Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May

29 May 2020

Tolu' A Akinyemi – No consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. Opinion is split between those who would endorse the "delete" closure as reflecting the clear consensus of the discussion, and those who would overturn to "keep" or relist because they consider the "delete" arguments to be mistaken. In a no consensus situation like this at DRV, I as the closer could relist the discussion. I decline to do so because the purpose of relisting a discussion is to obtain a clearer consensus, but consensus in this case appears to be clear. Moreover, it is accepted that the purpose of DRV is to remedy procedural errors, not to relitigate deletion discussions on the merits. To me, it follows from this that discussions should not be relisted from DRV for the purpose of changing an outcome considered to be wrong by DRV contributors. Accordingly, the article remains deleted for lack of consensus to overturn the decision to delete it. Sandstein 07:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tolu' A Akinyemi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tolu' A Akinyemi on the grounds that it lacks enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources meanwhile this this and this was referenced in the article. Olatunde Brain (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC) endorse deletion per this nomination, the source existed in the article and it's clear the delete voters considered them. Disliking the outcome of an AFD is not a valid use of DRV and I suggest this be withdrawn. Praxidicae (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Please what do you mean by 'Disliking' the outcome of AFD, should i have Liked it when i feel the consensus was against me? I didn't just requested a DRV without discussing first with the adminstrator. He told me to move on and accept that the consensus was against me or request a DRV. The question you should ask is are the cited sources independent, reliable and verifiable?. Many of the editors shifted opinions during the discussion which leads me to ask if an article must meet all the criteria to be accepted. This is not a 'Dislike' it's the protocols and i'm following just that. --Olatunde Brain (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Please explain on what basis you've filed this DRV. DRV isn't for arguing notability, it's for determining whether the close was correct. Was the close incorrect? There were six voters including yourself and the nominator. As per consensus and not just even counting votes, 5 voted for deletion and one (you) voted to keep. I don't see that any of the delete votes were flawed or otherwise able to be excluded. See this section, specifically for when it should be used. Which of this criteria does it meet? Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Comment from closer: this wasn't a contentious AfD. Of six participants, only Brain7days, who wrote the article and opened this DRV, objected to deletion. He attempted to argue that the subject was notable both in the AfD and a lengthy side-discussion at User talk:Celestina007/Archives/2020/December#Tolu' A Akinyemi Nomination, but other editors provided solid arguments against this. It was an obvious close as delete. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Comment Apparently their argument isn't that solid because my points rebutted theirs the WP:DELREASON was that it lacks enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources of which i have proved to be incorrect. The nominator also claimed to have made google searches before concluding which was clearly against WP:BASIC, because a subject who shares similar information with the subject of discussion will often appear first which is what i explained to the nominator that most times people talk about our subject of discussion with the picture of the other subject in mind. A clear example of this was Burna Boy's Ye and Kanye West's Ye. --Olatunde Brain (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC) All of the sources you provided were present at the time of deletion and per WP:AGF, the voters took them into account. So you're literally violating the purpose of DRV by arguing this and that other articles exist. I suggest you withdraw this now as it's an abuse of this process. Praxidicae (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC) DRV is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion. So this is an appeal not an argument and as per this section #1 says i can--Olatunde Brain (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC) You are incorrect. You are arguing that it's notable, not that the afd itself was flawed or incorrect. You have presented exactly zero sources that are new that would override the AFD, so you're literally just arguing against the decision because you do not like it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Brain7days please answer the following with a yes or no answer - no lengthy debate: Did the closer, Joe Roe interpret consensus, which was 5 delete, 1 keep wrong? Was it speedily deleted outside of the AFD? Has new significant information, specifically coverage in reliable sources that did not exist at the time of AFD, exist now? If yes, please provide them. Was it deleted in a manner that any reasonable editor would be unable to tell the reasoning? Were there substantial procedural errors in the AFD? Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Praxidicae But my decision to request a DRV is not against the closer now, or is it?, if it is then i'm sorry . I believe i was appealing that the discussion be reviewed, i have nothing against the closer infact he gave me the option to request a DRV.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Relist as a flawed discussion. I'm seeing no evidence that the sources listed above (book reviews listed in The Guardian, The Sun (United Kingdom), and The Punch) were discussed. In fact the first delete !voter says "None of books have been discussed in reliable sources", which is just untrue. Rather issues of Amazon book rankings and the like were the focus of the discussion. Given those sources appear to be enough to meet WP:N and at least one book would meet WP:BOOK. It may well be that we require authors to have more than just reviews of their work, but that should be discussed in an AfD. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Are you insinuating that none of the five delete voters actually read the article or sources? Also The Sun is definitely not reliable, it's tabloid trash. Also, The_Guardian_(Nigeria) is not the same as The Guardian, it's not even the same company. Praxidicae (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC) The sources were not discussed, at all, at the AfD and at least two delete !voters specifically said there were no reliable sources, when there plainly are. So either they had deep thoughts about Nigerian sources (and The Sun) and didn't share them or they didn't notice them. In any case, the sources weren't discussed at the AfD and so I think we should relist and see what happens once the sources are discussed. If you are right and folks think those sources are poor, we'll get to the same place. If not, we will have kept an article on a notable topic. Seems like a low-cost way forward. Hobit (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Votes do not have to detail every source they read, we have to assume per WP:AGF that they've done their due diligence. It's not about being Nigerian sources either, The Sun is garbage as per WP:RSP. Equating The Guardian.ng to The Guardian is also misleading. My point has been this entire time, that there was no error in the close nor procedural mishaps. It's quite a hefty charge to assume that five editors didn't bother reading any of the sources. Praxidicae (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Really? Nigerian sources are garbage? The Guardian Nigeria was established in 1983 by Alex Ibru here you are saying it is not reliable, somebody explain what is going on, the subject is registered with the british library. What exactly are reliable sources if i may ask? Infact i've got more sources see Business Day The nation northern insight AgeUK and Daily sun (was cited also) London Connected if all this sources are not reliable, then what is, We might as well delete many articles on wiki because 5 in 10 articles have cited these sources. I am flabbergasted. The nominator claimed to have made thorough research. --Olatunde Brain (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Brain7days do not misquote me. I never once said Nigerian sources are garbage. I said The Sun is garbage because it's tabloid trash and it is, as per consensus. I also never said that theguardianng wasn't reliable just that it is not the same as The Guardian and isn't even the same company as the above editor wrongly stated. Please redact your false statement. Praxidicae (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Also this is a press release and ldnconnected is definitely not an rs. Praxidicae (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Praxidicae Ok you never said Nigerian Sources are garbage (i take that back) But you assume that the editors who voted that the same Nigerian sources are unreliable have done so as per WP:AGF when all they did was Basic research? Even though the articles did not violate any of the WP:DEL#REASON because the article clearly met atleast one criteria in WP:LIVE where is the good faith?. Anyways remove AgeUK and LondonConnected we still have atleast 6 sources, Not enough? --Olatunde Brain (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Your reply makes no sense at all. You can't accuse people of not assuming good faith for criticizing your poor choice of venue all while assuming bad faith about the editors in the DRV. How do you know they didn't read these sources? Are you a mind reader? Praxidicae (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC) There are 'no editors' criticizing my 'poor choice of venue' it's just you who think this article doesn't deserve a review and i shouldn't be here, and you want me to 'assume' you are doing so as per WP:AGF and it's fine. Let a sleeping dog lie, there are other things to do. I Apologise Thank you. --Olatunde Brain (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Relist (if not a straight overturn to keep.) This was a badly flawed discussion. The keep !voter tried to save with sources and did not convince the other participants, in part because the discussion went all over the place. The subject of the article clearly passes WP:POET with the reviews at [1] [2] [3] Those (along with the Sun, which is different than the UK Sun) clearly demonstrate the fact this should be kept. There is a little bit of confusion because he shares a name with another notable modern Nigerian poet, but easy web searches uncovered these sources. I want to note there was absolutely no problem with the close on the closer's side, as consensus was for delete, and that while I believe DRV is not a place for a second AfD, I think this is a particularly exceptional case. I'm not looking to get into an argument about whether the sources presented do or do not meet WP:GNG, but I would like to make that case at an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 02:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC) The Sun source here may not be the tabloid but there is still no evidence its reliable. Take a look at their contact page and completely blank about us page. Considering they also use the exact logo of The Sun UK, it's not unreasonable to believe they are the same and not entirely reputable given they are depending on someone else's name recognition and same goes for Guardianng. Praxidicae (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC) There's no evidence it's unreliable, either. It's one of the top newspapers in Nigeria, #1 according to one source, #5 according to another. Furthermore if you want to disqualify it for the sake of arguments, you could easily add in other reviews from other top Nigerian newspapers such as [4] or [5]. SportingFlyer T·C 04:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse based only on having read the AFD, and not seen the article. The closer acted reasonably, and I see no error. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse, possibly relist/refund, but frankly the arguments of the single keep is all over the place. It's true that "sources not discussed at AfD" would be purpose #3, but I'm not convinced that a relist/renom would see more focused discussion. I would favour refund and eventual creation via AfC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC) So, as always I disregard John Pack Lambert, who's the one-man counterpart to the ARS and demonstrably has a history of voting without doing basic searches. That leaves us with Versace1608, GPL93, and Newshunter12. Newshunter12 alleges that there's no significant coverage in third party sources; but the article cited three national newspaper articles directly about the subject. Some editors might give Newshunter12's vote less weight because of that -- but I don't. I give his vote zero weight, because there's direct evidence that what he's saying is counterfactual. GPL93 goes for "delete" because he's applying a specific notability guideline ("SNG") to someone who passes the general notability guideline ("GNG"). I think he's objectively wrong to do so. We've had many discussions at DRV about whether SNGs can overrule the GNG, of course. This leaves us with Versace1608 who says the article subject doesn't pass the GNG, and he too is objectively wrong. So, when I subtract all the "delete" votes that I feel deserve no weight, I'm left with zero "delete" votes. I can't agree with the closer in this case.—S Marshall T/C 15:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Note: I've temporarily undeleted the page so non-admins can review the article for purposes of this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC) The closer has correctly reflected the consensus at the debate and I have to endorse the closure. However, it does seem to me that many of the arguments in the AFD were fatally flawed, by alleging that GNG was not met when there is quite a lot of evidence that there is. I would suggest restoring to draft but would not object to relisting. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Relist per Hobit and SportingFlyer. I do not like the insinuation that coverage in African newspapers is less notable than coverage in Anglo-American ones. The Guardian (Nigeria) is effectively a newspaper of record. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Endorse deletion — The closer made no error here. Deletion in this case is very much apt. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Overturn It is clear that the subject of article passes WP:GNG with sufficient evidence to prove it, and those evidences (sources) was not discussed at AFD. Moreso, the discussion was completely flawed by a suspected stratagem because three(3) of the voters at AFD including the first voter at DRV were all listed on the nominator's INFLUENCERS LIST (and that explains why he (praxidicae) was hellbent on defending his endorsement) the nominator however deleted that list after we had this conversation. A coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous - Albert Einstein. Since wikipedia is not a final draft and other stuff exist relisting will only take us back to square one --Olatunde Brain (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Brain7days, I would advise that you please don't cast aspersions on other editors' motives, as that is pretty close to making a personal attack, which is not allowed. Also, nominating a DRV is implicitly an "overturn" !vote, which makes your bolded overturn here redundant and generally frowned upon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Brain7days I have no idea what that influence list is nor why my name is on it. There is no motive here. DRV is not about disliking the outcome of a clear consensus as noted below. I suggest you strike your ridiculous comment immediately. Also, for the record, I am not a he, I am female and prefer to be referred to as such. Praxidicae (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC) @Brain7days, Please always assume good faith, refrain from casting aspersions & always endeavor to remain civil. What you stated above “the nominator however deleted that list after we had this conversation”, is the inverse of assuming good faith. You came into this collaborative project & your first article was an article for yourself which was eventually deleted then you went on to create an article for this individual whom you most likely are quite familiar with(which i AFDed) & was deleted as well but nobody assumed bad faith with you or thought of you as a promo only account but rather, we directed you accordingly to helpful policies & guidelines you needed to understand before attempting to create any more articles but you have however chosen to see conspiracies where there isn’t any & assumed the worst in other editors seeking to aid you in your journey as an editor & that isn’t proper neither is it fair. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Alpha3031 Actually my vote came after an endorse deletion vote by the nominator, I believe in balance and fairness, Praxidicae sorry for a mistake in Identity and for the last time, i did not dislike the outcome of AFD, i just feel the consensus was against me and look we can not continue to say DRV should primarily be about the consensus without looking at the authencity of the WP:DELREASON there is a reason it is called an appeal to review right?--Olatunde Brain (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Celestina007 I already predicted that your next comment will be about my article but unfortunately you are wrong, i have created an article before that and i explained here how that happened.So my account is not a promo account i don't have anything to hide or fear here. My edit history is available for anyone and everyone--Olatunde Brain (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC) @Brain7days, apologies but you’d agree that my point is still very much valid. we assumed good faith with you & it wouldn’t be too much to ask to in turn assume good faith with us. The consensus was a clear delete & the admin who closed the AFD was very much apt, so this DRV isn’t necessary & is an abuse to the entire DRV process & what it represents/stands for. You not accepting or liking the outcome of an AFD isn’t what a DRV is for. Quit rushing to reply or react for the sake of it but rather start to actually listen. Furthermore creating articles for yourself or for someone you are familiar with are all traits of a promo account. But in the end don’t “anticipate” like you stated above, this isn’t a battle contest nor a game where we gain points but rather this a collaborative project & here we work together. Celestina007 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC) We do say that "DRV isn't 'AfD, round two'", but I think it's fair to treat this as a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3, since it does (correct me if I'm wrong) bring up information that wasn't discussed at AfD. On the other hand, yes, the nominator could perhaps familiarise themselves a little more with what DRV is allowed to do (for #3, that's usually a relist or refund), since otherwise it's just going to be a source of fustration. We don't overturn closures that aren't wrong, and we don't overturn discussions either, even if they are wrong. That's why we have things like "I would have voted keep, but endorse" comments like Reyk makes below. AfD is where people who are familiar with things like Notability congregate, so that's where we discuss things like notability (it doesn't really matter that there's probably an overlap—sticking to the point of these noticeboards will make topical discussions easier to find, for those who want to contribute). We really can't, and shouldn't, just redo an AfD on the spot here, much like how we shouldn't amend policies—that's for VPP and RfCs—even if it's policies that would concern us. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Alpha3031, you make a valid point. Celestina007 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Endorse- I didn't participate in the AfD and, if I had, I probably would have voted keep. But it would take exceptional reasons to overturn such a clear consensus, and there is nothing exceptional about "I think people should have voted keep". Reyk YO! 10:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC) @Reyk: I think failing to recognise sources which clearly contribute to WP:GNG is exceptional enough. WP:AUTHOR typically requires two or three critical reviews. Akinyemi has at least four amongst the five largest Nigerian newspapers as well as several Nigerian literary journals, and they were used in the article that was deleted. This is clear error. This point was not made at the AfD, in part because the users advocating for the article to be kept don't appear to be regular AfD participants. I've edited Nigerian articles in the past and I also don't expect your average AfD participant to know that Pulse NG or Vanguard are top sources for Nigeria-related topics. I would like this to be relisted specifically so that I can make that point. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Relist, well, I would have voted keep, but disagreement alone is not a reason to relist. However, there is substantial evidence that the Delete voters did not actually analyse the sources, and so a relist so they can actually be discussed seems appropriate to me. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 May 2020

Miss Lorraine – Endorse. The idea that this should be a redirect seems hard to argue with, but got no discssion, so I'm not going to make it part of the consensus close. Feel free to do so on your own. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Miss Lorraine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Lorraine. Article was nominated by a sock-puppet user, see their user page in the discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Lorraine —IZ041 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Closer's comment If you had talked to me (like the instructions say you should) I would have told you that I would have been happy to relist this discussion given that the nominator was a sock puppet but that two other editors cast good faith delete !votes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC) This is snippier than I would expect from myself so know I wish I had taken this down a few notches in terms of tone while keeping the content the same. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC) @Barkeep49: Why not just close this DRV and relist then? I don't think that's snappy but it's not a requirement to discuss this with the closer, talking to the closer is designed to save a DRV, and I can save my breath endorsing the close. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC) SportingFlyer, because the similar in nature appeal below had already been endorsed when I made this comment and so I felt speedy close criteria 2 no longer applied. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse per my reasoning in the AfD. This topic is just not notable, so there's no point dragging this out over a technicality ultimately because one editor feels WP:ILIKEIT about the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Leave it for the closing admin's discretion. User:Barkeep49 is active and qualified. Of course, if he undeletes and relists, all other participants should be pinged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. This review request, as in the case below involving my closure of another pageant AfD, borders on the disruptive. IZ041 made insubstantial arguments in the AfD, and now they seek a review without previously contacting the closing admins as per the instructions. On the merits, the closure was correct even if one discounts the nominator. The one "keep" argument by IZ041 was not compelling - the one cited interview by a regional newspaper is clearly not the sort of substantial coverage needed to establish notability for a topic. Sandstein 06:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address issues where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a venue to get a "second bite at the cherry" when the AFD doesn't go your way. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus. There is no error to appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Procedurally, sockpuppets shouldn't have standing to nominate AfDs. On the facts, "Miss Lorraine" is a difficult search term because of course Lorraine is a feminine forename in the Anglo-Saxon world so you get a million hits about Miss Lorraine Thisthatortheother. I do think the editor who dismissed the Miss Lorraine title as a "local award" was displaying a remarkably US-centric world view. We've got an article on Miss Hawaii, and Lorraine is a far more populous and important region than Hawaii is. On balance, even if we decide the sources are so poor that there's no scope to translate fr:Miss Lorraine into English, we should still have found that "Miss Lorraine" is a plausible search term. It ought to redirect to Lorraine (given name) or Miss France. So I think it's incontestable that the nomination failed WP:BEFORE.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Miss Georgia World – Endorsed. Several people noted that there's no objection to writing a new article, with improved sourcing, and there's no obejction to restoring the old version to draft, if somebody wants to start from there. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Miss Georgia World (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Georgia World. This article was nominated for deletion by a user that was blocked from editing for being a sock-puppet, see the nominator's user page in the deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Georgia_World —IZ041 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Pinging Sandstein for commentary as the closing admin, since I don't see where the user making the request discussed it with them. Obviously, the sockpuppetry was not known at the time of deletion. Wondering if this should be treated as a soft delete or relisted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse but with no bar to recreation with batter sourcing, if possible. I would not object to draftification. The sockpuppetry should not matter in this case, the arguments were valid and policy based, and supported by the other editor who favored deletion. The editor who favored keeping this did not present any sources that pass WP:SIGCOV. Close was correct, although a relist would have been reasonable. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC) The fact it was nominated by a sock doesn't mean that we should overturn it. However, reviewing the AfD again without the sock's nom/vote leads to a no consensus (with one editor advocating for keep without explicitly voting, and Newshunter12's vote.) I can't see the article history, and if Newshunter12's correct this should be deleted pretty easily. That being said, nom is correct - there is no consensus to delete at this time. Though no error was made on the part of the closer, I would overturn and relist instead of going overturn to NC. SportingFlyer T·C 02:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse per my reasoning in the AfD. While a single delete vote isn't ideal, I stand by my good faith research that this topic is woefully not notable. Dragging this out over a technicality ultimately because one editor feels WP:ILIKEIT about the article isn't a productive use of time. Editors had two weeks to research this topic and expand the article, yet none did so, including the creator (who was the sole non-voting keep supporter). No valid claim to notability has ever been presented for this topic, so a DRV was unwarranted in my opinion. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Closer's comment: This review request, as in the case above involving Barkeep49's closure of another pageant AfD, borders on the disruptive. IZ041 made no valid argument in the AfD, did not attempt to improve the article even though they argued that it would be trivial to do so, and now they seek a review without previously contacting the closing admins as per the instructions. On the merits, at least in this AfD, the discovery that the nominator was a ban-evading sock does not change the outcome: the one other editor did address the reasons for deletion and made policy-based arguments in favor of deletion. I would therefore maintain my "delete" closure. A relist seems not very helpful because the AfD was already relisted once without further comment, and nothing here suggests that a second relist would produce better sourcing to discuss. Sandstein 06:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC) It's not required. The wording is "consider." I think we discussed making it mandatory somewhere without support, but I'm also rather forgetful and that could have been one of 1,000 different things. SportingFlyer T·C 06:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC) There are some circumstances in which contacting the closing admin is pointless, e.g. they're inactive or have been desysopped. Hut 8.5 07:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse I was going to support overturning this on the grounds that there's only one person supporting deletion if the sock nomination is discounted, but honestly the state of the article doesn't justify it. The only sources cited in the deleted page or the AfD were the official pageant websites and a now-defunct self-published website, which means it doesn't meet the fundamental standard in WP:V that subjects must have at least one third-party reliable source. I would support allowing draftification, if it really is that easy to fix the problems then it can happen there. Hut 8.5 07:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse; nomination fails WP:DRVPURPOSE items 1, 2, and 5 of reasons DRV should not be used. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Eh, 3 and 5 of the "DRV may be used" are met. I'm commenting, however, because of the incongruity of DRV #2 and the word "consider" at WP:DELREVD. The first seems to create a rule that you don't have to talk to the closer, but you must explain why; the second suggests that talking to the closer is optional, without restating the rule that you have to demonstrate why you didn't ask the closer first. Probably something we should take a look at elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 01:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus. There is no error to appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Weak Endorse with the note that I closed the similar "Miss Indiana" version with a "no consensus"-result a week ago. The sourcing is indeed not good here, and the closing admin Sandstein is not unreasonable in taking that into account. I remain open to allowing recreation of a better sourced article or establishing a redirect (as was suggested in the Indiana article). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Moses Sumney songs – Overturn G4 -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Moses Sumney songs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This category was deleted because it was populated solely with redirects, per the deletion discussion. With the creation of Virile (song) (no longer a redirect), this no longer applies. Also per WP:SMALLCAT: "subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page." And per the CSD cited (WP:G4) when the category was deleted again: "It excludes pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." I grieve in stereo (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn G4 the deletion rationale in the CfD no longer applies, so the recreation shouldn't have been speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 17:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn had to double check to make sure we kept WP:SMALLCAT songs since I thought this would be deleted again immediately, but haven't worked with song CfDs before. Not 100% convinced that song is notable, but shouldn't have been G4'd. SportingFlyer T·C 02:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC) The last log entry is: 11:41, 28 May 2020 Timrollpickering (talk · contribs) protected Category:Moses Sumney songs [Create=Require administrator access] (expires 11:41, 28 November 2020) (Repeatedly recreated A7 article) Ask User:Timrollpickering to explain that log entry. What article? Moses Sumney songs has never been created. Moses Sumney exists OK? Endorse the CfD. Why does Category:Moses Sumney albums exist, it too is too small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe: If you went one category up in the category structure instead of assuming WP:SMALLCAT applied (like I originally did before I added my comment), you'd notice the following text: Albums by the artists that recorded them. Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded. Similarly, album by artist categories may exist even for redirects. Songs operate upon the same principle. This is a very easy DRV, as like it or not, it's now a valid category. SportingFlyer T·C 06:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC) OK, makes sense. I'd still like to hear from the CfD closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC) This particular deletion review is a case of avoidable bureaucracy. If the CFD discussion had regularly been opposed we would not have been here. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn G4. Virile (song) was created after the CFD closure, but before the G4 deletion, so the speedy criterion was no longer applicable. Category:Songs by artist is an exception to WP:SMALLCAT, but beside the point; determining whether it is or not goes beyond the scope of G4. ƏXPLICIT 06:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Susan Kuhnhausen – Allow creation of new article There's some concern here that WP:NOTNEWS might still be a problem, and there's some feeling that going through a WP:AfC review might be a good idea (but not strictly required). Article has been restored to Draft:Attempted Murder of Susan Kuhnhausen. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Susan Kuhnhausen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) New sources have come to light, most importantly that Kuhnhausen's attempted murder was the main subject in episodes of two different, notable true-crime TV shows, in an episode of a notable podcast, and in at least two notable magazines (see below). I would set a new article up as an article about the EVENT, AND NOT about the person (because the event is what is notable); part of the problem with the old article was that it was too biographical and not about the event. The new page I would create would not be based on the old page; I would create the page from scratch using the sources below. Another problem with the old article is that it was created primarily from news sources therefore ran afoul of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; the new sources below fix this issue. I think this can now pass WP:NCRIME, and that it could even pass WP:GNG based on the coverage in multiple notable TV shows, magazines, and podcasts. Here are the best sources: I Survived... - featured in an episode of I Survived..., a TV show produced by Lifetime; reruns are shown on TV KVAL news - mentions that the event was featured in an episode of Nothing Personal (TV series); I can't find more sources to corroborate this, but there is a clip of the show on the news site and an air date, so the episode of the show must exist My Favorite Murder - featured in an episode of My Favorite Murder, a popular true crime podcast Willamette Week - in-depth coverage of the event years later in Willamette Week Scrubs Magazine - coverage years later in Scrubs Magazine Stitcher - "Today in True Crime" podcast covers this event Hospital Watchdog - covers the event from the perspective of an ER nurse Sources for facts; these don't help with notability but help with verifiability *NBC News - just a news piece; doesn't help with notability but it does with reliably sourcing facts Fox News - another news piece; doesn't help with notability but it does with reliably sourcing facts Pamplin Media - Susan Kuhnhausen receives an award for heroism I want to stress that a new article would be about the EVENT, not a biography, and would be created at "Attempted Murder of Susan Kuhnhausen". Thank you for any comments. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Question. @Ikjbagl: Why do you need the deletion of the old article reviewed instead of just starting fresh at Draft:Attempted murder of Susan Kuhnhausen? —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Possible Answer to User:C.Fred - See DRV reason number 3, new information. I am aware that it is the DRV way to bite new editors who believe reason 3, when the DRV regulars know that reason 3 should be ignored, and that new information requests should go through AFC instead. Maybe the documentation should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Response @C.Fred: Robert McClenon hit the nail on the head; the WP:DRV page reason 3 is why I came here--I've learned a ton since this article was deleted, but I'm still learning now. This situation is complicated by the fact that I kind of screwed up the original AfD by moving the page in the middle of it (I was pretty new to Wikipedia at the time and people suggested framing it as an event, so I moved the page to "Attempted murder of Susan Kuhnhausen"). The page was subsequently deleted, but it did exist at one time at the place I am intending to create it now. If people think it's appropriate to just create the new article now, I would be happy to do so. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC) @Ikjbagl: And that's why I said to create the draft article. The AfD result does not bar an article from ever being created on the subject. It does mean that if an article is recreated that is substantially the same as the article at the time of deletion, it may be speedy deleted (criterion G4). That's why I recommended creating a draft. It "buys you time" to beef up the sourcing, because draft pages wouldn't be subject to CSD G4 the same way pages in mainspace would. Once you think the article is in good shape, you can submit it—and if other editors agree, it will get moved to mainspace. That being said, if you wanted to use the article as it stood at the time of deletion as the starting point of the draft, that would require help from an admin to undelete it and move it to draft space. Technically, that kind of a request can be done at WP:Requests for undeletion, but since we're here and talking about it, I doubt anybody will object if I (or another admin) restores the article history to draft space for you to work on. Is that what you'd like done? —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC) @C.Fred: Okay, that sounds reasonable. If you restore it as a draft, I will plan to move it to "Attempted murder of Susan Kuhnhausen" and work on it from there. Thank you Ikjbagl (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Well there's nothing stopping you from creating another article about it, but I don't think it's a good idea. The major problem here is WP:NOTNEWS: lots of events which get substantial news coverage (even events passing the GNG) are not suitable for inclusion here because we are an encyclopedia and not a news service. This event got coverage because of its sensationalist nature, rather than because it has any further significance. If the article is about the event then the relevant standard is WP:EVENT, which says Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Does the event have any enduring significance? I don't think coverage in true crime podcasts or TV series shows this, because they have the same kind of standards as the media outlets who reported this at the time. Note the Willamette Week source was cited in the AfDed version. Hut 8.5 07:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse, but encourage draftification. Encourage User:Ikjbagl to follow the advice at WP:THREE. Start with two or three sources that are independent (not interviews); reliably published (not Youtube); and make secondary source commentary on the topic. Many low quality sources don't help. Two or three quality sources are required. Don't pad them. don't WP:Reference bomb. But note, WP:BLP1E is still a deletion reason. Can you counter by pointing to enduring coverage? This should interest continues after 10 years, and contains new information about her later life, but I am not optimistic this can overcome BLP1E. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Comment: The source is not actually YouTube; the episode of the TV show is simply mirrored on YouTube. You can go to the wiki page of the show and see the episode this event was featured in. Thank you for your advice. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC) allow recreation Sources have spanned more than a decade including retrospectives [6], [7][8] and documentation of her work after the event [9]. She was interviewed by Anderson Cooper more than a decade later [10]. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Allow re-creation, and do not bite editors who come here with reason 3. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 May 2020

