View source for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 August 26

<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 August 26|26 August 2024]]===
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~      -->

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed mw-archivedtalk" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* <span class="anchor" id="The Peel Club"></span>'''[[:The Peel Club]]''' – The "delete" closure is endorsed. {{u|Hellenistic accountant}} is warned that they may be blocked from editing Wikipedia if they continue to disrupt our processes by [[WP:BLUDGEON]]ing others with repetitive replies, or in other ways. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 18:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|The Peel Club|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peel Club|article=}}
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. [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 22:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:G4|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.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Temp undelete''' for review, please. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
** [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] — done. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 02:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*Regarding the applicant's statement around drastic overhaul in the last 24 hours of editing, oldid's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Peel_Club&oldid=1241284049 before] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Peel_Club&oldid=1242398249 after] for reference. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 03:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''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.  [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 03:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|1=Bludgeoning. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)|bg=LightGrey}}
*:Hi. The sources are directly from the UK Government and the University of Glasgow:
*:<ref name="Hansard">{{cite web |title=UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW—PEEL CLUB |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1840/mar/17/university-of-glasgow-peel-club#S3V0052P0_18400317_HOC_19 |access-date=2024-08-15 |work=Hansard}}</ref> 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.
*:<ref name="PCProceedings">{{Cite book |title=Proceedings of The Peel Club, University of Glasgow |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Peel_Club_University/bgEF22AHBjUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+peel+club&printsec=frontcover |access-date=2024-08-26 |publisher=Google Books}}</ref> 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. 
*:<ref name="GUCA">{{cite web |title=History of the Glasgow University Conservative Association (Archived) |url=https://archive.ph/20120712145849/http://guca.greensdiary.co.uk/beta/history/ |access-date=2024-08-25 |website=archive.ph}}</ref> 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? [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 01:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*:'''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: <ref>{{cite web |title=Article from The Morning Chronicle |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000937/18400321/026/0003 |website=British Newspaper Archive |access-date=2024-08-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Article from The Glasgow Herald |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000812/18370307/027/0003 |website=British Newspaper Archive |access-date=2024-08-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The Peel Club, Glasgow |url=https://search.nls.uk/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=44NLS_ALMA11717282930004341&context=L&vid=44NLS_VU1&lang=en_US&search_scope=SCOPE1&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,peel%20club&mode=basic |website=National Library of Scotland |access-date=2024-08-29}}</ref> [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 01:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*::<u>'''''One notable example: '''</u>
*::''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.”'' [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 01:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*'''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. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 06:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''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).—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 10:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|1=More bludgeoning. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)|bg=LightGrey}}
*:The sources ''are'' good:
*:The sources are directly from the UK Government and the University of Glasgow:
*:<ref name="Hansard">{{cite web |title=UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW—PEEL CLUB |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1840/mar/17/university-of-glasgow-peel-club#S3V0052P0_18400317_HOC_19 |access-date=2024-08-15 |work=Hansard}}</ref> For the national controversy about the peel club, brought to parliament, giving full details about its people and operations. 
*:<ref name="PCProceedings">{{Cite book |title=Proceedings of The Peel Club, University of Glasgow |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Peel_Club_University/bgEF22AHBjUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+peel+club&printsec=frontcover |access-date=2024-08-26 |publisher=Google Books}}</ref> 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... 
*:<ref name="GUCA">{{cite web |title=History of the Glasgow University Conservative Association (Archived) |url=https://archive.ph/20120712145849/http://guca.greensdiary.co.uk/beta/history/ |access-date=2024-08-25 |website=archive.ph}}</ref> 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. [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 01:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*'''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. --[[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 15:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|1=Some more bludgeoning. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)|bg=LightGrey}}
*:The sources are directly from the UK Government and the University of Glasgow. They are the most authoritative possible:
*:<ref name="Hansard">{{cite web |title=UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW—PEEL CLUB |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1840/mar/17/university-of-glasgow-peel-club#S3V0052P0_18400317_HOC_19 |access-date=2024-08-15 |work=Hansard}}</ref> For the national controversy about the peel club, brought to parliament, giving full details about its people and operations. 
*:<ref name="PCProceedings">{{Cite book |title=Proceedings of The Peel Club, University of Glasgow |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Peel_Club_University/bgEF22AHBjUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+peel+club&printsec=frontcover |access-date=2024-08-26 |publisher=Google Books}}</ref> 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... 
*:<ref name="GUCA">{{cite web |title=History of the Glasgow University Conservative Association (Archived) |url=https://archive.ph/20120712145849/http://guca.greensdiary.co.uk/beta/history/ |access-date=2024-08-25 |website=archive.ph}}</ref> 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. [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*'''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. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 16:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|1=Yep, more bludgeoning. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)|bg=LightGrey}}
*: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...
*:<ref name="Hansard">{{cite web |title=UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW—PEEL CLUB |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1840/mar/17/university-of-glasgow-peel-club#S3V0052P0_18400317_HOC_19 |access-date=2024-08-15 |work=Hansard}}</ref> For the national controversy about the peel club, brought to parliament. 
*:<ref name="PCProceedings">{{Cite book |title=Proceedings of The Peel Club, University of Glasgow |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Peel_Club_University/bgEF22AHBjUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+peel+club&printsec=frontcover |access-date=2024-08-26 |publisher=Google Books}}</ref> Formation of the club and its full name written correctly.
*:<ref name="GUCA">{{cite web |title=History of the Glasgow University Conservative Association (Archived) |url=https://archive.ph/20120712145849/http://guca.greensdiary.co.uk/beta/history/ |access-date=2024-08-25 |website=archive.ph}}</ref> 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?! [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 01:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*'''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. [[User:Paul W|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.) [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 19:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|1=Ctrl+v getting a workout here. Bludgeoning. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)|bg=LightGrey}}
*:@[[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] the sources you must have not seen: 
*:<ref name="Hansard">{{cite web |title=UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW—PEEL CLUB |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1840/mar/17/university-of-glasgow-peel-club#S3V0052P0_18400317_HOC_19 |access-date=2024-08-15 |work=Hansard}}</ref> This is a direct link to the UK Parliament session on the national controversy regarding the peel club. Literally the highest authority. I'm flummoxed. 
*:<ref name="GUCA">{{cite web |title=History of the Glasgow University Conservative Association (Archived) |url=https://archive.ph/20120712145849/http://guca.greensdiary.co.uk/beta/history/ |access-date=2024-08-25 |website=archive.ph}}</ref>
*:<ref name="PCProceedings">{{Cite book |title=Proceedings of The Peel Club, University of Glasgow |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Peel_Club_University/bgEF22AHBjUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+peel+club&printsec=frontcover |access-date=2024-08-26 |publisher=Google Books}}</ref> [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 00:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*'''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 [[WP:BLUDGEON|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. [[User:SmittenGalaxy|<span style="font-weight:bold; color:#663399; text-shadow:3px 3px 5px #dda0dd">SmittenGalaxy</span>]] <span style="font-weight:bold">&#124;</span> [[User_talk:SmittenGalaxy|<span style="font-style:italic; color:#000080">talk!</span>]] 21:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|1=Is there an echo in here? [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)|bg=LightGrey}}
*:Sources: 
*:<ref name="PCProceedings">{{Cite book |title=Proceedings of The Peel Club, University of Glasgow |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Peel_Club_University/bgEF22AHBjUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+peel+club&printsec=frontcover |access-date=2024-08-26 |publisher=Google Books}}</ref>
*:<ref name="Hansard">{{cite web |title=UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW—PEEL CLUB |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1840/mar/17/university-of-glasgow-peel-club#S3V0052P0_18400317_HOC_19 |access-date=2024-08-15 |work=Hansard}}</ref>
*:<ref name="GUCA">{{cite web |title=History of the Glasgow University Conservative Association (Archived) |url=https://archive.ph/20120712145849/http://guca.greensdiary.co.uk/beta/history/ |access-date=2024-08-25 |website=archive.ph}}</ref> [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 00:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
{{collapse bottom}}

