Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 September 13}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 September 13}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 September 13|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".



Active discussions

13 September 2024

11 September 2024

Koi Mil Gaya 3

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

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

Why do you say that the nominations were incorrectly split? It is up to the nom to split the entries as per his rationale. Sometimes others do bundle them if they observe duplication, and see benefit in a bundled nomination. No one did so in this case, as I would believe the nominations were split evenly as 1, 2 and 3 ending titles.
From what I see, the closer chose to delete Koi Mil Gaya 3, but relisted Koi Mil Gaya 2, even though both had zero participation, because of page histories of other (Krrish) entries of the bulk nomination. All entries of that bulk nomination ended as kept based on strength of the Krrish entries. For Koi Mil Gaya 2, there was one vote in favour and one against (by the nom), but I would believe the closer went with keep as an ATD because of less participation.
The deletion was fine as a standard no-opposition close. The closer Explicit used to treat such closes as soft deletes that are open to reversal, so it should be straightforward to undelete and relist if that is the opinion. Jay 💬 08:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had made a collated comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Krish 1 for all of those discussions. You are right I was notified of one of the listings (Koi Mil Gaya 3). By being unaware I meant that I did not know it was being treated separately and would not be relisted (similar to the 2nd and 1st films) despite my comment at the Krish 1 entry, saying that I am making a reply for all of these listings. I know realize that it is up to the closer to decide to relist and separate listings are treated separately and it was my mistake in not making a comment at the other two entries linking my comment and rationale from Krish 1. Gotitbro (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10 September 2024

SureAI

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

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

  • Endorse. The Delete and the Merge !votes there carry far more P&G weight than the various flavours of Keep. There was no specific consensus to Merge, but I agree with how the closer phrased it: the "merge" option suggested by some seemed to be the option that I felt most people who expressed a view could live with. Sometimes it's better to pick the outcome that the fewest would find objectionable than to just throw your hands in the air and do nothing with a "No consensus" close. I'm glad we have admins like Ritchie333 who have the resourcefulness and BOLDness to put aside the nose-counting, and find a solution that best reflects the preferences of participants, as supported by P&G. Owen× ☎ 23:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, since there wasn't one.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I see an even split between keep and delete/ATD votes, both in number and strength. The keep side provided several sources of content which I do not believe were fully disputed by the delete/ATD side. The closing statement reads to me as a forced-compromise WP:SUPERVOTE. A second relist would be an okay option as well, but I do not see consensus forming with further discussion. Frank Anchor 14:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see your point about a forced compromise, but see no evidence of a supervote. Everything suggests that Ritchie was genuinely trying to find a way to close the AfD in the least contentious manner, without injecting his own views on the article or its sourcing. A forced compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing; we often use those when resolving editorial disputes. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forced compromise is listed as a a type of supervote. A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is supervoting to close in favor of an undiscussed or unfavored compromise idea, which may satisfy no one. If a discussion did not come to a consensus. Obviously merge was not "undiscussed," but in my opinion there was no consensus and a merge close was chosen as the “middle-ground” Frank Anchor 21:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was indeed chosen as a middle-ground. But it was specifically chosen as a favoured idea to satisfy the most participants, which is not what the WP:SPV essay is talking about. If AfD used some kind of runoff voting system, Merge would be the outcome here, supported by more participants than a No consensus. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, "no consensus" was my second (and only other) choice. However, I felt the "merge" comments, particularly the closing one from HighKing, were strong and persuasive. The nominator, IgelRM, also suggested a merge. I'd also add that a NC close implies no prejudice against renomination (which may end up as "delete" - at least one editor observed the criteria for WP:CORP had been tightened up), whereas a merge can be expanded out at a later date if more sources are written. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Merge was not only an acceptable option, it was specifically discussed as being okay in the discussion itself. No consensus is not a catch all for when there are issues with sourcing that haven't been rebutted, especially when NCORP is involved. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The keeps specifically addressed NCORP. So did the deletes. None came to agreement with regards to whether or not sourcing met NCORP, with many feeling it did not apply because the point of NCORP was to prevent spammy ad-like creations, which this specifically was not. There is no consensus for a merge. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved as I supported Merge at the AfD). By the numbers this is "No Consensus". I count 4 Delete, 2 Merge, and 5 Keeps. However, two of the Keeps do not cite sources and just gush about how great and notable their mods are. These comments should be given less weight because nobility is not inherited; makers of notable things are not automatically notable. Two of the Keeps list sources but don't explain why they meet WP:NCORP; they are good comments but not great. All four Delete comments contain at least some source analysis explaining that most of the sources in the article or linked in the AfD as really about Enderal (or occasionally another mod) and provide only passing coverage of the studio. Thus strength of argument seemingly favors Delete. But given that two comments argued for a Merge and that Delete is not a slam dunk (there are easily enough sources to meet WP:V and enough to meet WP:NCORP can be subjective) a merge is an excellent option as an ATD. It isn't an obvious consensus since it was only a minority "vote", but it is a compromise that addresses both sides primary concerns. I.e. The sources are not really sufficient for the current reading of NCORP, but this is an important in it's niche company that shouldn't be a red-link. In particular I believe that AfD's with this configuration of arguments (i.e. Delete stronger than Keep but not a clear consensus with a clear suggestion of a Merge target with no articulated objection) should be closed as Merge even if I myself happened to favor keeping or deleting the article for whatever reason. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I agree with the reading of the discussion as “merge”. If the merge doesn’t happen, it falls back to “no consensus” leaning “redirect”, not leaning “keep”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse per above.
    Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities

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

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

  • Endorse. The list was deleted for very valid reasons, well expressed by Fram and Jeraxmoira at the AfD. The appellant has not demonstrated why this seemingly arbitrary list selection criterion meets WP:LISTCRIT, which states, Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.. I would have been just as happy with a Redirect to Sanskrit literature, but the consensus to delete was clear. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources cited are reliable. They contain easily accessable links to printed books by reputed authors and publishers. If any particular entry is disputed It can be challenged in talk page by citing other sources but deleting a list which have reliable citations shouldn't be the way to go. Mohit Dokania (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: the original closing decision. The list of authors are not discussed together in reliable sources and DRV is not an extension of AfD. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)(Involved in the AfD) [reply]
    The proposed list of Sanskrit authors from lower communities is significant as it challenges the notion that only high-caste individuals contributed to Sanskrit literature. By highlighting these authors, the list reveals the rich diversity within the tradition and underscores the meaningful contributions of marginalized voices. Their works reflect unique perspectives on social justice and identity, enriching our understanding of Sanskrit heritage and promoting a more equitable narrative that honors the contributions of all communities. Mohit Dokania (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Mohit Dokania, I respect your attempt to dispel the misconception about the paucity of lower caste Sanskrit authors, but Wikipedia isn't the place to do this. For a list to meet our inclusion standards, it's not enough that individual items in it are covered by reliable sources. The grouping of those items into a distinct list must be supported by the sources. Owen× ☎ 09:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the basic problem is "lower communities" in the title. What we actually need is to review any scholarly papers about this topic and see what the academics say about the relationship between written Sanskrit, caste, and socioeconomic class.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't confuse lower social hierarchy with individual inferiority. It's like hierarchy in a company where a CEO could be a horrible person even when high in hierarchy and a sweeper could be a brilliant person even when lower in hierarchy. It's clearly listed in varna hierarchy. It's discussed at many places see It's discussed in this research paper and many others. Mohit Dokania (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you, I do understand the distinction between a person's class and their worth. Here in Britain, some hereditary aristocrats are ghastly human beings and some third-generation council house tenants are lovely; and I'm sure that's the same everywhere else in the world too. I don't think there's any confusion there. What is confusing is that Wikipedia's category system thinks there are 411 castes, with 39 subcategories. Please could you say which of these you meant by "lower communities"? You don't seem to mean Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.—S Marshall T/C 13:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's modern artificial categorisation for vote bank politics. I am talking about traditional classification of jāti and it's not exactly same as caste. Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha! Thanks, that's helpful. Is our Wikipedia article on jāti accurate?—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, the relationship between written Sanskrit, caste, and socioeconomic class is discussed in Sanskritisation (but it isn't about the creation of new literature). —Alalch E. 11:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - DRV is not AFD round 2. The appellant says: This article was deleted without any strong reason. No, the consensus of the AFD was the reason. The appellant is disagreeing with the reasoning of the the AFD nominator and the AFD participants, but that is not what DRV is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The strong reason to delete was editors agreeing that the page did not meet stand-alone list eligibility criteria, including the concern that the list was assembled through the forbidden combining of material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.—Alalch E. 20:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual items needn't be found together in a single source. However, It's discussed together [here. https://satyan-sharma.medium.com/lest-we-forget-sanskritists-situated-at-the-bottom-of-caste-hierarchy-ac2c29159da9?source=social.tw] Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Medium is near-forbidden on Wikipedia, as a deprecated source (see WP:MEDIUM), but the author appears to be a subject-matter expert and is discussing a topic within his expertise. Still, there is no editorial oversight. This is at the very bottom of what we could treat as a reliable secondary source. Multiple reliable sources would be needed, and maybe in a group of such sources could this Medium post contribute to a determination that the list topic is notable. —Alalch E. 11:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trillionaire

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

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

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

9 September 2024

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

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

Arild Andersen
Personal information
Date of birth (1972-01-09) 9 January 1972 (age 52)
Place of birth Bergen, Norway
Height 1.79 m (5 ft 10 in)
Position(s) Defender
Senior career*
Years Team Apps (Gls)
Sandviken
Fyllingen
Sogndal
Haugesund
Managerial career
Avaldsnes
*Club domestic league appearances and goals
  • Comment: since we don't have access to your hard drive, can you please cite three of those 21 sources that you believe prove notability per GNG? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 10:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some, though it might leave editors none the wiser. The search was conducted in the nb.no database, where you get 85,000 hits for his name, and have to sift out everything relating to the the musician.
    • Sternhoff, Eva M. (27 October 2001). "Fra spetakkel til spektakulær". Haugesunds Avis (in Norwegian).
    • Svenningsen, Kenneth (11 March 1997). "Har lagt Sogndal for sine føtter". Sydvesten (in Norwegian).
    • Yttri, Tor (29 September 1998). "Sa ja til Sogndal – og ja til Haugesund". Sogn Avis (in Norwegian).
  • Refund to draftspace. While I see no fault in how the AfD was closed 3.5 years ago, I trust the appellant's good judgement on this. Geschichte is certainly experienced enough to skip AfC and decide when to move the article back to mainspace. Let's not stand in their way just because of that poorly-attended AfD. Owen× ☎ 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As OwenX alludes to, you can just recreate an article when you can address all its reasons for deletion, and by the sound of it you can here - you don't need DRV's permission unless it's salted or someone G4s it. We can give you the deleted version, but if you expect it to help, you're going to be disappointed: besides now being three and a half years out of date, it was an infobox and four sentences of prose that could've been written entirely from looking at the infobox. I've pasted it here. —Cryptic 15:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refund to Draftspace - I wonder whether DRV Purpose 3 should come to DRV except in contentious cases, and this is not a contentious case. Recreators may normally either submit a draft for review or move the draft to mainspace subject to AFD. But if REFUND said come to DRV, then DRV can say Refund. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this is restored, either an additional hatnote will be needed on Arild Andersen (the musician) or Arild Andersen (disambiguation) will be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action is needed considering what Cryptic wrote. Good luck with the new article.—Alalch E. 19:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 September 2024

Contao

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

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

  • I would remind Aaron Liu that one normally discusses a matter like this prior to requesting a DRV. That aside, in this AfD, two "keep" arguments was just based upon what the subject is but made no argument for notability or attempt to put forth sources. Aaron Liu did make an argument that there was substantial source material about this subject, but several subsequent arguments disagreed with that assessment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, as you may see, I'm new to this, and I guess I missed that part oh the instructions. Thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 1 subsequent argument disagreed. Oaktree did not address my argument at all and seemed oblivious to the sources bought up. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Two of the Keep !votes cite sources that don't provide independent, significant coverage, and the third doesn't even bring up any P&G-based argument. The three Deletes, on the other hand, all raise valid, guideline-based concerns. There is no onus on participants to counter or respond to every opposing view, especially if their !vote already addresses the issues raised. Owen× ☎ 13:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how instruction manuals (and phpconference) don't provide independent and significant coverage, assuming you mean me and the IP. I'll concede that the other keep was invalid, and I don't see how Oaktree addressed the argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid close by the closer. No Consensus would also have been valid. DRV is not AFD round 2, and DRV does not mean that each of the DRV participants performs their own close. The closer uses their judgment, not the judgment of each of the DRV participants. So this closer gave more weight to the Delete arguments, and that was a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I can see why the keep arguments were not weighted as heavily given that they were not providing reliable sources. I probably would have closed as "No consensus" given the relatively few people arguing for deletion, but I also see this closure as within the closer's discretion. Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I still don't have a problem with the original close, but I'm okay with restoring the article given sources that have come to light per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. If somebody wants to nominate the article for deletion again (as suggested by Cunard), I am okay with this as well. Malinaccier (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion

