Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September

File:Fuad Shukr handout.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

• {{Non-free web screenshot}} is for images of websites, not anything that happens to be displayed on one. Just read it: it's intended "for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question" (bolding original; italicization mine). The proper template would be {{non-free biog-pic}}. In that regard, you and Cakelot1 were talking past each other, and it shouldn't have been speedied solely on that basis - not even when we still had speedy deletion criterion F7a, which is the only one that would have applied for that reason; any reasonable admin would've fixed the template instead.
  The part that made this speedyable under a strict interpretation of F7c is that the Replaceability and Commercial parameters of {{Non-free use rationale 2}} were pasted in from a rationale for an image of a website qua website - "The software or website from which the screenshot is taken is copyrighted and not released under a free license, so creation of a free image is not possible." and "The use of a low resolution screenshot from software or a website will not impact the commercial viability of the software or site." respectively. Those do need fixing; they make Cakelot1's position much more reasonable than if it had just been the wrong non-free-use template; and they're just past what an admin looking at the expired F7c CSD template is expected to deal with himself. So I don't think Explicit acted wrongly.
  That said, on the merits, I agree that the free image we do have can't reasonably be considered an adequate substitute. Let's undelete this and send it to FFD; the paperwork in the usage rationale can be fixed there, we can all act aghast at the people who claim the eighteen pixels off to the right are sufficient for a biography, and the likely eventual keep result there should immunize it against further attempts at speedy deletion in favor of any of those pixels. —Cryptic 00:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (There's a slightly better version of the roughly-18-pixel free image we have here. I'd describe that one as "about seventy-two pixels". I don't think it's a sufficient replacement, either; it could identify at least four people I saw today.) —Cryptic 00:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your detailed reply, I've been around a long time but image policy has never been my strong suit. In short:I was winging it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and send to FFD per Cryptic. I see no fault in the deletion, but this would benefit from a discussion. No need to invoke IAR. Owen× ☎ 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and send to FFD as a good-faith contested application of a speedy criteria. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to FFD for a full discussion. Whilst it is on the face of it a valid speedy, I think discussing it in more detail would be sensible for the specifics of the situation. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and discuss. Minutiae of CSD wording aside, speedy deletion is intended for situations where the outcome is clear and does not warrant discussion, and/or where there is urgency due to chance of harm. That is not the case here, where there is clearly nuance. Let a proper discussion sort it out. Martinp (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and maybe send to FfD. The terrible free image is only technically an image but is not serviceable as illustration, meaning that a suitable non-free image can not be replaced with it, meaning that a non-free image can be used under WP:FREER.—Alalch E. 20:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Child (kinship) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wikipedia has a lot of pages for intersex or gender diverse people. Son, Daughter and Child(Kid) page cannot replace the structural need of separate page for this meaning. Why there are gender neutral pages for parent, sibling, nibling, stepchild, childlessness but not for child(offspring)? Sharouser (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To your question, a question: what was in the article you wrote - its entire content is visible in the "log" link above - that isn't already in Child? —Cryptic 00:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if entire content is visible in other article, this merging hurt structural relation. We can expand this article if this article is not deleted. Sharouser (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Who is "We"? Deb (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A10. There is no need for a WP:CONTENTFORK of a page that already fully describes the concept of human offspring. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Creator's arguments in favor of this article are vague at best, and not compelling. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the A10. The second paragraph in the existing article is about the kinship relationship. If there was additional information about the kinship relationship, it can be merged into the article by normal editing. If the author thinks that a separate article is in order, they can submit a draft via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No need for a sub-specified topic when the appropriate content is already covered in the existing article. It doesn't even add anything as a redirect, which is a relatively low bar to clear. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I can see that "child" is a kinship between animals as well as a developmental stage for an animal (in wikiworld generally human). In contrast, "sibling" is only a kinship and not a developmental stage. So, in principle there is more than one topic and so could be more than one article. However, in this case I think one article can suffice at present. I can't wrap my brain around the gender issue. Thincat (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable speedy deletion. As Robert McClenon mentions, anything additional can be covered in child by way of editing. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The alleged gender issue (in response to Thincat) is that the topic of this type of kinship being represented exclusively in articles "Son" and "Daughter" (assuming that it is not represented in the existing article "Child", which is not the case) is non-inclusive because this organization of content imposes or reflects a discourse that does not acknowledge (i.e. is indicative of erasure of; as in intersex erasure) the same type of kinship when the child is neither a son or a daughter because the child is an intersex or a gender diverse person.—Alalch E. 20:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Security (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a WP:BADNAC closed by an editor who has never closed an Afd in their life. Likely paid to close it as no consensus. I would like it reopened so a qualified admin can take a look at it. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• They did also close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Adu Kwakye earlier that day. These do appear to be their first two NACs. Daniel (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1966 Official Lebanese Map of Shebaa Farms and Syrian border.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article, article|XfD|restore)

Fastily deleted the map on the grounds that it was "redundant", but then deleted both the redundant map and the original identical map that had existed for some 10 years. The map is fine and useful and accurate and should be restored. We don't need two maps, but we do need one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is this an appeal of an action by Fastily or a closure by Explicit? The appellant says that Fastily deleted the map as redundant, but the history shows that Explicit deleted the map following FFD. What is being appealed? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The file Fastily speedied (after speedying this one, reconsidering, and undeleting it) was File:Shebaafarms.png. The files were byte-for-byte identical. Strictly speaking, he was right the first time and should have speedied this one (as the other had the longer history), but it was this one that was at FFD, so I have no problem with that. Endorse the F1.
  This file was properly deleted by the FFD, and I'm surprised it lasted this long. Fastily was exactly correct in his comment at the FFD - not only is this a classic WP:NFCC#1 violation, it's so classic that we have a line in our WP:Non-free content policy describing exactly this situation, at WP:UUI #4. It could have itself been speedied under either clause c or d of WP:F7; it didn't even need to go to FFD, so I'm endorsing the deletion there too. —Cryptic 23:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither Fastily nor Explicit have been notified by the filer, about this DRV. The instructions are very clear. I am at the point now with applicants of this nature who fail to follow basic processes that my !vote here is speedy endorse for being procedurally deficient, with supplementary reasoning of having minimal chance of success. Daniel (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pfft. I'm used to doing it, and wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only who's ever used any of the parameters of {{drvnote}} besides the pagename. (I got distracted this time by tracking down the other file being talked about.) The instructions at DRV are obscenely long and overcomplex, and various regulars here have fought tooth and nail against every attempt to streamline or simplify them, so we've only got ourselves to blame when everyone else's eyes just glaze over. —Cryptic 23:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've come to DRV to find things I've deleted have been listed here, and I wasn't notified. I know I'm not the only one. There's four steps listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review, and one of them is notify the closer of the discussion. It's basic courtesy on the part of the applicant, and to not do so is (in my opinion) a significant failing. I'm sure others will likely disagree but that's my $0.02. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point well taken. I'll try to do better. —Cryptic 00:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not you, Cryptic — it's on the applicants, entirely! You filling the void for these applicants' failings is obviously appreciated from a holistic standpoint, and you are doing great work in that space, but my umbrage is with the applicants who waste 7 days worth of DRV time with applications of various levels of frivolity yet can't even invest 5mins to read and execute the 4 steps required as part of completing an application here (one of which is to notify the closer of the discussion). Daniel (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not their fault. The instructions suck, we can't seem to fix them, and they (the other they) are already upset that the content they worked on's been deleted. That never happened to me here until after I'd been dragged to RFA so could get it back myself, but it has on other wikis, and that's bad enough even when I can later admit the deletion was reasonable. Least we can do is give people a fair hearing. —Cryptic 02:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DRV isn't FfD redux, and the nom has failed to identify anything wrong with Explicit's close -Fastily 09:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the speedy deletion and the FFD. The speedy deletion was for an identical image so I see nothing wrong with that deletion. The FFD was closed as delete per the consensus in the discussion. There has been no error in process for either deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the redundant map is to be deleted, then what possible excuse is there to delete the original map? I tried to use the original map in the article and could not, which is why I created the redundant map and gave clear reasons why there could not be a violation of WP:NFCC (the map by a government that no longer exists in 1966 cannot be obtained by any other source, only parts of it are used, it is out print, etc.).

  The original map has existed undisturbed on wikipedia for many years. There was no discussion before deleting it. I don't care about a second redundant map. My complaint is that the original map was deleted without any discussion.

  By all means, delete the redundant map IF YOU ALLOW THE ORIGINAL MAP TO CONTINUE. And if you do, please let me know how I can access it.

  Please do not delete a map that has existed for many many years without giving a reason.GreekParadise (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OPPOSE DELETION OF BOTH MAPS, including one that existed undisturbed for many years without a reason being given.

  I also tried hard to follow the confusing instructions in DRV. I recognize that I'm far from a wikipedia expert. If I could have used the original map, I would have.GreekParadise (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason we can't have two versions of this map is because they're redundant to each other. But the reason we can't have even one of them is because site-wide policy is not to use a non-free image when a free one can be created. The borders shown on the map aren't copyrightable, but the specific depiction of them on that map - the colors chosen, which features to depict and label, that it's a contour map (which isn't relevant to our use of it), all of these are fixed, original, creative choices that contribute to the map's copyright. We don't need to show this particular image to "prove" that the borders claimed on it were controversial; we don't even need to use an image at all. But if we do use an image, it's entirely possible to create one with a free license. —Cryptic 22:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This map has been on wikipedia for more than five years. I believe from memory it was updated in 2017 but I can't find the original because it was deleted. I created the second one, because wikipedia was not allowing me to simply copy and paste the original one. It asked me to give a detailed account of why it did not violation Wikipedia's "fair use" policy which I did.

  It's a reputable source precisely because it's 5% of the original source, whereas creating a new map would be the work of an individual editor and not trustworthy.

  We allow more than 5% of songs to be played on wikipedia. Real songs that are copyrighted by living people. If that's fair use, this surely is.

  Surely we can allow 5% of a large map from 1966 that is out of print and cannot be replicated to be shown on wikipedia.

  Furthermore, the reason for "speedy deletion" was NOT because of copyright issues but because of the so-called redundancy.

  If you want to delete a map that has been on wikipedia without complaint and survived several documented earlier requests for deletion, I submit you have to go through proper procedures and not seek a "speedy deletion" on false grounds of redundancy that you admit are not the real reason you don't like the map.

  I gave all the reasons why the map was explicitly proper under Wikipedia's fair use standards in my submission on the map. (Including it's a small portion, the copyright holder doesn't exist, the map is out of print, no financial harm, etc.) I suggest you address all of the issues I laid out in an official proceeding if you want to delete them rather than doing it ad hoc here.

  You -- or someone -- appears to have deleted the original map WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER. Is that correct? If not, where is it? I suggest you bring it back, because I don't think that's proper even if you think there's some proper reason for doing so.

  Then if you want to delete the original map or my redundant one (which is identical to the original except it gives more reason why it's proper fair use), you do so using proper wikipedia procedures. Simply take the original map and add my fair use argument to it and put it up for discussion.GreekParadise (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Incidentally, I just don't think it's wikipedia policy that we can delete something we don't like without making a record of it on wikipedia.

  If a record was made of it on wikipedia, could someone show me where the original 1966 Lebanese military map of Shebaa Farms was deleted and by whom?

  I admit to not being sophisticated about such things. If it exists, perhaps that is the undeletion of the original years-old file that we should seek. GreekParadise (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the deletion of the original file.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Shebaafarms.png&action=edit&redlink=1

If it's proper, we could have an additional deletion review discussion as to why that was deleted without any formal or informal discussion as "redundant." It's the older map. I didn't create it. I copied it when I couldn't just paste it into an article. You can keep the original one. and add my reasons (on the second map) as why it's appropriate for fair use. I just don't know how to undelete it.GreekParadise (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, Cryptic claims it's proper to delete the original map under WP:UUI #4.

So I went there. It says:

1. A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted. Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article.

As the map IS of a disputed territory and the controversy is discussed, it is proper to be included. There are several wikipedia articles falsely claiming that Lebanon and Syria consider this to be Lebanese territory as if it were always true. What the map unequivocally shows is that both countries considered it to be Syrian territory, at least in 1966.

It is maps like this one used by the UN that explain how and why the UN legally determined that the land was Syrian and not Lebanese. The controversy is discussed in these articles on Shebaa Farms, as well as the use of maps such as this one to prove the UN claim to be accurate. As it remains disputed today, the evidence is critical so that readers know it to be true.

++++++

Wikipedia has other maps of disputed territories on this site. For example, there is this portion of a 1898 map from the US government allowed for "fair use" here because it's a government document: Delaware Wedge.

Here's a portion of a map from the Pakistani government showing disputed territory allowed on wikipedia: Kashmir conflict#/media/File:Kashmir-Pakistan-government-map.jpg

The Shebaa Farms map was a Lebanese government document. If we can cite portions of US and Pakistani maps of disputed territory, why is this one any different? GreekParadise (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the map IS of a disputed territory and the controversy is discussed, it is proper to be included.

I think this is where the misunderstanding stems from. The example of UUI#4 doesn't talk about a map of a controversial territory (which is replaceable, as the territory is what the controversy is about), but a controversial map of a territory (i.e., the physical map itself is at the center of the controversy and isn't replaceable by an equivalent one).

An example of both cases would be the "Red Map" presented by the Hungarian delegation at the Treaty of Trianon. The article Magyarization uses it as an ethnic map only, which would not be valid for UUI#4 if it was under copyright (as the data could have been illustrated by this specific map or any other one). On the other hand, the article about its author Pál Teleki presents commentary about the map itself and the deliberate artistic choices that went into it (in this case, to over-emphasize the proportion of Hungarian speakers), and would be a valid case of UUI#4. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, the map under discussion is a controversial map. It is not just a map of a controversial territory. There are tons of maps showing the same region, but this map in particular has controversial features which, combined with its provenance and date, make the map itself a controversial object. Zero^talk 01:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map in Delaware Wedge is public domain, both for its age and because it was created by the US federal government. The nonfree map that was in Kashmir conflict has also been deleted. —Cryptic 15:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map clearly satisfies the exception spelt out in UUI#4, so I'll address the argument that a free version could be made. We should consider why that exception is there at all, since there is no map which can't be user-copied. The reason in this example is that the very existence of the map and not only the positions of the items on the map are a matter of dispute and misinformation. Setting the record straight on the facts is one of our roles, and a user-generated map will not suffice to do that convincingly. Also, this is a rare map that is not on the internet as far as I can tell, and the (great) editor who visited a library to copy this tiny portion is no longer with us. So even though I could make a copy, I can't cite the original map as if I have seen it myself. I don't even live in the same country as where this original is. For all practical purposes, I can't make a copy and personally confirm its authenticity. I can't even defer to the confirmation of the original uploader, since that is now gone. Zero^talk 03:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of maps that can't be user-copied. One's displayed just above - it's not a great example because it's now in the public domain due to age, but the point of the map is to show the author's creative decisions about which specific areas to color, since they don't exactly correspond to the populations depicted. File:London Tube Map.png couldn't be user-copied, since it not only doesn't correspond to the physical layout of the London Underground, but we have an article about this map and its predecessors, where the map itself is discussed directly and in detail - neither the century-old version that's in the public domain nor the user-created version that are also in that article can substitute for it. File:Bereznay atlas plate 34 detail.jpg can't be replaced with a user-created map of historical Transylvania in András Bereznay because the point of it there isn't to show the borders or other data represented in it, but the specific way it was illustrated, and the article discusses that. That wouldn't be the case if someone tried to put the map in Transylvania, or History of Transylvania or one of its other subarticles. Neither Golan Heights nor Shebaa farms discussed this map at all. It's not a controversial map. It's a map depicting a controversy. That's why a user-created version of this map would be an adequate substitute, and why the public domain maps in the same articles already are. —Cryptic 15:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the example is "a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article". I think we have exactly that. Further, there *should* be commentary on the map in the article. But we can't do that without the map. Is the right way forward to write a new NFCC justification, reupload the map, and then add the commentary or would that be seen as going around the FfD outcome? Hobit (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been nothing said here to suggest that this is "a controversial map of a disputed territory" rather than "a map of a controversial disputed territory" except for bare assertions; it's an important distinction, and it's what I've based my argument around. If there's legitimate commentary to be added about the map, that can be written up here or on the articles' talk pages or as part of an undeletion request, for example. If looking at the map is necessary for that, it can be done during the FFD if DRV relists, or I can temp-undelete it behind a blank image (probably after the DRV concludes; it's already slightly overdue to already); it's also at the Wayback Archive.

What's important is the commentary, not the non-free-use rationale on the file page or even the image itself; the latter follow from the former. The only statement about the map on either article was the caption, "A Lebanese military map, published in 1966, showing Shebaa Farms on the Syrian side of the border" (it was the same in both), which shows nothing about a controversy nor any other reason to use this map in particular. There might've been something longer in one article or the other at some point; I haven't gone digging.

