I won’t waste a second of my personal time helping such a rude individual. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What it actually says on this page is to consider it. It wouldn't be policy either way. —Cryptic 21:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Its rude either way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It asks to put a submit template in the talk page, but in WP:DRVPURPOSE it says (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.) The not in not required is originally in bold. Anyways, the submit template ask is unnecessary once you can use {{u}} and it notifies them. Web-julio (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In this case, I'm happy to overturn on request. I'm sorry for short stroking; I should have looked further. In the moment, I thought the new redirect target List of non-standard dates was dubious (since those non-existent dates aren't considered at the target). I still regard these created redirects as dubious and wouldn't be surprised if some other editor put these up for discussion. But I apologize for mistaking this as disruption. That was my mistake. Undeleting. BusterD (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, only November 31 is mentioned there, so I can understand the others being deleted. But in the other two cases, I think they are still helpful. Web-julio (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you say so. I looked and missed it. There was another user involved, the CSD tagger User:MPGuy2824 (whose reports are generally reliable) so that's another reason I speedied without more investigation. Demonstrates the need for me to slow down. User:Web-julio, next time consider going straight to the admin involved. Usually we are reasonable folks. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thank you, much appreciated. I only said it here, actually. Web-julio (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh look, the admin reversed themselves immediately. Just imagine how much volunteer time could have been saved going to them first… Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't know this page is for controversial cases only. Web-julio (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, BusterD. Whether required by policy or not, it's clear that had the appellant approached you first, this DRV wouldn't be needed. Feel free to close it. Owen× ☎ 22:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will try doing so next time. All comments are appreciated. Web-julio (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion involves a contentious topic (BLPs and BLPgroups with living adults and children) and it was an active discussion when it was closed with a no consensus determination. Beyond this, comments about self-identification were incorrectly applied (when reading his sources, most of these articles were related to 'self-identification' as one sees in census information; IE where it is applied appropriately. Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling for the category to be deleted? It's not clear what remedy you are seeking here. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that either deletion or relisting for further consensus is considered. Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closer – I have already responded to some questions about the close (which in my view have more merit to them than this complaint). Arguments about whether the sourcing is sufficient to establish a WP:DEFINING characteristic is a great topic for discussion at the CFD, but DRV is not CFD 2.0. I was asked to relist the discussion on my talk, but per WP:RELIST something should rarely be relisted more than twice. Given that this is a massive discussion was open for a month, I think editors have had more than enough time to participate and relisting is dilatory. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The CfD was open for almost five weeks, and was correctly closed as no-consensus. The closer provided a detailed and well-thought-out rationale, carefully navigating this political minefield. Yes, this is a contentious issue, and there will always be an "active discussion" when it is time to close, but we can't leave this open indefinitely. "Continue relisting until I get the result I want" is not a valid DRV appeal. Owen× ☎ 22:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (as participant in the discussion) regrettably endorse, closer is right that further relisting would not have helped. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (involved in last discussion) I support deletion, but would accept relist/reopen, not least because this is BLP territory and this is very likely WP:POVCAT, so we should make sure to get this right. This isn't a category for people who aren't NA, as per RSes, but a category for people who've said they're NA but we, as editors, don't have evidence to support that. That's dangerous and requires WP:OR.

If RSes say they're not NA, then we should just say that, instead of putting them in a weird umbrella category which is ripe for abuse. As per the category page, this category includes people who make statements of self-ID where "reliable sources substantiating the statement have not yet been identified in their articles" so the statements should simply be removed from those articles if not supported.

Another issue is that the substantiation required is narrowly defined in these categories, and in a way that doesn't fit how WP usually defines reliable sources. If RSes we would rely on for other factors consistently refer to a person as x, we should also call them x. We shouldn't withhold that fact until the RS we like says it.

Otherwise, any category which actively labels people based on what we can't prove about them is on inherently shaky grand, and gets into WP:CATV and WP:POV pushing territory. There are only a small handful of exceptions I can think of (e.g., cases where someone is well known as claiming heritage that isn't theirs), and those could better be dealt with in other ways.

Just to be clear: I have no problem categorising people who are considered frauds by RSes as such; my issue is with categorising people just because we can't prove they definitely are what they say, or with cherrypicking certain RSes over everything else.

Edited to add suggestion/possible compromise: When there is contention or lack of consensus about a category, it is permissable to make it into a list instead. That actually seems like it could be a good solution, since it addresses several issues, such as the category being WP:NONDEF for most BLPs. I would also support this option. Lewisguile (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There's not really any other way to close that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was clearly no consensus and no indication that any consensus would form despite the CFD having been listed for over a month. Changing to a list is a reasonable proposal (which I personally oppose), but DRV is not the venue for that discussion. Frank Anchor 19:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will also note that creating a list does not mean that the category should be deleted (see WP:NOTDUP). If people believe that the sources exist per WP:NLIST, anyone can go ahead and create a list, no CFD required. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I have very little experience with categories, but I have considerable experience with lengthy and inconclusive discussions, and I can see that this was a lengthy and inconclusive discussion, and a lengthy and inconclusive discussion at a deletion discussion should be closed as No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Giri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I hope this is the right place to ask. I'm looking to restore this article and add proper sources. The deletion discussion highlighted the lack of independent sources, but I've mentioned some reliable sources based on Usedtobecool/PSN , which are highly reliable sources and old media of Nepal Here are the sources: himalayan news of nepal / nepal samachar patra nayapatrika dainik nagrik network nepal live Endrabcwizart (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This DRV request was not properly formatted, so I fixed it. The appellant also failed to discuss it with the closer or even notify the closer of the appeal. As for the merits, the appellant appears to be making a DRV#3 appeal -- but the sources offered here were all presented in the deletion discussion and they did not attract any support for retention. The quorum for deletion was minimal, but there was a consensus (when including Mushy Yank's non-!vote comment) that the material did not belong in mainspace. A redirect might have been a better interpretation, but "delete" was within discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ehimalayatimes.com is not The Himalayan Times (thehimalayantimes.com) from Usedtobecool's list.—Alalch E. 12:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyways, endorse. The nomination and the discussion weren't great at all, but all taken together, it is clear enough that there was a rough consensus to delete on grounds of non-notability. —Alalch E. 15:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right; "ehimalayantimes" and "The Himalayan Times" are different entities. However, "ehimalayantimes" is also a national print media outlet in Nepal. It seems that User Usedtobecool/PSN may have missed including this media outlet on their page. I mention their page because it filters some online media sources and provides ratings, which can be helpful for reviewers, especially those outside Nepal, in assessing the reliability of sources for articles or pages on Nepal-related topics. visit this page Endrabcwizart (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As Dclemens1971 says, the sources presented here were already assessed at the AfD and found lacking. Nothing to justify overturning, or even draftifying. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It's not entirely clear on what basis this review has been lodged, but if #1, then although the AfD had very little discussion, the close does seem to correctly reflect it. Whereas if this is instead a type #3 appeal, then the sources listed here, which are of course the same as were already listed in the AfD, don't (with the possible exception of the Nagrik Network one) contribute anything towards notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correct reading of discussion by closing admin. Strong overturn to soft delete and restore as draft based on lack of quorum to delete (only one vote plus the nom. I do not consider Mushy Yank's comment to be supportive of deletion, I consider it an argument against redirecting). I agree with others that the sources do not come close to meeting WP:GNG, but DRV is not the place to evaluate sources. That is the role of AFD or AFC. Frank Anchor 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I read Mushy's comment as saying that he thought redirection might not be acceptable to the community since it might not be appropriate for the subject to be listed there if he didn't have a page, but that Mushy would be OK with redirection if it were. However, Mushy often !votes for "keep" and "redirect" and didn't here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And Mushy also didn’t !vote to delete. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can speculate on what a user thinks based on contributions to other AFDs. Frank Anchor 01:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quorum does not exist as a requirement for consensus under policy, and soft deletion was not applied. It's possible to restore to draft regardless, but I don't agree that the decision should be based on the idea that there was a "lack of quorum". —Alalch E. 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:QUORUM, a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. This AFD is a textbook WP:SOFTDELETE (assuming it was eligible for soft deletion), even if that term was not explicitly used, and therefore should be restored upon any good faith request, such as this DRV. I recommended a restoration to draft space because using only the sources presented at the AFD or here, the article would be right back at AFD again. Frank Anchor 13:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "WP:QUORUM" is a figurative shortcut and no guideline or policy imposes a quorum requirement in actuality. —Alalch E. 02:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And I never said there was. However, there is also clearly no DRV-appropriate argument against refunding to draft space. Frank Anchor 04:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Soft deletion says that. WP:QUORUM does not say that deletion discussions with minimal participation must be soft deleted, just that that's one of the options. —Cryptic 09:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