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

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


Recent discussions

5 September 2024

2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Endorse as closer. with only two editors recommending to delete - I see four views to delete: Fram as the nom; JoelleJay, who did a thorough source analysis, as she always does; Sandstein; and Geschichte, who didn't enter a bolded !vote, but was very clear about their view to delete. On the Keep side, I only see the appellant, who is also the creator and substantially the only one who edited the article. I don't want to use the term "bludgeoning", but the appellant's extensive responses to each and every Delete view on that AfD failed to sway any of the participants, ending in a clear consensus to delete.
It's not clear what the basis for this appeal is. It reads like an AfD round 2. But I'm sure the appellant will soon reply, in length, to this, as they will to every other "Endorse" here. Owen× ☎ 20:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX, just to clarify on the first sentence, I was counting JoelleJay and Sandstein as the only two deletion recommendations aside from the nominator. User:Geschichte's final point was that "I don't have a strong opinion about the 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw page", and I don't think their view was to delete at all. If that !vote was considered as a delete, I don't think it should have been.
I was the first creator of the article, but the most recent creator and the impetus to be reminded of this article was User:Stojan212 and not myself. On the last point -- I admit to responding too often to comments on that AfD. I haven't been doing that as often in the last six months, and I'll try to keep my comments brief in the future and let others decide as should be done in a wiki. Thanks. --Habst (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't count Geschichte for either side, as I mentioned in my reply to you when the AfD closed. But reading it now, it's clear they are leaning towards deletion, which I thought was worth mentioning. Either way, I appreciate you taking a less confrontational approach in debates. Owen× ☎ 22:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This could have closed as No consensus but, Habst, I don't see that the argument that this article should be Kept had any support except from you even after two relistings. There was no way that a consensus would be to Keep. I think your best option now is to see if this article can be restored to Draft space where you can continue to improve it and submit it to AFC for review. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, thanks. I probably should have been more brief in my original post and just said I think no consensus should have been decided or it should have been relisted a third time, based on only having two delete views versus one keep view (excluding nominator).
    I've asked for userification of the page here. This was my first DRV, so maybe in retrospect I should have just asked for user/drafticiation to begin with. --Habst (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - In my opinion, Delete was not only a valid conclusion but the only valid conclusion. This appeal appears to be AFD round 2, not arguing that the closer made an error, but arguing that the community made an error, but that isn't how DRV works. As per Liz, Authorize Restoration of Draft (but improvement will be required at submission for review). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus is clear. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. From time to time, editors creating articles of a certain specific type becomes a comon occurrence and this comes to be seen as a common practice. But deletion of articles on non-notable topics is the actual common practice. AfD is when editors decide if what was created should be retained in the encyclopedia, and here, they formed a rough consensus to delete.—Alalch E. 10:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there was clear consensus to delete. I also looked at the deleted page, and it should have been deleted. Note that I believer there is no reason some of this information cannot be included elsewhere on the site, but consensus is that not notable enough for a stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 September 2024

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom (closed)

  • Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom – No consensus. Roughly half of the people here endorse the "keep" closure, while the others would overturn it, but in many cases are not clear as to what other outcome they prefer (no consensus or delete). This means that this DRV yields no rough consensus for any other closure of this discussion. Under these circumstances, I could relist the AfD instead, but I decline to do so because the article has been actively edited during and after the AfD, and much of the AfD discussion may therefore no longer apply to the article. Consequently, the "keep" closure remains in force for lack of a consensus to overturn it. This does not preclude a renomination for deletion, but it should be based on new developments in the article or in sources rather than mere indignation. To those interested in the topic I recommend, before starting a new deletion discussion, to try to help establish a consensus on the article talk page on how Wikipedia should treat this topic area, based on what reliable sources say - as a genuine issue of public safety and government failure, or as a moral panic, or perhaps something of both; whether to make reference to any religion or geographic area, etc. Sandstein 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

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

In seeking to understand how the close statement could suggest there was initially a rough consensus to keep, the closer explained to me that they hade determined the rough consensus after discarding non P&G !votes and found only 5 valid deletes but 11 valid keeps [1]

