[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2020 Deletion review archives September 2020 >

31 August 2020

[edit]

30 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2019 November Shooting Incident in Sai Wai Ho (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was merged to Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (November 2019) on Nov. 21, 2019. According to point 3 of the Deletion review policy, deletion review may be used "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". On Jan. 23, 2020, Hui Chi-fung filed a private prosecution against the traffic police officer who shot the protester in Sai Wan Ho for two counts of "attempted murder" and "shooting with intent to cause grievous bodily harm". From June to August 2020, the progress of the case have been under the spotlight of the media, especially regarding the controversial interruption of charge by the Department of Justice against Hui Chi-fung's private prosecution (I can provide references if necessary, but all these are not difficult to find in the Chinese version of the article). The UK sanction requested by Nathan Law and Luke de Pulford against the Hong Kong police and the traffic police officer's family residing in UK are also highly concerned by the public in the recent months. Last but not least, even the old versions 1 and 2 are good enough to be an independent article if they are combined.--D7CY689 (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John Papas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Article was recreated in mainspace by an administrator (Paulmcdonald) without significant improvement, in an effort to keep a low-quality, underused navbox from being deleted. I placed a CSD G4 tag on the article, and it was removed by Jweiss11 with no explanation in the edit summary. On the talk page, Jweiss stated they contested the speedy deletion of the article because "the subject is clearly notable". The administrator who recreated the article had previously !voted "keep" in the AfD, and I believe they have now abused the deletion process. The article has had three references added since recreation, none of which I believe put it over the GNG threshold. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any abuse of the deletion process here by Paulmcdonald or me. The article was AfD'd 9 years ago when its title was misspelled, which may have contributed to difficulty in locating sources. Our general ability to locate sources is now also much improved given increased access to Newspapers.com. The subject of the article has been covered substantially by The Boston Globe and ESPN. There's a myriad of coverage about him on Newspapers.com. Eagles247, I think your approach here is unduly bureaucratic and has not served the improvement of the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Garrett relation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Criticism is in my opinion largely unfounded, the research is a decade old, many outside sources exist (c.f. replies on deleter's talk pages) and the purpose is not self-promotion but the understanding of one of the important relationships of our shared reality. Gordonschuecker (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure how to properly link additional discussions, but here are the two links:

Discussion on Nosebagbear (closing admin's) Talk Page

and

2nd talk section on Nosebagbear's TP


P.S.: Something seems to have gone wrong? The Garrett Relation articles I wanted to link to are:


Garret relation article (temp undeleted) and

Garrett relation AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonschuecker (talk • contribs)

  • Just an initial note that I've tried to fix links for submitter. I have also temporarily undeleted for the duration of the deletion review. Please feel free to revert if you don't want them, and my apology if so Nosebagbear (talk)
  • Firstly, my apology to @Gordonschuecker: - I replied to their first post on my TP, but while I saw their second I got distracted at that point and purely forgot to return to it - mea culpa. Moving to the request. I'm happy that my original decision was right (not that Gordonschuecker appears to really be contesting that), so I suppose this is a discussion as to whether the additional sources noted, especially in the second section on my TP, warrant recreation (or at least draftification). I don't really have a strong opinion on that at this point, but I will take a further look. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, welcome to Wikipedia! It's nice to have another scholar on board. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. That articles for deletion discussion must have been an incredibly offputting and unwelcoming experience for a new user, and I want to begin by apologizing for my fellow editors' word choices. There are much better ways to say what they said in that discussion.
    Wikipedia might superficially look like an encyclopaedia, but the process of writing it is basically a colossal, sprawling, unfocused argument, spread across millions of pages. We have some great ways to shut down people who aren't here in good faith. We don't have such good ways to decide between the views of editors who are in good faith, and this means that content disputes can last forever. The science of climate change is one of the biggest ongoing content disputes, and if you'd like to edit on the outskirts of that topic area, we should make you aware of this page. I know it's very long.
    May I suggest making some edits relating to some other field of human knowledge, just for a little while, in order to build a bit of familiarity with how this place works and how and why we make decisions here, and then coming back to the matter of the Garrett relation with that under your belt? We could drop a copy of the article in draft space in the meantime?—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we're asking Gordon to build up some experience elsewhere, adding it to their userspace might be better than draftifying (initially) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am no student of Timothy Garrett, but I am a fan of his work, alerted him once I saw that "his" Garrett relation got removed and that I inteded to see if I could personally help to get the page reinstated/edited as I'm regularly refering to it. I'm researching on similar topics than him and he now also follows me on Twitter so I technically now kind of do know him though. Gordonschuecker (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask if you have read the two discussions I linked in my original post? There is already plenty of secondary coverage, the topic is 10 years old and many have build upon his work (see proposed direct links in the links discussed). Gordonschuecker (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion, as the discussion said, very few of the sources then cited in the article were independent Most were by Garrett (the inventor of the concept) or by Nolthenius who seems to be closely associated. Mo significant discussion by other scholars was cited -- perhaps it is out there, but no one cited it in the AfD or the article. No objection to draftification or userfication, while a search is on for better and more sources. No harm in preserving the history, and a completely new draft would of course be OK. Just be aware of the need for independent sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See reply to the comment above. If allowed, I would be happy to help with draftification or userfication, though if I understand correctly, I need to build experience elsewhere before I'm allowed to because the post is linked to climate change? Gordonschuecker (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 August 2020

[edit]

27 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Typical Gamer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Typical Gamer just reached 10 million subscribers and he has credible claims of significance ([1], [2]). The draft used Infobox YouTube personality template. 36.85.216.114 (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The draft wasn't deleted because it made no claim of significance - indeed, we don't delete drafts for that - it was deleted as a G11, that is, for being overtly and irreparably promotional. I don't think it met that bar, even with the external link to his store in the infobox; and with the sources presented here (as opposed to the big fat nothing in the draft) I'm not even certain it would get deleted at AFD. Overturn. —Cryptic 10:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undeleted for discussion here. – Athaenara ✉ 12:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't appear to come close to a G11. overturn speedy. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per state of the article at that time, but overturn and restore to Draft given the new sources 36.85 presents above. 36.85, I'd strongly recommend you use and add those sources in the article draft. And anyone is welcome to send to AFD if still concerned about notability. This was a stale unsourced draft that was not egregiously overtly promotional, but in its state calling it "nothing but promotional" was a very reasonable read of the situation. I am not convinced the 2 new sources above are sufficient to meet our notability standard, but if they are added the article has a hope of surviving and AFD and deserves that chance if desired. Martinp (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - not remotely promotional in any way, shape, or form. There's absolutely zero justification for deletion here. WilyD 12:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore to draft space. If this were at AFC for review, I would Decline it as coming nowhere close to notability. I would not Reject it, because it might be capable of being improved. If this were at MFD for deletion as a hopeless draft, I would Keep if it didn't have a history of tendentious resubmissions, and Delete if it did. It certainly isn't spam, just a bad draft that needs either declining or improving. We aren't considering whether to trout the G11 nominator and deleter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguably notable, but there was no evidence of Wikipedia-notability in the draft. For that, independent coverage is required. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • SmokeyJoe evidence of Wikipedia-notability in the draft is not required to avoid G11 deletion, or even MfD if that had been brought up. Only to get a draft approved at AfC, or to survive an AfD after a draft is moved to article space is such evidence required. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • DES, I had refrained from commenting on G11. If you want to draw comment, it would be: “G11 is not an answer the the problems with hopeless drafts”. This is a hopeless draft. I think the best answer is to let AfC processes play out, and reserve MfD for escalation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • SmokeyJoe But the G11, and its propriety or lack thereof, is the only thing open for discussion here at this time. I will gladly agree that G11 is not an answer the the problems with hopeless drafts. I do not agree that this is a hopeless draft. But whether it is or not is not really relevant to this review. I will agree, and indeed I said below, that this draft is not ready to be approved, and in fact it may never be. But that does not make it a G11, nor would even a pretty clear lack of significant chance of notability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this draft should have been speediable. G11 failing to cover it to the letter of policy is a failing of policy. The draft was self-gloating with no sources except for self-sources, and listing self-sources is promotion. The nominator here presents new information that was not present in the deleted draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11 speedy deletion. This isn't even close to a G11, especially for a draft, and any admin should know better. I would not even consider approving the draft as it stood, but it is not at the g11 level of promotion, and I would have !voted "keep" in an MfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion. Move to draft. Lightburst (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see a deleted draft. I did find it in the history however. I think it is only visible until this review completes. Lightburst (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Gitanjali-JB (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

<Deletion conducted without proper evaluation?> Gitanjali-JB (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even terrible attempts to write draft articles like this are explicitly not U5s, like it was deleted as. If attempting to write articles isn't closely aligned with Wikipedia's goals, then nothing is. But endorse as a G11, irreparably promotional, like it was tagged as. Some choice phrases for interested nonadmins: "The vision of Helios Books is bringing out quality books in various genres", "a people made that fabled tryst with destiny and liberated themselves from the yoke of British imperialism", "Gitanjali is a spiritual seeker with a deep interest in Indian Spirituality". —Cryptic 04:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as promotional (WP:CSD#G11). Stifle (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion- quibbling about whether an autohagiography in user space is promotional (G11) or misuse of WP as a webhost (U5) seems to be just splitting hairs. Reyk YO! 10:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you not only don't tell users what it is they did wrong, but tell them they did something else wrong that they didn't in fact do, then there's no chance at all that they'll rectify their behavior. That's part of the reason for having a world-visible deletion log in the first place. Admittedly, there's usually hardly any chance of self-correction for someone who's intentionally writing promotionally; but sometimes, people just write that way because it's how they see other people writing. —Cryptic 10:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So long as nobody is actually suggesting undeleting this pap, I don't really care. I think U5 isn't completely bonkers for content that's equal parts resume, advertising brochure, and nationalist propaganda but if you want to flip it to G11 be my guest. Reyk YO! 14:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adeeb Ahamed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page Adeeb Ahmed was wrongly deleted through deletio discussion. The two things respected reviewers, I would like to bring to your attention are

  1. The current draft of Adeeb Ahamed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed is vastly different from the earlier deleted article in article for deletion process. A lot has changed and improved about as per recommendations including awards and credible sources.
  2. Secondly article for deletion discussion was faulty due to a mistake I made. I created the earlier article in the wrong name Adeeb Ahmed where as his actual name is Adeeb Ahamed. Since the wrong name Adeeb Ahmed does not throw up any sources it was deleted during deletion discussion. If the correct name was used instead, it would have given many independent sources to establish notability as Mr Adeeb Ahamed. Thank you for responding and reconsidering. (Kuruvillac (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Yes off-course.