…and the option that should have been chosen here. Just because the closer didn’t choose that option, doesn’t mean the closer should not have. There is no justification to have “hard” deleted (unless not eligible for soft delete) when there is minimal participation. 12:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I also find Cryptic’s edit summary on their post be an unjustified insult of my vast experience on Wiki and particularly at DRV, and request an apology. Frank Anchor 12:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh I think technically this wasn't the best close as further “sources” were provided at the end and could only be discounted by the admin looking at them and saying they are junk. Which isn’t part of the conversation. However they are junk so I don’t really feel this is a winner if we did relist it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Request WP:REFUND to draftspace, read the advice at WP:THREE, and make a clear explanation on the talk page as to which three new sources demonstrate notability. It is not reasonable to request undeletion direct to mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If a refund is placed in the mainspace, we can also start a Talk page to provide further explanations and discuss to demonstrate notability. Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If a refund is placed in the mainspace, the admin responsible will need a talking to.

  No admin will refund it to mainspace, in the face of a recent consensus to delete it. Draftspace serves this desire. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously a deleted article, would be useful as a redirect to Axis of Upheaval. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then do go ahead and create the redirect, there's no need for a DRV. Sandstein 10:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SALTed. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

LaMotta only acted in ALF, he had also a leading role (One More Chance (1981 film)) and supporting roles in many films of director Sam Firstenberg and also some guest appearances in different TV Shows. I would like to get restored the article and add more information to it. --Dk0704 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route 216 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Would like to restore article and add more sources to it which discussed in AFD discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TL9027 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as clearly correct, but speedy restore to draft with a strong request that this goes via WP:AFC before being moved to articlespace. I'm not convinced this can be brought up to GNG standards, based on the applicant's scant details provided in this DRV statement and their contributions to the AfD, but no harm in allowing them to try. It can easily be renominated for AfD if it makes it back to mainspace and is still policy deficient. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Some sources were suggested in AFD, I think adding them and modifying the article will be useful. TL9027 (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy restore to draft per Daniel.—Alalch E. 12:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore draft subject to AFC and AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore draft per above - there's no reason we can't have articles on bus routes, provided they pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Wolk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the deletion discussion two months ago, two new sources have been published: this piece in Interview magazine (which contains usable independent coverage in the introduction) and this brief bio in Teen Vogue. I've added these to the previously discussed profile in Variety in a draft at Draft:Ivy Wolk. She's not Emma Stone, but together these suggest notability under the basic criteria. (For future reference, the title is currently salted after repeated recreations without discussion; I'm hoping this discussion resolves that.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that neither of these two sources are really significant coverage, but this is getting closer. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of Scope It seems to me that this is not a DRV matter. This is a simple undeletion request because further sources have been found. There is also a new draft which renders that to be unnecessary. Let us speedy close this and let the new draft take its chance. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:REFUND will generally refuse to undelete an article deleted at AfD, and they'll send applicants to DRV, per WP:DRVPURPOSE criterion #3. Owen× ☎ 22:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already been G4'd twice and protected from recreation. This isn't just a DRV matter; there's no other place appropriate to discuss it. —Cryptic 22:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    in which case endorse and keep salted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and leave salted. Neither the interview nor the 180-word in Teen Vogue blurb tip the scale for a DRVPURPOSE#3 "significant new information" to overturn the unanimous AfD. The appellant has already created a new draft, but I don't see it getting through AfC, let alone another AfD. Owen× ☎ 22:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. May not be quite there yet, but I think the blurb in Teen Vogue is a solid if short source. I understand we need multiple, good sources for a BLP, but for an aspiring actress/influencer "getting profiled by 'Variety'" is a pretty reasonable bar for notability in terms of weeding out spam. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and retain salting. As the original nom of the AfD, I am not confident that these additional sources provide significant coverage of this subject. The Variety source used previously has done a lot of heavy lifting in justifying such a small article, with most of the details available largely being trivial. Comparing the draft to the prior revisions that were deleted, these little tidbits do not add information that seems significant, and the draft in question relies on three of this subject's social media posts to help with coverage. Unless there are actual in-depth coverage beyond just interviews with the subject and blurbs about them, I reaffirm the deletion. I am also not confident that a draft would be accepted at this state, but if done to bypass the salting without any significant improvements, I would not be surprised for it to wind up down the same path. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Trailblazer101: most of the details available largely being trivial: Please feel free to edit the draft; if you don't think she's notable yet, a draft is worth having. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but I have no interest in editing this article. I am indifferent on the draft. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I should probably say that you are welcome to expand upon the contents in the draft, and I encourage you to do so over time. That is the best place to develop this article rather than attempting to get it back into the mainspace, which does not appear to be likely anytime soon. If you want this to be an article, then the WP:BURDEN would fall onto you to prove its notability by addressing the concerns raised in the AfD and in this DRV. Sources with significant new information are probably going to take awhile to become available, considering it is still WP:TOOSOON, although there is WP:NORUSH to publish an article in mainspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was notified of this discussion and the message stated that the article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. I didn't understand that notification because I wasn't the AFD closer. But I do see that I later deleted a version of this article as a CSD G4 without properly investigating the history of the article. I gave too much weight on the fact that it was the second recreation of this article over a short period of time since the AFD was closed. But the version of the article deleted through the AFD was poorly sourced and I can see that the latest version deleted via CSD G4 was an improvement over it. I wouldn't object to restoring this version of the article to Draft space so it can be reviewed by AFC. This is the standard procedure for putting an article back into main space after it has been deleted through an AFD but I'm guessing many editors do not know that this is the case.