Mr. Greek – "Delete" closure endorsed. Consensus is that any recreation of the article should be less promotional and establish notability (if there is any) with better sources. Sandstein 07:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mr. Greek (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Undelete - reason for deletion includes articles promotional tone when in fact everything is well sourced from independent sources; a number of users including the nominator made attempts to fix the tone. The Toronto Sun 22 years of readers choice awards, is not sponsored by the company. That is a clear mistake per deletion. The deletor says there is a clear consensus and no rebuttal when in fact 3 longtime users clearly disagreed with that assessment during voting. I would also like to mention that the nominator is guilty of bludgeoning the process. The nomination called it Run-of-the-mill restaurant chain [11] which it clearly isn't. That may even invalidate the nomination. (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)grmike Even a well-sourced article can be deleted if it's irretrievably promotional. My reading of that AfD is that Wikipedia might possibly be willing to host a neutrally-written article about this restaurant chain; but we didn't have a neutrally-written article, we had a thinly disguised puff piece. Try WP:THREE.—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC) it was not irretrievably promotional. puff piece/neutrality was not a major concern among most of the voters, only 2 of the 4 delete said anything about that..Grmike (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)grmike Endorse. Properly run and closed AfD. Give the process respect and do not revisit for at least six months. I had a good look at the one quality source proffered by a third participant: https://torontolife.com/food/restaurants/mr-greek-expands-middle-east/ It fails the GNG because it is not independent, it is a puff piece centred on an interview with the restaurant chain's CEO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC) https://torontosun.com/sponsored/sponsored-eat/22-and-counting-mr-greek-continues-gold-streak-in-toronto-sun-readers-choice-awards is also a puff piece, it is based on an interview with a company executive. “Mr. Greek is honoured by this recognition from Toronto Sun readers,” says Vicki Raios Tranos, vice president of corporate affairs with Mr. Greek. Not an independent source. Does not meet the WP:GNG, which is a weaker threshold than WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC) That's an odd comment. GNG is the exact same threshold as NCORP, the only difference is that NCORP goes to a lot of trouble to properly explain how to correctly interpret many of the terms. For example, dip into pretty much any AfD and you'll see editors providing references as as "independent source" in the context the the publisher and the topic have no ties while ignoring the fact that the reference has no "Independent Content". HighKing++ 19:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC) HighKing, I think WP:ORGCRIT is generally interpreted more strictly at AfD even beyond the stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals, compared to other applications of notability. "Multiple" for example, is typically interpreted as "three or more" instead of "OK, maybe we'll allow things for two, if those two are really good", there is a high standard of independence and I would be against multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability as given in WP:BASIC if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial. Though I suppose that could all fall under quality if one sqints a little. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC) comment - 22 years of readers choice awards by independent voters in toronto is not notable ? this isn't just a single restaurant being given an award, it's a chain of restaurants that has been in business for more than thirty years. The widely distributed newspaper gave them the award and the article came as a result of that. The major newspaper gave them the award and with it an article; Wikipedia has user awards each year. Wikipedia also devotes an article on it. the same conflict of interest that is overlooked there is being used to remove an entire subject in mr. greek. imo the process failed, and if not called out will end up setting a dangerous precedent.Grmike (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)grmike The winning of an award is only an indicator of notability if the award is notable. If the award is notable, it has its own page, or section of a page, and it lists the winners. Is the award the Readers Choice Award? Or, if independent publishers comment on the subject winning the award. Anything else, and it is in-house promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse first of all while deleting an article because some parts of it were promotional would be dubious the primary reason for deletion here was failure to meet WP:CORP. The article's defenders did a very poor job of rebutting this, including presenting clearly trivial mentions as if they were significant and flogging irrelevant stuff like the Readers Choice award of the Toronto Sun. There wasn't any convincing rebuttal to the source analysis showing that the subject doesn't meet WP:CORP. There were a couple of sources presented [12] [13] which are a little better, and one Keep !voter used these, but there wer reasonable rebuttals to this. Hut 8.5 07:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse The closing admin Sjakkalle took considerable time in weighing the arguments on either side and agreed that the references fell short on what is required for notability. I'd also say that the Keep !voters failed to demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the requirements placed on references to meet the criteria as evidenced by their bewilderment at the rejection of articles based on interviews of company executives. In the end, the closing admin got it right. HighKing++ 13:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn and relist this was a no consensus AfD about a notable restaurant chain. Deciding it was a delete is not a fair reading of sources and AfD keep rationales. Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC) User:Grmike provided an excessive number of source claims, and User:HighKing provided extensive rebuttal. Subsequent participants broadly !voted "delete". Can you point to specific sources that were not fairly read? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse I almost think we're making a mistake here. I honestly think there's just enough there to keep having looked at the sources, and I poked around for 10-15 minutes looking for another source which could put it over the top, but could only find name-drops in Toronto newspapers (albeit name-drops which make clear the name is used obviously around the area.) This isn't a second AfD though - it's looking to see if the closer made the right call, and in the absence of new sources that would show the discussion was mistaken, I have to endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 05:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC) I looked longer, and found nothing better than the sources already mentioned in the AfD, and none of them met the WP:GNG, which is an extremely strong indicator that WP:CORP will be failed. Clearly this is (was?) a successful restaurant chain with an upward trajectory, but that means they are very likely engaging in promotion, which means the requirement for source independence needs special attention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC) I think the Star articles and a couple Toronto Life articles were fine for WP:GNG and pass ORGIND. There were a couple National Post blurbs I found that didn't quite rise to the level of articles. If those weren't blurbs or there were a couple more of those Star articles, we'd have a Wikipedia page. SportingFlyer T·C 15:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC) There is almost enough coverage, but not quite enough yet. That's why I !voted delete in the AfD for WP:TOOSOON reasons. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn to No Consensus. The closer was correct that the issue was the quality of sources, but the community was split, and the closer would have done much better to close as No Consensus, or to Relist, but there was already a Relist. This is very much a No Consensus result. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC) I'm curious. I've been on this merry-go-round a few times with closes I've disagreed with and it is very frustrating when the closer provides no information nor shows they taken the time to consider the arguments. When you say that it should be a No Consensus - what is that based on? You say the community was split - does that mean that for you, it comes down to a simple counting of !votes (something I suspect happens far more frequently than anyone will admit). Or are you saying closer shouldn't have examined the arguments and made a decision based on the evidence? Not trying to be funny, genuinely trying to understand how arguments should be weighed and why you believe the arguments in this case cancel each other out while most others seem to think differently. HighKing++ 17:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Comment - The appellant is completely off the mark in complaining about bludgeoning of the process, which has never been meant to apply simply to an AFD nomination with which you disagree. There is an example of bludgeoning on view here, and that is the appeal, with the appellant arguing with the participants. The fact that it should have been closed as No Consensus does not justify bludgeoning DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse the closure is a reasonable reflection of a complex debate. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Can't Endorse, Can't Overturn - obviously, if we're deleting Mr Greek on notability grounds, we've royally fucked up. At the same time, the sources are by and large really weak. It seems like it needs somebody who is good at this to chase sources. I don't see any other way out of it. WilyD 10:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. My reading of the analysis of sources provided at AfD is that there is consensus that it falls short of the notability criteria outlined in WP:CORP. Of the three keeps, the first provided the 17 sources that were the first to be analyzed; Andrew Davidson seemed to apply WP:NONPROFIT (though I'm not particularly sure) which the article subject seems to meet—but it isn't at all clear that the subject is a non-profit, which should probably have been clarified at AfD for the closer to take such into account; the last keep did identify a single source—I am inclined to accept it as an argument for WP:SIRS for the purpose of DRV, though I will note that it is disputed. Ikjbagl identifies one other source potentially meeting WP:SIRS (and I find it weird that a delete !vote is what I'm drawing on as the strongest argument for keep). I cannot see any assertion that the article subject meets WP:ORGCRIT—while Ikjbagl identifies a second source, two sources is at the very lowest considered acceptable by various applications of the GNG: ORGCRIT is a higher standard, and typically excludes dubious sources in any case. While a no consensus closure might have been within discretion, and keep might have even been possible were we to apply a less strict SNG, whether their general or supplementary criteria, but CORP is the criteria for this subject, and CORP is strict. A close of delete is the correct interpretation of the consensus regarding notability at AfD. A strong assertion of significance is made, which indicate that sources possiblly exist, but that is not a consideration of CORP. There is weak consensus of PROMO, not nearly enough to delete under NOT, but it is an example of why our CORP guidline is strict. The recreation of a neutral draft is, of course, possible for articles deleted at AfD but are still potentially notable, and I don't think the consensus of PROMO is strong enough to deny a refund. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 May 2020

David Edwards (basketball) – Draftify. Clear consensus to allow the article to return in various flavors. I went with Editorofthewiki's request to draftify. Page is now at Draft:David Edwards (basketball) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
David Edwards (basketball) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article suffered from low turnout, though the close may have been justified. However, several obits have come out due to his untimely passing. Such as [14] [15] [16]. I request that the article be recreated, and it is easier to use what was already there than start over again. It should be noted that the article creator, User:BlackAmerican, had been blocked but has since been unblocked. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC) I'm sad to see that he has passed due to coronavirus. That being said, I'm not convinced he would pass another AfD using those obituaries. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Why not? He holds the Texas A&M single-season assists record, played professionally in Iceland and Lithuania, and has an obit in the New York times. Why don't you think he would pass an AfD? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC) He was correctly deleted at AfD previously, fails our SNGs (specifically WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NBASKET), of the two articles on him listed at the AfD neither are all that bad but both are "this player is on a team playing a local team" stories (remember he was local to New York), and I don't think he became notable just because the New York Times published his obituary alongside a number of other non-notable people who also unfortunately have been sadly taken from us by the coronavirus pushes him past the border of borderline notability. So endorse the AfD for being correct, but I don't support the refund or the recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 04:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC) If he played on a professional team in Iceland and Lithuania, doesn't he pass the relevant SNG? I realize that's not exactly what the nom said, but I can't see the article and I'm just checking. Hobit (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC) The article did say (and reference) that, but it's not enough for WP:NBASKET, which only recognizes a handful of specific leagues. —Cryptic 20:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC) That would explain it. Thanks, I should have looked before I asked. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Undelete and allow re-creation, whether direct or via draftspace or userspace. Those are good obituary sources, written by a journalist (not family), published by the newspaper (not paid by the family), and are written from a distant perspective for a broad audience. With the subject having died, there is no athlete/sport promotional aspect, and I am confident that it will be kept if renominated at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC) If a sportsperson wasn't Wikipedia-notable in life, does an obituary really get them over the line? SportingFlyer T·C 04:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Sources are the very definition of wiki-notable. So yeah, if they are reliable, independent, and in-depth they certainly can. Hobit (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Why wouldn't it? These are new, usable sources. Whether one thinks we should have bios of sportspeople who meet WP:GNG but not their sport-specific guideline isn't a DRV question. —Cryptic 04:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC) I just don't understand the logic behind the fact that someone can be non-Wiki-notable for their entire life in their given field (especially a field which is generally covered by sports) but then become notable in that field when passing away. SportingFlyer T·C 04:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC) No one is "non-Wiki-notable for life". Failing Wikipedia-notability is not one of the WP:NOT sections. Failing Wikipedia-notability means that evidence is not there to demonstrate notability. Evidence can arise later, and a non-notable person can become notable. So, sure, a non-Wikipedia-notable sportsperson can later cross the line on the basis of some obituaries. Note that these are not family written and paid obituaries, but are new stories, and that the means of death is here the central feature for their Wikipedia-notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC) An obscure author, say, whose works become the subject of significant critical discussion only after the author's death, may well become notable when s/he was not previously. This is a possibly similar case, SportingFlyer. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC) We’d judge Vincent van Gogh non notable at the time of his death. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC) I understand both of those examples, but neither of those examples are athletes. It should be exceptionally rare - not impossible, mind you - for someone not known for anything but being an athlete who wasn't notable during their athletic career to become notable after passing away. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Undelete/allow recreation. A three-year-old XfD is old enough that I don't think even new users—who might not be familiar with Notability on Wikipedia—should be bound by it, much less an experienced editor. There's a reasonable claim that there's more notability and someone wants to work on it. Having the article content restored so that it can be reused would be better than not having it restored. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC) I wasn't too hot on the first two sources listed, but the NYT's one gets us to the point that we are well past WP:CSD#G4, so yeah, recreate. Not so clear that someone would be crazy to bring to AfD, but certainly overcomes G4. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Restore. In the light of new sources, there's no need for us to reexamine the three-year-old AfD.—S Marshall T/C 00:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Undelete / allow recreation - the new sources, in addition to one or two of the sources in the old AfD, combine to pass WP:NCOLLATH for me. Remember that NCOLLATH says that EXAMPLES include, and does not give an exhaustive list. Here the subject has been the subject of non-trivial media coverage in multiple pieces. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Allow recreation. The added sources are enough that this is different than when the AfD took place. It may be that another AfD wopuld delete this again, but I suspect not. Obits in major newspapers that are by staff, not paid, are normally significant contributors to notability. If any editor requests it, undelete to draft or user space to allow adding the new refs, or allow a fresh start, but do not undelete to mainspace, nor to draft without a specific request from someone who indicates an intention to work on this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC) As the nominator, I intend to work on it if undeleted to draft. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 May 2020

Lil Foaf – This is all very complicated, but the gist is that nobody supports undeleting this article, and there seem to be multiple reasons to keep it deleted. Sandstein 08:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lil Foaf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I tried requesting undeletion of Talk:Deleted Article at WP:REFUND (now archived at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 348#Talk:Deleted Article (to be moved back to Lil Foaf)), but the request did not get accepted because someone said that it would meet the WP:A7 criteria. So now, I am considering a deletion review. While the talk page technically meets the WP:G8 criteria, it was also moved out of process from mainspace. This is a problem, because any autoconfirmed user could move an article to the talk namespace just to get it deleted under G8 when the correct solution is to move the page back first and then tag the resulting redirect as a G8. Now, here are three possible solutions: Undelete Talk:Deleted Article, move it back to Lil Foaf, and then send the article to AfD. In this case, Talk:Lil Foaf should also be undeleted. Undelete Talk:Deleted Article and then draftify it to Draft:Lil Foaf. In this case, Talk:Lil Foaf should then be undeleted and moved to Draft talk:Lil Foaf. Undelete Talk:Deleted Article and then userfy it to User:WraithTag3/Lil Foaf (the user had recently been renamed). In this case, Talk:Lil Foaf should then be undeleted and moved to User talk:WraithTag3/Lil Foaf. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Fourth possible solution: endorse as an A7 - this was a spectacularly clear candidate - refuse third-party userfication on general principle (particularly to a user who was trying to get it deleted!), and decline draftification unless someone presents at least a minimal case that this person could ever become the subject of a Wikipedia article. —Cryptic 18:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Ugh. It took me a while to get my head around all this, but the gist is this crazy page move (which was apparently done by accident by a new user) is what makes this so confusing. I've undone that move, so the (deleted) page is back at Lil Foaf. Now, beyond that, if we want to talk about undeleting it, at least that conversation can be had in a somewhat less confusing way. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC) PS: I'm not going to tempundelete this. There's some WP:BLP problems that would need to be cleared first, and it hardly seems worth the effort given that the rest of it is basically WP:G11 material. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC) The procedure here's a bit nuts, but if restoring the article for a tempundelete has issues, I'd rather just ask you to write a new draft instead of having it refunded as a non-admin. SportingFlyer T·C 01:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC) As I said at REFUND, I think this would be an A7 candidate in mainspace, the closest it came to an assertion of significance is the claim that one of his tracks "peaked on some notable playlists on Spotify" (whatever they are). There was one reference cited but it doesn't mention the subject at all. It was moved to the talk namespace by a user with the same username as the subject (since renamed), so this may well be a deletion request from the subject, who is underage. I don't think restoring it is a good idea. Hut 8.5 09:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Comment - I haven't yet wrapped my head around this, maybe because I don't have magic glasses. I am sort of inclined to think that I don't want to wrap my head around it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC) WP:REFUND to draftspace. User:GeoffreyT2000 may then choose to boldly mainspace, but doing it this way means that the undeleting admin can't be seem to be approving the article. I expect though, that Geoffrey will attend to making it better than A7-eligible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC) So you're going to undelete and draftify a borderline spam, arguably oversightable, inarguably nn autobiography of a minor against his wishes because GeoffreyT2000 didn't like that the author/subject moved it to Talk:Deleted Article instead of tagging it {{db-g7}} like someone with enough clue to not write an autobiography on Wikipedia would do. That makes perfect sense. —Cryptic 02:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Cryptic, you are presenting a lot of new information. "borderline spam"?? "arguably oversightable"?? I did not know this was the case. These claims do not match this cache version. He is 16, I guess this is a "minor", but he a publicly releasing rapper. I thought I recognized GeoffreyT2000 as an experienced Wikipedia who can be trusted, and I thought that we are only here because someone didn't want to refund an A7-eligible article direct to mainspace. NB. I do not agree that the cached version is A7-eligible. I was going to mention the single source as a reason to make it G11-ineligible, except the source doesn't mention the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC) SmokeyJoe, "Arguably oversightable" is a reasonable description. There are a few things which certainly fail WP:BLP with the current state of sourcing, and considering the age of the subject, oversight might indeed be appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC) I do not think this young rapper is Wikipedia-notable. However, that is not a reason to not let someone attempt to draft and article and demonstrate notability. If the author of the new draft read the old page, the old page's attribution history needs to be preserved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Who wants to draftify the article, exactly? GeoffreyT2000 is suggesting we userfy it to the userspace of somebody who asked for it to be deleted, they clearly aren't interested. Nobody else has expressed any interest in working on it either. The guy doesn't want to have a Wikipedia page, nobody here thinks he's likely to meet the minimum standard for having one, and the deleted version would need a major rewrite anyway. Leave it deleted. Hut 8.5 16:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC) OK, I didn't realize how convoluted this was. I thought GeoffreyT2000 wanted to work on it. I didn't appreciate that the author wanted it deleted. I support allowing a REFUND to userspace or draftspace for an editor requesting it if they believe they can work it into something worthy of mainspace, but oppose third-party userfication. In re-reading, both here and the archived denied REFUND request, User:GeoffreyT2000 does not actually say why he wants it undeleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 May 2020