Please could you check

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/lists/408686-indian-rich-list-2018-14-adeeb-ahamed

https://gulfnews.com/business/remittances-go-digital-1.1597425005076

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/banking-finance/443348-abu-dhabi-stimulus-package-to-mitigate-panic-says-lulu-financial-boss

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/business/425981-investing-in-the-future-adeeb-ahamed-managing-director-of-lulu-financial-group

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297987

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/retail/421501-turning-tablez

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retail/turning-tables-how-adeeb-ahamed-of-the-lulu-group-is-foraying-further-with-food-toys-and-fashion/articleshow/60136087.cms

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/may/06/uae-bizman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kochi-biennale-foundation-2139583.html

(Kuruvillac (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

  • If those are really the best sources, this is going to end up being endorsed. The independence and amount of editorial oversight in the first source isn't immediately obvious, but it reads like the sort of minibio that's solicited from and submitted by its subject. The second and third sources aren't about this person at all, and tell us essentially nothing about him. Sources #4-8 > 3. —Cryptic 11:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cryptic ,

Since I am not an experienced editor, I would not know which sources are very good and which ones are not applicable. This guy has a lot of sources. To put it in context it is like selecting sources for Bill gates, Elon musk or Jeff Bezos. They are too many of them. Hope you would overlook my inability to discern which is good and which is not. Thank you for your prompt response (Kuruvillac (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

  • This is a tricky one. The AfD discussion was in m y view not a good one, with little real analysis of the sources offered, and apparently noi WP:BEFORE search (the nominating editor was a blcoked sock). But the only voice favoring retention dumkped a huge number of very mixed sources as bare URLs, with no indication of what they demonstrated, and no selection. That is not much of a basis to retain the article, and i can't see overturning that AfD on that basis. The draft linked above has been rejected, which normally means that it will not be considered further. I don't think that rejection was justified, but that is not strictly in scope for deletion review. Based on the last three sources clinked above, I think this person is probably notable and a valid article could be written, but it would take some significant improvement on the current draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the big issue with new people editing at Wikipedia. Understanding our inclusion guidelines is really really hard. But read WP:N carefully and try to identify sources which:
    • Aren't controlled by the subject and aren't tied to the subject (his work place, etc.) and have reasonable respect as a news source.
    • Cover the subject in some detail (biographical information, etc.)
    • Don't feel like a press release.
If you can identify 3 to 5 such sources we can probably evaluate them and give you feedback. [3] for example feels like a press release (no author credit, only praise). [4] is a bit better, but still feels like it was paid for (and there is a disclaimer at the bottom...). I just don't think you have sources yet. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit ,

As requested I have added 5 sources. Please see if it fits the bill.

https://www.timeskuwait.com/news/gold-card-granted-to-adeeb-ahamed-md-of-lulu-financial-group/

https://www.gulf-times.com/story/635428/Adeeb-Ahamed-honoured-as-NRI-Businessman-of-the-Ye

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/nri-businessman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kbf-board/1822515

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/may/06/uae-bizman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kochi-biennale-foundation-2139583.html

https://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/business/qatar-business/388458/lulu-exchange-md-honoured-with-global-businessman-award-at-brand-icons-2016

Thank you (Kuruvillac (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

  • I'm afraid you then still have problems. These all appear to be press releases. There is no byline on most of these and they all read like a press release. It can be hard to find solid sources on business leaders. You are basically looking for actual reporting about that the person has done. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I Rejected a draft, Draft:Adeeb Ahamed, on 21 August, citing the AFD that is now being appealed. I said that the submitter should do one of:
  • 1. Obtain a copy of the previously deleted article for the reviewer to review to verify that the new draft was substantially different from the article.
  • 2. Point to new achievements by the subject since June 2020, the time of the AFD.
  • 3. Appeal to DRV to overturn the deletion.
  • So here we are. The submitter said something about the spelling of the name of the subject. We appear to have considered two possible transliterations of the name, so that doesn't seem to be a concern.
  • Pinging User:Eternal Shadow and User:Timtrent, who also reviewed the draft before I Rejected it.
  • When the appellant has been asked for three best sources, they have provided URL dumps with 8 and 5 sources.
  • I have not reviewed the original AFD in detail and am not yet providing my !vote on it.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and Oppose allowing this draft to move forwards I have looked again at the disastrous set of referneces on the draft. I stand by WP:BOMBARD and will not review them individually. I woudl not accept this draft as it stands today.
Then I looked at the "three" references chosen by the appellant. Most are PR, Press Releases or regurgutated PR. Of the remainder:
  • https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297987 has commentary beside the ubiquitous interview with the pricipal, but is very advertorial. I would rate it as borderline acceptable, but on the wrong side of the border. There are no other references that I find even as credible as this one.
This exercise of asking for the top three references has failed. The appellant is still bombarding us with trash instead of references. I find I have no interest in whether this draft is substantially different because it is simply not publishable.
It requires a fresh start written around good references. Let me remind the appellant: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
This fails. Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good grief. There are five more references. I looked at the earlier set! Ok, one is common to the prior set, so there are four more. I ran out of enthusiasm, but I looked at each of them. Seems he now has a gold residency card and has won an award. I know I should be marginally more charitable, but I am losing faith that the appellant understands how to edit Wikipedia. I would only be persuaded to change my opinion by a very brief, tightly written, well referenced draft with three cast iron sources and precisely no fluff and clutter. Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Timtrent, Hobit,

As Timtrent mentioned he is a gold card holder of UAE. People familiar with Middle East know it’s a very select honor given to few few businessmen.

I gave 5 sources since the respected reviewer asked for 2nd time best of 3-5 independent sources.

As Robert McClenon mentioned , I stick to my stance that the initial article in Wikipedia space was deleted because instead of the correct name “Abeeb Ahamed”, I used the wrong name, “Adeeb Ahmed” which has no sources in search. If I didn’t commit this mistake, the article might not have been selected for deletion review in the first place since to the large number of sourced available and even if if was, it might have survived. So I humbly maintain the initial deletion was faulty due to my mistake, resulting in other reviewers not finding any sources on search (Kuruvillac (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

  • @Kuruvillac: I have told you what will persuade me to change my mind. From what I see from comments above it is likey also to persuade others. Set the past aside. Set the present aside. Write the future. Write a very brief, tightly written, well referenced draft with three cast iron sources and precisely no fluff and clutter. Tell me, us, when you have, please. It will be a game changer if you acheve it. Fiddle Faddle 20:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this is way outside the remit of a deletion review. This is run of the mill AFC stuff. I suggest it be closed with advice to the appelant. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close of the AFD. This isn't a request for permission to submit a draft for review, because the draft has already been submitted and rejected, so that this Deletion Review has to be an appeal of the close of the deletion discussion. (DRV is not used as a procedure to appeal a decline or rejection in AFC.)
      • The issues with regard to the AFD can be any irregularities in the process, and the judgment of the administrators. The only procedural issue is that the nomination was originally made by a sockpuppet, but an administrator took note of that and stated that the AFD had merit, which was consistent with the multiple Delete !votes that had been cast when the nominator was blocked. The first would-be closer chose to Relist after multiple Delete !votes and only the author/appellant arguing to Keep, so the close was not hasty. The eventual closer looked at five Delete !votes, several of which raised concerns about paid editing. If the author is not a paid editor, the quality of the writing is similar to that of some paid editors. The close was correct.
      • I respectfully disagree with one editor that this is outside the scope of a deletion review. It is just outside the scope of a sound deletion review. It is also no longer run-of-the-mill AFC stuff, because the AFC draft has been rejected.
      • The appellant's argument that an error in transliteration has caused an incorrect result has been considered, but is silly. The appellant claims that because of the transliteration, the reviewers didn't find relevant sources. First, both spellings have been considered. Second, the responsibility is on the author to provide the sources. They have provided too many low-quality sources. The transliteration issue can be dismissed.
      • The author didn't make the case with walls of text at AFD, and isn't making the case with walls of text at DRV.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Timtrent,

How can I prepare a crisper and Wikipedia compliant draft when Robert McClenon has put a stop on my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed

Also as I had earlier mentioned by article on Adeeb Ahamed was wrongly deleted the first time through deletion review since it had enough merits to pass notability test. If a method of consistency, meritocracy and fairness was followed to evaluate the first article, it would have passed the notability test. Unfortunately I don’t have any affiliates as a new comer in Wikipedia to give voice to my opinion. Thank you for you suggestions. (Kuruvillac (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you User:Timtrent,

As per your instruction I will prepare a crisper shorter new draft as best as I can. Hope Robert McClenon is okay with this idea.

As far as earlier source count goes. There were two requests, one was for best 3-5 sources which I was complaint with. The first time I erred by providing more sources as there was a plethora to choose from and I thought it would better to err on more than less. As I had explained the reason earlier, I would not want to repeat myself but thank the reviewers in the thread who got what I meant and empathized with me. Thank you Again. (Kuruvillac (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

  • Kuruvillac It is not an instruction. It is the only way you will achieve a decent draft (0.9 probability). No editor needs to approve your creating a further, and different draft. It is clear that the current draft is rejected, thus any new one needs to be substantially different, with better quality references, but not a vast quantity of them. If you need advice I am happy to help, but not here in this discussion. Your own talk page, or the talk page of the new draft are each appropriate locations. If I offer advice in either location I will recuse myself from revieiwng the draft. My final advice to you here is to write very tightly worded and brief text with three solid references in reliable sources that are significant coverage and are about the gentleman. Do not stray beyond establishing his notability and referencing it. Fiddle Faddle 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi S Marshall,

As per the recommendation of reviewers in this forum , I have created a new draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed_(businessman). Please check (Kuruvillac (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 August 2020

[edit]
  • Template:MIT license – No consensus to do anything in particular. It seems that nobody objects to the restoration of this previously unused template if people want to use it again, although it has been pointed out that freely licensed images should be uploaded at Commons, not here. Sandstein 06:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:MIT license (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The MIT license is a valid license to license files under. I remember a year ago I was adding images related to an MIT-licensed program and I had to upload them to Commons because Commons allowed me to attach the MIT license to files. Wikipedia didn't. Aasim 20:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there some reason you didn't want to upload files to Commons? * Pppery * it has begun... 02:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't suggest licensing images under the MIT license as it's intended for software, but it seems sufficiently free. Nevertheless, these images should be uploaded to Commons, not locally. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me that the template was deleted for being unused. Surely using it overcomes that, leading to an automatic restore? Even if those images do belong on commons, we could still have a template for maintenance purposes, so I don't think there's any need for DRV to decide about that.—S Marshall T/C 10:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My best understanding (guess) that if I found a an image in a software ball that was MIT licensed only that is what I would have to use on upload. If it is the case an MIT licensed image is automatically eligible for commons is there any reason not to upload it there? If there are reasons it can only be uploaded here the the MIT license template should probably be restored. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time, I was using Wikipedia's form because it was faster for me to type Special:Upload into the box and upload using that form. But then, what if some programs are only relevant to the English Wikipedia? We should not have to litter the Wikimedia Commons with images that only benefit Wikipedia. Aasim 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly any article could by copied/translated to any non-English language WikiPedia and the image being in Commons helps the process. Commons also ha a good category system which should help classify it. What you may be saying is the images you are uploading are specific to one article only perhaps? Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome Aasim, I'll just mention that you skipped the "contact the deleting administrator" bit of the requirements for DRV here. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it was nominated as unused, and deleted without any discussion. If someone wants to use it, it seems like it's a soft delete and can be restored (and re-nommed, I guess, though if someone's using it, there'd be no obvious reason to, so I don't think it should be done automagically). WilyD 10:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley – No consensus. Opinions are divided 5:7 with respect to endorse or overturn/relist. The endorse side thinks that the strength of the arguments was correctly assessed, while the overturn side is of the view that the local consensus in the AfD was not taken into account. These are both valid perspectives in terms of our policies and practices, and I can't give deciding weight to one or the other. Consequently, the "redirect" closure remains in force for lack of consensus to overturn it. Because relisting was proposed as a remedy here, and did not obtain consensus in this DRV, it would be inappropriate for me as the DRV closer to relist the discussion on my own. Sandstein 06:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I honestly cannot see that this was a correct close. It should have been closed as either keep or possibly no consensus, but certainly not as redirect. I really don't think that WP:NOTINHERITED (an essay in any case) applies to members of the British royal family. They are not notable because they are related to another person but because they are members of the most famous, most written-about family in the world. Linley may not be the most famous member, but he is still a central member, and, as with other members of the family, there is no shortage of coverage of him. In these circustances, keep opinions should not just be effectively ignored by the closer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist folks, stop arguing for the inherent notability of nobility. There is no such policy or guideline on Wikipedia. Instead argue based on sources. Because they are nobility, they tend to have sources. The Queen's page story seems a likely one for WP:N and I suspect there are more. So let's try this again, with an understanding that arguments for inherent notability are going to be largely discarded (basically somewhere between WP:IAR and WP:NOTAVOTE). Hobit (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I recommended a redirect, and that was the result that the closer chose, but just because I got the result that I wanted doesn't mean that it was the right decision for the closer to make. The consensus was to keep, unlike several other recent AfDs for royal relatives. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really looked at the Supervote argument, but the discussion was definitely not on track for "delete", despite many arguments against the material continuing as a standalone article. In my opinion, the BEFORE#C.4 failure of the AfD nomination invalidates a "delete" outcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. An obvious supervote. A clearly expressed consensus of the participating editors may not be overridden without a solid grounding in policy. The closer cited only [WP:NOTINHERITED], which is merely an essay, not policy. Moreover, the essay is quite clear that "a relationship to another person [that]" inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right" does not lead to non-notability, and the consensus in the discussion clearly holds that membership in the British royal family (to the degree involved here) is just such a relationship. I do not share the elevated regard that many editors hold these heavily inbred drones in, but it is evident that the closer has substituted his own views for those endorsed by the participating editors, without any policy basis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, WP:NOTINHERITED is merely an endorsement of the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline, which says the same. The keep arguments make no attempt to demonstrate coverage (or even refer to it at all) but only assert an inherited notability and are thus in contravention of the guideline. Significant coverage is the criterion for inclusion per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines, and only two !votes dealt with coverage, both demonstrating a lack of it. I do not think it is a supervote to recognize that all of the delete arguments are grounded in guidelines while none of the keep arguments are. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to again reiterate: there do appear to be sources in the article that reach the GNG bar. But because the keep side is arguing only based on inherent notability, we've not had that discussion. It would be nice if we do relist to have the closer do so with specific directions to discuss sources. [6], [7], [8]. We are well past GNG, but we might delete this article because no one is talking about the sources. And no one seems to be doing it here. Instead both sides seem set on making a WP:POINT. That's dumb. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobit, you are confusing the subject of this discussion with his father. The sources you are citing refer to David Armstrong-Jones, who was known as Viscount Linley until 2017. He is obviously notable. But here we are discussing his son, Charles, the "new" Viscount Linley, of whom there is simply no significant coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mr. Moseby (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First, if closed, this should be 'no consensus' not 'keep'. Second, I think this should be just left open for longer, last comment was 4 days ago. I asked the closer to reopen it, which they did, then reverted themselves asking for DRV, so here we go. PS. I also want to draw attention that out of three keep votes, the two non-weak focus solely on criticizing me for linking to WP:NBIO instead of WP:NFICTION (which I quickly explained as an accidental copypaste error) and do not address the main issue (argued lack of notability). So then we have only one weak keep taking that point, and including my assumed vote as the nom, there are three votes for delete/redirect Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Relist, there's no possible way that discussion was a consensus to keep, the raw !vote total was 3-3, and two of the Keep votes cited no relevant policy. If anything that was a consensus to redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Debabrata Goswami (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am not aware of the previous page, it appears to have been removed via the speedy deletion process 7 years ago. As can be seen from the current draft, notable awards, fellowships and claim to scholarship have taken place in the past 4-5 years. Thus I would like to request that the previous page not be held against the person's present notability. Rohit Goswami UI (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • RestoreThe current draft version is at Draft:Debabrata Goswami. He is unambiguously notable by WP:PROF as the holder of a named chair ay a major university. any possible coi is irrelevant. (The earlier speedy was, furthermore a clear error; at the time he was already Professor of the Department of Chemistry at the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, which , even though Deletion criteria for faculty were not yet clear in 2007, certainly did pass speedy. . DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for deletion review; anyone is free to recreate an article that has been speedily deleted if they can overcome the reasoning for the original deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly notable (assuming the article is correct) per WP:PROF (fellow, etc.). Just move it into mainspace. Hobit (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The appellant is not permitted to move the draft into article space, because of conflict of interest, but a reviewer can and should move the draft into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can the current page be temporarily undeleted so we can review the contents and compare? Thanks. Pinging Materialscientist as they seem to be a recently active admin. Aasim 06:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainspace it- this is a clear case of the deletion reason becoming inapplicable because of later developments. Reyk YO! 20:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just boldly and unilaterally mainspaced it. We'd best let the DRV run its full course in case anyone wants to argue about that.—S Marshall T/C 10:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse S Marshall's mainspacing. Rohit Goswami UI, we're assuming from your username that you are connected with the subject of your article. Can you confirm that, here or on the article talk page? The article seems good, but we should tag it with a {Connected contributor} template. Martinp (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse move to mainspace. When this was a draft, my concern that prevented acceptance of the draft was the COI and the fact that it had not been properly declared. That is taken care of, and the article appears to satisfy academic notability, but the issue here is claim of significance anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paul C. Gartzke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I did not create this article, and I may or may not have contributed to this article in the past (don't recall), but I've contributed to several Wisconsin-related and Wisconsin judge-related articles over the past several years and noticed this deletion as one of several deleted this month under application of the Notability standards. I'm referring specifically to judges on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (current and former members have been deleted in this recent purge 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