Note that this was taken as “rough consensus” and that further discarding votes that suggested we should “delete unless” was given as a reason to formulate a solid consensus to keep per this in the closing statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, Endorse the original closing decision. My "I have personally heard" is clearly relevant, insofar as people have (including in the comments beneath that statement) suggested it to be a wholly artificial controversy. As the term "(Muslim) Grooming gang(s)" has entered standard political vocabulary, this by itself becomes a highly dubious claim. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Sirfurboy has summed up the issues with the close very well. The comment about 'righteous indignation' in particular is indicative, problematic, and arguably offensive. And perhaps more to the point, apparently based on a rather strange interpretation of Wikipedia policies which would imply that actually caring about how the encyclopaedia covers a sensitive topic is a bad thing. The closure, written around finding ways to eliminate as many comments as possible, looks far too much like a supervote to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. Keep was an okay close. No consensus would have been a good close, and possibly a better close, but there is no practical difference between the two in terms of retaining the article. Many of the delete/ATD arguments are based on the page being offensive and POV, which the closer correctly dismissed as AFD is not clean-up. Discussions on content and the article title are not the subject of AFD and can be discussed on the talk page. Frank Anchor 13:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second sentence at WP:AFD, User:Frank Anchor, literally says Common outcomes are that the article is kept … renamed/moved to another title …. How then is not discussion of such an offensive and biased title not the subject of AFD? Nfitz (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. Addressing the appellant's specific concerns:
    • The Delete views from Hydrangeans and AndyTheGrump were given full weight, as were other P&G-based arguments.
    • WP:NPOV is indeed a policy, but it is a content policy, not a deletion one. If an article about a notable topic violates NPOV, it is cleaned up, not deleted.
    • The !votes for redirect were all valid, P&G-based ones, and given full weight as such. Alas, they failed to attain consensus. Had consensus trended toward deletion, these views would contribute to a potential ATD, but that was not the case. Counting those Redirect views as supporting deletion would still not have tipped the balance towards a Delete outcome, or even a No consensus.
    • I acknowledge that some sources cast doubt on the validity of sorting grooming gangs by religion or ethnicity. Such criticism should certainly make its way to a Criticism section in the article, but cannot be used as justification to delete the page, if there is sufficient sourcing for the concept. But as I explained to the appellant, my job as a closer is to assess consensus among those reviewing the sources, not to add my own weight as a source reviewer.
    • As for the rest of the appeal, I don't understand the obsession with counting votes. That's not how AfD works. If one hundred additional "Delete because the title is offensive" votes turned up on that AfD, the result would still be the same. I went out of my way to explain this in the closing rationale. If the topic is encyclopedic, according to the consensus among participants, then we keep the page, and fix the title and content if needed.
I get the sense the appellant is trying to relitigate the AfD, while relying on straw-poll numbers for support. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where you appear to have failed, is that according to WP:AFD one of the 7 possible outcomes of an AFD is moving to a different title. How did you factor that, User:OwenX into your decision? I also don't see how you dealt with the policy violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NDESC in the title. Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close. I think discarding arguments to delete as per WP:TNT as being outside policy for deletion is a bit strange, but as the article had been changed to a previous version, the article is probably fine to keep and its fine to throw away WP:TNT deletes. Also agree that WP:TNTing an article for claims of a POV mess would not mean the article could never be recreated, only that we would need to start over with a new article, as WP:TNT is not an argument about notability or that the article should never exist again.
  • Deleting an article for fear it may be vandalized or attract contention is not a valid argument. There is no WP:CENSORSHIP, we are all able to deal with random vandals.
  • The article def is notable for all its attention, even if some of the attention is in quite biased and often horrible presentations.
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There are various issues with the close, invredibly well put together here. I also personally find it incredible that Owenx - a long standing editor and admin, could dismiss delete votes with this comment: "A few !votes were discarded as irrelevant, mostly those that called for deletion based solely on the content being offensive; the article doesn't qualify as an "attack page"."
Not a single one of those votes were "based solely on the content being offensive" - not a single one. To dismiss those votes but not have a comment on the various bad-faith "keep" votes is suspect to me, and reeks of some personal bias.TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an observation that it looks like you created an account a week ago, TwinkleStarzz, just to participate in this AFD and you haven't edited on any other subject. I find it surprising that in a few days you could develop an opinion on OwenX's abilities as a closer as well as have an opinion on AFD protocol. And if you judge my observation to be out-of-order, then I suggest you strike your comments about OwenX having some sort of 'bias" (what do you mean, he's pro-grooming gangs?). Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. You can't discard "a few !votes" as irrelevant/WP:IDONTLIKEIT just because you disagree with their policy-based arguments, and the vast majority of the delete !votes were based in policy. The closer can personally disagree with some of the arguments, but shouldn't discard the !votes based on this when determining consensus.
    Additionally, if many votes are "delete or rescope", and you consider that the AfD shouldn't discuss rescoping, then these votes should be counted as delete, not discarded. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the community decided to "keep" was different content with a different title, so you have to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to get a keep outcome out of that discussion. But there should be one or more articles with titles and content not unadjacent to this, so you also have to do some mental gymnastics to get to "delete". This needed a nuanced close.—S Marshall T/C 14:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Delete/redirect votes discarded seemingly out of hand? The purpose of a closer is to evaluate the arguments and weigh them, not toss out the ones they don't like. Closer's rationale displays a lack of sensitivity to the topic and therefore, inability to objectively weigh the arguments. Referring to !votes simply as "righteous indignation" is offensive, especially after acknowledging the topic is controversial. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Redirect !vote was discarded. The discarded Delete votes were not discarded "out of hand". They received a weight based on their reliance on P&G, which in this case was zero. I understand you are unhappy with the outcome, but it sounds like you find our deletion policy objectionable. !Votes are routinely discarded when they aren't based in policy. Sensitivity to the topic does not mean abandoning our guiding principles. Owen× ☎ 16:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that 'guiding principles' included not allowing the platform to be used for advocacy. Which is exactly what any discussion of organised child abuse must inevitably become, when it is centred around a discourse that selects particular ethnoreligious minorities as its focus, in the face of evidence which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that said ethnoreligious group does not participate in such abuse in any proportion larger than its numbers would suggest. Still, if the object of an AfD closure is to adhere to some abstract 'principle' that only contributions employing the exact wording the closer demands get considered, then maybe the 'principles' need revising. Or maybe it is the closer's understanding of them, which I'd have to suggest, may be at odds with those of the current community at least partly due to an almost complete absence of substantive editing history over many years.[2] Supposed 'principles' that prioritise rule-mongering over perpetuating unfounded and deeply offensive stereotypes should have no place in any responsible project with aspirations to being an 'encyclopaedia. Proper coverage of serious topics like child abuse should not be framed around newspaper headlines and moral panic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete I think the closer's rationale (described here is problematic. There are some circumstances for delete !votes to be discarded, but substantiative and policy-based comments should rarely be discarded. As for the information, it could be included in a larger article about "journalists misrepresenting patterns in crime." --Enos733 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. I'm involved insofar as I voted to delete based on a well reasoned policy based argument, and I voted to overturn on Sirfurboy's well-reasoned objections. Brocade River Poems 18:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Frankly, I don't believe the nomination was in good faith in the first place, considering that a) the person who nominated it is an SPA who registered just to target this article, b) there was coordinated off-wiki activity to try to get more delete votes, and c) the article was heavily edited during the AfD to make it worse, presumably to increase the chances of it's removal. As far as the merits of the Keep, Owen said them far better than I ever could. Jtrainor (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a) - I have been editing for some time via IP, and had to create an account in order to create the AFD, that in of itself isn't a particularly good reason to dismiss it. b) what evidence do you have that there was "coordinated off-wiki activity to try to get more delete votes"? And even if so - in what way does that discount the delete votes based on wiki policy? c) how can the article be worse now, compared to the POV mess it was prior to the AFD? TwinkleStarzz (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am particularly interested in hearing about the allegations around B.
  • As the main editor who did much of the changes during the AfD, C seems incorrect.
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The only other possible outcome was "no consensus", which would have been fine too. This was never going to be deleted. The topic is obviously notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources. I don't want to criticise the nominator, who seems to be relatively new here, for seeing the terrible state of the article at the time it was nominated and sending it for deletion. Even so, it is almost certain that a more experienced editor would have realised that this was a valid subject which had been diverted in the wrong direction and tried to set it back on the right path rather than into the bit bucket. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I could have seen a way here to a No Consensus close (which of course defaults to keep) but the actual close and its rationale were really poor and actually didn't give any policy-based reason why the closer threw multiple Delete/Redirect !votes aside. I almost get the impression that the closer didn't read the AfD properly and/or didn't look at the history of the article, which may have given more clarity as to why a TNT delete was the best option in this circumstance. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). OwenX explained the reasoning clearly. There were several "delete" !votes that were not based on policy and were within the closer's discretion to discount. (This DRV is already getting sidetracked with editors' personal views about the subject matter, which is not helpful to the process.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Before I review the matter a second time and offer an opinion, I would like to be sure that I understand this correctly. It appears that the headcount was approximately 11 Keeps and 18 Deletes, and the closer has closed the discussion as Keep, based on strength of arguments, and discounting some of the Delete !votes. It appears that the appellant is saying that the closed erred in giving more weight to the Keep statements than the Delete statements, and for other reasons, such as that the closer supervoted. Do I understand the situation correctly? Have I counted the non-votes more or less correctly? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is 17 deletes, 2 redirects and 11 keeps. It is not a matter of weight to the arguments (although that would certainly be an additional concern). It is that in this explanation [3] it transpired that fully 12 of the delete votes were discarded to assess a rough consensus after which the weighting was applied. I do not see the weighting was properly applied either but it is the discard that does not add up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I suppose, though to me it looks like the discussion reached no consensus, which would have been a preferable close. However, keep was also within administrative discretion. Maybe paradoxically, I think a close of delete would also have been acceptable. Over the years I have thought we are not well able to deal with the sort of situation where the topic and contents are unstable. I dare say we never can be. Thincat (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). At the end of the day, it is irrelevant whether these gangs exist or whether they are predominantly Muslim or Asian or whatever. All that is relevant is that this is a huge media story in the UK and has been for years and therefore deserves an article. Too many of the delete votes were based on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:IDONTLIKEIT and cherrypicking sources to "prove" that this was all false and therefore should indeed have been treated with caution. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It reports what reliable sources report. It would be ridiculous not to have an article on something that is so significant in the British media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a remark on what should happen with this closure but on the discussion occurring. I just want to remark that what offends me is some comments here that seem to imply that OwenX came to a decision and then worked backwards to justify that closure. I have good faith in OwenX's ability and integrity as a closer. What participants in the discussion might not realize is how many of our regular closers passed on closing this discussion because it was so divisive. This AFD discussion was bound to end up at DRV no matter what the closure was or what rationale was provided. Opinion was that divided. I applaud OwenX's willingness to take on assessing controversial AFDs which he did here and on other AFDs. We are lucky to have him spending time working on AFDs. That doesn't mean every closure is perfect and can't be challenged (they obvously can) but it's improper to accuse him of bias or having some other kind of motivation that resulted in him reaching his conclusion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed. owenx took a difficult afd and gave a good enough close that seems impartial. the personal attacks and claims of bias against owenx are disheartening Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC This was a very difficult AfD and I understand the closer's reasoning for the keeping (many delete !votes not being grounded in policy/guidelines). But I don't believe that outcome was within discretion. First, many (a majority?) of keep !votes agreed this can or should be renamed. A keep outcome doesn't even hint at the notion the title needs fixing. I could have endorsed a delete outcome, a rename outcome, or an NC outcome. But keep isn't in the cards with only ~20% of participants asking to keep without a rename. I'd rather see a NC close and an RfC on how to move forward. Such a close better reflects the discussion and IMO is the better way forward. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already a move discussion on Talk:Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom which seems to be headed towards success. I don't think adding a RfC on top of that is necessary, but I do agree that the focus should be on how to move forward with the article. Overturning this to NC doesn't seem to impact that either way. It's not that I object, I just don't really see the point. DanielRigal (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unaware of the move discussion. But the difference is that this could be relisted much sooner as a NC outcome. And I think that would be helpful here. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I feel that closing this as delete was the best reading of the discussion, but I think NC was also within discretion and thus I think an overturn to NC best balances the discussion and the close intent. But I'm fine if we overturn this to delete. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). I understand the closer's rationale as it was clear many of the comments suggesting to delete the article were based on personal opinion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and from a perspective of wanting to delete a politically sensitive topic (in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY). Frankly, I also totally understand the instinct to want to delete the article, but these arguments are not based in policy—we have a long tradition of policy and processes meant to explicitly avoid deleting articles because one political perspective finds the topic inconvenient. The policy-grounded comments pointed out (it seems correctly to me) that there has been significant coverage of this topic, meaning we should have an article on it (WP:GNG). There were concerns that the article was not written and titled from a neutral point of view, but as the closer pointed out, this can be addressed through editing and consensus building. I think this is a case where WP:DISCARD was applied correctly, but the lopsided number of comments on either side of the debate makes the closure contentious for people who do not understand how at Wikipedia, editors determine consensus based on arguments rather than on number of votes (see e.g., WP:XFD#CON). Malinaccier (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we should delete a now valid article, on a significant topic, which has been improved beyond recognition since it was nominated for deletion, and force editors to start again from scratch at the new title which is currently being discussed on the Talk page? Why? Who would gain anything from that? Not the editors. Not the readers. Whatever mistakes may or may not have been made, surely it is better to focus on the best outcome for the encyclopaedia. If deleted, the article would almost certainly get refunded as a draft before being moved to its new title. Why make a load of extra hassle just to end up in the same place eventually? If it gets us to right place with less aggravation then we can, and should, avoid over-literal application of the rules per WP:IAR and just skip to the end. (Also, I strongly disagree that there was anything like a consensus to delete in the first place so, in my view, IAR doesn't even need to come into play.) DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but isn't a repurpose and move of the article a backdoor deletion? Doesn't a keep outcome prevent us from changing the content and the title to make the article about something else? Doesn't it say that the consensus confirms an article on muslim grooming gangs is the notable topic, not the topic this is being repurposed to? As S Marshall said, this needed a nuanced close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been already changed. WP:TNT covers "repurpose", and i thought it was the appropriate reason to delete before looking through article history and realizing there was a useful version to change back to. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TNT is a delete outcome. This was closed as keep. Now we can WP:IAR and essentially TNT the article that was nominated, and rename it to remove the problematic framing that was always there. That is backdoor deletion. But with an outcome of keep, what is to stop someone from simply re-creating this article after its backdoor deletion, with a COPYWITHIN of the problematic content, arguing that the AfD was closed as keep? I mean, that's what I would do if I really and strongly thought the article as existed at the time should still be here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete I simply have no idea how you get a "keep" from that discussion, especially given not all of the keep !votes were necessarily valid, or how you would ever change a delete !vote to a keep when doing a close. At worst you discount an incorrect !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Delete - I'm baffled why any of the keep arguments basically saying such terms exist have any weight, given the highly prejudicial nature, and given the majority of such grooming in the UK isn't Muslim! We certainly don't need a child grooming article for every country by every religion, race, and skin colour. Nfitz (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not only that the term exists, it is that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. That's what defines notability. (They all say it is BS, which makes it notable BS.) The whole point of the article is to explain the racist moral panic around grooming gangs in the UK, i.e. to explain the prejudice not to promote it. Trust me, this is a topic that people are going to Google and part of Wikipedia's responsibility to the world is to give those people a solid article setting out the facts so that they get at least one high ranking search result that isn't promoting prejudice, hatred and lies. Maybe it is not clear to non-British people here, but this topic is effectively Britain's version of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. We need an article about it for the same reason that we need an article about that. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. I now wish that I had written a detailed essay saying all this in my !vote but it never occurred to me for a moment that it would be necessary. The content that got the article put up for deletion was already reverted by the time I got to the AfD so I assumed that this would be a borderline speedy keep situation. DanielRigal (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not pizzagate. Pizzagate is a bizarre fantasy with no factual basis. South Asian paedophile rings, on the other hand, do exist; and South Asian males really are overrepresented among perpetrators of child sexual exploitation on females. The right wing press has wildly exaggerated a genuine phenomenon.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think (any ethnic group) pedophile rings exist, but I'd be surprised if the majority weren't white or Christian. And the only definitive reference in the article supporting otherwise is an opinion piece by a known racist (if Wikipedia can be believed)! Nfitz (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority are white; we don't know anything about their religion. There's a Home Office study from 2020 which contains a useful overview of the recent scholarly literature. It shows that information about perpetrators' ethnicity isn't gathered in a rigorous way and where it is gathered, depends on police officers assigning an ethnicity based on the police officer's opinion. Ella Cockbain thinks this ethnicity data is terrible and has to be jettisoned. Not everyone agrees with Ella Cockbain, and it's fair to say that limited and disputed data, but nevertheless the best available data, suggests that people of Asian (which in Britain mostly means South Asian) ethnicity are overrepresented among perpetrators in paedophile rings compared to their numbers in the general population.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have linked the study, which is here. The ethnicity that's most overrepresented among victims is mixed white and black caribbean (see for example Office for national statistics, table 7b).—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The study you link does not state that "the best available data, suggests that people of Asian (which in Britain mostly means South Asian) ethnicity are overrepresented among perpetrators in paedophile rings compared to their numbers in the general population." On the contrary, it says that "Based on the existing evidence, and our understanding of the flaws in the existing data, it seems most likely that the ethnicity of group-based CSE offenders is in line with CSA more generally and with the general population, with the majority of offenders being White." (p.25 p.27) AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    also we shoukd not be using that document directlh as per WP:PRIMARY. the originL pov editor had been using and misquoting from that document to help provide evidence that muslim grooming gangs were a significant problem. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While you were on page 25, Andy, did you read the bit that said "A number of studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based CSE"?
Bluethricecreamman, that document is not a primary source. It quotes and summarizes secondary sources. The fact that someone's misused it in the past doesn't mean I can't use it.—S Marshall T/C 15:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I see I'd given the wrong page number: I meant P.27, not P.25. Apologies for that. As for what it says on P.25, 'a number of studies' does not equate to 'the best available data'. Particularly not when the source being cited goes on to explain in some detail why such studies may be relying on 'poor quality' data. The source cannot possibly be used to support claims regarding data it expressly questions the validity of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the figures they're doubting come from page 21 of this source, and I having dug it up, I stand by my description of that as "limited and disputed data". It's the best data that I've found yet, and I'm coming to think that Ella Cockbain &c, who doubt it, don't have any rigorous data of their own (because if they did they would surely have published it). It might be the only data. I'll keep digging though.—S Marshall T/C 22:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Data from a single year. In which "35% of forces did not provide any data and the ethnicity of many perpetrators within those which did provide data is often not recorded." I'd go with the null hypothesis on that one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that an article on a moral panic about South Asian paedophile rings, ought to say something about whether it's true that South Asians really are overrepresented among paedophiles. The only actual data we can find says yes, they are, and that's a fact that our lovely right wing friends are going to keep on adding into the article forever. This position, held by many people in the debate above, that it's entirely a hoax, is going to founder on the fact that the least bad data we can find, plus articles in the Times, both say it's a real phenomenon.—S Marshall T/C 07:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 21 of this source [4] that you refer to is the source I quoted in the AfD in answer to the erroneous claim made by one participant that the vast majority of these cases are by Asian muslim gangs. This source gives figures on page 21 that prove that to be nonsense. 42% are white, 17% black and 14% Asian. Is this an over-representation of Asians? Well yes. At the last UK census, the British Asian population stood at 9.3%, so it is a little over, but as Andythegrump points out, there are a lot of problems with these figures (that the paper is up front about). But there is another huge 🐘 elephant in the room. By that study the black population is way more over-represented. The UK black population is 4% but that study suggests 17% representation in gang and group based CSE. That is a massively bigger effect. Will we also keep the inevitable Black grooming gangs in the UK article? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luckily the Times hasn't printed any articles about black grooming gangs, so that question is a lot easier than this one!—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately, this is going to be kept, primarily because it can be sourced to the well-known racist British media. Even though it breaks Wikipedia policies. Another fail for AFD ignoring Wikipedia policy. Nfitz (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus, recognizing that this will leave the article standing. The dispute over the title of the article is illustrative. There is no consensus over what the subject of the article should be, whether it is gangs, or a moral panic about gangs. So there can be no consensus about whether to delete the article until there is rough consensus on the subject and title of the article. Neither the Keep nor the Delete cases were cogent, because of the uncertainty of the subject of the article, and neither the Keep nor the Delete cases addressed the weaknesses of the opposing case. There does appear to be rough consensus that reliable sources have provided significant coverage of something, maybe gangs, maybe a moral panic over gangs. The title and subject of the article should be resolved, and then a new nomination can be made on whether to delete the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A large number of the delete comments boil down to "we shouldn't have an article because it platforms islamophobic misinformation". Granting that is a correct characterization of the material (I am not familiar enough with the sources to say so explicitly), it is undoubtedly notable islamophobic misinformation and should be covered as such on Wikipedia. Given that there are usable versions in the history of the article and that this title should certainly be a redirect if it is moved to a better title. Deletion per TNT is not supported by policy and such comments should be discounted. I could perhaps see a No Consensus close as reasonable, but certainly not Delete. For clearly notable topics, NPOV is rarely a good reason to delete and only when there is no usable version in the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: (uninvolved) The closer summed up the consensus correctly in my view as majority of !votes were concerned about how “POV mess” the entry was but deletion is not cleanup. And this DRV itself seems to be deviating to a “what-should-be opinion poll.” Best, Reading Beans 06:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There absolutely should be a page on this wider topic. The page has been worked on and there is an ongoing RM, deleting it would be very counterproductive, it is clearly being worked on. The votes that were based on POV issues have been addressed, and shouldn’t be given weight when assessing consensus. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the delete votes addressed the biased title. How has the blatant violation of WP:NDESC and [WP:UNDUE]] been addressed, User:Kowal2701. Nothing stops the subject being discussed in many of the suggested other articles. Or moved - which is a valid AFD outcome (according to the second sentence of WP:AFD, despite the false claims by User:OwenX when he closed it. How a close could survive such a fundamental flaw by the closer is beyond me, as it demonstrates their lack of competence in the AFD process. Nfitz (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 September 2024

