Closer didn't evaluate arguments, just counted votes. This was an article about a book about how a mother raised an autistic boy that was accepted to college at the age of 11. The book was reviewed by CBC Radio, Kirkus Reviews, The Spectator, The Times (of London), The Toronto Star, and The Washington Post, and the boy's story prominently mentioning the book was discussed by indepth stories by the BBC News, The Globe and Mail, and USA Today, some of the most respected sources of three countries. The policy and guideline arguments for keeping were the obvious, that the given reviews were from the gold standard of mainstream media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, so the book clearly met Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (Books). Arguments for deletion were that the reviews - all the reviews - didn't investigate the book's content enough, so weren't actually reliable sources, and didn't actually take note of the book. The arguments for deletion didn't present any reliable sources for the reviews being incorrect, just the Wikipedians' opinions. So basically the argument for deletion was that we anonymous amateur Wikipedia editors were not only more expert at reviewing a book than the professional book reviewers (such as Maureen Corrigan) of the most respected newspapers and broadcast networks of three countries, but that these reviews were so flawed that they didn't even deserve mention of any kind, so therefore there were no reliable sources to write our article from. There were no policy or guideline reasons for this incredible proposal, just link-dropping WP:FRINGE, because the way the mother raised her kid isn't the way autism experts recommended ... but WP:FRINGE doesn't actually say anything about not mentioning the world's best book reviews because we consider them not thorough enough. Instead it specifically says "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." ... and this isn't even an article about the mom's theories of childraising, this is an article about her clearly notable book. The book could be a complete hoax, and still be notable as a book.
Examples of how irretrievably flawed the book reviews were, were that one said that the boy was studying quantum physics at a college that (according to the Wikipedian and a broken link) didn't offer quantum physics, and that a physicist said that a theory that the boy was working on could eventually gain him a Nobel prize, which the Wikipedian (no sources offered) thought must be incorrect. Another quoted the book cover that the boy had a higher IQ than Einstein which the Wikipedian questioned (again without sources). Even if the criticisms are correct, this is like the joke about the chicken who plays checkers, and his owner who says "Oh, he's not so special, I can beat him two times out of three!". The point isn't which branch of physics he studies or whether his theories are enough to gain a Nobel or whether Einstein's IQ was either relevant or ever measured, the point is that the mom raised an autistic boy who not only gets into college at all, but at the age of 11, and not only works on groundbreaking physics theories at all (whether or not they're correct, mind, plenty of physicists work on theories that turn out incorrect) but at the age of 13. Clearly some of the world's most important English language media found the book about this notable enough to write reviews and make shows about, and we're considering nitpicking details about the reviews sufficient to call the book not notable at all? That's nowhere in our policies and guidelines. The AFD closer looked at the fact that delete opinions and keep opinions both mentioned blue WP: links, without looking at what the links actually say or how they apply, then counted votes. Please overturn. --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Policy arguments were made and evaluated by the closing administrator. Also there was a supermajority of delete votes. The purpose of deletion review is not to hash out the arguments of the AfD a second time, which the above tl;dr clearly intends to do. In addition, the above misrepresents the arguments that were made in the AfD, thus prejudicing the process from the outset. For example, I asserted at the AfD that, contrary to a supposedly reliable source, IUPUI does not offer a "Masters degree in quantum physics". That's simply not a degree the institution offers, and it was an easy proxy for the reliability of a particular source. But that has been falsely presented in the above as asserting that the institution does not offer courses in quantum physics, which was a point that no one in that discussion made. The basic criterion here is that if a topic hasn't received coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, then Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. The reviews that were found failed that basic test, all including the same overblown hype that led to the deletion of the original Jacob Barnett article. Finally, the above tl;dr repeatedly disparages Wikipedians using their editorial insight. But indeed, the whole point is that without reliable sources we poor Wikipedians are unable to say anything about non-existent physical theories, children whose IQs are supposedly higher than Einstein, and, for that matter, WP:FRINGE self-help books on the treatment of autism. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nom claims that "Endorser didn't evaluate arguments" but in fact the endorser said "I find the delete arguments more persuasive" - an evaluation was made. The super-majority is a significant consensus signal on what is a subjective matter where both sides believe they are right, it's not merely "counting votes" which is more of an issue when closer in number and no other rationale given. Everything else by nom is rehashing the AfD debates, only point out the nom is focused on WP:NOTE and not other issues that came up. -- GreenC16:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
endorse There's been a great deal of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but there were arguments made both as to the value of the reviews used as sources, and the BLP problems presented by the subject. The closer evidently found them persuasive. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The original closing decision was sound, based on closer's understanding of the delete arguments that 1) the available "sources do not pass muster", and 2) the article was BLP evasion and an attempt to recreate a previously deleted article. Reasons offered here to overturn are rehashes of the AfD discussion. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is no reason to suspect that any other decision will result. We have the ability to interpret by consensus WP rules with respect to any particular article, and we cannot avoid interpretation when there is disagreement, or when rules conflict. This discussion set a particular high standard for "Reliable". The community has implicitly used various standards for various types of articles as shown by the thousands of AfD decisions. Sometimes this is in practice inconsistent, but we consistently use higher standards for articles which involve matters like promotionalism or BLP, as here. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
Endorse. Closer evaluated the discussion accurately. On the delete side there are BLP evasion concerns and a superior count. On the keep side refs that have been robustly rejected. Suggest early close. Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as an AfD participant). The first sentence of the DRV is wrong — unlike many, the close provided a detailed rationale that clearly evaluated the strengths of the arguments rather than just counting votes — and the rest appears to be relitigating the AfD rather than finding flaws with the close. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as delete. Closer took adequate account of the issues raised. Please stop persecuting Barnett by subjecting him to publicity that is only going to do him harm. The best thing for him is to be allowed to continue his studies free of external distraction. I wish him all good fortune in this. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment While I continue to find it astonishing that Wikipedia will have nothing to say about a book that was covered by so many sources, it seems to me that those who were upset by the extent of the coverage are here in sufficient strength to ensure that if their position is overturned, they will be able to re-write the article to reflect their take on its subject, like they did at Jacob Barnett. In such circumstances, despite the complete lack of media support for the deletionists' take, I do not see that any overturn ruling will be helpful. Viewfinder (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
endorse with some trepidation OK, first of all, the book is discussed in a lot of sources. That said, I have yet to see a decent book review. None of the reviews linked above really are that other than maybe The Toronto Star which at least actually discusses the book in the 3rd-to-last paragraph. So claims that the reviews aren't really book reviews aren't crazy. But the book clearly meets WP:N--there is no way to claim otherwise given all the sources. So in order to delete, we need either some on-point policy/guideline which overrides WP:N (like BLP1E, etc.) which I don't think exists for this case, or we need WP:IAR. My general sense of using IAR in a case like this is that it needs both a rational argument and a strong !vote count. We have the second one for sure. The rational argument is there too if you squint. I think the basis for the IAR is that we just can't write a reasonable/neutral article about the book with the sources we have. I think that's true, but not generally a reason to delete. But per WP:IAR sometimes we don't follow our own rules. I think the ideal thing would be to have a stub of an article that states the facts and very basics of the books with links to the sources. But that really isn't on the menu of options. That said, I'm uncomfortable with the !votes to delete as my sense (correct or not) is that some people just really have issues with the people involved. That's not an ideal audience for an AfD discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, largely per User:GreenC. We have a largely subjective question that was being considered, and a supermajority in favour of a particular outcome on that. The closing admin did a good job in sorting through all that verbiage and gving a concise assessment of the issues raised and how they came to their decision. Lankiveil(speak to me)03:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse closure. While there was a lot of back and forth, and strong policy arguments on both sides, the closer's ultimate verdict was reasonable and impartial. Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The very first statement in the request ("Closer didn't evaluate arguments, just counted votes.") isn't even true, and this untruth is reiterated later in the request. I think that an apology to the closing admin is in order for that! As for the rest? Pffft! Wikipedia is not obliged to bend over backwards, wikilawyering itself into a knot, all to justify an article that has been the subject of persistent low level attempts to spam it into the encyclopaedia in various forms. The whole thing reeks of vanity and possibly even the exploitation of a vulnerable individual and I entirely agree with Xxanthippe's comment above concerning the risk of harm. If the author wants publicity then they can pay for billboards. For now, we want no part of it. Maybe the subject (by unsubtle proxy) of this deleted article will become a notable scientist in the future. If that happens, we will no doubt have an article about him then and I'd certainly be interested to read it at that appropriate time. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Well, no, because consensus isn't just a matter of who votes keep and who votes delete. While I can understand why people who look at AfD would see it that way, the arguments matter as well. In this case, the first IP has not explained how or why the article should be kept, you and the second IP have argued that the sources on the article do exist but RoySmith claimed that the sources were not adequate (same claim as the nominator did) and that was not contested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the Keep arguments here were very weak, several accused the nominator of vandalism (which the nomination isn't), and aside from that the only real argument was the existence of sources, which doesn't address the concern that the subject doesn't have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. A couple of people mentioned "government sources", this appears to refer to [1], which is the company's registration with the UK government and is meaningless for determining notability (every registered company in the UK has one of those). Hut 8.511:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Delete votes were based on policy; keep votes were not (even ignoring the potential socking concerns). Taking those things into account rather than merely counting it to a 2-2 draw is what closing admins are supposed to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the only acceptable decision under the circumstances, but I would maybe gently suggest to User:MBisanz that it might be a good idea to include a little explanatory note when closing discussions like this where the outcome is not obvious from a pure headcount. A few words or a sentence would have done here. Lankiveil(speak to me)03:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse while the votes were 3-3, the administrator's actions are justified in not finding a consensus as the keep votes didn't address notability concerns, plus AfDs are not a vote. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse numerically this was a no consensus but the Delete arguments were much stronger than the Keep arguments, which did not address the notability concerns. Instead they focused on the importance of the speakers and the fact that we have articles on some other student organisations, neither of which is particularly relevant. The closing admin is expected to downweight comments which use weaker arguments, see WP:DGFA. Incidentally the OP's link doesn't work. Hut 8.511:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to ask for the restoration of the Stéphane Custot page because it seems to me that the subject is admissible by the Wikipedia Community.
In fact, the links below justify his notoriety and are spaced out amongst themselves by at least two years, just as your criteria system stipulates.
Links to justify that Stephane Custot is one of the founders of the PAD (Pavillon des arts et du design - a Contemporary Art fair) with Patrick Perrin :
Stéphane Custot was deleted because it was a copyright violation and advertisement, and therefore cannot be restored. You are welcome to create a neutral article about him, that does not require permission or a review here. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Several !voters reasoned that the page should be deleted or redirected and the idea of a protected redirect was specifically floated. Noting the page is admin-only protected (why? – another question), my request to create this redirect was followed by a curt "no – Plenty of people had their say", not an explanation that makes sense to me. I see no objections to a redirect in the AfD. We should follow the specific instructions at BLP1E: "In such cases [as this], it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article" in this case Oru Adaar Love. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usually better, not always. The cause of admin protection should be obvious to anyone who has been here more than a couple of months. As for my reply at the talk page, well, WP:CONSENSUS, which also should be obvious to anyone who has been here for any length of time. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin comment: The consensus for "Delete" in the lively AfD was pretty overwhelming, especially if one disregards the "Keep" votes from accounts that were created purely for the purpose. I make it 28 Delete and 11 Keep. Two people proposed making the article a redirect, while several (at least three) said Delete and Salt, with the argument "If the article is deleted due to the current hype on this there is a chance that this will be recreated so I recommend salting this too". I referred to that in my close at the top of the AfD. I'm sorry nobody, including myself, put an explanatory link to WP:SALT, because probably not everybody knows that it means to admin-only creation-protect. (From "salting the earth", so that nothing may grow there.) If greater interest had been expressed in the AfD in creating a redirect, protected or not, I wouldn't have had any problem with that, and in case greater interest is expressed here on this board, then by all means let's have a redirect. As for your request on Talk:Priya Prakash Varrier to create a redirect, User:Bri, I suppose your implication above that the closing and protecting admin (me) replied 'curtly' to it was accidental. I didn't reply at all, because I didn't see it. If you had either pinged me or come to my page, I would have explained as best I could. Now I've done it here instead. Bishonen | talk20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not seeing much of an argument against a protected redirect in that AfD. Although there were far more Delete !votes than Redirect only one (Nyttend) expressed any sort of explicit opposition to redirecting. I suggest we grant the request to have a protected redirect, I don't see a problem with it and it would be in line with usual practice. Hut 8.521:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't care for it. Her "notability" comprises 10 seconds in a video. Ridiculous even by BLP1E standards and, as I've already said above, usually is not always. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She's discussed in the target article, it's a plausible search term, and she isn't covered anywhere else on Wikipedia. That would normally be good grounds for a redirect. Sure, "usually" doesn't mean "always", but nobody's given any actual reason as to why it isn't appropriate here. The notability of the subject has nothing to do with whether a redirect is a good idea. Hut 8.522:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously people are searching for her as evidenced by the Feb 17 Top 25 report. It's just spiteful and silly not to allow a redirect. Even as one who has "some" animosity towards PR directed at this project, I'm not getting this at all. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are still searching for her - it is only a week since the event, which I think is still in the news because of the PR exercise. But she is not notable and notability is not inherited. Don't let's fan these flames because there is no end to it with Indian films, in particular. Multiple languages coupled with relatively poor penetration of other forms of media makes for a massive industry and immense scope for creep, and we cannot even keep on top of what we have. As an example of the potential here, someone got a fair amount of BLP1E coverage for filing a ridiculous (as in "it will never become a legal charge") First Information Report regarding the song which was featured in the video trailer. Such filings are a fairly common occurrence, people do add them to the articles about the films, and so are we going to allow redirected articles for all of the caste/religious extremists who see an opportunity? What about every cinematographer for every film where the film makes the news and therefore their name is in the lights by association, too? The person who has wide exposure simply for being connected with doing Varrier's make-up, etc? I know some of these sound ridiculously extreme but we get this sort of trivialisation going on far too much as it is and we have far too few people to deal with it. - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion of a valid search term with invalid reasoning (G8 - "redirect to self" which does not make sense as his name is clearly listed on the article. I created the redirect because i was reading an article about him and his connection to that unfortunate film series (Bumfights) and seen he had no article so i created a redirect, searching his name plus the article's title clearly lays out why i think a redirect is needed. GuzzyG (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
BrowseAloud – I'm closing this early and sending the article for relisting at AFD so a proper discussion on the notability of the subject can be had. The correct question that should had been posed and answered by this DRV should probably had been whether to allow recreation or not. What we actually have are comments arguing whether the original AFD closure was correct or not - a question that's not actually being asked, objections that a Google News search link was provided instead of specific selected result listed on this page despite everyone here being perfectly capable to follow a link, and people digging their heels into whatever position they held because of their personal opinion of the nominator instead of arguing the notability of the subject on merits. This discussion wasn't helped by its appearance on Wikipedia Weekly, Ed undeletion and draftification while the DRV was open, or Andy move of the reworked article back to mainspace. Since it has actually been undeleted already, is in mainspace, and no admin seems likely to re-delete the article pending the outcome of this discussion, the discussion is now moot and should move on to another (now) more appropriate venue. – KTC (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comment Andy, as the deleting admin (Sandstein) asked, correctly, and which you chose to ignore and forum shop, please provide some actual evidence that there are new sources meeting WP:N / WP:RS, rather than a google search. Fish+Karate14:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A google search is not "actual evidence". You've been asked twice now to provide evidence of reliable sources that meet the basic standards for notability, and don't seem to feel like doing that. Therefore, your assertion that the subject's notability has increased is baseless. Endorse close unless the requestor feels like actually providing some evidence he's been asked for that demonstrates the subject's notability has significantly increased. Fish+Karate15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see Andy has unilaterally decided to ignore this DRV and just move the draft to mainspace himself. Obviously nothing will get done about that, because he is immune from the rules everyone else is expected to abide by. I still endorse the close and add keep deleted, because the additional references provided in the new AFD are not really about BrowseAloud; the fact BrowseAloud was one of many programs that has been hacked by cryptominers is an incidental detail. Fish+Karate10:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- The close accurately reflected the discussion. Linking to Google isn't helpful, and neither is bitching about the closing admin for saying so. ReykYO!14:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that the close (which occurred in November 2017) was improper, at the time, but that, as I said above: "There has been a lot of significant press coverage in the last few days". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the news items are relating to its use as a vector in recent cryptocurrency malware, at best an updating of the article would include 'used in 2017 to mine bitcoins'. I am unconvinced that's any indication of notability given the widespread issues with a variety of software in the last year. In short, no reason to overturn. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Andy has clearly demonstrated that there are abundant reliable sources to support an article on this topic. If you are technologically literate enough to edit Wikipedia, then certainly you are technologically literate enough to realize that a Google News search is frequently used as a tool by Wikipedia editors to find RS-compliant sources. Don't be so obstinate that you can't admit that he has plenty of RS-compliant sources. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and put in userspace, the article was 12 years old when it was deleted as not notable, in that discussion the third since it was created there was the nominator, one person who in previous nomination had implied a COI with the supply of competitor products and person saying delete. Not exactly the most comprehensive of discussions but there was no counter argument on notability. Andy has come in good faith to seek an opportunity to restore an article and improve with the belief he has sufficient sources to address notability. With the google search Andy has provided I see Government both local and national in the UK, I see Bloomberg & CNBC US, I see one African source and 2 New Zealand sources. Along with those more general I see a few industry sources thats just in the first 3 pages from 2000 plus hits through Google News. Alternative if people are concerned about earlier versions then Andy should given the ok to be bold and start from scratch. Gnangarra16:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have taken the liberty to open the top six links in in the search results provided by Pigsonthewing, and placed them, in the order that Google showed them to me, on the closing admin's talkpage within neat 'cite news' templates, at the relevant discussion section. As I said on that page: I make no claim to accuracy or quality of these references. I have no stake in the status of this article as deleted or not. I do not see why the shift in format is necessary to debate the [potential] newfound-Notability - since it's literally the exact same 6 news articles we're referring to. It's just that before they were in a google-search result and now they're in six separate mediawiki templates in the same order. Wittylama17:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Without going as far as to recommend overturning the original AfD closure) Restore per Gamaliel - that Andy insisted on linking to a Google News search instead of directly linking to sources when asked to was an exercise in pointless intractability, but that doesn't mean that the Google News search in question was worthless as Sandstein obstinately tried to assert. There exists SIGCOV in RS'es more recent than the AfD, meaning the article can be restored and expanded (and if necessary, re-AfD'ed to evaluate the article subject with the new coverage). (Note, I was made aware of this DRV by a public FB post by Andy) Ben · Salvidrim!✉17:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the article has already been undeleted, draftspaced, mainspaced, and improved, I strongly recommend quick closing this DRV, NPASR at AfD with the new sources if someone wants to. Ben · Salvidrim!✉22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse entirely valid deletion, undelete to Draft for cleanup, but given past promotional editing it definitely needs independent review before going back to mainspace. Most past revisions I've checked are pure PR. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using a smiley as a signature is no excuse for not bothering to read the DRV request, and why it's based on reasons which have only been reported since the AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the new article and I'm not changing my vote, the company isn't becoming notable because it is involved in a news event not of its own making. 80% of the article is just that news event and incidental to the program itself. Szzuk (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD close looks fine and the original version was very badly sourced. (Excluding dead links we have a UK local newspaper, which is usually terrible, a newsgroup post and a page which doesn't appear to mention the subject.) I'm happy for it to stay in draftspace so it can be fixed up though. Hut 8.519:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both the deletion and the return to draftspace. If it's fixable, great. It can go to mainspace once the sources that supposedly exist are actually put into the article. Repeatedly handwaving at references doesn't help, citing them does. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and delete , not return to draft; the involvement as target for a possibly notable attack might or might not pass NOT NEWS, but still would not justify an article on the company as such. . In addition, At 20:24, on Feb 29 Pigsonthewing moved the draft article to mainspace [2] in the course of this discussion. I am not one who considers formal procedure sacrosanct, but I do not consider that a good faith response to this XfD. ( DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The nominator would have been better advised to follow typical procedure - provide refs, ask for opinion and await result. Szzuk (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As closing admin (who wasn't notified about this DRV), I maintain the view that the AfD was properly closed with a "delete" outcome. As I said on my talk page, the recent news about this software being hacked doesn't do much for its notability, because the news was about the hack, not the software. This matter should rather be covered in the article(s) about the hackers and/or the cryptocurrency. The undeletion was moreover out of process. Both the draft and the recreation should therefore be re-deleted. Sandstein 11:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and salt. There's enough of a discussion at the (2nd nomination) that it wouldn't have needed a relist or a "no consensus". And now that it's been expanded, all that can be presented is news reports: primary sources by people who aren't experts in the field and who do not have a reputation for sufficient fact-checking and accuracy. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Cherise Haugen – No Consensus. This is going to be an unsatisfying close all around, but here goes.