But I'm guessing that this Deletion review is actually about the CSD G4, not the AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to draft with the understanding that salting should be lifted if there is a valid, good faith AfC approval, or at the discretion of any of the administrators who have previously interacted with the article who also believe that G4 no longer applies. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't think she meets GNG yet, but she's very close with the Variety article - I don't think either of the other two get the article over the line. My feeling is we'll clearly know when to un-salt. SportingFlyer T·C 04:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am willing to do something that I usually will not do, and that is to conduct an Articles for Creation review on a draft of a title that has been salted. I generally will not attempt to review a draft that I couldn't accept if I wanted to accept it. In this case, I am willing to perform the review, not to offer an opinion as to whether to accept it, but to offer an opinion as to whether it should be desalted. The question that I think DRV should address is only whether the draft has sufficient promise to desalt for future work. I have a comment for the ultras, overly enthusiastic fans, who re-created the article twice in two months after it was deleted. This was almost certainly the work of a fan club, for a young female celebrity. Ultras think that they are advancing the prospects of a Wikipedia article about their person, but they are making it more difficult. Overly enthusiastic disruptive fans almost always annoy the rest of the Wikipedia community, and often get titles salted or even blacklisted. Patience isn't easy, but neither is impatience. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and Keep Salted - The sources are still inadequate, except for the Variety article, which is good, but was not enough in July and is not enough in October. The two added sources are just sound bites, and sound bites are not notability. The appellant or petitioner is just trying more of the same. At this point, she is too soon until she achieves either general notability with another real article, or acting notability with two major roles.

If this were AFD again, I would say to Delete again. If this were AFC, I would Reject it, because it is not really an improvement over the deleted article. This is DRV, and the title can remain salted for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I'd quibble with a few things here, foremost that the Interview does not have independent or secondary content: a recent discussion makes that clear that the introduction to an interview should be assessed separately to the interview itself for ind/sigcov/etc. Which, when combined with the solid Variety profile, I'd say easily passes the letter of WP:BASIC as multiple reliable independent significant sources. I could understand if you called the intro too short, but that's a different question. I agree that the past attempts to create this article did it no favors and hope this try isn't one of the same. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC only works when the content speaks for itself and is obviously encyclopedic, i.e. article has encyclopedic breadth and detail and easily shows that the subject is "worthy of notice" (in the language of WP:N), but there are no two sources each with SIGCOV (a rare situation). Then we should not delete the article, because doing so would be contrary to the purpose of the notability standard: ensuring that the content in the encyclopedia stays encyclopedic. Here, the content is weak. Draft:Ivy Wolk is thin. —Alalch E. 20:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hameltion: I personally think that everything is clear now, and that you should withdraw and allow for this discussion to be closed. —Alalch E. 20:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, feel free to close this. I'd guess the article would stick if it were published today without a deletion history. Good to know DRV remains an acceptable venue if and when good new sources come out. PS: Were you thinking of WP:ANYBIO in your previous comment? WP:BASIC is just a restatement of GNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hameltion: I was thinking WP:BASIC. Some SNG criteria provide alternative routes to article eligibility via a presumption of notability, and some are modifications of the GNG. NCORP, for example is a toughened-up GNG because it specifies that significant coverage must be in the form of an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization etc. That adds a layer of strictness on top of the general language of the GNG. Conversely BASIC is a lightened-up GNG because it says that the depth of coverage in a given source considered as the basis for notability does not have to be substantial, and that instead of needing to have two or three sources each with SIGCOV, we can combine multiple independent sources [none of which are SIGCOV by themselves] ... to demonstrate notability. So BASIC exists precisely not to restate GNG but to modify it in the area of biographies. This is because Wikipedia has a "bias" toward including biographies because it's a traditional encyclopedia subject and there's a strong impetus to include as many biographies as humanly possible because it's a perennial topic of human interest, so strict application of GNG would create too much friction. I will close soon if someone else doesn't. —Alalch E. 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AFD result. I would oppose recreation based on Robert McClenon's source analysis above; the draft is not ready for AFC at this point. Frank Anchor 13:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not allow recreation yet (keep salted). Reasonable attempt but the request is slightly premature. The Teen Vogue bio is the best source IMO. Make this same appeal again when another source like that appears. Give DRV some breathing space and don't rerequest in the next couple of months. With a good new source, permission for creation will probably be granted then. The AfD has not been challenged so there's no need to endorse its result. —Alalch E. 20:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States girls' national under-16 soccer team (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hope this is the right place. I'm looking to undelete this article and add sources. The deletion discussion concerned sources' lack of independence. I've located what should be enough independent coverage to show notability in TopDrawerSoccer ([1] [2] [3] ), Ouest-France ([4]), archives at Newspapers.com ([5] [6]), etc. Thanks! Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation, or REFUND to draft. The appellant is an experienced editor, and I have no problem trusting their judgement on this. The deleted article contained a grand total of 70 words of prose, so I don't see much benefit in starting from that, but also can't see a valid reason to object to undeletion. Owen× ☎ 19:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As per the redirect OwenX mentions (but doesn't link! Like WP:CRYPTIC, but worse!), Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion (WP:REFUND) should've been the first place to try. Though do mind the header - they won't restore articles deleted at AFD, unless you're clear you want a restoration to draft or the text mailed to you for reworking. —Cryptic 22:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore text to draft or user sandbox for improvement, with encouragement to move back to mainspace once appropriate sources added so that the 2022 AfD no longer applies. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow REFUND to draft or user space, and Allow Recreation of draft for review or article subject to AFD. The title has not been salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Refund to draft based on the valid request made.—Alalch E. 14:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:JDELANOY (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was speedily deleted out of process under criterion G7, during an ongoing RfD that had multiple !votes to keep and had no obvious consensus at the time of deletion. On their talk page the deleting admin stated they "don't share the interpretation" that this was not speedy deletable, despite WP:CSD saying [if] the deletion is controversial [then] another deletion process should be used. and Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Deletions during ongoing deletion discussions where there are good-faith recommendations for actions other than deletion are, by definition, not uncontroversial. It's true that this is not the most important redirect on the project, but it is very important that blatantly out of process speedy deletions are not allowed to stand, as these are one of the most harmful things an admin can do. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If you feel this strongly about it, you can just recreate it. (And then restore the history behind it, or ask someone else to on WP:REFUND if doing it yourself makes you uncomfortable.) Then we can have a new rfd and delete it again there. —Cryptic 19:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree that once the Keep !votes were entered at the RfD, the G7 speedy was out of process. I also agree with the appellant's assertion that this type of CNR is harmless, and with the only other Keep !voter that the redirect is cheap. But what are we to gain from overturning this? The only user who likely made any use of this CNR was its creator, and he no longer has any use for it. So yes, if we're going by the book, we should:
  1. overturn the speedy deletion;
  2. delete the redirect again per clear consensus at the RfD; and
  3. allow recreation, if someone has a use for such a CNR, which is highly doubtful.