It seems the same rationale is used for all of them -- that because they're elected in four regional districts they are not "statewide" and thus not significant judges. The regional divisions are for administrative purposes, but the rulings of the judges have statewide effect and precedent (only a fraction are ever appealed to the state supreme court). Maybe this is an issue with the way the current guidance prioritizes state legislators over state judges, but any individual judge of this court in Wisconsin has far more significance to the legal and political landscape of the state than any single member of our 99-member state assembly. Several other judges of this court (who were left undeleted) are former state legislators, whose legislative career was nowhere near as consequential as their time on the court, and that legislative service will factor as a mere footnote in their obituaries -- yet it is that relatively inconsequential legislative service that preserves their notability for the purpose of this site.

Given the time to expand these articles, I'm confident that for each judge I could find a significant volume of news articles and legal journals detailing important or controversial opinions and their effects on the laws of the state and the rights of residents. For instance, I did a quick search on Gartzke and found important state precedents on free speech and assembly, parental rights, religious freedom, property rights, etc. Judge Nashold, who was elected last year, in her short service is already involved in critical litigation over voting rights for the 2020 election.

Please undelete these pages so that I can prove their relevance to our history and our current affairs. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT to respond to the question from T. Canens, the intention with the request was to attempt to restore all six pages. Personally, my ideal scenario is that we work to update the WP:USCJN guidance to a blanket presumption of notability for this (appellate) class of state judges, the same way we presume notability for all state legislators. I think it's an important correction to Wikipedia's notability standards so that we're not erasing the vital role our state courts and judges play in defining our laws and rights. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 August 2020

[edit]

22 August 2020

[edit]

21 August 2020

[edit]

20 August 2020

[edit]

19 August 2020

[edit]

18 August 2020

[edit]

17 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
foodporn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

the account Hogohit was created 2 days ago with the sole and clear intention to vandalise the foodporn and food porn as evidenced by the fact that this is the only activity in Special:Contributions/Hogohit. User warned multiple times not to delete content without a valid reason on talk page and ignored. This user has effectively deleted foodporn by removing all content and placing a redirect. Please ban user and revert all of his/her edits, including to remove the redirect from foodporn Hazelsletterings (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry but I'm still confused. This is the deletion review page, and deleting ALL OF the content on a page and replacing it with a redirect is 100% a deletion of the page. The page contained some sources and while I agree it needs further sources to bolster its notability, I don't think it is fair to delete it in its entirety without any justification. Further, the fact that the user who placed the redirect just opened their account 2 days ago and according to Special:Contributions/Hogohit the changes to this page is all they have done while being on wikipedia (no other activity), this behaviour screams of vandalism by a competitor. I only edit food pages on wiki and this happens quite often with competitors jumping into pages of their competitors and deleting things. -- Hazelsletterings (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hazelsletterings, there are big differences between turning a page into a redirect and deleting it:
  • A redirect can be reverted by any user, and the history of the article remains intact.
  • Anyone can see what a redirect used to be. Deleted articles can only be seen by administrators.
  • Anyone can make a page into a redirect, but only admins can delete articles.
  • There is not much bureaucracy about making redirects, but there's a policy and a process about article deletion.
Because you can't just undelete a page unless you're an admin, this venue exists for people to ask for articles to be undeleted, and for the consensus about a deletion to be overturned. It's not the place to discuss whether a page should be a redirect or an article. --Slashme (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 August 2020

[edit]

15 August 2020

[edit]

14 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Base58 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Hello, I created Base58, but it has been (speedy) deleted. The original G4 comment was "This applies to sufficiently identical copies", but I have not seen the previous article at all. I also did not have any contact on forehand with the previous creator(s). So how can it be identical copies? I already asked the one who deleted the page to undelete it. He even thinks there should be an Base58 article, but the other artcle was not good enough. Please undelete the page and let me/us improve it further. --FlippyFlink (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and trout. This is about as bogus a WP:CSD as they come. WP:G4 says, It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. I've tempundeleted this so people can see for themselves. None of the text is the same. None of the references are the same. I'm as rabidly anti bitcoin-spam as anybody, but that doesn't mean we get to play WP:IAR with speedy deletions. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS, sending this to AfD sounds like a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say "the other article was not good enough". Quite the contrary, I said that the AFD said that Base58 was not a sufficiently notable topic for an article. If there is community consensus that a topic is not notable, then creating a new article on that topic isn't the solution to the problem. --B (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At DRV, we generally say that if an article cites plausible sources that weren't considered at AfD, then that inoculates it against G4.—S Marshall T/C 15:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD: CSD G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". This was different. Notability is a concern, so send it back to AfD. (Also, User:Cryptic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base58 is not nominated for review here (only the G4 is), so should it be tagged?) —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and trout. The major concern at the previous AfD was unreliable sources. These sources are totally different (not one is reused from the previous version) and the IETF and WWWC look pretty reliable to me. Therefore this was not a valid G4, period. An AfD does not bar future creations on the same topic, unless the topic is salted. Even then a draft may usually be created, and then the drafter may point at the draft in a DRV discussion to request unsalting. New ore different sources are a valid reason to recreate. None of which establishes the notability of the topic, of course, and the arguments against that at the previous AfD have some value. Any editor who think this is still not notable may start a new AfD. I would not favor an automatic opening of an AfD -- let soemoen who thinks this isn't notable do a proper WP:BEFORE and write up a useful nomination astatement rather than a procedural nom. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I presume I am the 'trout' you speak of. I did not describe this as "sufficiently identical", that's just what the template adds automatically. But the article is still effectively identical, it describes a topic whose only notability relies on Bitcoin. The very recent AfD decided that this was inadequate notability and that remains the case. The use now of the W3C as a reference is a very slight reference and conveys no substantial notability. It even describes this within that reference as "base58Bitcoin". Now if wikipedia wants to change its mind and decide that Bitcoin and its use of base58 is notable after all, then fine, keep this article. But that's still all that this article is relying on and only very recently it was decided that wasn't enough. Denzil1963 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Denzil1963 "sufficiently identical" is the wording not just of the template but of the CSD. By tagging for G4 you are implicitly asserting that the version tagged is "sufficiently identical" to the version deleted by AfD. Also, any time you use a template you are responsible for its wording just as if you had typed every word individually. An AfD, particularly one that does not salt the article name, never decides once and for all that a topic is non-notable. The decision is always based in part on the currently available sources, and in effect is limited to the sources then in the article, plus any discussed in the AfD. New or additional plausible sources, especially by a different good faith editor (as opposed to a spam-pushing SPA) is normally a valid ground to recreate, and G4 should not then apply. That is my view and i think it has consensus here at DRV at least. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Denzil1963, I can see this was just a good-faith misunderstanding of how G4 works, so no, the trout doesn't apply to you. It mostly applies to the admin who actually deleted it. It's the admin's job to double-check that the nomination is correct, not just click the button to make it happen.
I can also see that you're a new user; I'm sorry that your earliest interactions with wikipedia got you ensnared in a controversy, and apologize if my initial reaction was rather brusque. Might I suggest that as a new user, nominating articles for speedy deletion is probably not the best place to get your feet wet. WP:CSD is one of the places where we have traditionally employed a very literal interpretation and it can take a bit of experience to understand how it works.
I suspect you may also not be familiar with WP:TROUT, which you should read, especially the bit about it being humorous. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Third degree medal of the Republic of Azerbaijan for "impeccable service in migration bodies" (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was an inappropriate closure by a non-admin of a controversial deletion discussion. The closer did not discuss their reasoning for the Keep close. The closer appears to have simply counted "votes" instead of weighing the policy and guideline based !votes. The keep voters never cited policies, guidelines or sources to dispute the nomination, while the nomination was supported by policies and guidelines. I would request that Nnadigoodluck explain their rationale for the Keep close based on "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." per WP:CLOSEAFD and that an admin with experience in AfD evaluates the close. Since they have done this twice in one day, if the close is deemed to be inappropriate either in conclusion or for a non-admin to make, I request that Nnadigoodluck be told to cease closing discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily reopened and relisted per WP:BADNAC. I agree that a non-admin should not have closed this discussion. While there was a "keep" majority, the "keep" arguments were in the vein of "it's an official award, therefore it's notable", which is at odds with our guidelines and practices. I have therefore undone the closure and relisted the discussion. I leave this thread open to allow discussion of the requested restriction on Nnadigoodluck (which this may not be the right forum for). Sandstein 09:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though those that commented keep on the delete discussion didn't mention any policy or guideline, including the delete and merge comment, I saw the discussion as solid and that's why I decided to close it as keep seeing it's going nowhere. Necrothesp cited a previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medal of Merit for Blood Donation that what closed by Bibliomaniac15 in that way and they said thus State awards like this are clearly notable and have been held to be notable at AfD in the past. Sources clearly prove its existence. which they all agreed. I know if it's an admin that has closed it, TimothyBlue wouldn't have brought it to deletion review. Anyway, I'll refrain from closing this type of AfD's in the future knowing that it might be utterly controversial and leave it to an admin. Best, —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 10:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Medal "For services in the field of military cooperation" (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was an inappropriate closure by a non-admin of a controversial deletion discussion. The closer did not discuss their reasoning for the Keep close. The closer appears to have simply counted "votes" instead of weighing !votes. The keep voters never cited policies, guidelines or sources to dispute the nomination, while the nomination was supported by policies and guidelines. I would request that Nnadigoodluck explain their rationale for the Keep close based on "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." per WP:CLOSEAFD and that an admin with experience in AfD evaluates the close. Since they have done this twice in one day, if the close is deemed to be inappropriate either in conclusion or for a non-admin to make, I request that Nnadigoodluck be told to cease closing discussions. Thank you for considering this request.   // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 August 2020