If this is restored, btw, it should be the version at File:Shebaafarms.png, which has history going back to June 2005, not the duplicate uploaded to this title on July 31 of this year. —Cryptic 19:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a map which provides evidence of the dispute. And making a new one wouldn't carry the same meaning--it's just a map someone made. So while the map itself isn't controversial, it is evidence of the controversy being real. And making a new map would not be. Seems like a darn good reason to have it here. All that said, I agree the map itself is not subject to controversy. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• restore without prejudice to a new FfD per Zero. Zero makes a strong case that there is no reasonable way to make a free map that meets our needs. While this specific map is not subject to discussion, it's not required to be. Rather "Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article.". The controversy is discussed in the article and the existence of the map itself is clearly relevant to the dispute. That's enough and it's not discussed by the delete !voters. Hobit (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Florence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Outlines are an acceptable page type, along with navigation templates, indexes, glossaries, lists, portals, and timelines. That includes the Outline of Florence. Its deletion was essentially a personal attack on me, as an extension of the portal deletion war of 2019, and the nomination was not in good faith. Waggers sums it up best in the deletion discussion. The perpetrators of that war eventually turned on each other, and the nominator of the deletion was indefinitely blocked for bad behavior. Another outline that was similarly trolled around that time had its deletion overturned at DRV in https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_June_6#c-Sandstein-2019-06-14T16:55:00.000Z-6_June_2019 The main premise of deleting the Outline of Florence was that it was a content fork. However, the term "content fork" is a classification that includes acceptable and unacceptable forms, but the term wasn't used that way. Unfortunately, at the time, some well established page types were missing from that guideline, and the guideline itself was very poorly written and structured. Disclaimer: I updated the guideline about a year ago to reflect the status quo, and recorded the missing de facto standard page types, without opposition by the guideline's watchers (the page is closely monitored). It has had plenty of time to season, and has been tested via application in multiple deletion discussions since. Please take a look. (Here's a before/after diff). Outline of Florence was created to be part of a set and compares favorably with the outlines of other cities in and around Italy, including Outline of Rome, Outline of Vatican City, Outline of Milan, Outline of Naples, Outline of Palermo, Outline of Turin, Outline of Venice, and Outline of San Marino. Please overturn its deletion. Thank you. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   11:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the deletion was a "personal attack", this belongs in AN/I, not DRV. Or rather, belonged, seeing as this drama took place five years ago. The subsequent banning of the AfD nominator does not invalidate the result of the AfD ex post facto. I see nothing improper in how Jo-Jo Eumerus closed it. There was a rough consensus to delete, even if we ignore the nomination itself.

The appellant is arguing on policy basis, so this appeal doesn't qualify under DRVPURPOSE#3. We are presented with a long list of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but unlike, say, Outline of Rome or Outline of Turin, the deleted article contained a grand total of 64 words of prose before the long list of wikilinks, much of which is already covered in Template:Florence landmarks. And by the way, Outline of Turin has received 80 pageviews over the past 30 days, and Outline of Venice - 36. Hardly the useful navigational tool it was purported to be. Of course, the appellant doesn't need our permission to submit a fresh draft to AfC, and I have no objection to REFUNDing to draft or to a new AfD, hopefully without the interpersonal drama. Owen× ☎ 12:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (I voted in the AfD and gave actual reasons why this timeline was bad). The other stuff reason given here is interesting: based on that perfectly valid AfD and looking at e.g. Outline of Venice, I see more reasons to delete that outline based on the AfD, than to restore the Florence one based on the existence of the Venice one. Fram (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Agree with Fram on all counts. Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy moot, a five year old AfD isn't going to be overturned. If you want the text to work on a new version, just ask an admin. If someone feels it needs a new AfD once in mainspace (or Venice needs deleted), it can be filed. Star Mississippi 14:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation if it is believed that something is needed fom DRV. WP:NOTDUP applies to outlines. The section I'm linking to fails to mention outlines by name, but the start of the guideline does. Glossaries, indexes and timelines are also not duplicative to whatever, i.e. not redundant. Outlines can be good or bad. Good outlines can become featured outlines and these exist, believe it or not: Category:FL-Class Outlines articles. Florence was a country and a capital of a significant modern era power, and it's just a big topic with a bunch of stuff going on. That should increase the suitability of this outline topic and not lead to a conclusion that an outline with a lot of information is duplicative to the article. I protest this invalid rationale. Ultimately, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. So if there is a perception that it is duplicative, try doing something about it editorially, and see if there's consensus for making the outline more abstracted etc.—Alalch E. 15:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I participated in that AfD, but that was an AfD where the I don't like it's trumped the I like it's. There's no reason to keep it deleted if we have other outlines of other similar pages. SportingFlyer T·C 22:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is not entirely clear whether the appellant is asking to overturn the AFD to No Consensus or Keep, or whether the appellant is asking to recreate an outline in draft form subject to review.
  • • This is an unserious appeal that consists of too many insults. The appellant says that they were personally attacked or trolled by this nomination, and claims that the nomination was part of the "portal wars" of 2019. The appellant did not raise any issue about a personal attack within the past five years.
    • To refresh anyone's memory, the appellant started the portal wars by creating thousands of low-quality portals by an automated technique. This prompted a review of both recently created (2018 and 2019) portals and existing portals. Certain types of portals, including those created by automation, have been deprecated.
    • The ArbCom case was inconclusive about portals because, as an ArbCom case, it focused on conduct. The ArbCom case resulted in one administrator desysopped for personal attacks, which was a Super Maria effect. The ArbCom case also resulted in an RFC on portal guidelines which fizzled out. We have no portal guidelines because it was discovered that the long-existing guidelines had never been properly ratified. An RFC to ratify the long-existing guidelines failed, probably because there was and is division and polarization in the community over portals.
    • The original nominator of the AFD was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks (on a now-banned user), not for flawed nominations.
  • Endorse the original close as Delete. The closer was correct and the appellant has not established any error.
  • Allow Recreation of Draft for review.
• Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't get this. We can either endorse or overturn the afd - I don't have a strong opinion on that, I don't find outlines at all useful as a reader even compared to the minimal usefulness of categories, but I'm willing to accept that other people do - but I can't imagine a new version of this that wouldn't be a G4. There isn't enough room in the format to make a substantive change. Sure, you can rewrite the three sentences of prose at the start, or use different illustrations, or pick a different subset of articles to link to, but it'll essentially be the same thing we deleted. If we tell the appellant here that we're not going to just undelete the old version like he demands (and I'm using that word advisedly), but we'll let him have it back only if we arbitrarily make him rewrite it for the sake of making him do more work and no other reason, that's a rotten thing to do. —Cryptic 11:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (Closing admin) I don't buy the claim that the nomination was a personal attack on anyone, there is no evidence for one thing. From what I remember, there was a major dispute back then on whether portals and outlines were actually useful or not, but I don't think that the existence of this dispute automatically invalidates an AfD on an outline page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and disallow recreation as there's no actual argument presented for doing anything else other than AfD-round-2-ing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse, 5 year old AFD, if you want to recreate then there are channels for that. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse This page would have been part of the ‘outline of knowledge’ that was a vanity project of the nom from the very early days of the project, where they hijacked or copied pages intended for other purposes to create a series of pseudoarticle/forks that thankfully never caught on. Fundamentally they all retold information already contained in existing articles so there is no loss in it being expunged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Regretfully, growth and refinement requires some culling, and a lot of dedication into experiments that didn’t work out means it has to go. I am thinking of Portals and Outlines. Both should be archived. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation: per Cryptic's very pragmatic and sensible comment: I can't imagine a new version of this that wouldn't be a G4. (...) If we tell the appellant here that we're not going to just undelete the old version (...), but we'll let him have it back only if we arbitrarily make him rewrite it for the sake of making him do more work and no other reason, that's a rotten thing to do. (i.e. allow moving the Draft to Main; if someone wants to take it again to AfD then, they can).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's... practically the exact opposite of what I was trying to say. If we're going to allow recreation, we should just undelete the old version. If we're not willing to undelete the old version, we shouldn't allow recreation. Or is there already a complete draft recreation that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic 00:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if it's complete @Cryptic but believe Draft:Outline of Florence is what @The Transhumanist is wishing to restore or merge with the deleted draft or... something else? Star Mississippi 01:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I found that. It's objectively worse than the deleted version, while at the same time I'd've acted on a G4 tag on it in mainspace absent this DRV. If we want this, we want the best version of it we can manage - everyone agrees on that, right? - and I guess I don't see the point of getting there in anything but the most straightforward, least-effort way possible. Unless it's just spite. The only thing we could do that would be worse would be to not make up our minds until he finishes the rewrite and then decide to redelete it. —Cryptic 01:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    if we want this, we want the best version of it we can manage - everyone agrees on that, right absolutely.

    I personally think regardless of our personal opinion on this outline or outlines as a whole, this isn't even a case where DRV is needed. We're not overturning an AfD this old and it's probably time for a new discussion based either on the restored, the draft or a combo thereof. Maybe consensus is the same and maybe not. Star Mississippi 01:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Without DRV's intervention, one of three things happens: A) TTH does nothing (further) and we never have an outline at this title. Equivalent to a "Endorse, disallow recreation" outcome here. B) TTH finishes his draftspace reconstruction of the old version and it gets moved into mainspace and nobody speedies it. Unnecessary waste of labor, and we probably end up with a worse version. Equivalent to "Endorse, allow recreation". C) TTH finishes his draftspace reconstruction of the old version and it gets moved into mainspace and it gets speedied. Worst case scenario. Just as unnecessary a waste of labor, and we don't even end up with anything to show for it. Nobody's happy.

    With DRV's intervention, we either eliminate the possibility of C, or at least TTH knows that the version he's working on will get speedied when it's moved to mainspace, so he'd have no one to blame for the extra work but himself. And we add option D) undelete the old version, which is the same as B but without wasting the labor of manually rebuilding the outline. If we're not sure, we could even undelete the old version and immediately run a new AFD. That's still superior to making him rebuild a new version and AFDing that when he's done.