First, everybody, please be WP:CIVIL. I read all three AfDs in question, and was dismayed to see language in not just this DRV, but also in some of the AfDs which is inappropriate for a collaborative project. If you participated in any of these discussions and used language which you would be embarrassed to use in front of your grandmother, consider yourself WP:TROUTed.
Next, I don't see any meeting of minds here at all, so NC. Which means (at least for now, see below) the delete outcome from the AfD stands.
However, I am persuaded that DGG and NewYorkActuary are on the right track. The three AfDs in question really were all the same situation. It makes no sense for two of them to have one result and the third to have another. I strongly recommend that NewYorkActuary's suggestion be put into action. Start an WP:RFC on the topic and come to some agreement on which pageants are notable. Then, once that's figured out, if that is in conflict with my decision there, then by all means void this DRV, and overturn the AfD. Or, if the RFC goes the other way, overturn the other two.
I did a little analysis on the three AfD's. I know we're not supposed to be counting votes, but I did just that (raw data here and please don't nitpick about how I interpreted redirects, etc). The take-home story here is that of the people who participated in all three of the AfD's, every single one of them !voted the same way in all three. Which says to me this wasn't an analysis of each one, but rather WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that's not what AfD is about. – -- RoySmith(talk)16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There were three AFDs for Miss Teen USA titleholders running at the same time all closed within about 24 hours. From what I can see, the three titleholders are notable for the same thing, referencing levels are similar. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Brown (2nd nomination) closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janel Bishop initially closed as no consensus but following discussion with the closing admin, has been revised to keep as well. Whilst I understand AFD is not a headcount, the Cherise Haugen had 9 keep votes, 6 delete votes (7 with the nomination) and 1 for redirect. It appears to me that this should have been a straightforward relist or no consensus close. I have tried discussing with the closing admin but have got nowhere. Their BIO1E concerns are irrelevant because this is not a single event - winning a state title, a few months making appearances as a state titleholder, winning Miss Teen USA, a year as the reigning Miss Teen USA titleholder, competing at Miss USA etc. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, obviously. It is absolutely correct that AfD is not a headcount. The BLP1E concerns were never really addressed. Even if we were to consider the numbers at a no consensus, it is longstanding practice that a nomination made for BLP reasons may be closed as a delete in such an instance. In this case, many of the "keep" arguments simply repeated that the individual participated in the very event that was the root of the concern. Insofar as any other discussions, while they are largely irrelevant, the concerns were much more directly addressed in them, so it does not surprise me to see their results different. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion was split. It's not clear that winning the Illinois award, then the national one, then serving in the role of the winner can be viewed as "one event". I'd say discussion on that issue was pretty split. Can we get a temp undelete of the article? I'd like to see the state of the sources and over what time period those sources were published. Hobit (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Delete any subsequent coverage either is a direct result of the 1Event (an article printed a week after the win on how the hoetown girl won) or is very incidental (Miss Wherever mentioned as appearing at the Santa Claus parade). That includes showing up to crown the next Miss Whereever where she has a 30 second role and is often mentioned incidently in coverage as being the predecessor. People noticed for WP:1E often get mentioned later because of the 1E and may be interviewed about the event even years later, but it's still all because of the 1E. Also, being named Miss Wherever for a year is arguably a one year long event. Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don’t care if I get blocked at this point, I am sick to death of Legacypac’s hounding behaviour - well I don’t know or care if it’s within WP:HOUND but yhat’s What if feels like to me, following me around wiki targeting articles I have edited, engaging in unnecessary disrespect with regard to BLP and has completely slapped me of my will to be involved in this project. He can fuck off as far as I care. I have been involved in Wiki since 2006 and tbh I am completely over it now. So to hell with him for making me feel like that. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade is right, PageantUpdater. Legacypac does indeed appear to be following around articles about pageants, seeking to smite them as the wastes of Wiki space (s)he feels them to be. I am not sure what's motivating that behavior, but you need to keep a calm hear about this. Not everyone is going to love this topic as much as you do. I am not as much of a fan of the topic, but Wikipedia needs people with all sorts of interests - the more varied, the better. Without imparting motives as to why Legacypac takes the abrasively deletionist point of view that they do, I will say that there is very little profit in allowing yourself to be victimized by whatever is going on inside that user.
Please - please - get a WP:MENTOR; I was lucky enough to have a parent who had been a long-time contributor on Wikipedia, but there is still a ton of stuff (technically-speaking) that I do not know how to do with articles, moves, and how to try and bullet-proof articles from deletionists and revisionists. I suggested that Legacypac seek mentoring, but that was more for behavioral issues. That the user has chosen to ignore that suggestion lets me know that they pretty much have a shorter shelf life than the typical user. Don't be like that.
Working with a mentor is a smart, good angel on your shoulder that you can get advice from in situations both frustrating and/or complex. I cannot recommend it enough; it only has up sides and no down sides. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This is a pattern I've seen played out many times previously. Someone comes along trying to uphold some semblance of minimal sourcing standards for BLPs in a specific subject area. Then enthusiasts of that subject area scream abuse at them in one breath, and in the next breath cry about how hard done by the enthusiasts are. It is not helpful. ReykYO!10:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And comments like yours are a pattern I've seen too. I've spent literally hundreds of hours over more than a decade adding references to articles, I've set up a Newspapers.com account through Wikipedia solely for that purpose, and yet the deletionists and pageant-haters keep wanting to frame me as the enemy. To hell with all of you. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- This seems like a reasonable close to me. Numerically the votes were split, but clearly the strength of argument favoured deletion. ReykYO!12:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is a pageant for a certain age group in one country, so is not definitively a major competition; therefore the comments that "she's notable because she's won this" do not address her notability. To compare, our notability guidelines for sport are often considered to be overly inclusionist, but we generally don't have articles for sportspeople who have won Junior titles (or similar) unless they pass GNG in other ways (indeed, we sometimes don't even have articles for the events). If she had gone on to be noteworthy in other ways (taking part in international competitions or having an acting career that wasn't a single bit-part), then the conversation would be different. Black Kite (talk)12:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think those discussions were closed incorrectly, you'd have to talk with the closers of them. Otherwise, the only way if you think they still ought to be deleted would be to file a new AfD after some period of time, or to request review here. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My nominations in the pageant area are not targeting any particular editor, but specific problem areas. The pageant pages are very extensively wikilinked so it is very easy to identify a series of equally poorly ref'd non-notable pages. A review of my WP:MFD and User:Legacypac/CSD_log show I'm hardly pageant focused. User:PageantUpdater needs to get over his/her hostility and remove the hostile comments please. Spending hundreds of hours adding sources to pages that don't pass WP:N does not help the project. Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This outright deletion and not even leaving a redirect in certain fields/interests that people have worked on for years and that are clearly in national interest in their home country (the president of the united states owned one so clearly some historians are going to cover this subject for many decades) only leaves open the possibility of a competitor. Not every article needs a full length bio, "he/she won this national tournament" should be enough, it's enough to get you into a biographical dictionary. GuzzyG (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist all 3 The absurdity of these results shows the absurdity of our method of deciding on whether there should be an article. The importance of all 3 of these are on any rational basis very close to identical. We should either be keeping them all, deleting them all unless there is something of notability in their subsequent career. For someone teaching about WP, e these discussions would be very useful to show the hopelessly immature and unrealistic way it still make decisions. I personally have no interest whatsoever in these articles being in an encyclopedia , but I also have no great commitment to a need to remove them. What I do feel , is utter embarrassment by a conflict of results of this sort. Next time I start a general argument on eliminating the GNG, these will be a prime example. We would do much better to admit we have no way of handling this sort of situation, and if we do not want to adopt rational subject-related criteria for notability , we would do better to decide once and for all of them by tossing a coin or the electronic equivalent. We would even do better picking one representative one at random to keep. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I share DGG's concern about similarly-situated articles reaching dissimilar results. But re-listing is not going to be a good solution. Instead, there needs to be an RfC on the underlying question of whether becoming Miss Teen USA is a "well-known and significant award or honor" within the meaning of WP:ANYBIO. After thirty days of community discussion, we'll know the answer and that answer can then be applied to all of the similar articles, not just the three in question here. And in the meantime, restoring the status quo (i.e., "keeping" the article) is the appropriate action. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The closer provided no guidance as to the "delete" votes outweighed the "keep" votes until this DRV. There seems to be a big conflict here as to whether a teen pageant winner is notable for winning a national-level title, we're getting inconsistent results, and we're getting these sorts of articles AfD'd over and over again. I agree with a possible RfD suggestion as per NewYorkActuary. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For topics of borderline notability, we will often be inconsistent in our application of notability. That is more or less the definition of "borderline", and so I can't really say this AFD was incorrectly closed. But there is more than one way to present this information, and perhaps merging them all into a list of pageant winners (pointing to more detailed articles for the more notable ones) would make more sense spreading the information over a handful of stubs. —Kusma (t·c) 08:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For lists of people great care is needed. It is possible to read WP:LISTPEOPLE as saying that people may not be included in a list unless each individual is notable. The supposed exception to the notability requirement seems to be that the person is notable (sic). I have seen this line being argued very strictly even though it is part of the Manual of Style (where it does not belong at all) and WP:NOTABILITY takes the view that notability concerns the presence of articles and not their content. Thincat (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through WP:LISTPEOPLE, I read If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E. So a list of people notable only for winning some pageant seems fine, and merging single-event notable people into an article about the event may be best. —Kusma (t·c) 09:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. First, the closer's decision, against the expressed weight of opinion, and was not accompanied by an explanation. In comparable AFDs, most closers have reached contrary conclusions. The reliance here on BLP1E is particularly weak, since BLP1E is generally, both by consensus practice and the language of BLP1E itself, overridden by ANYBIO#1. Second, WP:OSE notes that, because Wikipedia is intended as a "comprehensive reference", In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. This is exactly such a case; this subject is now the only non-bluelinked name in the template of winners of the award. An encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Jeff Bezanson – I have reclosed as a redirect. Clearly when your closes keep getting reverted or objected to, the answer is to stop closing until you have more experience and understanding rather than carrying on closing. – SpartazHumbug!06:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
No consensus close by non admin on a thrice relisted afd, WP:BADNAC. 2 Delete !votes, 1 redirect, 2 keeps (1 by article creator, 1 by co founder in company subject is co founder of). Keeps do not address lack of in depth coverage of subject in RS. Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, wow, I just can't seem to stop doing this wrong, do I? I don't know how a lot of these closes have been so controversial (look at my talk page, literally the last 10 messages have involved AfDs), but carry on. Jdcomix (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It has already been relisted 3 times. I'm not sure if this is relist or overturn to delete, is there such a thing as overturn to delete? I'm not convinced I've seen that before. Julia the software language they have created is new and they are a high tech startup. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. I think the redirect/redirect proposed at the end of the discussion is probably the right outcome, but NC is a fair reading of consensus. endorse but I'd suggest a merge be tried on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Linda Weber – Snow Endorse. Closing this early due to an overwhelming consensus to endorse. While the closer might have done better to provide a more detailed explanation in their closing statement, there is unanimous agreement that the close was correct and relisting would have been pointless. – -- RoySmith(talk)21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The article was closed as no consensus with 5 keep votes and 5 delete votes. At first glance this would seem like a reasonable decision.Although I did not discuss this with the closing admin, someone else already did asking why the article was not relisted. USER:Northamerica1000 (the closing admin) gave the following response "Hi Marquardtika: I don't know, the discussion has already received a great deal of input from many users, and there really is no consensus for a particular result regarding the article. Discourse regarding the subject in the discussion has declined in recent days, and was mostly limited between two users, (Bearcat and Tomwsulcer), who are obviously in disagreement. Also of note is that per WP:RELIST, it states, "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." At this time, I feel that adequate, guideline-based commentary has transpired in the discussion, and that closing now as no consensus is appropriate."
