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 However, my intention was to contribute valuable historical content on a topic I am particularly knowledgeable about.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]
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]
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 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...
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]
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...
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. SportingFlyerT·C16:51, 27 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.
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]
[1] 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.
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]
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.
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., HobitJclemens (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. SportingFlyerT·C05:13, 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. -
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. —Cryptic11:58, 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]
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]
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]
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. —Cryptic11:43, 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. —Cryptic11:43, 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]
"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]
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]
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. SportingFlyerT·C16:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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... Hobit (talk) 21:52, 28 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]