    I'm not seeing a path where "DRV does nothing at all" is better. The only one where it's not any worse is scenario A. —Cryptic 02:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes,@Cryptic I understand "allow recreation" is practically the opposite of what you proposed. But permit me to quote your sensible comment, all the same! (:D) Now, if you prefer, for the sake of consistency, I am not opposed to overturn. But I was trying to be pragmatic myself. Undelete it, sure, I would be in favour of that, but as long as there was a Draft, I thought we could start there, close this and allow work on it (and let it to be moved to Main) and make sure that that will NOT be G4ed (whatever "that" is: a recreated page/a moved Draft/a refunded/an undeleted page). If you think I should have suggested overturn, then consider I did, and strike my "Allow recreation", I don't mind, as long as the page exists again in the Main sometime later. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Quoting you again (:D) If we want this, we want the best version of it we can manage - everyone agrees on that, right? - and I guess I don't see the point of getting there in anything but the most straightforward, least-effort way possible. Absolutely. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Allowing recreation without undeleting is just about the most-effort way possible. And most pointless. That's the only outcome here I object to (and strenuously). The deleted version looks like the draft, but with a prose intro half again as long; about twice as many headers; roughly four times as many total list items in those headers; and about 30 images compared to the draft's 3. —Cryptic 00:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. I thought I had clarified my position (more or less your "D" is the best outcome). And firstly, please bear in mind that I have and had personally no access to the deleted version. But secondly, since you say the deleted article was much better, again, consider I suggest overturn and undelete. (and, also again, feel free to strike my "Allow recreation" if you think that is confusing). I will probably make no further comments here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mushy Yank and Cryptic: Here's the deleted version: https://web.archive.org/web/20190509153600/http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Outline_of_Florence .    — The Transhumanist   06:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review because I am dumbfounded by the interpretation of consensus. The article was nominated for deletion because it fails WP:GNG: it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The Keep !votes argue that "she would almost certainly have more sources if historical sources wrote more about women". Somehow this speculative argument has been found to outweigh the fact that there is, in fact, no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Is it now enough to assert that sources would have existed if the world were a different place? Is this going to apply to content disputes as well? Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The closure of No Consensus was a valid closure, and the closer provided an adequate closing statement that addresses the appellant's concern. The appellant says that there is insufficient coverage of the subject. The closer acknowledges this argument, and says that her position was notable, and that the argument that her position was notable was made in support of the Keep statements. It is somewhat unusual for a closer to make a closing statement in support of No Consensus, and the closer should be thanked. The appellant appears to be saying that the closer should have discounted the Keep statements. The Keep position was soundly argued based on notability of the position of Lady of the Bedchamber, and the closer relied on this argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How's that soundly? —Alalch E. 21:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Robert McClenon, which notability guideline says that holders of notable offices are themselves inherently notable? Such a position is entirely contrary to Wikipedia's notability guideline. It is, in fact, a classic example of inherited notability fallacy. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. The delete side has successfully argued that the article is not suitable for retention on notability and WP:NOTGENEALOGY grounds and the argument that the courtly function is a notable topic is a red herring and is a question relevant to the article about that court title, not this biography. Some keeps admitted that the sourcing is not there, which means they made an observation consistent with the conclusion that the article should be deleted. They then excused this by saying that in her time the subject wasn't covered much because of systemic bias, but this does not matter as Wikipedia can't fix historic injustices. They did not argue that the article is a suitable encyclopedic entry in spite of a lack of notability, by explaining what its encyclopedic value is. Its encyclopedic value can't be that we're covering non-notable women from 250 years ago to make a point about systemic bias. The only reasonable close would have been to weigh such arguments less favorably than the clear policy-based arguments and to find that there is a rough consensus coming from the policy-based delete advocacy. —Alalch E. 21:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse NOTINHERITED is the wrong argument against the Keeps; NC is a perfectly valid reading of the lack of consensus. NC is valid when the participants degree about policy, just like it is when they disagree about facts or sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one used the word "inherit" or linked to WP:NOTINHERITED in the AfD. The deletes did not base their case on an essay. The keeps did not argue that the page makes for an article that is suitable for retention in spite of policy (1. this is a possibility, as the policies aren't perfect; 2. they could have done it and those arguments would not have been discountable). They said that it should be kept because of the 18th and 19th century systemic bias, because the subject had a certain position, and because she appeared in a certain painting. So this isn't a disagreement about a policy. It isn't policy-based arguments vs. relevant policy-questioning arguments. It's policy-based arguments vs. red herrings. —Alalch E. 08:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete This seems like the SNG vs GNG thing all over again. It's clear from the discussion that GNG isn't met, though, especially considering it was well argued by delete !voters and even keep !voters mentioned this, meaning there was consensus GNG wasn't met. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The Keeps are weak as a group, but the argument that we should have articles on all holders of a highly notable office is basically a WP:NPOL argument and not so unreasonable as to be summarily ignored. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: The keeps are aligned with the first bullet point in WP:NPOL, so they are policy-based. See, for instance, these other AfDs, for comparable arguments: [1], [2], [3].TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:TheJoyfulTentmaker, Eluchil404, could you please explain to me which of the two points of WP:NPOL, namely "politicians and judges" and "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", does a lady-in-waiting with no significant coverage meet? Also, and this is entirely on me for not noticing earlier, not even our source for her lady of the bedchamber role can be called reliable source coverage – it is a self-published genealogy website. Surtsicna (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Surtsicna: The first bullet of NPOL essentially says: Politicians who has held state/province–wide offices are presumed notable. It is a very legitimate interpretation of the policy to consider the position held by the subject to be equivalent to state/province-wide politicians, and all of the keep votes included some reasoning along these directions. The two bullet points in the guideline are connected with an OR, not an AND; so if the position is important enough, that by itself is considered sufficient evidence of Wikipedia-notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I participate in a lot of discussions where WP:NPOL is relevant. She was married to a member of parliament but was not a member of parliament herself, so NPOL is crystal clearly not met here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer: You're not getting it; it is being said that she meets NPOL because she was a Lady of the Bedchamber ... ... —Alalch E. 17:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly can't tell if you are joking? SportingFlyer T·C 00:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not joking. —Alalch E. 07:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer: Hey, while here, what do you think about the painting argument (central character of a notable painting). Observe: File:Joseph Mallord William Turner - England- Richmond Hill, on the Prince Regent's Birthday - Google Art Project.jpg—Alalch E. 17:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete - The delete side clearly showed that GNG was not met. Sandstein's comment summed this up: Nobody above makes an argument that any given source covers the subject in the depth required by WP:GNG. There are very many AfDs where non policy votes are made, and two of the people endorsing this AfD recently endorsed a close that overturned a clear majority delete on the basis that most of the 17 delete votes were not based in policy, but seem less willing to overturn non policy keep votes (in that case or this one). We are repeatedly reminded that AfD is not a vote, and that it is the arguments that hold sway. But here, even the keep votes understood that the article did not meet GNG but wanted to keep the article because it was, to them, the right thing to do. AfD is already biased to keeping information, because a no consensus close keeps an article. It is not appropriate to leverage that to keep an article that clearly does not meet GNG, just because a number of voters showed up to keep it, without any valid P&G reason. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As an AfD participant, I'm involved, but as closer I'd probably have closed this as "delete" because, as I pointed out in the AfD, there were no policy- or guideline-based "keep" opinions. Sandstein 10:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the delete side was probably marginally stronger, however the keep side made reasonable arguments that the article passes an SNG. There was not consensus to delete the article despite it being listed for a month. Frank Anchor 16:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure of no-consensus as there was none. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I read the discussion as being between “no consensus” and “delete”, and with “no consensus” being well within admin discretion, and for a female historical subject, erring on the side of keeping is readily justified. WP:PRESERVE should be applied, and cutting content and merging is a likely good outcome that wasn’t given consideration. I advise cutting and consider merge possibilities. Failing that, see WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. None of the keep !votes even alleged sourcing exists, and not a single person put forth an argument as to why this specific subject (rather than her position) is notable in any non-GNG way or how her genealogy is so encyclopedic we need to IAR to keep it as a standalone. The only valid contributions here supported delete. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was a manifestly correct one. There was, indeed, no consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Lomtadze (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello. Please consider restoring the article. It was deleted twice before. The last time on September 19, the article was removed by quick deletion. It was in draft for a long time and then moved to the main space. The article is written in a neutral tone with authoritative sources. There were no claims to significance in the draft. There were questions regarding the style of presentation. The draft has been corrected. However, after moving to the main space, the article was deleted. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Previous deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 7#Mikheil Lomtadze. I'm leaning toward simply assuming that the content was sufficiently identical in spite of the stated corrections regarding style.—Alalch E. 10:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I cleaned the article of advertising phrases and unnecessary sources. Please look at the latest deleted version of the article. It was moved from the draft. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. Both AfDs, the previous DRV, and the subsequent G4 were all correct. Someone seems to be paying good money to revive this self-aggrandizing curriculum vitae, and our goal should be to minimize the time wasted by other editors re-reviewing this. Consider adding to WP:DEEPER if this comes back here again. Owen× ☎ 10:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are very categorical. The person is significant. The last edition of the article was not written in an advertising tone. I submitted a request here to discuss restoring the article. The deleted article was not created bypassing recovery. It was in draft for a long time and then was moved. All comments have been eliminated. Nobody pays any money! There is no monetary interest on my part! 195.49.205.23 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll endorse this too. The text is different, but there are no new relevant, substantive factual changes except his purchase of Wycombe Wanderers F.C. (BBC ref). 20 of 32 refs were present in at least one of the versions deleted at afd, most of the rest aren't WP:SIGCOV, and at least one has the same text as one of the refs in the previous versions (there were 75 of those; I'm not about to read them all). —Cryptic 11:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can cut out even more of the text and make a stub. The person is significant according to Wikipedia criteria. And as the owner of a football club, and as the owner of the largest bank in Kazakhstan. I did not intend to make an advertisement out of this article. I was editing a draft that someone had created over a year ago that had been moved into the main space. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The way you have constructed your DRV nomination makes it impractical to process. You should have made a new draft precisely along the lines of "make a stub" based entirely on the WP:THREE best references so that the draft speaks for itself as evidence that a suitable encyclopedia entry is possible. Lack of certainty among editors that it is possible is literally the thing that causes the article to be repeatedly deleted. Do you want to do that? Please remember, three. —Alalch E. 12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:THREE is as usual good advice, but "make a stub" in this case isn't - there was a new article. The problem is that, whether long (the 2024 and September 2022 deletions) or short (the March 2022 deletion and proposed new stub), there doesn't seem to be anything to say about this person other than that he has a whole lot of money; that he's spent some of it; that he's run a couple redlinked companies; and that there's a bunch of very shallow and similar articles saying all that. —Cryptic 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note logs at alternate romanization Mikhail Lomtadze. —Cryptic 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 to keep. I came across the most recent incarnation of this page during New Page Review and was prepared to G4 it, but as I checked the sources, they did include SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. As a result, I decided to mark it as reviewed. (I also wanted to defer to the judgment of Dr vulpes, who published the article at AfC, which is precisely where a COI editor should be expected to submit content.) This could be is a DRV#3 case, where there's new coverage and new information (principally Lomtadze's acquisition of a football club, which resulted in new SIGCOV meeting the standard (see BBC and Vedomosti). It's also a case of DRV#5, in which the two deletion nominations did not rely on a detailed source analysis. I believe the nominations were made in good faith (there is clearly COI/UPE going on) but the nomination statements did not show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search, and neither the (very poorly argued) "keep" !votes nor the (good faith) "delete" !votes did any detailed source evaluation. Instead, the discussion focused more on Lomtadze being most greatest businessman in most glorious nation of Kazakhstan! (the keeps) while the deletes focused on the UPE and COI issues plus the low-quality sources present in the article. However, a WP:BEFORE search finds SIGCOV in Forbes (by Forbes staff and thus a reliable source), in Bloomberg News in 2020 and again in November 2022. In Georgian, we have a major in-depth profile on Radio Tavisupleba and coverage in Fortune.ge. I think it's time to revisit these previous discussions and overturn to "keep," while protecting the page to mitigate COI editing. Alternatively, we could bring this to a new AfD where the sources can be re-evaluated, particularly those that have been published since the last AfD in 2022. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the delay @Dclemens1971, for whatever reason this notification slipped through the cracks. When I moved the article from AfC to main my rationale was that the article passed the rules at AfC and with the newer information about buying the football club the article passed notability. I will fully admit it did not pass by much and was a hard call for me, but I am particularly conservative with BLP. Both of your proposed remedies would be satisfactory, I would lean towards AfD so we can sort out the references and get someone who might know about non-English sources a chance to incorporate them properly. As always if I made some mistake in judgment please let me know. Pinging @Star Mississippi and @Pppery. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4 (do nothing else; don't touch the AfD, which is not even contested). Not sufficiently identical (text significantly different and article less refbombed) and too heavily contested for a speedy deletion. AfD said the content was promotional but notability worth exploring, and then an AfC reviewer accepted the submission apparently accepting the new text as not promotional and a new page patroller marked the article as reviewed. So the last incarnation was a non-negligible attempt to fix the promo side at least, while notability is neither here nor there in terms of settledness because not even the AfD was closed as "delete" purely on the grounds of lack of notability, and in this DRV notability is being revisited kind of de novo. G4 isn't the correct tool to address this.—Alalch E. 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to Resubmit to AfD per the source analysis done by Dclemens1971. I still see no fault in the AfDs or the previous DRV, but there's no need to deprive ourselves of a potentially notable topic just to punish COI editors. A semi-protect for the article would be advisable. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Time for a new AfD based on the new version that was just G4ed. Semi Involved as closer of 2022 AfD. While I don't know whether factors have sufficiently changed that Lomtadze is notable and don't have time or interest to dig into the sources, it's worth community discussion and not a speedy. Star Mississippi 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse of G4 - I haven't seen either the 1 September 2022 version deleted by Star Mississippi after the second AFD, or the 19 September 2024 version deleted by Sandstein as G4, and we don't have a statement by Sandstein that the 2024 version was substantially the same as the 2022 version, so I will trust that Sandstein concluded that the 2024 version was substantially the same as the 2022 version. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Submission of Draft, subject to review either by administrator, or by reviewer who is given copy of 2022 article, but not recreation of article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Requesting tempundel to review the G4 with more certainty.—Alalch E. 21:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that will have to be a double tempundel of the 2022 and 2024 versions. McClenon mobile (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first afd'd version, the second, and yesterday's G4. The sources in the last that weren't in either if the first two are #1, #3, #7, #8, #16, #17, #18, #20, #21, #22, and #23. Also, sort of, #14, which has text identical to this ref from version 2, which gives me no confidence in any of the other "new" forbes.kz refs. —Cryptic 00:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Having not seen the previously deleted versions, these are definitely sufficiently different that the 2024 version should not have been G4'd. Especially since it had gone through AfC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4. Above source analysis shows the version deleted in the AFD and the G4ed version are not sufficiently similar. This can be sent to AFD if desired. Frank Anchor 02:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 and send the offending admin back to CSD G4 school. This applies to sufficiently identical copies, [...] It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. G4 is not because the same deletion rationale still applies--even if it does unquestionably. G4 is not for repeated UPE recreations, unless they would be G4 eligible even absent the UPE. New AfD? Sure. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 I'm not sure I'd keep this at AfD, but I don't think this qualifies for G4 as it's not close to being identical. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 because the version deleted at the 2024 AFD and the version deleted at the G4 are not substantially the same, so the conditions for G4 were not present. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As speedy deleter, I disagree with the assertion that the new version of the article was not "sufficiently identical" in the sense of G4. It had new sources, yes, but it was was not deleted for lack of sources or non-notability, but for being an exercise in self-promotion. In this respect, the new version and the old are identical, in that they are, as someone above put it, all about "Lomtadze being most greatest businessman in most glorious nation of Kazakhstan". This is apparent from the fact that nothing even remotely critical of the subject appears in an ostensibly neutral article about the third-richest businessman in a notoriously corrupt country. I am perplexed at the effort some here expend to help such people use Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion. But if G4 is too controversial, then I suppose we'll have to go back to AfD. Sandstein 10:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G4 explicitly means sufficiently identical. Either an article is or it isn’t. The presence of multiple new sources means it is not sufficiently identical and should not have been G4ed. The fact it was was not deleted for lack of sources or non-notability, but for being an exercise in self-promotion is not grounds for G4. You could possibly make an argument for G11, though I disagree with that as the temp-un deleted version shows it is not exclusively promotion/advertisement. Frank Anchor 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I know you're not a native English speaker Sandstein, and I'm wondering if this is a semantic drift disconnect. Identical means the same. Not "similar", the same. "Sufficiently identical" means that trivial differences--e.g., reordering, punctuation, spelling changes--aren't enough to dodge G4. But one single new source means a new article isn't G4 able. Now, if one or more editors are gaming the system by trickling in new references to try to avoid the technical eligibility for G4, that is an excellent reason for other behavioral interventions such as pblocking, blocking/banning, salting, and DEEPER. But each of those benefits from a discussion, as they rightly should, because in very few cases do we want unilateral admins memory holing articles or editors--and when we do, it's usually best left to functionaries (checkusers and oversighters) because something really against conduct norms is happening. So please... don't pretend similar articles are identical. Call them out, have the discussion, and in doing so highlight the conduct issues of the editor(s) in question. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, adding one new source to a deleted article wouldn't necessarily be enough to overcome G4 on its own. You seem to be arguing that it only applies to identical or near-identical pages. SportingFlyer T·C 06:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "identical" instead of the word "similar" cuts your argument off at the knees. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Identical" would mean corresponding exactly to the deleted version. That would almost never be the case. Therefore WP:G4 refers to "sufficiently identical", or "substantially identical", which means it that conceives of identity as a matter of degree, of not as a binary property. And by excluding "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" G4 makes clear that what matters for the purpose of assessing the degree of identity required is the degree to which the reason for deletion - in this case, being unduly promotional - still applies. Because the article is still an exercise in self-promotion, the G4 deletion is in my view appropriate. Sandstein 07:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies means that even if the reposted content is 100% identical, if the rest of the world has changed such that the reason for deletion didn't apply, G4 is invalid. Kind of an odd situation, but consider an AfD based on copyvio that's somehow not G12'ed. Website that's the source of the quoted material suddenly puts up a reuse-friendly license (I'll leave the details to the people who specialize in such things). Someone reposts a bit-for-bit copy of the copyvio-deleted article... now G4 does not apply because the reason for deletion no longer does. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and your reasoning backwards from that clause, even if erroneous, does give good insight into why you (and probably others) thought that G4 could be valid on a different but similar article to which the same deletion rationale clearly applies. This moves dialogue forward; thank you. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you're trying to lecture someone about the meaning of policy that he wrote, right? I think he knows what he meant, even if the previous version left a little less room for deliberate misinterpretation. —Cryptic 17:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Words have meaning independent of the authorial intent; this is the essence of modern critical scholarship. Are you suggesting that originalism is instead Wikipedia's guiding principle? Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion should not be used except in the most obvious cases. This isn't fulfilled here and that's it. Two established editors took actions to cause this to reappear in mainspace: an AfC reviewer and a new page patroller. They didn't notice that the reason for the deletion still applies because its continued existence is inherently non-obvious due to the complexity of the situation involving a rarer (but commendable) AfD result of a deletion not on grounds of non-notability but almost purely on promo grounds and there existing the need to understand that purely affirmative content about a tycoon in a post-Soviet republic needs to be strongly suspected for promotional intent and is likely not suitable material even if the tone is not promotional and the statements made are not falsely aggrandizing. This is not an obvious case so speedy deletion should not be used. —Alalch E. 12:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4: After an AfC reviewer moves an article to the mainspace, it is not appropriate for an admin to speedily delete it due to G4, even if it is the same as a previously deleted version, especially when there is a long time between the last deletion and the review. This action shows how admin powers can unfairly favor the admin’s view, and it should be avoided. It permanently reverses the reviewer’s decision without discussion. A better approach would be to move the article back to draft space and talk with the AfC reviewer to understand their reasoning. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The other way of analyzing matters is that the AfC reviewer "permanently" and improperly reverses the closing admin and the community's decision that this topic does not deserve an article without discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfC reviewer's action is quite reversible, almost any account can revert that action. The admin's action, on the other hand, needs something as big as the current DRV to revert. So the situation is not symmetric. Rule of thumb: speedy deletion is only for non-controversial deletions. If there is an AfC reviewer who accepted the draft, deletion is no longer non-controversial and needs some discussion before action. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We're all being played here. This is an IP whose sole edits are to hassle others about this one specific page, which has been written entirely by SPAs. And I suspect both them and Veronika.polichshuk who wrote this version are sockpuppets of Bodaidub. So here we have it. Two previous attempts by new users to write promotional biographies on this subject have been deleted at AfD, one by an account that's been blocked as a sockpuppet. We now have a third attempt, undoubtedly part of the same scheme. That's what makes it "substantially identical" as I see it, not any of the so-called differences brought up above. Endorse although I'm clearly in the minority here. And I'm normally the guy criticizing other admins for misusing speedy deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...}
  • If not for @Paul W and Dr vulpes: edits here, I'd probably agree with you Pppery. I still don't think he's notable, but merits another discussion two years after the last proper one, which I closed. Star Mississippi 12:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD. There is more than enough here to put the G4 in doubt, and so it should be resolved at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think either Dr vulpes or Sandstien have done anything wrong here, it's perfectly fine for an AfC to accept a 50-50 article and let its fate be decided at AfD, and it's perfectly reasonable to consider a spammy CV to be substantially identical to the previous version that was also a spammy CV. Whatever, it's been two years, let's have another AfD. Endorse but list. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Uzac (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm filing this on behalf of the editor User:Shubhamgawali1 who worked to expand the article as they are a bit unsure about DRV. He believes the Afd result shouldn't have been redirected as there was insufficient people taking part in the Afd. Shubhamgawali1 suspects the result was wrong and a bit unfair. I was the one who sent the article to the Afd queue. scope_creep^Talk 10:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi yes thanks for posting it for me, but I have not created the article. It was created in 2012 by some other user. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist AFD was created about 16 days back, one user participated only, and result was redirected, while it was reverted by me as the article had enough significant coverage, and Etienne is founder of IBT media and also co owned another American news publication, please take look at article it was neutral and already passes general notability and has reliable sources that discusses the Title. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and partial-block Shubhamgawali1 from that page for persistent edit-warring. Shubhamgawali1 has attempted four times to revert the outcome of the AfD, twice on 15 September alone. And while they repeatedly deny it, their contribution history strongly suggests UPE/COI. Contrary to their statement above, there were two participants in the AfD, not one, and the redirect outcome was correct. Shubhamgawali1 has not presented any new information that would justify a relisting. The only sourcing there is about the fraud conviction, which is already covered in the target of the redirect. In fact, the only thing in the Etienne Uzac article not covered in IBT Media is that Uzac was born in France moved to the US; that's it. If an experienced, non-COI editor offered to expand this, with proper sourcing, I'd be the first to cheer them on. Shubhamgawali1 is not that person. Owen× ☎ 11:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I stopped editing after the warning. And I did not write the article after reading about him on Wikipedia I found it useful thats why I reverted it. NO UPE or COI. I am also okay with an experienced editor writes the article. Sources are proper according to history, also article included early career, newsweek, controversy, and thats what has been in the references as I can see in the reverted edit history. I am okay with relist or re-write by an experienced user. Since he already passes guidelines for notability. About the point only sourcing about fraud because thats what got him more popular in the media so details more about that makes the readers have neutral and biographical article reading experience. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer, no one was arguing in support of retention, and the redirect is a valid ATD as IBT is what Uzac is notable for. He can easily be covered therein, and the history is retained. Thanks, Scope, for helping this editor stop edit warring. Support a p-block from both subjects since Shubhamgawali1 is unable to edit neutrally here. Star Mississippi 12:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect close and explicitly allow re-write of full article, citing the lack of a WP:QUORUM at the AFD. A new re-write would be subject to another AFD of course. My recommendation is that Shubhamgawali1 not do this due to recent edit warring (I would support a p-block of finite duration against this user as well, but DRV is not the venue for that discussion). With only two participants, a second relist was possible but not required. I would consider this the redirect equivalent of a soft delete. Frank Anchor 02:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid close. Another Relist would have been valid but was not required. DRV is not AFD Round 2, but I concur with deletion or redirection and not with keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this article many years ago about a piece of specialist software I was using at the time, which was prominent within the industry but not documented on WP. It was deleted at an AfD in 2009 while I was on Wikibreak. The software continues to be considered an industry standard solution within the aerospace sector and is the subject of, or significantly referenced by, several academic articles - see e.g. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gasturb. I would like the page to be restored so that I can bring it up to date with appropriate citations. I was advised at WP:UNDELETE to contact the administrator who closed the AfD, however this was 15 years ago and sadly it appears from their talk page that they are deceased. YFB ¿ 19:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as suggested by Owen× — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummifruitbat (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Write a new article. We're not going to overturn a unanimous AFD from 2009, and what was there - a three-sentence, unreferenced, fairly promotionally-written stub - wouldn't survive for an hour in mainspace, and looking at it would make the creation of a viable version harder, not easier. —Cryptic 19:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't remember what the original said, which is why I asked for the restore. I wrote it nearly two decades ago. If it's only a few sentences I'll just write from scratch as you suggest. Do I just recreate the article or will that invite re-deletion by patrollers? YFB ¿ 19:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're fine with rewriting it, you can now withdraw this DRV nomination, triggering an early close, after which you can create the new article. Be sure to link to this discussion when you create the new page, which should prevent it from being speedy deleted under G4. It might still end up in a fresh AfD; we can't help you with that. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. As Cryptic suggests, the 71-word blurb won't help anyone rewrite an actual article about the product. I'm not convinced that being mentioned by academic papers as the tool used in a research will help establish notability per NSOFTWARE, but that's outside the scope of this DRV. Owen× ☎ 19:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Owen. It has been the direct subject of more than one paper (assessing its performance in different scenarios and in comparison to other similar tools) rather than just mentioned, so I think it should pass NSOFTWARE.