[edit]

11 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Shearer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was just watching some old clips of The Fast Show's funny (if mildly racist) "Chanel 9 News" segments (featuring the late great Caroline Aherne as Paula "Scorchio!" Fisch) and wondered who the guy who wasn't Paul Whitehouse or Simon Day was. I was surprised to find nobody had written an article about him, but less surprised to find we had one but it was deleted. Anyway, this AfD closed as "delete" with one comment saying it would be a bit of a surprise if no sources existed for him given his extensive television and stage work. So, here is a BBC source verifying everything I just said. I can't fault the closer Premeditated Chaos as you can only close with the arguments you're given (been there, done that), but per WP:ATD-R, this should have at least closed as "redirect" really. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the reliability of your single source, but why not discuss it with me before filing a DRV, per the instructions at the top of this page? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well there wasn't anything to discuss, other than "Hey, you didn't do anything wrong but just a head's up I want to discuss this with a wide audience". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you intend to work on the article and find more than the one source; I would've just restored it for you, no need for all this formality. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any source material beyond the Fast Show link - my intention was to get a redirect out of this. If it goes to draft I'll probably forget to do anything about it (as I seem to have a tendency to given how often G13 notices turn up on my talk page). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If all you want is a redirect then just create one - this possibility was not discussed in the AfD so there is no consensus against it and you can just create one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the gordian knot and created the redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fabioso! Muchoso grazioso! Sminky pinky, eth eth eth eth eth eth eth Arbotros Commitos. Boutros Boutros-Ghali! Poutros Poutros-Podremos 333 (talk) (cont) 23:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Do a Google video search for "sminky pinky" or "chanel 9 fast show" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Isak Hansen-Aarøen – Endorse. There is some feeling that the AfD didn't do a good job of analyzing sources, but there's a pretty good consensus here that the close was correct. If somebody wants to take another shot at writing a better article (i.e. with sources that clearly address the issues raised at AfD), I'm willing to restore the old content to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Isak Hansen-Aarøen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I added some reliable sources and made comment on the deletion discussion page, but Malcolmxl5 ignored them and deleted the article. Comments made on discussion are misleading (he HAS played on an international level for Norway U15 and U16, he has played MORE than 1 minute and so on). The Norwegian First Division may be not fully professional, but there are many existing articles about footballers who played in not fully professional leagues (say Charlie Allen (footballer, born 2003)). He has already played in 7 games in Norway. I don't understand the difference between his case and Luqman Hakim Shamsudin, Hannibal Mejbri, Charlie Allen (footballer, born 2003) & many others. Some sources: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The discussion's outcome was clear. Youth internationals do not count towards international status for notability reasons, the comparison to other articles is irrelevant (I question whether Shamsudin or Allen should have pages yet or at all), and while there's a WP:GNG argument it was rejected at the AfD (and as someone familiar with football articles, all of the coverage is of his transfer, which we regularly discount for purposes of WP:GNG. I would have !voted delete myself.) The good news is he will likely be notable enough for an article as soon as significant non-transfer coverage is generated, but that doesn't mean we should restore the article now. SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all of the coverage is of his transfer: he is the youngest Tromsø debutant ever, he was the captain of Norway U16 team and scored a hat-trick against Slovakia. Yes, the transfer attracts a lot of attention but the kid actually plays football for professional football club and internationally. WP:GNG argument was not rejected by any arguments, it was completely ignored. Corwin of Amber (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The consensus is clear and Malcolmxl5 role is to only assess it. Accusing the good admin of ignoring your comment is totally wrong and I'm not in support of it. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close was proper, and it seems that other editors considered the sources and did not agree that the GNG was met, nor that a professional club in a not-fully-professional league counted for notability. This seems to have been a case of WP:TOOSOON. No bar on recreating with additional sources, either in draft or in the main article space. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the AfD is that folks just said things like "doesn't meet the GNG" when there are, in fact, plenty of sources that appear to be way over the bar. And some of them are from more than a year ago [19] so they greatly predate the transfer in question. relist in the hopes the sources can be discussed. I get that the SNG isn't met, but the GNG seems to be plenty fine. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The appellant appears to be re-litigating, saying that the closer didn't supervote. Even if the facts were as the appellant says, it was still a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by re-litigating? Malcolmxl5 who closed the discussion advised me to review of his close here. I saw no analysis of sources during the discussion. I don't blame "the good admin", I want to see the assessment of provided sources and I don't see it. I added sources to the article after other editors' remarks and they were ignored. Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess what bothers me is how do we treat statements like "doesn't meet the GNG" in a !vote when there are sources that certainly appear to meet the GNG. Lots and lots of them. I think the closer can't *keep* on that basis, but certainly could, and IMO should, relist in that case. Hobit (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned that we have a situation where there are literally more than a dozen sources that are in-depth, have good coverage, are independent and in reliable places but everyone is just okay with "doesn't meet the GNG" or similar things. I mean what's wrong with the sources we have? I listed one. Take that and say the first 2 listed in the DRV by the nom here. Can anyone say why they don't meet the requirements of the GNG? We are very much in WP:VAGUEWAVE-land here. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist to allow analysis of the sources (which doesn't appear to have happened), basically per Hobit. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow draft. If new material exists it will be examined when resubmitted. Wm335td (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
IDLC Investments Limited (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Added secondary sources. The company is notable on the ground that it is awarded the best institution in its category by a reputed international organization for three consecutive times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itrat2019 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Tim Smith (DJ) – relisted. There's general agreement that this deletion was significantly out-of-process, and while there's some support for the fact that the close upholds WP:V, a significant majority of participants seem to consider this a step too far in the fuzzy line between "weighing of arguments" and "closing as a supervote", and that the closer would have been better advised to make a contribution to the debate. Opinions are split over whether the solution is a keep or a relist, but User:BD2412 has now relisted it, so any further participation would seem to be best directed towards assessing the article's suitability for inclusion, rather than the process - particularly as improvements to the article seem to have been made. ~ mazca talk 17:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tim Smith (DJ) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were 3 participants in this discussion, all of whom voted to keep the article. The closer instead chose to draftify the article on the grounds that the sources were not independent, but this was not mentioned in the discussion. See also my conversation with the closer at User talk:BD2412#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Smith (DJ). – bradv🍁 02:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are zero independent sources in the article; irrespective of statements by editors participating in the discussion, all three sources are webpages of the BBC, for whom the subject works. No indication has been given that any other sources exist, so this can not meet the GNG, no matter what the headcount is for people who say that it does without providing the necessary secondary sources. The job of a closer is not to count heads but to weigh the arguments in light of policy, and in this case the applicable policy is crystal clear. The article could have been deleted, but draftification at least allows for the possibility that secondary sources might be found. BD2412 T 02:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. BD2412 should have participated in this discussion rather than closing it given his thoughtful analysis above which was against the clear consensus of the participating editors. So we should relist it with his close as a !vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. Relist. It's rare to see something like this from a respected and generally level-headed admin, but this close is well wide of what constitutes admin discretion. Weighing arguments is one thing, but the close has to reflect the basic thrust of the debate, and if a potential closer doesn't see merit in any of the points raised, they should refrain from closing it and cast a new vote instead. That allows others to scrutinise and debate the new point, which is why we have AFDs in the first place.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amakuru, I think overturn to keep is procedurally fair, if not correct, but BD is correct in the flaws pointed out. I think our encyclopedia is best served by letting others weigh in on those points because, as you note, that kind of reasoning is why we have AfD discussions in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, fair enough. BD had a point to make, and it's right that it should be heard. I don't think it's in any respect a clearcut delete though, even with BD's viewpoint added. The others argued that the sourcing is sufficient and that's the point of having the debate. Changing vote to relist. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse from WP:V: If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Verifiability is core policy, it cannot be overruled by a local consensus, "the basic thrust of the debate", or anything else. The burden for showing compliance with verifiability lies with those who want to keep or reinstate material. Enforcing compliance with core policy is something the closer is expected to do even if it wasn't brought up in the discussion. Here all the sources cited were written or published by the subject's employer and are clearly not independent. I suppose the closer could have relisted the discussion but it was relisted once already with no additional participation. Given the state of the article at the end of the discussion it can't be allowed to stay in mainspace. Hut 8.5 06:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am really rather shocked at the number of experienced editors who think that the verifiability policy can be ignored because of a local consensus, or even that one of our core content policies is a "bad argument at AfD". Yes, the closer is absolutely justified in bringing in verifiability even if nobody else did. From WP:DGFA, the guideline on how to close a deletion discussion: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, [...]) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions. That's exactly what the closing admin did here. Hut 8.5 17:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That same argument could be used to justify any out-of-process deletion though, couldn't it? Do you really think that admins should be free to boldly delete things that they don't think are notable? If so, start an RfC to get "not notable" or "no independent sources" added to the speedy deletion criteria. – bradv🍁 17:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not remotely comparable. We're talking about what happens when someone closes a deletion discussion, not speedy deletion, and notability isn't a core content policy (or even a policy). However the passage I've just quoted is taken verbatim from the relevant guideline, so if you don't like it then I suggest you start an RfC to get it changed. Hut 8.5 17:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: The great thing about Wikipedia policy is you can cite just about any bit of it to support anything you want. For example, I can cite WP:DP, a core policy, that states "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well nobody deleted anything here and there's that word "normally". And WP:DP isn't a core content policy, it's just a policy. Hut 8.5 06:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the closer believed that, they were free to make the argument. Ignoring a discussion and implementing their preferred outcome that had exactly zero support in the discussion is a truly awful outcome. Heck, you could even close as no consensus, then boldly move it or start a discussion, but abusing your administrator position as the closer did, just because you think it's the right outcome, is never okay. WilyD 09:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Only admins can verify this since the article was deleted, but editors such as Rillington were doing exactly what you suggest while the AfD was happening. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, anyone can verify it - it's been draftified! And Rillington added a single reference two weeks before the close which is a not-independent citation to reference material, which was clearly taken into consideration by the closer before the move. You're now clearly lying to try to support your argument, which is incredibly disappointing. SportingFlyer T·C 21:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the AfD starting; this is the source being added the next day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The BBC profile is very likely a reliable, secondary source – at issue is whether it is an "independent" source. Independence is, for us, not an absolute. All biographical material has been written by one person about another – same species, same planet – so it is the degree of independence that counts. In this case reasonable people may disagree about the status of the BBC item. And it is not unreasonable to speculate that it might not be secondary – for example it might have been composed by Smith's agent rather than by a BBC researcher. It is for considerations like this that we have discussions and respect community consensus. Thincat (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how you can possibly argue that that's an independent source. According to Wikipedia:Independent sources#Examples (the very page you linked to) the subject's employer is not an independent source. The subject here has spent almost all his career working for the BBC, according to the article. Even if the BBC didn't write the profile they definitely published it, which means they had editorial control. And if it was written by the subject or their agent that doesn't help either. Whether a source is independent has nothing to do with whether it's secondary, those are separate concepts. Hut 8.5 12:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have clearly expressed myself very poorly. I was not arguing it was an independent source, I was trying to say it was arguable. My point about it possibly being written by the agent was against its suitably. And I was trying to make the very point that being secondary is different from being independent. What I was trying to say is that different people can reasonably hold different views on the fitness of the source(s). Thincat (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are cases where it's arguable whether something is an independent source, but this isn't one of them. I don't see how anybody can reasonably hold a view that this is an independent source. Hut 8.5 12:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - blatant supervote, without even the pretense the closer was trying to act appropriately. If they thought it should be moved to draft, then they should've made an argument to that effect, which could be agreed with, refuted, or whatever. Using your admin status to impose your preferred outcome on a discussion that in no way shape, or form supports that outcome is not okay, even if that outcome makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 10:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is going to be relisted, but this position really does not make any sense at all to me - there wasn't a "preferred outcome," this appears to been something that was about to close as keep but upon closer review could not have remained in mainspace. Consensus can't keep an article that's not supposed to be in mainspace in mainspace if the article has fatal flaws, and those flaws are crystal clear here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SportingFlyer: BD had more options than just "close as keep or close as draftify". I can think of two actions that would not have raised an eyebrow (participate with a comment as done here or relist with a more strongly worded version of the first relist message) and a third action which might have raised an eyebrow but I think would be unlikely to have landed here and if it did land here probably wouldn't have been overturned - close as no consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my reading, the fact "less controversial" options existed doesn't make the decision any less correct. Obviously that's not where the community's going here, but the fact we're spending time on this at DRV when "find a source and move it back" exists as a remedy is a waste of volunteer time. SportingFlyer T·C 15:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I myself couldn't find more sources other than his employer's (BBC), but that doesn't mean that BD is correct in his close (supervote). I think the discussion should be relisted one more time and who knows, more sources might come into light and until then. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Seems like the easiest way out of this log jam. In the meantime, I'll suggest to BD2412 they might consider how unfair it is that new admin candidates would get pile-on opposes if they suggested closing the AfD this way (the recommended answer is to !vote yourself), whereas nobody is crawling for a desysop here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. To be honest, I'm a bit surprised there are people here who want to endorse. Of course the closing administrator should have offered an opinion rather than closing the discussion; this ought to be the classic example of such a case. A couple notes: (1) We shouldn't treat draftify as a real ATD. Functionally, at AfD, a draftify is no different than a delete. Both indicate that the community has come to a consensus that the article is not appropriate for mainspace, and I would G4 an identical recreation of an AfD-draftified article just like if I had if the article had been deleted at AfD. (2) Closers may evaluate arguments presented at AfD for weight and policy correctness, but should not rely on arguments that simply have not been presented. Here, if the argument "it meets GNG" had been responded to with an argument about independence, the "meets GNG" argument could be given no weight. But if the independence of sources argument had been presented at the AfD (rather than being surprise-announced in a closure), participants would have an opportunity to make arguments in response to that (e.g. SNG notability, or there are indications that more sources exist even if they can't be found, or IAR notability, etc.). I don't think those apply in this case, but those who want to keep the article must be given a chance to refute the argument used to delete rather than see the closer's preferred outcome imposed as a supervote. Offering a !vote, rather than closing, would therefore be the appropriate choice for this AfD. Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 16:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the WP:V argument made above still does not provide a basis for finding that there's a consensus to draftify where every !vote was for keep. In fact, in my view, a "delete per WP:V" !vote at the AfD would be less strong than the GNG argument. WP:V is almost always a bad argument at AfD: sources that do not affect notability for GNG purposes are often still somewhat reliable for WP:V purposes (e.g. primary sources, non-independent sources), and if parts of the article are not verifiable, the standard course of action is to remove the unverifiable parts (stubify if necessary), not to delete the entire article. Best, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 16:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am frankly disheartened by suggestions that I "ignored" the !votes in this discussion. To be clear, I did not. I considered them very carefully in light of policy, which absolutely requires coverage in independent sources. The votes to relist in this discussion are appeals to the hope that the discussion, once relisted, will draw some delete votes pointing out what is already clear, to give another administrator a pretext to close this according to policy without having to say out loud the fact that this is what we are required to do no matter how many !votes support including an article with zero independent sources. I would also point out that this entire discussion would be mooted if any editor could find and add any independent source to the article and submit the draft for review. BD2412 T 16:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand why that comment would be disheartening. What I would hope you would take away from this is that there are limits to how much you, and other closers, can weight !votes, and as such there are times when you'd be better off participating rather than closing. The idea is to not give pretext for a closer but to give them actual text, through discussion, which is the basis of our consensus process. It is a matter of fairness to editors who are not admins to be given an opportunity to rebut the conclusion your drew (and one which I think is a correct conclusion).
      The other thing I would hope you would consider taking away from this is adjusting your reaction to feedback, especially feedback from respected community members, knowing how far out on a limb you were with a close. This was a bold close and I would hope you knew it was a bold close; the more bold the close the more willing I think a person has to be to walk it back when there is pushback. When Bradv, being who he is (a clearly respected and experienced member of the community and a sysop to boot) came to you, not having been involved in the deletion discussion, and raised concerns, that should have meant something. This discussion would have also been mooted if you'd given all the reasons you've given here and on your user talk about why you disagree but ended with "However, in light of your concerns I am willing to do X". To Ritchie's point, as an admin you have the privilege of getting away with things that non-admins cannot. Being cognizant and responsible with that privilege is, in my mind, the reasonable trade-off we admins have to make. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Barkeep49: I am not disheartened by the proposal to overturn the close, but by the apparent presumption that I did this without due consideration. Believe me, the easiest thing to do would have been to pretend that the "keep" votes had justified their positions and close it as a head-counting exercise, or to relist it again and say, "some other admin can worry about it". The original deletion nominator may not have articulated the issue with the sources, but it is apparent, and can not be cured anything other than the provision of policy-compliant sources. I did not do this flippantly, nor did I move it to draft as a means of backdoor deletion, as has also been implied. Subjects are moved from draft to mainspace regularly, once they meet the criteria for inclusion in mainspace. Could a draft reviewer possibly evaluate the article in its current state as meeting that criteria? BD2412 T 19:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are no "draft reviewers". Draftspace is not patrolled, except for the articles that are submitted to AfC. The whole namespace is a wasteland – this article will languish for six months until a bot scans a database report and tags it for deletion, at which point an admin will batch-delete everything in the G13 category without looking. Draftifying an old article is the same as unilaterally deleting it, except with extra steps and less oversight. – bradv🍁 19:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Bradv: You are mistaken. I know this because I am a draft reviewer (though there are others much more active in this space than I have been). See WP:AFC. Any editor can submit any draft for review, and a draft that has been submitted will be reviewed in due course and promoted to mainspace if it is minimally compliant with criteria for inclusion. BD2412 T 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're not getting it. No one will submit it to AfC because no one knows it exists. There are no tracking categories for unsubmitted drafts, no queues, no NPP feeds. The only people that could possibly save it are the 11 watchers of the page. You might as well just move it into your own userspace. Actually, that would be preferable as then the article won't get deleted in six months. – bradv🍁 19:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact that this discussion is happening at all demonstrates that editors know this exists. My close was not secreted in some hidden corner. It is clearly visible to any editor who comes across it, and to those who participated in the discussion. It clearly links to the draft. You yourself could submit the draft for review right now, if you think it meets the criteria for inclusion in mainspace. BD2412 T 19:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • BD, since you pinged me, I'll say that I think I know something about reviewing articles given my experience with New Page Patrol, where I serve as a coordinator, and my lesser though non-negible experience at AfC. There is a reason I've been pretty adamant that we shouldn't just overturn this to keep - I agree with your underlying point and am not saying this article should be kept. However, the community has not, in my opinion and seemingly in the opinion of multiple other people here, authorized you to use the toolset in the way that you did. I think you get this - I appreciate that you haven't mentioned IAR or NOTBURU once in this discussion even though you could have - and I appreciate you want to make your point about the quality of the article at hand. You've convinced me. Chalk up the win. I just hope that I, and others, have convinced you on the use the admin toolset in making it, otherwise I'll admit to feeling disheartened myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • To add to Bradv's and Barkeep49's comments, BD2412, no one doubts that you carefully read and evaluated the comments. The issue is that you did so and then completely discarded all of them, and replaced them with a decision entirely of your own judgment. As many point out above, your logic wasn't faulty, but the role of a closer isn't to be the one "in charge" who merely reads the comments to inform their final decision. That's now how the consensus process on Wikipedia works. If you believe that they are wrong, and aren't taking into account a vital policy, you don't close the discussion: you point it out, and let another closer take that (and any followup opinions) into account. If that closer feels you are right and the discussion still hasn't reached that consensus, they should weigh in as a participant themselves. That's not "kicking the can down the road", that's properly establishing consensus for the correct outcome. We can't short-circuit that, no matter how right or how grounded in policy we think we are. CThomas3 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist A closer should not close a discussion with an argument that has not been presented in that discussion. If local consensus is ignoring policy, the correct course of action is to point that out in a !vote and allow discussion participants to properly evaluate the claim. Otherwise, we wind up treating !votes as mere suggestions for omnipotent closers who can unilaterally decide which policies apply and which ones don't. I think BD2412's opinion was absolutely valid, but it should have been a !vote and not a closing statement. CThomas3 (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. A paradigmatic supervote. Despite what the closer stated, there are circumstances where an article may be kept even though sources may not be sufficiently independent -- for example, legislators whose bios are sourced to documents published by the government they serve in. No one has presented any evidence or reasoned analysis indicating that this national/major market radio host for more than three decades would not be covered in appropriate sources, and no one, especially the closer has even claimed to do a satisfactory search. No doubt it will be difficult and time-consuming to perform such a search because the subject has a common name, but "I don't have the time to do it right" is not a valid reason to ignore WP:BEFORE's requirements. No encyclopedic purpose is served by removing accurate information about a subject which it is plausible a reader might turn to an encyclopedia for information on. There are way too damn many editors who treat Wikipedia as a GOTCHA! "notability" game rather than an information resource. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think that our criteria for inclusion should be amended to give radio presenters the same pass on independent sources that legislators get, by all means propose the creation of such an exception. As it stands, no such exception exists, and the only sources that reference this individual are promotional efforts by the entity for which he has worked, which the applicable policy currently deems insufficient. For the record, I have searched fairly extensively for sources on this subject, and found nothing outside the BBC referencing a "Tim Smith" who works for the BBC, although I found a number of references to Tim Pigott-Smith, a different person. BD2412 T 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you should realize that your reliance on your own search is pretty much an acknowledgment that your close amounted to a supervote. Second, I was rather plainly not claing any sort of special treatment for radio presenters, but noting a consensus practice, rooted in the "common sense" standard for applying guidelines, that certain institutions are so reputable that they may be treated as sufficiently independent sources for affiliated people. Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford are, for example, appropriate sources regarding their own faculty. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: I'm afraid you're showing your systemic bias there, and guess you're not British, aged between about 40-55 and a keen BBC Radio 1 listener in the 1980s, otherwise you might have remembered Tim Smith. If you do a Google search for "tim smith radio one" you get this page with a comprehensive biography, which shows he's been a long standing co-host for Steve Wright in the Afternoon. Now, if you've never heard of Steve "Love the Show" Wright and his Zoo format, particularly when (IIRC) they used to be enthusiastic about when Bum Gravy were gigging c. 1991, then consider yourself fortunate. However, it does mean that this is a far more notable subject than you give credit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Can you point to any source that is independent of the subject's own employer? The entire issue here is that Wikipedia requires independent sources to demonstrate notability. Going through newspapers.com, I saw numerous passing mentions in radio schedules, but nothing more than that. If the subject is sufficiently notable, is there any discussion of them in any other source? BD2412 T 20:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here, here, here and here; however, I'm not interesting in arguing over GNG right now, that's for the relist (if consensus goes that way). You're also missing the point that not every Tom, Dick or Harry gets to present on BBC Radio 2 - in fact it's quite a prestigious position, so to have a formal biography on the radio website is certainly "worthy of note". They don't write about any old bloke who's presented a radio show, otherwise I'd have a page there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's in draft, rather than deleted altogether. BD2412 T 21:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn to keep There was no coinsensus to delete, and this is as clear an attempt at a supervote as i can recall. I might add that while our usual standard is that an employer is not independent of an employee, in the case of a large institution such as the BBC, consider that the pages are sufficiently independent to establish notability. I am not saying that I would have taken that position, but it is not irrational, and an editor could have found in good faith that this should be kept. No one in the discussion besides the nominator favored deletion, so BD2412 should not have closed it in the way that it was closed, but rather should have added a view and allowed someone else to close based on that view. Now I8 gather that Ritchie333 has additional sources to cite, which could be added to the draft as it stands, and brought back to main space with the draft if the close is overturned or the draft is approved. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep or Relist. That's the most blatant example of a supervote I've seen in a long while. If an admin thinks that there is an important point that an XfD has not considered the only correct courses of action are to (a) present that point in the discussion so that other editors can consider it, (b) close the XfD in accordance with the expressed consensus with that point remaining unconsidered or (c) move on and leave the XfD for someone else. Note: I have not considered the reliability or independence of the sources as DRV is not XfD round 2. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly think almost everyone is more-or-less wrong, sorry. First, I think a closer, when faced with a !vote that they feel doesn't touch policy, should probably contribute to the discussion rather than close. Doing so might have generated a more robust discussion, or at least left space for another closer to do something other than keep. Secondly, I don't think this is as clear as either the closer or those suggesting an overturn to keep are making out. There really is a strong argument that we lack independent sources. And that is a huge problem. That said, the BBC isn't some fly-by-night operation. And just how far from the part of the BBC he works for one was to get to be "independent" is a reasonable matter for discussion. So... relist seems like the best bet. There is a good argument that the subject doesn't meet WP:V or (for that matter) WP:GNG. That should be discussed. But it isn't so clear cut that a closer can just say "all these !votes are utterly wrong" and make the call on their own. So more discussion is the answer. Given the contributions to this DRV, I think it will be a much more robust discussion. So all to the good really. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. A closer's job is to evaluate consensus in a discussion as presented by the participants of that discussion, and not to substitute consensus with their own opinion, no matter how "wrong" the consensus arrived at may be and/or how correct or policy-grounded the closer's opinion is. Closing the discussion as drafity, an option suggested by no one other than the closer themselves, is the definition of a forced-compromise supervote which is frowned upon. I quote a helpful statement from Wikipedia:Supervote: It is supervoting to close in favor of an undiscussed or unfavored compromise idea, which may satisfy no one.. That said, given the closer's sound rationale, and as suggested by others above, the discussion should have been relisted and his contribution should be restored as a vote. --Dps04 (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with option to relist. Supervote. A potential closer who feels the discussion has tended towards the incorrect outcome should vote and attempt to convince others of their position. Closing against the consensus is not an action open to a reasonable closure, with the possible narrow exception of where the consensus contradicts a foundation-level policy such as WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment for anything that seems uncertain, I generally think I can be more helpful joining the discussion than closing it.' DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. ++++ Hobit (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Very true. If there were an admin manual, this would be one of the first entries in it. And, as already noted, this frequently comes up as a question at RfAs too. I have the greatest respect for BD2412, they're one of our good admins. But the doubling down here on what was a fairly textbook example of a supervote, is certainly puzzling. Nobody is saying the point made was necessarily incorrect, just that it didn't fit as a closing summary. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep WP:GNG is not policy, but a guideline. The very nature of a guideline is that it is only the suggested usual thing to do in most cases, that it if there is clear consensus is to do something different, we can do it. That's IAR, which is policy. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - As per previous arguments, this was a supervote masquerading as a close. The fact that the closer thinks that they were right only means that the closer is in good faith mistaken. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (to "Keep"). The close was a WP:Supervote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Pursuant to this discussion and the improvements to the article resulting from my moving it to draft, I have reverted my close and relisted the AfD. BD2412 T 16:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 August 2020