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

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

  1. The AfD was closed as keep. The closer had previously relisted for more input, and the only input after this was a reasoned !vote for a non-keep outcome.
  2. The close gave no reason or explanation for the decision.
    1. No reason is bad form, and worse when the article being XfD'd is a BLP with additional copyvio and privacy concerns, which were also not acknowledged in the close.
  3. The close suggested having effectively the same discussion at the article talkpage; if the closer believed this was the best course of action, then "no consensus" is surely the close decision that would be taken.
  4. When challenged on the lack of reasoning in the close decision, the closer gave reasons which I find not only unconvincing, but somewhat concerning:
    1. Admitting to merely vote-counting. Besides ignoring the quality of reasons and policy adherence, this is particularly bad when there are only a handful of !votes, including some qualified or with no reason.
    2. Suggesting that they have bias towards a certain user's opinion. The user in question was the main advocate for keep, the decision the closer took. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: after being notified, the closer is currently passive-agressively deleting drafts I (and only I) created. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how you got vote counting from my statement I saw more support for Keep than Delete or Redirect. Maybe I didn't word this correctly but the support I meant was reading the arguments, not just counting votes. As for my alleged "bias", it was because I stated to Kingsif on my User talk page that I respect the opinions of all of the editors arguing to Keep, especially Cielquiparle who typically works to improve sourcing on articles whose AFDs they participates in.. I don't think that indicates that I'll close a discussion however Cielquiparle votes (I'm sure we have disagreed plenty of times), just that I respected their opinion. I think it's unrealistic to expect that a closer doesn't pay any attention to whom is voicing an argument, that we are "editor-blind". There are editors whose opinion I respect on sports topics or business topics because they regularly offer solid arguments. Cunard digs up sources that no one else can locate, Cielquiparle usually improves an article during an AFD. I take some editors' arguments more seriously than an IP editor who just showed up to express an opinion. If I get some flak for that, well I don't know how to ignore that some editors are very competent and reliable and I take their opinions seriously. It doesn't mean I didn't take the opinions of other editors in the discussion seriously, Kingsif asked me to justify my closure and I thought it best to be honest.
  • As for your drafts, they are eligible for CSD G13, if you look at the date of the last human edit, I delete CSD G13s all day long, it has nothing to do with this inquiry. A head's up, Draft:List of winning streaks in volleyball is due for CSD G13 in the next hour. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the drafts are eligible for G13, something a bot usually handles. If you can honestly deny that this didn't inspire you to look into the draft dump pile for anything with my name on it, I'll strike that, but I checked to see if you were just on a regular deletion spree and you weren't.
    I would challenge your assertion that Cielquiparle is very competent and reliable based on the "improvements" they made to the article and the sources/comments on sources they presented during the AfD, but we're not here to discuss the competency of other users - so I will just challenge that while closers cannot be expected to be assessing like some blank slate, they should not be (as you honestly, which, thanks, are) elevating one opinion above others because of who made it, when the other opinions may in themselves be equally or more valid. If a closer is going to effectively trust one user's take on something rather than assessing for themselves, that creates a massive judgement issue. Additionally, I didn't mean to suggest you would just close in line with Cielquiparle, but that you very much admitted that you respect their opinions more than you do others, and that can create bias.
    Of course, I was concerned enough with points 1 through 3 initially that I asked for an explanation, and I feel that what you provided was neither satisfactory in addressing the whole AfD (indeed, still no comments on source quality, on notability policy, on copyvio), nor did it indicate why there was no initial close reason. Kingsif (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsif: A bot usually handles tagging drafts for deletion under WP:G13, but I think the deletion itself is always done by a human admin. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this was a very easy AfD to close as there was little opposition against keeping and anything else would have been a supervote. Furthermore, Earwig didn't show any copyvio issues, I also don't see anything wrong with Liz's response or close. If anything I'm surprised it was nominated for deletion at all based on the available sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There were two redirect votes, and two keep votes, I genuinely don't know what you're looking at to see otherwise. The nom explains the copyvio is machine translated, which anyone who looked at the sources (none of which are notability-establishing) and noticed they weren't in English would surely realise. Kingsif (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect. When the discussion closed, there were three “keep” !votes and two “redirect” !votes, including yours as nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Characterising a weak keep based on lack of sigcov, and a redirect vote changed to keep based on a source that doesn’t satisfy GNG, as two separate keep !votes, is generous of you. Either way, you can appreciate that even at 3:2, SportingFlyer saying there was little opposition is not correct. Kingsif (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop bludgeoning. SportingFlyer T·C 06:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I brought this close here because it was improper, as I said, regardless of the decision. Serious issues were not, and still have not been, acknowledged - not even for the closer to say they don't think they're issues. Asking for more input only to ignore it completely. No policy-based reasons.

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

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

  • Endorse. With more keeps than redirect !votes and policy-based arguments on both sides, Liz’s close was the most reasonable interpretation of the result. “Redirect” would not have represented the consensus. N/C might have been in play had there been a “delete” !vote but seemed unnecessary here since redirection discussions can happen at the talk page. (I’m mystified as to why this was at AfD at all if the nominator only wanted a redirect; the page history doesn’t show a BLAR, which would have been a first step. Given the limits on volunteer time and attention at AfD, I only nominate a page for redirection at AfD if there’s an edit war going on over a previously stable redirect and we need a community consensus to enforce it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell, what were the policy arguments for the keep side presented at that AfD, including reasoning? (AfDs get more participation than articles in this area, in my experience). Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I see no error with the close. The appellant seems to be mistaking length of arguments and strength of arguments. I won't repeat what the other Endorsers have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I request you strike The appellant seems to be mistaking length of arguments and strength of arguments., as I am not and I think it is an aspersion that is an unfair misrepresentation of my respect for assessing arguments. (It’s also a misrepresentation of the strength of the “keep because I found one source” arguments, natch.) I am not directly challenging the decision of the close, even, though it’s apparent that is what this has become. I do not wish to repeat myself, but my concerns were (quite clearly) on the lack of a reasoned close. Kingsif (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether User:Kingsif is mistaking length of argument and strength of argument. They do appear to be mistaking length of argument and strength of argument. Raising a question as to whether an argument is fallacious is not casting aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I would still disagree that the keep arguments were stronger, as they did not refer to policy and could not explain how sources met notability guidelines. I have not once in this considered length at all, only quality of argument. Kingsif (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Redirect is a valid alternative to deletion. But in the absence of a consensus to redirect, it is not an alternative to keeping the article in place. This appeal and the accompanying inflammatory accusations are without merit. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Politely, you're completely missing the point. For the umpteenth time, I am not challenging the decision, but the procedure of the close. To keep it short, when there have been valid BLP issues raised in an AfD, if closing as keep, there should be explanation of why these issues don't matter or how they should be addressed (2.1 up top). When an AfD is not clear-cut, it is also best form to provide closing comments. This appeal is effectively to hold accountability to that. Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    there should be explanation - can you show us which policy requires this? I'm not sure how you arrived at your determination of what is "best form", but we do not overturn discussions based on someone's personal opinion of what is or isn't "best form". If you are not here to overturn the result, then this is the wrong venue for your complaint. Kindly withdraw your DRV appeal, and open an RfC about how you believe AfD closing rationales should be worded, so that if supported, this could become a policy/guideline requirement rather than just your personal preference. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I have been realising it’s not the right venue — I honestly thought that reviewing closes meant appeals were about reviewing the close, not overturning the decision (which don’t most people just start another XfD?) Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The only error in this discussion was the relist on 23 August when clear consensus to keep existed. Even despite a single redirect after this unnecessary relist, there remains consensus to keep both in number and strength of arguments. The redirect side did not do enough to refute the sources presented by the keep side. Frank Anchor 13:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, clearly not the place, but if you're happy to, I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion that The redirect side did not do enough to refute the sources presented by the keep side - all but one of the sources presented were already in the article, and that one other source was personal info from an interview, which is not notability establishing. It doesn't take as many words as I've used to easily refute it. Kingsif (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The BLP1E argument has no weight. That policy provision exists to protect low-profile individuals from possibly unwanted attention. That's very clearly not the case here. Also, the first match of the women's FC Barcelona team is a significant event (and a notable event, see the Wikipedia article about it) by any measure and a goalkeeper who played that match had an inherently significant role in it (see WP:BLP1ENOT for an additional explanation), simply by virtue of being one of the players. The significance of the event and individuals' roles in it is evidenced in later interest in the topic, as exemplified by the SER 100 article. By accepting to be interviewed decades later, Mínguez is not averse to attention. When that argument is discounted, there was a consensus to keep.—Alalch E. 13:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been pinged to this? Just to say, you literally just described BLP1E. Being interviewed about the 1E is not a further notable event, it's still just coverage of the 1E. Quite frankly, the 'point' of BLP1E, besides privacy, is to not essentially FORK out information about the 1E. When the BLP is just info on the 1E and some personal details, and there's no media coverage to say the person did anything notable but be present at the 1E, we are exactly in that territory. Kingsif (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's WP:BIO1E. The point of BLP1E is privacy. It's a part of BLP. BLP is about being sensitive to living persons and its provisions are on a totally different plane to mundane issues of notability and content organization. Its three conditions must be fulfilled cumulatively to produce the conclusion that there's a BLP problem. 2 and 3 are not fulfilled. The individual had a significant role in a notable event and is not a low-profile individual. I think you should renominate with a much more crystallized argument based on WP:BIO1E. There was no consensus to delete in this discussion with the arguments offered. —Alalch E. 12:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Karin Van Der Laag – The deletion is speedily endorsed as there is no prospect of success in the absence of a nominating statement. Some doubt was expressed as to what this section is intended to be about, because the deletion was not specified, but the deleted article was (diff), the interested user was advised to pursue deletion review to obtain a "recreation allowed" outcome in the context of her biography being deleted (permalink), so it is ostensibly about the deletion resulting from the AfD. Opportunity was afforded to the interested user to state what she would like to be done, but she did not do so. Doubts aside, multiple editors specifically endorsed the close of the AfD as correct, so this is not a procedural close. And as a draft exists at Draft:Karin van der Laag, hypothetical undeletion is not a relevant scenario. —Alalch E. 09:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Karin Van Der Laag (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

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

1 September 2024

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

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

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

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

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

  • Endorse. The article was last deleted in a 2023 AfD. The AfD has not been seriously challenged. It doesn't matter what happened before that AfD. The G4 was presumably correct assuming that the content was sufficiently identical. Everything was done correctly.—Alalch E. 19:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It isn't clear if the appellant is contesting the March 2023 AFD or the 30 August 2024 G4 or something else. None of the numbered points are clear statements of a purpose for DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: I am actually contesting the both since I was unaware the article was deleted prior to my creation. Jõsé hola 22:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how on earth did they end up so similar? Example paragraph, afd version on the left, yours on the right:
    −
    He is one of the popular voices in Nigeria that drives social change through social media and is also an outspoken critic of several governors of Imo State and some Nigerian Presidents. Uwadi spearheaded vicious newspaper chronicles of Governor Rochas Okorocha's "sins" and attacks on the governor from 2011 to 2019. He also criticized the government of Emeka Ihedioha in Imo State. He has played active roles in campaign for good governance and youth employment in Nigeria, including the struggle against human rights violations and neglect of the oil producing areas of Imo State. When an Owerri-based social crusader, Citizen Ikenna Samuelson Iwuoha and his wife were falsely accused of murder and arrested on 3 June 2014, he was involved in the struggle for their release.
    		+
    He is one of the most influential people in Nigeria who is bringing about social change through social media and a critic of many governors of Imo state and other Nigerian presidents. Uwadi led the infamous newspaper history of the "sins" of Governor Rochas Okorocha. He played a prominent role in the campaign for good governance and youth employment in Nigeria, including the struggle against human rights abuses and neglect of the oil producing areas in Imo state. When a social crusader in Owerri, Citizen Ikenna Samuelson Iwuoha and his wife were accused of murder and arrested on June 3, 2014, he joined the struggle for their release.
    —Cryptic 22:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cryptic: Are you trying to imply that I had access to the deleted material? I simply wrote what my sources stated.
    Or in what ways did you expect the wordings to be dissimilar? Jõsé hola 23:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If those were produced solely from the sources rather than one from the other, then both versions are copyright infringement. —Cryptic 23:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close of the March 2023 as Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Opinion on the G4. I am not requesting a temporary undelete because the appellant hasn't stated that they are contesting the G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Allow Restoration of draft, although the originator of an article should keep a copy of it on their computer, especially if there might be a challenge. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose that because it's a bad WP:BLP, in which the only sources are articles he wrote, which has Flowery text and iffy sources, and is possibly even G11 (quoting from the AfD). As non-policy-compliant content, and given that the BLP policy applies to drafts, it is not suitable for undeletion even as a draft. —Alalch E. 21:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is point number 2 not valid for consideration? Jõsé hola 22:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't address any of those concerns. A topic can be notable and the article can have "flowery text and iffy sources". A completely new article is needed. —Alalch E. 06:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I highly doubt if both Xfds 1, 2 had Nigerian contributors on deciding its notability as it is the subject's country of attention. @Chiomaamadi:, @Satori Son: Jõsé hola 23:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first AfD can not be reviewed anymore because there is a newer AfD. The 1st one could have been the worst, the most tainted, the least policy-based discussion ever: It can't be overturned to keep because the article was deleted in a subsequent AfD. It is only that last AfD's close that can be overturned. —Alalch E. 06:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and deny draftification. The AfD was decided unanimously. The appellant brings up no policy based argument for overturning the result. Their claim about the recreation is clearly bogus, as Cryptic's diff demonstrates. And the comment about invalidating the AfD because there were no "Nigerian contributors on deciding its notability" is either a gross misunderstanding of WP:OR and how the project works, or else is plain old bigotry. Owen× ☎ 22:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but do draftify. The AFD conclusion was seemingly valid (and no real arguments have been advanced to the contrary), but I am very sensitive to concerns that Engish Wikipedia defaults to an overly developed-world view and may tend to implicitly devalue reasonable sources from elsewhere in the world, and so wrongly deny notablity to non-developed-world subjects. However, whether or not uninvolved Nigerians participated in the deletion discussion, there's been no indication that enough independent, reliable, secondary sources exist to meet en.wp notability requirements and support an article on en.wp. I've passed the Hausa wikipedia entry through Google Translate, and all the sources there are primary and/or mention the subject in passing (as an author of a press release, for instance) and whether or not they are acceptable on the Hausa wikipedia, they are not sufficient here. So deletion here is correct, in line with the AFD discussion. That said, while I can't see the deleted version(s) here, it looks from the quotes above that both incarnations may be strongly based on the Hausa wikipedia version, which is an eminently reasonable starting point for someone to try to develop and en.wp policy-compliant article. So I see no reason to deny the request to draftify, and let those interested continue their efforts. (I'm also inclined to accept the explanation that both deleted incarnations of the article here may simply be based on separate instances of someone translating the Hausa wp article text.) Martinp (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

31 August 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2024 Canada railway shutdown (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Three rationales were provided for why the closer chose the result she did:

First, the issue of systemic bias, which boiled down to keeping this because it happened in Canada. This has nothing to do with any notability guideline, and there are some problematic implications of giving different countries different worth in deletion discussions (this is ignoring the various nationalistic aspersions, which are beyond the purview of this forum).