  I should state for the record that I have no connection to the software whatsoever except that I used it a fair bit during my degree and early career - so no COI to declare. YFB ¿ 19:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good. I'd love to see a properly written and sourced article about this leading simulation engine. Owen× ☎ 19:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The only non-vote opinion comes from the nominator, and that does not address all the sources brought up by @Fram in the prior deletion discussion. The article is about a TV/magazine personality, and so many sources are naturally of that nature. But that does not change the fact that those are reliable, secondary and independent. Just to add one, here is another media coverage about him, clearly demonstrating the notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: adding more sources to demonstrate that we have a very clear DRV#3 case here. None of the sources that follow has been considered in the deletion discussion, and all of them are contributing to notability either via the GNG or one of the SNGs such as WP:CREATIVE (some sources may be critical of the subject): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DRV is just about this AFD closure, not the first AFD closure, and nobody in this discussion was arguing for this article to be Kept. I'm sure there were opinions about this article that might not have been expressed during the AFD period. But the closer's obligation is to determine the consensus of the editors who chose to participate in the discussion and given the comments, I don't see how you can argue for a different closure outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz Thank you for responding. I have missed this discussion, I would have participated had I seen it when it was open. I was wondering if it would be possible restore the article, or to re-list the nomination? I believe the second deletion nomination statement was not done properly, since it addressed just a small subset of the sources brought up in the prior discussion, and the two delete votes did not elaborate on any of the sources that were brought up there. Thanks in advance. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless an article is just blatant advertising, I never have an issue with an editor writing a draft of an article deleted in an AFD, whether this article is restored to Draft space or you take a fresh start (sometimes that is preferable). What we want on Wikipedia are well-referenced articles on notable subjects and if a better version of this article, with better reliable sources, can be produced, then that should be allowed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse unanimous result. The additional Youtube source presented here by the appellant is just a five minute interview with the subject, and provides nothing in terms of notability. The AfD would have closed the same way had the appellant participated in it. Owen× ☎ 09:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that 5 minute NBC segment is more than just an interview, but regardless, my main point was that Fram's excellent outline in the previous discussion, which includes 3 separate issues from Milliyet's printed archive (which they selected among 179 search hits in the newspaper's archive), and non-interview articles by 2 separate Turkish columnists was not considered. The nominator only addressed the weaker ones among the sources presented. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to draft to add the new sources. The close was fine given the information considered, but now there's a reason to change direction and not spend seven days here. Star Mississippi 12:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the closure, which was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation of Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Undelete to draft (edit: do undelete to draft, in fact). The listed additional sources aren't super helpful in writing an encyclopedia article, but the existence of the mentioned sources points to even more sources existing, which seems worth investigating, and a draft existing during that time doesn't hurt. Edit: My original comment presumed that there is someone who would work on the draft and find and add new, yet-unmentioned (but somewhat likely to exist) sources. But those expectations weren't realistic. —Alalch E. 11:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. User:TheJoyfulTentmaker is throwing unimpressive sources. Read WP:THREE. Go to draftspace if you find two or three sources that demonstrate Wikipedia-notability. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:THREE is an essay, not a guideline. WP:CREATIVE is a guideline, at least sufficient for invoking DRVPURPOSE#3, with these sources, I believe. Also, if someone is a media personality, information about their personal life may become relevant for the encyclopedia. We can't just dismiss those since we don't find them meaningful. Same as we can't dismiss the news that are basically about the movements of a soccer ball, even if some people may think those are not worthy of our time. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We can dismiss many sources which are otherwise reliable and useful when determining notability. They aren't being dismissed as sources (we can use them in the article to support certain claims, such as about personal life). They are dismissed as evidence of notability. Say... personal life. Divorce news. How does that help determine that the individual is a notable creative professional? Would we not want sources about their creative life, not personal life? Such weak sources only point to a potential for real evidence of notability to exist, but they don't prove notability in themselves. After Fram's comment, such better sources could have found and added to the article, or mentioned in the second AfD. They weren't, and that's why the article was deleted. And it should stay deleted until someone finally digs up two-to-WP:THREE pieces of real and final evidence of eligibility for inclusion ("notability" ... unfortunate term; I mean obviously the subject is somewhat famous but that isn't it). —Alalch E. 08:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I respect this perspective, however I have to say it is not P&G compliant. a) Because of WP:NEXIST, it is totally irrelevant whether the sources pointed out by Fram, some of which happen to be offline, were added to the article or not. We have no deadline on Wikipedia. b) Personal life vs. creative life distinction is irrelevant in terms of the guidelines, as long as we have a significant coverage. It is a common fallacy to consider a piece covering their personal life in detail to be non-significant, because these are considered "trivial" matters. Someone can be notable just because their personal life is of broader public interest. c) Regarding the change of vote above: what happens to the draft after it is restored is also irrelevant for the purposes of deletion review. If it is prematurely moved to the main space, another AfD can be started. If the draft is left idle, it will be deleted in 6 months. But those are out of scope. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But I was mainly commenting from the NEXIST perspective. I was not primarily stating that the sources from which notability can be determined need to edited in but that they need to be identified. The sources that have been identified up to this point are only circumstantial evidence of notability, pointers to notability, but are not evidence of notability. For a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 undeletion, DRV sould be able to say that "editors formed a consensus to delete, but they lacked knowledge of these important facts, and it's reasonable to asume that their decision, as reasonable AfD participants, would have been different if they hadn't". Editors maybe lacked knowledge of the sources brought up by Fram (maybe not) but it isn't reasonable to assume that their decision would have been different, as notability can't be determined from said sources. The suggestion to add the (yet-unidentified) sources to a hypothetical draft before mainspacing is aligned with the purpose of undeletion to draft: make the content speak for itself so that volunteer time does not need to be spent on an unnecessary and possibly confused discussion. I believed that it could be okay in this case to undelete to draft prior to NEXIST as it seems likely that more and better sources can be found. And only when they are found to mainspace; adding them to the page was peripheral concern. But that is prone to being subverted by moving to mainspace without identifying the sources needed for notability, so I changed my mind. I am not opposed to undeleting straight to mainspace given a credible NEXIST claim. —Alalch E. 19:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alalch E. Point well taken. But if you don't have a strong objection to undeletion to draft, as you first proposed, I kindly ask an admin to close this early so I can start improving the draft. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please find one normal WP:SIGCOV source that is not stuff like "he said this and another guy made these ten tweets", "he shared these photos on instragram", "genious advertiser and his ingenious divorce", and "he invented something but we don't know what; let's hope it's something useful". —Alalch E. 01:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alalch E. Here is one, from a business column published in 1993, focusing on his work in advertising and awards: [12]. This one was not available directly online, but you need to search Milliyet's print archives with a free account, although the service has frequent outages. There are dozens of pre-internet newspapers and magazines, but accessing their archives would need one to go to a library. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I am not opposed to undeleting to draft, it appears that it is possible to start writing a serious article using it, and if you could find one more source of similar quality, I will not be opposed to having this article in mainspace.—Alalch E. 19:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:TheJoyfulTentmaker. WP:THREE is an essay yes. This is not about wikilawyering, but fairly simple advice. Read the essay. Ask me on my talk page if there’s something in it you don’t understand.

  It’s fairly obvious to the rest of us that you adhere to some false beliefs. If you’re not interested in advice, then maybe Wikipedia is not for you.

  - SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at Fram’s first three sources and am unimpressed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe To get back to the actual discussion here: do you have any objection to having this article restored to draft? If not, could an admin close this early? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. If you respect the AfD, then it is quite ok to have it undeleted to draftspace. Do not move it back to mainspace yourself for at least, no matter how fixed you think it is, but instead submit it through AfC. Read and follow the advice at WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse delete close and restore as draft. TheJoyfulTentmaker appears interested in improving the deleted version and there may or may not be additional SIGCOV. AFC (not DRV) is the place to evaluate these sources. Worst case, the draft never goes anywhere and is abandoned and G13ed, which is not a big deal at all. Frank Anchor 02:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD but restore to draft - I agree completely with Frank Anchor here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and restore as draft. The closer clearly correctly assessed three policy based votes to delete based on lack of sourcing, but if the article in draft can be shown to be notable with better sourcing then everyone wins. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Credit Data (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

Incorrect interpretation of consensus Hentheden (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn In the closing decision, the admin OwenX suggested that there was a "rough P&G consensus to delete". The discussion reflects rather a lack of consensus, the result of which should have been to keep per WP:NOCON. More recently, the organisation has received further coverage in government sources, being discussed as an authoritative source in a Bank of England policy document. Hentheden (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate 'overturn' - by convention, the applicant does not get a bolded (second) !vote. Daniel (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved): The keep !votes were not based on policies or guidelines. There was no identification of WP:SIRS, which is required by NCORP, and many of the keep !votes amounted to WP:IKNOWIT and that its notability should be inherited from its members and the fact that prominent organizations use their research. Several keep !votes were bare "meets GNG" and did not engage with Oaktree b's source analysis. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse (uninvolved): I could see discounting four or five of the seven "keep" !votes, but two (Eastmain's and Malinaccier's) were based either on sources they added to the article (I can't see what Eastmain added) or on an assessment, however brief, of relevant sources, not on mere assertions. That said, there were four stronger "deletes" (plus a weak nomination statement) against two reasonably strong "keeps," and that's a rough consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastmain added 1 2 3 4 all to the first sentence (same numbering as in Oaktree b's comment at afd, and they also mentioned #2); and 5 and a second (third, if you count #5) copy of 6 to External Links. —Cryptic 18:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The arguments to delete were just better. The deletion was strongly trending delete before the second and third relist, and after the third relist an overview of the sources was given, asserting that they are not of sufficient quality to support an article about an organization. Instead of meaningfully countering that, it was then claimed that the subject is not a company but an organization and that it has dealings with the worlds biggest banks etc., all of which is discountable argumentation.—Alalch E. 00:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - The question is not whether each of the reviewers at DRV agrees with the weighting by the closer, but whether the weighting by the closer, and discounting of Keep !votes, was a valid judgment by the closer. It was, but just barely. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment anyone know where this discussion was canvassed? Star Mississippi 12:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We're probably dealing with a UPE and a couple of socks; check the contribution history. I just opened an SPI. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse DRV is not round 2 of AFD. It is an opportunity to determine whether the closer interpreted consensus correctly. I think the closer did a good job explaining why the keep comments were largely not based on policy. No one really addressed the comments by HighKing and Oaktree about the quality and independence of the existing sources, or that coverage about a product does not equate to coverage of the company. --Enos733 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Properly deleted, although pointing to WP:CORP upfront may have helped dissuade the weak WP:MEAT efforts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closer interpreted consensus clearly and correctly. Delete !votes cited policy more effectively than did the keeps.

P.S. The DRV request is flimsy at best. Those requesting review need to make their cases in order to keep from wasting so many people's time and effort, starting with their own. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Apply Halite and related minerals after closure of DRV. It is likely that the article will otherwise be recreated by these SPAs. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Philthebanker, one of the participants in the collapsed part 1 section, just admitted he and others were canvassed here off-wiki by the appellant. Another voter was confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Not that whoever ends up closing this needed this proof to discard those votes, but all this is to say that I support Robert McClenon's call to SALT this page, as we're dealing with a very determined group of COI/SPAs. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It hasn't been recreated even once yet. If they're going to recreate, and this title is protected, they'll game the name and we probably won't find it. If it's not, they'll do it here, we'll yawn and G4 it, and they might get discouraged by the wasted effort. I don't agree with everything in WP:Salting is usually a bad idea, but it's worth a read (or reread). —Cryptic 13:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koi Mil Gaya 3 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Koi... Mil Gaya 3 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

These rds were deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Koi Mil Gaya 3, the result was mostly due to non-participation by anyone else beyond the nominator and the non-partipicipation also resulted due to the fact that three very similar rds were incorrectly split into separate noms. The actual discussions took place at the other two: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Krish 1 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Koi Mil Gaya 2 both of which consider the same film series and both of which passed (these discussions also revolved around around our current DRVs Koi... Mil Gaya 3 and Koi Mil Gaya 3), I would have commented at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Koi Mil Gaya 3 and linked to the latter discussions but was unaware of the separate listing for the third film in the series. To only delete redirects for this film from the series would appear unfair in light of these discussions. Please read the discussions and see if these rds should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotitbro (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse at this time, pending a clearer explanation from the appellant as to what they are asking. These two appeals were confusing before an admin consolidated them, but are still confusing, and I am not sure whether the appellant is even saying that there was an error. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have tried to clarify the nomination. Let me further elaborate, there is a Krrish (film series) which includes three films Koi... Mil Gaya, Krrish and Krrish 3. I had created redirects for alternative names of these: Koi... Mil Gaya 1, Koi... Mil Gaya 2 and Koi... Mil Gaya 3 (also Koi Mil Gaya 3 and the like for punctuation); Krrish 1, Krrish 2 and Krrish 3. All of these were nominated for deletion with the incorrect statement that these aren't used elsewhere or would not be expected by readers both of which were proven to be untrue in the discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Krish 1 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Koi Mil Gaya 2. Koi... Mil Gaya 3 (also Koi Mil Gaya 3) were unfortunately deleted before the discussion for the rest concluded, as it was a separate listing (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Koi Mil Gaya 3) which wasn't relisted and did not involve any participation. I am asking for these two to be restored in light of the fuller discussions that took place later. Gotitbro (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gotitbro: You were notified on your talk page about the Koi Mil Gaya 3 nomination. You were also actively participating in the August 31 RfD page for the Krrish entries until two days after the Koi Mil Gaya 3 nomination. Why do you say you were unaware of the listings?

Why do you say that the nominations were incorrectly split? It is up to the nom to split the entries as per his rationale. Sometimes others do bundle them if they observe duplication, and see benefit in a bundled nomination. No one did so in this case, as I would believe the nominations were split evenly as 1, 2 and 3 ending titles.

From what I see, the closer chose to delete Koi Mil Gaya 3, but relisted Koi Mil Gaya 2, even though both had zero participation, because of page histories of other (Krrish) entries of the bulk nomination. All entries of that bulk nomination ended as kept based on strength of the Krrish entries. For Koi Mil Gaya 2, there was one vote in favour and one against (by the nom), but I would believe the closer went with keep as an ATD because of less participation.

The deletion was fine as a standard no-opposition close. The closer Explicit used to treat such closes as soft deletes that are open to reversal, so it should be straightforward to undelete and relist if that is the opinion. Jay 💬 08:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had made a collated comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Krish 1 for all of those discussions. You are right I was notified of one of the listings (Koi Mil Gaya 3). By being unaware I meant that I did not know it was being treated separately and would not be relisted (similar to the 2nd and 1st films) despite my comment at the Krish 1 entry, saying that I am making a reply for all of these listings. I now realize that it is up to the closer to decide to relist and separate listings are treated separately and it was my mistake in not making a comment at the other two entries linking my comment and rationale from Krish 1. Gotitbro (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to assume that when Explicit deleted the third and relisted the second, he may not even have been aware of the first set of entries, or the collated discussion, as it was already relisted 3 hours prior by another relister CycloneYoris. Nor did the nomination statements of 2 and 3 have a backlink to 1. Jay 💬 16:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Koi Mil Gaya 2 demonstrates that the community disagrees with the delete rationale in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Koi Mil Gaya 3. Such a movie does exist. Koi Mil Gaya 3 is a colloquial way to refer to Krrish 3, the third film in a series of three installments, the first of which is named Koi Mil Gaya.—Alalch E. 20:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore or allow recreation. This was basically a soft deletion, and the different results in the other RfDs now offer ample reason to undo it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore since Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Koi Mil Gaya 3 had no participation aside from the nominator and since there was consensus to keep for a similar redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Koi Mil Gaya 2. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