[edit]

9 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wissam Al Mana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created this article under my other username. I forgot the username existed and had to register a new one (I'm currently using it). I have no idea if Wikiprofessionals Inc later edited the article, but I'm not associated with the company and I've never even heard of them. I can certify that they played no role in the article's creation. I wrote the article out of personal interest. I have no connection to the subject and I did not receive remuneration of any kind. Wikipro43245 (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed the same user as Wikipro43245 (talk). I created the Wissam Al Mana article and have no affiliation with wikiprofessionals inc. I've never even heard of the company and I wrote the article out of my own personal interest. I did not receive remuneration and have no connection to the article's subject. Qatar1123 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Seems like no harm, and I have no reason to not believe the editor. I think we should consider what BD2412, has stated above. Wm335td (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion (with no criticism of the deleter implied), unless someone has reason to doubt the veracity of Wikipro/Qatar1123's statement. I can't see the deleted text, but as a participant in the mass AN discussion, I'm not sure draftifying is necessary, unless the deleted material is patently sub-standard. Consensus was to nuke Wikiprofessionals' creations, barring someone else taking them over. In this case, seems it wasn't actually a Wikiprofessionals creation, and someone cares enough to speak up for this article. So, barring a well-founded concern that the article, regardless of its history, couldn't survive an AFD on its own merits, there's no reason to make it jump through more hoops. Martinp (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK to Speedy close per DESiegel below. I'm still not sure Draftification (vs editorial improvement in mainspace and/or evaluation at AFD if someone wanted) was necessary, but it has happened and reasonable discussion is happening there. Martinp (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Martinp Unless I am badly mistaken, the request at WP:REFUND specified that the text be restored as a draft, so i comp0lied. But5 any confirmed user who thinks this or any draft is ready for mainspace may move such draft to mainspace at any time -- Draft is not a jail with AfC as a gatekeeper. Rather it is a sanctuary, a safe zone for things notm yet able to pass all the mainspace standards, but that might in time do so. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ekkehard Hübschmann (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After someone extra made an account to announce the deletion and a very short discussion this article was deleted in 2018. I never thought that the request had any chance. In my opinion a relevant article in German wiki had to be relevant in other wikis too. The article is fulfilling German standards and is similar to the German article. Please correct me if I am wrong and give concrete advises for improvement. PeterBraun74 (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sure we can restore it to draft space if you want to work on it, but I don't see anything wrong with the deletion and you haven't given any particular reason for disputing it either. I'd be very surprised if the German Wikipedia really is willing to accept an article where "None of the sources mention this person", according to the nominator (judging from some spot checks this seems to be accurate). Hut 8.5 16:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D122512081, LCCN: https://lccn.loc.gov/no99074167, VIAF: https://viaf.org/viaf/897247/ -PeterBraun74 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you check reputation? -PeterBraun74 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those prove that he exists and once wrote something but that's not sufficient to write an article. You would need to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Hut 8.5 08:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those proves are more than necessary for German wiki. Here is another one: https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3AEkkehard+H%C3%BCbschmann&qt=advanced&dblist=638 -PeterBraun74 (talk)
Again that link only proves he exists and wrote something once. I have no idea what the standards are on the German Wikipedia, but on the English Wikipedia you need more than that to write an article about someone. See Wikipedia:Notability. Hut 8.5 15:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse German wikipedia notability and English wikipedia notability are two separate things. The outcome of that discussion was clear. I wouldn't mind restoring this if a proper draft is written, but I think a straight overturn is out of the question here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed it, years ago, and I stand by it--the AfD is completely straightforward. The only "weak keep" actually presents no argument whatsoever; "the subject is an academic" is not an argument.

    Speaking as an editor, two years after this, the article also is/was bad: essentially it's a resume, with a long list of lectures and projects, none of which we include in such articles, and the INCREDIBLY long biographical section doesn't cite a single secondary source. Sorry, PeterBraun74, but that doesn't cut it here. The German and English articles look like resumes, and I cannot help but wonder whether PeterBraun has a conflict of interest.

    I've edited thousands of these biographies, I'm working on one right now, but this one doesn't even suggest notability: if he passes, he should pass either via GNG (and nothing indicates he would--go look in Google News (a few hits, minor) and Google Books (an article cited by someone once or twice)). The article doesn't list any monographs published either, and JSTOR has no hits whatsoever. So, if that AfD were to run again, and I was voting on it (instead of closing a clear consensus), I'd still say no. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest at all? Your future voting or if you wonder wether I have a conflict of interest don't really develope this discussion. -PeterBraun74 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop comparing this to the German wiki and start finding reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject or their work in some depth. And I suggest you follow the guidelines in WP:DECLARE if indeed you have a COI, which I strongly suspect. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close as delete. Could not have been closed otherwise. As said above, this did not meet the standards here on en.Wikipedia as it stood when deleted. No objection to a recreation in draft space, or a recreation in article space with multiple additional sources, but I would advise using draft space. If the content is to be undeleted, only into draft space -- it needs too much work and is to much of a CV for article space as it last stood. I agree with Drmies, the comparison with the German version is not helpful here, and additional sources are badly needed for this to be valid here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sangeeta Bhabra (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Significant new information. Page to be considered for restore is Talk:Sangeeta Bhabra/Sangeeta Bhabra (placed there for development of the redirect) but while I would be happy to place it in position technically I can't so options are DRV or WP:RM. Original XfD was a minimal participation non-admin redirect !supervote though article was not fit for mainspace. In retrospect I could have developed the redirect in situ but unless I achieved a reasonable result quickly that would be a bad choice and I have RL commitments which can come up suddenly at present and means I must drop stuff. Subject has been prominently in position for over 10 years now and very prominent during lockdown as first solo anchor of weekday program; a very different state from the XfD of over 10 years ago. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A 10-year-old AfD shouldn't prevent an article from being created. That said, the sources in the article are really local and it's not clear that the topic would live through AfD if those are the best sources that exist. Formally, allow recreation without prejudice to a new AfD or, less formally, just withdraw this DRV before anyone else gets involved, create the article, and see what happens. Hobit (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hobit I technically (now) cannot do that move (Well I tried and failed). People are continually saying how women are under represented. I'd agree AfD is better place to discuss details than DRV and with time pressure RL (and WP) this needs other input. I'm happy for route you suggest if someone is prepared to do the technicals. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Rethink: I've boldly requested a CSD G7 and if that succeeds I'll move the updated article in and if that all succeeds I'll withdraw the DRV (no prejudice to anyone doing a BEFORE and then raising a AfD if they are so inclined. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Realme (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Needs to restore some content that isn't considered promotion

Also, redraft if necessary. Arianator with love (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion: Given theCSD G11 and the need to have the target salted due to repeated attempts to recreate and the apparent failure to attempt to even try to negotiate a draftification with the closing admin and failure of DRV nomination to appreciate this it seems unlikely the nom. would make appropriate use of any draftification. This nomination probably fails WP:DRVPURPOSE criteria and may be inelligible to be discussed here. 20:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
In the light of comments below and actually having seen the article the subject is probably viable and I may have cause to AGF the nom. has the intention to try to (re)create a viable draft. Assuming the key claims are somewhat near correct the organisation is a substantial mobile/cell phone producer to the public and therefore a significant visibility. If I was attempting to get this into mainspace myself I would probably try to chop everything that could viably be chopped and try to concentrate on key facts. I note one person's product feature is another's advertisement. Although the article is about organisation it is product/brand that is likely notable. A question to nom. Arianator with love though, as you have a draft are you prepared to withdraw nomination? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now at Draft:Realme. I think this is still a G11 even in draftspace, though I haven't looked at any revisions except the first and last to see if there's anything to revert to. @DGG: was this deleted anywhere else? I only see the one speedy at Realme preceding your salting as "repeatedly recreated". —Cryptic 21:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
to be honest, I have lost track of the previous creations and moves. There seem to have been several people doing things at the same time. Based on the current draft,I would say there might be potential for an article, but not in its curent form. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 August 2020

[edit]

6 August 2020

[edit]

