Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February

United Airlines Flight 1175 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New information is available. Per WP:AIRCRASH The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. Specifically, procedures for Thermal Acoustic Imaging (TAI) inspection of hollow-core fan blades by Pratt & Whitney were analyzed by NTSB and needed to be significantly changed. There are almost 200 pages of public domain documentation now available in NTSB Docket DCA18IA092: [1]. Despite these changes, two subsequent similar incidents on now grounded 777-200/PW4000-112 aircraft variants have recently happened and are under active investigation in the US and Japan. Also just revealed by WSJ exclusive reporting, Boeing decided that the 777-200 inlet fan cowl could not be modified and needs ongoing redesign to address issues identified in the investigation. Dhaluza (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I participated in the original AfD, which was even with my potential bias correctly decided - what we are looking at is whether new information justifies recreating the article, given a similar incident happened in Denver recently. I'm not sure it does. There's a burst of coverage saying a similar accident happened two years ago, but I'm not sure it needs a stand-alone article given a search of the new coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The past AFD is moot, because there is new info. I think it was incorrectly decided because there was a major investigation, which would yield new data, some of which we now have. There now is more than enough public domain info in this one document alone: [2]. The question is not whether the subject needs a stand-alone article, the proper question is whether the reader does. Dhaluza (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original AfD was over a 2-to-1 in favour of delete, and we do frequently delete non-notable aviation incidents, especially ones where no loss of life or hull loss occurred. The only subsequent coverage of this event I can find not related to the Denver incident was that a local news station in Honolulu reported the NTSB report was released, which really doesn't take this out of WP:NOTNEWS. Having done a new search as if this were an active AfD, I don't think this would pass a new AfD. We'll see what others think. SportingFlyer T·C 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, the original AfD is moot--it doesn't matter if it was 10:1. And you are focusing on subjective judgement of the subject, rather than objective evaluation of the available data. Why do you ignore the copious data in the NTSB docket? Here is the final report summary, the original source for the local news you mention, which is another WP:RS doc that contains more than enough info on it's own: [3] Dhaluza (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. The DRV nominator has provided convincing evidence that Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose is met in that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The DRV nominator notes, "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. Specifically, procedures for Thermal Acoustic Imaging (TAI) inspection of hollow-core fan blades by Pratt & Whitney were analyzed by NTSB and needed to be significantly changed."

  The event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage in that it has received significant coverage in 2019, 2020, and 2021 even years after it took place on 13 February 2018. Sources published from one month to three years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about United Airlines Flight 1175:

  1. "NTSB's initial probe finds likely cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. 2018-03-07. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  2. Morales, Manolo (2019-08-23). "United pilot recalls averting airline disaster". KHON-TV. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  3. O'Connor, John (2020-06-06). "United, others sued for 2018 in-flight incident". Guam Daily Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  4. "NTSB releases final report on cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii". KHON-TV. 2020-06-30. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  5. Vasile, Zachary F. (2020-07-03). "NTSB: Pratt inspection missed cracked fan blade". Journal Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  6. Andrew, Scottie (2021-02-22). "Another United Airlines flight experienced a right engine failure in 2018". CNN. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  7. Mayer, Erick Haw (2021-02-27). "En 2018 otro Boeing 777 de United Airlines sufrió una falla de motor" [In 2018 another United Airlines Boeing 777 suffered an engine failure]. Transponder 1200 (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

     From a Google Translate of https://www.facebook.com/notes/1674174042602267/: "Founded on April 26, 2011, Transponder 1200 is a journalistic medium specialized in aviation that, for more than eight years, has positioned ourselves as a benchmark in the global aeronautical industry. With correspondents in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, France, Germany and Mexico, we are a medium in constant growth, innovative and improving our publishing house, always managing to be in the taste of our readers, partners and clients. We are affiliated to the Federation of Associations of Mexican Journalists A.C., by APECOMOR."

  Additional sources that provide less significant coverage:
  1. Tangel, Andrew; Sider, Alison (2021-02-25). "Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

     The article notes, "After the 2018 failure on the United 777, the FAA mandated that fan blades on the type of engine involved undergo special thermal-acoustic image inspections—using sound waves to detect signs of cracks—every 6,500 flights."

  2. Siemaszko, Corky (2021-02-22). "Plane engine that caught fire on United Airlines flight over Denver has troubled history". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

     The article notes, "But an NTSB investigation of the Feb. 13, 2018, malfunction of a Pratt & Whitney engine on the Honolulu-bound United flight faulted the company for not doing more stringent inspections."