In a close that I cannot fathom, Ritchie333 closed this as "merge". Half (6) argued for a keep, 2 argued for a merge, a minority (4) argued for deletion. Ritchie says that the deletion refuted the keeps, therefore merge has consensus, but I fail to see refutations. People disagreed, some considering the existing sources sufficient, others not. Even if you don't 'count' votes, I can't see how this is anything but a standard no consensus close. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The Delete and the Merge !votes there carry far more P&G weight than the various flavours of Keep. There was no specific consensus to Merge, but I agree with how the closer phrased it: the "merge" option suggested by some seemed to be the option that I felt most people who expressed a view could live with. Sometimes it's better to pick the outcome that the fewest would find objectionable than to just throw your hands in the air and do nothing with a "No consensus" close. I'm glad we have admins like Ritchie333 who have the resourcefulness and BOLDness to put aside the nose-counting, and find a solution that best reflects the preferences of participants, as supported by P&G. Owen× ☎ 23:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, since there wasn't one.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. I see an even split between keep and delete/ATD votes, both in number and strength. The keep side provided several sources of content which I do not believe were fully disputed by the delete/ATD side. The closing statement reads to me as a forced-compromise WP:SUPERVOTE. A second relist would be an okay option as well, but I do not see consensus forming with further discussion. Frank Anchor 14:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see your point about a forced compromise, but see no evidence of a supervote. Everything suggests that Ritchie was genuinely trying to find a way to close the AfD in the least contentious manner, without injecting his own views on the article or its sourcing. A forced compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing; we often use those when resolving editorial disputes. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forced compromise is listed as a a type of supervote. A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is supervoting to close in favor of an undiscussed or unfavored compromise idea, which may satisfy no one. If a discussion did not come to a consensus. Obviously merge was not "undiscussed," but in my opinion there was no consensus and a merge close was chosen as the “middle-ground” Frank Anchor 21:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was indeed chosen as a middle-ground. But it was specifically chosen as a favoured idea to satisfy the most participants, which is not what the WP:SPV essay is talking about. If AfD used some kind of runoff voting system, Merge would be the outcome here, supported by more participants than a No consensus. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, "no consensus" was my second (and only other) choice. However, I felt the "merge" comments, particularly the closing one from HighKing, were strong and persuasive. The nominator, IgelRM, also suggested a merge. I'd also add that a NC close implies no prejudice against renomination (which may end up as "delete" - at least one editor observed the criteria for WP:CORP had been tightened up), whereas a merge can be expanded out at a later date if more sources are written. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Merge was not only an acceptable option, it was specifically discussed as being okay in the discussion itself. No consensus is not a catch all for when there are issues with sourcing that haven't been rebutted, especially when NCORP is involved. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The keeps specifically addressed NCORP. So did the deletes. None came to agreement with regards to whether or not sourcing met NCORP, with many feeling it did not apply because the point of NCORP was to prevent spammy ad-like creations, which this specifically was not. There is no consensus for a merge. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved as I supported Merge at the AfD). By the numbers this is "No Consensus". I count 4 Delete, 2 Merge, and 5 Keeps. However, two of the Keeps do not cite sources and just gush about how great and notable their mods are. These comments should be given less weight because nobility is not inherited; makers of notable things are not automatically notable. Two of the Keeps list sources but don't explain why they meet WP:NCORP; they are good comments but not great. All four Delete comments contain at least some source analysis explaining that most of the sources in the article or linked in the AfD as really about Enderal (or occasionally another mod) and provide only passing coverage of the studio. Thus strength of argument seemingly favors Delete. But given that two comments argued for a Merge and that Delete is not a slam dunk (there are easily enough sources to meet WP:V and enough to meet WP:NCORP can be subjective) a merge is an excellent option as an ATD. It isn't an obvious consensus since it was only a minority "vote", but it is a compromise that addresses both sides primary concerns. I.e. The sources are not really sufficient for the current reading of NCORP, but this is an important in it's niche company that shouldn't be a red-link. In particular I believe that AfD's with this configuration of arguments (i.e. Delete stronger than Keep but not a clear consensus with a clear suggestion of a Merge target with no articulated objection) should be closed as Merge even if I myself happened to favor keeping or deleting the article for whatever reason. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I agree with the reading of the discussion as “merge”. If the merge doesn’t happen, it falls back to “no consensus” leaning “redirect”, not leaning “keep”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hurricane Clyde: I have again fixed your formatting to comply with DRV conventions. Secondly, can you please elaborate on this — which part of "per above" are you endorsing based on? DRV, more than anywhere else, needs nuanced commentary rather than "per X" voting, which adds very little to the discussion. Daniel (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted without any strong reason. The article was well written and well sourced with no inaccuracies reported yet. The reason was said to be unnotability but it's clear that Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. It was also said to be original research. While various references were provided and those facts are present in other Wikipedia articles too. It was said that lower communities is ambiguous but It includes last two (Vaishyas and shudras.) It seems to be deleted without any substantial reason. Mohit Dokania (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The list was deleted for very valid reasons, well expressed by Fram and Jeraxmoira at the AfD. The appellant has not demonstrated why this seemingly arbitrary list selection criterion meets WP:LISTCRIT, which states, Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.. I would have been just as happy with a Redirect to Sanskrit literature, but the consensus to delete was clear. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources cited are reliable. They contain easily accessable links to printed books by reputed authors and publishers. If any particular entry is disputed It can be challenged in talk page by citing other sources but deleting a list which have reliable citations shouldn't be the way to go. Mohit Dokania (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: the original closing decision. The list of authors are not discussed together in reliable sources and DRV is not an extension of AfD. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)_{(Involved in the AfD)} [reply]

  The proposed list of Sanskrit authors from lower communities is significant as it challenges the notion that only high-caste individuals contributed to Sanskrit literature. By highlighting these authors, the list reveals the rich diversity within the tradition and underscores the meaningful contributions of marginalized voices. Their works reflect unique perspectives on social justice and identity, enriching our understanding of Sanskrit heritage and promoting a more equitable narrative that honors the contributions of all communities. Mohit Dokania (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This sounds like a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Mohit Dokania, I respect your attempt to dispel the misconception about the paucity of lower caste Sanskrit authors, but Wikipedia isn't the place to do this. For a list to meet our inclusion standards, it's not enough that individual items in it are covered by reliable sources. The grouping of those items into a distinct list must be supported by the sources. Owen× ☎ 09:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the basic problem is "lower communities" in the title. What we actually need is to review any scholarly papers about this topic and see what the academics say about the relationship between written Sanskrit, caste, and socioeconomic class.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't confuse lower social hierarchy with individual inferiority. It's like hierarchy in a company where a CEO could be a horrible person even when high in hierarchy and a sweeper could be a brilliant person even when lower in hierarchy. It's clearly listed in varna hierarchy. It's discussed at many places see It's discussed in this research paper and many others. Mohit Dokania (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, thank you, I do understand the distinction between a person's class and their worth. Here in Britain, some hereditary aristocrats are ghastly human beings and some third-generation council house tenants are lovely; and I'm sure that's the same everywhere else in the world too. I don't think there's any confusion there. What is confusing is that Wikipedia's category system thinks there are 411 castes, with 39 subcategories. Please could you say which of these you meant by "lower communities"? You don't seem to mean Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.—S Marshall T/C 13:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's modern artificial categorisation for vote bank politics. I am talking about traditional classification of jāti and it's not exactly same as caste. Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Aha! Thanks, that's helpful. Is our Wikipedia article on jāti accurate?—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  not very well written but good for basic idea. It should have more mentions from first hand Sanskrit sources, that is our shastras Mohit Dokania (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So this list was taking the Shudras as a jāti rather than as a varna. You meant people like Matsyendranatha and Narayana Guru?—S Marshall T/C 18:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Jāti is a subcategory of Varna resulting from cross-breeding between varnas. Occupation is designated according to Jāti.

  Shudra is a varna with many Jātis in it. Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay... in that case I can't see what's wrong with the close we're reviewing.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically, the relationship between written Sanskrit, caste, and socioeconomic class is discussed in Sanskritisation (but it isn't about the creation of new literature). —Alalch E. 11:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is more of a western perspective on the phenomenon . In our words, propoganda. The tribal and regional cultures have all sprouted from the same hinduism. Distorting, reaffirming shastric traditions or discarding it are all possibilities. Mohit Dokania (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - DRV is not AFD round 2. The appellant says: This article was deleted without any strong reason. No, the consensus of the AFD was the reason. The appellant is disagreeing with the reasoning of the the AFD nominator and the AFD participants, but that is not what DRV is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The strong reason to delete was editors agreeing that the page did not meet stand-alone list eligibility criteria, including the concern that the list was assembled through the forbidden combining of material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.—Alalch E. 20:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Individual items needn't be found together in a single source. However, It's discussed together [here. https://satyan-sharma.medium.com/lest-we-forget-sanskritists-situated-at-the-bottom-of-caste-hierarchy-ac2c29159da9?source=social.tw] Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Medium is near-forbidden on Wikipedia, as a deprecated source (see WP:MEDIUM), but the author appears to be a subject-matter expert and is discussing a topic within his expertise. Still, there is no editorial oversight. This is at the very bottom of what we could treat as a reliable secondary source. Multiple reliable sources would be needed, and maybe in a group of such sources could this Medium post contribute to a determination that the list topic is notable. —Alalch E. 11:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Given the recent news that Elon Musk could become the first trillionaire by 2027, I think that we should allow for the "Trillionaire" article (the deleted one, not the current disambiguation page) to be restored as a draft at Draft:Trillionaire as it would now look promising. GTrang (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: The AfD was closed as "delete" because the article read like a dictionary entry. Musk becoming a trillionaire would not change that. But all are free to recreate the article once the concept of "trillionaire" is covered by reliable sources in sufficient depth for us to write an article about it that goes beyond a dictionary definition. It is not apparent from this review request, which cites no sources, that this is now the case. Sandstein 06:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. There is nothing to suggest that there is anything to write at this title which will be more than a dicdef. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The appellant doesn't need our permission to submit a new draft to AfC, but someone possibly becoming a trillionaire in three years is hardly a reason to create an encyclopedic entry. The original close was fine. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No action. If Mr. Musk (or another person) eventually becomes widely known as becoming the first trillionaire, then we can have a discussion to add a link to his page into the DAB at that time. There is certainly nothing to do now. Frank Anchor 14:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or do nothing, as per above comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No action (keep deleted). There is a noticeable absence of evidence that there is something to write about. I don't think that the page should be undeleted. The content was stated to be non-compliant with policy. When there is something to write about as may be evidenced in the sources, please write something that is policy compliant (which will have became doable by then). The close of the AfD has not been challenged and it speaks for itself so it doesn't seem like endorsing it has real meaning.—Alalch E. 20:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist – I think maybe on this one we should go back through AfD on this.

  Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? Stifle (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hurricane Clyde, do you think there was much doubt in the participants' arguments that would warrant a relist years later? The outcome looks pretty clear to me. Plus, why are you adding additional indents to your comment? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe wait a year or two on the relist; but my rationale is the fact that sources are apparently saying that Elon Musk could become a trillionaire by 2027; which my my calculations is only about three years from now. As for the indent, it was just a mistake and it has been fixed now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    By waiting a year or two (or three) on the relist, do you mean having a new Articles for Deletion discussion in 1/2/3 years? If you would like more discussing to happen in AfD, that can't happen in the discussion that this deletion review links to, because that discussion concluded with a consensus to do something, and relisting isn't for that. A new AfD is possible if there is an article and someone nominates it for deletion. So 1/2/3 years in the future (or sooner) someone could create an article about this topic again and it could be nominated for deletion. That's something that can simply happen all on its own, and Deletion review doesn't have a say in it. Recreation is possible, as nothing prevents it. When you think that it's a good time to write about this because there are sufficient sources for an encyclopedia article, you can just write the article, and maybe no one will even nominate it for deletion. —Alalch E. 17:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arild Andersen (footballer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am invoking WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. This was deleted for failing two guidelines, one that doesn't exist anymore as well as GNG. I have now done an initial search to located 21 press articles that contribute towards GNG. These are now saved to my hard drive, in anticipation of this page being restored to draft space or user space, so I'm able to build a real encyclopedic article from those (and more that are coming later) sources. I have tried contacting the closer, who seems to be absent since July, so here we are. Geschichte (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: since we don't have access to your hard drive, can you please cite three of those 21 sources that you believe prove notability per GNG? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 10:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Here are some, though it might leave editors none the wiser. The search was conducted in the nb.no database, where you get 85,000 hits for his name, and have to sift out everything relating to the the musician.
  • Sternhoff, Eva M. (27 October 2001). "Fra spetakkel til spektakulær". Haugesunds Avis (in Norwegian).
  • Svenningsen, Kenneth (11 March 1997). "Har lagt Sogndal for sine føtter". Sydvesten (in Norwegian).
  • Yttri, Tor (29 September 1998). "Sa ja til Sogndal – og ja til Haugesund". Sogn Avis (in Norwegian).
• Refund to draftspace. While I see no fault in how the AfD was closed 3.5 years ago, I trust the appellant's good judgement on this. Geschichte is certainly experienced enough to skip AfC and decide when to move the article back to mainspace. Let's not stand in their way just because of that poorly-attended AfD. Owen× ☎ 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As OwenX alludes to, you can just recreate an article when you can address all its reasons for deletion, and by the sound of it you can here - you don't need DRV's permission unless it's salted or someone G4s it. We can give you the deleted version, but if you expect it to help, you're going to be disappointed: besides now being three and a half years out of date, it was an infobox and four sentences of prose that could've been written entirely from looking at the infobox. I've pasted it here. —Cryptic 15:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Refund to Draftspace - I wonder whether DRV Purpose 3 should come to DRV except in contentious cases, and this is not a contentious case. Recreators may normally either submit a draft for review or move the draft to mainspace subject to AFD. But if REFUND said come to DRV, then DRV can say Refund. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this is restored, either an additional hatnote will be needed on Arild Andersen (the musician) or Arild Andersen (disambiguation) will be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No action is needed considering what Cryptic wrote. Good luck with the new article.—Alalch E. 19:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 keeps and 3 deletes, including the nom. Deletion !voters did not respond during the entirety of the final relist. I believe this should at least be a no consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would remind Aaron Liu that one normally discusses a matter like this prior to requesting a DRV. That aside, in this AfD, two "keep" arguments was just based upon what the subject is but made no argument for notability or attempt to put forth sources. Aaron Liu did make an argument that there was substantial source material about this subject, but several subsequent arguments disagreed with that assessment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, as you may see, I'm new to this, and I guess I missed that part oh the instructions. Thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Only 1 subsequent argument disagreed. Oaktree did not address my argument at all and seemed oblivious to the sources bought up. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Two of the Keep !votes cite sources that don't provide independent, significant coverage, and the third doesn't even bring up any P&G-based argument. The three Deletes, on the other hand, all raise valid, guideline-based concerns. There is no onus on participants to counter or respond to every opposing view, especially if their !vote already addresses the issues raised. Owen× ☎ 13:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how instruction manuals (and phpconference) don't provide independent and significant coverage, assuming you mean me and the IP. I'll concede that the other keep was invalid, and I don't see how Oaktree addressed the argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid close by the closer. No Consensus would also have been valid. DRV is not AFD round 2, and DRV does not mean that each of the DRV participants performs their own close. The closer uses their judgment, not the judgment of each of the DRV participants. So this closer gave more weight to the Delete arguments, and that was a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I can see why the keep arguments were not weighted as heavily given that they were not providing reliable sources. I probably would have closed as "No consensus" given the relatively few people arguing for deletion, but I also see this closure as within the closer's discretion. Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. I still don't have a problem with the original close, but I'm okay with restoring the article given sources that have come to light per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. If somebody wants to nominate the article for deletion again (as suggested by Cunard), I am okay with this as well. Malinaccier (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as firmly within closer's discretion. N/C would have also been a viable one, but neither is wrong so no need to change. Star Mississippi 22:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't had a chance to identify the sourcing discussed below, but there seems to be consensus that they meet DRV3. So nothing wrong with the close, but no reason not to move forward with the article now. Star Mississippi 13:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. Allow recreation (straight to mainspace)
  Unnecessary AfD-round-2 remark: WP:NSOFTWARE (essay) is incompatible with WP:NCORP (guideline) because software is usually a product of an organization, or in the case of open-source software the product whose development is facilitated and coordinated by an organization. In this case, the organization is Contao Association. ... and under NCORP, product instruction manuals are specifically noted as trivial coverage.—Alalch E. 12:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) § Examples of substantial coverage: An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies). Pearson is independent. That said, I do see how the closer could weigh the arguments and believe that 2 sources is too short now. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, it's a whole book. Well that's a little uncomfortable. —Alalch E. 13:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You should have screamed in the AfD that it's an entire frickin book by an independent publisher and linked to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of substantial coverage. Weak effort by the keeps. Should be refundable to draft to mainspace.—Alalch E. 13:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoops, I'm guessing I should get a checkup for Asperger's now.^[Joke] Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was (sort of) joking. You did fine and said the right things. The problem is systemic. AfD is eroding. There is so much seemingly useful guidance and accumulated practice on how to conduct deletion discussions that lead to correct outcomes, but instead of the discussions getting better, they are getting worse. —Alalch E. 12:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have changed my recommendation. See also the Linux Magazine (German) article (link) and the upload-magazin.de staff (proof) article (link). This is a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 appeal.—Alalch E. 14:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade Since Contao got deleted, shouldn't every CMS on this list get deleted as well since they are most likely corporations and have no notability?

  https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=List_of_content_management_systems

  I feel like every Open Source CMS should just get removed then, what do you think, that is a serious question right now, I just clicked through some and found no real references:

  - Wordpress only has mostly just references from domains with "wordpress" in them and some webarchives.

  - Django is mostly empty: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Django_CMS

  - Plone doesn't look like there is many references as well: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Plone_(software)

  - Typo3 only has own links: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=TYPO3

  If you think it was justified to delete, we should reconsider and most likely delete everything on the list of CMS and other Software because notability is not given for free open source software. DebuggerDuck (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  — DebuggerDuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Please log in to your main account and read WP:OSE which explains why not all articles are treated the same. Star Mississippi 11:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They seem pretty new: using extlinks instead of wikilinks and having not read the most popular deletion essay. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A new account doesn't just happen to find DRV unless they're canvassed here. You're not doing that so.... Star Mississippi 13:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say they were linked from the AfD, which was linked from the deletion log, which is present in deleted pages. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WordPress does have entire books and secondary web coverage to be found but not added to the article yet. It would survive deletion.

  The problem with this kind of argument is that if it is true, it usually just results in the other articles being deleted as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. A poorly attended AFD. That happens. But while everyone was acting in good faith. the bottom line is that no meaningful, policy-based consensus was achieved. Original nom was reasonable, several Keep comments were not policy based, but Deletes failed to engage meaningfully with the remaining Keep !vote's (Aaron Liu's) reasonable attempts at sourcing. So in spite of several relists, we ended up with a well-intentioned but poorly attended and unresolved discussion on sourcing, and noise. No conclusion was reached. Martinp (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bring back to mainspace. My head is spinning from the distinctions between different DRV purposes, and between overturning the AFD close vs endorsing-but-allowing-recreation. We make things really complicated sometimes! Bottom line is we deleted an article at AFD and as a community, we got it wrong. One person was supplying decent references but others weren't listening, and the whole discussion was poorly attended. I know nothing about the CMS space, but a bit of digging uncovers the following in addition to sources already discussed here and/or at the AFD:

  • Pierre-Edouard Laurent, "Avis Contao : un CMS orienté flexibilité et organisation", Clubic [13]
  • Mutiple substantial books listed at [14], which is the Contao website but it seems that the books there (except the "official" one by Leo Feyer) were written independently (see the remark at [15]). In particular, the author of one, Peter Mueller, has written similar books about Wordpress, and about creating websites with HTML and CSS directly, so I'm pretty sure his book on Contao counts as fully independent. Note this is a different independent book than the one by Gerling already discussed in the AFD and DRV (and also on that list).