I disagree, I would have relisted or the consensus actually could have been found to be delete. While Tomwsulcer was very vocal about his reasons to keep, at least two keep votes gave no reason at all to keep and should be discounted. Just simply saying keep as per someone else is not a legit vote in a controversial AfD. As per AfD rules "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." They didn't even state that it meets a policy. Instead their reason should be viewed as I want to keep this article regardless so whatever the other guy said must be a good reason. The least they could have done was try to strengthen the other person's keep argument. All the delete arguments on the other hand gave at least a one sentence explanation if not more. Rusf10 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of our principles is that basic notability standards are written in very general terms, rather than trying to preemptively address every possible permutation — we use expanded notability guidelines to clarify the more complex points, while leaving the basic summaries as general and brief as possible. I have worked on an expanded WP:NPOL guideline in the past, but it's not ready for prime time yet — but until one is actually in place, you need to be familiar with actual AFD practice in similar situations, rather than just arguing that the letter of a notability criterion is technically satisfied in a situation where AFD does have an established consensus about it already. The actual AFD practice on unelected candidates is that the inevitable coverage they receive in that context is not in and of itself assistive of getting them over WP:GNG, precisely because such coverage always exists but a reason why they're of worldwide encyclopedic interest that will last ten years into the future does not. So the mere existence of media coverage is not an automatic GNG pass for an unelected candidate in and of itself, precisely because every unelected candidate would always clear GNG if it were. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I also think there's a more substantial case for deletion than keeping in that discussion, and if I'd taken part I would have supported deletion, but I don't think the Keep arguments are bad enough for this to be closed as Delete. The Keep arguments didn't just assert that the article met notability guidelines, they presented evidence and arguments to support that. An argument which says "per X" isn't necessarily a problem as long as X made a valid/useful argument. Relisting isn't a substitute for no consensus, as the closing admin told you, and it's normally used when the debate didn't get much participation or when something important changed late in the discussion. This one had plenty of participation and nothing changed towards the end. Hut 8.515:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused by the close because I've only every seen congressional candidate bios (and quite a few of them) deleted per WP:POLOUTCOMES. User:Bearcat explained quite well why coverage of campaigns alone doesn't amount to WP:SIGCOV. Maybe the consensus is changing on that, although besides this close I haven't seen reason to believe so. I don't have any experience with deletion review, but I can renominate this page for deletion at some point and I would be very surprised if it is kept again because I've only ever seen similar pages deleted in the past. Marquardtika (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think consensus is changing, but I do think that there is a varying level of intensity across campaigns, which can lead to some discrepant outcomes. WP:POLOUTCOMES expresses consensus as candidates being "often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls." In many cases, the outcome depends on when or if someone requests a redirect at XfD rather than straight deletion. If a redirect is requested, then a redirect is the usual result. If there are active supporters of a campaign participating in the discussion, my sense is that there is more disagreement about the standard of review, and closers will give a no consensus close. If the campaign is stale, it is much more likely that a deletion occurs (for major party congressional candidates in the US). --Enos733 (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. She probably fails npol but passes gng. There was plenty of chat and its not a fair delete based upon a quick look at the refs - no point relisting. Discordant views on whether it is keep or delete here says its NC - good close. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, we do not relist continually in order to get a decisive result. A 'no consensus' was the correct call here, as opposed to kicking the can down the road for another week. Lankiveil(speak to me)01:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment- I see that 5-5 = no consensus, but what about the fact that some of the keep votes didn't provide any explanation to back up their vote?--Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The "no consensus" close was reasonable and within the closer's discretion, although I think the deletion arguments were much stronger in this case. It is often helpful, in some cases, like this one, if the closer explains some of their rational in closing the XfD. --Enos733 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Even as arguably the person who was most vocal in rebutting the keep arguments in this discussion, and whose mind has not actually been changed that deletion is the right course here, there were enough of them to rebut that a "no consensus" close was not unreasonable. Remember that "no consensus" means the article can be renominated for another discussion — but it was getting out of hand enough that starting a new one from scratch would be preferable to simply leaving the first one open for an additional period of time. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I'm really just asking for a relist on this one. It was closed as keep with three keep votes and two delete votes. It was relisted a week ago as "no consensus" so I don't see how the addition of one keep vote and one delete vote suddenly became a consensus to keep. I nominated this article for deletion because of the lack of reliable sources. The keep argument which was made by a now blocked user was based on an executive profile on Bloomberg's website being considered a reliable source. The consensus seems to not agree with that assertion, see submitted Executive Profiles on Bloomberg.com The discussion was closed by USER:Jdcomix who is not a admin. I did discuss with him/her on their talk page and if you take a look, you will see I am not the only person today to object to a non-admin AfD closure by Jdcomix. I would highly recommend that Jdcomix refrains from closing future discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I made a mistake, I was thinking about the wrong article when I was talking about the improvements, sorry! Will relist the discussion, you can get rid of the review now. Have a good night! Jdcomix (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Bernie Singles – No consensus, default to endorse. Consensus here is that the "delete" decision as such was correct based on the discussion. Opinions are however divided about the question of whether the discussion should be relisted to discuss new sources. In such circumstances, I as the closer can decide whether a relist is appropriate. I am of the view that it is not because the AfD had already been relisted twice and that it therefore unlikely that a third relist would attract enough attention to achieve a clearer consensus. As usual, the article can be recreated with the new sources if it is different enough to escape WP:G4, and then challenged again via AfD. – Sandstein 12:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Statement from closer: If we want to get numerical it was 4-2 (the nominator is a delete !vote), but since we don't close on numbers alone, that has much less influence in my close. The nom wasn't great and was from a new account. FloridaArmy's !vote didn't address why he thought the coverage met our lasting coverage point, which those supporting deletion addressed. The OP gave a "per X" !vote, which is a weak comment anyway, but the person they were "pering" also had a pretty weak keep rationale that didn't explain what they saw in the sourcing. It was an obvious delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse consensus is clear on strength of arguments, which cited policy and provided reasoning. There was one substantive keep vote,.and following delete votes provided reasonable counterpoint to any reasons it gave for keeping. --Jayron3204:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per below; the close was reasonable given the arguments at the time, but the new evidence below indicates this maybe should have gone the other way. --Jayron3204:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as well within discretion. Another relist would have been too many and, for me, no consensus would not have reflected the strength of arguments. As always in this type of situation, new evidence could support the article's recreation with improvements. Thincat (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but relist. The close was correct given the material the closer had to work with. It's certainly true that the two keep !votes were not well argued. Given just what's in the AfD, I almost certainly would have closed it the same way. So, that's the endorse part. But, we still ended up in the wrong place.
Looking at the article (which I've tempundeleted), I see more than enough high-quality sources. It's not just the reference count, but looking over the list, the vast majority of them seem like WP:RS, and some stand out as major mainsteam media (Huff Post, Business Insider, CNN, San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Enquirer). I didn't see any discussion in the AfD of these sources.
Some of the delete arguments were just plain incorrect (i.e. a lack of sources adequately covering this website). Other arguments contradict WP:NOTTEMPORARY. And the people arguing to keep simply didn't make their case very well. It may well be that after a better debate, we still decide that this isn't notable, but it deserves a better discussion than it got. Full disclosure: I voted for Bernie, but I don't use dating websites. -- RoySmith(talk)14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Thincat's request, some more good WP:RS, not listed in the article:
Relist The decision was probably correct given the consensus achieved in the discussion. That being said, I'm seeing clear coverage in reliable sources, both cited in the article and not cited yet, thanks to the excellent work of RoySmith. With that in mind, restoring and relisting it to account for the new information seems appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as I agree the admin read a small amount of consensus accurately, but more WP:RS have shown to exist since the deletion, a relist may be the best course of action. If not, I endorse.SportingFlyer (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the relist, but I can't endorse the close. At some point the sources in the article need to give the closer pause. And this was such a case IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to this (only thing I intend to respond to): no, they don't. The job of the closer is not to evaluate all the sourcing, but to evaluate the consensus of the discussion. It was pointed out in the discussion that the coverage was brief in the views of at least one of the participants, that made the notability claims even weaker as it was an appeal to a policy (WP:NOTNEWS) over a guideline (the GNG). Souring is not the only factor in a deletion, and when people make it the only factor, they are making weak arguments because they fail to consider the whole of our policies and guidelines. I'd oppose a relist because the material raised by RoySmith does not address this point, which was part of the consensus, to the point where if he would have included them, I would have still closed as delete, but with a longer explanation. We have to assume that the people who took part in the discussion and gave policy and guidelines based reasons assessed this after doing a BEFORE search. DRV is not AfD 2.0, and I think a relist over what was a valid consensus based on policies and guidelines after multiple relistings is harmful to Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the delete !votes. The nom and JPL both claimed WP:N is not met. Given that there are entire articles solely on the topic (GQ and USA Today for example) those !votes are just factually wrong. K.e.coffman's !vote of NOTNEWS is more debatable, but certainly not on-point. NOTNEWS is about events and to a lesser extent people. But even it it stretched to a website, it's really hard to argue that the coverage was "routine news reporting"--of a certainty most websites don't get the kind of coverage this did. And the argument that it's defunct and so not notable is just not policy-based at all. The !votes to keep are that it meets WP:N (which it clearly does given the number of high-quality sources with significant articles on the topic). It's really hard to reach a delete outcome by doing anything other than nose counting. Tony, I knew you were a deletionist-oriented admin when I !voted for you at your RfA. I think you're a really good admin for the most part. But just as I would have to be really careful closing discussions as keep if I were an admin (as I'm pretty inclusionist), I think you need to be a bit more considered in closing as delete. Call it some variation of confirmation bias. Sorry this is a bit negative, but I just feel you really did mess this one up and I'm worried that you can't see that. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per TonyBallioni; the admin seeing a discussion is faced with two choices: to close the discussion and assess the merits of the discussion as written, or to add their own opinion and allow discussion to continue. Basically, an admin has the choice to act as an admin or act as just another editor in any situation; if they are going to relinquish their admin role that's fine, but they cannot then also close the discussion; if the admin in question wants to assess the sources and then make an opinion on the strength of those sources, their role is to leave a vote and let someone else close it. If they intend to close the discussion, they should base it on the strength of the arguments. They are not required to do either; if they are uncomfortable with the discussion going one way and their belief that the actual article indicates the discussion is wrong, they can just do nothing. --Jayron3204:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you (Jayron) and I are largely on the same page. Passing on closing, !voting to keep or even !voting to delete (which would be an IAR !vote IMO, but there is nothing wrong with that) are all fair. But there wasn't the needed consensus for an IAR delete close as the !voting stood. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
2018 UPSL season – Overturn to Keep. This was one of those AfDs where the opinions of the discussants diverged from established practice. The closer went with established practice, but there's good agreement here that she should have gone with the flow of the discussion. Notability of all things sports-related (individual athletes, teams, leagues, seasons, etc) seems to be one of those areas which doesn't have reliable bright-line criteria, and policy evolves with each AfD.
The original deletion request was that the article fails WP:GNG. SixSeven (corrected by Trackinfo) Six (one person voted twice) (corrected by SportingFlyer users voted for keep with two for delete, with several keep votes providing links to sources showing notability. Closing admin used WP:NOTVOTE to delete the article and would not reconsider the action on her User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#2018_UPSL_season_AfD. I'm bringing this RfD because I believe the keep votes agreed the article followed WP:GNG (ongoing, diverse and independent media coverage of an ongoing event - league seasons are considered events per WP:FOOTY). SportingFlyer (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC) SportingFlyer (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment I urge reviewers to read the discssion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#2018_UPSL_season_AfD (permalink). I was disappointed by the claimant's repeated misunderstandings of policy and guideline, esp the persistence of arguments based on inherited notability and/or OSE, including one which claimed to understand WP:OSE and then made a classic other-stuff-exists argument. I was also disappointed by the personal attack on me (at the bottom), and by the DRV-requster's unfounded allegation of canvassing against the AfD nominator. It is clear that a small group of editors feels v passionate about this topic, but WP:NOTABILITY is not weighed by editorial passion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it was brought up, I would like to point out I did redact the canvassing statement. I had canvassing confused with WP:BLUD. I also don't care if this article is deleted or not. I had only passing familiarity with the league until I saw the deletion request for a previous season. I only care since I believe the sources show it passes WP:GNG. I'll go away now. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn a poor close and relist to hope for a better discussion. The nominator made some worthwhile arguments that we should not have articles where no sources cover the topic as a whole but only cover individual aspects of the topic. Assuming no violation of WP:SYNTH that is an opinion (an interesting one and one that has clearly persuaded the closer) but it is not, so far as I know, an established policy or guideline. WP:NSEASONS doesn't seem to apply in this particular case. I would genuinely like to know is there is such guidance somewhere but I don't think this AFD (plus this and this) was adequate to establish the principle. Of the praised deletes, the first declared there was no evidence of notability but contrary evidence was provided so leaving the issue to be resolved. The second delete by saying "Keep relevant info on main page and break that info out ..." was effectively proposing a (temporary?) merge. The final comment "I have yet to see a meaningful 'keep' !vote" was bizarre in the light of the quality of the commentator's own !vote and did not apply because the keeps commented (rightly or wrongly) on the presence of appropriate references – no one was unwise enough to say they liked the article. Thincat (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep Consensus was that the sources provided were sufficient to establish notability. Closer's statement to the contrary is either a WP:SUPERVOTE or a clear misinterpretation of consensus. Perhaps you could argue that the sources were insufficient - some participants did. But overall consensus was that they were sufficient, so the AfD should have been closed as keep. Smartyllama (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as nomWP:SYNTH issues remain, as the sources provided attempted to establish notability as a collection of reports on individual teams rather than establishing notability for the league season itself. Significant coverage of the season remains unproven. Also some concerns regarding WP:INHERIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS remain. A relatively similar precedent has already been set, and is worth reading through. The closing admin articulated a better example for the kind of source that is needed than I. From User talk:BrownHairedGirl: An article about the league season would take an overview. It would discuss the league as a whole and it would discuss multiple teams rather than focusing on one or 2 teams. The fact is that the article did not meet the necessary policies that Wikipedia requires, and consensus cannot overrule policy. As a side note, a substantial amount of argumentation has been based on the assumption that a majority vote should overturn the decision, but this is not the case. Jay eyem (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to relisting if we want to go that route. DRV guidelines state relisting rather than retaining the original outcome can be appropriate when there is no consensus as to whether said outcome was correct, and I would prefer that here if it comes down to it. Smartyllama (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question at hand is if there is an on-point enough guideline/policy which can be used to justify overcoming the numeric consensus at the AfD. Delete !voters felt that coverage of each part of the season and of the league-as-a-whole was not enough to justify an article on the season. Keep !voters disagreed. I don't believe NSEASONS says much (this isn't a "top professional league" from what I can tell nor is it about a individual team). There clearly are reliable sources about the topic. In fact the whole topic appears to be largely covered by RSes. The problem is that no one source covers the topic-as-a-whole. So there are Synth arguments. This type of thing is exactly what AfD discussions are supposed to sort out. Given the lack of clearly on-point policies/guidelines to address this situation I think we have to go with the !voters. NC would have been a reasonable outcome--because there are two reasonable sets of arguments here irrelevant of the numbers. But given the numbers, I think keep was the better outcome. So overturn to keep seems like the right way forward. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because they utilised WP:NOTAVOTE, something which many editors fail to grasp. There is no significant coverage; instead a bunch of overzealous US soccer fans think they can bombard the article (and related discussions) with trivial weblinks and that gives it notability. It doesn't. GiantSnowman08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I can see where the closer is coming from, but I'm thinking something similar to Hobit here. There seems to be agreement that there is plenty of coverage on aspects of the season, such as the progress of individual teams within it. The Keep commenters felt that was sufficient to establish notability, the Delete commenters felt it wasn't and some higher-level coverage was necessary. The closer is allowed to weight arguments according to strength but they aren't allowed to substitute their judgement for that of the participants, and this does look dangerously close to a judgement call to me. It looks like the season is due to start in a month or so, which may well make this decision obsolete anyway. Hut 8.519:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was my first time proposing something for deletion, and I'm curious to hear the personal opinion of another admin on my argument that WP:SYNTH was not met and WP:GNG was not established, and whether I have mis-understood these policies/guidelines. My understanding was that you could not agglomerate sources together to reach a conclusion that wasn't stated in the sources. Most of the sources were just about new teams being added to the league, which does nothing to show notability of that season itself. I also have concerns that this constitutes routine coverage, especially for a league at this level where new teams are entering and leaving all of the time. I hope I'm not bludgeoning too much and I apologize if I am, I just have a lot of free time. Jay eyem (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH does not concern notability, it concerns original research. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain original research, and SYNTH is a form of original research. I don't think anyone is claiming that the 2018 UPSL season page contained any original research. Therefore, SYNTH is inapplicable here. Bashum104 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, I don't think you're bludgeoning at all. I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of the deletion nomination, admins who close discussions are expected to determine the consensus of the people who took part in the discussion rather than to provide a casting vote. You're absolutely right that articles can't put together sources to form conclusions which weren't found in them, but it's not clear to me that this article was doing that. And even if it was that doesn't necessarily make the subject non-notable. What you're saying is IMO a reasonable position to take on this topic, however most of the people who took part in the AfD didn't agree with it. Hut 8.522:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INHERIT (and, possibly, the WP:COATRACK essay) are maybe more on point than WP:SYNTH. To apply INHERIT in this case you need to gloss over all the examples and suggest that people are going against "Similarly, parent notability should ...". But bear in mind that these arguments to avoid are simply ones that may be weak or non-persuasive rather than ones that are invalid. See second paragraph of WP:ATA starting "Remember that a discussion rationale ...". I think it ends up as a value judgement. Thincat (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep - The WP:SYNTH arguments seem to be off base here; there was no original research on the page. I also believe the WP:INHERIT arguments are not applicable because the argument for notability was not based on a "UPSL is notable therefore its seasons are notable" or similar line of reasoning. The claim by the closer seemed to be that independent, reliable, third-party sources about the season do not confer notability if they're primarily concerning one or two teams. It's not a completely unreasonable argument, but it's an original argument unbacked by any published Wikipedia policy as far as I can tell. It's also an argument that the large majority of participants in the original afd rejected. Therefore I feel that the closer overruled the consensus on the afd and improperly deleted the page Bashum104 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep - As I was involved in the AfD, I was reluctant to comment at first. As I proposed this DRV, I have had my say in numerous places. That said, lets review: I think the WP:SYNTH was on the part of the closer. Unless it is from from the formation of the league or a controversy, you would not logically expect sources to write articles about a league. To expect articles to be written just about the league is artificially raising the bar to an obviously unlikely standard. The sources wrote about what you would expect, teams playing in the league, anticipating the upcoming season. That not trivial. We found and enumerated numerous such sources. In the process, wikilawyersbludgeoned the debate with an alphabet soup of accusations, all of which I believe were well refuted. The other yes !votes were not an echo chamber, but individual editors thoughtfully explaining what we found. I don't have a dog in this fight, its not my normal subject matter. But I have seen this kind of unfair railroad job used about subjects I do care about too often. This subject was fortunate to find several people like me to speak up. Far too often I have been the lone voice of reason against a barrage of thoughtless, serial !votes and bizarre arguments all designed to obfuscate the real issue at hand while achieving the goal to censor content from wikipedia. Somehow those meaningless votes always seem to count. Something should be done about that. It was shocking to see the argument we had clearly won overturned on such a flimsy opinion call on the part of the closer. Trackinfo (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like the admins viewing this discussion to take the WP:UNCIVIL behavior of this Wikipedian into account, both here and here, when considering their accusations of "Wikilawyering." The proposal for deletion was likened to "destruction," "neutralization," and "euthanization," with the proposal of deletion considered an "attack on content" with "intent to destroy." Additionally, they have referred to an administrator as an "oligarch." Jay eyem (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My words are public and clearly defined within the AfD and comments on the closer's talk page. I do equate a nomination to AfD, any nomination to an AfD, as an attack on the article and its intended deletion is the destruction of the content. But as part of the bludgeoning beginning here, the above user had to go the extra step and embellish with words I do not use in my normal vocabulary. "neutralization," and "euthanization," Do a word search. And here are the alphabet soup I referred to: WP:BURDEN (repeatedly), WP:ROUTINE, "reliable source" meaning WP:RS, WP:INHERIT, and ultimately WP:BADGER as if that wasn't the pot calling the kettle black, otherwise known as projection. Numerous answers, sources from local newspapers and TV stations, seemed to fall on deaf ears. WP:BLUD? 11 retorts during the debate. Bashum104's final response sums up the frustration. Trackinfo (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a very basic understanding of linguistics would understand how the use of "euthanize", "neutralize", (these are words that you linked to here) and "destruction" have very different intended meanings than the word "deletion" and how a proposal for deletion being called an "attack" (which you continue to use unapologetically) with an "intent to destroy" is the same thing. Perhaps you should assume good faith on my part. I think you would also benefit from re-reading WP:BADGER and WP:BURDEN if you think I used them improperly. I stand by my use of all of those guidelines/policies/etc. in my argumentation. The fact is that WP:SYNTH remains an issue, and the sources you and others have claimed as sufficient for establishing the notability of that particular season are in fact not. And now you accuse me further of projection. I've already apologized for my bludgeoning above. Perhaps you could do the same for your uncivil behavior, including referring to User:GiantSnowman as an oligarch. Jay eyem (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- The closer and the delete !voters pointed out that arguments for retaining the article hinged on the notability of other toprics, related but not the page under discussion. I can't really argue with that. ReykYO!09:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- how can a season article possibly be notable when it hasn't even started?!? Perhaps there will be significant coverage of the season as it progresses, but at this stage there is nothing. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, but in this instance I don't think sufficient sourcing has been shown that it is, plus there is a massive difference between one of the world's biggest sporting competitions and a small, regional soccer league. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the 2018 UPSL isn’t as notable as the 2018 NFL. That doesn’t mean the 2018 UPSL isn’t sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. Also the UPSL is a large (140+ teams), national soccer league. Bashum104 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was that the sourcing was sufficient. DRV isn't a second bite at the apple. It's about whether the closer interpreted consensus correctly, and I don't know how you could interpret consensus as being that the sources were insufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Four other 2018 American minor league soccer seasons already exist and they have not started yet; the question is notability. A season can have notability before it begins if significant coverage of it exists. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep – it seems to me those in the 'keep' camp in the afd did not articulate their case particularly well or at any length as the argument (in numbers) seemed to be going their way. Quoting from Trackinfo above: "Unless it is from from the formation of the league or a controversy, you would not logically expect sources to write articles about a league. To expect articles to be written just about the league is artificially raising the bar to an obviously unlikely standard. The sources wrote about what you would expect, teams playing in the league, anticipating the upcoming season." I agree with all that. It is rather like a list: one does not insist on articles about the entire list but does expect sourcing for each item in the list. Oculi (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Based upon the article as it was originally listed a delete was OK because notability wasn't established. However the close was against the numerical vote by some margin and unfortunately the closer got mixed up between between keep/delete in the summary leading to little confidence in the actual close. The user draft has improved the article substantially and it might now pass GNG so a relist seems a good idea. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. This was not so much a discussion of the notability of the season itself as a discussion of whether (and when) to spin out coverage of an individual season for a notable league into a separate article. This is mostly a matter of editorial form and discretion. As such, the expressed consensus as measured by numbers should ordinarily carry the day, as it would had this been treated as a request and discussion on the article talk page. It is not that the closer's policy analysis wasn't sound -- just that it's not sufficient here to override community sentiment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Endorse. No, you didn't try to talk to the deleting admin. You tried to bully him. Your first comment was, Please revert or I will bring you up as a problematic editor to an administrator. That's not how things get done on a collaborative project. The AfD close was perfectly reasonable; the arguments to delete were in line with policy, and the arguments to keep were not. Both you and User:Mozucat made arguments that seemed to be pushing a particular social agenda, which is not what we do. -- RoySmith(talk)00:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion was clear. I would like to see the two or three best sources on this person. I am finding them listed more than a bit in news stories. But not sure it's the same person this AfD was about. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and barnstar for Sandstein for dealing very patiently and fairly with an unnecessarily aggressive and rude reaction from the person requesting the review. Lankiveil(speak to me)01:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, this is Wikipedia. What happens here is that people from all walks of life come together to write an encyclopedia, as a collaborative project. One of the key things that makes this work is that people respect each other, and maintain a WP:CIVIL tone with each other, even when they disagree. Threatening, bullying, and rudeness simply have no place here. -- RoySmith(talk)23:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'd say that Wikipedia is not the change room of a rugby club, but then again when I played rugby disagreements between teams were settled in a more respectful and genteel attitude than what you displayed and are still displaying. Lankiveil(speak to me)00:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Adria Airways destinations – Overturn to keep. By a wide margin, the AfD close is overturned. Even after identifying a few users who edit mostly in the airline space and discounting their arguments as biased, there's an strong consensus here to overturn. And, of the people who argued for a specific alternative, there's clear consensus that it should be overturned to keep, as opposed to NC.
PS, I haven't chased down all the collateral fallout of template cleanup. If folks could take care of those as they find them, I'd appreciate it. -- RoySmith(talk)16:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting this DRV following the suggestion made by Spartaz in their closure. The AfD follows the closure of a discussion held at AN, in which the closure of a VP discussion was challenged. All the relevant links are included in this AfD discussion. JetstreamerTalk20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the original decision and keep all these articles. These lists are notable, as they reflect an essential portion of airline operations. These articles also have the potential to include the history of the introduction of services for a number of reasons (political, geographical, economical, etc.).--JetstreamerTalk20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; keep all; as mentioned before airline destinations are the core of an airlines operation and show the scope of coverage. I don't see how the WP:NOTDIR arguement holds water; the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, that's a fact. Air France flies to Paris, that's also a fact (supportable by primary and tertiary references). These lists neither tell you how to book flights, how these destinations are connected, nor provide detailed scheduling information; they are essentially useless for any sort of travel guidance; but do contain an unrivalled source of historical information surrounding how airlines evolve over time. For comparison; destinations are essentially an airlines product. How does this list differ from the lists being deleted?. (As a side note; this could have all been discussed in the AfD rather than closing it and punting it here.) Garretka (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep all. There are quite a few issues here.
The closer's main argument is basically that the VPP discussion establishes a "wider consensus" that these articles should be deleted. As a participant in the original discussion, I was (naively) unaware that it was supposed to establish policy, and thought that it was asking for opinions (so I didn't go around and challenge everyone's argument). Now the "wider consensus" of fewer people than participated in this AFD is used to state they must be deleted. Surely this AFD shows there is not truly consensus on this issue?
A policy issue is where deletion of articles should be decided. The standard way to delete articles that do not satisfy the WP:CSD is through discussion at AFD. This discussion, while starting under a bit of a cloud of "no consensus should default to deletion", which isn't covered by any policy I am aware of, should be the main place that decides whether these articles should be kept or deleted. Unlike the Village Pump discussion, where a random subset of editors shows up (or not), AFDs are widely advertised in many neutral places (WP:DELSORT, wikiproject sites etc.) "Some people at the Village Pump think these articles should be deleted" is a very good reason to start an AFD, but it is not a particularly good reason to disregard said AFD and to pretend the Village Pump has priority.
There is another underlying policy issue, which is what the limits of WP:NOTDIR are and what type of lists are acceptable. Traditionally, this has been decided on AFD, with many great listcruft purges in the mid-noughties.
In the AFD, many of the delete arguments were refuted. Unfortunately some of the arguments driving the VPP discussion were not exposed as being poor (for example, the claim that lists are a burden to maintain -- as they generally are maintained well, somebody thinks to seem it is worth it. There is usually no evidence that people devoting time to fringe topics would contribute to something else if we delete their topics).
Endorse. This VPP was very clear. Given how many editors have contributed to these articles I imagine there will be a lot of overturn votes (for numerous reasons) - they should be counterbalanced by the numerous no votes at the VPP. I generally think information of this nature isn't encyclopedic, it belongs on the relevant airline websites. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add. The editors at VPP are much more likely to have a neutral stance than those involved in the AfD. Should Afd's follow policy or should policy follow AfD's...Szzuk (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "policy" was specific to the topic, though, which is why we're in this mess to begin with. This isn't a discussion about a new broad policy which affects these articles. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. AFD is the sole forum for regular deletion discussions on specific articles. When specific articles are targeted for deletion, readers and authors must be given fair warning. The AFD process achieves that through the AFD tag. In contrast, large portions of the community in general, and people working on covering the airline industry in particular, were not aware of the VPP discussion going on. This means that VPP is not a fair forum for discussing specific article deletions, and should be given no weight in the AFD. Sjakkalle(Check!)21:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. The burden is on the person proposing deletion to show that this falls under WP:NOTDIR. I do not believe that has been shown in this instance; the VPP consensus simply seemed to agree it fit WP:NOTDIR without providing any arguments as to why it is more a directory than a valid list. Furthermore:
These lists have survived bulk deletion requests at least three times in the past (2007, 2007 again and 2015), and no major policy change happened between the last one in 2015 and now (i.e., no giant purge of WP:NOTDIR articles);
These lists are relevant, exhaustive, and verifiable;
These lists are only a yes/no of whether an airline flies or has flown to a specific destination. They are not a list of routes or a list of timetables and do not change all that often. When they do change, verifiable third-party news reports are easily found;
There does not appear to be any sort of test regarding whether WP:NOTDIR applies in the instance of a list, just "it is not a directory" - but I do not view these as a directory, especially since almost every destination is verifiable;
These lists are not WP:TRAVEL as the information does not belong in a travel guide, as shown by the refusal to add them to WikiVoyage or WikiTravel (past deletion log);
Even if a deletion is not overturned, several of these lists contain a narrative of destinations and therefore should not be deleted until the narrative text can be fully incorporated into the main article. WP:NOTDIR is being applied to many articles that contain more than just a list of destinations. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep - Overwhelming consensus to keep. The VPP discussion before this AfD that apprently this close was based on, was WP:CONLIMITED to put it mildly as that discussion was open for over 23 days with only 21 editors giving definitive opinions whilst this AfD was only open for just over 8 days with over 40 editors giving their opinions, a clear demonstration of the VPP being a tiny group of editors coming to their small group conclusion without any regard to community consensus on a wide scale. Remember, the very basis of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is when an edit is made and not challenged, that would be implied consensus. These articles have been edited since 2004 with only a few AfDs over the years and all have been ended in definitive "keeps". That is almost a decade and a half of consensus and there is no real evidence consensus has changed. Even the one "endorse" opinion above acknowledges "how many editors have contributed to these articles" confirming the long-standing consensus achieved for over a decade. A VPP buried in the bureaucracy of WP seems to have been an attempt to sneak a conclusion of a limited group of editors by the much larger community consensus of these articles. If someone desires certain articles to be deleted, they need to AfD those specific articles, not by a VPP discussion in which most editors don't even know exist.--Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This isn't the venue to rehash arguments about whether these articles should be deleted, as I see some above users doing, presumably summoned from WP:AIRLINES. Whether you agree with the outcome, Spartaz did a fine job of assessing the balance of consensus of a dialogue that took place over multiple discussion boards. AdA&D★23:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: re summoned from WT:AIRLINES; may I point out this page receives rarely one view per day. Any notifications to discussion on this page have largely gone unseen to the involved community who may not be aware of VPP or any discussions that may have or are occurring. As pointed out no arguements were presented as to how these lists violate WP:NOTDIR other than "violates WP:NOTDIR"; and no arguements have been presented against those who bring valid points as to how this meets GNG and does not violate NOTDIR. I've spoken my piece, but I feel this whole process has been mishandled from start to finish. Garretka (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually these are lists of scheduled flights which is mentioned in #4 of WP:NOTDIR. It says to avoid things such as "current schedules". One can also argue #1 is in play as the information can be summed up with a sentence or two like it already is under Adria Airways#Destinations (maps do the job quite nicely as well). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can also be argued that these lists serve historical significance per point #4. Again, these lists are not schedules, they are lists. There is not scheduling attached. This also does not address any of the concerns surrounding the rather odd sequence of events that led to this current mess. Garretka (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Historical points should go into the main article, as for not schedules what do you make of "As of summer 2017, Slovenian airline Adria Airways operates to 18 scheduled destinations from Ljubljana, 5 from Pristina and 3 from Tirana."? Are you saying that these are not scheduled locations? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed they can be summarized in prose where practical. In the case you mentioned, the lead can certainly use a tidy up, that's an easy fix. Is that a reason to delete an entire article? Not in my mind. The reason the date is mentioned is per MOS:RELTIME. I'm certainly not saying those aren't scheduled locations; I'm saying these lists don't resemble any form of a schedule. Garretka (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jetstreamer: I think that many editors felt that this diff, in which you said Tons of information related to airline destinations are in risk of being wiped out. Please go to the link above and participate in the discussion , may have violated the policy on nuetral phrasing when canvassing. In addition, it is a best practice to link back to such comments to ensure the community understands who was notified and how. See WP:Canvass for more examples of best practices for canvassing. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. I have no interest in rehashing the arguments about whether the articles should be kept or not. I do, however, feel that we should not set a precedents of allowing "Wikipedia policies" to be set at the level of granularity of "this article should be kept," because it allows the usual AfD mechanism to be circumvented by getting consensus for deletion without notifying article contributors.