  3. Levin, Alan (2021-02-21). "Engine Failure Spurs Boeing 777 Groundings in U.S. and Japan". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support, but I would like to point out that the article: "Tangel, Andrew; Sider, Alison (2021-02-25). "Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-02-28.", rather than providing "less significant coverage" actually is quite significant, and a key piece of new information. This reporting found documents that show that Boeing recognized it's 777-200 airframe needed a redesign and replacement of the cowling parts that failed in this incident. That's quite significant, especially in light of the two subsequent similar failures. These issues are apparently not limited to the specific aircraft in this incident, and may have much wider implications on the aviation industry.Dhaluza (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for pointing this out so I can clarify. I agree that the material in The Wall Street Journal is significant or important for providing a "key piece of new information". I was using a different definition of "significant" (the one at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline) where I was saying those three sources (The Wall Street Journal, NBC News, and Bloomberg News) don't spend as many words discussing United Airlines Flight 1175 as the preceding seven sources.

  Cunard (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree on this, and strongly. The sources fall into one of two categories: local news directly related to the incident (Honolulu, East Hartford), or piggyback coverage of the Denver event. This was not notable at the time of the event and it is not notable now. Not everything the NTSB produces a report for is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 15:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The WSJ exclusive reporting does not fit into the two bins that you dismiss. It found that Boeing was working on a redesign of the PW4000 inlet duct, which has a significant effect on the aircraft industry in multiple areas, and that was not publicly known previously. Also the NTSB PD material is not a local news source, or piggyback coverage, so that doesn't fit either. The essence of WP:N is significant coverage in reliable sources. The two sources I just mentioned cover that, even if you completely discount all news coverage of the event itself as you do. NTSB is an exemplar of a reliable secondary source as they provide in-depth expert analysis from a variety of stakeholders. Yes, not all incidents get in-depth analysis, but where NTSB and the involved parties expend considerable resources on a report with significant findings intended to effect change on the industry, that is prima facia evidence of notability. Dhaluza (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There is enough new coverage to prevent a deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Those are reasonable arguments about the sources that can be made at a new AfD. My view is that the event has become notable since it resulted in a new mandate by the Federal Aviation Administration (WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if some of those sources are prompted by another event happening or by regional or local sources connected with the event. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The WSJ report only has a couple sentences on the incident, there's barely any new coverage, the release of an NTSB report alone doesn't lend itself to notability, and incidents of this sort generally tend to not pass WP:NEVENT at AfD. If someone wants to recreate this, fine, but I don't see this passing a new AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 01:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the lasting effect of the incident, i.e. redesign of the inlet, is the central subject of the WSJ article's new exclusive reporting, which is direct evidence of WP:LASTING, on an aircraft used internationally WP:GEOSCOPE. The NTSB report is WP:INDEPTH. And the continuing coverage in different forums meets WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE. So that's all of WP:NEVENT. I put the article up for DR to get the old version and history restored, rather than starting again. Dhaluza (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not agree at all, and think the article should remain deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't say I'm exactly persuaded by the nominator's argument. Changes to procedures for Thermal Acoustic Imaging inspection of hollow-core fan blades aren't the kind of thing which gets much media coverage. Nor does the fact the NTSB wrote a report on it mean much, if it did then basically every aviation incident in the United States would have an article. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay with no official standing. Cunard's sources are better but they still seem to be mostly either covering it in the context of other 777 incidents or are just reporting the results of the NTSB report. I suspect we may be better off covering this in a more general article about issues with the 777. Creating a draft version might help to demonstrate notability. Hut 8.5 13:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because there is no assertion that an incorrect conclusion was reached at the previous AfD. Allow recreation because there's nothing about an AfD that ever precludes restoration when the circumstances of the AfD change. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, allow re-creation. If an experienced editor, like User:Dhaluza, thinks new information overcomes the old AfD reasons for deletion, then they should boldly re-create. If they want to be tentative, make a draft and ask the deleting admin, or put it through AfC. This DRV will not AfD-proof the re-created article, so there is no point bringing this question here. There is a point if someone has told you that you may not re-create it, or you did and it was G4-ed, which, if there were new sources, would be found to be an improper G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but just to be clear, I am trying to get the the old article undeleted/restored so I can add the new info to it. I don't want to start from scratch, and the previous editors' work (and references) should not be lost. Also, although the basis of this DR is that there is new info, it should have been obvious at the time of the AfD that there would be new info with an active NTSB investigation ongoing, so the AfD was premature, at best. And with two subsequent repeat performances, with multiple RS using this previous case in secondary source analysis, it should now be no contest on WP:N on the policy as written (but not necessarily as it is commonly misapplied). P.S. I've also, been working with NTSB Media relations to get the preliminary and final reports re-posted after they were lost in a database changeover (I have found archive copies). These (and the coverage of them) are more than enough to form the basis of an article on their own. Dhaluza (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, ask an admin to email you the text, or put it into your Sandbox or draft, add the information you want, and then either shop it around (as recommended by SmokeyJoe above) or just move it back into articlespace. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhaluza, I see. The problem is the poor text at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose. I suggest asking User:SportingFlyer about his revert back to the clearly inadequate. To get the old deleted article, use WP:REFUND, or, as it suggests there, ask the deleting admin or any other admin. If the admin doesn't want to undelete straight to mainspace, they should userfy or draftify, from where you take the responsibility. It is only sensible to have to come the this heavy forum if the undeletion request is refused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the second or third time you've accused/pinged me from impeding "progress" even though you failed to gain a consensus to make that change. If you want to make the change, start an RfC and gain consensus. I do not appreciate the ping. Considering this is an article I would send to AfD immediately if it were restored or recreated on notability grounds, I don't see there being any problem with the conversation we're currently having. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, let’s go back to WT:Deletion review#Modified DRV instructions. My repeated reading of that thread is that you are the only blocking party, and you stopped responding. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Only five users participated in that discussion including you and me, and under my reading, I don't think S Marshall, Levivich, or the friendly IP editor agreed with your changes outright (though the IP was close.) That's not enough of a consensus to make what would be a fairly big change to DRV's purview. If you'd like to make a change, I'd suggest workshopping text or starting an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. If it is still not considered adequate, another Afd would be possible. At this point there's enough that the burden shifts to those who would want it deleted. I am also willing to undelete the text to get thigns started in draft, but I think that isn't really necessary. DGG ( talk ) 11:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Kricket Challenge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Due process was not followed in this AFD closure. The AFD shows a consensus to delete, with only a few editors suggesting otherwise, of which at least 1 just used WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Questionable non-admin closure of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This user's currently at ANI for issues regarding AfD closures. I don't see why this discussion even needs to last a week - hopefully an admin will just revert the close. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (I also wouldn't mind a relist so I can participate in the AfD). SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist as the simpler way to deal with an improper closure. As a second choice:
• Overturn to Delete as the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert the NAC. The closure is under review for poor closing at ANI. This is quite unusual for someone with 75,000 edits. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - this was, in no way, an AfD that a non-admin should be closing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - Patterns of poor judgment by experienced editors, whether with 10,000 edits or 300,000 edits, are the exception rather than rule. When non-admins get taken to ANI or DRV for poor closings, they are almost always for poor Keeps, because they don't have a Delete button. The fact that there are patterns of poor judgment is one of the reasons why we have WP:ANI and DRV. But you knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have presumed that you know that I know you knew that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Merry (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created this page back in 2010 when he was a character in British soap opera Doctors. I have updated sporadically and now find it deleted. The deletion discussion suggested this actor appeared in YouTube shows, when in fact he is on the BBC every day in Waffle The Wonder Dog. He has also appeared in several other TV shows. Can I request this page is reinstated please?