  Stepping back from the policy alphabet soup, for whatever reason we weren't sure Contao was notable and that there were enough substantial, independent sources to write about it. It turns out that there are. So let's allow those who know something about it to write a decent article about it in mainspace. Martinp (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse clearly the correct outcome despite a moderately attended AfD - the sources presented were clearly rebutted and there's not really a good argument for keeping. I also don't think the sources here are good enough, though linux-magazin isn't accessible to me. The upload-magazin is basically a listicle. SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how the sources presented were clearly rebutted when the two deletion !voters did not respond to my rebuttals. Here's an archived link for linux-magazin. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are multiple articles in linux-magazin solely about the software. —Alalch E. 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And let's not ignore the book. —Alalch E. 17:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and list at a new AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contao (2nd nomination) or allow recreation under WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 to discuss the new sources that have been raised. New sources such as this article in Linux Magazine (German) found by Alalch E. have been presented in this DRV that were not presented in the AfD. The AfD featured a strong "keep" argument from Aaron Liu (discussing how an entire book from an independent reputable publisher was about Contao) and "delete" arguments that did not adequately engage with Aaron Liu's sources. I recommend a restoration and listing at AfD for a new discussion about these new sources. Cunard (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @OwenX, @Robert McClenon, @Malinaccier, @Star Mississippi, do you still hold your endorsement in light of there being an entire book by Pearson, which is my fault that I did not express clearly, and Alalch finding an additional source, linux-magazin? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll be honest, I had forgotten to follow this discussion, so thanks for the ping. I'll read your discussion with @Alalch E. as soon as I can Star Mississippi 11:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation in article space with additional sources, subject to AFD. This has become a different DRV than when it was filed. I am not striking my Endorse, because it was a valid close. However, in response to the new (or revised) request to add sources, the appellant should be allowed to write a new article, subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Since DRV has two groups of purposes, where purposes 1, 2, 4, and 5 roll up, but 3 is something else. it is important for an appellant and the reviewers to keep in mind that we are making two kinds of judgments, sometimes at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The discussion above, in which I've participated, seems to have established there various potential sources (significant and likely independent). Some were brought up but too summarily dismissed at the AFD. Some seem to have been present in the deleted article as "Further reading"(?) rather than sources. Others are new, brought up for the first time in this DRV. Process-wise, any interested editor could write a new article, carefully sourced informed by all this discussion, and let it take its chances in a new AFD (where of course the qualify of sourcing could be challenged). However, it seems the deleted version might offer a useful starting point if restored. Can we get the article temp-deleted so nonadmins can see it, and a judgment made here whether it's best to start over (more meticulously) or build on previous? Martinp (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

You could argue there wasn't a consensus to delete Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. Is this an argument for the sake of argument? At one point in the AfD, the appellant supported deletion. Either way, the arguments from Fram, Gonzo fan2007 and Sandstein carried far more P&G weight than the lone Keep from Matilda and the subsequent Per Matilda. Apparently, the appellant believes discussions about articles on Australian topics should be left to Australian editors. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do whatever you like this might be it for me with wikipedia. Robbiegibbons (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, potentially speedily if this is the trolling it appears to be if I don't like it I suppose I can always ask for a review. Consensus was clear and there's no guideline for a quorum of a specific type of editor. Star Mississippi 00:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen a few things during this process that makes me think I don't want to contribute to wikipedia any longer. Robbiegibbons (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope that this comment was just clumsily-worded, because the sentiment is unacceptable. No-one's opinion is worth more than another's due to their nationality, race, gender etc. and any even slight suggestion to the contrary should be (in my opinion) refuted strongly. Daniel (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment above means I cant close the DRV per INVOLVED, so endorse closure as an accurate reading of the debate with no acceptable counter-points raised by the applicant to overturn. Daniel (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the "keep" argument handwaves at sources but seems to have forgotten to give any hint as to what those might be, and the other keep is a "per" that rather weak argument. I would also agree that the "not enough Australian editors" comment is quite inappropriate; an editor's nationality does not and should not matter one bit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The WP:NLIST argument was unrefuted. Matilda's pointers on what additional content could be had on the Eureka Rebellion might help expand Eureka Rebellion and they do not address the problem with the deleted list at all.—Alalch E. 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or Speedy Endorse - The appellant hasn't argued that there wasn't a consensus to delete, and there wasn't an error by the closer. Delete was a valid conclusion by the closer. The appellant is wasting the time of the community (as well as their own time). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't care about the Eureka Rebellion series anymore someone else can keep it updated in future.Robbiegibbons (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I had forgotten about this article until another editor tried to recreate it last week which brought it back to my attention.

The article was initially PRODed hours after its creation, and the PROD description said, No evidence that individual events at these youth competitions are notable. I deprodded it adding a few sources, but then the same editor nominated it for AfD (no problem with this process so far).

During the AfD, I significantly improved the article, from looking like this to looking like this with some solid prose, all backed up by reliable sources about the topic. Not all AfD comments were made before these improvements were completed. I do think that if the AfD had begun after my improvements were made, a different result would have been determined.

The AfD was lengthy, but it actually received relatively little participation all things considered, with only two editors recommending to delete. In addition, many new pages in Category:2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics were since created by other editors, making this article the only "missing" one listed in the medal summary (almost all others were created in the last 6 months after the AfD). I think it has since been made clear that making event-specific articles for these sorts of championships is common practice for use of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic reference. Although the competition is "youth", it does receive major coverage due to the international / world championship nature, and many of the competitors have their own articles and are senior Olympic medalists and champions. Ten sources were used and I'm confident that more exist.

Even disregarding the ten sources used, I think there is an argument to keep the article as well if we classify it as a "list" of results because lists can be kept as navigational aides even if they don't meet GNG. Many results articles like this have already been assessed as List-class backing up this argument. The recreated article, although missing the prose I added, does go into more detail w.r.t. the results by adding the records of each throw here, so if we could combine our efforts I think the page would be even more improved.

Thanks, ---Habst (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. with only two editors recommending to delete - I see four views to delete: Fram as the nom; JoelleJay, who did a thorough source analysis, as she always does; Sandstein; and Geschichte, who didn't enter a bolded !vote, but was very clear about their view to delete. On the Keep side, I only see the appellant, who is also the creator and substantially the only one who edited the article. I don't want to use the term "bludgeoning", but the appellant's extensive responses to each and every Delete view on that AfD failed to sway any of the participants, ending in a clear consensus to delete.

It's not clear what the basis for this appeal is. It reads like an AfD round 2. But I'm sure the appellant will soon reply, in length, to this, as they will to every other "Endorse" here. Owen× ☎ 20:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX, just to clarify on the first sentence, I was counting JoelleJay and Sandstein as the only two deletion recommendations aside from the nominator. User:Geschichte's final point was that "I don't have a strong opinion about the 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw page", and I don't think their view was to delete at all. If that !vote was considered as a delete, I don't think it should have been.

I was the first creator of the article, but the most recent creator and the impetus to be reminded of this article was User:Stojan212 and not myself. On the last point -- I admit to responding too often to comments on that AfD. I haven't been doing that as often in the last six months, and I'll try to keep my comments brief in the future and let others decide as should be done in a wiki. Thanks. --Habst (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't count Geschichte for either side, as I mentioned in my reply to you when the AfD closed. But reading it now, it's clear they are leaning towards deletion, which I thought was worth mentioning. Either way, I appreciate you taking a less confrontational approach in debates. Owen× ☎ 22:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This could have closed as No consensus but, Habst, I don't see that the argument that this article should be Kept had any support except from you even after two relistings. There was no way that a consensus would be to Keep. I think your best option now is to see if this article can be restored to Draft space where you can continue to improve it and submit it to AFC for review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz, thanks. I probably should have been more brief in my original post and just said I think no consensus should have been decided or it should have been relisted a third time, based on only having two delete views versus one keep view (excluding nominator).

  I've asked for userification of the page here. This was my first DRV, so maybe in retrospect I should have just asked for user/drafticiation to begin with. --Habst (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - In my opinion, Delete was not only a valid conclusion but the only valid conclusion. This appeal appears to be AFD round 2, not arguing that the closer made an error, but arguing that the community made an error, but that isn't how DRV works. As per Liz, Authorize Restoration of Draft (but improvement will be required at submission for review). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus is clear. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. From time to time, editors creating articles of a certain specific type becomes a comon occurrence and this comes to be seen as a common practice. But deletion of articles on non-notable topics is the actual common practice. AfD is when editors decide if what was created should be retained in the encyclopedia, and here, they formed a rough consensus to delete.—Alalch E. 10:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was clear consensus to delete. I also looked at the deleted page, and it should have been deleted. Note that I believer there is no reason some of this information cannot be included elsewhere on the site, but consensus is that not notable enough for a stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

TL;DR: I believe the closer has erroneously entirely excluded at least 12 of the 17 delete !votes to arrive at a "keep" consensus where none existed.

This AfD was clearly contentious but also trending delete, with a raw, unconsidered count of !votes showing 17 deletes, 2 redirects and 11 keeps (plus a couple of others). We don’t just count !votes, but as redirects are “do somethings” too, it is always a surprise if a near 2:1 majority to do something is closed as “keep”.

In seeking to understand how the close statement could suggest there was initially a rough consensus to keep, the closer explained to me that they hade determined the rough consensus after discarding non P&G !votes and found only 5 valid deletes but 11 valid keeps [16]

Things like, "Delete unless we revert to revision so-and-so", or "Delete unless we rename it", or "Delete because it's a POV mess right now". To remind you, we are here to decide whether the topic justifies inclusion, not whether the current content or title are suitable. If the subject - under some title and with some content - should be kept, according to that participant, then this !vote should be counted as a Keep. Once we do that, the rough consensus to keep becomes a very clear consensus.

I note that an early contribution from Hydrangeans cited WP:BESTSOURCES and then presented academic sources that show that the majority of grooming gangs are white, and that this is an invented narrative. It is not the job of DRV to further evaluate the argument made, but it is clear that this !vote was solidly policy based. I then note that AndyTheGrump, myself, Iggy pop goes the weasel and BrocadeRiverPoems all explicitly included “per Hydrangeans” in our !votes. That is five policy based !votes, and not one of us was a “delete unless”, so the numbers don’t add up here.

I also think the suggestion that so many !votes could be discarded as non policy is in error. Of the remaining 12 keep votes, 5 of these mention WP:NPOV. That is a policy. 6 then argued that sources do not bear out the framing/that the premise is false/that we are asserting something that does not exist. These are source based arguments that don’t specifically mention Hydrangeans, but clearly follow the discussion and sources, which is P&G based. Only one !vote clearly should be discarded. The !vote that the article had been emasculated by an editor and thus should not exist was clearly spurious. But it certainly appears to me that 16 of the 17 keep votes were based in policy.

Further, looking at these 16 P&G based !votes, I cannot see what would then be discarded as a delete unless. There are two !votes that were to delete or to rename (failing deletion). These were from memphisto and Chaotic Enby. The rename view was also expressed by Austronesier and Bluethricecreamman, but without the delete preference. These delete votes, where it is delete or should not be excluded as "delete unless".

M.Bitton !voted delete but suggested we could salvage non POV to Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation. This one could be read as a !vite to merge. Salvaging information to another target is a merge outcome, even though the delete vote might imply they would be unhappy with the resulting redirect. Counting it as merge is still a valid "do something" and again, should not be summarily discarded.

So we have 15 valid deletes, 1 new merge, the 2 redirects. What of the keeps? Well 6 of the keep votes claimed the article was well sourced. It was not until Alaexis commented that any sources were brought to AfD and Jonathan Deamer cited 3 more. All newspapers. None of the arguments addressed the WP:BESTSOURCES argument but they are policy based and should not be summarily excluded. Of the remaining, PARAKANYAA mentioned sources but noted they focus on ethnicity and not race. That is probably P&G based as it is also considering sources. Necrosthesp claimed it is a major thing and "the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith" - which was shown to be false. The majority are white. jtrainor mereley claimed it "exists and clearly notable" which is claerly not P&G based. DanielRigal said we should have it because it covers perennial allegations, which is not P&G based. Biohistorian15 said it is an established term "I have personally heard”, which is clearly subjective and not P&G based. So I believe it would be generous to say that 7 of those are P&G based.

It is entirely right that closers have discretion to weigh arguments when closing an AfD, but I believe that the closer has erred in this case. It is not clear how so many of the delete !votes could be discarded and 11 keep votes be found based on P&G arguments alone. I think a good faith and careful analysis of the discussion shows most of the participants engaged with policy based reasons, and having their views summarily excluded is an unfair representation of the time and effort participants put into understanding this topic and expressing their views. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Endorse the original closing decision. My "I have personally heard" is clearly relevant, insofar as people have (including in the comments beneath that statement) suggested it to be a wholly artificial controversy. As the term "(Muslim) Grooming gang(s)" has entered standard political vocabulary, this by itself becomes a highly dubious claim. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Sirfurboy has summed up the issues with the close very well. The comment about 'righteous indignation' in particular is indicative, problematic, and arguably offensive. And perhaps more to the point, apparently based on a rather strange interpretation of Wikipedia policies which would imply that actually caring about how the encyclopaedia covers a sensitive topic is a bad thing. The closure, written around finding ways to eliminate as many comments as possible, looks far too much like a supervote to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse. Keep was an okay close. No consensus would have been a good close, and possibly a better close, but there is no practical difference between the two in terms of retaining the article. Many of the delete/ATD arguments are based on the page being offensive and POV, which the closer correctly dismissed as AFD is not clean-up. Discussions on content and the article title are not the subject of AFD and can be discussed on the talk page. Frank Anchor 13:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The second sentence at WP:AFD, User:Frank Anchor, literally says Common outcomes are that the article is kept … renamed/moved to another title …. How then is not discussion of such an offensive and biased title not the subject of AFD? Nfitz (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. Addressing the appellant's specific concerns:
  • The Delete views from Hydrangeans and AndyTheGrump were given full weight, as were other P&G-based arguments.
  • WP:NPOV is indeed a policy, but it is a content policy, not a deletion one. If an article about a notable topic violates NPOV, it is cleaned up, not deleted.
  • The !votes for redirect were all valid, P&G-based ones, and given full weight as such. Alas, they failed to attain consensus. Had consensus trended toward deletion, these views would contribute to a potential ATD, but that was not the case. Counting those Redirect views as supporting deletion would still not have tipped the balance towards a Delete outcome, or even a No consensus.
  • I acknowledge that some sources cast doubt on the validity of sorting grooming gangs by religion or ethnicity. Such criticism should certainly make its way to a Criticism section in the article, but cannot be used as justification to delete the page, if there is sufficient sourcing for the concept. But as I explained to the appellant, my job as a closer is to assess consensus among those reviewing the sources, not to add my own weight as a source reviewer.
  • As for the rest of the appeal, I don't understand the obsession with counting votes. That's not how AfD works. If one hundred additional "Delete because the title is offensive" votes turned up on that AfD, the result would still be the same. I went out of my way to explain this in the closing rationale. If the topic is encyclopedic, according to the consensus among participants, then we keep the page, and fix the title and content if needed.

I get the sense the appellant is trying to relitigate the AfD, while relying on straw-poll numbers for support. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where you appear to have failed, is that according to WP:AFD one of the 7 possible outcomes of an AFD is moving to a different title. How did you factor that, User:OwenX into your decision? I also don't see how you dealt with the policy violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NDESC in the title. Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close. I think discarding arguments to delete as per WP:TNT as being outside policy for deletion is a bit strange, but as the article had been changed to a previous version, the article is probably fine to keep and its fine to throw away WP:TNT deletes. Also agree that WP:TNTing an article for claims of a POV mess would not mean the article could never be recreated, only that we would need to start over with a new article, as WP:TNT is not an argument about notability or that the article should never exist again.

• Deleting an article for fear it may be vandalized or attract contention is not a valid argument. There is no WP:CENSORSHIP, we are all able to deal with random vandals.
• The article def is notable for all its attention, even if some of the attention is in quite biased and often horrible presentations.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There are various issues with the close, invredibly well put together here. I also personally find it incredible that Owenx - a long standing editor and admin, could dismiss delete votes with this comment: "A few !votes were discarded as irrelevant, mostly those that called for deletion based solely on the content being offensive; the article doesn't qualify as an "attack page"."