:'''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. [[User:Themuffinman96|Themuffinman96]] ([[User talk:Themuffinman96|talk]]) 21:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|1=For something a little different, collapsing due to personal attacks and casting of aspersions. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)|bg=LightGrey}}
::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. [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 22:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

*'''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? {{U|SmittenGalaxy}}, {{U|Dclemens1971}}, {{U|SportingFlyer}}, {{U|Enos733}}, {{U|Alalch E.}}, {{U|Hobit}} [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 00:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 01:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:SmittenGalaxy|<span style="font-weight:bold; color:#663399; text-shadow:3px 3px 5px #dda0dd">SmittenGalaxy</span>]] <span style="font-weight:bold">&#124;</span> [[User_talk:SmittenGalaxy|<span style="font-style:italic; color:#000080">talk!</span>]] 01:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 05:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*: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. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 10:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*:* 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 [https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1840/mar/17/university-of-glasgow-peel-club 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. -
*:[[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*I could see reopening this for another week if the improvements to the article had gone totally unnoticed at the afd (such as happened [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 11#Michael Byron (composer)|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. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 11:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

{{collapse top|1=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 {{t1|collapse top}} to be consistent with all the other bludgeoning that occurred during this two hour session. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)|bg=LightGrey}}
: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). [[User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant]] ([[User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk]]) 22:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