Second is that there are "ample sources demonstrating notability". This suggests the closer did not look closely at the sources, which are all news articles about the event itself. Simply being in the news indicates primary source coverage that does not meet GNG's requirement of secondary coverage (the whole point of which is that reliable sources should be choosing which news stories are notable, not Wikipedia editors). If you're not familiar with the use of newspapers in historiography, WP:PRIMARYNEWS has a good explainer.

Third is that other articles haven't been deleted, which is about as textbook an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as it gets.

Every keep argument was based on these three arguments, generic "I consider this important or consequential" statements, or crystal ball speculation about whether it might be notable in the future. There's no scenario where the arguments at this AfD result in a keep without a headcount or a supervote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • News articles are considered by many (most?) editors on enwiki to be secondary sources, not primary sources, based on what I've seen. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But news articles aren’t necessarily secondary sources. If news piece simply regurgitates press releases and controlled, scripted interview quotes, it is merely a convenient bundling of primary sources. A lot of coverage of strikes, lockouts, and other labor difficulties look exactly like this. Union rep said such-and-such, company executive said this-and-that, politician said bleah-and-meh. Dust it with a few related facts about the impact of the industry on the nation, as likely as not cribbed from wiki itself these days, and you gotcherself a byline. Qwirkle (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This encapsulates a lot of the misunderstanding, including one of the !votes citing NOTNEWS. Most anything Wikipeida would cite for an article of national significance, even in Canada, doesn't represent anything other than independent, reliable secondary sourcing. The burden of proof should really be on those who assert that it is not, to demonstrate from our policies why it is not. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even wikipedia disagrees with you: "Secondary sources in history and humanities are usually books or scholarly journals, from the perspective of a later interpreter, especially by a later scholar." Qwirkle (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My closure statement wasn't really that long, I think you are reading a lot into it. Participants disagreed on whether or not news stories are primary sources and whether they can help establish notability and I brought up the example of the article on the attempted assasination of Donald Trump where news sources are accepted as sources as that point was mentioned in the discussion.
Bottom line though, I thought the arguments for Keep were stronger than the arguments to Delete (which basically denied notability) and I saw more support for a Keep outcome than Delete. I didn't think much would change with a Relisting but if you would prefer that, and there is support among editors here at DRV, I'm comfortable reverting my closure, relisting and letting another admin close the discussion. I close a lot of AFDS and my ego is not invested in an individual discussion. It is also not a "supervote" because I honestly have no opinion on the outcome of this discussion. If I'd seen more support for Delete (and that is not just a headcount), then the closure would have been Delete. My job is to assess consensus, not to impose an opinion of my own. If I do have an opinion (which happens occasionally), I participate in the AFD and would not close the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Slice it any way you want, there is simply no consensus to delete. You'd have to discard three quarters of the Keep views to see a Delete consensus; now that would be a supervote. Would a "No consensus" close appease the appellant? The only practical difference would be an earlier potential renomination, which I'm okay with. Owen× ☎ 06:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a misreading or misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARYNEWS to think is says that newspaper articles about events are therefore primary. These days few journalists go out and about and observe or directly report on events as they happen. The question usually is how much the printed news article has been regurgitated from original reporting. Thincat (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. There's usually no point in debating an administrator's closing statement when the outcome can not be different.—Alalch E. 08:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD result. This is a severely notable event that caused and is causing harm to Canada's economy as a whole. And there were several more keeps than deletes. I'm sorry if this comes off as hostile but I'm just telling it how it is. The AFD closure should stand and filing this review was unnecessary and I feel like you're just trying to get an article in a good, detailed state deleted. Just because an article uses primary sourcing as its primary reference source doesn't mean it should be deleted. If that was the case every single article on Wikipedia should be deleted as most articles cite news publications as their primary means of sourcing, and sourcing alone doesn't qualify an article to eligible for deletion. I literally live in Canada, and have all my life. This is a severely notable event that is impacting all Canadians, and the union has now moved to file a legal challenge against the CIRB for its decision. Trying to get this article deleted is unfair. Not to mention, you gave a reason in your delete argument that being in the news doesn't make something notable. It literally does. The whole point of news is to cover notable events and stories going around in the world. News coverage does make something notable, so your AfD argument goes against many of Wikipedia's own policies. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 09:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as correct and thoughtful reading of consensus. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I haven't !voted in the AFD, but I do think the closure was correct. Though there were some arguments citing WP:NOTNEWS, especially during the first few days, the later !votes were predominantly "keep" !votes, and at least one of these (Novem Linguae's) provided sufficient sourcing that goes beyond WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources. Thus, I do not think the discussion would have closed with any consensus to delete. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Its seems that the majority of voters want the article to be retained. Wikipedia:Deletion review appears to be for when the decision was procedurally made improperly. But why would one think it was? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a delete !voter. I'm still not completely convinced this should be kept as a stand-alone article, as just because a topic receives coverage does not necessarily make it suitable for the encyclopaedia, there's some mention it could be validly discussed elsewhere, and the problem with current topics is you just can't tell if coverage will be WP:SUSTAINED. That being said consensus was clearly to keep, and the argument it was sustained was clearly made by the final !voter, so you can't really overturn it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved): I don't know what you were expecting here. The consensus was clearly to keep. Sure, if the delete votes were weighted significantly heavier than the keep votes (which, as others have mentioned, would likely not have been warranted), then you could probably get away with a "no consensus" close. But a "keep" close and a "no consensus" close have practically the same result. A "delete" close would have been a textbook supervote that would have almost certainly been overturned at DRV. Surely that's not what you were expecting? C F A 💬
  • Overturn to Delete (uninvolved)
The OP has made some valid arguments. I haven't read the article and coming from America, I haven't heard of this event which would be news considering Canada is our next-door neighbor. To me, it seems like a primary source since if there were newspapers talking about this outside of Canada, they could be used as sources for secondary sources. However, if all the news sources are Canada based, then the bias would naturally make it a bigger deal as it occurred in the country they are based in.
The argument with the assassination of Donald Trump was valid but that was because it became national and then world news. I haven't heard anything about this event so I don’t really see its need to be on the Wikipedia given the guidelines OP mentioned. I understand my points are most likely to be proven wrong as this is just an outside perspective. I have not done any research into this so there is probably more to the story than what I currently know. Reader of Information (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
question mark Suggestion....A search for international news perhaps ?
Moxy🍁 03:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using an excuse such as "I didn't see anything about it so it clearly isn't notable" is the wrong way to go about trying to argue that an article like this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's just as bad as someone saying "well I didn't see it so it clearly didn't happen!". Just because you didn't personally hear about it doesn't mean it isn't notable. Therefore I see this reasoning as unnecessary and inappropriate. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 07:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lazy rationale. Read the article before commenting.--User:Namiba 13:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close as Keep, as the obvious conclusion of rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the reasonable Keep close. There was clearly not a consensus to Delete, so that is out of the question. One could try to argue that some of the Keep comments were not strong from the perspective of Wikipedia policy, but others undoubtedly were solid. Closer seems to have engaged with that on some level and decided there were strong enough arguments provided for a Keep rather than a NC closure. That is an a priori reasonable interpretation and the distinction between a Keep and NC close, if that were the alternative, is not worth arguing about. As an aside: 1) Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and articles need to be evaluated on whether they meet our inclusion criteria and are meaningful in any part of the world, not (just) in the U.S. or truly globally. That's true whether the subject is of relevance to Canada (this DRV) or Nigeria (a DRV nearby.) 2) While the railway lockout was short-lived, there was real economic impact and there was enough discussion of real and potential economic impact that the shutdown would have remained important to the Canadian economy even if it had lasted just 1 second. Martinp (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 August 2024

  • Megumin – Regarding the initial close two years ago, there is split opinion below about whether it should be endorsed or overturned to keep/no consensus. On that basis, the original closure is endorsed due to lack of consensus to change it. However, the majority and consensus sentiment below (between those advocating to flip the original close, and those who endorsed the original close but added additional commentary), is that if the merge hasn't happened by now, it shouldn't happen without another discussion. On that basis, the practical element of the merge closure from two years ago is vacated, and should not be actioned without a new discussion which can be initiated by any interested editor at any time. Daniel (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Megumin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article has been expanded upon since the last deletion/redirect post. There is no reason for it to be merged. If merged into the proposed page, the blurb for the character will become too long.

Editing my point as people pointed out that I didn't expand on it so I'll expand it using the reply I replied to Cyrptic under.

"I did not look into the history and see that template but the talk page of Megumin still says "This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2022. The result of the discussion was merge."

I created this deletion review because I don't believe it warrants a nomination for deletion anymore. The deletion request itself also states the merge which can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megumin. I am contesting this deletion request under the premise that it no longer warrants a nomination for deletion. Like you pointed out in your comment, it was so quickly removed under "false pretenses" despite the decision being made to merge the page.

If the talk page still says it is a candidate of deletion, it should be taken that it is a candidate for deletion. I looked into how I could contest this deletion nomination. I looked into Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion but considering the page has not been deleted yet, it would not fall under that title. There were multiple people involved in the discussion of the deletion so even if I was to post under there, it still wouldn't fit the criteria.

I agree that the Megumin page is a little bit of a weird unique spot due to it having information that could be put into a blurb and doesn't need its own separate page to be expanded upon. Despite this unique situation, there are is also information regading the character that would infringe on the whole purpose of the list of characters, this being that it is supposed to summarize what the character is about. If we merged the page, it would cause information in certain sections to be nonexistent and unable to be added to the blurb. An example of such is the reception section which would be quite difficult to put into the blurb of the list without expanding on it in the blurb itself. This could be potentially confusing for people who are only looking for a summary of the character, not what fans think of the character.

Considering the fact that this article would not fall under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion due to the deletion request having objections throughout the discussion of deleting the page makes this deletion review valid.

In addition, the edits that have been made since the deletion discussion have expanded upon the character tremendously. This makes the nomination for deletion questionable. If Megumin's page has been expanded upon to include information that would be difficult to put in a blurb, does it require a nomination for deletion?

Finally, the last point I want to make to contest this nomination of deletion is the fact that Megumin's page gets a lot of views on her page. There are clearly people interested on what the character is about so limiting the information on what the character is about would go the whole point behind this article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility

This article doesn't just imply the accessibility to making web pages easier to navigate and read, but it in another way also means that people should have access to all the information which is expanded upon here: Wikipedia#Readership. In particular, the article states, "Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.".

If Wikipedia is used as a reference website and the information on Megumin cannot be condensed into her blurb without it interfering with the whole purpose behind the page being a list of characters (summarizing what the character is about and their significance to the plot), then this deletion review has a valid argument."

Edit note: I'd like to correct myself, the article didn't imply it, it stated that accessibility is about web pages being easy to navigate. I misworded it when I wrote it. Just wanted to clear that up.

In addition, I want to add a few other things that I forget to add in that reply.

Looking at Megumin's page, there is also a section for creation regarding the character. Merging the page to this would remove all the information in that section (which includes images and sources). Removing the page would completely remove a lot of information as the page would lose a lot of substance regarding the character as the information would be forced to be condensed.

Thank you for those who pointed this out and I hope this helps for those who want a better understanding behind the reason of why I created the deletion review.

Reader of Information (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there was a process error here, it was that the afd-merge-to template was so quickly removed under false pretenses. —Cryptic 14:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not look into the history and see that template but the talk page of Megumin still says "This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2022. The result of the discussion was merge."
    I created this deletion review because I don't believe it warrants a nomination for deletion anymore.
    The deletion request itself also states the merge which can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megumin. I am contesting this deletion request under the premise that it no longer warrants a nomination for deletion. Like you pointed out in your comment, it was so quickly removed under "false pretenses" despite the decision being made to merge the page.
    If the talk page still says it is a candidate of deletion, it should be taken that it is a candidate for deletion. I looked into how I could contest this deletion nomination. I looked into Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion but considering the page has not been deleted yet, it would not fall under that title. There were multiple people involved in the discussion of the deletion so even if I was to post under there, it still wouldn't fit the criteria.
    I agree that the Megumin page is a little bit of a weird unique spot due to it having information that could be put into a blurb and doesn't need its own separate page to be expanded upon. Despite this unique situation, there are is also information regading the character that would infringe on the whole purpose of the list of characters, this being that it is supposed to summarize what the character is about.
    If we merged the page, it would cause information in certain sections to be nonexistent and unable to be added to the blurb. An example of such is the reception section which would be quite difficult to put into the blurb of the list without expanding on it in the blurb itself. This could be potentially confusing for people who are only looking for a summary of the character, not what fans think of the character.
    Considering the fact that this article would not fall under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion due to the deletion request having objections throughout the discussion of deleting the page makes this deletion review valid.
    Furthermore, the edits that have been made since the deletion discussion have expanded upon the character. This makes the nomination for deletion questionable. If Megumin's page has been expanded upon to include information that would be difficult to put in a blurb, does it require a nomination for discussion.
    Finally, the last point I want to make to contest this nomination of deletion is the fact that Megumin's page gets a lot of views on her page. There are clearly people interested on what the character is about so limiting the information on what the character is about would go the whole point behind this article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility
    This article doesn't just imply the accessibility to making web pages easier to navigate and read, but it in another way also means that people should have access to all the information which is expanded upon here: Wikipedia#Readership. In particular, the article states, "Wikipedia has steadily gained status as a general reference website since its inception in 2001.".
    If Wikipedia is used as a reference website and the information on Megumin cannot be condensed into her blurb without it interfering with the whole purpose behind the page being a list of characters (summarizing what the character is about and their significance to the plot), then my deletion review has a valid point.