Not a single one of those votes were "based solely on the content being offensive" - not a single one. To dismiss those votes but not have a comment on the various bad-faith "keep" votes is suspect to me, and reeks of some personal bias.TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an observation that it looks like you created an account a week ago, TwinkleStarzz, just to participate in this AFD and you haven't edited on any other subject. I find it surprising that in a few days you could develop an opinion on OwenX's abilities as a closer as well as have an opinion on AFD protocol. And if you judge my observation to be out-of-order, then I suggest you strike your comments about OwenX having some sort of 'bias" (what do you mean, he's pro-grooming gangs?). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. You can't discard "a few !votes" as irrelevant/WP:IDONTLIKEIT just because you disagree with their policy-based arguments, and the vast majority of the delete !votes were based in policy. The closer can personally disagree with some of the arguments, but shouldn't discard the !votes based on this when determining consensus.
  Additionally, if many votes are "delete or rescope", and you consider that the AfD shouldn't discuss rescoping, then these votes should be counted as delete, not discarded. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the community decided to "keep" was different content with a different title, so you have to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to get a keep outcome out of that discussion. But there should be one or more articles with titles and content not unadjacent to this, so you also have to do some mental gymnastics to get to "delete". This needed a nuanced close.—S Marshall T/C 14:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - Delete/redirect votes discarded seemingly out of hand? The purpose of a closer is to evaluate the arguments and weigh them, not toss out the ones they don't like. Closer's rationale displays a lack of sensitivity to the topic and therefore, inability to objectively weigh the arguments. Referring to !votes simply as "righteous indignation" is offensive, especially after acknowledging the topic is controversial. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Redirect !vote was discarded. The discarded Delete votes were not discarded "out of hand". They received a weight based on their reliance on P&G, which in this case was zero. I understand you are unhappy with the outcome, but it sounds like you find our deletion policy objectionable. !Votes are routinely discarded when they aren't based in policy. Sensitivity to the topic does not mean abandoning our guiding principles. Owen× ☎ 16:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that 'guiding principles' included not allowing the platform to be used for advocacy. Which is exactly what any discussion of organised child abuse must inevitably become, when it is centred around a discourse that selects particular ethnoreligious minorities as its focus, in the face of evidence which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that said ethnoreligious group does not participate in such abuse in any proportion larger than its numbers would suggest. Still, if the object of an AfD closure is to adhere to some abstract 'principle' that only contributions employing the exact wording the closer demands get considered, then maybe the 'principles' need revising. Or maybe it is the closer's understanding of them, which I'd have to suggest, may be at odds with those of the current community at least partly due to an almost complete absence of substantive editing history over many years.[17] Supposed 'principles' that prioritise rule-mongering over perpetuating unfounded and deeply offensive stereotypes should have no place in any responsible project with aspirations to being an 'encyclopaedia. Proper coverage of serious topics like child abuse should not be framed around newspaper headlines and moral panic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete I think the closer's rationale (described here is problematic. There are some circumstances for delete !votes to be discarded, but substantiative and policy-based comments should rarely be discarded. As for the information, it could be included in a larger article about "journalists misrepresenting patterns in crime." --Enos733 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete. I'm involved insofar as I voted to delete based on a well reasoned policy based argument, and I voted to overturn on Sirfurboy's well-reasoned objections. Brocade River Poems 18:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Frankly, I don't believe the nomination was in good faith in the first place, considering that a) the person who nominated it is an SPA who registered just to target this article, b) there was coordinated off-wiki activity to try to get more delete votes, and c) the article was heavily edited during the AfD to make it worse, presumably to increase the chances of it's removal. As far as the merits of the Keep, Owen said them far better than I ever could. Jtrainor (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a) - I have been editing for some time via IP, and had to create an account in order to create the AFD, that in of itself isn't a particularly good reason to dismiss it. b) what evidence do you have that there was "coordinated off-wiki activity to try to get more delete votes"? And even if so - in what way does that discount the delete votes based on wiki policy? c) how can the article be worse now, compared to the POV mess it was prior to the AFD? TwinkleStarzz (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am particularly interested in hearing about the allegations around B.
• As the main editor who did much of the changes during the AfD, C seems incorrect.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The only other possible outcome was "no consensus", which would have been fine too. This was never going to be deleted. The topic is obviously notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources. I don't want to criticise the nominator, who seems to be relatively new here, for seeing the terrible state of the article at the time it was nominated and sending it for deletion. Even so, it is almost certain that a more experienced editor would have realised that this was a valid subject which had been diverted in the wrong direction and tried to set it back on the right path rather than into the bit bucket. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I could have seen a way here to a No Consensus close (which of course defaults to keep) but the actual close and its rationale were really poor and actually didn't give any policy-based reason why the closer threw multiple Delete/Redirect !votes aside. I almost get the impression that the closer didn't read the AfD properly and/or didn't look at the history of the article, which may have given more clarity as to why a TNT delete was the best option in this circumstance. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (uninvolved). OwenX explained the reasoning clearly. There were several "delete" !votes that were not based on policy and were within the closer's discretion to discount. (This DRV is already getting sidetracked with editors' personal views about the subject matter, which is not helpful to the process.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Before I review the matter a second time and offer an opinion, I would like to be sure that I understand this correctly. It appears that the headcount was approximately 11 Keeps and 18 Deletes, and the closer has closed the discussion as Keep, based on strength of arguments, and discounting some of the Delete !votes. It appears that the appellant is saying that the closed erred in giving more weight to the Keep statements than the Delete statements, and for other reasons, such as that the closer supervoted. Do I understand the situation correctly? Have I counted the non-votes more or less correctly? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is 17 deletes, 2 redirects and 11 keeps. It is not a matter of weight to the arguments (although that would certainly be an additional concern). It is that in this explanation [18] it transpired that fully 12 of the delete votes were discarded to assess a rough consensus after which the weighting was applied. I do not see the weighting was properly applied either but it is the discard that does not add up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, I suppose, though to me it looks like the discussion reached no consensus, which would have been a preferable close. However, keep was also within administrative discretion. Maybe paradoxically, I think a close of delete would also have been acceptable. Over the years I have thought we are not well able to deal with the sort of situation where the topic and contents are unstable. I dare say we never can be. Thincat (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved). At the end of the day, it is irrelevant whether these gangs exist or whether they are predominantly Muslim or Asian or whatever. All that is relevant is that this is a huge media story in the UK and has been for years and therefore deserves an article. Too many of the delete votes were based on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:IDONTLIKEIT and cherrypicking sources to "prove" that this was all false and therefore should indeed have been treated with caution. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It reports what reliable sources report. It would be ridiculous not to have an article on something that is so significant in the British media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This isn't a remark on what should happen with this closure but on the discussion occurring. I just want to remark that what offends me is some comments here that seem to imply that OwenX came to a decision and then worked backwards to justify that closure. I have good faith in OwenX's ability and integrity as a closer. What participants in the discussion might not realize is how many of our regular closers passed on closing this discussion because it was so divisive. This AFD discussion was bound to end up at DRV no matter what the closure was or what rationale was provided. Opinion was that divided. I applaud OwenX's willingness to take on assessing controversial AFDs which he did here and on other AFDs. We are lucky to have him spending time working on AFDs. That doesn't mean every closure is perfect and can't be challenged (they obvously can) but it's improper to accuse him of bias or having some other kind of motivation that resulted in him reaching his conclusion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  agreed. owenx took a difficult afd and gave a good enough close that seems impartial. the personal attacks and claims of bias against owenx are disheartening Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to NC This was a very difficult AfD and I understand the closer's reasoning for the keeping (many delete !votes not being grounded in policy/guidelines). But I don't believe that outcome was within discretion. First, many (a majority?) of keep !votes agreed this can or should be renamed. A keep outcome doesn't even hint at the notion the title needs fixing. I could have endorsed a delete outcome, a rename outcome, or an NC outcome. But keep isn't in the cards with only ~20% of participants asking to keep without a rename. I'd rather see a NC close and an RfC on how to move forward. Such a close better reflects the discussion and IMO is the better way forward. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already a move discussion on Talk:Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom which seems to be headed towards success. I don't think adding a RfC on top of that is necessary, but I do agree that the focus should be on how to move forward with the article. Overturning this to NC doesn't seem to impact that either way. It's not that I object, I just don't really see the point. DanielRigal (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was unaware of the move discussion. But the difference is that this could be relisted much sooner as a NC outcome. And I think that would be helpful here. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I feel that closing this as delete was the best reading of the discussion, but I think NC was also within discretion and thus I think an overturn to NC best balances the discussion and the close intent. But I'm fine if we overturn this to delete. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved). I understand the closer's rationale as it was clear many of the comments suggesting to delete the article were based on personal opinion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and from a perspective of wanting to delete a politically sensitive topic (in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY). Frankly, I also totally understand the instinct to want to delete the article, but these arguments are not based in policy—we have a long tradition of policy and processes meant to explicitly avoid deleting articles because one political perspective finds the topic inconvenient. The policy-grounded comments pointed out (it seems correctly to me) that there has been significant coverage of this topic, meaning we should have an article on it (WP:GNG). There were concerns that the article was not written and titled from a neutral point of view, but as the closer pointed out, this can be addressed through editing and consensus building. I think this is a case where WP:DISCARD was applied correctly, but the lopsided number of comments on either side of the debate makes the closure contentious for people who do not understand how at Wikipedia, editors determine consensus based on arguments rather than on number of votes (see e.g., WP:XFD#CON). Malinaccier (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So we should delete a now valid article, on a significant topic, which has been improved beyond recognition since it was nominated for deletion, and force editors to start again from scratch at the new title which is currently being discussed on the Talk page? Why? Who would gain anything from that? Not the editors. Not the readers. Whatever mistakes may or may not have been made, surely it is better to focus on the best outcome for the encyclopaedia. If deleted, the article would almost certainly get refunded as a draft before being moved to its new title. Why make a load of extra hassle just to end up in the same place eventually? If it gets us to right place with less aggravation then we can, and should, avoid over-literal application of the rules per WP:IAR and just skip to the end. (Also, I strongly disagree that there was anything like a consensus to delete in the first place so, in my view, IAR doesn't even need to come into play.) DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but isn't a repurpose and move of the article a backdoor deletion? Doesn't a keep outcome prevent us from changing the content and the title to make the article about something else? Doesn't it say that the consensus confirms an article on muslim grooming gangs is the notable topic, not the topic this is being repurposed to? As S Marshall said, this needed a nuanced close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been already changed. WP:TNT covers "repurpose", and i thought it was the appropriate reason to delete before looking through article history and realizing there was a useful version to change back to. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  TNT is a delete outcome. This was closed as keep. Now we can WP:IAR and essentially TNT the article that was nominated, and rename it to remove the problematic framing that was always there. That is backdoor deletion. But with an outcome of keep, what is to stop someone from simply re-creating this article after its backdoor deletion, with a COPYWITHIN of the problematic content, arguing that the AfD was closed as keep? I mean, that's what I would do if I really and strongly thought the article as existed at the time should still be here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete I simply have no idea how you get a "keep" from that discussion, especially given not all of the keep !votes were necessarily valid, or how you would ever change a delete !vote to a keep when doing a close. At worst you discount an incorrect !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Delete - I'm baffled why any of the keep arguments basically saying such terms exist have any weight, given the highly prejudicial nature, and given the majority of such grooming in the UK isn't Muslim! We certainly don't need a child grooming article for every country by every religion, race, and skin colour. Nfitz (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not only that the term exists, it is that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. That's what defines notability. (They all say it is BS, which makes it notable BS.) The whole point of the article is to explain the racist moral panic around grooming gangs in the UK, i.e. to explain the prejudice not to promote it. Trust me, this is a topic that people are going to Google and part of Wikipedia's responsibility to the world is to give those people a solid article setting out the facts so that they get at least one high ranking search result that isn't promoting prejudice, hatred and lies. Maybe it is not clear to non-British people here, but this topic is effectively Britain's version of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. We need an article about it for the same reason that we need an article about that. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. I now wish that I had written a detailed essay saying all this in my !vote but it never occurred to me for a moment that it would be necessary. The content that got the article put up for deletion was already reverted by the time I got to the AfD so I assumed that this would be a borderline speedy keep situation. DanielRigal (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not pizzagate. Pizzagate is a bizarre fantasy with no factual basis. South Asian paedophile rings, on the other hand, do exist; and South Asian males really are overrepresented among perpetrators of child sexual exploitation on females. The right wing press has wildly exaggerated a genuine phenomenon.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd think (any ethnic group) pedophile rings exist, but I'd be surprised if the majority weren't white or Christian. And the only definitive reference in the article supporting otherwise is an opinion piece by a known racist (if Wikipedia can be believed)! Nfitz (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The majority are white; we don't know anything about their religion. There's a Home Office study from 2020 which contains a useful overview of the recent scholarly literature. It shows that information about perpetrators' ethnicity isn't gathered in a rigorous way and where it is gathered, depends on police officers assigning an ethnicity based on the police officer's opinion. Ella Cockbain thinks this ethnicity data is terrible and has to be jettisoned. Not everyone agrees with Ella Cockbain, and it's fair to say that limited and disputed data, but nevertheless the best available data, suggests that people of Asian (which in Britain mostly means South Asian) ethnicity are overrepresented among perpetrators in paedophile rings compared to their numbers in the general population.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I should have linked the study, which is here. The ethnicity that's most overrepresented among victims is mixed white and black caribbean (see for example Office for national statistics, table 7b).—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The study you link does not state that "the best available data, suggests that people of Asian (which in Britain mostly means South Asian) ethnicity are overrepresented among perpetrators in paedophile rings compared to their numbers in the general population." On the contrary, it says that "Based on the existing evidence, and our understanding of the flaws in the existing data, it seems most likely that the ethnicity of group-based CSE offenders is in line with CSA more generally and with the general population, with the majority of offenders being White." (p.25 p.27) AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  also we shoukd not be using that document directlh as per WP:PRIMARY. the originL pov editor had been using and misquoting from that document to help provide evidence that muslim grooming gangs were a significant problem. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While you were on page 25, Andy, did you read the bit that said "A number of studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based CSE"?

Bluethricecreamman, that document is not a primary source. It quotes and summarizes secondary sources. The fact that someone's misused it in the past doesn't mean I can't use it.—S Marshall T/C 15:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I see I'd given the wrong page number: I meant P.27, not P.25. Apologies for that. As for what it says on P.25, 'a number of studies' does not equate to 'the best available data'. Particularly not when the source being cited goes on to explain in some detail why such studies may be relying on 'poor quality' data. The source cannot possibly be used to support claims regarding data it expressly questions the validity of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the figures they're doubting come from page 21 of this source, and I having dug it up, I stand by my description of that as "limited and disputed data". It's the best data that I've found yet, and I'm coming to think that Ella Cockbain &c, who doubt it, don't have any rigorous data of their own (because if they did they would surely have published it). It might be the only data. I'll keep digging though.—S Marshall T/C 22:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data from a single year. In which "35% of forces did not provide any data and the ethnicity of many perpetrators within those which did provide data is often not recorded." I'd go with the null hypothesis on that one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that an article on a moral panic about South Asian paedophile rings, ought to say something about whether it's true that South Asians really are overrepresented among paedophiles. The only actual data we can find says yes, they are, and that's a fact that our lovely right wing friends are going to keep on adding into the article forever. This position, held by many people in the debate above, that it's entirely a hoax, is going to founder on the fact that the least bad data we can find, plus articles in the Times, both say it's a real phenomenon.—S Marshall T/C 07:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page 21 of this source [19] that you refer to is the source I quoted in the AfD in answer to the erroneous claim made by one participant that the vast majority of these cases are by Asian muslim gangs. This source gives figures on page 21 that prove that to be nonsense. 42% are white, 17% black and 14% Asian. Is this an over-representation of Asians? Well yes. At the last UK census, the British Asian population stood at 9.3%, so it is a little over, but as Andythegrump points out, there are a lot of problems with these figures (that the paper is up front about). But there is another huge 🐘 elephant in the room. By that study the black population is way more over-represented. The UK black population is 4% but that study suggests 17% representation in gang and group based CSE. That is a massively bigger effect. Will we also keep the inevitable Black grooming gangs in the UK article? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Luckily the Times hasn't printed any articles about black grooming gangs, so that question is a lot easier than this one!—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ultimately, this is going to be kept, primarily because it can be sourced to the well-known racist British media. Even though it breaks Wikipedia policies. Another fail for AFD ignoring Wikipedia policy. Nfitz (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus, recognizing that this will leave the article standing. The dispute over the title of the article is illustrative. There is no consensus over what the subject of the article should be, whether it is gangs, or a moral panic about gangs. So there can be no consensus about whether to delete the article until there is rough consensus on the subject and title of the article. Neither the Keep nor the Delete cases were cogent, because of the uncertainty of the subject of the article, and neither the Keep nor the Delete cases addressed the weaknesses of the opposing case. There does appear to be rough consensus that reliable sources have provided significant coverage of something, maybe gangs, maybe a moral panic over gangs. The title and subject of the article should be resolved, and then a new nomination can be made on whether to delete the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A large number of the delete comments boil down to "we shouldn't have an article because it platforms islamophobic misinformation". Granting that is a correct characterization of the material (I am not familiar enough with the sources to say so explicitly), it is undoubtedly notable islamophobic misinformation and should be covered as such on Wikipedia. Given that there are usable versions in the history of the article and that this title should certainly be a redirect if it is moved to a better title. Deletion per TNT is not supported by policy and such comments should be discounted. I could perhaps see a No Consensus close as reasonable, but certainly not Delete. For clearly notable topics, NPOV is rarely a good reason to delete and only when there is no usable version in the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: (uninvolved) The closer summed up the consensus correctly in my view as majority of !votes were concerned about how “POV mess” the entry was but deletion is not cleanup. And this DRV itself seems to be deviating to a “what-should-be opinion poll.” Best, Reading Beans 06:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There absolutely should be a page on this wider topic. The page has been worked on and there is an ongoing RM, deleting it would be very counterproductive, it is clearly being worked on. The votes that were based on POV issues have been addressed, and shouldn’t be given weight when assessing consensus. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the delete votes addressed the biased title. How has the blatant violation of WP:NDESC and [WP:UNDUE]] been addressed, User:Kowal2701. Nothing stops the subject being discussed in many of the suggested other articles. Or moved - which is a valid AFD outcome (according to the second sentence of WP:AFD, despite the false claims by User:OwenX when he closed it. How a close could survive such a fundamental flaw by the closer is beyond me, as it demonstrates their lack of competence in the AFD process. Nfitz (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Antònia Mínguez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Procedurally, this was a bad close, regardless of the outcome. As the AfD nominator, I do not feel a need to relist, but I do feel that the irregularities and some concerning factors about the close should be reviewed.