*'''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. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Seconding this; they're just bludgeoning the process in almost the exact same way they were doing on the original AfD. [[User:SmittenGalaxy|<span style="font-weight:bold; color:#663399; text-shadow:3px 3px 5px #dda0dd">SmittenGalaxy</span>]] <span style="font-weight:bold">&#124;</span> [[User_talk:SmittenGalaxy|<span style="font-style:italic; color:#000080">talk!</span>]] 01:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*::I've restored this debate to being an effective process through very liberal use of {{t1|collapse top}} to remove the disruptive bludgeoning — [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_August_26&oldid=1242842184 before] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_August_26&oldid=1242859346 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). [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] ([[User talk:Martinp|talk]]) 16:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:Paul W|Paul W]] ([[User talk:Paul W|talk]]) 09:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::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 {{u|Hellenistic accountant}} about this on their talk page ([[Special:PermanentLink/1243978708#September 2024|permalink]]). —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 12:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Doczilla|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">Doczilla</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Doczilla|<small>''Ohhhhhh, no!''</small>]]</sub> 21:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::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. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] - fair shout. I'm going to start doing this too from now on, as clearly editors can't be trusted to treat {{t1|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. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Policy has allowed it [[Special:Permalink/55064097#Uses|since 2006]], and has instructed you to - in almost identical wording to [[WP:PPDRV|the current version]] - [[Special:Permalink/198391645#"History only" review|since 2008]].  You don't need ''this'' as an example. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 06:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Doczilla|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">Doczilla</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Doczilla|<small>''Ohhhhhh, no!''</small>]]</sub> 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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.{{pb}}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 [[WP:DP#Deletion review|paragraph 2 of the section above that]], and it's scarily wrong.) —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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). —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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). —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::[[User:Cryptic|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. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 01:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
* '''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. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Overturn to Redirect''' to [[Glasgow University Conservative Association]]. The merge has happened. The content is there. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 22:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''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 {{n}}. 2. Is a book on Peel Club proceedings written by the Peel Club/GUCA. It is neither independent nor secondary {{n}}. 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 {{n}}. 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) {{n}}. 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. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 20:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed mw-archivedtalk" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* <span class="anchor" id="Collective PAC"></span>'''[[:Collective PAC]]''' – The "delete" closure, as such, is endorsed. There is no consensus here about whether [[WP:NOQUORUM]] requires that the restoration request made here should be acted upon, and so I am not acting on it. This does not preclude, as always, the article being restored editorially, e.g. from the existing draft, if its editors are convinced that the draft now addresses the deficiencies on account of which the previous article was deleted. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Collective PAC|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collective PAC|article=}}
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. [[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]] ([[User talk:The Cunctator|talk]]) 20:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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. --[[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]] ([[User talk:The Cunctator|talk]]) 20:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
**Where, precisely, do you come up with "must be"? —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
**:I don't know how you interpret [[WP:NOQUORUM]]'s {{tq|few or no comments}}, but a single supporting !vote after a nomination is as few as it gets. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
**::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. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''<del>Restore</del>''' 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. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*:'''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. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*::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 [[WP:ITSNOTABLE|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. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''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."[[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 03:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 08:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*:*{{ping|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, {{green|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? <small>Sorry my formatting isn't great...</small>[[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 22:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''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.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 11:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 12:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*::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. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 13:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::[[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''. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::"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. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*: [[User talk:Alalch E.|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".) --[[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]] ([[User talk:The Cunctator|talk]]) 15:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ping|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. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 15:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::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. --[[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]] ([[User talk:The Cunctator|talk]]) 15:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::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. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Sorry, I meant no quorum (in addition to no consensus). --[[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]] ([[User talk:The Cunctator|talk]]) 15:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::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). —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 15:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::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 [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbcblk28-2017/nbcblk28-strategist-quentin-james-wants-build-black-political-power-n714751 this an article] about James or Collective PAC? It's certainly not a side reference to either. --[[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]] ([[User talk:The Cunctator|talk]]) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::The AfD nomination records your "keep !vote" thusly: {{tq|An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--[https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4520250-pacs-to-announce-30m-commitment-to-mobilizing-minority-voters-biden/ 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.{{pb}}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. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Please see [[Draft:Quentin James]]. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Looks good to me! --[[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]] ([[User talk:The Cunctator|talk]]) 14:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::I'm sorry, {{u|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 {{u|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. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 16:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 16:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
**I believe soft deletion ''is'' an option for the closer to pursue.  It's very much listed as one of the 4 options for the closer in [[WP:NOQUORUM]].  But there are other options too. We all seem to think that guideline says different things, it may require a discussion and maybe a rewrite... [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
**:Simply being mentioned as an option in WP:NOQUORUM does not mean that option is permanently available. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 02:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' (involved): I was the sole delete !vote in the discussion other than the nom. I agree with @[[User:OwenX|OwenX]] that soft deletion is ''one option'' under NOQUORUM (as confirmed by this [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 210#RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations|recent RfC]]), but, as @[[User:Hobit|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 @[[User:Alalch E.|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. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 03:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*: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 {{tqq|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]]. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 10:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*::Thanks @[[User:Alalch E.|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. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''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. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''[[User:Frank Anchor|<span style="color: #FF8200;">Frank</span>]] [[User talk:Frank Anchor|<span style="color: #58595B;">Anchor</span>]]'''</span> 14:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*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. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 01:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree with that. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 12:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}