Reader of Information (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correction, it's not that the article doesn't imply it, it states it. I misworded it when I wrote it. Just wanted to clear that up. Reader of Information (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and execute the merge (uninvolved). The consensus was correctly interpreted and the eventual outcome was unilaterally subverted by an editor as noted by Cryptic. The appellant has not stated a rationale for why the merge consensus was wrongly reached or articulated what exactly would make the outcome different today ("the article has been expanded" is not a reason to overturn an AfD decision). Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check my reply to Cryptic's comment. I did add a valid point to my arugment. Reader of Information (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, it's not that the article doesn't imply it, it states it. I misworded it when I wrote it. Just wanted to clear that up. Reader of Information (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Replied to the wrong comment. My bad. Reader of Information (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I've edited my original post to include what you pointed out. Reader of Information (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep. I see four !votes to merge, three to keep, and a nomination that can be read as supporting a merger or redirect. I see no reason to discard any of those views, nor to give any of them more weight than others. If the Keeps were Deletes, then a merge would definitely be the obvious ATD. But absent consensus, a merge cannot be an alternative to Keep. True, "the article has been expanded" is not a reason to overturn an AfD decision, but in this case, no expansion is needed, as the original close was incorrect. Owen× ☎ 15:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi,
    I agree that it was not written as merge but merging implies you delete the article to put the content into the redirected article. However, I edited upon my original post as people pointed out there was no substance. If you re-read the post I edited, I wrote the following, "Looking at Megumin's page, there is also a section for creation regarding the character. Merging the page to this would remove all the information in that section (which includes images and sources). Removing the page would completely remove a lot of information as the page would lose a lot of substance regarding the character the information would be forced to be condensed."
    This is a valid argument I made regarding it being merged. There is no forum (to my knowledge, feel free to correct me on this), that is used for reviewing merges.
    Considering the article was closed due to the consensus of it being merged, even if its incorrect, it does not deny the fact that some felt it should be merged.
    Hence, why this review was made because although the close was incorrect, the discussion regarding the deletion/merge was valid. Such, although the views shouldn't be neglected, it is still important to allow those who supported its merge to give weight to the situation even if it means contesting it on the review . Reader of Information (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have trouble deciphering your reply, Reader of Information. Do you no longer want the article kept? If you still want the article kept as a standalone page, why are you arguing with me? I never claimed the views to merge were wrong, just that they failed to achieve consensus. Owen× ☎ 15:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, English isn't my first language so sometimes I'll misunderstand. Re-reading your reply, I misunderstood what you wrote. I apologize. I do agree the article should be kept though. Reader of Information (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for the misunderstanding @OwenX Reader of Information (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What exactly is being requested by the appellant? The AFD was closed as Merge, which, if I understand what that means, should have resulted in the article being cut down to a redirect after moving information from the article into the parent article. As Cryptic notes, that was not done. Is the appellant asking to undo the closure of Merge and so ratify the failure to merge? If so, are they saying that there was an error by the closer, or that there is new information, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am requesting for the decision to be overturned to keep the article and thus stop the merge. My reasoning behind this is the fact that it has not be executed yet and there is new information to the article that warrants its stay. This can be seen through the creation article. If we go to the target page and look at the section, it is a list to describe what the characters are about and their significance to the plot.
    Yet the information on Megumin’s page does not only include the information about the character but the history behind its creation as well as the reception of the character.
    Not only this but the fact that there was an error on the due process is why the opportunity for me to appeal this was allowed lol. 😂
    While it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the source of ALL information a lot of the arguments in the XFD were made about sources at the time of it being written. Looking at the article now, that reasoning has become invalid as the sources are well documented with over 36 sources being cited. Reader of Information (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the merge, since the AfD's result is in question above - it wasn't a great discussion but you can't close that as keep because the keep argument that there was SIGCOV was rebutted. The problem is it's been almost two years and no merge has occurred. I cannot tell if the article currently passes GNG since it's a specialty topic area, and I haven't found really one that does yet but I could be wrong there. I don't really see a reason to enforce the merge at this point - my sense is that if anyone wants to send this for another AfD they should be able to do so. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the rebuttal under SIGCOV.
    All the rebuttal mentioned was that the fact that all they could find at the time was related to what the character was about.
    I believe that the article can pass because in one of the guidelines I remember reading it stated something along the lines of if the article cannot be explained outside of the article then it warrants its own page or something along those lines.
    This is a double edged sword as yes the article can be explained outside of the article and be put into one page but it also worth noting that if we were to condense all the information we would be missing information regarding the character regardless.
    One of Wikipedia’s main points is that if we are gonna transfer all the information we should make sure it won’t be too long. The issue with that is I think we barely can explain the situation of the character with its reception and creation without it warranting its own page which is also mentioned in the guideline I once read. I’ll reply to this comment if I can find what I was mentioning. Reader of Information (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer Furthermore, I highly recommend you look at the sources page. There are over 12 sources relating to Megumin. I think it warrants enough attention under SIGCOV to be its own page. Reader of Information (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action. Nominator says There is no reason for it to be merged, but the article has not been merged years later, and so there is no need to do anything. The close has not been challenged so there's no need to endorse. Some comments: The discussion did not consider the target article. The reality is probably that there is nothing to merge. Content about Megumin had already been included in the suggested target and that content has only changed superficially since the AfD. All editors !voting merge wanted is for the Megumin article to stop existing as a stand-alone article. The first merge !vote in the discussion is purely an argument to delete with no reference to the target article (apart from merely mentioning it), followed by a "per X" and two additional inferred perexes. All of those are basically redirect !votes. The merge "consensus" is purely historical.—Alalch E. 09:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the merge consensus being historical.
    Since the historical part of it no longer is accurate, I believe it should be kept which is why I am appealing the merge decision so the article is kept. Reader of Information (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for that, it was kept through the force of circumstance. —Alalch E. 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. However, the talk page still lists as it being merged. It can confuse potential editors. Reader of Information (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how discussions work. Deletion discussions don't expire if something goes wrong in the implementation process. The merge consensus has been crying out futilely for implementation for years, and must be implemented unless this discussion reaches a consensus to overturn it. And endorse that discussion since "merge" does seem like a reasonable reading of that consensus. And I don't find OwenX's argument to overturn convincing. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's too late now, the article was significantly edited in the meantime. This is analogous to someone recreating an article after it was deleted. Sources were added etc. The consensus to merge is merely historical. It's like nothing ever happened. Advocating for merger now in a deletion review is also analogous to the situation (thought experiment follows) of the article actually having been merged, but then someone restores it and adds new sources; subsequently an appeal is made at DRV to replace it with a redirect. What does DRV have to do with it, and what outcome of a deletion review is that? —Alalch E. 19:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I am not asking for a redirect. I’m asking for it to be kept. Reader of Information (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alalch E. Reader of Information (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is understood. It doesn't matter what you're asking for, you started a process, the situation is being reviewed and various outcomes are possible. Different editors recommend different outcomes or no outcome in particular. Pppery recommends merging, and I disagree. I do not think that it is this forum's ambit now to form (or revivify or zombify) a consensus to merge the article. —Alalch E. 20:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. The reasoning the merge was conducted was due to it not having enough sources. However, that has changed now with over 12 different unique sources. (Some are of the same company/website but 36 sources regardless is enough sources to make an article.)
    The reason I am appealing for the article to be kept is because it being merged into the said article would make no sense as if all the information was to be added to the redirected page, it would start to become a revelancy issue. This can be seen in the creation section and the reception section of the Megumin page. The redirected page that Megumin would be merged into is a list of the characters of the show. This said list is supposed to be giving a basic backstory behind the character and their importance to the plot, not every single little detail on the character. The list is meant to summarize, not explain every little detail about a character.
    I do not see how merging the Megumin page into the list of characters page would be of any benefit as the information on the page is of value for those who are interested in how Megumin was created by the author and what the audience thought of Megumin.
    The proposed article it is wanting to merge into is a list. Lists are not there to give all the information on said person unless the information known on the person is very small and doesn’t need its own page. This standard of not needing its own page however does not apply to Megumin which is why the article shouldn’t be merged into the proposed article.
  • Saying the article should be merged is like saying that a good-quality product should be thrown away if it is of use to you. How would the reasoning that the merger was based on still be held to be a valid reasoning even years later after what Alache pointed out regarding the two pages. Remember, the target page of where Megumin would be merged into has changed very little since the discussion that the merge decision is based on. Meanwhile the Megumin page has changed a lot. What would be the benefit of having merging something into that hasn't been updated in years with information while the other page has changed a lot to include information that is of such value that it warrants to make it stand as a stand alone page? Reader of Information (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Logically it makes no sense. The Megumin page is of good quality. That is obvious. If you compare the purposes behind the two pages, it is evidently clear that merging the Megumin page into the proposed page would cause more harm than good. Reader of Information (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus largely per OwenX. There was a slight majority supporting merge (considering the nom as such) as compared to keep, but reasonable policy-based arguments were made on both sides. I certainly do not see consensus to not keep the article, so NC is the most appropriate close. My opinion is based solely on the AFD, which I believe was closed incorrectly and not on any updates made to the subject page since the AFD. Frank Anchor 04:11, 3 September 2024 (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 2024

The Peel Club

The Peel Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article "The Peel Club" was drastically overhauled in its last 24 hours of editing by me, resulting in a fully compliant, high-quality, well-researched page with both primary and secondary sources. The primary source material includes authoritative references from the UK Parliament and the University of Glasgow, supplemented by various books from 1836 to 1840 that offer significant historical insights, involving two Prime Ministers.

The main contentions that justify this review are as follows: 1. The initial draft of the article was indeed underdeveloped and flagged for improvement. However, the revised version addressed all concerns raised, meeting Wikipedia's quality standards. 2. I resolved the orphan page warning by linking the article to related pages, which seemed to have drawn undue suspicion. 3. The article was deemed promotional due to my inexperience and lack of neutrality in my first attempt. However, my intention was to contribute valuable historical content on a topic I am particularly knowledgeable about. 4. Editors mistakenly refuted the connection between the new Peel Club and the original, despite the new club's clear claim to continuity. This was substantiated on the Talk page, which hosted a detailed explanation of the legitimacy of this claim. Unfortunately, this explanation was overlooked by the reviewing editors. 5. My edits were based on empirical evidence from the sources cited and accompanied by thorough justifications for each change, yet these were repeatedly undone without proper review. 6. An error on the "Glasgow University Conservative Association" page linked to this page, and my correction (including the proper use of "The" in "The Peel Club" and appropriate linking) was accurate.