Here are references for his career:

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm2771194/

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&hl=en-gb&ei=DzE6YL-EG-LC8gLcyqBI&q=james+merry+waffle+the+wonder+dog&oq=james+merry+waffle+the+wonder+dog&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQguEJMCMgUIIRCgAToECAAQDToCCAA6BggAEBYQHjoCCC5QuiBYr0Ng3UVoAHAAeACAAWOIAdYOkgECMjeYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesmerry17?lang=en

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_the_Wonder_Dog

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b09tn0ys/waffle-the-wonder-dog

https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/shows/waffle-the-wonder-dog Frankcable (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. None of the above are suitable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe Can you advise what is a suitable source please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankcable (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • User:Frankcable, a suitable source is independent of the subject, reliably published, and comments directly and in depth on the subject. You need two or three of these. IMDB, Twitter, Wikipedia, and any user-contributed website is deemed unreliable for Wikipedia to use. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, at least for now. I sympathise with the original poster here - that AfD wasn't well attended and looks like one of our run of the mill deletion discussions, and had they participated may have run closer to a no consensus especially given the poor rationale of one of the votes (the Youtube one.) However, given the sources above this isn't a slam dunk restore by any means - the community has determined IMDB isn't reliable for notability purposes, and none of the other sources are secondary sources, i.e. unrelated to the actor or the shows they appear in. Therefore I'll reluctantly endorse, but if other, better, secondary sources are found, I'd be happy to overturn and relist so they can be presented and discussed. SportingFlyer T·C 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer I’m happy to provide more sources but I’m at a loss to know what is more reliable than IMDB and BBC sources? What is required? Please advise and thank you for intervening and reviewing the discussion. Frank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankcable (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyerI think this is what you mean by secondary sources. I apologise, I’m not an experienced Wiki editor or anything like that, so I’m doing my best! This is the actors appearance as a guest on a British radio show and a BAFTA nomination for his children’s TV show.

