Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 August 26

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 However, my intention was to contribute valuable historical content on a topic I am particularly knowledgeable about. 4.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)

• 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)
• Temp undelete for review, please. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Jclemens — done. 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 before and after for reference. 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. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • Where, precisely, do you come up with "must be"? —Cryptic 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

    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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  "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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  Sorry, I meant no quorum (in addition to no consensus). --The Cunctator (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)