Or, y'know, just leave it deleted, and issue a half-hearted finger-wag to the deleting admin while tacitly thanking him for trying to save us from some pointless bureaucracy, and move on to more substantive issues. Owen× ☎ 19:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G7 and keep listed or relist at RFD. This was never a valid G7, which is a request for deletion by the originator. If Delanoy had returned from eight years absence to tag it with G7, it would still have been a valid G7. Maybe Jake Wartenberg meant to be deleting it as a G6, any of various sorts of non-controversial technical deletions, and that would have been reasonable until the Keep votes were entered, because they made it controversial. This is essentially a useless DRV, because the RFD will delete the redirect, but it was also a useless speedy deletion, since there was no need for an admin to intervene, except to make a point, and we assume that they knew better than to make a point. If the G7 is overturned and the RFD is resumed, I will vote to Delete, but this was definitely not a G7 or a G6. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment - Based on Cryptic's statement, reconsidering. It is still a stupid cross-namespace redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was created (and deleted) by Jake Wartenberg, not J.delanoy. —Cryptic 00:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/reopen Once there's an XFD going on, and it's gotten some reasonable "keep" votes, I don't think we ought to accept a G7. In my opinion, G7 during an XFD is appropriate only if all the voters have supported deletion, or if all the keep votes are worth ignoring: socks, nonsensical, obviously confused, etc. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. With the creator having removed any basis for keeping, the keep !votes were merely supporting his right to have the shortcut, the RfD should now be closed, by an uninvolved experienced closer, with prejudice against re-creation, and a possible finding of consensus to SLAP the creator. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a relic from 2009? Multiple people are too quick to initiate formal discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Cryptic. It was deleted solely because of who created it. If you want the redirect to exist, just recreate it and the RfD will take care of it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As the other !keep voter over on RfD, I'd like to point out that I actually don't feel very strongly about this redirect; its history page noted that it was created "for the lulz" by Jake Wartenburg and not Delanoy; usage was practically nil. My !keep vote was mostly due to A: it going from Wikipedia namespace to User namespace, which meant that the impact of the XNR on reader confusion would be minimal to nonexistent, and B: WP:CHEAP. It basically amounted to "We don't NEED to take any action here." That said, now that action's been taken... I similarly don't feel the need to restore it only to get it immediately re-deleted by RfD. I think WP:SNOW applies here? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G7. Once there is genuine support to keep in a deletion discussion by any number of users, the deletion is clearly not uncontroversial, a requirement for speedy deletion. The in-progress RFD should be reopened, as that is the proper venue to delete this page. Frank Anchor 10:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The keep arguments are the following (paraphrasing): "not intrinsically harmful", "no reason to delete", "redirects are cheap". These are not substantive arguments that the G7 should not be acted on. The reason to delete is G7, so there is a reason to delete. The stated arguments do not in any way contradict the basis of G7. The idea that something is not harmful and cheap always exists in the background. An unwanted draft tagged by creator and deleted is presumed "not harmful" and "cheap", so nothing new has been said by making these points. Arguably, G7 exists to handle non-harmful pages so saying that is actually consistent with the envisioned general scenario of G7 application. The G7 itself has not been made controversial. To do so, one would need to say: "I do not want this deleted because it's useful to me/someone" or "G7 was not requested in good faith". And no one has said that.—Alalch E. 12:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether reasons stated for keeping are or are not "substantive" is something that is completely irrelevant to whether speedy deletion applies (they are something that can only be judged in the context of a deletion discussion). All that matters is that good-faith objections to deletion exist and have been expressed - anything else would require a change to speedy deletion policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There need to be objections that specifically target the criterion under which speedy deletion was requested. For example, in an AfD, there is a "keep, notable actor" !vote, and the page is tagged for G11 and deleted. That keep recommendation is not an objection to speedy deletion. —Alalch E. 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you cite any policy that backs up that argument? It certainly is not present in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, which simply says (in multiple ways) that deletion must be uncontroversial. If there are objections to deletion it is not uncontroversial, regardless of why there are objections. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse. i'll actively disagree with the keep votes, as "not intrinsically harmful" and "no reason to delete" are not necessarily equal to "not harmful" and "there is a reason to keep", or correct here. this is the one context i've seen in a while where wp:pandora is correct, as this type of redirect isn't mentioned in any policy or essay page (that i could find, at least), has no other examples (that i could find, at least, redirects to subpages related to generally useful stuff like wp:lupin notwithstanding), and could reasonably convince others to create similar redirects (where's wp:ferret?). i was going to argue that the one case where i thought a projectspace > userspace redirect would have been plausible would be wp:jimmy/wp:jimbo, but those already go somewhere else cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There needs to be a reason to delete to delete, not a reason to keep to keep. Here, there was a reason to delete under policy---G7---and so, to not delete, we would need a reason that the provided otherwise valid reason to delete should not be a reason to delete in this concrete case (that's a contested speedy deletion situation), and we don't have that here. "Harmless page" is not it because the page being harmless is already the default supposition. —Alalch E. 16:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ye cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are 67 redirects from the Wikipedia namespace to User base pages; about 2/3 are in the all-uppercase no-spaces shortcut format. I'm not sure whether I expected more or less of them. —Cryptic 21:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of those CNRs are to bot accounts, which are technically "users" but for all practical purposes they are a wiki public tool or resource, making it sensible to park a redirect in project space. Joke redirects like WP:BASTARD to real users should probably be cleaned up, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Owen× ☎ 22:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If WP:BASTARD is retained, we should start an RfD to find a better target. I can think of several. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's schedule this for the next April 1st. Owen× ☎ 22:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks, my eyes hurt, i'll likely flood rfd tomorrow cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not flood RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  foiled again~