https://www.bafta.org/children/awards/childrens-awards-nominations-2018#PRE-SCHOOL%20–%20LIVE%20ACTION

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/hawksbee-and-jacobs-daily-458993/episodes/waffle-the-wonder-dog-teenage-53820719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankcable (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, that's why I spelled it out. Neither of those sources work either - the first one doesn't even reference him, it's just a list of nominated shows. The second one can't be used because it's not independent of the actor. You can't make yourself notable. I've just done a search to find an example but unfortunately I can't find a good example for him. SportingFlyer T·C 21:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid closure. Relist would have also been valid, but the question is whether there was an error by the closer. There wasn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation as Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is poor advice. I think better advice is for User:Frankcable to find suitable sources to add material, including comment on this actor, to Waffle the Wonder Dog. For the actor, it sounds like WP:BIO1E. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Squad (app) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

During Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app), I had merged the content in Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad. Sandstein, the closing admin, deleted the article and has refused to restore the article's history, which is needed per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

The closing admin wrote, "no, because otherwise anybody could prevent the deletion of content by merging it somewhere during an AfD. We routinely delete articles even though content from them might have been merged to other articles". The deletion does not comply with Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I merged the content to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad since I believed it would improve that article by providing readers background information about Squad, a company acquired by Twitter. The Squad (app) article did not contain copyright violations or BLP violations so there was no need to delete the article's history.

I ask the community to restore the article's history under a redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad. Cunard (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend declining this request.

It is an abuse of the deletion review process, which DRV should not protect. Cunard made the merger while the AfD was ongoing and about to be closed as "delete". They sought to prevent that foreseeable consensus outcome, which they do not contest, by merging part of the article elsewhere and now invoking attribution policy. But that policy was not intended to allow individual editors to prevent the community from deleting content by consensus. Because all editors must abide by consensus, individual editors cannot stymie it by invoking unrelated policies.

Moreover, because Cunard does not contest that there was consensus to delete this article, a solution other than undeletion should be found that complies with both the AfD consensus and attribution policy. That solution is to undo the merger, which I have now done, and possibly also to revision-delete that content. It was in any case an ill-considered merger, because it inserted a footnote with article content into what was otherwise a plain list. This is also an indication that it was done merely to prevent a "delete" closure of the AfD rather than with an intent to improve the target article. Sandstein 12:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • AfDs should be derailed when someone points out a BEFORE failure. It could be said that the other participants, except the last, simply didn’t consider the merge option because it wasn’t raised. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last participant was blocked by the AfD nominator with the reasoning "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, likely covert advertising." Cunard (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, specifically asking for discussion of the smerge option done by Cunard. The AfD nominator failed BEFORE, failed to note the possible merge option and explain why it was not suitable. This failure invalidates the consensus to delete. The obvious merge option has to be mentioned, and discussion allowed. Relist for a minimum seven days. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stated and repeated reason for deletion was notability. Notability is not a reason for deletion if there is a viable merge target. There was inadequate discussion on the viability of the merge target, and so a relist is needed to allow for that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why's it needful to relist, though? That's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Clearly, the content should be deleted, because of the consensus to delete it; clearly, there should be a listing at the list of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter, because the app was acquired by Twitter. What's at issue is a technicality relating to the reuse of text in the light of WP:CWW. What we should do is restore Cunard's edit to the list of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter but remove the footnote he put in with that edit. (None of the other entries have footnotes.) The remaining text without the footnote doesn't meet the threshold of originality, so it doesn't create a CWW issue. By this means the consensus is implemented, the encyclopaedic information is preserved, and the process is correctly followed, without any further investment of editor time and attention on attribution technicalities, and I heartily recommend that this is what we do.—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is overreach for DRV participants to do this. DRV should not be micromanaging content decisions. Better to refer it back to AfD. AfD may well decide to redirect with history intact, and then editors can deal the details. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see it that way at all. I think what DRV should be doing is correcting deletion-related errors, and it has wide latitude to do so. On occasion it's overturned a decision to the diametrically opposite result. I think it's right that we should have that power. I mean, I know that a Court of Appeal often returns decisions to the lower court for them to think again, but Wikipedian content decisions aren't litigation.—S Marshall T/C 15:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess our difference is that I don't see an obvious outcome. I think that either the history should be undeleted, or a relist allowed to establish a consensus against Cunard's merge, in which case Cunard's merge should be rev-del-ed, and Cunard chastised for a disruptive merge mid-AfD. The second is possible, but needs the relist to establish the facts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or userfy Preserving attribution is a legal duty which needs proper consideration and it didn't get it in this case. Redirects are cheap but Sandstein seems to have an obdurate attachment to hard deletion as they stated baldly that "I do not undelete articles, when I asked them politely to userfy in another case. Their personal bias makes them involved and so they should recuse from such cases. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion. This really isn't a deletion issue - there's a clear consensus the information should be deleted, and the merge attribution issue doesn't change that. WP:RUD appears relevant here - the merge is fine, as long as it's properly attributed. Furthermore, the information appears to have been merged into a list/table even though none of the other elements of the list contain any sort of prose, so there's a possible discussion to be had about content, but that's not for DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Sandstein wrote, "Moreover, because Cunard does not contest that there was consensus to delete this article". I do contest that there was consensus to delete the article. None of the AfD participants said in their AfD comments what they thought about a merge, so it is unknown if any of them had considered it. The only editor who commented after I posted at the AfD was blocked by the AfD nominator with the reasoning "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, likely covert advertising." After I suggested a merge target, there was no consensus to delete since no one explained why a merge did not improve Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion urges editors to consider a merge as an alternative to deletion.