Furthermore, I feel that the fact that people may be coming to this discussion because of a notification on WP:AIRLINES is irrelevant, given that this clearly falls into WP:APPNOTE: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. ..." CapitalSasha ~ talk23:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The VP discussion was improper per WP:FORUMSHOP. AFD is where deletions are decided and there was clearly no consensus to delete in this case. The close should have focussed on that valid discussion not some other irregular discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - How many more discussions are we going to go through here? This decision is not a vote and should be weighed by argument strength rather than WP:WAX, and WP:USEFUL comments. I have seen everything from "you might as well get rid of...to arguments about how Wikipedia will never be the same again. I fully endorse the deletions per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY which were put into place to discourage these types of lists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed idea - Has anyone tried making an article titled History of American Airlines (using it as an example)? The history of destinations can easily be placed into prose on an article like that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the close compares this situation to the one where a policy says one thing and a local consensus of a group of editors says something else. I don't think that's a terribly fair comparison. For a start the VPP discussion doesn't establish policy, or even a guideline. It was a discussion about how to apply policy to a certain case. AfDs are themselves discussions about how to apply policy to specific cases. Furthermore an AfD is considering the case of whether to delete a specific article, instead of an abstract question about generalities, and the two forums will attract different kinds of participants. The VPP discussion also (by my count) attracted substantially less participation than the AfD did. Given that I don't think we can say that the VPP discussion is controlling here, and there wasn't a consensus for deletion in the AfD itself. Hut 8.508:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep, and before the people throwing bad faith accusations around above chime in, I have never made any contribution (other than as part of broader routine maintenance) to any article on either an airline nor an aircraft and have no connection to the airline project. Many delete arguments were based on a misunderstanding of policy (in particular what we mean by "schedule"), or on the argument that Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting material which has the potential to go out of date, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is (probably more Wikipedia articles do contain dated statements than don't; we don't go around bulk-deleting them). If one disregards the delete votes in the original AfD that are either based on a clear misreading of policy or on spurious "I don't personally find the topic important" grounds, there was actually a fairly firm consensus to keep in the initial AfD as well. The Village Pump debate(s) should all be disregarded with respect to the specific deletion; while the VP is an appropriate place to discuss a proposed change of policy, it's always been Wikipedia custom and practice that XfD and DRV have primacy when it comes to deciding how any given policy is applied with respect to deletion. If any of these articles are individually inappropriate for Wikipedia, send them to AfD on a case-by-case basis, but this was never appropriate for a bulk deletion. ‑ Iridescent09:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have some good points so I have a few questions 1) The VPP decided policy on this matter didn't it? Are we just ignoring this policy? 2) If the VPP had occurred without any AfD these articles would be just getting deleted en masse, yes or no? 3) Of course AFD has primacy over how policy is implemented but surely we then need proper sourcing which most of these articles don't appear to have, so we have to delete 99% of them individually to ensure we keep the 1% that are properly sourced? (Exact percentages not accurate). Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The decision made at the VP was challenged and subsequent discussions through AN and AFD (both of them attracting a greater audience than the VP discussion) led us here. It should be more than clear at this point that the ″consensus″ at VP changed. Separately, even when an article lacks references, deletion is not cleanup.--JetstreamerTalk19:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to answer any of my questions? Szzuk (talk)
I'll try to answer, but I'm not Jetstreamer so they should make their own reply. 1) I have come to the opinion that calling a decision like the one at VPP "policy" is absurd. "Policy" is for general statements about how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Specific decisions like whether a certain article or group of articles should be deleted are a matter of implementation of policy, not of policy, and should be decided from the bottom up, not the top down. (I.e. the discussion should have started at AfD; if that could not come to a consensus then it could be escalated to the wider community to adjudicate.) This is in line with Wikipedia's practices. 2) No, because VPP is not the correct venue for deciding that articles should be deletd. 3) First, I would second what Jetstreamer said. Second, that argument also applies to the set of all these articles plus Barack Obama -- are you saying we should delete all airline destination articles and Barack Obama because it would be too much work to go through them individually and figure out which one is about a clearly notable US president? ;-) Seriously, Wikipedia has always worked by deleting pages individually, the fact that you don't like the way a majority of a certain class of articles is written is not grounds for nuking the whole class. Third, in my reading the AfD did not turn on issues of sourcing, it turned on issues of levels of consensus, so this isn't really relevant. CapitalSasha ~ talk20:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few more questions! 1) If WP had been created with a policy 'no airline destination lists allowed unless they pass GNG' would you ignore that or seek to get it overturned? 2) What if AfD alone is unable to delete NN articles (because vested interests prevent this) must AfD endure these articles in perpetuity? 3) Are there other presidents more worthy of page deletion? Sorry couldn't resist that :) Szzuk (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - would I have participated in the original AfD I would have proposed opposed a deletion, on the grounds that at last in principle one could write an encyclopaedic article on an airline's destination (even if most if not all destination articles are anything but encyclopaedic). But one also has to acknowledge, and this is what matter in a deletion review, that the closing admin carefully examined the consensus and came to a correct reading. In particular with regards to the validity of the village pump discussion. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus in the AFD discussion was to keep. The closer disregarded that. Consensus at AN was that the VP discussion by itself is not sufficient to delete these articles. —Kusma (t·c) 13:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather rich that you are accusing other editors of sockpuppetry, when your own block history shows a history of sockpuppetry. FYI, I have several thousand edits under my belt, from various (dynamic) IP addresses. Out of principle I refuse to register an account, even if it means having to take garbage from the likes of you. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D134:959D:9490:6F6B (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, drop this right now. WP:AGF applies to IP editors just as much as it applies to anyone else, and this certainly wouldn't be the first regular contributor who either chooses not to create an account, or has an account and chooses not to log in, both of which are explicitly defined as not constituting sock puppetry. You're painting yourself into a corner where if you continue to make accusations without evidence, I'll have no alternative but to block you for disruption, which would be a truly ridiculous thing to be blocked for. ‑ Iridescent22:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (I did not participate in the deletion discussion, nor did I vote in the RfC, nor have I to my memory had anything to do with any airline list articles, or any Airline project) Basically, I agree with Hut - the VPP discussion did not even try to amend any policy or guideline - since it did not, the closer cannot treat it as policy or guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC) (Let me add, so as not to be all critical, the wisdom of the closer in the delay is stellar. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Overturn & keep – as above. Though I wasn't involved in the previous discussions, I noticed this from WP:VPP. While there was consensus at VPP at the time against lists of airline destinations, no changes were made to policy, and VPP isn't the right place to decide bulk deletions. The fact that there seems to be no overall consensus to delete these articles makes me question the VPP consensus, and strongly in favour of enforcing procedure in this case, which should hopefully discourage sweeping VPP decisions being applied in future, especially in lower profile cases where it might not get flagged up. ‑‑YodinT17:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Overturn & Keep - I have no opinion on the substantive issue here, but no article should be deleted where the deletion discussion does not achieve consensus, which this AfD clearly did not. VPP discussions do not carry policy weight, and AfD closures are not the place to IAR. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. There was clearly no consensus to delete at the AfD. Ignoring the AfD and closing as "delete" based solely on a previous discussion is disruptive. --Tavix(talk)02:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The VPP discussion was a limited consensus not a deletion discussion and should not override what was a weak consensus to keep the articles at AFD. Reywas92Talk04:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep VP limited discussion cannot set policy or delete hundred of page via extra-policy. The keep voters effectively showed why the articles pass our long-standing, widely a respected guideline GNG and our core WP:V policy and the delete voters never counter that, neither do they give informed reason for deletion except reference to VP discussion which majority also participated. They only based their reason on the VP discussion which have unclear mandate to delete such vast number of articles and had its decision overwhemingly overturned at AN after it was enacted. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it was the correct close in view of community consensus. The closer should have ignored all the keep !votes that had no policy basis following a community RfC. That RfC was not overturned at AN, despite what people are claiming above. The unilateral deletions based on it were. The closer followed policy and closed in line with community consensus. Something I hope the closer of this DRV will do as well despite the attempts of some to overrule community consensus with local consensus and misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the policy-based support for the deletion? All the procedural discussions were followed, one by one, and the corresponding outcomes were to keep these articles. There's a blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT smell here.--JetstreamerTalk18:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No: it is the correct thing to do when people try to relitigate recently settled policy discussions in local forums like AfD or DRV. The closer correctly did so when they closed the AfD, and the DRV closet should ignore the non-policy or consensus based comments here that are just trying to relitigate an RfC. This is not an admin conduct issue: I’m encouraging the closing admin to follow policy and ignore the non-policy based uproar. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to have the "policy based reasoning" for this deletion explained. As the AN discussion said it was NOT ok to use the RFC to justify deletions without an AFD, it follows that the AFD had the power to decide these deletions. Otherwise, if the outcome was clear from the start, going through the motions of an AFD plus DRV is ridiculous. No matter how many times the delete voters claim otherwise, there is no policy that says Wikipedia should not have these lists. As for essays supporting policy, the lists in question pass all of the criteria of WP:LISTCRUFT. A single village pump discussion does not establish policy (which is not quite the same as what is written in "policy pages"), especially in cases like this where it was followed up by a discussion in the proper venue (AFD) that came to a different result. RFCs become policy only if the community supports the outcome of the RFC, which is why any major RFC needs to be advertised in a lot of places and get everyone on board. Wikipedia is not Nomic: a single discussion can't just change The Rules. Fortunately, most admins know that. —Kusma (t·c) 19:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A community wide RfC closed at the village pump against this specific class of articles: that is the community consensus. The current village pump discussion is a straw man that deals with broader topics and not the airline topic. People don't like the outcome, so they keep playing "Take it to the next forum so only the people who want to keep will participate". Fortunately most admins also know this tactic. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care one way or another about the topic of airlines, and if there were a new RfC, I'd be neutral. I saw the RfC and thought it was boring as heck, and so I stayed out of it. I just don't like the constant ignoring of community consensus and the misrepresentation of what consensus can change means. Consensus on things like this doesn't change within two or three weeks: that's not how Wikipedia works, and your constant efforts to bludgeon the outcome here are disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: My proposal at the village pump closely matches the wording of the close to this AfD. These deletions are controversial and should only take place if there is a strong policy consenus to do so. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can support that, I'll reserve comment for now though, regardless the NN bus and train articles we have are a problem that needs a solution.Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My belief is that the wider RFC on transportation lists is intended to damage the VPP on airlines. It never had a chance and the nom knew this. Szzuk (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on.... so you are saying in a nutshell that the first VPP discussion were a clueless bunch of editors that should be dismissed because they don't matter? This is a collaborative encyclopedia meaning that these discussions should count. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for procedural reasons. VPP is not an accepted venue to consider deleting one article, no less hundreds. Let that bleed into AFD wasn't a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep There were countless valid arguments towards keeping these lists, and definitely not a solid consensus for deleting them. What constructive purpose would deleting these lists have for Wikipedia? Taking away valuable, accurate, and useful information doesn't sound like the goal of Wikipedia to me. In addition -- the AFD consensus wasn't even delete! Tofutwitch11(TALK)02:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am torn between "Endorse" and "Overturn to no consensus." The closer was quite clear and thorough in their approach and there is nothing technically wrong with the reasoning of decision. I also think that it would have been appropriate for a "no consensus" close since the community expressed a variety of different opinions on the list of proposed deletions. That said, it was unwise to bring to XfD a large list of controversial articles as one deletion discussion and the closer addressed some of those concerns. --Enos733 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A correct close wouldn't have been challenged. Closing against consensus and then passing on the actual decision to DRV is bad form, to put a positive spin on it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Begging the question of whether the consensus was to ignore WP:NOT— that is and remains the defining issue. I'm seeing this over and and over again in these discussions: people promote the ability to source (which again, I'm going to say is largely reliant on primary sourcing in this case) and utility over any limits we've adopted on the work to be done. I'm almost tempted to submit that, in practice, most of WP:NOT has been overcome by actual article writing and AfD voting. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with this. There are valid cases to be made for and against the inclusion of this article in light of WP:NOT. The consensus at AfD was to keep (or certainly was not to delete), with valid arguments being made that these articles do not go against WP:NOTDIR; the defining issue is whether the alternative interpretation of WP:NOT determined at WPP should have primacy. CapitalSasha ~ talk23:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
endorse What I saw in the original argument is being repeated here: that being able to cite something (and I question how well-cited these articles will ever be when their reliance on airline websites is broken) trumps WP:NOT. I can't see it: the entire intent of WP:NOT, when it comes to article-writing, is to say "even if we can document these, we aren't going to do so." As to the WP:VPP discussion, I don't see a problem with it. It may not have set policy, but there was nothing improper about trying to get some preliminary indication of the likelihood of a successful AFD. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the delete arguments? For example, many of them claimed "These articles violate WP:NOTTRAVEL", but if you actually look at WP:NOTTRAVEL, you'll immediately discount any argument citing that (it is about something else altogether). Other arguments were similarly weak. —Kusma (t·c) 14:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The airlines are notable, just not where they travel to. If you want to find a place online to look up scheduled travel destinations then go-to a travel agency site and not Wikipedia. I'm sure x site will tell you if x airline runs seasonal flights to x location or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can, and has been, argued that the destinations are equally as important both to show the presence of an airlines at an airport and its sphere of influence(as stated earlier, maps do a better job of this than lists or tables). Garretka (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding airlines isn't a rare occurrence and the fact that x airline goes to ... isn't notable to the destination mentioned. Most airlines in fact advertise their new locations as a way to earn more revenue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep - AfD is the appropriate place for these deletion discussions, not VPP, and the consensus at the appropriate place was keep. Most of the delete arguments were grounded in false interpretations of policy, and in any case, the VPP discussion was not the appropriate place to be having it and should not play a factor. Ignoring that, consensus was clear to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is consensus, one can argue that VPP had an uninvolved pool of editors that reply on matters of guidelines and policy. The fact is that no the consensus was not to keep anywhere so far as replies are measured by weight of argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One can argue what one likes, but deletion requires a consensus of editors to delete; this was clearly not present at AfD (the relevant forum), and arguably not aat VPP either given the ambiguity of the discussion and the controversy of the close. In any event, it the job of VPP to follow and broaden the consensus that emerges "locally" elsewhere, but not to write policy out of whole cloth. That is what policy pages are for. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus. The number of participants at the afd was greater than at the RfC, and gave a different and apparently clearer presentation. With have no rule respecting the relative strengths of and AfD/Del Rev and a RfC on the same topic. To actually delete an article requires a consensus at AfD, not RfC. The RfC can set a general guideline, but an AfD can decide when to override a general guideline in a specific case. Were I closing ,I would probably not be able to say there was a consensus to keep based on the AfD. but neither could I say there was a consensus too not overrule the RfC. The situation is clearly one where we do not have agreement. (fwiw, I argued to delete at the RfC, but did not participate in the afD. But I do not pretend that my own view is the one that had overall consensus when it appears not t to be the case. ) DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I think your points are nuanced, and I appreciate your explaining them but I think it is important to make clear that we do have a consensus agreed upon way of amending policy and guideline (which not surprisingly is written down in policy at WP:PROPOSAL) -- it actually lays out an extended process for making P/G and requires, at the beginning, formulation of the exact wording of the new P/G, often multiple discussions (not one and done!); extensive notice that it is a P&G; and a closing that actually says it is "promoted". This VPP RfC fails, in every-respect from its very beginning to its end. And this is not just being procedural, the Pedia would be even more of an anarchy were we to try to have these various enforceable (so enforceable they can't be challenged) - 'unwritten-into-editing-policies, editing-policies' - that by definition can't be amended because they are unwritten -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to find policies and guidelines that we constantly ignore, even easier to find one we sometimes ignore, and generally possible to find those that contradict each other, Discussing whether the adoption of a guideline is valid adds another layer of complexity and doubt, and makes it possible to challenge almost anything. I can find something wrong with any complicated procedural matter; if I want to challenge it, I can say it's a significant enough error to invalidate the rule; if I want to accept it, I can say it's inconsequential. The rules are best seen as one of the indications of what one can is likely to be able to do. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Airline destinations lists and all other Wikipedia lists will be deleted, or let's change WP:NOTDIR to WP:NOLISTS. That's how the very first discussion should have been exposed, because that's what it was: a carte blanche to delete everything a group of editors do not like.--JetstreamerTalk21:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of an AfD is not measured by how many participants there are but of argument weight. A lot of the replies on the AfD amounted to "what about x" and/or "If we delete this then we will have to delete this..." arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or, failing that,overturn to no consensus per DGG. Discussion about a subject shouldn't be ignored simply because it happened in the wrong place. ansh66608:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if these airline pages are deleted next it'll be those NN bus articles, then the NN train articles, then the procedure will be codified into a couple of sentences and set in stone. Being banned from adding non notable transport pages?! Awful! Heaven help us - we might not have an article on the bus stop outside my house! The bulldozer awaits any admin closing this as Endorse lol. Szzuk (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gotcha, thanks Andrew. I also don't buy that lack of "publicity" or whatever you'd call it is relevant. The fact of the matter is that consensus in one discussion disagreed with another discussion, which had problems with "publicity" in the other direction. ansh66620:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ansh666, that's exactly a reason to overturn the closing. The discussion in this AfD, which was the correct place to discuss the proposed deletion of articles, was ignored due to a WP:CONLIMITED discussion in another forum between a small group of editors which was the wrong place to discuss proposed article deletions.--Oakshade (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We still shouldn't ignore the consensus that actually took place in the right forum just because of some discussion elsewhere that wasn't even in the right place. At best, right vs. wrong place is irrelevant as you say - consensus in the wrong place certainly doesn't override consensus in the right place. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care too much about "process", but fairness is important (and reasonable processes help ensuring fairness). Telling 30 people that their opinions no longer count because last week 20 people elsewhere came to a different conclusion doesn't strike me as fair. If the AFD did not have the power to decide the deletion, it should have been speedily closed -- pretending to hold an AFD an then ignoring it is very poor style. —Kusma (t·c) 20:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I admit I'm not at all impressed by the close. That said, I still don't think, taking both discussions into consideration, that there's enough of a consensus either way. FWIW, I think the most fair course of action for this situation would be to disavow both the VP discussion and this AfD discussion as an inappropriate mass nominations and open individual ones for each airline destination article, but the 400+ pages in that category obviously would make that unworkable. ansh66622:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why unworkable? We could go through them one per day, and then we might actually find the middle ground between "We must not have any list of airline destinations at all, not even List of Braathens destinations and List of Cathay Dragon destinations" and "We must have lists of airline destination lists for every airline, and are not allowed to delete or merge broken-link Ándalus Líneas Aéreas destinations". For the pages that are an embarrassment, we might find a consensus to delete or merge to the parent article. I am not a fan of Ryanair destinations in its present state either, to give a more prominent example. Mass AFD nominations are really hard to do properly, and usually end up not working well. Letting each article stand on its merits is more work, but I expect the end result would be much better (in terms of articles improved and really bad stuff weeded out) than a high-stakes discussion about the general class of articles. —Kusma (t·c) 07:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, yes, it would work just fine, but in practice I fear that we'd get things like people copy-pasting rationales on every article regardless of its merits, complaints that we're flooding AfD (which is already fairly high-volume but low-participation), and discussion fatigue before we even get to 100. Is it worth a try? Probably. Do I personally think it will end well? No. ansh66608:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC I was waiting for someone to make an argument that I could buy, and I think DGG's is that. The AfD could override a policy/guideline, the bar is lower for a less-attended RfC. Hobit (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- The VPP discussion came out with a clear consensus, so that is the consensus. IMO, the AfD was not necessary and just a delaying tactic. The delete argument of WP:NOTTRAVEL/WP:NOTDIR should override any argument to keep because the topic can be sourced. Everything in WP:NOT can possibly be sourced but these are topics that should be excluded regardless of sourcing. Anyone argueing for "no consensus" should be aware that the ANI said "a no consensus result should default to delete, not keep, based on the consensus at the broader RfC for these articles". I am pinging @Tazerdadog: who closed the ANI to weigh in on that.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tazerdadog did not strike the comments, they are still there [6] Also, my apologies for accidentally posting in the wrong place and thank you to Ansh666 for moving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs)
Just because he didn't delete an old revision doesn't mean he didn't strike the comments in a later one. And he most certainly did. WP:REVDEL should only be done in extreme circumstances, and an erroneous close is not one of them, so I'm not sure what your point was by linking to an outdated version of the page. Smartyllama (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only problem with this argument is you need to have an AfD to delete an article that's not a speedy delete, a speedy delete was overturned, and the delete didn't establish a consensus. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not entirely true, otherwise the articles would be deleted already. Yet controversial to some editors, Spartaz suggested to discuss their close and here we are.--JetstreamerTalk13:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That text was present in my initial close, then others convinced me I overreached as a closer by making that statement, and so I struck it out. That is the standard way to retract a statement on Wikipedia. If the closer, after weighing both discussions, arrives at a result of no consensus, the default is still to keep the article. No comments on the merits of this AfD or the ensuing deletion review. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've copied the comments from AfD close below and added 3 bold numbered notes to reference into my comments below.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delayed deletion. Phew! I’m closing this as delete but I’m going to delay the actions until after the inevitable DRV which can be started without pretending to discuss the close with me for forms sake.