  don't worry, i likely wouldn't even nominate 7 of them. really, the only one i'm 100% not sure about (as opposed to being on the fence or unwilling to nom) is wp:nazifancruft cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 22:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse If an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale. Perhaps this was slightly out of process, but the discussion was clearly going to be closed as delete anyways, and this is a giant waste of volunteer time. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. I don't feel comfortable endorsing a G7 in this context where an ongoing discussion with good faith keep "votes" was short-circuited. But restoring the redirect is somewhere between pointless and a bad idea so I don't favor any action except a minnow to the deleting admin. In general, early closing of a "pointless" discussion is just as likely to generate a new round of drama and debate as it is to get people refocused on building the encyclopedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Get over it and a WP:TROUT for the appellant. No, it shouldn't have been G7ed while the discussion was going on. But also, the keep votes were of piss-poor quality from users that have a track record of overzealous keep votes. This one was egregiously asinine. The consensus was clear; what is even the point of this review? WP:NOTBURO. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  [T]he keep votes were of piss-poor quality from users that have a track record of overzealous keep votes is not something that is decided by a speedy delete admin. The fact is that there were keep votes, therefore making the deletion not uncontroversial and G7 should not have applied. WP:NOTBURO emphasizes following the principles, not the letter of the policy/guideline. A core principle of WP:SPEEDY is that the deletion is not controversial; this article is not a good candidate for G7 even though the author does request deletion. Frank Anchor 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant NOTBURO for here, because even if this is overturned, it's only going to be to list the discussion for another 3 days before the clear consensus to delete is enacted, further wasting everyone's time, far too much of which has already been done. "A core principle of WP:SPEEDY is that the deletion is not controversial; ..." But it wasn't controversial, because as others have already pointed out, no one was advocating for the existence of the redirect, only objecting with generic "it's harmless; stop listing these" hand-waves. And as also already pointed out, either keep voter would have perfectly clean hands in recreating a G7ed redirect, at which point it will go back to RFD and be deleted again. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Everybody recommending "keep" in the discussion is advocating for the existence of the redirect. That you disagree with their reasons for doing so does not change this. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse I agree with the OP that this should not have been deleted under G7 but I don't think its likely that leaving it open for longer would have resulted in a consensus other than "delete". The "delete" side (which has a 8-2 majority) have explained why this redirect is likely to inconvenience people and not likely be helpful while the "keep" side have argued its harmless without going much into why. Maybe it could be reopened to allow counter arguments about it being harmful but otherwise especially given its been closed 3 times (once by me) I think we can just let this one be. So while I don't really see a problem with re opening it, it does seem a bit pointless. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak enforse for the same reason as Crouch, Swale. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm pretty much a regular at the AFD daily log page and have seen G7 speedy deletions of articles being discussed at an AFD probably a dozen times over the past 4 years. It's not common but it happens. Often admins reviewing CSD-tagged articles don't even notice AFD tags as they frequently don't come to close AFD discussions after they have speedy deleted the article. Which is all to say, if we want policy to disallow G7 deletions of articles being discussed at AFDs, we should change CSD policy to state this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  G7 deletions of redirects at RfD is not uncommon, and when there are are no objections to the deletion it's uncontroversial and both good and useful. The only issue is what happens when there are objections to deletion - policy is unambiguous that speedy deletion is only to be used in uncontroversial cases. In pretty much every situation this is interpreted as meaning that good-faith objections to deletion make deletion controversial so it needs to go to XfD if someone still wants it deleted, except for some reason here when "I don't like it so we can ignore those who disagree with me" is being endorsed. Policy doesn't need to change, it just needs to be applied even when some people don't like it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes that's my understanding, G5 and G7 generally can't be used in an ongoing XFD where people (other than the author) have advocated keeping. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse simply because it looked as though consensus was swaying towards deletion. I do agree with the Thryduulf that the redirect was CSD'ed out of procedure/policy due to there being at least one "keep" vote in the discussion, but since it looks like consensus would have resulted in "delete" anyways, it's a big "meh" from me at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...In other words, "weak endorse per Crouch, Swale" since I just realized my rationale for my stance is almost identical to theirs. Steel1943 (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shuying Li (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The main page for Shuying Li, a notable Chinese-American composer, was deleted under the R2 criterion for a cross-namespace redirect. However, the article was intended to be a mainspace entry. Shuying Li's notability is supported by reliable sources from major publications, academic references, and performance history. I request that the main page be restored for further improvement and submission. 2600:1010:A13E:2DE2:D41D:BDA8:D765:C404 (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Get yourself unblocked; then we can talk about this. —Cryptic 19:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dara Greaney (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