This well-researched page added crucial information to Wikipedia and the editorial process that led to its deletion was hasty and dismissive of the significant improvements made. I request a review of the page to assess its professional standard and content integrity. If the page cannot be restored, I also request the recovery of the Talk page essay where I detailed my rationale for retaining the article, as it contains valuable arguments that could be used for future reference. Thank you. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, but Allow Recreation - DRV is not AFD Round 2. This appeal is a rearguing of the AFD. The appellant should be allowed to submit a draft for review, or to create a new article, subject to AFD, but not subject to G4 if substantially different from the original version of the article. The version of the article that was seen by the voters is not the same as the last version of the article. Either Delete or Relist would have valid conclusions by the closer. The end result of a Relist would have been that the revisions to the article be taken into account, which is what will happen if the close is endorsed and the originator submits a draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp undelete for review, please. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the applicant's statement around drastic overhaul in the last 24 hours of editing, oldid's before and after for reference. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the AfD concluded the topic didn't meet our inclusion guidelines. The issues are that the sources that directly address the Peel Club appear to be primary (1, 3, 5, 7?, 8) or a blog (4). 2 is showing the Peel Club was discussed (in Parliament) and might count toward WP:N, it's really not clear to me. 7 is half written by a president of the club (from 2016? our article seems to indicate it didn't exist then?), making it probably primary. So while I'm not happy with losing this article, I think the AfD's conclusion is reasonable. All that said, I have to imagine newspapers of the time had something to say about this Club. Find those things and you'll have a fine reason to recreate the article. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. The sources are directly from the UK Government and the University of Glasgow:
    [1] For the national controversy about the peel club, brought to parliament, giving full details about its people and operations. This record is an evidential transcript directly from our government database here. It is digitised, and the URL takes some time to verify but its legit.
    [2] Formation of the club and its full name written correctly. This is not a mention, it is the full club record of their subjects and meetings for that year 1836-1837. As one of several physically published books now digitised with Google, they contain the published accounts of members and club activities. The publisher was also independent of the club.
    [3] The history of the peel club as a former group of people who later moved on to create a new club called Glasgow University Conservative Association. They already have this record I was merely expanding for the most part, and their wiki page even shows the peel club on their logo! Check Glasgow University Conservative Association. Surely they have to take that down if it's not proven enough? Hellenistic accountant (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I have the newspaper articles as well, but they are digitised archives behind a paywall, meaning I can view them but others checking the source would need to pay. Is there any other way I can add these sources as well? Here: [4][5][6] Hellenistic accountant (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One notable example:
    Dublin Evening Packet and Correspondent - Tuesday 07 March 1837
    “PEEL CLUB. Since the last time had occasion notice the success this rising Club, we understand that the Marquess of Lothian. the Earl of Eglington, Lord Elcho, Lord John Campbell, Sir Duncan Cameron, Bart., and many the most influential gentlemen in the city and county have become members.” Hellenistic accountant (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The AfD considered an admittedly stubbish and inadequate article on a topic and found it wanting, the article was then completely rewritten without any further !vote, and after the article was modified the improved version was deleted solely on the basis of !votes and a nomination addressing the older version. Neither the nomination nor either !vote supporting deletion apply to the final form of the article, and curiously, the editor expanding the article failed to log a !vote. As Robert McClenon notes, our normal process would require the deleted article be deleted G4 if reinstated, which is nonsensical as it was never commented upon by any delete !voter in its improved state. It is not DRV's job to assess whether that improved state is sufficient to merit keeping--rather, that is a job for further discussion at AfD, hence my strong preference for a relist rather than deferring to "recreate later" as my colleagues above suggest. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, the creator of the page (me) failed to log a vote due to ignorance of the system and what actions were required of me in the circumstances, thats why. Apologies. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Hobit. I see this as a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 type appeal. We are considering new information, and while the facts relating to the state of the artile are not new relative to the closing of the AfD, the information about those facts is new. Considering whether the facts are of such importance that would merit a different fate for this page, my conclusion aligns with Hobits that they are not, because the sources are not good. The page should not be simply recreated and it is appropriate that G4 should apply to an identical recreation. It should be considered refundable to draft upon request (it could be good for the DRV closer to note that its refundable to draft).—Alalch E. 10:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are good:
    The sources are directly from the UK Government and the University of Glasgow:
    [1] For the national controversy about the peel club, brought to parliament, giving full details about its people and operations.
    [2] Formation of the club and its full name written correctly. This is not a mention, it is the full club record of their subjects and meetings for that year 1836-1837...
    [3] The history of the peel club as a former group of people who later moved on to create a new club called Glasgow University Conservative Association. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but Allow Recreation As a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 appeal, I recognize there was a lot of work done in the 24 hours prior to the AfD close. But, like Hobit, I don't see the sourcing necessary in the revised draft. That said, there are some sources from Google Scholar that mention the founding (and founders of the club) that are not yet incorporated into the article. I also do think there should be some newspaper reports of the 1839 discussions in parliament about the club. So, I think the sourcing is close, but not quite there yet and I am not quite willing to overturn based on new information or suggest a relist. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some more bludgeoning. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are directly from the UK Government and the University of Glasgow. They are the most authoritative possible:
    [1] For the national controversy about the peel club, brought to parliament, giving full details about its people and operations.
    [2] Formation of the club and its full name written correctly. This is not a mention, it is the full club record of their subjects and meetings for that year 1836-1837...
    [3] The history of the peel club as a former group of people who later moved on to create a new club called Glasgow University Conservative Association. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse looking at the improved version and the provided sources, it's still a clear delete to me. There's only one source in there which might be acceptable. I would disallow any recreation that's not in draft space. SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, more bludgeoning. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I cannot understand if you guys are looking the right page?! The sources are directly from the UK Government and the University of Glasgow! They are the most authoritative sources in the world by category...
    [1] For the national controversy about the peel club, brought to parliament.
    [2] Formation of the club and its full name written correctly.
    [3] The history of the club as a former group of people who later moved on to create a new club called Glasgow University Conservative Association.
    Why are none of you guys able to see these sources and keep saying there substandard?! Hellenistic accountant (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and draftify. The appellant did not even !vote in this discussion and did not flag the improvements to the article for the closer to see. Paul W did, but he also found the revisions and new sourcing lacking and this comment was unrebutted before closing. While a relist would have been within discretion, the consensus for delete was correctly interpreted. I am not unsympathetic to the appellant's efforts to get this article in better shape, but literally none of the sources in the revised article were independent and thus would not have changed the deletion decision had more time been granted. (I would support draftifying so the appellant and other editors have a chance to find independent sources to support the notability claim before submitting through AfC.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ctrl+v getting a workout here. Bludgeoning. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the original nominator. I did take time to review the updated revision and its sources, but I'm still unconvinced of the reliability of this organization and of the validity of the sources. They still seem to be mostly primary and WP:SELFPUB as per Hobit's argument. I can't support a relist, as I don't believe it would result in a different outcome, and would likely just result in more of the appellant bludgeoning the process as they did in the first discussion. Recreation at a later date via draft/AfC is possible if new, better sourcing comes up, but as it stands nothing they added would likely stand in a new AfD discussion. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 21:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an echo in here? Daniel (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f "UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW—PEEL CLUB". Hansard. Retrieved 2024-08-15.
  2. ^ a b c d e f Proceedings of The Peel Club, University of Glasgow. Google Books. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  3. ^ a b c d e f "History of the Glasgow University Conservative Association (Archived)". archive.ph. Retrieved 2024-08-25.
  4. ^ "Article from The Morning Chronicle". British Newspaper Archive. Retrieved 2024-08-29.
  5. ^ "Article from The Glasgow Herald". British Newspaper Archive. Retrieved 2024-08-29.
  6. ^ "The Peel Club, Glasgow". National Library of Scotland. Retrieved 2024-08-29.
Note
There is various speculation among editors here about what is really going on with this page. I am not an editor and have no knowledge of Wikipedia processes.
I am posting here to confirm that ‘The Peel Club’ is a very recent formation. The current formation is a group of fewer than twenty acquaintances who have held one dinner. While I’m sure lots of the people involved are perfectly decent, none are in any way presently notable. It is hard to see how any combination or permutation of the current membership could be notable or of public significance. The Peel Club is currently being heavily pushed on Instagram. Screenshots of the Wikipedia page (in the brief moments it has been live) have been used in Instagram stories seemingly to push the Club’s credibility and make a claim on an entirely unrelated history.
Editors are right to observe that there is no formal relationship with the Carlton. Several members of the Carlton Club have been surprised by the alleged association - Hellenic Accountant calls the clubs “sisters” somewhere in this discussion - and are establishing the facts of any association with the Carlton directly.
It’s naff; the President (an autocrat according to the website!) knows it’s naff; and this Wikipedia page is an attempt to look less naff. Themuffinman96 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For something a little different, collapsing due to personal attacks and casting of aspersions. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This contribution seems spuriously placed, as if there's a vested interest in page deletion. Do you have any verifiable information to contribute to this discussion about an 1836 club from Glasgow Uni?
FLAG: User indicates conflict of interest from prior association or rejection, possibly scorned to leave juvenile anecdotal remarks in the hope of exacting justice for being socially excluded. Hellenistic accountant (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest that the various editors saying "the revised version still didn't demonstrate adequate sourcing" are re-arguing the AfD, something we've said on many occasions isn't DRV's job. If we're going to review sourcing in this case, then by all means let's allow DRV reviewers to evaluate sourcing arguments all the time. I note that I have specifically avoided reviewing the sources out of just this concern, although I don't doubt these concerns are valid... is the process valid, or should the mess be sent back to AfD for re-consideration? SmittenGalaxy, Dclemens1971, SportingFlyer, Enos733, Alalch E., Hobit Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, I think the process was valid. The appellant made significant changes to the article but did not signal this to the closer on the AfD page! The only !voter to discuss the addition did not think it warranted a change in outcome. The closer could have relisted, but really why? There was a quorum for "delete" and only one !voter bludgeoning the process and not advancing policy-based arguments. No process errors by closer, consensus interpreted correctly, done. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments I brought up were mostly because these were explicitly mentioned by the appellate, otherwise I'd see no reason to mention article content at all. My belief is the process was done correctly, though I still believe even if there is error found in the close that the article wouldn't survive AfD again in its current state. Relisting wouldn't serve much purpose even if the close was invalid, which I believe it was not. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't AfD number two - I was brief in my endorse, but I was looking specifically at whether the article had been improved enough to merit a relist, which did require looking at the sources. It's also not necessarily a bad thing to review sources, especially if the discussion was mistaken. SportingFlyer T·C 05:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The process was not pretty but it was valid. I think the most useful approach is to treat it as valid and to cover late changes to the article that have not been significantly addressed in the AfD as a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 appeal, i.e. to treat it as new information brought to DRV to review, and when DRV participants review new information consisting of additional references they have to review sourcing, and I don't think that this should be equated to "AfD round 2", but I agree that it looks a little similar on the surface. —Alalch E. 10:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do believe there is a difference between not relitigating the AfD and reviewing "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." In this case, the appellant significantly revised the article late in the process. One of those additions was the fact that parliament discussed the (first iteration of the) club. To me, this would qualify as "significant new information" (even as the underlying source may not contribute to notability). The addition also changed the focus of the article from the modern club to the historical club. So, to answer the question, yes, the process of reviewing new information is valid, even if this is a (relatively) rare reason for appeal. -
    Enos733 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see reopening this for another week if the improvements to the article had gone totally unnoticed at the afd (such as happened here), but it was noticed and did get further discussion. There's no reason to think that relisting this for the nominator here to further bludgeon the discussion would result in anything different. Endorse. —Cryptic 11:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this isn't the same sort of bludgeoning as the above repetition of the same material over and over, and is more of a summary of said bludgeoning, capturing it with a {{collapse top}} to be consistent with all the other bludgeoning that occurred during this two hour session. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After viewing some of the Endorse votes, much of the reasoning is that the sources are still not sufficient and do not change anything. How can this be? UK Parliament and University of Glasgow are the two main sources cited that support 80% of the page's content, which is an historically-significant subject. A government and an educational institution are literally the highest source authorities in existence outside of scientific experiments.
The overhaul of the page also meant that the modern club became a smaller feature within the article that was almost entirely about the historical club. Little emphasis is about the newer club and remains a sensible mention at a level consistent with the quality of those other sources which are far less authoritative than the major two mentioned above. The case against reinstatement seems odd given the notability, historical figures concerned, and the sources supporting it (the old club, not the newer revival). Hellenistic accountant (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can the appellant be blocked from commenting further in this DRV? An obvious case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT w/r/t the primary sources and WP:NOTHERE generally; moreover, the formatting of their responses is disruptive to anyone trying to follow the rest of the conversation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding this; they're just bludgeoning the process in almost the exact same way they were doing on the original AfD. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored this debate to being an effective process through very liberal use of {{collapse top}} to remove the disruptive bludgeoning — before and after. I agree that this editor probably needs to be blocked from this DRV, but as the person who took the action here, I'd rather another administrator use their tools than myself (call it a hyper-sensitive approach to INVOLVED, if you will). Daniel (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Before getting all caught up in process (what is DRV, perceived bludgeoning or not), I've reviewed the revised version of the article. While the notability-centred arguments for deletion at the AFD may have been made on an earlier version, they seem to apply to the current version as well, which is not materially different in that regard. So I don't see prima facie evidence that consensus would have been judged inappropriately. It is certaintly possible that with enough effort, additional independent sources adequate to get over the notability hurdle can be found, and so no objection to a future draft being reviewed and ultimately accepted at the AfC process or similar. But it will need to look significantly different than the current version, and it is distinctly possible (in fact probable) that notability is just not there at this time. Martinp (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I participated in the original AfD, so no comment on the process here. I've reviewed the "improved" article as shown above and the source are primary (either to the club or to the government), so would still not be acceptable. I don't think a draft would help, but I'll leave that up to the participants here to decide. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Peel Club article has been re-created by a previously uninvolved editor (User:DowryOfMary, with a declared COI regarding the club) who deleted the tempundel notice. (After it appeared in my Notices, I started to edit their work, but then realised I should not edit the page until the Deletion Review is completed and an administrator has removed the notice. Apologies.) The original article creator has since also started to edit the article. Paul W (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All this new activity around "The Peel Club" is a deeply promotional push to increase the visibility and enhance the image of the organization whose website is https://www.thepeelclub.org. Today's edits: Special:Diff/1242666701/1243926564. The idea is to aggrandize the new group by supplying it with a claim of historical rootedness and relevance. I have warned Hellenistic accountant about this on their talk page (permalink). —Alalch E. 12:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the original closer, I'm staying out of this DRV discussion. I have reverted the page in question back to the temp undelete notice, though, because the whole purpose of temporary undeletion was to let people find the article's history and know how it looked at the beginning and end of the AfD period. I hope it will not need page protection just to get through DRV. I also hope I have not overstepped by doing even that much. This whole thing is already unnecessarily chaotic. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, I too used to think DRV participants were all adults who could realize things only got brought here when the deletion process had already gone very wrong, and treat undeleted material accordingly. No longer. I've protected pages I tempundelete as a matter of course for a number of years now. —Cryptic 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic - fair shout. I'm going to start doing this too from now on, as clearly editors can't be trusted to treat {{tempundel}} articles appropriately. If anyone was to challenge that protection, I guess I can point them to this page as to why I (and others) do it. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policy has allowed it since 2006, and has instructed you to - in almost identical wording to the current version - since 2008. You don't need this as an example. —Cryptic 06:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read that as "instructed to" because it all appears to fall under what you can do, not must. That said, though, I'm all in favor of considering it a requirement as part of the tempundelete process. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enh, it's ambiguous. It boils down to either "admins may (w, (x or y), and z)", "admins may w, ((x or y), and z)", or "admins may (w, may ((x or y), and may z))". The second doesn't make any sense, since the actual undeletion is w; and I don't think the third is a natural reading. But I didn't feel at all guilty about not protecting, despite being aware of the passage, before I got to the point where I started protecting every time.
Irritating that we don't have an actual WP:Undeletion policy anymore. What it now points at is instructions for where to ask admins to do it, not policy for admins. (There's some mention in paragraph 2 of the section above that, and it's scarily wrong.) —Cryptic 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: Do not delete this page, because it was merged. The content that replaced the tempundel notice was merged before the notice was restored (see page history). —Alalch E. 09:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following this drv very closely - it's been a hectic week - but if need be, we can still attribute that in other ways than leaving a live mainspace redirect with full history. —Cryptic 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redeleting + an att history page such as Talk:List of Regular Show episodes/attribution history might be better (no opinion; for the closing admin to decide). —Alalch E. 20:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic - Thanks for that. The more you know! Might be worth including on the tempundel template itself for ignoramuses like myself who weren't aware of that part of the protection policy, perhaps? Can be discussed elsewhere, obviously. Daniel (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endore. Properly deleted on criticism of the sources. A case is made to allow for recreation. Do this in WP:AfC, and follow the advice at WP:THREE. The improved version has eight sources, I don’t want to analyse eight sources, but I will make time to analyse the best three. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn to Redirect to Glasgow University Conservative Association. The merge has happened. The content is there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uninvolved and not weighing in on the discussion. Just flagging the Talk page discussion and User_talk:Moneytrees#Text_request_for_deleted_page_The_Peel_Club where the appealant is continuing the conversation and request for content. Star Mississippi 01:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. DRV#3 allows us to consider "new information", which would include brief evaluation of the legitimacy of any new proposed sources. Though one of the !voters in the AfD actually did address this information, so DRV#3 isn't really applicable... Anyway, the three sources being promoted above do not require any assessment beyond looking at their web hosts to dismiss as invalid for notability purposes. 1. Hansard is a primary transcription of parliamentary proceedings Red XN. 2. Is a book on Peel Club proceedings written by the Peel Club/GUCA. It is neither independent nor secondary Red XN. 3. GUCA is the continuation of the Peel Club and is thus not independent. Anything published by Glasgow University or its clubs would be non-independent in this context Red XN. The other sources in the initial undeleted version are a blog, more non-independent websites, and an article on Robert Peel co-written by a president of the "revived" club that contains no information on the club (and would not be independent if it did) Red XN. The appellant does not seem to understand our policy that articles must be based on secondary sources and the requirement for secondary, independent SIGCOV in RS for a topic to be notable. JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective PAC