Zonic – A7 speedy deletion endorsed. Sandstein 09:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Zonic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) There's a number of reasons for concerns about this CSD of a long standing article with a significant number of versions of history and that been viewed by many over the years who have not seen the need to WP:AFD it up until recently. DRV purpose is under "if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion" however I accept there is a counter argument I have not proved procedural errors here and that perhaps in any case they were not substantial. There is a requirement for a CSD nom. to "Use common sense when applying a speedy deletion request to a page: review the page history to make sure that all earlier revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion, because a single editor can replace an article with material that appears to cause the page to meet one or more of the criteria." at WP:CSD; key being here make sure; there is to a degree onus on the deleting admin to ensure this has happened. There are three pieces of evidence due diligence was not performed by the deleting admin, while none of these are conclusive they are of concern. 1: When queried about CSD deletion of a long standing article the admin's response was "It was a one-line article with no included detail and, specifically, no claim, expression or inference of notability."[17] which demonstrated no understanding of the need or importance to check the article history.(There is likely nothing in it but equally there is often no point asking someone did you do X as they will often simple respond yes I did X. There are perhaps some reasons for believing nom. would have been honest in his answer if quizzed further but many would not). 2: When deleting the article the admin neither closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zonic nor made any comment on the WP:AFD which perhaps would have been at the minimum corteous for those visiting the AFD or perhaps indicates lack of due diligence inspecting the article. 3: [18] shows the deletion was at 22:10, 17 May 2020 with a previous action on 22:09, 17 May 2020, the simply implication was that probably less than 2 minutes consideration was given. Ultimately a WP:REFUND has been refused [19] to I need to be here to either request a relist at AFD (And I'll confess I've only had a brief scan and I'm not sure I could come up with a WP:THREE especially as I don't have access to libraries currently during covid-19 lockdown and I'm pretty stacked anyway or whether pragmatically to simply request a draftication so I have the option of working on it at some point convenient to me. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Well, the article was indeed old but none of the versions in its history made any claim of significance or importance, and there is no "old articles aren't eligible" rule for A7 speedy deletion. Some of the older versions contain the sentence They offer a range of software development and consultancy services to Macintosh clients worldwide. and similar but I am not sure that this is considered to be a claim of importance/significance for the purpose of A7; anything with a website that is publicly accessible and where everyone can ask has by definition a "global" impact but that doesn't make YouTube channels with comment sections A7-ineligible. I wouldn't necessarily consider #3 as proof of sloppiness; in the past I sometimes checked a number of speedy deletion candidates and then deleted all of them in one batch. So I'd say keep deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Eumerus I think I now recall you were the speedy nominator, but such information is not visible to be directly (it may or may not be elsewhere), I didn't check on this occasion (and actually I didn't put 2+2 together there because you are generally a top link AFD closer for the toughies). Keep deleted is not an expected !vote at a DRV .. most people would expect it to mean endorse and in no way refund. Endorse but allow draftication or userification is probably a reasonable result otherwise it might look like you are attempting to block any good faith attempt at improvement, any you are far better than that. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Huh? I didn't do anything about this speedy deletion other than commenting here, and my name does not appear in the history. I think it's a fine A7 deletion and while Anthony's reply may not have been the ideal response I don't think it constitutes grounds for an overturn at all. As for userfication/draftification, given how basilar the article was I'd rather recommend that you write something from scratch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Eumerus Apologies ... I can't see who speedy tagged the article unless there's a temp-delete and for some reason I thought I remembered the name as being yours ... [20]. And I've no clue who it was was (I've check my usual possible place) or I'd have given them the old Template:DRVNote. I'm well at the WP:TROUT farm today. Mind you if it was you issued the speedy I'd probably have noticed it. I'm also a bit anti WP:TNT due to copyvio's and reverse copy content and I like to keep an eye on the attribution history 'cos I can sometimes spot a COI coming up a little better. But thanks anyway. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC). Ah ... the CSD nom. was a 'Jo' as well, but not a 'Jo-Jo' ... probably where I half remembered from. I'd personally probably have left the AFD run, but the deletion under CSD:A7 was not an unreasonable decision and therefore endorse deletion. Length of tenure does not give a free pass from deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse deletion and keep deleted. This is a pretty encyclopedic example of A7. Praxidicae (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse A7. I've tempundeleted this (except for the first few revisions which were a totally unrelated article under the same title). This was classic WP:A7 material. I don't get this edit: you added an unsourced statement and tagged your own addition as citation needed??? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the temp-undelete. I'm on the road, not on one of my optimal devices, halfway into something, something RL distracts, and I likely should have been doing something else anyway. The article is about organisation, as written but actually I'm seeing products because its products I see more as key. Probably should of removed the CSD notice perhaps in retrospect but last time I did that I got ranted at. I'd still like a userifcation or a draftication despite all the stay deleted. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I certainly have no objection to userfying. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse A7 – I don't see a claim of significance anywhere in the history. Nothing of value was lost. If someone wants to recreate it they can gather their sources and tell the reader why this subject is important, just like any other article. – bradv🍁 15:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Well you never quite know what gems you find. Who noticed Old revision of Zonic yields the linkrotted [21]. Now probably no different to the zonic primary website and sometimes gives links to other stuff. And sometimes the clues can be even more subtle than that as edits times can sometimes give a good hint as where to apply date filters to searches. Just because one person with a negative point of view can't see something it doesn't mean someone else can't ... or do you deny me the chance to look at my leisure. O mihght even wish to try and consult a revious contributor about something. Salt Sonic if you must of course. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC) why would we salt Sonic, which is useful, based on another nonsensical, incoherent argument of yours? Praxidicae (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse A7 per Bradv. Reyk YO! 18:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Weak Endorse - On the one hand, the article as it was when it was nominated for deletion and then when it was tagged for speedy deletion made neither a case for corporate notability nor a credible claim for significance. The AFD and the A7 were both reasonable. But why, once the article was already nominated for deletion, was it necessary to tag it for A7 or to A7 it? The AFD should have been allowed to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn, let the AfD run The A7 itself would have been fine if the article hadn't just been AfD'd, and the A7 not opposed here. Given that speedy deletions are generally meant to be uncontroversial and there's someone who opposes it, why not let the AfD run? That being said, I also strongly doubt this gets past WP:NCORP unless sources are dredged, and there's an easy remedy - write a draft which clearly shows notability - so not too fussed. SportingFlyer T·C 06:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC) I'd be with you on "CSD is supposed to be uncontroversial", except for the fact that there's no controversy here. For there to be controversy, there needs to be some reasonable argument why the requirements of the CSD weren't met. The argument doesn't need to be correct, or unassailable, or compelling, but it does need to be coherent and plausible. We have neither here. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC) The A7 is clearly valid. However, this was speedied after the AfD was started, and the user here wants to make an argument at AfD, likely for keep. I don't agree with any of the "concerns," but I do find the procedure itself slightly problematic and it's not something I want to endorse (if something is at AfD, let the AfD run, unless the speedy is serious like a copyvio/BLP attack page is my thought.) The fact there's not a valid keep argument made here (nom admits WP:THREE may not be met) means it's not really a huge concern. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC) "Unspeedy so I can argue for keep at AFD" isn't a valid argument at DRV unless the putative AFD argument is valid, and without any sources presented, it's not. If Djm-leighpark were actually saying that, instead of just vaguely implying it, I'd say to bring it back to DRV when they do have sources. But their arguments were -1: WP:ARTICLEAGE - one of the less bad entries at WP:ATA; 0: WP:POPULARPAGE - another of the non-terrible WP:ATAs, and in this case untrue; 1: an assertion that the deleting admin's statement that the article was extremely short and made no assertion of notability must be false because of the article's age, which is both baseless in general and false in particular; 2: the speedying admin didn't close the afd himself - a technicality, as forbidden in WP:DRVPURPOSE not#6; 3: evidence that the speedying admin knows how to use a tabbed browser, or perhaps can read a 24-word article, essentially unchanged since two weeks after its creation, in two minutes. Rarely have I seen so poor a DRV nomination outside of a user's first hundred edits. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC) I'm just saying I think the procedure itself was slightly invalid - if it's at AfD, don't speedy it on A7 grounds unless it gets brought up at the AfD. I want to make absolutely clear I don't agree with any of the arguments here other than being discomforted by the speedy after the AfD was initiated. SportingFlyer T·C 04:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC) I commend Sporting Flyer's statement: One is encouraged at AfD to gather one's evidence; and this may take time, and sometimes this may involve a rescue; or identification of a possible merge, and one may feel disgruntled and irritated should the article be CSD'd in the interim. Then, as a were muggle(non admin), no view of what was their before; with possible exceptions of other copying wiki's and internet archive snapshot's. If the matter is more urgent due to a BLP or a copyvio then a very different matter; though e.g. Earwig can give false positives on long standing articles. By the nature of a DRV the result can be nothing other than an endorse; it is more the draftification that is the point. I also point out would we be as DRV if the closing admin had not suggested I come we but offered a draftication or userifcation instead which would have been a simple, de-escalatory and relatively non-contentious outcome ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse A7 the text of the article didn't assert significance, and neither did any of the prior revisions, whether the admin checked them or not. "They offer a range of software development and consultancy services to Macintosh clients worldwide" is not an assertion of significance, that statement could easily mean "they have at least one international client" (or even "they would be prepared to work with international clients"), which is not even slightly remarkable for a software company. I'm not seeing any good reason given by the OP to think that the A7 speedy deletion was wrong either, it really doesn't take that long to decide whether a one sentence article qualifies for A7. Yes, speedy deletion is only supposed to apply to obvious cases, but the fact one person objects to something doesn't make it non-obvious. I suppose we could draftify it but the contents are pretty useless to any potential rewrite and it shouldn't go back to mainspace without evidence that the subject meets WP:CORP, including actual citations. Hut 8.5 07:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Hut 8.5, Many, many years ago, I published a Diplomacy zine. I had a couple of subscribers in Canada. When I write my autobiography, I'll be sure to mention that I was an international publisher. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse A7 per Bradv.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse A7. A valid A7, and a clear notability failure. Allow userfication or draftification, if someone wants to look for sources. The deleting admin, User:Anthony Bradbury declined a REFUND request at User_talk:Anthony_Bradbury#Zonic, was that because the request was read as a request to undelete into mainspace? Does WP:REFUND imply that the undeletion will not be undeletion into mainspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC) I have always assumed (and please correct me if I am wrong) that a straightforward REFUND request, without any elaboration, is a request to restore to mainspace; this is the basis on which I deleted the article. A REFUND request can include a request to userfy or to email the deleted article, and had such a request been made then I would have complied. No such request was made, either on this page or to my talk page before this thread was started.----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Agreed. You were right to refuse the request to REFUND without elaboration. I also not that the request was unsigned. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC) I apologise for the signing mistake - I do make mistakes signing from time to time ... in this case I think I used five rather than four tildes which accounts for the timestamps. Even the best make typos, though it may be argued I make more than most, witness "also not" rather than "also note" above. The comment is also noted because I have used the Template:unsigned template on several occassions recently (including on myself, and I also note from doing that there is a signing button available that I might explore). I have examined the timeline on May 17th Sunday; and my Covid 17 RL Sundays undergone a significant changes recently (though minor compared to others impact), and that has had some impact into that mistake. Unless peoples wish to further discuss the impacting of non urgent CSD'ing of articles at AfD or beat me up further I am willing to withdraw this DRV providing Zonic can be draftied. Its far far from my most priority WP article subject so it can hang arround with the set under my stewardship set. If there is no draftification it would be my intention to create a userspace/draftspace article with content copied from the CC-BY-SA source at [22]. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Djm-leighpark, I have found it helpful to Opt-in for autosigning when I forget, or get it wrong. See User:SineBot#Opting back in for experienced editors. Add {{YesAutosign}} to your userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Thanks, no real excuse for me to not giving it a go. I assume the clever bot thought I am now so experienced I don't need to be checked. I wondered why the bot had stopped doing that like it used to. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC) All things being equal, an AfD often saves time in the long run, so it would have been preferable to have stayed with that rather than the CSD. Having said that, there is no way that "X is a company that existed" is making any claim of significance, let alone notability, so endorse deletion. ——Serial # 11:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse A7 no actual claim to anythingm ore than existence. But it is usually better to simply send a challenged Speedy to afd,. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse It was a valid A7. Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Breast Tax – General agreement is that most uninvolved editors would have closed this as no consensus but since that has no practical difference with the article uninvolved editors endorse this closing. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Breast Tax (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closing editor has redirected me here.[23] The supervote here is far from making any sense. The delete !votes were absolutely clear with establishing that there is a clear lack of WP:HISTRS which significantly covered the allegedly historical subject. There was a lack of even recent media sources covering the subject significantly without mainly relying on Nangeli and Channar revolt. The "Keep" voters mainly relied on the lousy argument described at WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, as they failed to resolve any of the issues raised by "Delete" voters. Noting that WP:POVFORKs are strongly discouraged, I don't see any consensus for "Keep". "Keep" was vouched by only 8 users. While "delete" was vouched by 13 users and 1 user vouched for a redirect. This shows that almost 2x users disagreed with the existence of this POVFORK. Wareon (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. Could not have been closed as "delete". The discussion was erratic, typical of an uncompelling nomination. Read the advice at WP:RENOM. In six months, consider renominating with a much better rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I consider the AfD nominator to have failed WP:BEFORE, and to fail to heed WP:ATD, and thus there is no justification for a relist. Issues with the article should be discussed at Talk:Breast Tax. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse There was clearly no consenus to delete and please note AFD is not a vote the topic is signficantly is covered in WP:RS including WP:HISTRS.This is a tax.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Note: This user is the creator of the article[24] and had participated on the AfD.[25] Wareon (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Folks here are perfectly capable of reading afd and history pages, thanks. —Cryptic 23:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Just came here to note for now that the AfD was subject to canvassing by an IP hopper who was recruiting users to vote for "keep".[26][27][28][29][30] Orientls (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC) But almost all of them did not vote.Further not sure he will canvassing for keep.If it is this IP it voted Delete.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC) This one has a different location than the disruptive IP who was canvassing to rescue the article ("There seems to be an attempt to delete the article by meatpupetting or by socks"). Here is another instance of canvassing which wasn't linked above. Wareon (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC) To be fair, based on a quick check they all geolocate to slightly different locations, albeit within India. SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse (pragmatically prefer albeit perhaps no concensus rather than keep) or just maybe Overturn & Relist. Certainly no consensus to delete, nor was that likely to happen. On a technical point, and it is important and the closer should note this, as far as I can good faith the discussion was not allowed to run for 168 hours and the closer should be WP:TROUTed and told to get a UTC clock or alternatively (and I am happy if this is the case) I should be trouted for incorrect arithmetic. Now if there had been !votes to relist/merge; and of course they might have arisen if the discussion had been allowed to run a bit; that may be an option. There again delete should be looking at redirect/merge options which they do not seem to have explored. I confess I haven't looked at whether a merge is appropriate or not, but anyone having a good faith reason for doing so should raise via WP:MERGEPROP creating a discussion first and expect contention; pragmatically better done that way than in a AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC) The discussion wasn't closed early. It opened at 07:05, 12 May 2020 and closed at 03:52, 21 May 2020. That's just under 9 days, which is more than the 7 days AfDs are supposed to last. Hut 8.5 12:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Thankyou for that. I'll eat the WP:TROUT I deserved to get. At least others can add up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC) NB: That also weakens my already weak feeling for overturn and relist.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC) @Djm-leighpark: you might want to turn on "Preferences / Gadgets / Appearance / Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". It makes doing this kind of date math so much easier. I couldn't live without it. Also, I note that the AfD was closed with WP:XFDcloser (aside: anybody who doesn't use XFDcloser to close XfDs is doing it wrong). That provides the excellent feature of flagging with red or green highlights whether the 168 hour discussion time has passed. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse the numbers might be with the Delete side but AfDs are closed based on strength of argument rather than as a head count. The idea that this is a POVFORK was never really spelled out, as noted by the closer, and the Keep arguments definitely aren't relying on THEREMUSTBESOURCES - the article has 31 citations, which nobody tried to analyse in detail. The major argument put forward for deletion was that the subject was covered by other articles, but the comments from Necrothesp and Vanamonde93 that the subject is wider seem to me more compelling and go further than just bald assertions. Even if that was the case merging or redirection would be more logical than deletion. Possibly No Consensus might be a better fit than Keep but there was no consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 12:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn to relist per Djm-leighpark. Whether there was a consensus for delete or not, there was certainly no consensus for keep. The major argument presented for deletion faced no convincing rebuttal and Keep arguments read like vague handwaves, i.e. not presenting any scholarly sources which would deal significantly with the subject independent of other two subjects. Clearly more discussion is warranted. Orientls (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I would personally have closed as no consensus, but that does not change anything. So endorse. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse (note: I !voted in this discussion). There was no substance to the delete arguments; the POVFORK argument is countered by the presence of sources dealing with the topic more broadly than can be covered elsewhere, the hoax argument requires that there not be any substantive coverage at all (a hoax with coverage on reliable sources would still need to be covered on Wikipedia), the "no sources exist" claim has been thoroughly debunked, and the "FRINGE" argument has not been substantiated at all. AfD is not a vote-counting exercise, and the closure was appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn and delete or relist. I also voted in the AfD and I had obviously looked into sources and searched about the subject around before agreeing that the article is a POVFORK. Ultimately there was not a single "Keep" comment which could indeed say anything more than WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST. When argument is in front of you to verify notability independent of closely related subjects then  WP:ONUS is on "Keep" to provide sources. There had to be argument showing the significant coverage separate from the articles such as Channar revolt and that never happened. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Wrong result. Ugh, this is a mess. I don't see how this was closed as keep. My first impression is I would have probably closed it as No Consensus, but I haven't really read it in enough detail to know how I would weight the various comments. Apparently there was some canvassing going on, but I can't tell from my quick perusal which side the canvasees were on. So, while I'm not going to explicitly endorse or fail to endorse the close, I do think this ended up in the wrong place. I'm convinced from a bit of searching that Breast Tax is a notable topic, and certainly deserves to be covered in the encyclopedia, and under that name. However, between Breast Tax, Nangeli, and Channar revolt, there's enormous overlap. I suspect all three could be condensed down into a single article. How to cover a topic between multiple articles is an editorial decision into which DRV shouldn't wade. Take thee to the talk pages and sort that out with your fellow editors. But, looking at the three, I see large amounts of unattributed copy-paste between them, and that's a problem. I don't know if it's a problem DRV should address, but it needs to get fixed one way or another. I also see some lesser levels of copy-paste from this article in thenewsminute.com. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Yes these three articles deal with the same subject. Wareon (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Indeed, probably only one article is necessary, but that article is this one as this is the one that deals with the basis for the other two. Which is why trying to get this article deleted in particular was so odd. If anything it should have been the article about the folk legend that was merged and redirected here, whereas it was instead claimed that this article was a POV fork of that one. Which it is very clearly not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Channar revolt has been around for more than 14 years before other POVFORKs were created. POVFORK is generally the page that has been created after the main subject, so technically this article is still a POVFORK of other 2 articles. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC) One other point worth mentioning is that I suspect there's some political aspect here. My understanding of the caste system is largely limited to what was taught in a 1970's American high school social studies class, which is to say I probably don't understand it at all. But, I have noticed that many wikipedia articles that touch on the caste system engender heated arguments. For all I know, whether you prefer Nangeli, or Channar revolt as an article title may depend on your political/social/ethnic background. If that's the case, then we need to tread carefully to make sure there no implicit WP:POV in what we title this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. The deleters' arguments boiled down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the closer was right to discount them. They claimed it had no reliable sources, which was not true. They claimed it was a POV fork of Nangeli, which was not true. They claimed it could be adequately covered in Nangeli and Channar revolt, which was not true. They claimed it was full of debunked theories, which was not true. They insinuated that it was all a myth, which was clearly not true (although the story of Nangeli may well be). All in all, this was a very odd nomination and a very odd discussion and I'm convinced there was some sort of motive behind the obvious desire of some editors to delete it, although I'm honestly not sure what that was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Your distortion, deception and assumption of bad faith, which we also saw on AfD is what the closer had to discount in place of casting a supervote. Wareon (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Distortion? Deception? I beg your pardon?! And I'm afraid that, however much one may want to, it is a little hard to WP:AGF when so many clearly incorrect claims are being trotted out in support of deletion by multiple editors. Well, the nominator has just reinforced my point about the weirdness of this AfD with a personal attack for no reason (note that, unlike you, I have not singled out any one editor, including you as the nominator; it's simply the deletion voting taken as a whole that I find a bit odd). Well done. Double endorse!! -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC) With the non-existing claims like "They claimed it had no reliable sources" you are indeed misrepresenting lots of facts. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC) By my independent eye there's no bad faith in that edit, and there were several delete !voters who claimed there were no RS/HISTRS, so that's not a misrepresentation. I understand everyone in this thread is on different sides of the discussion, but that's actually even more of a reason to WP:AGF. SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn Disagree with the closure, which failed to address the core argument that the article is a POVFORK. Apparently nobody else provided rebuttal against this assertion throughout the AfD nor anyone cited any evidence that how the article is not a POVFORK. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Neutral - This was a clear case of No Consensus, and either Keep or Delete were wrong answers. This should have been No Consensus. There is no material difference in the effect of Keep or No Consensus, but the closer could have avoided this appeal by saying No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn The result is absolutely misleading since it does not address any of the concerns shared by most of the participants. The argument about the article being POVFORK is thoroughly valid, and that is why there had to be stronger and meaningful support against deletion if Keep had to be the result. That is contrary to the current situation of the AfD where the major concerns still remain unresolved. Azuredivay (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC) weak endorse the topic is notable. It's not really a POVFORK as far as I can tell (or at least I can't find the POV in question). And I think all the articles in question should exist. But they need to be better organized and not overlap so much. Each can refer to the other. In any case, there is no way such an article should be deleted--at most it's a redirect. I'd probably have closed it as NC, and I think that's a better reading of the discussion. But I think this is within discretion--I do think the keep arguments were stronger. It's a notable topic, and while a fork, I just can't see it as a POV fork. If the article needs improvement, go for it. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse ("without prejudice" of future deletion after cleanup) This discussion was such a mess that the way I viewed it was to check to see if the keep was supported by the arguments (it was) and then checked the article to see if the keep was supported by the article (as if I were !voting in the AfD, though without trying to figure out if I were to !vote keep or delete, looking just at whether this could be kept.) I generally agree with RoySmith's take, but want to note there was nothing wrong with the close - I believe a close of !keep was warranted by the discussion. That being said, I agree with the amount of overlap, and there's going to need to be some editing to clean up the overlap between the articles. If this article gets deleted/merged/redirected in the process after an RfC, this AfD result shouldn't preclude that. In the absence of discussion, we should not be overturning it. SportingFlyer T·C 06:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus- Keep votes go at the bottom, not at the top. Although a no-consensus is functionally similar to a keep, the delete side was stronger and better argued than the closing statement gave credit for. AfD participants give their views with the expectation that they'll be fairly evaluated and proportionally weighted. That didn't happen here. Reyk YO! 15:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC) *Endorse Classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is also apparent in some of the heated comments here in the review by those who voted delete. Most, as in a fairly large percentage, (not all) delete voters were new accounts with <1000 edits, some had even <100. They were unable to understand policy due to their lack of experience at AFD and were perhaps unable to understand that deletion discussions are not majority votes and AFD is not cleanup. Their arguments also appear to confirm that they are not able to grasp policies like GNG and POVFORK. The only policy based arguments were from Lorstaking whose view was the lack of HISTRS may lead to deletion; but HISTRS are used in the article. The canvassing that is supposed to have occurred did not drive any voters to the AFD, and is therefore inconsequential in this review. The Keep should not be overturned. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC) MistyGraceWhite blocked as a sock. Wareon (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Notability depends on the significant amount of independent coverage, than mere passing mention mainly about a broader subject. Indeed the article is a POVFORK and fails GNG. Nitpicking the policy based arguments while ignoring the classic WP:ILIKEIT and being the newest account in this entire debate but falsely claiming that "delete voters were new accounts" only reeks of your own POV pushing. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn to No consensus per RoySmith, as better result of the AfD. It is accurate to say that there are three articles which strongly overlap with each other but this issue can be sorted outside DRV and AfD. Tessaracter (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse respect the WP:CONSENSUS Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. A "no consensus" result would also be defensible, but the closer made a persuasive case that many of the "delete"s relied on misapplications of policy. Saying that the content of what appears to be a nationwide policy should be covered in an article about a single village is a stretch. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC) You are wrong with saying that. It is said that the tax was imposed only in parts of Kerala by local rulers and that is far from being statewide, let alone nationwide. The subject is one of the many subcategories of Channar revolt. Wareon (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC) * Endorse the XfD closer gave a reasoned and fair assessment of the AfD and then called this a keep. A "no consensus" result would also be reasonable and would result in the same outcome: keep. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC) @Lightburst: But why you are double voting? Wareon (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Opps. Lightburst (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse There are three distinct subjects: (1) a revolt related to caste structures in Travancore (2) a woman (possibly mythical) who undertook a significant act of resistance (3) a specific type of poll tax related to a caste structure. All three issues are related but also independent. Reliable sourcing shows all three to exist and be notable independent of each other; reliable sourcing appears in the article and was elaborated in the AfD process. Whether the title relating to issue (3) is the best title possible is certainly a reasonable question...but not for AFD. Closer made precisely the right decision in line with policy, reliable sourcing and arguments presented. (FWIW I recused myself from !voting due to arriving due to a canvass but did comment, although of late I regularly follow South Asia AfDs so I would most likely have come to this anyway). --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC) This sounds like an excellent reading of the problem, with respect to finding a way forwards. I think the article needs editing, and likely a major restructure. The information may need to be split and merged to different articles. I think the current title is pretty poor. Verifiable historical culture/mythology topics like this are poorly solved by AfD. The AfD may not have found a consensus for what to do about this page with roundly recognized problems, but I endorse the closer's reading that consensus is that deletion is not the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Just to expand my point; mulakkaram (breast tax on women) and the associated thalakaram (head tax on men) are not "mythological"; they're historical facts confirmed in multiple reliable sourcing. There's debate over the actions of a specific woman (Nangeli) who refused to pay the mulakkaram, the mythology surrounds the act of resistance, though not it seems her or the refusal to pay. The conflation of these issues has been the main part of the problem during the AfD (I want to be clear, not suggesting SmokeyJoe doing this).--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse as per Goldsztajn. There are three distinct bu clearly related topics here, and three articles at present. Merging would be an editorial decision, and was not seriously discussed at the AfD. Close was reasonable, although "no consensus" would also have been reasonable, IMO. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 May 2020