Let’s set the scene. VPP discussions do not authorise deletion but its not true to say that only arguments in an AFD can support deletion as the whole point of closing against consensus is that we measure the arguments against wider policy considerations and a cross project consensus on policy has more validity then that from a group of editors enthusiastic about a subject. A good example of this is marginally notable BLPs regularly being deleted because BLP1E out trumps the gng. <NOTE 1>
So we have a wider consensus from VPP that this class of articles fail NOTDIR and are effectively UNDUE often being spun out of articles because they are too unwieldy. On the other hand we have arguments to keep on the basis that they pass the GNG and are effectively useful, <NOTE 2> What is also unhelpful was canvassing on the keep side meaning that I had to give the keep arguments a little less weight to balance that out - but even if I did the effect would have been the same as wider project consensus beats local consensus. <NOTE 3>
It would be extremely disruptive to delete all these articles and links until the argument has gone through the full process which inevitably will include a DRV and, likely, further discussion at ANI before the final consensus is clear. I am therefore delaying enacting the close which ever is the later of until consensus is clear or two weeks. I’m leaving tags on so that interested editors can find the latest links of where the discussion is. SpartazHumbug!11:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE 1: Ignoring the VPP is undemocratic - they are an interested party and have a voice.
NOTE 2: Balancing the VPP against the AfD - fair process
NOTE 3: The argument weighting is adjusted because of canvassing, (it is happening here too)
Again, show diffs. And you are not being neutral either: ″...but even if I did the effect would have been the same as wider project consensus beats local consensus″ can also be read above. Furthermore, ″It would be extremely disruptive to delete all these articles and links until the argument has gone through the full process which inevitably will include a DRV.″ Both statements are pretty contradictory.--JetstreamerTalk15:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. No one is actively trying to silence anyone. I think you are getting a bit more dramatic than the situation calls for. VP has never been the place to decide what is deleted. Most people don't visit VP, so I suppose you are ignoring their input by having deletion discussions at VP..... Dennis Brown - 2¢19:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general trend of this discussion seems to be 'ignore the VPP'. I'm not saying they decide on the delete - just that the opinion counts because they were asked a very direct question relating to the issue. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to collapse the above because 1) It's clear everyone has read the close and repeating it is silly lengthening of the page; 2) This extended commentary is WP:BLUDGEON, you're just saying the same things over and over again; 3) Everyone already knows the outcome of this discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to be offensive? Do you think we do not know the purpose of DRV? We do. People's comments show they have read the the close. Your saying the same thing again and again does not help anyone, at all - it just makes your claims look weak, for example using "immaculate" for a close that is overwhelmingly in the process of being overturned is just nonsense, as is your silly argument trying to make it about the closer, and your bizarre claims about democracy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the conversation and it had to be restored! An endorse outcome is still possible because WP is not a democracy. Szzuk (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus per DGG, really don't see how a VPP discussion with less participants can be called wider (i also !voted delete in the rfc, though weakly) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? The consensus at the much more heavily discussed AfD was to keep with the closer ignoring consensus, citing the WP:CONLIMITED consensus at the VPP while applying their own opinion of NOTDIR's application. --Oakshade (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is assuming bad faith on the part of the closer who in fact closed the AfD as delete. You saying that the closer ignored consensus is your own opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And for you to support the closer's decision by assuming that the closer's "consensus" was the actual consensus, was circular reasoning. The whole point of DRV is to decide whether the close was valid. No application of your BLUDGEON will change the result one way or the other. Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IAR overturn to NC; delete only after finding a better solution. As a long-time if low-intensity wikipedian, I understand the general line of reasoning (NOTDIR, policy clarified at VP, AFD applies policy) leading to deletion. And yet: I'm reading this waiting for a work meeting to start, all of us frequent travelers. I just asked, and 9 of 11 people in the room "regularly" consult WP for airline destination information. One person jokingly said, "it's the one part of WP I trust" to general merriment. All of us have consulted these lists in 2018, in some cases weekly, and yet none of us was aware of the policy discussion that happened at VP in January underpinning this. As I look at the discussion there, it was clearly done with the best intentions, but leaned heavily on some early opinions treated as gospel, e.g. "Impossible to maintain" (perhaps seems that way, but these articles and their related lists of airlines serving a given airport seem to be remarkably up to date, maintained adequately by whatever group of enthusiastic wikignomes); "if I wanted to know who flies to a given destination, I'd ask a travel agent" (yes that is one way, but many people self-plan their travel, don't want/need to pay a travel agent or don't trust they gave a complete answer, and find this info helpful), and "move it to wikivoyage" (who actually have set policy that airline and airline-related articles in general are out of scope). The broadening number of voices speaking up against deletion, in the AFD, and in this DRV, should be an alert that perhaps apparent consensus was illusory, or at least premature; or, if you will, has changed.
So, where to from here: rather than jumping to deletion, as participants in the broader "wiki" movement, let's have a broad and well-attended discussion somewhere focused on *solutions*. We have something that works, if doubtless relevant only for a small group of people (something true for lots of corners in WP). Perhaps a better home for it would be wikivoyage or wikidata, if they can be made to agree to take it. Or a site on wikia or a corner of flyertalk, though there are intellectual property issues there. Or maybe the analogies with train networks etc, raised by a few voices but rejected by others at the VP discussion, are actually relevant, and the content should stay here, in the spirit of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Or maybe the airline destination lists should go, but the who-serves-what-airport lists should stay. I don't know. But the degree and tone of the discussion show the VP discussion was, while well-intentioned and raised many good point, at best incomplete. Let's find the right answer first, rather than just say "not here, take it somewhere else". Martinp (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There are four classes of articles here: Active, Charter, Defunct, and Subsidiary Airlines. A charter operator is free to claim operations in any market within the range of its fleet. To create a list from the subject's website is inviting a game. Defunct airlines are problematic. We have editors claiming that lists of destinations are easily found. Reliable sources are, in many cases, impossible to find. When the subject's website dies, so does the (arguably) best source. Web archives don't capture drop-down lists. Editors argue that the list of of discontinued destinations tell an important story. Most of the articles about active airlines include terminated destinations and then use the subject's own website as a source. Airlines typically don't tell the story of their failed routes on their commercial website. I don't have a problem with using the subject's own website for destinations currently served. Using it as a basis to claim discontinued destinations is original research at best and needs to be disallowed. Lists of codeshare destinations is also misleading. There are a bunch of articles on subsidiaries that are dodgy, too. Take for example Austral Líneas Aéreas destinations. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aerolíneas Argentinas. It has separate union contracts, but from a passenger's perspective is the same as the mainline carrier. This situation is very common in Central and South America. The discussion should address these various classes of article. Rhadow (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have dePRODed the article [7]. The problems you raised are not solved by deleting articles. The deletion is far from being uncontroversial considering this discussion. And I suggest you to stop PRODing or AFDing airline destination articles until this discussion is over.--JetstreamerTalk23:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The fundamental issue here is the argument for a different standard to be applied to 2006 vintage articles than to ones created today. Insufficiently referenced articles from 2006 are claimed to have a grandfathered claim to notability because of the possibility that references may be found. The same articles today would fail review and never make it to the mainspace. The same is true for photography definitions, train stations, and a host of special interest articles. In any other area, editors would not accept references from the subject's website. Where current destinations are concerned, I think we agree that the subject is an acceptable source. What surprises me is defense of destination articles with no references whatsoever. PROD any of them or take them to AfD. Gallons of virtual ink will be spilled in their defense with, typically, no improvement. Why should our readers accept this lowered standard of reliability? Rhadow (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer -- I am happy to contribute to articles (a) that I feel are fundamentally useful to a reader of the encyclopedia and (b) are not a sink of editing effort. I give as an example American Eagle Airlines destinations whose retention you defend. This article would require a monthly review of over a hundred entries every month to keep it up to date. It gets fifteen page views a day. The editing effort (in time) will likely exceed the reading time. How useful is that? Nevertheless, I am the most active editor on that article since this debate reignited. Rhadow (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rhadow, is there any way I can convince you to stop AfDing these articles until this discussion is over, and possibly withdraw them from deletion for the time being? At the moment we're having this rather contentious discussion over several different places, and it would be best to consolidate the discussion at the moment. The same arguments we saw here are starting to be made over at the American Eagle AfD article, and you're even editing an article you AfD'd! Also, I think you overestimate the amount of time needed to reference these articles to keep them current. We don't need to review over the references of over a hundred entries a month, especially considering it's a binary list. Thanks! SportingFlyer (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Rahul Verma (social activist) – Allow Recreation. There's no good consensus on whether the original close was correct, so let's call that NC. But, there's pretty good agreement that, with sources that have appeared since the AfD (specifically the NY Times article), a new attempt at writing an article should be allowed.
There was some discussion about whether a new article should need to start from scratch, or if the existing version should be used as the starting point. There wasn't any consensus on that question, but apparently Shibanihk already has a draft ready to go, so that's a moot issue.
There was also a somewhat theoretical discussion about whether an allow recreation result makes the new article G4 proof, or whether there's always an implied right to recreate an article if it's not salted. No consensus on that, but I'll state here that any new version certainly will need to meet all of our requirements, and if anybody finds the new version is still lacking, they can bring it back to AfD.
As for Shibanihk's question about what to do with their new draft, my personal suggestion would be that running it through WP:AFC to get some review might be a good idea, but there's no requirement to do so.
And, for a small dose of piscatorial abuse, yeah, a half hour isn't enough time to wait when asking a question on somebody's talk page. A couple of days is more reasonable. Not to mention, that while I don't know what time zone Julian exists in, the half hour in question was when most people where I live are fast asleep.