5 August 2020

[edit]
  • Spicy Fifty – No consensus. Opinion is divided about whether the "merge" closure was correct, although a majority of editors endorse it. For lack of consensus to overturn the closure, it remains in force. I'm not relisting the AfD because it has already been relisted thrice. Sandstein 09:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Spicy Fifty (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The argument here was basically whether a stringent reading of sourcing requirements should apply to a cocktail that has IBA recognition and received some independent coverage but not book length type stuff. I also made the argument that in the presence of the IBA recognition, the GNG’s approximation of real world notice isn’t strictly necessary since we have the professional body associated with it giving us proof it’s notable, and that as something not subject to promotion or BLP concerns, we don’t need to have as in-depth coverage as you’d expect from a BLP or corporation. Both the closer and one of the relisters acknowledged this as possibly being a strong argument.
It was closed as merge on the grounds that an extraordinary consensus was needed to IAR, despite the fact that there wasn’t a consensus to delete; merging hadn’t been mentioned; the merge topic article isn’t fit for a merge right now; and the fact that several of us did look at sourcing and consider it sufficient given the topic area. King of Hearts argued that was stretching the GNG too far, but that was the majority position. While policy-based arguments should be given weight, the GNG is not a policy, and it’s frequently subject to interpretation at a topic level basis. In this case, there wasn’t a consensus to delete, and a merger discussion could occur on the talk page if it were warranted.
Lacking a suitable merge topic at this time, the fact that an analysis of the importance of a topic was done both via GNG and by other means, and because the content discussion does not require an AfD close, this should be overturned to no consensus and any merger discussion can take place on the relevant talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I haven't yet decided how I feel about that discussion, I've got to express my sympathy with the poor sysop who finds themselves closing it. It's virtually un-closeable, and we wouldn't normally relist a fourth time. Notability is a guideline rather than a policy but we usually do say it takes an extraordinary consensus to IAR it, which is basically because the ARS exists and block-votes. Merging is clearly the right outcome --- but the hell of it is that nobody except the closer said so. Ugh. I'm reluctant to overturn to no consensus because that puts an article in the mainspace when the consensus seems to be that it can't be properly sourced with inline citations.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the problem is there’s no place to merge it. The target is completely unsuitable for it and would have to be entirely reworked. This is mentioned in the close as there being no deadline, but I’m a big believer in the idea that you shouldn’t have a close that can’t be implemented easily. The problem here is that deletion is clearly the wrong outcome and harmful to the reader. It really wasn’t mentioned in the discussion, and you don’t need an AfD close for that outcome. Now you have a banner on an article effectively indefinitely. Keeping it in name space when it’s sourced well enough for what it is doesn’t cause any harm, and if someone wants to rework the list article they can and then merge boldly or after talk discussion, that’s fine. It shouldn’t be a mandate from the AfD though. The situation isn’t straightforward and the close right now isn’t possible to implement. That’s basically the situation that no consensus exists for. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can also just redirect it without merging (for now). However, people do seem to favor the content staying on Wikipedia in some form, just not as a separate article. So until List of IBA official cocktails is prepared to receive the merge, I think letting readers see the content is more beneficial than directly redirecting to a bare entry in a list that doesn't describe what the cocktail is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both redirecting and deleting would not be in line with consensus. If people want to merge and discuss the specifics of the merge, that can be done on the talk page after the list I’d changed, if it ever is. I agree it’s most beneficial for readers to see it, but the merge template is pretty harmful to the reader experience. If a merge is needed can be discussed on the talk page, like merges normally are. It might be a good idea, but there certainly wasn’t consensus for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse although there is definitely scope for deletion discussions to make exceptions to the notability guidelines, I would expect that for this to happen that position should be persuasive in the discussion. This one wasn't, and Mz7 made a solid argument against it. Nobody did mention a merge, but it does definitely look like a good outcome, and is a compromise between keep and delete. We do often merge articles which pass a subject-specific notability guideline but fail the GNG (e.g. WP:BIO recommends this). Furthermore the major reason we have the GNG is that if a subject doesn't meet it then it's difficult to write a policy-compliant article which isn't very small, which also suggests a merge. Hut 8.5 12:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer: Note that Mz7 did in fact suggest a merge in the text of their comment, despite what their bolded !vote said. !votes to delete on notability grounds are simply saying that the subject does not deserve an independent article, and can be counted towards a result of merge or redirect if they do not argue why the content is inappropriate or why the target is not suitable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG is sufficient but not necessary; however, there was no consensus for a merge or anything else and I would overturn to no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stifle: That is only true when there is a relevant SNG; then, a subject can be notable by satisfying either criteria. However, there is no SNG for food and drink; I underweighted the "keep" !votes who were trying to invent one on the spot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SNGs are developed on the spot always. They’re basically just a summation of past precedents at AfD. Arguments to avoid is just an essay, and there actually can be valid OSE arguments. In this case the OSE is that we typically don’t delete IBA cocktails as evidenced by the fact that we have so many similar articles with similar sourcing. Consensus by existence is a valid type of consensus just as much as consensus by discussion. The consensus process works the opposite of how you’re describing: we decide locally for a norm in specific cases, and then build up from that to document it as a community standard after we have enough examples of why it is needed. Requiring an SNG first when there are good reasons to overlook the GNG and there is not support for a GNG based deletion is overweighting a guideline in a way it is not typically applied. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, TonyBallioni's argument at AfD was well made. If I was judging based on "how well formed" the argument was, that would be the clear winner. He managed to get me to believe something I really hadn't before (that things that don't really come close to meeting the GNG can have good reasons to exist here as stand-alone articles) and may be the best comment on notability on Wikipedia I've seen in years. Second of all, I agree with the closer that there wasn't enough of a consensus for an IAR outcome. Third, I don't like having just *one* of these drinks not have an article. That seems untidy if nothing else. If I'd been there to !vote, I'd have gone with "IAR keep". If I'd been trying to close it, I wouldn't have and would instead have gone with !voting. But I can't say the closer is wrong here. I don't like the outcome, but it is a reasonable outcome from that discussion. So weak endorse I guess. I'd suggest a way forward of creating an SNG on the topic of food and drink? Long way around, I know. But I think any reasonable SNG will likely have this allowed. If I were Wikipedia King, I'd take all the "not really notable" drinks and put them on one page with a section each and links from the list to each section. But oddly they keep forgetting to hold my coronation. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. This was a blatant supervote because there were 6 keeps, 3 deletes and nobody but nobody talked about merger until the closer pulled it out of his cocktail shaker. If the topic was to be merged then it might make more sense to merge to the home of the cocktail: 50 St James's Street. But that's a matter of ordinary editing and all we need to settle here is that there was no consensus to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- seems a fair reading of the debate given the strength of the arguments that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Reyk YO! 15:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but Vodka cocktail may be a more suitable merge target. Closure was appropriate with no automatic notability for such drink recipes. Reywas92Talk 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I voted delete in this discussion, and personally I believe the merge outcome is a fair assessment of the discussion. King of Hearts correctly notes above that I did mention including more details about the cocktail in List of IBA official cocktails as a possibility, even though I supported deletion as my bolded !vote. In my view, the keep arguments improperly assessed the topic of the article based on personal standards of usefulness and importance, rather than Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I do think, however, that the fundamental point raised in the keep section—the idea that we are a reference source, and readers looking for information about IBA official cocktails might expect it here—supports the "merge" closure. While I am aware of TonyBallioni's dislike towards the WP:GNG, I don't fully share his view. As I stated in the discussion I was not entirely convinced that the drink's IBA "new era drink" distinction was enough to override the GNG on an WP:IAR basis (though it may be different for the "contemporary classics" and "unforgettable" IBA categories—potentially a discussion to have for the Wikipedia:Notability (food and drink) SNG proposed by Hobit above), and no one in the discussion really made a convincing keep argument in the context of WP:GNG. I will start working on the merge tonight. Mz7 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: I have now refactored List of IBA official cocktails such that it became able to accept the content of Spicy Fifty. Accordingly, I carried out the merge and redirected Spicy Fifty to the list. Mz7 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close was appropriate - it's clear from discussion the drink doesn't meet WP:GNG, which means it doesn't qualify for a stand-alone page in spite of the IAR argument. (If the IBA cocktails was a significant list, the cocktails should be significantly covered somewhere.) It's also non-controversial and likely appropriate to merge the information. SportingFlyer T·C 00:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus The arguments for keeping were articulated by a majority of the participants. TonyBallioni gave a coherent rationale and others gave relevant opinions. The closer chose a side when arguments for an against were of equal merit. Wm335td (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I voted keep, but I agree this is a fair reading of the discussion. PainProf (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - there would good reasons to seek out a merge result, but for the close to just generate it was incorrect. They should have participated and added an additional !vote. Obviously the deletes had reasonable policy, and the keeps (primarily via TB) had a well-formed IAR argument. I don't see delete or keep being most accurate. If we hadn't already had three relists I'd have suggested another, but I think a no consensus is the way to go. If editors wish to propose a merge, then that is obviously fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cup Foods (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The only thing this redirect shared with the one deleted with RFD a month and a half ago - an eternity in this content area - is its title. The target was different, the content at the target was radically different, and WP:G4 requires that the content be substantially identical. Further, speedy deletion had already been independently declined by two different admins (User:Tavix at WP:AN#Cup Foods; then myself on the redirect itself before seeing the AN section), both saying it needs a new discussion, so it's plainly not uncontroversial. —Cryptic 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per my comment at WP:AN. Note that I had advocated for keeping the redirect in the prior RfD, so I would be too involved to decline the speedy. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That title's a plausible search term for instant soup, and also an easter egg link for something to do with George Floyd's killing. List at RfD so we can reach a consensus to disambiguate in an orderly way.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Once a speedy is declined, particularly by an admin, an editor who favors deletion ought to proceed via another process, normally an XfD discussion. This was upheld here recently. Beyond that, the content was not similar, so this was not a valid G4 speedy, even had there never been a decline. Restore promptly, and let anyone who favors deletion do an ordinary RfD nomination. Dennis Brown should have known better. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at RfD - List at RfD so that a full discussion about the new redirect can take place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:G4 operates not based on the size of the diff, but on whether the recreation addresses the previous reasons for deletion. You can completely rewrite an article from scratch and it'll get G4'd if it doesn't bring any new sources to the table. However, for a redirect any new target which did not achieve consensus to reject (or simply wasn't discussed, in this case) at RfD is ineligible for G4. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the consensus at the RfD was that this title shouldn't redirect to an article about the death of George Floyd which happens to mention the store in passing. It's been recreated as a redirect to an article about the death of George Floyd which happens to mention the store in passing. The same decision applies. Hut 8.5 07:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone please share the two redirect targets? Target A was about George Floyd, if target B is about, say, Nissin then it's a clear overturn and if it's about a different Floyd/protest-related article it's a clear endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 07:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thinking was exactly what Hut 8.5 said. Only 6 weeks had passed since it was deleted and the redirect clearly violated the spirit and the actual words in that RfD. The proper way to recreate that redirect would have been at review. Both articles cover the same event and are clearly linked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you notice and consider the previous decline of speedy deletion, consider going the RfD route instead in light of that? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was a crystal clear case of G4 in my eyes, so there wasn't any reason to consider alternatives. I would take exception with your "particularly by an admin" comment, above. Admin aren't given special privileges or favors when it comes to content issues like tagging/untagging an article, and removing a tag doesn't require administrative tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Admins are given special responsibility to review, and act on, speedy deletion tags. This includes acting by de-tagging as well as by deleting. But if any experienced editor, admin or not, detags a page in good faith, then its deletion is no longer uncontroversial, and speedy deletion should probably not be followed. WP:CSD says (last sentence of 5th paragraph) If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. I think thst is fairly clear, and that is a policy page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Admins are also supposed to use common sense. The deletion discussion was a clear delete, and the reinstated redirect does not solve any of the problems specifically discussed by the majority voters in the deletion discussion, namely that this shouldn't redirect to anything having to do with the Floyd incident. Redirects shouldn't be ineligible for G4 just because they point to a new location or because the topic is controversial. SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to WP:RFD. G4 was not applicable because that's for proper pages, not redirects. Redirects are governed by WP:RCSD which says that non-standard cases should go to WP:RFD. Even if one accepted that G4 is applicable to redirects, it was still not applicable because the content (the target) was different. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at RfD Disputing here about which of two potentially contradictory rules applies is absurd, thou it must be said it does seem to be well within the spirit of Wikipedia discussions. The question that actually needs to be resolved is whether or not we should have this redirect, so the place to resolve it is the place where redirects are discussed, RfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Blackman in European kitchen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It might be necessary to write this article new, but I would do it only if it is clear, that this is not just promotion with fear of speed-deleting. PeterBraun74 (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks pretty promotional. No independent sourcing. Would need a total rewrite with information from WP:RS. Please see User:deepfriedokra/g11 for my standard G11 deletion message --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G11 This was unsourced and in my view rather promotional, and the promotion was already present in early revisions. It also was not clear if it was about the poem or about the poet (Emmanuel Eni), while we have a different article about the poet now also at DRV. There is no bar to recreation, but if recreated, please start with independent, reliable sources, and make the article strictly aboi7ut the poem, not the poet (although of course the poet would need to be mentioned). If I were mentoring an editor wanting to create such an article, I would advise the use of draft space or a userspace draft, but that is a choice, not a requirement. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DES makes good points. I would recommend WP:AfC just to have the time to develop the page with less likelihood of deletion. Barring further WP:g11 content of course. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reads like a machine translation. —Cryptic 15:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable call, there was plenty of promotional text and if it was all removed there wouldn't be much left. There were other problems with the article, e.g. the subject of the article is a poem, but the opening sentence says it's about a poet. We could restore it to draft space for improvement. Hut 8.5 17:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have deleted as A7 in preference to G11, but I'm happy either way. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was considered an article about a poem, rather than about a poet, A7 would be out of scope, Stifle. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD If there is a good faith dispute over whether an article is entirely promotional , it must be discussed, and this is not the place to discuss it. If I had seen the article I would probably have used G11, but if anyone had objected in good faith, even the creator, I would have undeleted and sent to afd. Except in dealing with thing s like vandalism, there's rarely a reason for an admin to insist on their own view. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
IPhone 9 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is a redirect which was last deleted after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#iPhone 9. The redirect was also salted two days later. But, it should soon be de-salted. And then I am also not happy with iPhone X as the target for iPhone 10, which was last discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 15#iPhone 10. It's been weeks since the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#iPhone 9. I really cannot live without a redirect. Look at all the redirects under the Category:Redirects from incorrect names. All redirects under that category are names that do not exist. For example, there is a redirect for Windows 9. Now look at the following sources:

Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion of the redirect. The discussion was clear. That said [20], [21], [22], [23] might be enough to have a short article explaining why no phone with the name "iPhone 9" ever existed. The topic meets the GNG and it's not utterly unreasonable to have an article on something that never existed if it can be well sourced. I'd like a "home run" source that has quotes from Apple people that goes over the history of the naming. Right now, the best we've got is www.pocket-lint.com and The Verge neither of which have a ton to say. I'd support unsalting for an article, but I've no idea if the sourcing would be enough to make it past AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, and can I add how weird it is how strongly the nominator has forum-shopped this issue, especially with the statement "I really cannot live without a redirect." If that's going to be your hill to die on, that's a very sad hill. -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well see what Rosguill told me on their talk page after the deletion. I exactly followed their advice that they gave me to submit this review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And during the last nomination, Thryduulf, Prahlad balaji, CycloneYoris, and pandakekok9 were the participants who were not in favor of the deletion. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I also support the comment by Thryduulf, which says "To all those !voting delete..." Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions was to just recreate the redirect, not to bring it to DRV, as there really isn't much to dispute about close itself. I hadn't realized that the title was salted, which does complicate matters. To be honest I agree with Tavix: the amount of energy that you've spent arguing this issue is absurd, and a bit grating because your insistence to not let the matter drop takes up other people's time as well, time that could be better spent on almost anything else. signed, Rosguill talk 03:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Emmanuel Eni (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is a longer existing article that was speed-deleted in a sleepless? night. I agree that the article is not perfect, but my hope was and would be that someone else is improving language. PeterBraun74 (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Willkommen bei en.wiki! Hier kannst du im "draft-space" arbeiten, wenn dein Englisch nicht Perfekt sei.
Draftify to allow this user to improve and resubmit at AfC in due course.—S Marshall T/C 10:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. A long term user would like to discuss it. Long term users who have never used draftspace should not be forced to use draftspace. The cashed article had references. The topic suffers systematic bias against for to counts: (1) Nigerian; (2) creative arts. I think it is really a sourcing and notability question well suited for an AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a temp undekete to allow non-0admins to see the article as it was. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was deleted as a G11 (promotional). I don't think it qualified for a G11 speedy, and so I would overturn the speedy deletion. But it was a BLP containing uncited direct and indirect quotes, and significant uncited statements, and cites to unreliable sources such as aNSWERS.COM. If restored, it should either be draftified to allow proper sourcing, or else cut down to a stub, and statements can be added back with proper sources. Of course an AfD could be started during that process, if any editor chooses to do so and goes through WP:BEFORE. Personally, I would think moving to draft was the wiser and better course. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't see that a G11 is appropriate for an article from 2018 with several contributors - not to mention versions in 3 Wikipedia languages. No prejudice against an AFD. I'm curious at User:Seraphimblade's thought s though. Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy - Special:Permalink/970261259 doesn't have a G11-level of promotion (nothing that can't be fixed by editing), and good sources exist [24] [25] [26]. Lev!vich 05:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the G11 - the article has issues, but they can either be resolved through editing, or a deletion discussion can take place. This article for instance shows there may be a discussion on him in Forbes (which isn't necessarily reliable.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy. I respect that the article in its current form has stylistic issues, and notability may be suspect. One of the 4 sources no longer loads, and I (and I suspect most of us) are not equipped to judge the independence of 2 of the other sources. But given the article's history, the possibility of cultural bias, and specific concern about deletion by established users, let's hash it out at AFD (if needed) not just nuke it. G11 should be used for unambiguous situations, not where is smells a bit suspect but could use more eyeballs. Martinp (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning to reaffirm my overturn !vote, but no longer see any value in taking it to AFD. The sources identified by Levivich and SportingFlyer more than adequately address any potential notability concerns. Improving the article is up to editorial discretion; as I (and others) have said, the level of promotion is not up to G11 standards to nuke and completely start over. Martinp (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 August 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Weavers' cottage (Kleinschwarzenbach, Zum Weberhaus 10) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I dont see any reason of promotion or advertising and to speed-delete this longer exisiting article of a German cultural monument during the night. Not a chance to make a backup or discuss, in German wikipedia this would not be possible at all. PeterBraun74 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the WP:G11 speedy deletion. In Seraphimblade's view (see their talk), the promotionalism consists of unsourced editorializing adjectives such as "important" or "remarkable". I agree to some extent, but G11 requires that the article is "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". That is not the case here; the editorializing can be removed by editing without requiring a rewrite of the article. The article has other problems, such as poor sourcing and writing, but that's not a reason for speedy deletion. Sandstein 09:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have a tempundelete, please.—S Marshall T/C 14:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIt appears that Sandstein has misunderstood my giving of examples of promotional content in the article to mean that such was the only promotional content in it. That, of course, is not true (and had the creator of the article asked for more of them, or even notified me of this review as required (I'm glad someone pinged me!), I could've told them that.) That being said, the entire article is essentially promotional. After the lead, which pushes it with promotional language, the first section has a few sentences that might be kept if promotion was removed, but even those are borderline. The rest is pushing the reader to visit the site, with editorial/promotional material like (again, these are examples, not an exhaustive list!) Yet, the number of weavers’ cottages in Kleinschwarzenbach is striking, so that experts call Kleinschwarzenbach a weavers’ village. ("striking" to whom, according to whom? Which experts call it that?) and The weavers’ cottage museum in the nearby village of Neudorf is another point of interest ("of interest" to whom, according to whom?) The next section goes on to push a special event there (even offsetting it and bolding it, let's make sure it doesn't get missed!), and then contains another paragraph on why you absolutely must go visit (at one point even using the word "you" directly in a marketese "call to action"). If you took all the stuff encouraging the reader to visit the place and telling them where and how to do it—there's basically nothing left. That's the definition of G11; the article would have to be fundamentally rewritten to come in line with NPOV and have all the promotion removed. In its current incarnation, it was a tourism brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy. Here's a point of view that happens to be mine. Looking at the current version of the article I can see some justification for it to be a speedy or not a speedy. And since it has been challenged with reason, it turns out retrospectively it shouldn't have been speedied. The earliest version looks to be less promotional and I'd not have been so sympathetic to deletion. Even if there had been no earlier version and if there had been no challenge, subjective judgement was required for any deletion – hence a PROD or tagging as G11 could have been appropriate. A unilateral speedy deletion was a step too far. Thincat (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Thincat. I also see Seraphimblade's points, but speedy deletion seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater when the article could be salvaged by either editing down the promotional language or restoring the earlier version Thincat presented. A seven day discussion could be warranted on notability concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the notability concerns that Muboshgu mentions are very grave indeed, though. It's not fair to raise false hopes here. It would be needlessly cruel, and waste a lot of volunteer time, for us to restore the article and start a seven-day AfD when we know perfectly well that we're just going to delete it again.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR endorse. I agree with S Marshall. Although this isn't technically speediable, there's also no chance it could survive a proper deletion discussion at AfD. Reyk YO! 21:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't, and IMO should never be, any such thing as IAR deletion. Something either fits one (or more) of the speedy deletion criteria or else consensus is needed to delete it. I suppose such consensus could form at a DRV discussion, but mostly that should not be in scope here, i think. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy I think this is fairly promotional and I can't say that the speedy was way off. But it was off. And beyond "I don't think IAR should hardly every be used for speedies" (which is pretty much what the rules say and is my own philosophy due to issues of fairness), I'm loath to make claims about a topic which were coverage would likely be mostly in a language I can't read. Based on the current state of the article, it will likely get deleted at AfD. But maybe good sources will be found. In this case, it's not crazy to think the horse might sing. Hobit (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand all procedures of English wiki, but there should be the chance of improving articles instead of speed-deleting. The Engish version is very similar to my Geman article. The edits about Peetz family from 2019 don't fit in the article. -PeterBraun74 (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the museum in Neudorf de -PeterBraun74 (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy - As others explained above, the promotional language can be fixed through copyediting, and additional sources can be added. To the larger point about the notability of the subject, the "weaver's house" in Kleinschwarzenbach, a village in Helmbrechts, Hof (district), Bavaria, Germany, is known in German as the "Weberhaus Kleinschwarzenbach" (I guess). There's an article at dewiki, de:Weberhaus (Kleinschwarzenbach, Zum Weberhaus 10). It may be a listed building with the Bavarian monument authority (Bavarian State Office for Monument Protection, I guess?), ID # D-4-75-136-35. Here's the Wikidata entry and the Commons category. Now, I don't spreche die Sprache, so I don't know whether any of these are reliable sources, e.g. the "cultural landscape officer" of Hof [27] or [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] (paywalled) [33] (same) [34] [35] [36]. But there's enough indicia of notability here that this should have gone to AFD, not CSD. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "cultural landscape officer" is the German equivalent of the local authority conservation officer that I have to consult when I want to make alterations to one of my listed buildings. An official, not an academic.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I vote narrowly, just on whether the CSD should be endorsed or overturned. If it's overturned, what happens next (editing, draftification, AFD) doesn't need to be decided here, IMO. Lev!vich 17:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can sympathise with the deleting admin here: the article does contain promotional text and the general tone is unencyclopedic. It reads like the sort of thing I would expect to see on a leaflet handed out to visitors rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest we move it to draft space for improvement. Hut 8.5 16:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. Any reasonable contest of nearly any speedy deletion, by an editor in good standing, should be speedily discussed at XfD, not DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't our current process, SmokeyJoe Contests of speedy deletions are specifically in scope for DRV, and a challenge by a single editor is not grounds to o9vereturn and send to XfD. Note that at an AfD a "no consensus" result leaves the article in place, while a "no consensus" result on a challenge to a speedy deletion leaves the page deleted. Also, I don't know that I want copyright speedies to be restored on a singel objection, nor A10 attack pages, nor any of several other kinbds. You might say that such challanges are not "reasonable" but who decides what is reasonable when editors disagree, and they will at times? If you really think that any page should be restored and sent to XfD on a reasonable contest from any editor in good standing, start an RfC, or at least a discussion at WT:CSD and we will see if there is consensus for such a change. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy send most post-speedy contests to XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD. Not clearly promotional. I doubt it'll survive AFD, but it's not a certainty, so I would be slow to skip the process. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as per Hut 8.5. Seraphimblade had a point, and most of the things identified as promotional are in the earliest version. But all of them can be corrected by editing. Additional sourcing would be needed to demonstrate notability, and i have no idea if sufficient sources exist. Working in draft (or user space) would allow rewriting without the pressure of an AfD deadline, particularly when editors who can read sources in German may be needed to evaluate the results. If draftificatioin is not acceptable, leave deleted but permit recreation as a total restart. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Speedy It's a nationally protected building, assuming the article is true. I'm not sure where the promotional text even comes into play as there's nothing to market! It is poorly written but could be cleaned up very quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 08:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but, do you understand how many nationally-protected buildings exist in Europe? There are about half a million listed buildings in the UK alone. I personally own some, and I'm not making articles about them. The owners intend to open this one as a museum which will be pay-to-enter, and that's how come there's something to market.—S Marshall T/C 14:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deleting a page because it uses the words "important" and "remarkable" is excessive. WP:PEACOCK states that "Articles suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or may be tagged with an appropriate template". WP:G11 is not an appropriate template because it states "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy. Let's rewind the tape, shall we? An article that has been around from some time, translated from another wiki, with flowery "peacock" language, not-super sourcing, an inappropriate momentary interjection by an affiliated editor (the weird bold text added), and possible concerns about notability. Rather than clobber the whole thing with G11, it would be preferable to a) improve the article, b) raise concerns on the talk page, c) in addition to b) also WP:PROD, or d) take to AFD to figure out what to do about it. With a great deal of sympathy for the amount of spam and COI articles that our admins need to deal with, we do also seem to have an increasing tunnel vision problem where well-intentioned admins use speedy deletion intended to be used for unambiguous cases for ambiguous ones. Martinp (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_August&oldid=970383000"