my page and there are extensive additional sources. no effort was done to locate more. extensive expert interviews citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgreaney (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. The appellant has two accounts on en-wiki: one that he opened 17 years ago to write a one-line bio about himself (twice within five minutes) and add his birthday to the July 24 page, for a total of 5 edits, and the other that he just created to file this DRV. The guy is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Still, one has to admire the chutzpah of coming here and demanding "his page" back after 17 years... Owen× ☎ 22:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC) The AfD was closed unanimously and correctly. If the appellant has new sources establishing notability, they're welcome to submit a fresh draft. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're looking at the wrong article; dara greaney was about a different person. (I'd have G11'd this one, though it's good that it went to AFD so we can G4 recreations; it was also an uncaught G5 when created.) —Cryptic 22:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, thank you for fixing the link in the nomination. I'll amend my !vote. Owen× ☎ 22:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Not a real challenge and no real need to have a discussion. "My page" is irrelevant, there is no claim that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and "there are extensive additional sources" is not new information. "Extensive expert interviews citations" doesn't sound promising. There's no prospect of success.—Alalch E. 00:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or Speedy Endorse - The close was correct. The claim of existence of other sources, made after the AFD, does not affect the validity of the AFD. There was no obligation by the closer or the participants to locate sources; an effort to locate other sources is sometimes done during an AFD but is not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:Alalch E. - I disagree with your statement that "My page" is irrelevant. It is so relevant, although not in the way that the appellant thinks. It means that they have a conflict of interest that will need to be considered in reviewing their draft. But you knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just don't have a feeling that the DRV nom will be creating a draft. He hasn't shown any interest in or awareness of drafts. If "Dgreaney" creates the draft "Dara Greaney", it will be obvious that the page is a COI creation, so this does not need to be explicitly noted in advance. Conflict of interest is a situation that arises when a user edits content about a topic they have an external relationship to. This user hasn't been editing content and there is no indication that they want to contribute. The situation hasn't produced any tangible COI concerns yet. —Alalch E. 01:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Was the deleted page in mainspace? If yes, the user (the person, whatever accounts or IPs) was editing mainspace, contrary to the rules written at WP:COI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He never edited it himself, unless he was one of the IPs making minor updates. It was created as a redirect to his business by Ebele092 (SPI), then turned into an article three days later by Astha willim (SPI). Though a few of the edits between then and its AFD nine and a half years later rose above the trivial, I wouldn't characterize any as significant; not enough that they'd raise COI problems if done by the article subject, in any case. —Cryptic 01:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Review of Draft with a notation of conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unanimous consensus to delete. Appelant claims there are extensive additional sources but does not provide any. The sources mentioned at the AFD were correctly dismissed as being about the company and only providing passing mentions about the subject person. I do not support a speedy close to this DRV. Frank Anchor 14:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Striking speedy endorse to agree with User:Frank Anchor that we should give the appellant the courtesy that they have not given us in allowing them a 7-day discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It's routine to close discussions with this amount of input; it shouldn't be reopened or closed as "no consensus". When the nominator gives solid reasons for deletion, and both of the other participants do likewise, it wouldn't make sense to discount them; this isn't "delete because I don't like it" followed by a couple "delete per nom". Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Properly deleted. The topic looks non-Wikipedia-notable. Read WP:CORP to find the sourcing standards required for a commercial topic, including the biography of a CEO. Allow userfication if the proponent genuinely wants to try again, and they understand WP:COI, including the rule that they may not edit their own topics in mainspace, and must use WP:AfC for article creations. I advise them to get experience making mainspace contributions that are not WP:COI-forbidden. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• i am not a Wikipedia editor and even less experience with deletions, so this is a learning experience. (hiring one of the hundreds of firms editing Wp seems more of a COI issue then just stating it) This issue is notability and a quick search for articles i have been quoted in or interviewed for would turn them up. Many of them are linked on this page; https://www.ledlightexpert.com/authors-dara-greaney.html. I started BuyAutoparts and much of the page was based on that, since then I have started multiple lighting companies and helped create much of commercial LED products and i have authored hundreds or articles on led lighting which is why i am routinely asked these lighting questions. The expertise in lighting and articles is notable in itself before the founder of multiple companies is considered. Elon Musk is not notable himself, but his companies are. So by the same token his page should be deleted as well, but the reality is that because of his companies, his thoughts on EVs and rockets makes him expertise and notability. The same reason why Newsweek, USnews, House Digest, Homes & garden and lots of others contact me for quotes or just insights on lighting. (Again I have not proposed changes to the page content, just the exisitence of the page. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgreaney (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Notability is not the same as the word “notability”, unfortunately. You being quoted or interviewed does not establish Wikipedia-notability. Neither does a list of your achievements. What does is independent commentary about you. We need two such sources. See advice at WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Elon Musk is notable not directly because of the rockets and EVs, but because people became interested in him, and, independently from him, created multiple in-depth published works about him specifically. Wikipedia has content standards, they are designed to support its purpose as an encyclopedia, and they are enforced to protect its credibility and the perception that it is a high-quality resource. Editors collate and summarize the corpus of knowledge gained from existing sources of knowledge into a digestible, structured format, that deals with the topic directly and in some detail. A Wikipedia article is consolidated information that came from somewhere else. I think it should be clear to you that the quality of the raw material dictates the quality of the output. To continue including an article on a given topic, the editors need to believe that they are able to write a valid article. Being able means that it's objectively possible to create content of meaningful length that complies with the three core content policies. Mere existence of a page, notionally as an article, situated among other articles, but which is not policy-compliant and lacks encyclopedic substance, does not provide assurance that said thing is possible. In this case, editors noticed that something is wrong with the content (that's how it usually starts), they then looked at the sources, and coming to believe that (1) multiple sources with (2) significant coverage of you, which sources are (3) reliable, and are (4) independent of you, don't exist, they determined it implausible that we can have an acceptable article on the topic of your life and work. Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence from the subjects involved. If we don't have independent reliable sources, whatever we write based on the sources that we have will not be credible. Readers will not be able to check that information comes from a reliable, credible-looking source. The content will not be neutral. Whatever article about you Wikipedia might contain, it would be deemed a poor and unworthy article according to Wikipedia's policies. —Alalch E. 22:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. At such point as sources are presented – it being the duty of those seeking to retain or include content to provide them – we can look at this. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driggu Florentino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed as kept only 14 hours after it began after a self-draftify of and article that started in the draft space to begin with. The page creator has done this exact same thing before (about the exact same subject) in an attempt to derail an AfD discussion and was warned by Liz about it last time. cyberdog958^Talk 18:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the closure as a bad non-admin closure and Relist - The move of the page from article space to draft space after it has been nominated for deletion, especially with a history of contested moves between article and draft spaces, is an abusive move because it prevents the community from assessing notability after that issue has been properly raised. The closer made a good-faith error in thinking that the draftification made the AFD moot, but the move by the author to draft space was in bad faith. As the appellant notes, the author had already been warned by an admin that moving an article to draft space while an AFD is pending is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been caught up in this idiotic process before. I was the non-admin closer of the AfD, which I did as pure housekeeping because the mainspace article had been speedy deleted and there was no article to discuss for notability purposes. The AfD was indeed moot and this here discussion is merely an attempt to make it un-moot again, and I do not appreciate the adjective "bad" when I merely tried to clean up a mess that was caused by someone else's fractured procedures. I am amazed at how often this moronic sequence of events happens with nobody addressing the root problem. Someone moved a draft article to mainspace, someone else moved it back, another person requested speedy deletion, yet another person took it to a full AfD discussion, an Admin did the speedy deletion without looking at the status of either the concurrent draft article or AfD. And now you need still another process here to straighten all out. I suggest serious procedural discussions on how to prevent this idiocy in the first place, though I've said the same before and nothing happened. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have previously suggested, and will suggest again, that the display template on an article that is nominated for deletion should state not to move the article. The {{mfd}} template does include prohibitions against moving the page while the MFD is in progress. Why not add the same prohibition for AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Muthukumar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