And, finally, as a practical suggestion for citing NY Times articles, the URL mentioned in the DRV is to the "picture of the front page" version of the article. this URL gets you directly to the article by itself. Albeit with a slightly different headline, but I think that's an International Edition vs U.S. Edition thing. There's probably a URL that gets you directly to the exact version originally cited. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC) – -- RoySmith(talk)22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
He is a grass root worker whose work is making significance change in the life of destitute in India. The New York Times recently did a front page story on him, in this article it is clearly visible that he remain media shy for so many years. His work is praised not only in India but around the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2017/12/29/nytfrontpage/INYT_frontpage_global.20171229.pdf
I don't follow the "delete" versus "redirect" choice. User:DGG? It seems a bit of an knee jerk over reaction to an unjustified spinout. I'd have !voted "redirect". I think there is a defensible conclusion that consensus was against leaving a separate article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a bad close, I just prefer overturn to recover info rather than endorse and allow recreation which is starting from scratch. Szzuk (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "merge", leaving it to editorial discretion how much text to merge. The nomination was extremely weak – it doesn't matter for notability what most sources say, what matters is whether some have substantial coverage. The !deletes seem non-policy-based to me since they all presume at least some mention at Uday Foundation so a redirect (or merge) would be indicated. Finally, it seems rather difficult to argue that a foundation is notable but the person who set it up, named it. and runs it is not notable. However, our guidelines can be read so as to reach that conclusion and so !votes following that line of thought should be respected. Thincat (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just seen the new references (which aren't relevant to whether the AFD was closed properly). If the DRV nominator had waited longer for a reply the deleting admin might well have suggested creating a new article (or draft). Thincat (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Waited longer? Nonsense. The nominator gave me nearly an entire half hour. :) I stand by my decision at the AfD (the "delete" votes largely rested on the sound foundation of WP:NOTINHERETED while the "keeps" included such weak stances as "He deserves to be on Wikipedia" and a simple, unsubstantiated "meets notability requirements"). I saw and continue to see no other way the debate could have been closed. That said, it's been nearly a year so if additional sources have since cropped up and the subject's notability has become better established, I have no objection to trying again. – Juliancolton | Talk22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NCoverturn to merge as a second choice The policy-based argument for deletion is weak IMO (not notable other than his foundation is like being not notable for anything other than playing baseball). The sources are limited but outstanding. The numbers are split. I'm pretty sure I'd support merging honestly, but I don't think the numbers get us there (even if we treat the deletes as merge !votes, it's only 6 to 4). And again, the front page of the NYT is pretty solid. there is no way this was a delete. Hobit (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a flimsy analogy, if I'm being honest. A notable baseball player is notable because sources discuss him in the context of his baseball career. As I interpreted the discussion last April, there was (at least) a rough consensus that the sources which mentioned the subject only did so in passing as part of in-depth discussions about his foundation. As we know, creating something notable does not automatically make you notable by extension, and I'm a little surprised that you'd suggest otherwise. The NYT story was published months after the fact, so again, the circumstances may well have changed, and I'd be happy for all of the subject's many supporters if this were the case. I'd just like to make sure we distinguish between a judgment error on my part and an actual shift toward heightened notability over the course of ten months. – Juliancolton | Talk21:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that statements like "only notable for the thing he does for a living" isn't a reasonable deletion criteria. A lack of coverage of course is. But that's not what some of those !votes said. And I'll point out that we treat articles that review books/art as counting toward coverage of the writer/artist. So even then we do sometime count coverage of their work even if it doesn't discuss _them_ in great detail. So the argument that only being notable for one thing means you don't get an article is really flawed IMO. I will note that I think your close at the time was reasonable (I'd missed that the NYT article came after the AfD). Hobit (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Opinionon this ref? It is the best of those included in the AfD and if it is OK then along with the NYTI ref above it would convey enough notability for a standalone article. Szzuk (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unambiguous Endorse obvious close: those supporting keeping it were SPAs or non-extended confirmed accounts with a likely COI. The arguments in favour of deletion were better. This is also a year after the fact. DRV is not AfD round two, especially not a year later. Juliancolton's explanation above shows that he understands how AfDs work, and that this was well within the discretion of a closer. He should be given a barnstar for this, not have it overturned. Also, if the circumstances have changed: recreate the article and let's see if an independent admin thinks it passes G4. DRV should not be used to G4 proof articles where editors on the "losing" side of an XfD think it has changed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a large percent of what DRV does. Asking someone to write an article when they it's really unclear if it's going to get speedied is asking a lot of a volunteer. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I shared a recent front page NYT [8][9] article about the subject on the talk page of User:Juliancolton on 11 January 2018 with the request that if it possible to reinstate the article. Since I got no reply, again I posted the same on his talk page on 9th February 2018 and over here. At no point in time, I mentioned that if the page was wrongly deleted. My point was simple that since the article about the subject appeared on the front page of NYT, and there are few more detailed media sources have appeared in last one year [10][11][12] , is it possible to overturn the article well within the guidelines or if we can create a new article about the subject. Thanks HelloDolly89 (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should recreate the article if the DRV ends in endorse. Just keep it a short 2-3 sentences and include only the best 3-4 refs, include in the article recreation edit summary the New York Times front page. If you do that mostly likely it will avoid speedy delete or a further visit to AfD. Szzuk (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't salted, and it isn't new information at the time of the AfD (sourcing that existed but no one brought forth, etc.) DRV should not be in the business of G4-proofing new articles, which is what an allow recreation result is. DRV is much more sympathetic to attempts to recreate than most CSD reviewing admins, and using it in this way is basically gaming the system, IMO. Anyone is always free to recreate a non-salted article so long as it passes the G4 standard. As we cannot know if the article will pass the G4 standard until we see it, a close of endorse is best, with the standard disclaimer that anyone can recreate if they feel it passes G4. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TonyBallioni So in case of new draft, I need to inform Juliancolton in advance or May I share the same with with both of you for review / advice. My draft with few important references to reliable published sources are ready. Shibanihk (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Denver Online High School – Relisted. There's no clear consensus here, which means that the AfD can be relisted if this appears appropriate. That is so in this case because many editors suggest it and the AfD discussion was relatively brief. – Sandstein 20:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Closed as keep with the rationale that "There is very long standing consensus on this", despite the closure of several recent secondary school AfDs as delete and the outcome of this RfC, which found that secondary schools are not inherently notable. Closing administrator does not appear to have assessed consensus in the AfD discussion itself, where some of the comments were not supported by policy rationales. The consensus in the discussion is not to keep in my reading of it. My request at User talk:Spartaz#Denver Online High School AfD to re-open the discussion has been turned down, so bringing it for review here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Yet another example of people not being able to agree on what WP:SCHOOLRFC meant. It's pretty obvious to me what it means, but lots of people (many of whom have earned my respect) disagree with me. That says to me this battle is going to continue to be fought AfD by AfD, with the result varying largely by who happens to show up for which discussion. That's not a good situation. I would not have closed this as keep. I might have closed it as NC, or I might have relisted it. I can't find enough fault in the actual close to argue it should be overturned, however. -- RoySmith(talk)18:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the fault is in the failure to interpret the consensus in the actual discussion, as opposed to making an assertion about consensus in previous AfDs? There were more people arguing for delete than keep, and one of the keeps failed to offer a policy-based argument and seems on the fence between keep and merge. Setting aside the RfC, I don't see how we get from that discussion to a keep close. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC I don't see how you can make that closure Keep unless you make the leap that secondary schools have some sort of inherent notability, and we can't per the RfC. The Delete arguments aren't fantastic either though, especially in light of the fact that the schools RfC expects a sourcing search of greater depth than usual. The discussion had enough participation for a closure. Hut 8.521:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the mention of a greater depth of source searching was intended to be about non-Western schools in the most part. Sources about an "online high school" in the US should be pretty easy to find if they exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the RfC close doesn't actually say that, but you may well be right that the closer intended that. I've struck that part. Hut 8.507:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the question on the table (a) delete/keep, or (b) reopen the AfD? Fundamentally, we are asking the same jury pool to rehear the case. THAT is a waste of time. If we are going to litigate this one again, then the argument ought to be useful and set a precedent. This article already has two recognized press citations and a reasonable number of primary sources. If the intent is to raise the bar, then say so. Rhadow (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, the discussion was at most no consensus. The concern was lack of references, and the "keep" arguments did not provide additional references. There is not a "longstanding consensus" on schools any more, schools must follow the same standards as other organizations. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, do not relist which was the actual outcome of the RfC, and everything else in it was pontificating by closers trying to tell a story that had no basis in the actual discussion. There is no consensus on the issue of schools at the moment, and the RfC did not magically change the guidelines based reasoning behind SCHOOLOUTCOMES (WP:NPOSSIBLE). The community is very divided on this now, and despite what the anti-schools crowd might think, the RfC did not give closers the policy basis to ignore !votes that look at the traditional reasoning behind outcomes. There have been deletions based on that, but they were supervotes with no actual policy basis. Until such a time where we have an RfC that develops an actual community consensus for this, no consensus closes make the most sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
change to Non-consensus which better reflects the actual discussion. But keep should have been be the right conclusion: The basis for keeping these articles is not that high schools have inherent notability, and people who say delete based on the rejection of that argument are confusing the issue. The basis for keeping high school articles is that WP is better served by considering them as if they were notable, just as we do a few other subjects, such as Olympic athletes or populated places. The reason it's better is that it avoids these sorts of arguments. There are tens of thousands of high school articles,and we would be having the same discussion over every one of them.
Before we tacitly agreed to deal with them as if they were notable, we had many such discussions a day , and the results were an argument like this for every one of them, with essentially random results. That helps nobody. The people who did want them & didn't want them spent much of their effort at this, and AFD was much more clogged up than at present. AFDs go better when there are not too many of them, and those interested can concentrate on the real problems.
The effort here to delete seems based on the rationales that these articles are so inappropriate that even removing a few at random helps WP, and possibly a desire to bring that about by an attempt to overwhelm the other side. The first argument is wrong--WP is an encyclopedia , and reference works such as encyclopedias are supposed to have reasonably consistent coverage. As for the second, that is indeed a recurrent tactic at WP, and it is destructive of any possible cooperation. There's an inherent tendency to spend too much time on arguing at the expense of writing and improving articles, and we need to fight against it. WP is not really harmed by including some articles on unimportant subjects, and the more rational course is to accept that people judge different fields differently, and we should tolerate one another. Toleration is the basis of consensus. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Harm can happen at various levels. There's waste of resources. I've never seen anybody seriously argue that machine resources (storage, server cycles, bandwidth) are an issue. More important is lost productivity of our most important resource: human editors. For the editors writing the articles, well, I guess it's their time to spend as they please.
The real loss is time spent in these sorts of discussions. It's fine to have some amount of discussion, to hash out an issue, but as DGG points out, when you've got a large number of extremely similar topics (i.e. secondary schools), it's a big waste to keep having the same argument over and over again. Better to come to some global conclusion and apply that everywhere. If that means that we have some articles about schools that we shouldn't really have, I'm willing to accept that because the cure is worse than the disease. I was hoping that WP:SCHOOLRFC would give us that guidance, but we're still arguing over what the outcome means, so sadness there.
The other kind of harm is to our reputation. We want to be someplace people can come to and trust that they're getting good information. Every time we allow crap into the encyclopedia, it reduces that trust. It's death of a thousand paper cuts. This is where we need to start factoring in WP:PROMO and WP:COI to make sure we stay an encyclopedia, not a no-cost marketing channel. In this particular AfD, PROMO and COI never came up, so I assume it's not an issue for this school, but it is for some. We need to stay alert for that. -- RoySmith(talk)15:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Closer is correct on what we generally do. It has been a long standing practice as noted in the discussion and attempts to change it have not found consensus. NC would also have been a reasonable close. But we don't generally (ever?) overturn a keep to NC or the other way around. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Since we are not WP:BURO, I see no benefit of changing to NC close to placate bare delete !votes like this. I very much agree with the response of the closing Admin, while he stood with his close, he also didn't believe it will result in delete in other venue. And it is clear here, it won't be deleted. So changing to "No consensus" is bureaucratic symbolism without any benefit to the pedia. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you that the RfC closed with a statement that there was no consensus to end the practice of keeping all secondary school articles. That is indeed default treating as notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to keependorse The discussion seemed to turn more into a referendum on the recent anti-consensus "consensus", and this school seems to have gotten picked as a suitable battleground. I can find enough to where I would have kept it, and my experience is that, on GNG arguments, I tend to be pickier than consensus. But in this case it seems to me that DGG's picture of things, in the discussion, is generally accurate: public high schools in reality enjoy pretty much the same degree of actual note, but due to vagaries of location and community, finding this is much easier to come by from some than others. The school in question actually seems to have more real note than most due to its unusual nature, but when it comes down to it, it wouldn't be hard to treat public high schools as a class as lacking notability. I can't see that being defended, so it seems to me that neutrality has to turn in the direction of keeping these per the established consensus that one argument over in a corner doesn't get to overturn. It doesn't seem to me that real checking of sources figured in the discussion (I found an NPR story in which it figured as an example): the point seemed to be to find some school to delete in order to lay down the law. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mangoe -- You say, "it wouldn't be hard to treat public high schools as a class as lacking notability." Tell me, then, please, how would that logic apply to the hundreds of articles on Japanese train and trolley stops, none of which have a single reference? Which is more important to an encyclopedia reader, a high school or a trolley stop? Rhadow (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask me to defend them: I tried to get a bunch of "just the stats" train stop articles deleted, but they got kept anyway. Personally, I think that even down at the bottom of notability a high school where we can get demographics on the student population etc. is going to come higher than a platform by the side of the tracks where you might be able to find mention of it in a schedule. I've long ago given up hope that WP's standards on this were ever going to be as high as mine. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of crap in wikipedia that shouldn't be there. In the scheme of things, secondary schools with dubious notability hardly seem worth worrying about. Likewise, I can't get too worked up over the zillions of trivia articles from rail-fans, pokeomon-fans, football-fans, etc. I'm much more concerned over the people using wikepedia for deliberate for-profit marketing/SEO/spam.
Endorse. I think this should have been ended as merge or redirect but that wasn't discussed despite the nom mentioning it. Presumably the outcome of the DRV will be NC and it will get chucked back on afd before long, maybe merge/redirect will get discussed in more depth at that time. Whatever the case or closing rationale there is no consensus to delete in that AfD. Szzuk (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate close since it's incorrect per the aforementioned RfC and it does not follow the discussion that was held. I really don't care if that results in overturning to NC, relisting, or simply reopening it—so long as Spartaz's close is not the final judgement. --Tavix(talk)22:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC established, among other things, that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist" (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Spartaz effectively ignored this decision—and the AfD discussion—with their close. --Tavix(talk)20:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does it really matter whether it's closed as Keep or No Consensus? The outcome is the same either way. This whole DRV is a waste of a lot of people's time. Unless someone has an actual reason this should have been closed as delete, this DRV should be closed immediately to so as to not waste any more people's time. Smartyllama (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" implies that there was consensus, when in fact there was none. You may feel this does not matter, but several other editors, myself incldued, do feel this distinction is important enough to merit this discussion. --Tavix(talk)20:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I'm afraid I didn't see the reason the page was deleted. I am the actual artist and would like to know if the page could be undeleted. Would an interview on National TV help as credible source? Roarschaq (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully understand how all this works. The page of my old band Jesse James was deleted, apparently for no real reason and given the band's significance on the UK punk scene at the time this seems wrong. You make some comment about "dubious copyright" in regard to a video on youtube legitimately posted by our erstwhile record label. Why dubious? That's an ill informed statement. There appears to have been zero research done before deleting the page.
The existence of the band is not in question, as far as I can tell. The article was deleted because it did not demonstrate the notability of the band. Significant press coverage would demonstrate notability (see WP:BAND), so can you provide details of that coverage? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the problem with the Youtube link is that posting someone else's song on Youtube without permission can be considered copyright infringement, and there was no indication that this video was posted by an official source or anything. I also note that Wikia and Discogs are user generated wikis hence not reliable sources and Youtube videos are self-published sources hence neither contributes to "notability" as we define it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses a concept called Notability to determine if we should have an article on a given topic or not. Simply verifying that something exists, while a requirement, isn't enough. The rules get complicated and arcane sometimes, but the gist of it is, If other reliable, independent, third-party sources are writing about the topic, in sufficient quantify, then it's notable. The following should fill in some details:
WP:GNG, our general guidelines for what we consider notable
WP:BAND, more specific guidelines that apple to bands
WP:RS, guidelines on what we consider to be reliable sources
PS, I'll call this, Endorse on merits, but... with so little discussion, I would have closed this as WP:SOFTDELETE, in which case, WP:REFUND would apply. But, given that the sources presented here are all youtube and similar first-party sites, I can't get too worked up over that. If somebody could dig up a couple of WP:RS, then we should restore this, or at least relist it. -- RoySmith(talk)15:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the article was deleted because there was no evidence that the subject met Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:N and WP:MUSIC) and nobody who looked could find any. Given the limited participation I'd be happy for this to be restored if you put forward some evidence of notability here, such as pointing to reliable sources which cover the subject in detail. Hut 8.518:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Günter Bechly – Endorse original close, no consensus on recreation.
tl;dr: it's staying deleted.
There's reasonably good agreement here that the original AfD close was correct, given the information available at the time. So, I'm calling that a consensus to endorse the original close. There were, however, additional sources presented here at DRV, and those sources saw significant discussion. A number of people felt that, with these additional sources, a WP:BLP article would be justified. Others felt the new sources don't change anything. I don't see any consensus one way or the other on that.
Somebody might want to try writing a new draft from scratch, with better sourcing, etc (i.e. WP:TNT) and see if that sits better with the community. Another possibility brought up here was writing a new article, Deletion of the Günter Bechly Wikipedia article, as an introspective on our own process. Both of those ideas got only minimal discussion, so there's absolutely no consensus either way on either of them. Caviat editor.
There is undoubtedly some socking/canvassing going on here. But, there's also cogent arguments being made by experienced editors on both sides, so the socking/canvassing is no more than a minor annoyance. – -- RoySmith(talk)23:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The article for Günter Bechly was deleted several months ago due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources I was considering rewriting the article on the basis that the subject passes WP:GNG, especially seeing as the close itself got some media attention which adds to potential sources. Sources:
Converted by Evidence from Adventist Today (not about the deletion of his Wikipedia article). Certainly a biased source in general, but considering that its only an article about a person and is sufficiently independent of them it seems reasonable to add to the pool of resources contributing to GNG.