Lawrence Ypil – A7 speedy deletion overturned. Sandstein 07:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lawrence Ypil (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The article was deleted under WP:A7. However, it clearly meets the notability criteria for individuals in WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. He has received numerous notable awards, such as the Lambda Award, the Palanca Award (described on the Palanca Awards page as the Philippines' "highest literary honor"), and the Ani ng Dangal award [31]. He has been covered in reliable secondary sources, such as CNN Philippines, in the Philippines news network ABS-CBN [32], and in the Quarterly Literary Review Singapore [33]. I request that the article be restored; I will add these additional sources to establish the notability. InverseHypercube (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC) I have done a temp undelete so that others may see the content. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn A7 speedy deletion. The various awards listed in the article are surely claims of significance, and so an A7 deletion was not appropriate. I have not reviewed the sources to determine overall notability, because that is not in issue at this point. A future AfD could surely be brought to determine that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Procedural note InverseHypercube, I do not see that any attempt was made to discuss this with the deleting admin Anthony Bradbury. That should have been done before starting this discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Indeed, no contact has been made to me about this deletion. It perhaps would have been better if the author had included the assertions of notability quoted by him on this page in the article. As it is, of the three awards mentioned two are awards given by publishers, and one by a literary guild. I will, nevertheless, not contest the deletion request and will, of course, accept the community opinion.----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Thank you. I apologize for not bringing it to you first, I was not aware that this was the procedure. I will do so next time. InverseHypercube (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn A7: (pragmatic, no objection to list at AFD) But I note this should have been discussed prior to raising to DRV but I think the DRV nom. made a good faith mistake there. Article far from unreferenced and the books seem valid. [34] [35] (would have helped if they had been embellished with oclc/isbn references). This article probably should have been tagged by Havechin for issues rather than CSD tagged and perhaps later sent to WP:AFD if necessary. I also note the deleting admin has a message from me on his talk page querying a CSD. While I am minded a DRV on that may be endorsed it might also find the deleting admin was being too hasty; this hastiness somewhat reminds me of another admin, now de-sysop'd, who effectively was partly done for by over zealous CSD taggers he didn't spot.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn - Definitely meets the "claim of significance" in that A7 would not apply. --MuZemike 23:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn this is so far past WP:A7 that there's a chance it'd even pass an AfD as it stands (have not reviewed the sources specifically, just commenting on the overall article structure.) SportingFlyer T·C 05:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn winning a pile of awards is an assertion of significance, even if they don't make the subject notable. The article did also cite media coverage. Hut 8.5 06:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn - Whether the awards confer notability is an issue to be raised in AFD. If there is a reasonable argument that a speedy deletion should be overturned, that is reason enough to overturn it with the option of a deletion nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn - not an A7. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn. A handful of dubious awards nominations probably won't be enough at AfD, but it's certainly enough to get past A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

AllyCAD – Withdrawn, article has been restored to draft space. Hut 8.5 06:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
AllyCAD (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Require WP:REFUND to draft to continue work on AllyCAD or to consider one of two possible merge with history targets. While I would not ulimately perhaps expect any DRV result other than endorse Stifle's close, giving somewhat of the appearence of a WP:VAGUEWAVE !Supervote combined with the User talk:Stifle and User talk:Stifle/FAQs pretty well waiving discussion and indicating DRV is the route to go leaves WP:DRV as the only option available for this for a restore to draft which I am believing is a perfectly reasonable request for ongoing consideration. My pragmatically expected result would be endorse (AFD) and refund to draftspace (including talk page). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Comment: I observe editing Stifle's talk page to do the DRV it is half implied I should goto WP:REFUND for a refund, but if I go there without discussing with Admin first I will likely be sent back to the admin, so I am like having one foot each lide of the electric fence. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC) I do indeed waive all requirements to consult or contact me before making a listing here; however, requests for a restore to draft belong at WP:REFUND and not here. To the extent this is a request to review the AFD, I endorse my own deletion. The discussion was unanimous excepting the contribution of the nominator here, which was an erroneous recommendation to speedy keep, and an accusation of vandalism or disruption by User:Piotrus is wide of the mark. Equally wide is a suggestion that my closure was a "vague wave" or a "supervote"; clear consensus closures do not require a closing comment. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC) @Djm-leighpark: I've restored this to draft space at Draft:AllyCAD. If you don't actually want to review the AfD then we can close this now. Hut 8.5 21:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC) The refund to draft was the key thing needed here so I'm happy to close; I've too many other battles on and a new page which is of more importance about to live. A note on the closers talk page or FAQ page the I could point to when making a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion might have been necessary for a refund (But I am known to have missed stuff) ... I have had refunds handled incorrectly before. While I obviously disagree with Stifle's assessment above the key point is to get an refund to draft. I wont be putting it back to mainspace without an improvement, and its not likely to be immediately as it is way down my priority stack. Thankyou. I'm ok for close.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC) To be clear I'm happy to withdraw if someone wishes to do it for me. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2020

User:Disha Gahlot/sandbox/Dr Sumer Sethi – Withdrawn by nominator, with all other !votes to endorse; the nominator is apparently ragequitting Wikipedia. The page remains available for the time being to enable reuse of this content somewhere that does host promotional biographies.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Note: now deleted again as the nominator says they have saved the information. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Disha Gahlot/sandbox/Dr Sumer Sethi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The page has been speedily deleted citing ambiguous promotions by 3 people and some hidden paid work. With all due respect, I was working on the page and it was only in the middle of work. I still had to add all the references. Kindly read the full page, you will get to know that I have only given third-party links for all media work from published sources. The facts and figures were verified from different sources before mentioning anything. I'm a third party person and I intended to create this page because he's a significant person in India ans when I wanted to read about him, I couldn't find any wikipedia page. It's a painful task to search for different sources especially for someone's biography when wikipedia has no page for that person. So I collected all the information for several days when I was not seeing any patients to devote time to this page. I'm not related to him in any way as one administrator has said, so there's no Conflict of Interest whtatsoever. You are free to chcek every possible source on Earth to verify everything. This work was purely for the sake of creating a good biography page and I had no hidden agendas like "promotional work" as wrongfully accused by a person. And there's certainly no paid work going on, I'm well-settled as a doctor and this page is a creative pursuit rather than some source of filthy money making as accused by a person. I strongly oppose all 3 people for their impulsive acts of taking extreme actions of speedy deletion of the created page. Who gives such rights to these people? If at all someone sees a mistake in any user's page, it should be mentioned very clearly about what they see as a problem and ways to rectify the problem. Deleting someone's work is very easy, giving constructive suggestions is hard. Probably that's why these people go towards these extreme steps. Only people with a good level of experience should be given such higher permissions of overruling a user's work, not random people who are simply looking for time pass and dopamine high through sadistic practices. Hire professionals instead with expertise. Irrespective of the outcome of this review, I want to have all the information in the sandbox back so that I can either a fresh page or create it on some other platform where someone's time and hardwork are appreciated. Kindly look into the matter at the earliest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disha Gahlot (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) (Misplaced nom copied from WT:DRV DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)) Context The page was deleted by Creffett and before that by Enterprisey, both times under WP:CSD#G11. There was discussion at User talk:Disha Gahlot and User talk:Creffett#Undo speedy deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC) @Creffett: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC) I have temporarily undeleted this for review. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Weak endorse The pagfe as written was celarly promotional, with phrases such as umer Sethi, MD is an eminent Radiologist, Entrepreneur, Blogger, Innovator, TedX Speaker and motivator, who has not only done pioneering work in his field, but has mentored lakhs of medical graduates in the last two decades. In article space I would ahve done a speedy deletion without hesitation, But in a User sandbox, one apparently under active editing, I would have engaged with the creator first. However no policy or practice requires that, and I understand that the admins involved suspected UPE or COI, although the creator has now firmly denied any COI or payment. There should be no prohibition on creation of a more neutral draft. I would advise the creator to work with an experienced Wikipedia editor, if possible. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Comment The page was speedied by both me and Enterprisey and I'd consider Ponyo's comment of Wikipedia and its volunteers are under no obligation to host or maintain blatantly promotional content, which is what you created on the user's talk page to be a tacit endorsement. That's sufficient for me to stand by my deletion. On a side note, I'm getting a little tired of the page creator's personal attacks (and yes, I would consider Only people with a good level of experience should be given such higher permissions of overruling a user's work, not random people who are simply looking for time pass and dopamine high through sadistic practices to be a personal attack on the three of us), and would encourage the page creator to have a look at WP:NPA before engaging with anyone in this discussion. creffett (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC) I agree with DES's comment of "no prohibition against a more neutral draft" (this was a speedy, after all), though I remain skeptical of the creator's lack of COI. creffett (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC) I express no view on the creator's motives, I merely note that COI was denied, and I choose to WP:AGF. I will say that I have seen equally florid promotion inspired by nothing but personal and professional admiration, and that could IMO be the case here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse deletion with no prejudice to a neutral draft being created in its place using the available sources. I question whether the draft creator is the right person to recreate the article if they still maintain that it was, from their perspective, written neutrally in the first place.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse This is just a very promotional resume. I suspect that the subject may be notable, but apart from the lists of publications there's practically no prose here that would be useful to a neutral article, so the essay WP:TNT might well apply. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse as per User:Black Kite. The subject probably is notable, but there is very little in this page that will survive being trimmed down. If the author is not being paid by the subject, then the author clearly didn't read the second pillar of Wikipedia and doesn't have a clue as to what Wikipedia is (and some people don't). If the issue is whether multiple admins were right in deleting this pile of flattery as G11, then multiple admins were right in deleting this pile of flattery as G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse deletion, hopelessly promotional article, even after applying considerable latitude with respect to draft/userspace content. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC) I just need all the information back from the sandbox since a lot of editing was directly done there. Once the entire page is retrieved to copy paste the work done, you are free to delete the page. I will use some other platform. No interest left in creating any article on wikipedia now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disha Gahlot (talk • contribs) 09:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tara Reade – Endorse. I was going to write my boilerplate, "The history is still there under the redirect, so people are free to continue to merge material", but I see that's not true. For reasons that I don't understand, User:Hodgdon's secret garden moved Tara Reade to draft space while this DRV was running. That seems borderline disruptive to me, but I'm going to leave it be. The bottom line is that the AfD consensus to merge into Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is endorsed by a wide margin. And, the history is still available, just not in the place you would expect. Please form consensus at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation about what material is appropriate to merge into that article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tara Reade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Sometimes a majority of AfD participants believe content ought to be merged but it's too difficult a task to accomplish. In such cases, the article in should remain until it does end up being merged. As it was, despite there being no consensus to delete, the blp namespace page was turned into a redirect without its contents successfully merged. Additionally, there's no consensus at the target to accept the content there and according to guidelines it was already so long even without the merger as to require subdivision. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC) What everyone at WP:ANI#Violation of discretionary sanctions on Joe Biden sexual assault allegation already said. —Cryptic 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. Not sure what the point of this deletion review really is. The close was proper. The merged article should not remain while editors sort out exactly what information should be merged and what should be discarded. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Comment (AfD closer) Actually, what happened was the relevant information was merged, then some of it was deleted, then there was an argument. Having said that, we can't keep unredirecting and then redirecting the article while people squabble about what belongs at the target article and what doesn't. The history is still there for information to be merged. And none of this is relevant to a DRV anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse there was a clear consensus in the AfD that we shouldn't have a standalone article on the subject. That's what should be implemented. All "merge" closures are subject to editorial discretion, people editing the target article can absolutely remove or rewrite the content as they would with any other content on any other article. Disputes over that should be handled the same way as any other content dispute and the AfD result doesn't give the content any magic protection. Hut 8.5 21:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse, this doesn’t even make sense, the entire history of the article is available for people to merge stuff from, you do not even need the redirection undone to merge info. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse Hm, not at all how it appears to work. Editors decided that the person is not notable enough for an article, and that content should be merged into the assault article. How much or how little actual content is eventually in the assault article is another discussion altogether. If its a single sentence or 4 paragraphs has nothing to do with the merge result. Zaathras (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Yeah, the close was a reasonable reading of the discussion and keeping it merged is reasonable given the situation. But how the #$%$ does someone who has been on the front page of nearly every major newspaper not overcome "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"? The event has had many many front page articles in major newspapers. It doesn't get much more highly significant than that. One could argue (and I would) that it shouldn't be significant, but that's not what the media is doing. And not only is her role "a large one", she's had entire articles written about her in major newspapers. Like serious reporting from multiple authors in major papers. I seriously think one of them (by Natasha Korecki) has a chance at a Pulitzer. The outcome is insane. IAR overturn to NC as the removal of the article is contrary to our guidelines and common sense. Hobit (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC) It's not a highly significant event. It's a story about something that may or not have happened for under a minute in 1993, which may or not still be mentioned at election time. The significant coverage made it an article, but as so with every event here, big and small. Has her picture really been on the front page of nearly every major newspaper? If so, could you share just three pages from the biggest cities? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Her picture? Not that I know of, but that's not what I said. [36] has her name on the front page of the NYT. I tried the LA times and Chicago Tribune (neither of which I read regularly) but their front pages are behind a paywall. I can't find an archive of the washington post front pages. I'm not sure how to prove that. But I read a lot of newspapers and stories about her have been front and center. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Oh, OK. When I read of "someone...on the front page", I picture a face (on physical paper). I agree the story is out there prominently enough, stop searching on my behalf, our article about her telling of it should not be deleted. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC) What is being alleged is not the event. The event is the ongoing allegation itself. Also, for under a minute in 1993? No context could possibly justify such a characterisation of any sexual assault. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC) To be clear, the time it allegedly took is just one aspect, not the defining one. I want to define it as unwanted vaginal fingering. That was deemed too clear. And yeah, the current event is the short story about a brief encounter of the old kind. But the sexual assault in the allegation is relevant enough to describe somehow, too, and duration sets it apart from the more significant cases, sometimes spanning generations. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Note that just after Hobit's quote WP:ONEEVENT mentions Gavrilo Princip as an example of someone who meets the standard of playing a large role in a highly significant event. That's a much higher standard than just getting front page articles in newspapers. While the sexual assault allegation is going to get a lot of coverage in the immediate future it's far from clear that it will have much lasting impact. Will it get mentioned, say, a decade from now? Hut 8.5 06:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Mentioned? Most certainly. Deep biography? Probably a 5% of any coverage of the presidential race of 2020. If someone writes a book about the race (and they will), it will be most of a chapter. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Comment from the OP: The close and immediate turning into a redirect, followed by the removal of the content, equates to a deletion in all but name only. This content started like this (diff): Extended content Tara Reade Tara Reade, c. 1992 Born Tara Reade Moulton (1964-02-26) February 26, 1964 Monterey County, California, U.S. Other names Tara Reade McCabe (née Moulton) Alma mater Seattle University (JD) Occupation Writer Children 1 Tara Reade, (née Tara Reade Moulton) (born February 26, 1964) is an American blogger and nonprofits' employee. From December 1992 to August 1993, she worked for then-Senator Joe Biden as a legislative assistant in his U.S. Senate office. She resides in Nevada County, California. She has changed her name for protection due to domestic violence in her past: claims her former husband, Theodore Dronen, denies. Reade was born in Monterey County, California to Jeane Altimus, an artist (d. 2016) and Robert Moulton, who worked as an author and journalist, who later divorced. (Before Robert retired, he had served as public relations manager of Honeywell Corporation in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He died in 2016.) As a young adult, Reade studied acting and worked as a model and actor. At the suggestion of a political science professor, Reade applied for a Congressional internship. When accepted, she served as an intern in the office of then-member of the U.S. Congress Leon Panetta. Reade worked in Sacramento, California, as a staff assistant in the office of state senator Jack O'Connell from 1994 to 1996. An alleged victim of domestic violence, Reade divorced in 1996. Her then-husband has denied the domestic violence allegations in part. Reade studied law, first in California and later in Washington state at Seattle University School of Law, receiving a Juris Doctor in 2004. She was featured in the school's alumni magazine within its Summer 2009 feature article "Escaping Abuse, Law School Helped Domestic Violence Survivor Start a New Life: Alexandra McCabe Arrived in Seattle with a New Name, A Young Daughter and $40." She has never taken the bar examination. Describing herself as an educator in social justice, Reade has led workshops on domestic violence prevention and testified as an expert witness in domestic-violence court cases. During the 2010s, Reade lived in a number of locations along the Central Coast of California, where she assisted non-profit animal rescue groups. Politico reported in May 2020 that Reade's landlords, as well as a horse sanctuary owner where she had volunteered, described her as often needing financial help. The author of the article, Natasha Korecki, described that two themes emerged from the stories of Reade's acquaintances: Reade firstly "spoke favorably about her time working for Biden", and secondly the acquaintances felt "duped" by Reade. Some of those who had interacted closely with Reade from 2008 onwards stated that she had asked for their help, then "took advantage of their goodwill to extract money, skip rent payments or walk out on other bills", Korecki wrote. One of the acquaintances who has publicly made such claims was Lynn Hummer, the owner of a horse sanctuary where Reade volunteered with from 2014 to 2016. Reade has denied Hummer's accusations, stating that there were false and defamatory. Responding to these characterizations, Reade's lawyer Douglas Wigdor said to a reporter, "If the assertion is that someone who has lied to their landlord because they don't have the money to pay rent so then they lied about a sexual assault, I don't think that is fair journalism." Reade said she voted for Barack Obama and supported Elizabeth Warren, Marianne Williamson and Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. In early 2020, Reade worked part time with families with special-needs children in Nevada County. She also works as a consultant to nonprofit organizations. Reade has published opinion pieces featuring praise of Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Reade has said they were motivated as a correction to "anti-Russia sentiment that we have" and xenophobia. Reade, who sought a 1996 restraining order against her then-husband (whom Reade met while both worked for different members of Congress), has written the 2009 essay "Defying the Rule of Thumb: A Domestic Violence Survivor's Story". References --and ended like this (without even an image of her in the target/ event article; diff): Tara Reade, (née Tara Reade Moulton) (born February 26, 1964) is an American blogger and nonprofits' employee who lives in Nevada County, California. From December 1992 to August 1993 at age 29, she worked for then-Senator Joe Biden as a legislative assistant in his U.S. Senate office. References Yet, of course, as just one example of media coverage of the subject's biography, today CNN reports[37] about her biographical details, with one subsection of this article headed "Growing up in the Midwest and a tumultuous marriage."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC) I suggest any editor who believes any of that content should be included in the article, should take it to the talk page. These types of discussions are supposed to happen after a merger. Unfortunately, initial discussions in that vein were not productive, at least in part due to an editor who has now been WP:INDEF blocked for disruptive behaviour there, at ANI, and on other editors' talk pages. Hopefully, subsequent discussions will prove more fruitful. It would be helpful, if editors identify specifically what content they think is relevant and why in a new discussion section. Focusing on all of that content together, has not proven productive, and unfortunately some of the discussions already open there contain some personal language which was not helpful. I suggest we try to start fresh.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse and Close DRV as moot - this is not really a DRV, but rather a content/editing/potentially an RfC issue for the talk page of the merged article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC) user:SportingFlyer, if there, by established practice, is a default in such cases, when merging has proved untenable, to either keep or delete, I'd attempt to close this deletion review myself. However, if it's on a case-by-case basis, then I believe it should remain open.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC) If merging has proved untenable after the close, that's an editing issue, not a defect with the deletion discussion. Merge means the content should exist in Wikipedia, but not as a standalone article. If that's proving controversial, the way to deal with it is to hold an RfC, or if the editing against the merge is tendentious, maybe ANI. There's not really anything I can recommend here apart from endorse the close to give you what you're asking for. SportingFlyer T·C 02:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse / procedural close - this really isn't a close challenge, it's a disagreement with merger procedure. The closer read consensus correctly. W/r/t "redirecting without merging is effectively deleting", no, it isn't. The content is in the history, and anyone can access it in order to perform the merge. Frankly, if the problem is that the content is absent from Wikipedia, the best course of action would be for anyone bothered by that to go into the article history and perform the merge (a good use of editor time), rather than challenging the close (not a good use of editor time). The answer to Hobit's question above (why not a stand-alone article when this topic clearly meets notability even under BLP1E) is right in WP:N at WP:PAGEDECIDE: Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Well, user:Levivich, just as soon as additions become added to the biographical sub-entry, they become deleted (as is understandable. With the page already so long, its wp:OWNers must resort to such Procrustean measures as narrow readings of wp:DUE WEIGHT and more-Catholic-than-the-pope extensions of wp:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY as applied to even such a sub-entry). Thus, as a practical matter, Read's biographical info becomes absent from the entirety of Wikipedia, despite the AfD close stating that there lacked consensus from the community for it to be deleted.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC) @Hodgdon's secret garden: I agree with you about the OWNership problems at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, but I don't think that's a reason to overturn the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade. I don't see anything wrong with the close, and I don't really see you making an argument that there was anything wrong with the close, which is the only thing at issue at a DRV. I do see your broader arguments about merger, ownership, etc., and I agree with some of them, but if you genuinely don't see a policy problem with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade, I think you should consider withdrawing this DRV (because it solicits the time of other editors to evaluate the close, which I suggest is not necessary, and thus not a good use of other editors' time) and taking up the other issues at an appropriate forum. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC) @Levivich: @Black Kite: Well, I was able myself to navigate one of my concerns, how to continue work on her biography, by moving its editing history that Black Kite had kindly preserved, back into draft space: Draft:Joe Biden sexual assault accuser. (The namespace @ Draft:Tara Reade is already occupied.) I'll hold off on withdrawing this discussion, though, because IMHO certain recent RSes about this individual would remain inapplicable for wp:DUE inclusions in an article specifically about her accusation against Biden. These processes take time. Even though opinions offered in good faith within the first days of the AfD register with roughly equal sway with those given just prior its close, sometimes they're simply not apace with what's the evolving and significant coverage that's available. In Reade's case, discounting the accusation for which she became of note, there's citations with regard to, for example, her work with non-profits: (1) She'd advocated on domestic violence issues via: writings; her assistance within college-level workshops; her position at her local Y where she helped domestic survivors in navigating the system; her serving as an expert witness in court (which work is being subjected to legal challenges, begetting yet newer RSes, due alleged puffery within her CV). (2) She'd started and ran a charity giving the central CA-coast homeless pet food for their ubiquitous emotional-support animals and had volunteered for a 'mare'-rescue group (that allegedly remains stiffed for her personal vet bill, incidentally).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Hey look, a new source about her on a different topic. [38]. Top of the page on Politco right now. Hobit (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. Closer respected WP:ATD-M. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Note from OP. If background section at the event article sticks (see current version here; diff), I'll come back to withdraw this review. So far, it hasn't though. It does now reference her domestic violence work, now, however, reading, "Reade had served as an expert witness on multiple cases involving domestic violence in Monterey County, California" (the sole line of her pre-Washington background in Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Background).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Since no one other than user:SportingFlyer (here: diff) among commenters so far (users Cryptic, Rreagan007, Black Kite, Hut 8.5, Devonian Wombat, Zaathras, Hobit, InedibleHulk, Usedtobecool, Darryl Kerrigan, SportingFlyer, Levivich, and User:Lightburst) have addressed it as of yet, I'll rephrase the premise of this review, using a hypothetical. Premise. Say there are news reports of a new caliph among holy warriors in the Levant and Wikipedians create a blp for this putative entity. The article gets challenged in an AfD as a pseudo biography. (Do these news reports reflect mis- or disinformation from the Western intelligence or else from Turkey or else from the warriors themselves? etc.) 33 1/3% of !voters there say delete; 33 1/3 say keep; and the remainder are thrown out for wp:Everybody knows type pronouncements or what have you not referencing any guideline, etc. Thus is defaults to being kept as content on Wikipedia. However, over half of its !voters suggest it be merged with the omnibus about the holy warriors there. Well, this article is lots long and, after this merger is effected, mention of this new alleged caliph is compressed to a single line of text. Question. What is the established protocol here? Does the redirect remain at whoever-is-this-fighter Abdul--- Ben Curaish (ABC), even though there's only a single line about him at Levantine holy warriors (200X–present)"? Or does the blp return at "ABC" until there's a target that accepts more of its biographical information that's ersatzly not deleted from the encylopedia? Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC) As everyone at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Violation of discretionary sanctions on Joe Biden sexual assault allegation already said, the redirect remains. Whether all, or none, or some of the previous material is used at the merge target doesn't matter. In the non-hypothetical case, the only current possible outcome is "none", since you destroyed attribution by dooming the edits to eventual G13 deletion in your ill-considered move to draft. Nice going. —Cryptic 17:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Wow, User:Cryptic. Notwithstanding the loads of Ms. Reade's significant media coverage existing, because of the truly insurmountable logistical difficulties involved, WP must resign itself to the inevitability of her blp's edit history's remaining destined to oblivion, if regretibly. I call "crocodile tears"! (or--much more likely in fact: "Mark Twainian disingenuous naivete." Kudos!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse WP:BLP1E is a relevant policy that would justify the close in any case. Coverage of Reade's credentials as an expert witness has come on CNN and other news sites, but none of that would make her notable. Redirecting to the case is a reasonable resolution, merging some parts sparingly is still an option. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Sources are what make someone meet WP:N. In this case, there are a huge number in the top tier sources, including international sources. So yeah, additional coverage of her not directly related to a claimed sexual assault from years and years ago (a bunch of cases likely getting appealed because she lied about her qualifications) is getting us past BLP1E. And those sources too are in top-tier places and quite in-depth. Hobit (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 May 2020