She has done 3 lead roles in Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? , Sasural Simar Ka 2 and Do Chutki Sindoor. She also played the lead role in the marathi film Rangeela Rayabaa. Currently, she is playing the lead role in Main Dil Tu Dhadkan. I have supported all these with reliable sources in Draft:Radhika Muthukumar. So please review the last afd and move Draft:Radhika Muthukumar to mainspace 117.230.159.51 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The only argument from two of the three Keep votes was that notability hasn't changed since the previous AfD three years ago. The current AfD had a clear consensus among P&G-based views to delete. The appellant has not presented any reason to overturn, and is simply repeating what they said at the AfD, hoping for a different outcome. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, the current draft is a likely G5, just like the previous recreations there. It's not appreciably different from them. —Cryptic 19:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling school (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Wrestling school (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wrestling School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The rationale for deleting this page was that "All three currently target glossary of professional wrestling terms, specifically for a section on the word "school" which no longer exists." This is no longer the case as the glossary page has been updated to include this item. Circa 50 articles linked to "Professional wrestling school" and the decision to delete this page has therefore had a disruptive effect. I would propose recreating this redirect, along with the redirects Wrestling School and Wrestling school, pointing to Glossary_of_professional_wrestling_terms#school, as the arguments for deletion are no longer sound. McPhail (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirects due to the rationale for deletion no longer existing, as well as the low attendance in the RFD. I’m not advocating an “overturn” as the reason for deletion was presumably valid at the time, although restoring has the same end result as overturning. Frank Anchor 11:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Plus, while there's no such thing as "no quorum" for an RFD - uncontested deletion nominations are deletes there - I'd have expected a better-attended discussion to have taken notice of the article that was at this title before it was redirected way back in 2006. We have an entire category about specific wrestling schools at Category:Professional wrestling schools, so it's somewhat unreasonable not to have an article about the concept as a whole, let alone not even a redirect. —Cryptic 14:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Redirects - This is a case of WP:DRVPURPOSE3, which is not an Overturn. The new information is the restoration of the redirect target. DRV purposes 1, 2, 4, and 5 are requests to overturn a close. A request to restore a redirect because the target has been restored is not conceptually different from a request to restore an article due to newly published sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fine with whatever the consensus is here. I was just closing the discussion in what I thought was an appropriate way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirects per nom. The target has been restored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ijaz Hussain Batalve (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was only one keep vote, which was also countered. Most editors, including myself and the nominator of the AfD, Bastun, were in favor of draftifying it, yet the AFD was closed as NC. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Whether the Keep !vote was countered or not is a matter of opinion, and well within the closing admin's discretion. With only three other participants after three weeks, I'd say consensus isn't obvious. But instead of taking it to DRV, or even to AfD, why not tag it for HISTMERGE, and handle this editorially? Once the history merge is complete, the result will likely be uncontested. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The history merge is complete, so I assume this can be closed now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I saw the discussion on the talk page (Talk:Russians#Ethnic_group_?) and noticed again that deleting an article in 2015 causes problems. It is necessary to restore the article about the people of Russia. The lack of this article is the biggest shame in the history of Wikipedia. Otherwise, I will propose to merge into one article such articles as: British people and English people, European Americans and Americans, Belgians and Flemish people, Swiss people and Germans, Han people and Chinese people, Kosovars and Albanians and many others. The reasons for restoration are obvious to anyone who understands the difference between citizenships and ethnic groups. _ruASG⁺¹  04:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - The appellant appears to be requesting to unmerge a merge that was done boldly, without a deletion discussion. Is DRV the proper forum for this request, or should the discussion at Talk:Russians continue so that a rough consensus can be reached on whether to unmerge? Does any purpose of DRV apply to this request? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - After looking at the 5 purposes of DRV, my opinion is that it does not fall into any of those categories. Would an RFC be a better vehicle to address this request? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary's Baby (franchise) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article in question had only recently been questioned for whether or not there is significant coverage of the IP. Over the course of the ongoing discussion there had been various sources being added to the talk page, which all: discussed/detailed the history of the franchise. Furthermore, there are ongoing (i.e.: newer) sources being updated in the meantime. The article was deleted due to the usual AfDs time-limit of 7 Days (as detailed at here), but as the discussion was ongoing and there were various editors commenting to keep the page -- with requests to add more details, its deletion seems premature. The article's reinstatement would be both constructive, and allow for the contributors to further detail why the article does in fact have significance/notability.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Both the nom and Oaktree b's comments suggest the sources don't provide "critical discussion of the franchise" or "little discussion of it as a series or a franchise." In response the editors arguing to keep the article largely asserted sources exists ("More than enough sources to establish its notability" and "There are a number or reliable sources that detail the franchise as a whole"), but did not actually engage with or adequately refute the nominator's rational. I think delete was within the closer's discretion. --Enos733 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer was correct that the delete arguments carry more weight. Saying that a franchise is a franchise and that the nominator has made similar nominations isn't relevant. Saying that an article about a film franchise is a set index article listing all of the entries in the franchise... all of which are named differently... can't be counted as a serious keep !vote (this is what a film set index article looks like: List of films titled Hansel and Gretel). On the issue of notability, the keep side did not offer anything of substance in the discussion.—Alalch E. 21:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree with Liz that the long deletion statement was useful, similar to how a source assessment table is useful, although somewhat different. I do not think that it was useful for the nominator to respond to all of the Keeps, which got close to bludgeoning, but that does not affect the question of whether the close was correct. I do request a temporary undeletion in order to provide context for some of the statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robert McClenon: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I can't find the deleted article in the history. I will try again after getting a few hours sleep. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; the closer considered the policy-based arguments, which were primarily delete, and rightfully considered that over sheer numbers. One keep was actually a suggestion to turn the article into a list and move it. One keep was just an accusation. Two others didn't respond to the concerns expressed in the nom statement. It was open for three weeks, and the only addition since the second relist was a delete, so there wasn't growing support for keep. I'd have come to the same conclusion if I'd been closing. Agree with Robert Mc that the bludgeoning by the nominator didn't help. Valereee (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While I'm a bit disappointed I wasn't tagged for discussion with this as was suggested to the nominator here, I do want to acknowledge that yes, my responses were probably a bit close to bludgeoning. I'm relatively new to proposing deletion of content that is more complicated than this, I tried to encourage further discussion, failed, and took a bad approach. If there are any further approaches like this in the future, I'll definitely try to be a bit less badgery for obvious reasons stated above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This was a clear case where even though the keep !votes were more numerous, the delete !votes were much stronger. I appreciate the undelete as well, in order to make sure we haven't made a mistake in deleting something we shouldn't have, without turning this into AfD part two. After reviewing the last version of the article, I don't see any reason why the delete argument was mistaken or wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - I think that No Consensus would have been a stronger close, but the Keep arguments included a personal attack and were mostly vague waves. This is a case where the closer was within their discretion to ignore the numbers. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This AFD was something of an truck wreck, with unpleasant conduct both by Delete !voters and by the nominator, which was not easy to close. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Seeing as this is now under review, I appreciate the efforts by those to do so. I would also like to say that a reference I made to previous similar actions by agreeing with another editor's comment of "stench", may have been out of line. I publicly apologize to User:Andrzejbanas and reacknowledge that the declaration was not meant to be a personal attack, but rather that this ordeal seems very familiar as it had before. I too believe that a repurpose of the content matter into a list article may have been helpful. I am not at all sure what/if anything will happen of this, but again thank you for the review.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It's basically a mix of "keep because the nominator is doing the wrong thing", "keep because there are sources about the component films", and "delete because the franchise doesn't have significant coverage". The first is an argument for a speedy close, but once people show up and start giving reasons for deletion, we don't close a nomination merely because of problems by the nominator. The delete voters have done a good job of answering the remaining keep votes. I don't like it when we go against the raw numbers (it's 5 keep versus 3 delete, including the nominator), but when all the keeps offer is weak or nonexistent arguments, we're in WP:NOTAVOTE territory. I don't think "no consensus" would be good because I think we have to discount pretty much all the "keep" voters, and once they're ignored, all we have are "delete". Finally, there's one exception, the procedural keep at the start. I'm ignoring it because everyone else seems to have ignored it, either at the AFD or here. If Mushy Yank or anyone else wants to advocate for that idea (basically "undelete and turn into a set index page"), that idea could be argued for the start, or it could just be created anew; WP:G4 applies to recreations of deleted content, not completely different pages with the same title and (vaguely) the same scope, so it would need a discussion if someone actively opposed the existence of that page. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failure demand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Despite the author's COI and some mild puffery, article wasn't bad enough / promotional enough to meet the standard for deletion under WP:CSD#G11 - ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comment: the last version available in the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/web/20191011030924/https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Failure_demand) strikes me as clearly better than nothing; it describes the concept the article is about, provides examples both of the concept and of its application by real-world organisations, and cites valid sources. Yes, it was written by an employee of the concept's originator (see https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=User_talk:Charlottepell) and the article engages in some mild puffery about John Seddon, but IMO this is nowhere near bad enough to meet the standard described in WP:CSD#G11. The article is not exclusively promotional and doesn't need fundamentally rewriting, just tweaking and building upon.