Ironic that the deletion of his article for non-notability might actually lend itself to his notability. I previously discussed this with the closing admin, Jo-Jo Eumerus, on their talk page (can be found at the bottom of this archive) in December. They suggested I go here. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It was a fair close. Having looked at the refs above I'm unconvinced they would have made much difference, I would likely vote delete at a new AFD. If you seek and find better references during this DRV you could sway the vote in your favour and I suggest you do that. Szzuk (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I had a conversation with the closing admin User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Günter Bechly where I stated my opinion about this deletion and gave a few links to websites endorsing his notability. .The refs given above are of much less quality. Remember, the notability criteria are guidelines and not a rule. In the worst case also remember Wikipedia:Five pillars : Wikipedia has no firm rules ! JoJan (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the refs in the article, the AFd and the DRV I won't be changing my endorse vote. Given the length and depth of the AFd I expected the article itself to offer much more notability than it does. Szzuk (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The notability problem hasn't changed since the original discussion, there isn't any mention of Günter Bechly in secondary publications of the fields he writes in, and only a few smatterings of publications referencing him in passing outside of that field. The tempest in a teapot that happened after the deletion is all non-neutral sourcing making reliability a problem too.--Kevmin§17:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in our deletion policy says the sources have to be "neutral". Nor should they. We'll write the best article we can given the sources. And the Haaretz article certainly doesn't put a positive spin on his ID work/views. Hobit (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if I'm allowed to comment here (feel free to remove it in that case) but I feel it might be worth mentioning that a lot of those new refs listed above do not seem reliable at all, pretty much all the media coverage on the deletion was was accusing me and others who supperted deletion of bias, which is completely untrue and obvious to anyone who bothered to read the conversations without having an agenda. Even if the article is recreated, please do not endorse any of those ridiculous publications by using them in a BLP.★Trekker (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that most of this is the internet at its worst, a combination of ignorance and "outrage", but simply because a source is biased doesn't inherently mean its not sufficiently independent or reliable in some circumstances (which is why I chose to omit the stream of diatribe from the Discovery Institute, as it employs Bechly) -Indy beetle (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion and restore the keep arguments were on the whole poor and while the NBC and Dailymail articles in the article weren't horrible, there is a rational argument to be had that they weren't about him. But now we've got sources that are actually pretty good. The Haaretz article is navel-gazing for us but would seem to count toward WP:N. The Adventist article can't really be said to be non-independent. I think we are now well over WP:N. No objections to a relist if, as it seems, there is some debate about this. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD had a lot of canvassing and it is quite plausible that those new references are a result of the same canvassing. To make someone notable for getting deleted off WP and then kicking up a great fuss would be setting a bad precedent. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent point is good, but I think ONEVENT would apply if the event were found to be notable, so essentially we would be tacitly acknowledging that "Deletion of The Wikipedia article of Gunter Bechly" would be notable, which would be odd, to say the least. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, he's got better coverage than most of our BLPs at this point. A few articles purely about him. And only one of the four articles I listed are about getting deleted from Wikipedia. I don't see how one out of four being largely about that event makes ONEEVENT in play. Now it is the _best_ source, but still. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it deleted. The AfD was brimming over with canvassing, and the coverage of the deletion was mediocre journalism at best (for example, Haaretz — whose write-up is the best of a sorry lot — completely botched the history of Wikipedia deletion discussions). Sound-and-fury from unreliable sources is not adequate basis to bring an article back. I would say that the dust-up over deleting the article could itself be mentioned in some other page, but I don't think the sources we have are actually reliable enough for even that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It seems clear to me that a scientific author with many publications who has named several new species, and has been recognized by his peers and had species named after him, is in fact notable. Invertzoo (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This was aan example of an afd where a scientist with an orthodox and notable record in their field, was held to a much higher standard because they were also a creationist. It has always with everyone else here where the question was raised at AfD, that discovering new species is an indication of notability (not having a species merely named after oneself, because the discoverer can name it after anyone or anything they please.) And he did discover quite a number of new species and also described at least one high classification. That in particular is expertise amount to recognition by ones peers. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see; a) Bechly self authoring his own article b) Canvassing during the AfD c) bogus anti-creationism being used as a vehicle to generate the news refs above. Also note the nom for this DRV isn't asking for an overturn, he's asking for allow recreation. Szzuk (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
well, I was thinking of writing one myself, but it would make sense to start with what we have. I'm a supporter of the article and he didn't canvass me. Point c. I don;t understand.
Endorse deletion. The AFD close was a reasoned and valid conclusion to the discussion. I don't see how additional coverage about the fact that the article was deleted adds to the subject's notability; after all, the subject is a person, not a Wikipedia article. I have no objection to re-creating the article afresh in draft space, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was reasonable. I don't think it very likely that we would have had an article if the subject had not been advocating creationism, and its creation by an account with no other edits, followed immediately by editing by the subject, not only supports this but also stinks. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost half the edits to the article are by the subject or an IP address where he works, as well as the single-edit SPI who created the article. Yes, it stinks. Blow it up and start over, I say. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that 99% of the content was totally unsourced and unsourcable when Bechly's personal webpages (which are not reliable sourcing) are removed.--Kevmin§23:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - I think its important for me to emphasize that I'm arguing for the recreation of this article in light of new coverage, not because I thought the original AfD was wrong. If someone else has other sources (pre or post-AfD) they think would support GNG then by all means list them, but please understand I'm not arguing for the mere restoration of the old article with all of its old problems. If it were brought back I'd want to improve it, naturally. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: I have looked at the new coverage and in my opinion it isn't quite enough to make him notable. There may, however, be enough coverage to justify an article about the deletion. As for the accusation of a double standard, I think that it is pretty clear that we have one standard, but some of the least notable BLPs don't get enough attention and remain despite the fact that if we looked at them they wouldn't survive an AfD. Günter Bechly drew our attention because of his being a creationist. He would have drawn our attention if he had streaked the Superbowl, made a wildly popular YouTube video, or any number of other things that in themselves don't make someone notable. The answer is not to relax our standards for Günter Bechly but rather to AfD the other non-notable BLPs that have escaped our attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse So a bunch of creationist publications came out against our deleting an article on a (supposedly?) ID-sympathetic scientist -- do we buckle and restore the article regardless of what our policies and guidelines say? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Actually a bunch of the sources are really about Wikipedia, NOT Bechly, and I don't get the impression that anyone who would cite them in favour of undeletion has actually read them. This is a particularly glaring example -- one gets the impression that the headline (quoted above, out of context) was either written by someone other than the author of the article, or was meant to be deliberately tongue-in-cheek, since it is actually praising our community for having prevented the religious right from hijacking our encyclopedia. what began as an orderly debate about whether Bechlys [sic] work qualifies him to have his own entry in Wikipedia and whether the entry about him meets the criteria required for academics – standards thoroughly covered by Wikipedias [sic] general notability guidelines [sic] – soon deteriorated into a battle royal between science-minded Wikipedia editors and promoters of creationism -- such a source obviously can not and should not be used to undelete the page as though it somehow solves the notability problem. The ACSH source is also questionable -- browsing other articles by the same author on the same website, one gets the impression they are promoting the (fringe) "the left is more anti-science than the right", as anti-vaccination movement coverage is rampant, NPR and the New York Times are apparently just as fake as Infowars and Natural News, and most telling of all the only entry on the website of a scientific/educational organization that mentions ID is one that creates a false equivalence between an ID proponent we have "erased from history" and Alexander Graham Bell.[14]Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Report Incident?. The pattern of behaviour discovered during this DRV might be worthy of an incident report at ANI. There is self authoring, a COI, canvassing and in the words of a couple of editors it "Stinks". Bechly may even welcome this - he could fire off some emails complaining about his topic ban on editing himself and generate some more references.Szzuk (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was canvassing and uncivil behaviour from IP editors during the AfD - I'd like to know if any of that was connected to Bechly or his workplace.Szzuk (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The obvious SPA "votes" for keeping are a major concern, and the fight-to-the-death battlefield that is creationism vs evolution should not pertain here, and yet it apparently does to some extent, unfortunately. The closing admin did a reasonable and rational close, following the guidelines at the time, and ignored the canvassing and the arguments without foundation. There clearly were insufficient WP:RS to make Bechly notable, and Jo-Jo Eumerus did a fine job in explaining his closure. The arguments made by Hijiri88 and other endorsers also resonated with me, so this is an endorse per them as well, without repeating their arguments. The reaction to the deletion is fascinating (in the sense of watching a disaster), and extremely troublesome. That reaction must not influence the existence of this article in WP. The sources referenced don't seem to understand Wikipedia and approach this as if it were a political issue. It's not. It is, and remains, an internal discussion among experienced editors about a particular article with reference to WP:Notability and WP:RS. If the subject gains sufficient RS (better than what we have here) to support notability, then there is no objection to undeleting the article into draft space and working on it. - Becksguy (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that you are saying that an article that discusses deletion on Wikipedia cannot be used as a source toward WP:N? Hobit (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will say it. An article that discusses deletion on Wikipedia cannot be used as a source showing notability in a BLP AfD. It could, however, be used as a source in a Wikipedia article about the deletion of the BLP and the reaction to it. BTW, you should be looking at WP:NBIO, not WP:N. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am not commenting about whether the subject of the AfD is notable; additionally as others have written the debate regarding evolution and other theories should have no place as to whether the biography of a living person is sufficiently notable or not. That said, I would like to comment that I am coming to the view that the deletion of the article, is quickly becoming notable as an event, as the deletion event has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources thus meeting WP:GNG. At the very least it could be given some weight in Criticism of Wikipedia article, with the potential to become a standalone article at some future time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not commenting on this discussion (except that I guess it seems acceptable to include maybe a mention of the AfD over at Criticism of Wikipedia, albeit while following WP:DUE), but I guess people should point out that, contrary to the belief of some creationists, we do have and keep articles on creationists and intelligent design advocates. Like, how we have a detailed article on Intelligent design, and articles on its advocates Stephen C. Meyer, Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe, and William A. Dembski, among others. We even have an article on Henry M. Morris, considered to be the father of creation science. So saying that we delete articles on people solely because they're creationists is inaccurate to say the least. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew07:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: while I do not endorse Intelligent Design and don't think a scientist should endorse it, Günter Bechly was a well respected paleontologist and entomologist and has made worthwhile contributions to science until 2015. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is @Deselliers:, and always has been that there is little to no coverage of Bechly as a person in secondary sources, making him non-notable. Creationism had nothing to do with the deletion until single purpose IPS and long dead accounts started to show up at the discussion....--Kevmin§13:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
we do not need coverage "as a person" to meet WP:PROF. Scientists are notable for the scientific work, not the details of their biographies. We need to show their work is influential, such as by describing multiple species in this case. Their professional education etc is relevant content, but we don't need third party sources for that either. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the thing, there is no discussion of Bechly's work in any notable way in the fossil literature, and per WP:Prof, simply describing things does not impart notability.--Kevmin§01:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway & thoughts - this appears to be about the subject of biology basically. Without supporting any theory, I have always found it to be amazing how evidence are seen upon within the subject of Biology compared to other science. Let's compare with Mathematics. The "Old Greeks" made the assumption that numbers such as 31, 331, 3331, 33331, 333331 etc always are primes. However Leonard Euler discovered that in fact 333333331 = 17 x 19607843 ! What appears to be isn't the same as evidence, except within biology. And any deviation from the by the majority of experts ideas, isn't accepted.
This is an outstanding example of how a few biology interested within our community, simply has become mad over this person's ideas. As it seems. And wish to delete the article from history. I'm not even remotely interested of the origin of species, not from any scientific perspective at least (including "Creationism"). But I suppose Darwin's explanation of for instance Why giraffes have so long necks ? is better than the older idea (The necks became longer as the giraffes aimed for food higher and higher). But Darwinism/evolution still is "just what looks like", or assumptions. A theory not proven. During some quarter of a century biologists have stated "Homo sapiens came from Africa" - solely based on the oldest human skeleton ("Lucy") was found there. And now an even older skeleton has been found elsewhere, and H.sapiens began there instead all of the sudden - until an even older one is found yet again, etc. Always "What appears to be" - not absolute evidence, as within other sciences. I don't know how some can become so rabid about this, that they wish to delete an entire article on a scientist with different ideas. Just the facts I gave in the link, ought to be sufficient for restoring the article (with changes where/if needed). Boeing720 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not a forum for discussing evolutionary biology. Nor was the article on Bechly deleted because he had "different ideas". We have dozens of pages on creationists, Intelligent Design or otherwise. We have both a list and a category of people who converted to religion from atheism. Bechly's article was removed because he is not notable. Notability is established by coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. The source you provide is one we already knew about, and it is a regurgitation of the Haaretz piece, which as mentioned above made errors of fact. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment I think people are getting too off track here with ID vs evolution debate and whether or not the article was deleted because of Bechly's associations. Anyways, other users have expressed that while the sources above don't fulfill GNG for Bechly, they do show notability for the Deletion of the Günter Bechly Wikipedia article either as an article or as component of Criticism of Wikipedia. I originally opted for the recreation of the Bechly article because I thought the creation of a Wikipedia article about the deletion of a Wikipedia article was just too plain abstract, but now I see if it fulfills GNG it could work, in which case I would probably withdraw this request. So please, whether you're new to this conversation or otherwise, I'd like an opinion on the notability of the deletion and if so how it should be incorporated into Wikipedia (a stand-alone article or in one that already exists). -Indy beetle (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in principle the deletion itself could be discussed within an article like Criticism of Wikipedia, but to put it bluntly, I do not trust the reliability of the sources that have written about the deletion. And even if the sources (or some nontrivial fraction of them) were fine, there just isn't enough content to warrant a stand-alone article like those on the Essjay or Seigenthaler incidents. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To XOR. I wasn't really discussing biology, just compared with math. I think Bechly is relevant and fulfills GNG better than about half of our articles on living people. A good question is why someone suddenly came up with the deletion idea now - after six years. According to the (twice given) source "If a respected scientist endorses a controversial view, should he or she be erased from history? The editors at Wikipedia think so, but only if the controversial opinion is one they personally dislike." and the article author, Alex Berezov, is "Dr. Berezow is a prolific science writer whose work has appeared in multiple outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC News, The Economist, and USA Today, where he serves as a member of the Board of Contributors." If he states Bechly is "a respected scientist" - who are we to think otherwise ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having one's page deleted from Wikipedia does not erase one from history. That much alone pretty much discredits what your prolific science writer has said. Moreover, how much or how little respect Bechly gets or deserves isn't even remotely at issue. You're arguing against a straw man, and it's not helpful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being called a "respected" whatever does not inherently mean that notability requirements are satisfied. I also now do have some doubts about Berezow, see this. It does seem that Berezow did write this blog article, as he responds to the comments, but considering his credibility, I wouldn't consider his words a golden standard. At any rate, it's totally possible that Wikipedia editor saw a piece about Bechly changing his mind about evolution, found him on Wikipedia, and then realized the case for his notability was weak. Earliest discussion I can find about that is [16], many months before the actual deletion. I did comment on the Berezow's article (under the name Indy) and he responded that if Bechly was on German Wikipedia he should be on English Wikipedia, an argument which clearly shows a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. All that said, I believe its very possible that the coverage his op-ed on the subject offers contributes to notability, but don't take his word for how we operate. Gee and I'm suppose to be supporting an overturn XS... -Indy beetle (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Indy beetle. And I have some very strong doubts on Stacy Malkan, the journalist you refer to on Berezow... :) But journalists aside, the article on Bechly has existed her a long time. We have articles on local politicans like Torkild Strandberg times thousands which ough to go first, I think (the example is of a man which is kind of mayor in my own 30-35.000 people town). Bechly at least is known within his own field, and far away. We are not obligated to have all articles that exists at German Wiki, no. But deleting this article seems to me like reversed cherry picking, "deselection" if you like. It's not to our benefit. But naturally all sources must be examined well. The article must not be "a voice of Creationism". Can't help the feeling of someone disliked that he has become a Catholic, that scientists ought to be atheists. And that's the reason for this "deselection". If the "inliners" are OK, I can't see any reason for this "deselection" delete. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The length of time the article has existed is irrelevant. The fact that other articles exist which should be deleted for lack of notability is irrelevant. Bechly's conversion to Catholicism is irrelevant. What you "feel" about someone's original motivation to nominate for deletion is irrelevant. All sources were examined quite thoroughly – and found lacking. Please pay attention. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources - two Finnish authors has written a book on Bechly [17]. [18] Cambridge, about "The Crato Fossil Beds of Brazil". And "Preservation of three-dimensional anatomy in phosphatized fossil arthropods enriches evolutionary inference" at [19] as one of seven world wide scientists. Within the field of Paleontology Bechly apparently is a very well reputed scientist. That alone is sufficient. But since our deletion, his relevance obviously has increased. Shame on us ! Boeing720 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "as one of seven world wide scientists" is, literally, meaningless. The link is to an article on which Bechly is a coauthor. This does not establish his notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have my own prejudices, I might be tempted to say, Ugh, who needs another article about a German scientist, or Ick, all he cares about is bugs, or (if I were seriously allergic to anyone in the sciences having their own personal beliefs and interests), Pfagh, a scientist who believes in God and doesn't mind discussing the concept of intelligent design, how terrible. As it is, this scientist has done significant work which has been recognized as such, e.g. the "description of the new fossil insect order Coxoplectoptera" as noted in a rather good NBC News article written by Wynne Parry for Live Science. Whatever significance his other views and activities have can be treated fairly and even-handedly: that's what we're supposed to be good at here on this encyclopedia anyone can edit. – Athaenara ✉ 04:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I can see that delete might have been a reasonable outcome even with that and the other decent source in the article at the time. But with the new sourcing, it's well over the bar IMO. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