Marisa Petroro – Endorse. Overwhelming agreement that the AfD, while poorly attended, came to the correct conclusion. No fundamental objection to somebody writing a new article (or getting the old text WP:REFUNDed), but this would require careful adherence to WP:BIO to make sure it's properly sourced. Given the history of multiple deletions, writing this as a draft and going through the WP:AfC review process would probably be a good idea. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marisa Petroro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Please restore Marisa Petroro wiki page. Do not know why it was deleted. She is a TV/Film actress with over 2 decades of work. I am new to this forum so please bare with me if I am not formatting this correctly. I was informed that Randykitty was the administrator who closed the discussion. I tried to contact him but have not heard back yet. I am posting here to hopefully speed the process along. Thank you. Nowpr (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC) comments there is a relevant response on User talk:Randykitty, where Randykitty declined to undo or change the close. The AfD Was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisa Petroro. A previous version was deleted under A7 back in 2006. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC) I have done a temp undelete. Note that when the AfD was started, this has no inline cited sources. One source was addded after two of three three views favoring delete had been expressed. The third did not specifically mention the added source, but said only agree with nomination. In fact the single added source was never mentioned in the AfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC) endorse the close was correct, drv isn't for debating whether the subject is notable. That was done in the AFD and the closer came to the logical and consensus based conclusion to delete. Praxidicae (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse the AfD close, which was perfectly proper. It is possible that the editors participating in the AfD were not aware of the one added source, but in my view it is unlikely that knowing of that source would have changed their views. However, there should be no ban on creating a new version of this if and only if additional sources sufficient to clearly establish notability and pass WP:NBIO are found (or later published) and added to any new version. I would recommend starting any new version in Draft space, but that should not be mandated. @Nowpr: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC) I'm not overly impressed with that AfD and I wouldn't mind if it was relisted. A weakish nomination by a problem sockpuppeteer, a pernom, and of course the inevitable and ubiquitous "delete" from John Pack Lambert, don't add up to a strong "delete" consensus in my view.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse without prejudice for recreation. There's no way this could have been closed any other way, and even with a suboptimal deletion discussion it's clear from a quick view of the history this was properly nominated/deleted. That being said, if someone wants to write a non-promotional, sourced draft of the article that shows notability, we can have an article on her. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse, both as agreeing with the close, and agreeing that I would have !voted Delete with the article as listed. No objection to Relisting or Draftifying. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. No independent secondary sources. The source added, https://www.newjerseystage.com/articles/2007/09/01/jersey-girl-is-the-real-deal/ s promotional, the language is glowing promotion, it promotes her then upcoming film, and it is an interview piece. The writer's perspective is somewhere from behind her eyes to behind her shoulder, and I am sure, standing next to her agent and/or the upcoming film's publicity agent. The deleted article text is way too close to the text at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0662475/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. Deletion Review is a place to raise issues about the deletion process not being properly followed, not a place to re-argue a deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC) comments Hello, I'm the original person who posted as nowpr but having issues logging back in under that account so here I am as nowprr (new account). Regarding the link to the article that is under scrutiny: Why would an entire bio be deleted because someone posted an article on her? Did someone contact that user? Just delete the article, not the person. Seems the most logical thing to do, right? Can someone get this page restored?Nowprr (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 May 2020

Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras – No consensus, "delete" closure endorsed by default. Opinion is divided, with a majority endorsing the "delete" closure because it was unanimous, and a minority advocating relisting the AfD because the discussion was deemed deficient or because of broader concerns about whether and how Wikipedia should cover such content. As DRV closer, I decline to exercise my discretion to relist the AfD in a "no consensus" situation. In my view, a single AfD isn't helpful for addressing broader concerns about the scope of our coverage. Interested editors should instead start a RfC with specific proposals. If consensus is found at a guideline level, the article can be restored and improved as appropriate. Moreover, relisting because we don't like the outcome of an AfD seems a bit ultra vires to me: DRV is supposed to be a forum to review procedural issues with deletions, not a forum to relitigate a deletion on the merits. Relisting should be done, in my view, if we think that it could lead to a clearer consensus. That is not the case here. Finally, the fact that a majority here would endorse the closure is also to be considered. Sandstein 09:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I am new to Wikipedia (just made an account for this purpose) so apologies if I am going about this process incorrectly, but I was really disappointed when I tried to check the Comparison table this morning and found it was deleted. I figured out how to look at the reasons for deletion and I do not see why the Nikon page I mentioned (as well as Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras) have been deleted. As a photographer those pages are the best format for comparing the DSLRs of a single brand in one place. The discussion claimed "possible fancraft" and lacking third-party sources, but that misses the point of the TABLE format. I really do not understand why sources are even at issue when each model was linked to a dedicated page with all of that information included. The table format is what makes the page usable instead of individually drilling down to each camera and comparing manually. This page has been up since 2011 and deleting it seems to be a mistake. I think I speak for a lot of photographers who are going to be disappointed when they find this article has been removed. None of the information provided in a table format is controversial or disputed--these are technical details of cameras and I think it is a mistake to have deleted this page as well as the Canon table. Removing this page does not seem logical. I welcome feedback or help on what I need to do to try to get the page reinstated. Runnerphil712 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC) The recent DRV for the Canon list, for reference. My opinion here's the same as it was there: sourcing this would be easy, but tedious. —Cryptic 19:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Is there a way to restore the page and just add the little banner that says it needs references or sources? I just feel that complete deletion was uncalled for for these comparison pages. I noticed there is a Comparison of digital SLRs page that has a reference column--if that is all that's required I don't see why those links couldn't just be added onto the brand specific pages. Note that that page is not as up to date as the Nikon/Canon dedicated pages. It just seems premature to delete the pages if they could be salvaged--and again, all the links to the individual model pages already contain the information mentioned in the table. —Runnerphil712 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC) At a minimum the deleted articles could be provided to anyone who asks and they could recreate them on one of the fan wiki sites. I could probably help with that process (though not until next weekend). Hobit (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) @Runnerphil712: Articles are really intended to be for the benefit of one particular group of readers per se, but rather are intended to be written for the more general reader looking for encyclopedic information on the subject; so, the comment I think I speak for a lot of photographers who are going to be disappointed when they find this article has been removed. does seem a bit concerning, at least to me, and gives the impression that this article is intended more for "fans" than a typical reader. There are various WP:ALTERNATIVEs to Wikipedia that may be more suitable to hosting such content that might not have as many (if any) policies and guidelines related to the types of content they allow as well as with respect to things like citing reliable sources, etc. Such sites might even allow more editorial control by content creators, than Wikipedia does per WP:OWN and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and there may be less of an obligation to seek WP:CONSENSUS when there are disagreements over content, etc. I'm not an administrator so I cannot see the article anymore, but they way you're describing and the way it was described in the AfD discussion does make it seem like something that probably isn't going to be allowed per WP:NOT. Side-by-side product comparisons, even in table format, seem more like some kind of "buyer's guide" or "consumer's report" that probably aren't really suitable for a stand-alone article just for that purpose alone. Maybe there are ways to incorporate such information into other articles (supported by citations) so that it seems more encyclopedic than a WP:NOTDIR type of article? I'm sure you can find other articles similar to the one that was deleted, but the fact that they exist doesn't mean they should exist or that any more like them should exist as explained in WP:OSE. There are over six million article now and not all of them go through or went through WP:AFC to be assessed before being moved to or created in the WP:MAINSPACE. Many articles created years ago simply go by unnoticed, until someone actually comes along and assesses them, and that sometimes means nominating the article for deletion. I don't see anything technically wrong with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras that indicates the closing administrator acted inappropriately (e.g. WP:SUPERVOTE) and the close does seem to reflect consensus of the discussion. If others feel it should be restored so that it can be WP:RELISTed, then that's fine; however, simply tagging it with a maintenance template like {{More citations needed}} or even adding citations doesn't seem to address the main issue (i.e. WP:NOT) raised during the AfD by those who commented. It also would seem a good idea to notify those who did comment at the AfD of this DRV (even if only done so as a courtesy) because they might be able to further clarify what they perceived as problems with the article and may even be able to offer an opinion on whether there's a way to somehow save any of the content contained in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse for one-and-one-half reasons. First, there was no error by the closer. With multiple Deletes, that was the right close. Second, one of the editors says that there were no sources in the article. I haven't seen the article, so that is only half a reason, but that supports deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Except for blps, being unsourced is not, and has never been, a reason for deletion. Being unsourceable is. And this list was neither. (I'll grant that the sources already in it were primary, quite poor even for primary sources, and covered a totally inadequate amount of the list.) —Cryptic 21:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC) @Runnerphil712: the thing to understand is that we're an encyclopedia, and as such, we have criteria for what kinds of articles we are going to host, and what kinds we're not. Just because something is useful, or interesting, or popular, doesn't mean it belongs here. On the other hand, as Hobit noted above, everything that's published here, even if it's ultimately deleted, is liberally licensed. There may well be other sites that would be happy to host a copy of the deleted article, and there's absolutely no objection from the wikipedia side to them doing so, as long as proper attribution is made. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC) @Marchjuly: I apologize in advance if I misunderstand the purity of Wikipedia--and do not mean to offend anyone since everyone here knows much more about the mission of the site than I do. But I see no issue with a table that puts information in an easier to use format. I would consider it equivalent to an index or table of contents. Honestly, the main group of people who are likely to be looking at camera related pages or tables are probably photographers (or aspiring photographers). I don't think helpful pages should be deleted just because a certain admin or user thinks the format goes against the rules when it makes things much easier to read and use. It seems wholly inconsistent to remove one such list/comparison page when there are a ton still out there--there needs to be a general consensus regarding all or nothing, instead of cherrypicked deletion of the two top camera brands (I refer you to the Canon page AfD discussion referenced previously). The beauty of an online encyclopedia is its accessibility—that you can see things quickly in one space (as those table pages do) instead of flipping through pages and pages to get the same information. Here's a link(hopefully works) of the format from the Wayback Machine archive for those who can't see. That's another reason I think the page should be reinstated--I don't really understand what the fatal flaw is on sourcing--tables are not conducive to exhaustive sourcing when the main page has those sources instead. The deletion just seems to be a technicality that would then require deletion of many similar table or comparison pages from the site. And for the comments on "product comparison"--I think that is a different animal. Other sites allow you to compare cameras, but this page was the only one I have found that had specifications in a simple, and friendly format absent editorializing (which is what encyclopedias do). Maybe the term "comparison" is too scary--"list" is just as appropriate. I've read through what "Wikipedia is not" and still do not understand what the issue is with this page and others like it. I did notify the original user who deleted the article (although given my novice Wiki skills--not sure if I did that right--posted the deletion review on their talk page). I thank everyone for their comments! —Runnerphil712 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn as an unrepresentative discussion -- and a failure to consider sourceable , as opposed to sourced, or, at the very least Relist both this and the one Canon for a more general discussion. this sort of list is the vary nature of how to present tabular comparative data. NOT catalog applies only to much greater details than this the sort of specific model number variation that is of interest only to collectors and specialists, , and, primarily, to those dealing only with currently available products, --and, just for comparison, consider what WP would be like if we applied the same criteria to automobiles and cell phones. What makes WP such a greater resource than conventional encyclopedias is thissort of detail , this encyclopedic detail. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC) I've temp undeleted the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse unanimous AfD with no obvious flaws in the argument with a very similar, and essentially the exact same article (with a different brand) to a recently closed AfD/DRV. I'm relatively sympathetic to the argument we have comparison charts for other random items like iPhones, but perhaps those need to go as well? SportingFlyer T·C 05:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse- With multiple policy based elete votes and nobody arguing to keep the article, this was clearly the correct close. Reyk YO! 06:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC) The closer's actions cannot be faulted; the discussion was unanimous and must be endorsed. However, I would relist for similar reasons to DGG, that the discussion was unrepresentative and may have come to a bad conclusion. It referred, for example, to WP:SYN as a reason for deletion, but fell into the common SYN trap: it only applies when someone uses multiple sources to come to a conclusion not mentioned in the sources, not merely using multiple sources at once. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC) I'm with Stifle, DGG and Cryptic. Although I don't strictly disagree with the close given the AfD, that was an unusual outcome. With outliers such as this, there's scope for the DRV closer to use their discretion to relist, if they're so minded.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse, but.... My first thought upon reading DGG's comment was, "How can this be unrepresentitive, if the very similar Canon AfD just closed with the exact same result?" The answer to that, of course, is that the two AfDs were attended by almost exactly the same set of people. And while, by today's standards, both of these were well attended, today's standards are that 3 or 4 people is enough, and that's questionable. The real question is not whether to endorse the AfDs; they were both unanimous, so there's really no alternative. But maybe the right thing is to take a step back and have a discussion about what we expect for "Comparison of Foos" type lists, and socialize that widely to get broad input. We have tons of these. Not just comparing cameras, but cars, phones, chess players, web software, bank accounts and so on. Some of them are extremely well referenced. Some, like the two in question here, are completely unreferenced and implicitly depend on the references indirectly included via the linked-to articles. Most are somewhere in between. A clear statement of what we need (WP:NCOMPARISON maybe?) would help. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC) There's something else I've been thinking. Most AfDs are trivial, whether an articles that clearly dosn't meet the current standards, or a nomination from someone who doesn't understand that something does meet our standards--and in either case, a few particpants are enough. . Sometimes there's an afd that involves a serious real world issue, usually political, and that gets a lot of people commenting. But sometimes there are AfDs like these, which involve important articles but which may not be watched, or articles whose deletion is going to be used as a precedent, and there should be some way of getting them better attended. I am going to say for now, that this result is indeed an important error by the closer.. They should have realized that this is an important afd, and relisted it themselves. But we need some more systematic way of handling this. I suggest the most systematic way is to expand DelRev (or call it something else) to deal with important possibly incorrect wrong results--to establish a second level when the article gets deleted. After all, we have a second level when it gets kept--renomination. Not everything kept gets renominated, only those that someone thingsareworth the trouble, because a second keep these days makes it much harder to ever get deleted. We should have something like this too. Without it, the procedure is unbalanced and unfair. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC) , DGG, I get what you're saying, but in this case, both Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras and Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras had zero references. WP:V is about as fundamental as it gets. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC) as with many lists, isn't it mainly just a question of copying them over from theoriginal articles, nd possible aneedd to fil in some gaps? Thecriterion isverifiable, not verified. `` The burden to add verifiable information is clearly on the editor adding the information, not a closer whose job it is to close a discussion. The AfD closer didn't err here, and the right thing to do if the closer had thought these discussions were off the mark would be to vote noting the issue. Not every AfD closer is an expert in the topic matter of the subjects they close and I would argue it's actually better to have someone close an AfD who doesn't know much about the topic, as they will be less likely to supervote. I see absolutely nothing wrong on the closer's end. SportingFlyer T·C 06:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC) I think finding and adding sources is everyone's job. People who write articles are meant to do it; people who improve articles are meant to do it; XfD nominators are meant to do it as part of WP:BEFORE; and I'm not aware of any rule or guideline exempting discussion closers from doing it either.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Relist as Per DGG. I agree with the comments of DGG, S Marshall, and RoySmith above. I think we need a more general discussion, perhaps a formal RfC, to clarify or set policy for having these sorts of articles. I think the "only of interest to photographers" is the wrong way to look at this. Many of our articles, parti9cularlyu our more technical articles, are mostly of interest to, people who already know the topic to some extent. This is true of most of the mathematics articles that are beyond basic math -- I find a fair number over my head, and i have a math and physics background. The same can be said for many other more-or-less technical fields. I thimnk this sort of comparison article should ,be OK, if NPOV and if properly sourced. I find the commetns of Runnerphil712, although not strictly based in Wikipedia policy, to make common sense, or they would if the article were properly sourced. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse these pages did not have any references and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. CrazyBoy826 20:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse I understand the utility of such pages, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place for them. Closure was appropriate. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Again I appreciate the discussion. It sounds like the consensus is trending against Overturn, but I agree that this is a larger issue than this single article. It still seems unfair to me to target this specific article in this specific format for deletion. Sources CAN be added, as has been mentioned, given that this information is all pulled from individually sourced articles. My question--why can't the article be restored with sources added. If closure is appropriate for this article (putting aside the sourcing issue--which can be remedied), are we basically saying that the table format on Wikipedia is of no merit? As others have stated, there are all kinds of similar lists / comparison tables on the platform, and until there is a global policy change outlawing them, this cherrypicked deletion approach appears lacking and the wrong decision. I would Relist both this and the Canon article, with the banner requiring sources. Runnerphil712 (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC) @Runnerphil712: I'm sure you meant no harm, but the convention is that a given user should use the bold styling just once in a discussion, to unambiguously declare their intent. Bolding the words overturn and relist here might be double-counted by the closer if they don't notice that you also nominated this, and are thus implicitly arguing to overturn. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC) @RoySmith: Thanks--I'll plead my novice wiki user status. I've removed the bold. Runnerphil712 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC) I think that the AfD is wrong in that the arguments made (SYNTH, PROMO) don't reflect the article. The article is unsourced, but definitely sourceable; on the other hand the sources probably don't cover the category as a whole. Would the list exempt as primarily navigational? Or would it be considered simply listcruft? The AfD didn't really discuss that. Endorse, but restore to draft would be my suggestion. Whether we should expand WP:LISTN via RfC, I don't know. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2020

Angelina Green – "Delete" closure endorsed. Closing early because consensus is unanimous and the nominator has not made any argument in support of their request, which makes their request invalid to begin with. Sandstein 15:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Angelina Green (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) improper decision Momentum7 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse No reason given by the nominator for the result of the AfD being improper, and it wasn't anyway. Three Keep votes, one by the user bringing this here, and two by an account and an IP for whom this AfD was their only contribution - and all three gave no policy-based reason for it to be kept. All four Delete votes addressed the issues of notability. The article should actually have been deleted G4 anyway; the nominator here asked for it to be restored on 19 April after the first AfD had deleted it in 2018, and only made a couple of minor changes to it, none of which addressed any aspects of its notability. It was still in this condition when nominated again on May 8. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Black Kite, I considered tagging the article as a G4, but I saw that Anthony Appleyard had already deleted it as a G4 and then restored it. Would it have been appropriate to tag it as a G4 again? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Yes. The editor had plenty of time to attempt to fix the problems, and did not do so. It would probably have been better to draftify it instead of restoring it, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Note I have restored the article for the purposes of this DRV. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse seems clear the closer correctly assessed the strength of arguments, as they are required to. And the OP has provided no counter explanation, considering all they said is "improper decision", similar to the way they provided no real rationale for keeping the article in the AfD. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse, Good close, weeding out the WP:IDLI/WP:AADDs is something too often overlooked. By the way, has anyone asked User:Momentum7 to clarify their conflict of interest regarding the article subject. serial # 14:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. It looks like an accurate reading of the consensus to me, and no explanation has been provided of what was improper about the close. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse delete. I'm not clear on the review rationale; you have given us nothing to go on. In looking at the actual AFD, the only possible decision would be deletion. The keep comments were brief, did not have a policy-based rationale, and didn't really even address the problems. Please note that these kinds of discussions are not "votes" that can be gridlocked by a handful of low quality check-marks - you need to actually present a persuasive position which is then evaluated by the closing editor. This did not seem to occur, and the closer came to a logical conclusion. Kuru (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse "Improper decision" is not a valid reason to overturn the deletion, you need to have reasoning beyond that. Reviewing the AfD, the close was accurate (both times), and the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG to warrant an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Sources are actually pretty good (People, ET, etc.). But the consensus was to delete. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Hobit Ther AfD participants felt thsoe sources were all part of a single event, Green's aperence on AGT, and so discounted them under WP:BLP1E as not indicating sustained notability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse Judging from the AN complaint that preceded this review, the nominator appears not to understand our notability guidelines, and believes that Wikipedia has a bias against America’s Got Talent contestants and young performers in general, presumably by not giving every one of them an article. Being the recipient of a “golden buzzer” or automatic progress into the next round of the show seems to be the OP’s claim of notability, but they didn’t even make that argument in the AfD. The closer reached the right decision by discounting the simple votes that did not put forward any policy arguments. P-K3 (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse as per reasons given above. None of those favoring keep in the AfD gave a policy-based reason, none addressed the WP:BLP1E or notability issues. No other valid way to close that AfD. Nor has any reason to overturn been presented here, nor any evidence of sources overlooked in the AfD. Nor does it appear that the nominator approached the closer, [[U|Spinningspark}}, with a request to change the close. (There was an exchange between them about "bias against performers" but no specific mention of this article.) I advise the nominator to drop this until and unless there are significant further developments in the career of Angelina Green. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 May 2020

Adorama – Speedy deletion overturned. A new AfD remains possible. Sandstein 06:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adorama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article was first deleted at AfD in March 2018 by Malcolmxl5, and then recreated a month later and deleted under WP:CSD#A7 by RHaworth. I'm bringing it to DRV directly as the two are currently neither active nor admins. In my opinion, the recreated article, while a little bit promotional in tone, improved significantly on the deleted version in terms of sourcing and should not have been speedied. The best source from it is The Invisible Sale, a book which devotes an entire chapter to the company. The publisher is Que, an imprint of Pearson Education, so it seems legit. Another source is from New York Business Journal, which may sound like a PR house but appears to do independent reporting on further examination. I've also found this piece from NJ.com about Adorama workers' attempts to unionize. This obituary on Mendel Mendlowits (the founder of Adorama) also contains a good deal of information on the company's early history. Given the evidence here I think we should permit recreation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Allow recreation without prejudice to a future AfD. The book source looks strong. I'm less sure of the NYBJ article, but sure. I think we have enough for an article. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Permit recreation - per both of you above. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Allow recreation. Adorama? Seriously? One of the biggest camera stores in the known universe? I'm a card-carrying deletionist, but I've got to believe they're notable. Not to mention how much money I've spent there over the years :-) The recreation was sufficiently different from the one deleted at AfD that G4 wouldn't apply, and while I think the recreated article was pretty crappy, I don't think WP:A7 applies either. WP:G11, maybe, but not A7. I've tempundeleted it. So, either start from the A7'd version and trim it down to a stub, or just allow recreation from scratch and hopefully it'll be written better. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC) I actually started to write a new article from scratch, and discovered that there isn't much (if anything) in the way of sources that would meet WP:NCORP. There's tons of ghits, but with the exception of some coverage of the founder's recent death, it's all just press releases and the like. So, to clarify my original position, yeah, it was a bogus A7, but it's such a badly written article, it really shouldn't be allowed to remain in mainspace in the current state. I'm not optimistic a new draft can be written which meets WP:NCORP, but there's certainly no reason somebody can't try. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Allow recreation Everything about this was bad. Viewing the history, the article got deleted at AfD even when it already passed WP:NCORP (looks like a WP:BEFORE failure), the new article was A7'd even though it also passed WP:G4 and WP:NCORP (the new article was more promotional than the original) - the original AfD close was correct and we don't relitigate AfDs, but I'd go as far to restore the originally deleted version and then merge back in the new version. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Draftify the deleted article, for improvement, and allow recreation without prejudice to a future AfD. Better sources have been brought forward. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Overturtn A7 speedy and restore article. No need to draftify (and if it is draftifirf, I will move it directly to mainspace). This wasn't tagged for G4, so that really isn't up for discussion, but if it had been i would have declined, and would say to overturn that as well. There were far more sources cited in the 2nd version. No reason for this to stay deleted. Speedy deletion was a bad, perhaps rubberstamped, decision. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Draftify I don't think the most recent A7 was a good call, an article with those references shouldn't be an A7 candidate and it has far more sources than the AfDed version. Admittedly quite a few of those were press released but many weren't. The tone was very promotional though and I think it should be draftified until it can be cleaned up. Hut 8.5 09:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn the A7, which is one of the worst A7's I have seen. The deleted article makes a very solid credible claim of significance. That is all that we need to consider here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn and return to mainspace No need to draftfy. Merging content can be done subsequently. ""Undelete"' any earlier version needed for content. . DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC) I prefer B&H Photo myself, but yes, that's a restore from me. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