1. The AfD was closed as keep. The closer had previously relisted for more input, and the only input after this was a reasoned !vote for a non-keep outcome.
2. The close gave no reason or explanation for the decision.
   1. No reason is bad form, and worse when the article being XfD'd is a BLP with additional copyvio and privacy concerns, which were also not acknowledged in the close.
3. The close suggested having effectively the same discussion at the article talkpage; if the closer believed this was the best course of action, then "no consensus" is surely the close decision that would be taken.
4. When challenged on the lack of reasoning in the close decision, the closer gave reasons which I find not only unconvincing, but somewhat concerning:
   1. Admitting to merely vote-counting. Besides ignoring the quality of reasons and policy adherence, this is particularly bad when there are only a handful of !votes, including some qualified or with no reason.
   2. Suggesting that they have bias towards a certain user's opinion. The user in question was the main advocate for keep, the decision the closer took. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: after being notified, the closer is currently passive-agressively deleting drafts I (and only I) created. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see how you got vote counting from my statement I saw more support for Keep than Delete or Redirect. Maybe I didn't word this correctly but the support I meant was reading the arguments, not just counting votes. As for my alleged "bias", it was because I stated to Kingsif on my User talk page that I respect the opinions of all of the editors arguing to Keep, especially Cielquiparle who typically works to improve sourcing on articles whose AFDs they participates in.. I don't think that indicates that I'll close a discussion however Cielquiparle votes (I'm sure we have disagreed plenty of times), just that I respected their opinion. I think it's unrealistic to expect that a closer doesn't pay any attention to whom is voicing an argument, that we are "editor-blind". There are editors whose opinion I respect on sports topics or business topics because they regularly offer solid arguments. Cunard digs up sources that no one else can locate, Cielquiparle usually improves an article during an AFD. I take some editors' arguments more seriously than an IP editor who just showed up to express an opinion. If I get some flak for that, well I don't know how to ignore that some editors are very competent and reliable and I take their opinions seriously. It doesn't mean I didn't take the opinions of other editors in the discussion seriously, Kingsif asked me to justify my closure and I thought it best to be honest.
• As for your drafts, they are eligible for CSD G13, if you look at the date of the last human edit, I delete CSD G13s all day long, it has nothing to do with this inquiry. A head's up, Draft:List of winning streaks in volleyball is due for CSD G13 in the next hour. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I know the drafts are eligible for G13, something a bot usually handles. If you can honestly deny that this didn't inspire you to look into the draft dump pile for anything with my name on it, I'll strike that, but I checked to see if you were just on a regular deletion spree and you weren't.

  I would challenge your assertion that Cielquiparle is very competent and reliable based on the "improvements" they made to the article and the sources/comments on sources they presented during the AfD, but we're not here to discuss the competency of other users - so I will just challenge that while closers cannot be expected to be assessing like some blank slate, they should not be (as you honestly, which, thanks, are) elevating one opinion above others because of who made it, when the other opinions may in themselves be equally or more valid. If a closer is going to effectively trust one user's take on something rather than assessing for themselves, that creates a massive judgement issue. Additionally, I didn't mean to suggest you would just close in line with Cielquiparle, but that you very much admitted that you respect their opinions more than you do others, and that can create bias.

  Of course, I was concerned enough with points 1 through 3 initially that I asked for an explanation, and I feel that what you provided was neither satisfactory in addressing the whole AfD (indeed, still no comments on source quality, on notability policy, on copyvio), nor did it indicate why there was no initial close reason. Kingsif (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kingsif: A bot usually handles tagging drafts for deletion under WP:G13, but I think the deletion itself is always done by a human admin. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this was a very easy AfD to close as there was little opposition against keeping and anything else would have been a supervote. Furthermore, Earwig didn't show any copyvio issues, I also don't see anything wrong with Liz's response or close. If anything I'm surprised it was nominated for deletion at all based on the available sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There were two redirect votes, and two keep votes, I genuinely don't know what you're looking at to see otherwise. The nom explains the copyvio is machine translated, which anyone who looked at the sources (none of which are notability-establishing) and noticed they weren't in English would surely realise. Kingsif (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is incorrect. When the discussion closed, there were three “keep” !votes and two “redirect” !votes, including yours as nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Characterising a weak keep based on lack of sigcov, and a redirect vote changed to keep based on a source that doesn’t satisfy GNG, as two separate keep !votes, is generous of you. Either way, you can appreciate that even at 3:2, SportingFlyer saying there was little opposition is not correct. Kingsif (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop bludgeoning. SportingFlyer T·C 06:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I brought this close here because it was improper, as I said, regardless of the decision. Serious issues were not, and still have not been, acknowledged - not even for the closer to say they don't think they're issues. Asking for more input only to ignore it completely. No policy-based reasons.

  But if we have to bring up the decision of the close, of course I think it's unjustified: the !votes to redirect cited at least three policies between them and explained the policies' relevance. There were two !votes which, had their arguments been read within the context of the discussion, would have been weighted very low or effectively discounted – 1 to keep after the user was asked to change it due to a primary source being mentioned, having been a vote to redirect based on lack of sources (it's users' judgement on when they think additional sources meet requirements, but a single non-notability establishing source should not be given that weight for a close), and 1 for weak keep based on lack of sigcov but a decent article (as the nom outlined where the article had been inappropriately copy-pasted from, IMO that positive side would be discounted, but even if not sigcov is a greater concern than how the article is written anyway). There was then only 1 proper !vote for keep, which presented a single source that is not focused on the BLP subject, and alleged not enough BEFORE because there are sources at the Catalan WP, despite all the sources mentioned already being in the English WP article and, of course, not being notability-establishing.

  There's a lot that I (surprisingly) left unsaid in the AfD because of not wanting to 'diminish' a living person, but of the three goalkeepers Barça Femení had in 70/71, Mínguez is the least notable by several miles and then some. It's WP:BLP1E, and whether someone gives one interview about that event, or 500, it's all the same. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. With more keeps than redirect !votes and policy-based arguments on both sides, Liz’s close was the most reasonable interpretation of the result. “Redirect” would not have represented the consensus. N/C might have been in play had there been a “delete” !vote but seemed unnecessary here since redirection discussions can happen at the talk page. (I’m mystified as to why this was at AfD at all if the nominator only wanted a redirect; the page history doesn’t show a BLAR, which would have been a first step. Given the limits on volunteer time and attention at AfD, I only nominate a page for redirection at AfD if there’s an edit war going on over a previously stable redirect and we need a community consensus to enforce it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please tell, what were the policy arguments for the keep side presented at that AfD, including reasoning? (AfDs get more participation than articles in this area, in my experience). Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I see no error with the close. The appellant seems to be mistaking length of arguments and strength of arguments. I won't repeat what the other Endorsers have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • • It is true that the closer did not provide a closing analysis. We often endorse closes that do not provide a closing analysis, when the closer's reasoning and/or the consensus is clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I request you strike The appellant seems to be mistaking length of arguments and strength of arguments., as I am not and I think it is an aspersion that is an unfair misrepresentation of my respect for assessing arguments. (It’s also a misrepresentation of the strength of the “keep because I found one source” arguments, natch.) I am not directly challenging the decision of the close, even, though it’s apparent that is what this has become. I do not wish to repeat myself, but my concerns were (quite clearly) on the lack of a reasoned close. Kingsif (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know whether User:Kingsif is mistaking length of argument and strength of argument. They do appear to be mistaking length of argument and strength of argument. Raising a question as to whether an argument is fallacious is not casting aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I would still disagree that the keep arguments were stronger, as they did not refer to policy and could not explain how sources met notability guidelines. I have not once in this considered length at all, only quality of argument. Kingsif (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Redirect is a valid alternative to deletion. But in the absence of a consensus to redirect, it is not an alternative to keeping the article in place. This appeal and the accompanying inflammatory accusations are without merit. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Politely, you're completely missing the point. For the umpteenth time, I am not challenging the decision, but the procedure of the close. To keep it short, when there have been valid BLP issues raised in an AfD, if closing as keep, there should be explanation of why these issues don't matter or how they should be addressed (2.1 up top). When an AfD is not clear-cut, it is also best form to provide closing comments. This appeal is effectively to hold accountability to that. Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  there should be explanation - can you show us which policy requires this? I'm not sure how you arrived at your determination of what is "best form", but we do not overturn discussions based on someone's personal opinion of what is or isn't "best form". If you are not here to overturn the result, then this is the wrong venue for your complaint. Kindly withdraw your DRV appeal, and open an RfC about how you believe AfD closing rationales should be worded, so that if supported, this could become a policy/guideline requirement rather than just your personal preference. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I have been realising it’s not the right venue — I honestly thought that reviewing closes meant appeals were about reviewing the close, not overturning the decision (which don’t most people just start another XfD?) Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The only error in this discussion was the relist on 23 August when clear consensus to keep existed. Even despite a single redirect after this unnecessary relist, there remains consensus to keep both in number and strength of arguments. The redirect side did not do enough to refute the sources presented by the keep side. Frank Anchor 13:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, clearly not the place, but if you're happy to, I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion that The redirect side did not do enough to refute the sources presented by the keep side - all but one of the sources presented were already in the article, and that one other source was personal info from an interview, which is not notability establishing. It doesn't take as many words as I've used to easily refute it. Kingsif (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The BLP1E argument has no weight. That policy provision exists to protect low-profile individuals from possibly unwanted attention. That's very clearly not the case here. Also, the first match of the women's FC Barcelona team is a significant event (and a notable event, see the Wikipedia article about it) by any measure and a goalkeeper who played that match had an inherently significant role in it (see WP:BLP1ENOT for an additional explanation), simply by virtue of being one of the players. The significance of the event and individuals' roles in it is evidenced in later interest in the topic, as exemplified by the SER 100 article. By accepting to be interviewed decades later, Mínguez is not averse to attention. When that argument is discounted, there was a consensus to keep.—Alalch E. 13:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Having been pinged to this? Just to say, you literally just described BLP1E. Being interviewed about the 1E is not a further notable event, it's still just coverage of the 1E. Quite frankly, the 'point' of BLP1E, besides privacy, is to not essentially FORK out information about the 1E. When the BLP is just info on the 1E and some personal details, and there's no media coverage to say the person did anything notable but be present at the 1E, we are exactly in that territory. Kingsif (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's WP:BIO1E. The point of BLP1E is privacy. It's a part of BLP. BLP is about being sensitive to living persons and its provisions are on a totally different plane to mundane issues of notability and content organization. Its three conditions must be fulfilled cumulatively to produce the conclusion that there's a BLP problem. 2 and 3 are not fulfilled. The individual had a significant role in a notable event and is not a low-profile individual. I think you should renominate with a much more crystallized argument based on WP:BIO1E. There was no consensus to delete in this discussion with the arguments offered. —Alalch E. 12:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Van Der Laag (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Karinvanderlaag (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. No procedural or other rationale given for reviewing the deletion. Appears to be WP:ILIKEIT. OP appears to assert some form of ownership over this deleted biography, and is recreating it as an autobiography at Draft:Karin van der Laag. They should work on that via AFC and ignore the deleted article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. —Cryptic 14:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or Procedural Close - The close was a correct statement of consensus, but the appeal does nothing other than name the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appellant didn't name the afd. Or even the article. —Cryptic 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cryptic They almost did. Correcting the submission template on their behalf showed each in {{DRV links}}. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • That is correct. My error, in not correctly describing the appellant's error. All the more reason for a speedy close. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close. Linking to a properly closed AfD is not an appeal. Owen× ☎ 21:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. No reason given why the closure was incorrect. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correct close, and no reason given for appeal. SportingFlyer T·C 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close (or Endorse, if this runs the course) The appellant is new to wikibureaucracy, so technical errors in opening this discussion can be forgiven, but much more fundamentally, there is no case to answer as the AfD closure very clearly represented consensus and was procedurally sound. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Uwadi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. Article was deleted after having been previously undeleted, see [Uwadi] and the administrator who made the final deletion did not consider my contest on the article's talk page.

2. Article have been recreated twice meaning the subject is notable enough considering the article has an entry on Hausa Wikipedia.

3. There are enough sources used during the most recent recreation and if it is believed the article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY, I am also separately requesting for the article to be restored to a draft for further improvement.

4. The article was nominated for speedy deletion under G4 simply because the editor who placed the template for speedy deletion realized the article was recreated and not that the article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY as the consensus for its earlier deletions.Jõsé ^hola 19:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The article was last deleted in a 2023 AfD. The AfD has not been seriously challenged. It doesn't matter what happened before that AfD. The G4 was presumably correct assuming that the content was sufficiently identical. Everything was done correctly.—Alalch E. 19:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It isn't clear if the appellant is contesting the March 2023 AFD or the 30 August 2024 G4 or something else. None of the numbered points are clear statements of a purpose for DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon: I am actually contesting the both since I was unaware the article was deleted prior to my creation. Jõsé ^hola 22:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then how on earth did they end up so similar? Example paragraph, afd version on the left, yours on the right:

  −

  He is one of the popular voices in Nigeria that drives social change through social media and is also an outspoken critic of several governors of Imo State and some Nigerian Presidents. Uwadi spearheaded vicious newspaper chronicles of Governor Rochas Okorocha's "sins" and attacks on the governor from 2011 to 2019. He also criticized the government of Emeka Ihedioha in Imo State. He has played active roles in campaign for good governance and youth employment in Nigeria, including the struggle against human rights violations and neglect of the oil producing areas of Imo State. When an Owerri-based social crusader, Citizen Ikenna Samuelson Iwuoha and his wife were falsely accused of murder and arrested on 3 June 2014, he was involved in the struggle for their release.

  +

  He is one of the most influential people in Nigeria who is bringing about social change through social media and a critic of many governors of Imo state and other Nigerian presidents. Uwadi led the infamous newspaper history of the "sins" of Governor Rochas Okorocha. He played a prominent role in the campaign for good governance and youth employment in Nigeria, including the struggle against human rights abuses and neglect of the oil producing areas in Imo state. When a social crusader in Owerri, Citizen Ikenna Samuelson Iwuoha and his wife were accused of murder and arrested on June 3, 2014, he joined the struggle for their release.

  —Cryptic 22:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cryptic: Are you trying to imply that I had access to the deleted material? I simply wrote what my sources stated.

  Or in what ways did you expect the wordings to be dissimilar? Jõsé ^hola 23:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If those were produced solely from the sources rather than one from the other, then both versions are copyright infringement. —Cryptic 23:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close of the March 2023 as Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No Opinion on the G4. I am not requesting a temporary undelete because the appellant hasn't stated that they are contesting the G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Allow Restoration of draft, although the originator of an article should keep a copy of it on their computer, especially if there might be a challenge. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose that because it's a bad WP:BLP, in which the only sources are articles he wrote, which has Flowery text and iffy sources, and is possibly even G11 (quoting from the AfD). As non-policy-compliant content, and given that the BLP policy applies to drafts, it is not suitable for undeletion even as a draft. —Alalch E. 21:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is point number 2 not valid for consideration? Jõsé ^hola 22:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't address any of those concerns. A topic can be notable and the article can have "flowery text and iffy sources". A completely new article is needed. —Alalch E. 06:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I highly doubt if both Xfds 1, 2 had Nigerian contributors on deciding its notability as it is the subject's country of attention. @Chiomaamadi:, @Satori Son: Jõsé ^hola 23:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first AfD can not be reviewed anymore because there is a newer AfD. The 1st one could have been the worst, the most tainted, the least policy-based discussion ever: It can't be overturned to keep because the article was deleted in a subsequent AfD. It is only that last AfD's close that can be overturned. —Alalch E. 06:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and deny draftification. The AfD was decided unanimously. The appellant brings up no policy based argument for overturning the result. Their claim about the recreation is clearly bogus, as Cryptic's diff demonstrates. And the comment about invalidating the AfD because there were no "Nigerian contributors on deciding its notability" is either a gross misunderstanding of WP:OR and how the project works, or else is plain old bigotry. Owen× ☎ 22:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion but do draftify. The AFD conclusion was seemingly valid (and no real arguments have been advanced to the contrary), but I am very sensitive to concerns that Engish Wikipedia defaults to an overly developed-world view and may tend to implicitly devalue reasonable sources from elsewhere in the world, and so wrongly deny notablity to non-developed-world subjects. However, whether or not uninvolved Nigerians participated in the deletion discussion, there's been no indication that enough independent, reliable, secondary sources exist to meet en.wp notability requirements and support an article on en.wp. I've passed the Hausa wikipedia entry through Google Translate, and all the sources there are primary and/or mention the subject in passing (as an author of a press release, for instance) and whether or not they are acceptable on the Hausa wikipedia, they are not sufficient here. So deletion here is correct, in line with the AFD discussion. That said, while I can't see the deleted version(s) here, it looks from the quotes above that both incarnations may be strongly based on the Hausa wikipedia version, which is an eminently reasonable starting point for someone to try to develop and en.wp policy-compliant article. So I see no reason to deny the request to draftify, and let those interested continue their efforts. (I'm also inclined to accept the explanation that both deleted incarnations of the article here may simply be based on separate instances of someone translating the Hausa wp article text.) Martinp (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]