I also note that citing of Seddon-associated books was given as part of the reason for deletion by User:JzG but IMO these are reasonable to cite and would have a decent chance of getting cited even by an editor with no COI, since Seddon coined the term the article is about. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse4.5 year old speedy. It will be easier to start anew than use that article which included "Sourcing" to Amazon and other sites tied with Seddon. Star Mississippi 15:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close. I am not sure I see the point in contesting a four year old speedy deletion, especially of such a poorly written and essentially unsourced article. The appellant doesn't need our permission to submit a new draft. There is nothing for us to do here. Owen× ☎ 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does it matter how long ago the article was deleted or that it was a speedy deletion? (Same question to @Star Mississippi who raised the same point above.) I don't see how that's relevant to the validity of the original deletion or the wisdom (or not) of reversing it now. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because there's no point or need. Start a new article, draft or mainspace is your call. As @OwenX said, you don't need DRV's permission for that and there's no grounds to overturn it. I'd recommend starting anew if you're using mainspace as that would be immediately nominated for AfD today or 4 years ago. You could have asked @JzG if they were willing to restore the draft if you really want to work from that. Star Mississippi 00:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  JzG hasn't been an admin for going on four years now. —Cryptic 01:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  fair enough. I still think it's courteous since he appears active, but you are correct Star Mississippi 01:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the deletion of the article. I do not agree with the speedy deletion of the article as G11, but the article as archived would never have survived AFD after the G11 was declined, because the sources are rubbish and the article does not make a case for the notability of the topic. If the G11 had been appealed four years ago, the article would have been restored, and would then have been deleted at AFD. Any request to refund the article is pointless. I very seldom see the point to requesting the restoration of a deleted article as a starting point for a new article; and if the appellant really really wants to use the original text, they have it in the archive, and there is no need for Wikipedia to restore it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Copying a version from the archive as a starting point would be a license violation and seems to me like a recipe for stupid copyright problems down the line (either for the encyclopedia or for the person doing the copying). Wikipedia contributions are dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, both of which require attribution to be preserved (as it is in the revision history on Wikipedia). I cannot attribute the content of the deleted article to its authors, because I can't view the revision history in the IA and so don't know who all the authors are.

  The only legal way to use a deleted article as a starting point is to restore it and work from that. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot attribute the content of the deleted article to its authors, because I can't view the revision history Sure you can. —Cryptic 12:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation either of article subject to AFD or draft subject to AFC, but that was already permitted because the title has not been salted. So this request is a waste of the time of the community and of the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd suggest you ask for the deleted article to be restored to your user space, take care of whatever issues there are, and move it into main space. For folks that argue "just write it", that can be a lot of work. If the deleted article is useful, let OP have it as a starting place. Hobit (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems reasonable to me. I'm happy to withdraw this proposal in favour of doing what you suggest here. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Fagan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see a clear keep in the discussion: There are four policy-based keeps, and the nominator's original concern about the state of the article was addressed... No one, including the nominator, claimed that the subject was not notable. Source analysis showed two strong GNG-compliant sources. A super detailed analysis by one participant shows that NACTOR is satisfied. I shared my objection with the closing admin before coming to DRV. The article will be retained regardless, but if the AfD is overturned to a keep as I recommend, we will be able to confidently remove the notability template from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my close as I said when TJT raised it (thank you). No ital or TQ for readability and I'm reproducing my own comment. [I also weighed Oaktree b & GMH Melbourne's input as weighing in on sourcing but not strongly enough to advocate for a keep (nor argue foe deletion) which is how I landed on NC. I've re-read my close and assessment and I don't see a keep here.] Noting here that I have no objection to TJT or anyone else removing the notability tag, nor do I have an issue with someone bringing it back to AfD down the line if they feel it hasn't been sufficiently improved. Star Mississippi 00:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh good grief The article sucked before. It might have been A7, but if A7 had been carried out, it could have been the right thing procedurally and the wrong thing for the encyclopedia, because as TJT has demonstrated after the fact, there's clearly enough RSing for the post-AfD-closure article. The discussion seemed to be focused on minutiae of CSD policy rather than should we have an article about her? If the article had been in its current state at the time of closure, this would be a clear overturn to keep. But what even is the point of that? This isn't likely to be nominated again, because it not only isn't the same article that was A7'ed or AfD'ed unsuccessfully, but because it appears to meet GNG as it stands now. I would take the no consensus, edit out the notability template, withdraw this and move on. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Jclemens, that is helpful advice. I withdraw the DRV request, now that there is sufficient support for removing the notability template. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Riize (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category was significantly expanded throughout the duration of the deletion nomination, to the point where parts of the original rationale and earlier "delete" votes may no longer be accurate. The expansion was noted in the discussion, however the discussion was closed before any new participants could join the discussion. RachelTensions (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had come to my talk page before going to DRV. (See step 1 at WP:DRV itself: Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.) I am normally happy to relist discussions if you wish to present additional arguments.

Your argument was responded to by Marcocapelle, and knowing the regular attendance at CFD it is very possible that there will not be further participants (all but one of the regulars have commented). However, you might be able to persuade someone else to agree with your point of view. To that end, I think relisting and pinging the previous participants would be a good way forward. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster Apologies, I wasn't aware that the closing admin could unilaterally reverse the closure without first going through deletion review. If it's allowed I will WP:WITHDRAW to allow relisting to avoid this process going forward. RachelTensions (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will close this as withdrawn and relist the discussion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]