• User:Sandstein, please undelete Talk:Adorama too. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

13 May 2020

Vinh Xuan massacre – Userfied. An offer to userfy was made when the AfD was closed. Treating this as if it were asked on WP:REFUND. Article is now at User:Senor Freebie/Vinh Xuan massacre. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vinh Xuan massacre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I came across an article detailing the discussion for deletion of this page, and I want to review the contents to ensure that the discussion of what appears to be a war crime hasn't been deliberately suppressed. As I'm not an administrator I cannot view the page after it has been deleted. Senor Freebie (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Corrected the header link; no opinion on this otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Especially given the discussion, I have absolutely no problem if the last version of the article is userified to Senor Freebie's userspace. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC) This is the sort of thing WP:REFUND can handle, but since we're here, do you need the full history or is just the last revision sufficient? (Most of the changes between the article's creation and deletion were minor maintenance work; the only removal I saw was of a bunch of links in the See Also section.) —Cryptic 17:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Michael Ley – "Redirect" closure endorsed. Sandstein 07:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Ley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) MRA has requested that I review my close of that AFD, citing new information (their contestation is here; not reproducing it in full as it's quite long. They also wrote a new text in User:MRA/Michael Ley (restored)). As I am not particularly well-versed in the notability of web developers and academics, I'd like to ask the community to review whether the article should be restored, left as redirect, or something else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse A perfectly reasonable close. As far as restoring the article goes, WP:GNG clearly isn't met, and while I struggle with WP:NACADEMIC at times I don't think that's met either, especially since the reasoning seems to be he's notable as a web developer even though he has a job as an academic. Seems like a notability isn't inherited issue. No prejudice on recreating if better sources are found, but a good close and no reason to overturn in light of the new information. SportingFlyer T·C 16:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC) The obvious question here is why we don't just cover him in the DBLP article. The claims of notability are that (a) he created DBLP, (b) he has received awards for his work on DBLP, and (c) he's the editor in chief of DBLP (although I don't agree with the claim that DBLP is an academic journal). There's no indication that he has notability independent of DBLP and there's no indication that he passes the GNG. The only real difference between the AfDed version and the draft is the addition of the ACM Distinguished Service Award, which isn't nothing but I don't think it's enough to justify notability in its own right. I suggest just adding a sentence to the DBLP article mentioning this award. Hut 8.5 07:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC) The discussion was a bit thin but the closure was reasonable and I endorse it. As a non-delete closure, it is subject to further change via the article talk page or WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. I do not seem him as passing WP:PROF, and it looks like a very strong WP:BIO1E with respect to DBLP. Cover him there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse - The question is whether the closer made a reasonable close, and they did. I would probably have !voted Delete, but I didn't take part, but that is also how I would have closed it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 May 2020

Category:KROQ – The deletion of the category nine years ago is endorsed. There is no consensus about whether to recreate it (but I note that this has now been done). Sandstein 07:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:KROQ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The KROQ page has a number of related subpages: KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns, Loveline, Epicenter (music festival), LA Invasion, KROQ Weenie Roast, KROQ Almost Acoustic Christmas and Commons:Category:KROQ It would be good to group them.--evrik (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC) This discussion is nine years old, has the consensus against radio station categories changed in that time? Lines are open, call in now. SportingFlyer T·C 18:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Comment as closer It's been nine years and I'm not sure which articles were around back then. Looking at the discussion it's hard to say a unanimous agreement was miscalled. Consensus can change, especially after nine years. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Question - This is an antique CFD. Is this an appeal, or a request to create the category? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Perhaps a request to undelete them? I'd like to go through the process so I don't have to defend it later. --evrik (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse the closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Allow Re-Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) It seems that some of the pages proposed here to be added to this category are the sort discussed in the CfD (e.g. syndicated shows), while others were not discussed (e.g. events organised by this station) so it seems worthwhile having a discussion about the proposal with those familiar with the current consensus (which I am not). To this end I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#US radio station categorisation inviting comment here. I'm leaning towards endorsing the close without prejudice to recreation after discussion, but I'm not bolding anything yet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Allow Re-Creation: I see no issues with the re-creation of this category. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:50 on May 13, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome Endorse close, do not allow recreation I've sleuthed a little bit, and I can't find any examples of radio or television stations with their own category. Maybe I've looked in the wrong place, if I have let me know and I'll change instantly, and if the categorisation comes back with the okay I'm perfectly content to go with that, but I can't endorse recreating a category which would be out of place in our existing category structure. SportingFlyer T·C 17:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC) @SportingFlyer: I searched for five seconds and found one: Category:KCRW. I stopped looking. --evrik (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC) I definitely looked at radio stations in California but not radio stations in Los Angeles! It certainly still seems to be the exception rather than the rule. SportingFlyer T·C 17:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_20#Category:KEXP is from 2018 and wasn't exactly well attended, but to me it shows our consensus against radio station categories still applies, and I'm not sure DRV is the right place to change it. SportingFlyer T·C 21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC) The principal objection to the category in that discussion seems to be that there was not enough relevant articles to justify a category, and indeed the sole comment explicitly allows that a category with sufficient articles could be justified. That seems to directly contradict the assertion here that the consensus is that such categories are never allowed (as does the existence of Category:KCRW. Whether there are sufficient relevant articles for a category:KROQ is not a matter for this DRV, beyond recommending discussion in an appropriate venue before creation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC) @Bearcat: who was the nominator and only commenter in that CfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC) For the record, Category:KCRW consists almost entirely of people who have been staff of KCRW, which makes it a WP:PERFCAT violation. So any and all biographies of people have to be removed from it, and once that's done it won't have enough articles left to justify an exemption from the normal consensus against individual radio station categories. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC) How many articles justify maintenance of a category? --evrik (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC) In the KEXP discussion, one user, Bearcat, asserted that there was a longstanding consensus against such categories, but without linking to any policy, guideline, or prior discussion that established or confirmed such a consensus. Nor has anyone in this discussion or the currently open CfD linked to any such policy, guideline, or discussion. One user does not a consensus make. Moreover in that old CfD, the category was also said to be too small, which would alone have been a valid reason for deletion, so the deletion cannot be taken as establishing such a consensus. I do not think such a consensus can be regarded as established without better evidence than has been presented so far. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Consensus does not have to be formally written down in a policy statement to be real. Regular participants at CFD know that other prior discussions on individual radio station categories have come up in the past, and have always landed as delete — but in order to link to specific examples of such prior discussions for the benefit of the more casual users who don't already have that knowledge, I would have to remember which specific radio stations have had categories attempted in order to find them, which is not a realistic expectation. Bearcat (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC) No, consensus does not have to be written down in a policy document,. It really should be written down somewhere, such as in a logged discussion or a talk page archive, that others can be pointed to. "Lore" is not a good way to -pass on consensus, and an even worse way to indicate exactly what the consensus does and does not cover. If there is no written record of the formation or the existence of a consensus, than a new discussion can always be held to confirm or re-formulate it. I accept that you are reporting in good faith your understanding of the consensus, but it has been known that different people had different understandings of a consensus here. In any case, consensus can change, and perhaps this one should. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Well, written consensus does exist: the discussions in 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2018 which deleted all similar categories, and the absence of any categories which have been kept. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse closure, do not allow recreation. Individual radio stations do not need a category, and these other articles can be easily linked from within the KROQ page. --DrChuck68 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC) While precedent can be useful to help resolve these debates, editors are not bound to follow past practice. Is their an actual policy? --evrik (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC) After thinking about this for a few days and reading all the other comments here, I think the correct forward is to endorse closure without prejudice to recreation. However before creation I would strongly encourage a discussion about the general issue of radio station categories to establish what the consensus actually is. As best I can make out, it seems there is general agreement that certain types of article (e.g. syndicated shows or disc jockeys) should not be categorised by the radio station they appeared on, but if there are enough articles of other types to support a category then I see no reason to prohibit one (c.f. Category:BBC Radio 1 which has 26 articles and 5 subcategories). Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC) My apologies to all, I read Thryduulf's post as an okay to recreate the category. Me culpa. --evrik (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 May 2020

Michael Byron (composer) – The "delete" closure is endorsed, but the article is also resubmitted to AfD to assess improvements made towards the end of the discussion. Sandstein 07:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Byron (composer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Supposedly the article had no citations and no indication of notability, yet it has had both added. The original nominator's concern was copyvio, but that reason was eliminated before the discussion closed. Hyacinth (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I'm confused, which of the sources that were re-added establish notability? Praxidicae (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC) No sources where removed. Hyacinth (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC) That's not really what I'm asking. As a lowly non-admin I can't see the content, can you please let us know what sources you think establish notability? Your assertion that it was deleted only due to copyvios is simply incorrect. The votes were based on sourcing and other concerns, so which sources no indication of notability, yet it has had both added were added? Praxidicae (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Because this was a copyvio, I'd ask that the history not be temp-restored. I also don't see anything wrong with the close - Hyacinth, what exactly are you asking to have happen here? SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC) The sequence of events in the deleted history is: 03:34, 8 April 2020: KidAd nominates the article for deletion. One format edit and one vandal edit that gets reverted. 05:37, 15 April 2020: JavaHurricane requests speedy deletion under CSD G12 with Twinkle, seven minutes after Mccapra in the AFD claims that it's a copyvio from this URL but the actual link in the G12 points to this URL. Text of the revision (admin only); it's hard to tell if any of it was copied from that URL. 06:47, 15 April 2020: Phil Bridger drastically reduces the size of the article with the summary "revert to the last clean version that I can find - please ask for revision deletion rather than article deletion if later versions violate copyright". Text of the revision (admin only) The "last clean version" alluded to here appears to be that from 20:53, 10 February 2010. I did compare the text of this revision against both URLs and it seems like it's clean. From there until deletion, Hyacinth carries out an expansion of the article, interspersed with some edits through Cyberbot restoring the AFD template, Hellknowz fixing the template, and some citation changes by Citation bot. At the time of AFD nomination, the article contained the following references: Cold Blue Music page on Awakening at the inn of the birds CB0012, accessed 5 February 2010 Dusted magazine review of Awakening at the inn of the birds CB0012, accessed 5 February 2010 Beal, Amy C. "Dreaming of Virtuosity". Liner notes to Michael Byron - Dreamers of Pearl. New World Records. Frogpeak Music page, accessed 5 February 2010 and Michael Byron's website were listed as external links. At the time of deletion, the article contained the following references: Tyranny, "Blue" Gene. Michael Byron at AllMusic. Retrieved 15 April 2020. Gagné, Nicole V. (2019). Historical Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Classical Music, p.65. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 9781538122983. https://www.newworldrecords.org/products/michael-byron-dreamers-of-pearl https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Byron-Dreamers-Pearl/dp/B001CRMHVK http://coldbluemusic.com/cb0043/ https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8287016--byron-m-the-celebration Frogpeak Music page at the Wayback Machine (archived 3 April 2019) was listed as an external link. Hope this all helps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse close the nom here hasn't presented any reasoning as to why the close was wrong or evidence that the close wasn't in line with consensus. All in all, the sources are pretty much irrelevant to DRV since they existed at the time of closure and per WP:AGF, we can assume that the participants took them into account when making their vote. In fact, the statement here is patently incorrect, there are 5 voters (including the nom at AFD) which had votes based in policy/established guidelines and only one of which (1 of 4 delete votes) voted based on the copyvio, the fifth vote is Hyacinth, which had nothing more than "keep". Praxidicae (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Relist The sources added by Hyacinth were all added after the "revert to clean version" by Phil Bridger. During that periond ther was exactly one editor expressingt a view in favor of deletion. One cannot presume that other participants stopped back to check on changes to the artiucle, particularly as no one mentioned in the AfD that additional siources were being added during this operiod, nor did anyone ping the participants to ask tjhem to do so. It went from two sources after the edit by Phil Bridger, to seven just before deletion. I'm not saying this met mWP:HEY but those added sources should have been evaluated, and apparently they were not. Alternatively undelete and permit renomination if anyone chooses to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC) !vote changed based on comments by Cryptic below. Logic and general views unchanged. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) The nominator complains (absolutely correctly) about the article's appearance and primary sourcing. The first delete vote has as much credibility as Davidson's keeps. Two more comments present sources. Mccapra's identification of the article as copyright infringement would normally be overriding if all revisions were so, but they weren't - this is justification for reversion and revdeletion, but not deletion of the article. Further, Hyacinth sourced and reexpanded the article after it was reverted to a stub, refuting the nomination directly. (He should have said so at the AFD; "I've rewritten the article" beats out "'''Keep'''. ~~~~" by ∞ to 0.) It's unclear if User:Pharaoh of the Wizards was fully aware of the article's history at the time of their comment; the "per nom" phrasing and complete lack of analysis of the new sourcing makes me skeptical. Even if they were, though, it'd be the only valid delete comment there. No, this isn't an AFD we can endorse. Overturn and send it back to AFD for a new discussion; don't reopen and relist the old one, the entirety of which is irrelevant. —Cryptic 16:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC) @Cryptic: can you clarify what The first delete vote has as much credibility as Davidson's keeps means? Praxidicae (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC) We have some users who !vote very prolifically at XfD and whose !votes are often a poor fit for the facts of the discussion. We tend to give those users just a smidgeon less weight at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC) This is a complex case. Bradv correctly closed the AfD - I trust I don't need to remind the above group that closure of an AfD is not a supervote, but an analysis of consensus as it stands at the conclusion of the AfD. I would think the most sensible thing to do would be to restore the article and immediately file a new AfD, alerting those who had participated in the previous AfD of this discussion and the new AfD. There is, of course, the question of copyright violating material in the history which would need to be handled carefully if there is to be any undeletion. Nick (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC) It's true that DRV mostly concerns itself with overturning defective closes. That's not the case here, though - it was instead the discussion that was defective, and that's also within DRV's remit. No implication of wrongdoing on the closer's part was intended - it's not reasonable to expect an admin closing an AFD even to notice on their own that the article had been rewritten if it there's no mention in the AFD itself, let alone come up with a solution that would be accepted by all involved. —Cryptic 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC) It's not that complex, to be fair. Bradv's close was in accordance with the consensus but the consensus had been superseded in the meantime. Rather than "overturn", could the DRV closer please say "relist".—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Relist Thanks to Cryptic for making this an easy argument. I see nothing wrong with the close, but the major issue with the discussion is the one keep !vote - also the user who WP:HEY/improved the article - just wrote "keep." If I had voted, much less closed, I would not have checked the discussion for a WP:HEY. I have no idea if the article should still be deleted or not, but the close should be vacated, the article relisted with the reason why, and all the participants pinged. SportingFlyer T·C 19:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Comment: Keep in mind that since one can not prove a negative the burden of proof for notability does not lie with the people who deem the article topic non-notable. However, saying that nothing in the article indicates any notability does not make the topic irrelevant/non-notable no matter how many times one says it. I think a quote by a respected music critic and composer calling the article topic "influential" implies importance. Mentioning "notability" or "WP:N" is not the same as discussing the policy's application. Saying, "This article should be deleted, per WP:X," is not the same as explaining why the article should be deleted and how the policy supports this. Hyacinth (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Mentioning "notability" or "WP:N" is not the same as discussing the policy's application. neither is *Keep~~~~. Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Uw-ewsoft – Relisted. The consensus is that the editors who use this template were given inadequate notification of the deletion discussion before it was deleted. A few editors acknowledged that notification is difficult for subst-only templates like this one. Now that more editors have noticed the absence of this template, the thought is by relisting the discussion, more editors will be encouraged to attend, and a clearer consensus will develop. Mz7 (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Uw-ewsoft (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Template:Uw-3rr-alt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The discussion should be reopened to allow more participation, considering {{uw-ewsoft}} has been used nearly 4000 times, and people like me who use the template would not know the template was going to be deleted until it was as it is substituted. (The nom's rationale is also fairly weak as {{uw-ewsoft}} serves as a softer, non-WP:BITEy warning for newbies and edit warring is no cardinal sin). Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Courtesy pings for @LaundryPizza03, @Mdaniels5757, @Stifle, @Bsherr, @Dthomsen8 -FASTILY 05:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Relist - Per nom, as I didn't find out it was up for deletion until after it had been deleted and I tried to use it to avoid biting a newbie. - BilCat (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I can only endorse, as deletion process has been properly followed. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. The discussion was open for sixteen days and there were no keep !votes. But consistent with my comment in the deletion discussion, I would invite interested editors to WT:UTM to discuss the prospect of softening Template:Uw-ew so that it is appropriate to use for all users. --Bsherr (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Relist The discussion had a few issues. #1 Apparently the number of uses is much greater than the discussion acknowledged (I've not checked either number). #2 There was a note about the this being announced to a relevant group and it was deleted a few hours later. #3 As is apparently just the way it works with templates, the people using it didn't had no meaningful way to know it was up for deletion and now they object when they do learn of it. #4 This almost seems like something that should be an RfC rather than a TfD--attracting more folks seems helpful. As such, a relist seems wise. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse All of the faults the nominator describes are not unique to this specific TfD, but instead inherent to the way TfD works (TfD tags can't be shown on substituted templates -- how would you notify users who subst them, a warn-only edit filter?, and templates are routinely deleted with a small number of users participating). * Pppery * it has begun... 13:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Relist I had to notify the village pump about a similar TfD which, despite potentially having an even wider impact than this one, was relisted twice due to lack of participation. Evidently, this kind of nomination is severely underexposed. Any thoughts about how to prevent this in the future? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Relist. That TfD routinely fails to adequately notify everybody who should be notified about a discussion is not a reason to endorse a failure of adequate notification. Doubly so when a discussion was closed less than a day after it was explicitly noted that notification had been made nearly two weeks later than should have been done. On the actual substance of the discussion it seems that the !votes were based on incorrect information so may or may not be an accurate reflection of the views of those giving them had they known that. All in all there are multiple good reasons to relist and none not to. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Relist per Hobit, Thryddulf, and others, although if there is going to be an RfC, it would make sense to do that first and be guided by the result. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Relist Poorly attended enough that reopening could lead to better participation and a clearer consensus. TfDs are very poorly attended and even a single good keep !vote may have gotten this into no consensus territory. That being said, I don't see any explicit wrongdoing - just doesn't make sense not to endorse this on a technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 19:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Comments '- I agree that there was that there was no explicit wrongdoing in this case. I'm not sure what can be done in cases like this, but that could be addressed by an RfC independent of what happens here. (I do have some ideas for such an RfC.) - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC) relist or overturn to no consensus. The participants asked about usage, and at least one said it could be deleted "if it isn't being used" but did not mention that the instructions said this should always be used with subst, so the usage stats would surely be misleading. The delayed notificatioin to the nTwinke maintainers is anotehr reason to relist. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Meaningful notification of discussions about subst-only templates has been a problem at TFD for as long as it's existed. I don't think we've ever come up with a better solution than being liberal about reopening discussions after the template is deleted and someone complains, and even that doesn't do anything for people who don't try to use the template while it's redlinked. —Cryptic 16:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC) As a first though, maybe some sort of "Please notify these people/pages if you nominate this template for deletion, merging or other significant changes" list on the talk page might help. It obviously wouldn't catch everybody, probably not even most people, but I think it is unlikely to hurt. Especially if Twinkle could read it and send notifications automatically (I have no idea how feasible this is). Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Relist The template usage figure was vastly understated. --IamNotU (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 May 2020