Collective PAC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I objected to the original proposed deletion and my objection stands. Collective PAC is sufficiently notable. Stefanie and Quentin James don't have Wikipedia pages and this page is a sufficient landing site for information about them as well. The lister then re-proposed the article for deletion. The Cunctator (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the perceived problem is that Quentin James is notable but Collective PAC, the correct solution would be to preserve its content and redirect it to Quentin James, instead of deleting the Collective PAC article. But simply keeping a well-referenced article would be just as reasonable. --The Cunctator (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation. With only two participants, this must be treated as a soft deletion. Although this might be an exercise in futility, as the appellant hasn't presented anything that would save the article from failing the next AfD, this time with quorum for a hard-delete. Relisting is also acceptable, now that this received more attention. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where, precisely, do you come up with "must be"? —Cryptic 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know how you interpret WP:NOQUORUM's few or no comments, but a single supporting !vote after a nomination is as few as it gets. Owen× ☎ 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I'll repeat. Where are you coming up, specifically, with "must be"? WP:NOQUORUM says such deletion discussions should be treated as expired prods, which is very different. It further goes on to say that if the closing administrator thinks that would be controversial - and I've seen no contradictory evidence as to Explicit's thought process - or if the page has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, which it has, then the closer may use his best judgement. Closing according to the nomination is not just within that discretion, it's (ahem) explicitly among the example options. —Cryptic 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as a challenged soft deletion, subject to immediate AfD by any editor per RENOM, with advice to the appellant to use that time to wisely address the problems identified. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn to no consensus as ineligible for soft deletion and lacking a quorum to come to a delete or keep outcome, on the basis of further/subsequent discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This notion that not just the usual supermajority, but a majority of above 100% is required for deletion has no basis whatsoever in either policy or guidelines. Had The Cunctator used the reasoning above and in his removal of the prod template - solely that the subject is "sufficiently notable", without any evidence or further reasoning - this would have been an entirely anodyne deletion, as a very weak keep straight out of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, that had been thoroughly rebutted. Silence in a debate must not be taken as a stronger argument than actually participating in it. —Cryptic 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent a minimum number of eligible participants in a discussion ("quorum"), one or two editors in agreement form a unanimity... but not a consensus. Nothing "above 100%" is required, nor is it a sensible concept. Try this, instead: two in agreement in a deletion discussion are not enough to consider the process appropriately completed, and after sufficient relists without sufficient input, "no consensus" is the appropriate conclusion for such a discussion. You don't have to agree with me, but I'd appreciate it if you understood where I'm coming from. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse As I read No Quorum, one option for the closer in this case is "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal". In this case that would be to delete the article. So closing as delete is an option in a situation like this. I'm not thrilled with that in general--I don't really want No quorum situations to result in deletion. In this case I think it was probably the right call--the sources are thin, with that Hill article being the best I can find. The second reference to the Collective PAC is almost enough to count as a source for WP:N. But A) we need multiple sources and B) "almost". All that said, I think soft delete should be the norm in situations like this and so I can only weakly endorse. Or put differently: "Probably not what we should be doing, but within the rules I think and the right outcome in this case."Hobit (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is claiming the deletion was incorrect. What NOQUORUM tells us is that an article deleted under such conditions is soft-deleted, like an expired PROD, and is restored at the request of any editor in good standing. Owen× ☎ 08:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @OwenX:. I think we are reading that differently.
    • "If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:"
    And one of the options there is "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal". Soft deleting is also listed as an option.
    I think that means that the closer can accept the nominator's proposal, in this case, just deleting. Do you disagree with that reading? Sorry my formatting isn't great...Hobit (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All you said is true. Again, the admin closed that AfD correctly. But now that we have a legitimate request for undeletion/recreation, we have no valid reason to deny it based solely on that poorly attended discussion. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not eligible for soft deletion after being deprodded. The deprodder could have opposed deletion in the AfD but didn't. It was relisted three times. Absence of arguments that the article is suitable for retention in this context and in this period means that deletion was appropriate, and so this is just an ordinary hard-delete AfD.—Alalch E. 11:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand your logic. If it's not eligible for soft deletion, yet was deleted without quorum, then the best course of action would be to correct this in a minimally-disruptive way, not to cement the mistake just because the original deprodder failed to show up. I don't think the situation calls for an overturn, but refund upon request should still apply here. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The logic is that the deletion process was followed correctly, that there was consensus to delete with low participation, but consensus nevertheless ("no quorum" is a symbolic way to say that the participation is unsatisfactory, but it doesn't mean that a low-participation AfD can not produce consensus, and the problem of participation is now systemic; also there were three relists and no one !voted keep, not even the deprodder), and that the result of that process was what we want to happen. There's no specific problem here really, what happened does not disrupt the encyclopedia; it can be reasonably assumed that the page that was deleted was a page that should have been deleted under the deletion policy. A refund to draftspace upon request should be a given if the article was not deleted for serious reasons (BLP, etc.), and should not require anything from DRV. In practice, at WP:REFUND, administrators might decline. It would be good to note in the close of this DRV that it's fine to refund to draft. If an identical recreation is brought back into mainspace, G4 will and should apply. The mover from draft to article space should be responsible that the article is made better. —Alalch E. 13:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOQUORUM reads clear enough to me. I don't see any provision there that says, "But if you wait long enough and no one else shows up, you can call this a quorum anyway". I agree with you that deletion was the correct outcome, and I never claimed the close was disruptive or incorrect in any way. But unless we're ready to trample policy by wielding IAR, then this was a no-quorum close, and should be treated as such. This means refund to mainspace upon any legitimate request, and a judicious--if any--application of G4 unless and until we can re-close this with quorum. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "NOQUORUM" is a shortcut, a symbolic representation for a particular being of process which is extending PROD into AfD to label some deletions as "soft", and the guideline does not really talk about quorum in the sense that quorum is mandated for consensus forming. Wikipedia:Consensus does not either. It doesn't even use the word "quorum" in its actual text. There's no "there must be quorum for a consensus-based deletion". There's a "should" a "Generally, ...", a "may", but nothing definitive with respect to a hard quorum requirement. As a being of process, soft-deletion only makes sense within the constraints of the process. We would IAR-ing now to repurpose soft deletion for this situation, outside of those constraints. —Alalch E. 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alalch E., I apologize for going on vacation and not checking Wikipedia when someone *relisted for deletion* a deletion to which I had *already* objected. (Note to self: "deprodder" is jargon for "someone who objects to a proposed deletion", as "PROD" is the abbreviation for "proposed deletion" and "DEPROD" the abbreviation for "objecting to a proposed deletion".) --The Cunctator (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Cunctator: All right, I'm leaning toward reinterpreting this AfD as a no-consensus discussion involving the two participants in the AfD and you as the "keep !vote" stemming from your removal of the PROD template, but please say what the argument against deletion is, and I'm noting that you said "notable" and "well-referenced", but if you could spare just a few words about why the topic is notable and what "well-referenced" means here, that will help me make up my mind. —Alalch E. 15:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that there's no consensus, then shouldn't the argument for/against deletion belong in the proposed deletion discussion in a relisting as a proposed deletion, rather than here? As Owenx has pointed out, the proper procedure is clear. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only no consensus if you have made something to the effect (something that I am willing to construe as having that effect and by doing so I am really stretching the bounds of reasonableness) of a !vote against deletion that is not discountable, but if you have just opposed deletion while not expressing policy-based reasoning against deletion, then there was a consensus. Edit: and "notable" and "well-referenced" are close to a policy-based reasoning, and I assume that something like that is what you wrote in the edit summary when you removed the prod template. —Alalch E. 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant no quorum (in addition to no consensus). --The Cunctator (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that quorum is determinative for forming a consensus. I'm not sure if you would agree that it is looking at it more broadly. An AfD in which the nominator and one respondent agree is a consensus and the WP:NOQUORUM construct is a rebuttable presumption, a fiction, that it wasn't a "real consensus" to let a third editor wave that consensus away under a presupposition that things will be better for everyone and that the dispute would have been more thoroughly resolved if there had been more participation (highly questionable). —Alalch E. 15:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the lack of a quorum, I don't think it's appropriate to debate the notability question here. That said, given that the deletion proposer accepted the notability of Quentin James, I really think this is a tempest in a teapot about whether the content that is at Collective PAC should instead be at Quentin James. E.g., is this an article about James or Collective PAC? It's certainly not a side reference to either. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD nomination records your "keep !vote" thusly: An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James.. If that is true and there was nothing better offered in your argument against deleting expressed when you deprodded, then it's a consensus, not a lack of consensus. Because objectively, it is a 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. It was persuasively argued that the topic is non-notable, one editor agreed, no one disagreed after an especially long time for discussion, ergo consensus.
    I believe that my view is consistent with policy. Would you start the Quentin James article so that the Collective PAC content can be refunded for the purpose of merging? That should be fine. The history could be made available at a Collective PAC redirect to Quentin James. That doesn't require doing anything to the AfD. Or the Collective PAC page can be refunded to draft and you can change its primary subject and title to Quentin James and publish it as the Quentin James article. —Alalch E. 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Draft:Quentin James. —Alalch E. 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me! --The Cunctator (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, The Cunctator, but my "Allow recreation" above was based on the assumption that you (or anyone) can present a valid, notability-related argument for reviving that page. If your claim is based solely on the supposition that the deletion was improper, then I'm afraid I'm with Alalch E. on dismissing this appeal. Whether the deletion was soft or hard, it wasn't out-of-process, and absent a valid reason to restore the page, it will be left deleted. Owen× ☎ 16:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's not eligible for soft deletion as it's already been de-prodded, and while I agree minimal participation at an AfD should be something we're wary of, the fact it can't be soft deleted should be treated as an additional, albeit small, hurdle. I think that hurdle requires a good argument to un-delete. I don't see any compelling argument to un-delete the page, nor am I seeing many sources in a cursory WP:BEFORE search which would make me think the deletion was done in error. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved): I was the sole delete !vote in the discussion other than the nom. I agree with @OwenX that soft deletion is one option under NOQUORUM (as confirmed by this recent RfC), but, as @Hobit notes, NOQUORUM also states that "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal" is an option in "the closer's discretion and best judgement". No argument has been presented here that deletion was not within the closer's discretion. I disagree with @Alalch E.'s proposal to treat a de-PRODing as an implicit keep !vote if the de-PRODer happens to come around to DRV. People can de-PROD for various reasons (e.g., insufficient PROD rationale or believing that the article would benefit from AfD). Additionally, this creates an easy way to game the system. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC was closed with "no consensus" so as not to enable soft deletion of articles for which PROD was attempted (it's not an option), and what was effectively reaffirmed in the RfC by lack of consensus for otherwise and in light of existing practice is that articles ineligible for soft deletion and nominated for deletion are hard-deleted when consensus for deletion can be reasonably found (in spite of low participation), and that, for example (taking one of the AfD's mentioned in the RfC--as an extreme example, much more extreme than the AfD that is under review here), this 0-replies AfD with the close of delete‎. Ineligible for SOFT deletion, but there is no one supporting retention or providing any input (courtesy ping User:Star Mississippi) is good and normal: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashland, Concordia Parish, Louisiana. —Alalch E. 10:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Alalch E. for the ping. I haven't reviewed this discussion or AfD but will say that my general MO there is it's treated as a PROD in that if you came to my talk and asked for restoration, I'd do so without question and exactly as I would if it were a PROD or closed as soft deletion. However my personal POV is that we don't need to relist again in order to get someone to weigh in when the barrier to addressing the issue is so low should someone stumble upon the deletion later. I will admit to sometimes accidentally closing these as SOFT (User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_18#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Equinox_(Amiga_demogroup)_(2nd_nomination)) but agree with the RFC that it shouldn't have been phrased as such even if the outcome is the same. I don't want to derail this DRV so if further is needed, feel free to ping me elsewhere. Star Mississippi 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the delete closure but restore article. WP:NOQUORUM allows deletion as an option for closers to consider, particularly when an article is not eligible for soft deletion. The issue remains that there is little support for deletion. Now that there is support to retain the article, it should be restored, subject to another AFD if a user wishes to pursue that option. Frank Anchor 14:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In attempting to clean up the (relative for DRV) large backlog of unclosed DRV's, I read this debate twice and struggled to find a way to close it that didn't veer dangerously towards supervote territory (even if it may not have been, it would have been right on the edge). I think my !vote here is endorse deletion, but allow recreation via Draft:Quentin James, and undelete Collective PAC and create a redirect from that page to Quentin James if/when the QJ draft gets moved to mainspace. At that point, any interested editor can nominate Quentin James for AfD if they so wish, and we can have a discussion that hopefully reaches a clearer conclusion for moving forward from. Clear as mud. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. —Alalch E. 12:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1188230539"