Chronological list of Old Testament Saints – This discussion allows two possible closes: "Decision endorsed" and "No consensus to overturn". Either way, Sandstein's close rests undisturbed.—S Marshall T/C
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Chronological list of Old Testament Saints (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Closer interpreted consensus incorrectly. There is a series of articles on Wikipedia entitled Chronological list of saints and blesseds which is a list type series that includes saints and blesseds in a chronological order, including dates of birth/death and places of birth/death. The first entry in this series was 'Chronological list of Old Testament Saints'. A user attempted to turn this into a redirect to a page on saints in the roman martyrology, and I undid this and asked in the note editing note that the user discuss it on the talk page. Subsequently the page was nominated for deletion. The user that opened the deletion page argued that this was a copy of the other list and it was adding unsourced speculative information. I explained that it wasn't a copy and that the little information present in the list was largely not disputed by scholars. After two weeks, the discussion was closed by Sandstein on grounds that the page needed good secondary sources and couldn't be based on the bible or 'pious sources'. There are three problems I want to identify here for why I believe the consensus here is interpreted incorrectly: 1) Earlier the article had only sourced the bible, but on the day that the deletion discussion was closed, I think that the large majority of items in the list had already been referenced with sources from encyclopedia Britannica, catholic encyclopedia, jewish virtual library, etc. Furthermore I had offered to provide more in case anyone needed them. I tried to explain this to Sandstein to appeal the decision, but he still refused and didn't respond any further to my comments on his talk page. I think that perhaps he didn't read the references carefully at the bottom of the article on the day that the closure took place. 2) There were seven users that contributed to the discussion. Three voted for delete, two were for keep, one for draftifying the article and one did not vote. The user voting to draftify's concerns were that better sources were needed. Given that such sources were put into the article after this comment was made and before the deletion, I don't believe there is a clear majority 'delete' vote in this discussion. 3) The deletion side of this debate were invoking arguments that I think were patently untrue against what is published in generally recognized sources. The arguments on the deletion side were trying to make a case that the dating of these figures is speculative, based on wild guesses and not backed by a consensus of scholarly sources. I think that perhaps they were mistaking the debate about whether or not the bible is historical with the question of what time periods the characters in the bible were supposedly living in. The former is a contested topic, but the latter for most figures is not really so. If I can give an example for the readers here to consider: this is the article from encyclopedia Britannica on the prophet Jeremiah (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jeremiah-Hebrew-prophet) "Jeremiah, Hebrew Yirmeyahu, Latin Vulgate Jeremias, (born probably after 650 bce, Anathoth, Judah—died c. 570 bce, Egypt), Hebrew prophet, reformer, and author of a biblical book that bears his name. He was closely involved in the political and religious events of a crucial era in the history of the ancient Near East; his spiritual leadership helped his fellow countrymen survive disasters that included the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 bce and the exile of many Judaeans to Babylonia." As you can see, the dates and places believed to be probably associated with this figure are found in a generally accepted scholarly source, contrary to what was being argued. The list article didn't give comprehensive information, but just provided rough dates and places, in line with the series that it belongs to in Chronological list of saints and blesseds. Now that the article is deleted, this series can't be completed and it is missing an entry from the periods it covers. Reesorville (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Closer's comment: Yeah, no. I stand by my and the AfD's assessment that this list, created by Reesorville in 2015, was by and large irremediable WP:OR. I'll look at one example from the list at random: Enoch (ancestor of Noah). About which Reesorville tells us in their deleted list: Birth date and birthplace unknown, "did not die". Sources: "Book of Genesis" - not even a specific chapter and verse - and a website called "newadvent.org". That website appears to be self-published, and it is labeled "Copyright © 2020 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary." Which speaks volumes about its reliability as a source. What's more, even this crap website confirms absolutely nothing in the list's entry about Enoch: not that his birth date and birthplace is unknown, and also not the claim that he "did not die". (If that were true, we could ask Enoch on Twitter to confirm his biography.) You aren't even able to get right what the Bible actually says about Enoch's lifespan: "And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years" (Genesis 5:23). So, no, Reesorville: your hodgepodge of errors and original research has no place on Wikipedia, and the AfD recognized this. Wikipedia is not a web host for your personal musings. The topic might be a valid one for an article, in theory. But in order to write that article you'd need to be able to do actual research - that is, recognize, find and understand reliable academic sources. There have to be hundreds of peer-reviewed books by actual theologians and historians about any of the persons in this list, or even about the list topic itself. And no, research does not mean randomly adding whatever dubious website comes up on Google without checking whether it even matches what's in the list. And now I guess I'll have to take a look at all of your other contributions based on the high likelihood that they're of the same caliber... sigh. Sandstein 18:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC) the link on newadvent.org is hosting the original text from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is a recognized scholarly source. If you want you can find the same work published online in other places, including on wikisource. As per 'did not die: the quotation on the website reads: "Instead of the clause "and he died", added to the sketches concerning the other patriarchs, the text says of Henoch: "And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him" (Genesis 5:24). The inspired writer of Hebrews 11:5 adds: "By faith Henoch was translated, that he should not see death." Sirach 44:16 and 49:16 intimates the same truth about the patriarch. You are now trying to nominate many articles I write for deletion. I think you really need to cool it and calm down. I wasn't trying to attack you personally nor did I mean anything against you. I am only trying to undo this deletion which makes no sense to me in light of what I wrote above. Please forgive me if I have offended you. Reesorville (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse A reading of the discussion shows the close was correct. None of the keep !votes established why this wasn't WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I think none of the deletion votes gave specific examples of things that couldn't be found in sources. Reesorville (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I probably could have worded my endorse here a little bit more clearly - the standard isn't that the deletion voters needed to give examples of things that couldn't be found, nor am I looking at anything related to content, just the nature of the discussion. The only thing I am reviewing is whether the close of the AfD as delete was proper. I think there was a clear consensus to delete - even the draftify !voter and the commenter didn't really support keeping the article. The only error would be if the closer discounted strong arguments from the keep !voters that this was not WP:OR, but and with all due respect I don't see that here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I don't need to repeat all the points I wrote above, but my main issue is that this is being deleted on grounds of it being OR. When in fact the majority of the article was already sourced to credible sources on the day it was deleted.Reesorville (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn and relist. Closer Sandstein made an obvious error here: identifying an online copy of the (public domain) Catholic Encyclopedia as an original, self-published source, even though every relevant page of newadvent.org identifies the source of the text. Indeed, the WP article on the original encyclopedia identifies newadvent.org as an online mirror of the work. Nearly 1200 articles reference this version of the text. Sandstein compounds the error by inexplicably calling newadvent.org "this crap website" and compounds their hostility by declaring that the site's religious motto "speaks volumes about its reliability as a source", a statement that is both extraordinarily illogical and exceptionally offensive to many. (The most inspiring professor I ever studied with, a man of unchallengeable integrity compared at one point to Paul Tillich, was a devout Jesuit.) Sandstein clearly refers to these inappropriate ideas in his closing statement ("what look like WP:SPS religious websites of uncertain provenance"); the decision to delete is fatally tainted, and the discussion should be reopened so that the sources can be accurately evaluated. Obviously, given Sandstein's antipathy toward the OP, expressed here and elsewhere ("Reesorville lacks the skills required to research and write articles about scholarly topics"), he should not be the recloser. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse the strength of argument in the AfD was definitely on the Delete side, and I don't see a good reason to overturn that. The OP's description of the deleted article isn't entirely accurate, of the citations in the article at the time of deletion half were to the Bible or to what is clearly original research based on the Bible (e.g. "the Bible says X lived at the same time as Y, so I'll reuse the date I had for Y"). Most of the remaining citations were to non-reliable sources such as Biblehub.com (cited nine times). The Catholic Encyclopedia is also not a good source for us to use, it was written a hundred years ago and presents the subject matter explicitly from the Catholic viewpoint - see discussions about it at WP:RS/N (e.g. here, here). Our articles need to reflect recent scholarship, not what people thought a hundred years ago. As an example the entry in the list for Abraham asserts he was a real historical figure who lived approximately 2000 BC in Ur, whereas our article says (with much better sources) that the current scholarly consensus is that he never existed at all. I'm sure we could have a list of Old Testament saints somewhere but it needs to either stop presenting them as historical figures or be based on current historical scholarship. Hut 8.5 07:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I can answer all of these, there are some misunderstandings: 1) my description of the article was that the majority of entries on the list were covered by scholarly secondary sources, not that the majority of citations were scholarly secondary sources. The majority of citations remain primary, but the majority of entries on the list are covered by scholarly secondary sources, including encyclopedia Britannica, catholic encyclopedia and jewish virtual library. Since the afd was related to OR, the question of whether the entries were covered or not by reliable secondary sources is the only critical issue at play here. Wiki does not say that primary sources cannot be used, but that material needs to be backed up by secondary sources. As long as most items on the list are covered by reliable secondary sources then I think the afd had no valid ground to declare a consensus on OR. 2) The argument that you make about the catholic encyclopedia was not present in the afd discussion. However, I can answer that here as well: if the encyclopedia was presenting information which modern scholarship had either overturned or which was something that was clearly biased to one view, then other sources would be needed. However, given that the only information on the list was birthplace, deathplace, time period, etc. and modern scholarship has largely not changed on these little details over the past 100 years, this isn't a valid point to use against this source in this case. On wiki's current articles that cover these particular figures, take note that these dates and birth/death places are also found there too. 3) The afd discussion and my note above both already explained this misconception about the historicity debate and the question of dating people here. Your comment about Abraham is exactly what I was trying to explain: this is not a historical list, it is a chronological list but it is not a historical list; I understand if this might confuse people, but I had answered it in the afd discussion. This series Chronological list of saints and blesseds includes many figures that are questioned to have ever existed historically. Not just for the Old Testament, but also for later times as well. These lists were not created to touch on the debate regarding historicity of these persons, which properly belongs in their relevant page articles. I mentioned in the afd discussion that if there was some confusion about this, a simple note could be placed that said something like 'the historical existence of these figures is questioned, but the following is a list of persons honoured as saints and details attributed to them'. Abraham's existence, for example, is questioned among scholars. But what is not questioned among scholars is that the biblical narrative in which he is appearing in, and which he is primarily known by, is supposedly taking place about 500 years before Moses within the land of Canaan. Scholars question if that story ever happened, but they don't question that the story itself says that he lived at around that time/place. There are absolutely a consensus of credible sources that exist that confirm the latter, which is what this article is about. Hence to interpret this as a consensus on OR is flawed. Reesorville (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC) It's not the case that most of the entries on the list were covered by scholarly sources, most weren't and even then the scholarly sources weren't actually being used. The entry on Daniel, for example, said he lived around the 6th century BC, was born in Israel, died in Babylon and was a prophet (and implicitly that he is considered a saint). It was sourced to [39], which only supports the prophet part. The date citation was to "Book of Daniel, described as being a contemporary of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon", which is your interpretation of a Biblical text - at best it's a primary source, at worst it's original research. Furthermore the scholarly consensus seems to be that he never existed at all. And that's an entry which had a respectable-looking source, others were referenced to stuff like [40] which is effectively useless (and appears to be suggesting Young-Earth creationism). If there are newer sources than the Catholic Encyclopedia then you should cite those instead. If there aren't then the information shouldn't be in Wikipedia. This stuff does change, according to our article the consensus of scholars on the historicity of Abraham has changed since the mid-twentieth century, for example. And I don't agree that we should be presenting unqualified definite dates and places of origin for people who may not have existed. Hut 8.5 17:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC) There were about 37 entries on the list, with I think 19 of them cited to encyclopedia Britannica, catholic encyclopedia and jewish virtual library. This makes a majority, as I wrote. If you think the other sources are not credible, they can be deleted and the information associated with them can be challenged and given new sources, but to delete the entire article on OR doesn't make sense any longer. Those sources can also be cited for most of the other entries on the list as well. The link to Britannia goes to a page the connects to several articles on Britannica dealing with Daniel. The page itself is just a portal to other articles about Daniel and not an article to itself. I didn't think this would be really that hard to follow... The one that comes up first is about the book of Daniel, which reads even in the part that shows on the page: "The Book of Daniel presents a collection of popular stories about Daniel, a loyal Jew, and the record of visions granted to him, with the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century bce as their background. ". I already addressed the confusion between historicity and chronology several times already here and in the afd. In short, I repeat: this is not a historical list, but it is listing people considered to be saints from these periods. You are introducing an argument that's not present in the afd if you want to say the article should be deleted because we should only have such lists that are fully confirmed according to history. The afd was basing itself on this being OR, which it clearly wasn't, since the majority of items were sourced credibly. I explicitly mentioned in the afd that people question Daniel's historical existence, but no one is questioning the fact that in the narrative he supposedly lived in 6th century BC Babylon. Although this wasn't present in the afd, I still nevertheless disagree with the idea that such lists must only include those confirmed by history. The discussion of historicity and debate surrounding doesn't belong on a list-type article like this. As I already said in the afd, if there was any confusion, a simple note at the top saying that the historicity of these figures was questioned could be added saying 'the historicity of these figures is questioned...'; there is no reason to go through the whole debate about whether they existed or not on a list like this, nor does it make sense to delete them from the list on that account, considering that they are/were notable people honoured as saints in Christianity, which is what this list and this series of lists is trying to catalogue. Also, yes more recent sources than catholic encyclopedia could be added saying the same thing. The argument that you are using here wasn't present in the afd, and I would have added them had someone raised this issue then. However, given that the little details here are largely something that hasn't changed since 1910, it is also arguably not necessary. Scholars have changed their minds about how historical these figures were, you are correct about this, but they have largely not changed their minds about the question of when these biblical characters were supposedly living within the narrative. Reesorville (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC) This is getting way off topic for a DRV, but I don't agree with this characterisation of the sources at all. Yes, nine of the entries were sourced to Britannica, but as I've noted the source doesn't actually support the entry in at least one case. As I've said I don't agree that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a suitable source for this material, and in prior discussions other editors didn't either. The article was still stuffed full of original research and citations to unreliable sources. If we are going to keep it then it needs a major overhaul along the lines of what DGG suggests below. If something needs an overhaul which is that drastic then deleting it is a reasonable course of action. Certainly our readers could legitimately accuse us of dishonesty if we present legendary material without explaining that it has no basis in fact, as part of a series of articles which includes real historical figures. Lists of legendary or semi-legendary figures usually make this very clear, e.g. List of legendary kings of Sweden. Hut 8.5 20:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC) If you think Britannica is the only legitimate source of the three I suggested, I think you can still get articles for almost all the entries on that list from Britannica that list those dates and places. It would take maybe 20 minutes to edit it and put them in, I would guess. Given how simple this article actually is, I don't know why deletion and recreation is really necessary. There is no OR in this article and the majority of it is already sourced to credible sources, including the Daniel entry, if one simply clicks on the next link in the portal. Furthermore, I think the article doesn't need a major detailed analysis of historicity, since that is already covered in the other articles. A simple explanation at the top would probably be enough; I already mentioned in the afd that this was possible, but it wasn't commented on by the others at the time. Reesorville (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Actually there's one rather important thing I've forgotten: you'll need some citations to show that these people are actually saints, which is rather important for a list of saints. This isn't obvious, List of Catholic saints doesn't include any pre-Christian figures at all. Hut 8.5 21:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Proving that these people are honoured as saints within parts of Christianity is not that difficult if that is being contested, for example: http://ocarm.org/en/content/liturgy/st-elijah-prophet-solemnity. But, it is true a lot of people are not aware of the pre-Christian figures that are also called saints. Reesorville (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse- Not the best-attended AfD of all time, but the delete side made some good points that don't seem to have been addressed by the keep side. The discussion was relisted and got only another delete vote afterwards, so I think that was a fair reading of the consensus. Reyk YO! 08:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse - The close is a valid assessment of rough consensus. The appellant may want to re-argue, but that isn't what DRV is for, but to appeal an error by the closer, and there isn't an error but a valid assessment. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC) history temporarily undeleted for deletion review Rewrite or Delete if not properly rewritten This was apparently intended to include the traditional dates of the individuals in the Judeo-Christian tradition. At the absolute minimum it needed a introductory paragraph explaining this, clarifying that the list includes figures whose historical existence is disputed, that many of the traditional dates are disputed even among scholars whose work is based on the biblical tradition, that the historical dates of the individuals who are thought to be possibly or certainly historical is in most cases currently thought to quite different from the traditional ones, and that the actual historical dates for those figures are in most cases very considerably disputed among both religious and non-religious scholars. A list of the traditional dates can be appropriate encyclopedic content, but it needs much more context, and much more research. A full list in context including the views of historians as ell is a much more ambitious project. (not to mention that most of these individuals also figure in the Islamic tradition, which has its own traditional chronology). DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I agree with you. Given the amount of confusion, the article obviously needed something in the beginning to explain that this was not meant to be taken as necessarily historical. The same is probably also true of the other articles in this series of lists, such as the ones that cover periods of roman persecution that include lots of names of martyrs whose historicity is questioned. Regardless, however, it is not an OR issue in that event. Reesorville (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse Reesorville is merely re-litigating their arguments from the deletion discussion. There is nothing presented that suggests that the closer failed to interpret policy correctly. The article creator is merely generating further ad-hoc arguments for why their OR is somehow exempt from or skirting that policy. Disclosure: I !voted "Delete" in the original AfD.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC) This was your argument from the afd for why these sources were OR: "I don't think you meant to do so but you just pointed out that the "secondary sources" really aren't. If they "...are doing nothing different than just using the details mentioned in the bible..." then they are not actually secondary sources. I.e., they are not performing independent ...analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources... and aren't adding anything as sources." Unfortunately the discussion was closed before I could write a response to it. But as I wrote here above and as I already wrote in the afd to another person, the list in question was not presenting a historical list, but rather a chronological list. The sources given absolutely prove that these characters are placed in those time periods and therefore there is no ground in saying it is OR. I am not 'skirting' anything - I am pointing out what appears to be a big misunderstanding of what this article actually is and showing clearly how the sources prove that the decision to label it as OR was the wrong interpretation. The list is trying to present a list of people considered saints, it is not dealing with the issue of historicity, but if there is confusion a note could be added saying something to the effect of 'the actual historicity of the people on this list are disputed by scholars'. The sources are using the bible to place those characters in those places and times, just like how a secondary source on the play Hamlet would use the original text of the play to place Hamlet as living in Denmark without much further analysis on top of that. That is what I meant when I wrote that the sources are mainly just repeating what exists in the bible to place these characters in particular times and places. Reesorville (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Which is a perfect example of "re-litigating...the deletion discussion." Since you filed this DRV, I presume you read this: Deletion review should not be used: 1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment... 5.to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion; You are repeating your arguments ad nauseum and this is not the place for it. The question here is not: "Is my article worthy of preservation?" The question is: "Did Sandstein abuse their discretion as a closer?" Your arguments about sourcing and special pleadings about this article have no bearing on the review. I have only replied at this length to hopefully explain the process a little more and will not reply to any further arguments about the article. If you have any further questions about the review process, however, please do post them and I will respond as best as I am able. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Deletion review can be used: "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;". This deletion review is here because of a questioning of the closer's judgement. I argued above that this is the case. The closer interpreted that there was a consensus that the article was an OR piece on the basis of the 3 out of the 7 people present arguing for deletion and the arguments they used that he found compelling. This interpretation is flawed, however, which is what I've attempted to make clear. Here is the wiki policy on reliable sources: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. " The majority of items on the list were already sourced to reliable sources on the day of its deletion and virtually all of the remainder could be sourced to the same sources. Again, I'll quote the definition of OR: "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." Did most of this material have no reliable source present on the page already to support it? Answer no Did this material have no reliable sources easily available that could have been added to the page to support things that were challenged? Answer no Therefore, the page does not fit the wiki definition of OR. Wiki's deletion policy regarding WP:ATD, I'll also quote: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I plainly stated in the afd that if there was any further challenges, more sources could be added for every claim on the page. One of the arguments present in the afd that was made that this is OR, from which the consensus was interpreted, is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of what this series of articles is about, which I explained both here and in the afd, because it is confusing the issue of historicity with this topic. This misunderstanding could also have been easily solved with a note to explain that the page was not historical. Again, I'll quote wiki's policy: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." It is also already easily clear from the closer's own comments above that he didn't understand that one of the major reliable sources was actually the catholic encyclopedia, a major international and well-known scholarly source on catholic and biblical topics that can be found in university libraries today, which he dismissed as a 'pious source' and OR, and mistakenly believed it was a self-published source from a religious website. So yes, the closer's judgement is being called into question and this deletion review is here. Reesorville (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC) At the further risk of my sanity and against my better judgement: Reesorville, this last paragraph contains the only recognizable grounds for overturning the close but it is either highly mistaken or outright deceptive. I'm going to presume the former and explain the difficulty with that source and hope that this helps distinguish between sources that lend notability and ones that do not. The most recent version of The Catholic Encyclopedia was published in 1987 and the version you linked from https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ is the 1917 version. This is the out-of-copyright version that is also very out of date and only reflects Catholic dogma at the time of World War One. Even more to the point, that version was written only from a dogmatic point of view and solely to present (then) officially accepted religious views. Further, the publishing of that version on the web is explicitly a devotion to Mary by the page author. In other words, Sandstein's characterization was correct. The source you cited is self-published as a pious source and not a valid secondary scholarly source. Once more: none of the sources you added in your attempts to "save" the article can properly be considered valid secondary sources because none of them do anything more than repeat what the Bible already says. If you want to see how this distinction is carried out in practice on this project, I recommend that you read the article Ten Commandments in Catholic theology. This is a featured article and in with the biblical quotations and specific chapter-and-verse references to Exodus are many other scholarly explanations and analyses. Your article did not need to reach the level of that one to be considered notable but it did need to use sources in that same manner. This you did not do and no amount of special pleading will change that. Your time spent arguing here that you did is wasted. If you want to create an article on this topic, then further research and rewriting is needed in Draft space or in your own sandbox. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC) The deletion review was started as I wrote at the top because the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. He said that there was a consensus that this was based on OR and self-published sources, when in fact the majority of items on the list were source to reliable sources. Despite how you have characterized my arguments, your attempting here to discredit this source right now is essentially re-litigating and bringing up new points not mentioned in the afd. The closer clearly believed that the catholic encyclopedia was a self-published source without academic value from a religious website. You may personally think that it doesn't have academic value, although many others may disagree, but ultimately the debate over that issue would properly belong in a relisted afd, where it was actually never brought up to begin with regarding this particular source. Furthermore, the same information was also found in encyclopedia Britannica and the jewish virtual library (and on wiki's own pages), both of which were clearly referenced on the page at the time that the closer interpreted a consensus of OR. So, again the deletion review is quite valid. There is no 'special pleading': I am pointing directly to wiki's own deletion policy: WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. 'If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant. I can't understand what you are saying here: 'If you want to create an article on this topic, then further research and rewriting is needed in Draft space or in your own sandbox.' - AFD is not cleanup- wiki policy is very clear about that. If you actually do believe that someone can write an article on this topic with valid sources, and the sources on the page are not yet sufficient, then the article should not be deleted and it should be left open for further editing. If you are going to instead say 'we must delete this one now, and then you can go and make another article later on the same topic with more sources' then this is basically amounting to turning the afd process into cleanup, is it not? Deletion of OR is based on the belief that further sources are in fact not available, not that they are available and haven't been added yet. If there is an actual belief that further sources are not available, the only way to prove that something is not OR is by providing sources. However, I did provide reliable sources and yet it was deleted anyways, while the closer obviously by his own comments proved he didn't understand these sources. You argument that the source needs to do further analysis to come up with these times and places is also seemingly based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the article. Maybe if I try to put it simply - can you answer this question: why would an article, which isn't claiming to be a historical list, and which is placing holy characters ultimately derived from the bible within certain time periods and places, need to do something more than largely relying upon the bible itself to come up with these places and dates? It is like asking, why would a secondary source need to do further analysis on placing Romeo and Juliet in Verona, rather than relying upon the text of the play itself? If there was some confusion that the article was trying to present something historical, that could have been easily assisted by editing, as I wrote in the afd. AFD is not cleanup.Reesorville (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Ok, stop. You aren't paying any attention to anything anyone says except to try to weasel your article in. I've been strenuously attempting to communicate the standards that apply and you've been ignoring everything except to trawl through policies and procedures to see what you can twist into justifying your position. This isn't helping. Nobody is paying attention to what you're writing. The fact is, remains, and always has been this: you haven't provided reliable, secondary scholarly sources. Period, end of story. Do that and you might get an article accepted. If you want to keep pontificating, you will keep getting nowhere. If you want to keep claiming your sources are acceptable (they aren't) then find somewhere else to put your article. It's your choice but don't say you weren't helped. Help doesn't always get us what we want. I'm done testing my wits for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC) I have paid attention to everything you and others have said. I am not a person who thinks that because the majority thinks X, then X must be the true answer. I am treating you with good faith; I hope you can do the same for me. I provided reliable secondary sources; you don't believe that they are, you are the only user in the afd who commented at all on those sources and your argument for why they weren't appears to be a fallacy based on a misunderstanding, and the closer didn't even understand what these sources were when he concluded they were self-published. As you pointed out, this deletion review is not the place to make arguments about arguments for or against deletion, but about whether or not the closer interpreted consensus correctly. The afd, being relisted, would be the proper place to debate the question of whether or not these sources were valid, therefore, and it doesn't belong here. I have already cited the relevant wiki policies here, and I believed that I cited them correctly. Afd is not cleanup, the deletion page was launched initially because of a claim that there was material that was unsourced and it was a duplicate of another article, but sources were in fact added later. If there is a debate about whether these sources are valid or not, then it has to be done in the relisted afd page - that fact that the closer himself clearly didn't understand what these sources were when he concluded it was self-published and OR is reason enough for why the afd page should be relisted - wiki deletion policy also says 'if in doubt, don't delete'. Reesorville (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse, filer is simply litigating the AfD again, consensus was clearly in favour of deletion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC) WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant. User:Reesorville is counselled to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC) I have now read it. At the top of the page it says: "This is an essay on conduct policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." Reesorville (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. The article complete fails to indicate who reveres these people as saints or include any sources that would answer that question. The delete !votes were clearly stronger. We have an article List of Old Covenant saints in the Roman Martyrology and this is the pattern to follow to create such articles. Srnec (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC) if you go to Chronological list of saints and blesseds, to which this article originally belonged, it says that these are saints revered in Christianity. There wasn't discussion in the afd about demanding sources to show that they were revered as saints but that could have been provided had it been brought up. Reesorville (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 May 2020

Estimate of the Situation – "Redirect" closure endorsed. There is no consensus to restore the history; many people here doubt that it is of any use for merging. Sandstein 12:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Estimate of the Situation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Apologies if this is not the right place to post this. But shouldn't the consensus here be Merge? It got the most votes. All content from the page was lost and the page was deleted and redirected. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse redirect, but restore history. If I were closing this, the first thing I would have done was figured out that there was clear consensus against keeping this as a stand-alone article. The next step would be to figure out which of delete or merge better represented the consensus. It's pretty much of a toss-up between those, and the problem with merge is that you can't merge material that doesn't meet WP:V, so merge really isn't an option. I suspect I would have done the redirect as a compromise, but I don't see any reason the history was deleted. We generally only delete the history when something like WP:BLP or WP:CV requires us to do so. Violations of WP:FRINGE don't rise to that level. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC) If someone types "Estimate of the Situation" into the search bar on Wikipedia, what's the thing they'd be least astonished to find? I certainly don't think the answer has anything to do with ufology! We should retarget the redirect to Estimation (disambiguation) and add an entry to the bottom of the disambiguation page pointing at Project Sign. And since we should do that, I can't see any reason to restore the history.—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Requests history tempundelete. The merge !votes smell to me of admission that the content was unsuitable, such as unverifiable to reliable sources. That is not a valid merge !vote, and if my suspicion is correct, that the nominator’s opening statement was correct, then deletion of the history was the right thing to do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I have read the deleted article and it’s sourcing. It is not so offensive that it needs to be deleted. I agree with the AfD nominator, and see that the consensus of the discussion was in agreement. However, my reading is that the consensus better fits to “redirect With prejudice (and protect the redirect if required)”. As per the AfD nomination, inclusion of more content at the target is a matter for consensus at the target, and its talk page. It’s conceivable that reference to the history may help. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Consensus was Not for "merge". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Deleting the article was a reasonable outcome from the discussion. If there's nothing verifiable to merge, then we don't need to keep the history, so waiting for the tempundelete to come through to make a decision. SportingFlyer T·C 01:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Eh, I think this is clearly a delete by consensus. There's not really much to merge, and I probably would have closed it the same way. The only issue is a valid redirect target exists, even though nobody suggested a redirect in the discussion, which is supervote-y. Endorse the close as correct, but allow the history to be restored per request, maybe a little bit WP:IAR but think this the optimal result. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC) The requesting user has been topic-banned for pushing WP:FRINGE (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ufology sprawling edit war, so I'm treating the request for history as moot and changing to a straight up endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Given the number of concerns raised about the sourcing and/or content a straightforward merge is going to be a bad idea and any merge will have to be very selective. None of the merge !votes actually argued that the content was any good. Project Sign does already devote a few sentences to it which are rather better than what's in the deleted version. Given that I don't see any particular reason to do any further merging. Hut 8.5 10:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC) overturn to merge That was the consensus of the discussion as I read it. Count is 4 deletes (one of which is fine with merge), 2 keeps, and 2 merges. The sources in the article and listed in the AfD include mainstream newspapers and academic publishers. And everyone in that discussion appears fine with the topic being mentioned on Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC) This reminds me of the issue discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 73#Consensus to get rid of an article but not on whether to preserve some of its content. To me it looks like there is some disagreement in the discussion about whether the sourcing is adequate to justify inclusion, with some legitimate arguments against the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse per SportingFlyer. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse, to my surprise. I voted Merge there, but I think Spartaz is actually right on the balance of policy-based argument, merge is a bit of a lazy answer. Not that I'd object to restoring the history under the redirect, but it's fair to say that on the balance of policy-based argument this is not a notable topic. Guy (help!) 09:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 May 2020

A group where we all pretend to be boomers – Undone and relisted by the closer. Sandstein 06:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
A group where we all pretend to be boomers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The deletion discussion was kept as a non-admin closure, but 3 people thinking an article should be kept, excluding the blocked sock, and 2 thinking the article should be deleted is not a consensus. Natureium (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Relist there was no consensus per Natureium's analysis especially because one of the keeps was weak. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Relist - on a procedural note, there appears to have been no discussion with the closer. W.r.t. to the close, Premeditated Chaos brought a strong argument against inclusion, that was not given time for due consideration. --MrClog (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Relist. AfD is not about counting the bolded words, it's about evaluating arguments. I only see two arguments here that have any value; User:Koridas listed four specific sources they felt satisfied WP:N, and User:Premeditated Chaos argued why those sources were insufficient. Nothing else in the entire AfD (including the nomination statement) comes close to making any policy-based arguments either way. And, yeah, the sock should be discounted completely; socks often commit drive-by AfD voting to give the appearance of being a real user. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Relist - Although I did participate in the AfD, it was closed very shortly after the only delete vote. And only two keep votes actually had value. Kori (@) 15:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Relist Not the worst BADNAC I've ever seen but this should have been relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Comment I just started NACs a couple of weeks ago (when this was closed) and agree I was entirely too ambitious with this one and it should have been a relist. In particular, not checking to see one of the users was a sock was quite an oversight on my part. A couple of mistakes were made here on my part that I don't intend to repeat. That being said, I would encourage anyone who sees that I made a bad closure to come talk to me first, I would have been happy to relist this. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC) DRV's major purpose is not to assign blame or resolve disputes, but to provide corrective input for future efforts. Don't worry, we all make mistakes, it's part of life. I don't imagine anybody would object if you backed out your close and relisted it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I'm happy to, but is it appropriate to do so since this discussion has already started? Sulfurboy (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Sulfurboy, The happiest outcome of a DRV is when the closer understands how they could have done things better and goes and does it. No reason to spend the next week talking about something when it's already obvious where it's going. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC) RoySmith, What's the easiest way to relist it? Tried to find a guide but am coming up short. Just start a new afd and copy over the applicable comments? Edit the existing afd? Don't want to miss any applicable markup/logs. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC) What I would do pull up the AfD page history, revert back to the change right before your close, and then click the "Relist" button. You'll also need to do the same thing on the article talk page. I'd reference this DRV in various edit comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)  Done Sulfurboy (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC) BTW, if you don't have the gadget enabled that crosses out the username of blocked accounts, I highly recommend it. Not for this in particular, but for reading in general. Natureium (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Nice, I hadn't noticed that one before. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wrea Head Hall – No consensus to overturn. A majority here endorses the "delete" closure, but many would also permit draftification. Any admin is therefore free to do so on request. Sandstein 14:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wrea Head Hall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) I request overturn of decision to delete, because the article is substantial (was developed to be more substantial, with additional source(s) during the AFD itself). At least one Delete vote, out of three total counting the nominator, was well before the development happened. Another Delete voter was stuck, incorrectly IMHO, in wondering whether the article must be solely about the building vs. solely being about the hotel as an organization (it can be about both, both aspects add to notability, is the answer). There were five Keep votes, including the last three votes (therefore the most informed ones). And a non-voting commentator expressed interest in one aspect of the article being developed, which in fact was subsequently developed, so I think it is reasonable to consider them as "leaning Keep". On the vote numbers, that is not a "Delete" outcome. About number and quality of sources in existence, note the original deletion nomination acknowledged one, some more were produced, and a decent argument was made that others exist (pre-internet). Closer disagreed about the sources, I guess, but the close was a super-vote in effect. --Doncram (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC) (Request adapted from posting at multiple-person discussion at AFD closer's page, at User talk:Spartaz#AFD on Wrea Head Hall. Closer has not replied. Refund copy of deleted article to go to Draft:Wrea Head Hall has been requested at wp:REFUND. Article was deleted, later was replaced by a redirect to Scalby, North Yorkshire#Landmarks, so Wrea Head Hall) currently shows as a bluelink. Doncram (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Last version of article before deletion is now available.--Doncram (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse (non-participant): There were 5 editors who !voted "Keep": The first was based solely on a Google Maps street view. The second provided a few short sources, supported the Google Maps street view argument, said that the building would surely be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and compared it to other buildings. The third only says Keep and expand. The fourth just says that the article passes GNG, without pointing out which sources are being used to count towards passing GNG. The fifth only says Keep - meets requirements. Out of the five "Keep" !votes, only three of them actually say anything remotely meaningful, and only one of two of them really say anything based on policies and guidelines. The three "Delete" !voters argued on the basis of sources not meeting GNG and the Google Maps street view not being policy/guideline-based. It seems here that the close was a reasonable assessment of policy/guideline-based consensus. Note: the closer has not edited anywhere on WP since the inquiry at their talk page was opened. There are also two WP:REFUND requests (1, 2). — MarkH21talk 07:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Fourth refund request: If there is any administrator present, could you please consider cutting through the bullshit that is denying refund, and just deliver the request. (The temporarily linked version available for review here can't be edited, it is in mainspace behind a redirect.) Yes, technically wp:REFUND is not for refunding articles which have been deleted by AFD. But in this case at least it can't hurt anything and would enable earlier resolution of this DRV, which will surely end with refund or restoration. Editors having sources apparently want to develop it and could do so right away, proving it can be done, making this DRV moot. I apologize to all that my opening this DRV too soon may be causing bureaucratic delay. (But how was I to know that more sources are supposedly available?) --Doncram (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse (I !voted delete) (edit conflict) - On a procedural note, the closer has not edited since you posted on their talk page, so it would have been a good idea to wait a few more days before opening a review here. With regards to the close itself: Spartaz read the consensus correctly. One keep !vote argued that the Google Street View proved notability, which is not in line with policy. Another simply said "Keep and expand" and provided no reasoning whatsoever. These two should be discounted. What's left is one side arguing that GNG is not met and one side arguing it is met (presuming that is what Encyclopædius meant with "meets requirements"). The keep !voters have not been able to establish what independent reliable sources provide significant coverage as required. --MrClog (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus.(I !voted keep) The article was a poorly-sourced stub when it was nominated, but several editors worked diligently to improve/expand it. In the end, five editors voted "keep". Of the minority "delete" votes, one was posted before the improvements were made. My read is that this should have been closed as a consensus to "keep" or, at worst, "no consensus". Cbl62 (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I participated in the discussion, but there's already a request to draftify the article to add sources which have not yet been identified which I support. If those sources had been identified by any one of the keep !voters (or even myself - I documented my sleuthing at the AfD) this would have turned out differently. You can save any article at AfD by finding decent sources, and the fact the conversation got so deep into the weeds about Google Maps and travel guides I think supports the fact no good sources were really found for this article (which was about the building, but has an WP:NCORP concern as well as an active business.) I really don't know why this needs to go to DRV if there's a clear remedy that the article can be improved in draft space and restored. SportingFlyer T·C 08:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC) If new substantial sources are available online, could links to them please be provided here? And/or more evaluation whether they add significantly? If there's some degree of consensus that these sources would suffice to justify the clear remedy (develop in Draft space and restore soon), then I agree this DRV which I opened could/should be closed. Purpose of DRV, for me, is not at all to judge/chastise AFD closer, it is to achieve mainspace improvement (by restoration of article which I believe meets requirements yet was incorrectly deleted). If those sources don't pan out, I wish for the DRV to proceed to restore the article essentially as it is now.--Doncram (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn (I created the article and made some of the subsequent improvements and voted to keep.) The AFD was moving towards "keep" as the article expanded and was improved. An undelete is the best option, but moving the article to Draft space would also allow more time for further improvements. GhostInTheMachine (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse close, draftify (even) if REFUND declines basically per SportingFlyer. (non-participant) Close was correct based on the discussion, when additional sources are added, the people working on it can move it to mainspace. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC) At question is if the sources meet the GNG. Both sides mostly throw around assertions without talking much about the sources, making those arguments hard to evaluate. Could we get a temp undelete? Hobit (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Done. I left the redirect in place, but the history is restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Thanks. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Thanks. I see refs including 2 books and 2 websites - an external charity and the hotel's own history page (not especially unsafe for the history aspects). So maybe 3.5 sources? GhostInTheMachine (talk) I'm not seeing much in the way of sourcing that makes me think that references to the GNG were much more than a vague wave. A lot of the articles look like PR for the hotel. I personally think we should have articles like this and I'd have !voted to keep. And no consensus was also a reasonable reading. But as it stands, endorse without much enthusiasm. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I'm fine with sending it to be a draft btw. Hobit (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Draftify to remove the promotionalism . I'm usually a little cautious about historic houses that just happen to be recently converted into hotels, and where a lot of the content consists on non-encyclopedic local colour. It might pass without the long quote of what a guest is presumed imaginatively to have felt about the house, and the final paragraph, which isa dvertising. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC) The keep votes were much lower quality then the delete arguments and the outcome was therefore perfectly defensible. I don't usually comment on DRVs of my closes but there seems to be some concerns that I have been off wikipedia for two days after closing the afd. Classy. Spartaz Humbug! 21:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Sorry about my trumpeting that u had not replied, as it apparently came across. Also time was in slow motion for me while I am/was being raked over coals at wp:ANI, and I mistakenly thought more time had gone by, and also mistakenly thought that you were editing and had just chosen not to reply (which would have been fine IMO).--Doncram (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC) It surely would have been quicker to check the timestamps then to type the comments. I wonder what kind of editor you actually want to be. The editor who checks their facts or the one who feels more comfortable throwing around comments without needing to check. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse As I said on the closer's TP, I would have closed this as Delete at the time as well. The Keeps weren't good enough, including probably the most nonsensical one I've ever seen suggesting that the building was notable because it could be seen on Google Street View (?!). The only one that even touched on notability policy was by Cbl62 and even that didn't go into detail. However I do suspect this building is borderline notable, so send to Draft for it to be worked on. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC) No, I never said "the building was notable because it could be seen on Google Street View". I linked to the Google view to illustrate why it was clearly a notable building given its size and stature. Please try to actually read things properly before you post inaccurate rubbish about them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse Yes, the keep !votes were greater numerically, but that's not how we assess consensus. There certainly isn't consensus to keep after we dismiss arguments such as "there might be more offline sources" and "it shows up on Google Streetview" as well as ones with no rationale like "keep and expand". No prejudice against draftifying to give folks a chance to dig up enough sources to establish notability and write a viable article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse not a very good discussion but the arguments on the Keep side were definitely weaker, and included comments which made no argument at all and comments which brought in considerations outside the notability guidelines (e.g. pictures of the subject). Assertions that sources are likely to exist do need some actual evidence to be convincing. No objection to draftifying if someone wants to work on it. Hut 8.5 11:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. To my mind, the closer has applied clear supervote here. Opinion was clearly on the side of keeping and if AfD discussion decisions slavishly followed non-existent "rules" then we wouldn't bother having the discussions at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 May 2020

Cindy Ball-Malone – Endorse. The general consensus is that both the AfD deletion and subsequent G4 were fine. There's also some feeling that while it's likely the subject is notable, neither the G4'd recreation, nor the sources provided here, are sufficient to demonstrate notability. If anybody wants to try again, they're free to do that, but take extra care to find good solid sources, per WP:COLLATH. As a paractical matter, writing this as a draft and getting some review before moving it to mainspace, might be useful. Maybe doing it in Draft space and go through AfC, or doing it userspace and ping some of the participants here to ask their opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cindy Ball-Malone (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Posting this on behalf of Eibln who requested that this be reviewed on my talk page. Following the original deletion, they recreated the article with a few additional sources; it was marked as approved by Onel5969, but then tagged for speedy deletion G4 by SportingFlyer and deleted by Michael Greiner. The provided sources for this second creation of the article were as follows: [41], [42] (dead link), [43], [44] [45] signed, Rosguill talk 00:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC) The recreated version had less sourcing and prose than the version deleted at AFD. I didn't see any improvement over the notability concerns. Whether or not a NCAA Division 1 softball coach is inherently notable is a different discussion, but I don't believe she meets WP:NCOLLATH as written. --Michael Greiner 01:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Four of those sources were in the version deleted at AFD. The only one that's new is the first (broncosports), and it doesn't seem to add much to the blackandgoldbanneret source that was in both versions. —Cryptic 01:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC) edit conflict Well, the sources added were mostly not independent of the subject. But it seems darn likely that a varsity coach at the largest school in the US would be notable. [46] seems solid. , [47] (from above) looks to be good. [48] is solid. There are also a ton of what seem to be reliable (in the field) podcasts that talk to and about her. So I don't think the speedy was out of line, but yeah, she appears notable. Hobit (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC) I don't have any recollection of this, but I don't see any problems with either deletion. We have a large amount of poorly sourced US college athletics articles on the website. I have no problem if someone tries to recreate the article, but the sourcing needs to be there. I'm not convinced the sources Hobit found demonstrate notability - one is from the conference she coaches in so potentially primary, one is what we would tend to consider routine transactional, analysis is needed to tell if d1softball.com is a blog or a reliable newspaper for notability purposes, so I might have taken it to AfD even with those sources. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC) As far as the close of the original AFD is concerned, I am going to self-endorse it (as I am the closer) as none of the arguments here look like reasons to overturn it. With respect to the G4 or any claims that there is new information, I'll defer to people who actually know how to judge college athletics sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 May 2020

Template:albm – The deletion of these template redirects is endorsed. While there was some early discomfort about the WP:T3 speedy deletion, the argument that this was a recreation of a similar redirect already deleted via RfD, and consequently a valid WP:G4 deletion, has convinced every subsequent participant. Sandstein 06:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:albm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Template:ALBM (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) {{albm}} and {{ALBM}} have been used frequently, and were deleted without WP:RFD. Jax 0677 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC) I see 0 uses of either of these in mainspace: ALBM and albm. What am I missing? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Reply - @RoySmith:, if you look at my contributions during early May 2020 and late April 2020, you will see that I added {{albm}} to over a dozen articles, but that it has since been replaced. In any event, something like this needs to go through WP:RFD --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Meh. WP:T3 talks about, Templates that are substantial duplications of another template. These certainly fit that definition; they're just a roundabout way of writing {{album}}, which in turn is a roundabout way of writing {{WikiProject Albums}}. On the other hand, WP:CSD are supposed to be uncontroversial. If you want to waste a week arguing about this at XfD before it's deleted, whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC) @Jax 0677: Putting aside procedural questions, is there anything substantive you are seeking to keep here (either in terms of a template that will be used, or in terms of the history)? Your bringing this to DRV may be worthwhile if the answer is yes, but not otherwise. The purpose of deletion discussions should to decide whether to keep or delete content, not whether the forms have been filled out correctly, so your clarifying this will be helpful. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Reply - Laziness is the entire point of using redirects, and this redirect is a plausible typo which saves typing each time, which I have used on dozens of occasions over the past months. I tried creating {{abm}}, but that got deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Jax 0677, Typing an extra character takes almost no time. On the other side of the equation, most things in the wiki are read-mostly. For every page you add a template to, many people will look at that page later while doing maintenance. If I see {{album}} (especially on a page that's obviously about an album), I immediately know what's going on. If I see {{abm}}, I have to spend time to figure it out. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse CSDs are supposed to be uncontroversial. I think recently we've been defining that as "if someone objects to a CSD, send it to *fD." I think we should be defining it as "if the CSD was indisputably correct, it wasn't uncontroversial." This was clearly a correct CSD. I also object to the notion that redirects exist out of "laziness." SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse, valid G4 as an effective recreation of Template:Abm (RFD). —Cryptic 01:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC) I've read the RfD that Cryptic linked twice now and I still have no idea why this user isn't allowed to use an unused template redirect to save themselves a few keystrokes. The decision makes no sense to me at all. It's a template that a good faith editor wants to use, and nobody else is using. I cannot therefore see why "there is no need for it" would carry any weight at all. I'm also not entirely comfortable with the fact that this editor is being asked to justify starting a DRV.—S Marshall T/C 11:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC) The original T3 was clearly invalid because redirects are not templates, but Endorse as a valid G4 per Cryptic. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse per Cryptic. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse per Cryptic. As RoySmith noted, cryptic redirects of this sort make subsequent maintenance more difficult. T. Canens (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 May 2020

Sticks Nix Hick Pix – Wiki whizzes nix DRV stick. There is near-unanimous consensus to endorse the AfD closure, and I'm closing the review early per WP:SNOW. Sandstein 09:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sticks Nix Hick Pix (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Supporters of keeping this page did not cite a single source with significant coverage in independent, reliable sources during the AfD. I asked the closer to revert his WP:BADNAC, but he declined to do so. buidhe 07:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC) endorse the nom appears to be correct, there isn't anything appearing to be close to an in-depth source that is independent of the subject. But there are plenty of sources that indicate its relevance and, frankly, WP:IAR seems relevant given the discussion. I don't see how else it could have been closed. A relist wouldn't have been crazy, but it would have been questionable. And frankly, it's a pretty okay article. Hobit (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Read the advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse applying the notability guidelines involves a substantial degree of judgement and even the occasional exception. Closing this as anything other than Keep would have required discounting the near-unanimous arguments for keeping it, and I don't think that's justifiable. If nothing else the fact that nobody except the nominator supported deletion rules out a Delete close. Hut 8.5 09:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. I can see the point that most of the sources are examples of use rather than WP:SIGCOV of the subject itself, but determining notability is what happens at AfD and the participants in this one did so unanimously. I'm not sure I agree with many of the arguments, but they're not unreasonable. It only took me a few minutes to find two more WP:RS, which I've added to the article. It's time to put down the WP:STICK. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC) There are several facets to this: (1) Whether the deletion process was followed correctly (clearly yes); (2) Whether the close was in accordance with the consensus (clearly yes); and (3) Whether the discussion reached the right conclusion (pretty clearly no, as most of my DRV colleagues above have acknowledged). Of course, strictly in DRV process terms we should "endorse", but as a matter of good editorial judgment, the eventual outcome should be a merge to headlinese, where we can discuss this, that time Michael Foot was asked to chair a committee on nuclear disarmament (Foot Heads Arms Body), that time Samantha Cameron announced her pregnancy while her husband was Prime Minister (Wham bam! Sam Cam to be Mam: She'll need a New Pram), and other similar examples of facepalm-inducing writing that sells newspapers.—S Marshall T/C 14:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse This headline is quite famous – I've read about it myself. Everyone except the nominator agrees that this is a valid topic. Tix fix dix trix! Andrew🐉(talk) 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse - I do not like non-administrative closures of AFDs. They lead to a bias toward Keep, because a non-admin cannot complete a Delete close. Because the rules on when non-administrative close is permitted are incomprehensibly vague, they provide a disagreeing party with the opportunity to object, with or without a good reason. This is one of those cases, where the appellant is objecting without a good reason, because BADNAC permits one to object without (or with) a good reason. As long as Non-Administrative Closes are permitted, this is as clear a case as we are likely to see where it was in order. The close wasn't controversial, unless the appellant simply doesn't like it. Any other close by an administrator could reasonably be taken to DRV. There aren't very many good non-administrative closes, in my opinion, but this is as good as we are likely to see. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse A similar sentiment to a couple voters above. I've looked through the sources and I generally agree with the nom here, the sources shown don't constitute significant coverage. On the other hand there's also heaps of sources, considering the headline itself is famous, and famous things are often notable, and there's enough there to write a solid encyclopaedia article. I'm not sure how I would have voted in this discussion, but I clearly would have closed it as keep. SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse The AfD could not have been legitimately closed in any other way. Nor was thate any procedural violation. It is worth noting that the nominator here was the AfD nominator as well, and is the only person who expressed a view in the AfD that this should be deleted, and is almost the only person with such a view in this discussion. Buidhe disagrees not really with the procedure, but with the result, which is not really what DRV is for. But to comment on the result a bit anyway: Buidhe is correct that most of the individual sources now cited do not amount to significant coverage individually, and that is what the GNG normally requires. But the GNG is a guideline, not an iron-clad rule, and there are exceptions. Here there is clearly significant coverage across all the cited sources, and across many decades. ther Garner's Modern American Usage cite has a detailed discussion of usages in headlinese, with this headline cited as a significant example. I think I would have favored keep for this article as it was originally nominated -- after the improvements I surely would have. I advise the nom here to drop the stick -- or should that be stix? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Endorse. As a matter of process the closer correctly discerned the consensus. As a matter of substance the encyclopedia is better with this article than without it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC) the encyclopedia is better with this article than without it., and that folks, is why we have WP:IAR. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Perhaps so, but we don't even need IAR for this case -- occasional exceptions are already written into the "rules". The heading of WP:N says: This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Later in the section (WP:WHYN) "Why we have these requirements" it says: The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. and We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, ... But here the sources, taken together, do permit the writing of a full, if not huge, article based on reliable sources. Thus the purpose is served, and there can be an exception to the letter of the usual GNG standard. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 May 2020

American Catholic Church in the United States – Administrative close. @TimOliv: as noted here, the AfD in question is almost 9 years old. Please just open a new AfD. A lot can change in 9 years, and it's entirely possible a new discussion may result in a different outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
American Catholic Church in the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This particular denomination is not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. The news articles referenced in 2018 are 1) not currently active and 2) in looking at archived copies, these were not articles about the denomination at all. They were articles about current issues which involved brief statements with clergy who were noted to be members of this denomination. The primary source cited is its inclusion in the Encyclopedia of American Religions. They do, indeed, have a brief blurb which references the group's own website as the source. This is circular logic. The group's only claim to notability is a blurb constructed from their website to justify a Wikipedia article populated with information only from their website. Beyond that, only tangential mentions in local media sources should not be sufficient to justify an article for this group. Given that even after that discussion no new sources were added and the group continues to not be noteworthy, and my most recent TfD was removed within minutes of its posting, I am requesting that the discussion be reviewed. The article is written using language from the group's own page exclusively. It is serving as nothing more than an advertisement. TimOliv (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Procedural Close with the option to go to AFD - I see that the filer tried to PROD this article, and the PROD was removed because there was an AFD nine years ago. The filer can start another AFD. This doesn't appear to be an appeal of the close of the AFD 9 years ago (and if it were, they would be told to start another AFD). Close this DRV as the wrong forum, and advise the filer that they can go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC) What he said. Hobit (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.