  I merged Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad because I thought it would benefit readers. The list has very little information about each of the Twitter acquisitions. I envision a fully fleshed out list would have a column similar to the "Details of the acquisition" column in List of acquisitions by Disney that would briefly discuss each company's history and background. I completed the merge because I wanted to improve Wikipedia and considered the material I merged to be due weight. I did not conduct a merge "merely to prevent a 'delete' closure of the AfD rather than with an intent to improve the target article". This is a hurtful and very bad faith assertion by Sandstein that has no basis.

  I added the material in a footnote. In retrospect, it would have been better presented in the table as a new column titled "Background information about the company" or "Details of the acquisition". This is a content matter and is not grounds for deleting the material from the list, which Sandstein has done. I would prefer not to implement S Marshall (talk · contribs)'s suggestion to remove the footnote I added since that would lead to less information for readers about what Squad is.

  I support a relist as recommended by SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) and Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) so the community can consider the merge. This will give editors the opportunity to explain why they think a merge does not improve Wikipedia.

  Cunard (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there was clear consensus for deletion in the AfD and it couldn't have been closed any other way. While there is definitely scope for including the subject as an entry in the list of Twitter acquisitions, the merge was done by including a description of the list entry in a footnote, which just looks bizarre and is contrary to all practice for such lists. Trying to preempt deletion at AfD by carrying out an inappropriate merge isn't a good idea. Indeed merging something which is about to be deleted at AfD can be seen as an attempt to avoid consensus and present the participants with a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Hut 8.5 20:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preempting deletion is justified because the nominator failed WP:BEFORE#C.4. There has to be consequence of nominators failing BEFORE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never seen that rule applied before in any circumstance, much less as a sanction. You're basically proposing that AfD nominators must first check to see if they can merge the page before deleting. That's not the way it works. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sancton? Consequence is to the progress of the AfD, although yes, nominators nominating for deletion due to lack of notability should be reminded that non notability is only a reason for deletion if there is no merge target. That is exactly how it is supposed to work, and it is how it is written, WP:BEFORE (C.4) and WP:N. There is more than a hint in the lettering of “BEFORE”. Before nominating, check for merge targets, among other WP:ATD clear policy alternatives, and having done that, mention it in the nomination. Sorry, but Cunard did right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because a merge target exists doesn't protect a page from outright deletion - users may agree that merging is not appropriate. Consensus was clearly delete. The options are revdel the merge or make the copy compliant with WP:RUD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not agree that there is a consensus to delete. Here are the five participants in the AfD:
            1. MER-C (delete): established editor
            2. Dial911 (delete): established editor
            3. Luciapop (delete): account created on 19 August 2020 and first edit on 21 January 2021
            4. Cunard (merge): established editor
            5. Mazurkevin (delete): account blocked by AfD nominator for covert advertising
            Two established editors said "delete". One editor who made their first edit a month ago and one editor who was blocked for covert advertising said "delete". One editor said "merge". All of the "delete" editors (except for the blocked account) commented before a merge was suggested.

            Cunard (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          • The AfD was flawed, and the apparent consensus is thus not a consensus. One spoke to a merge, none spoke against the merge (except maybe the last !voter who is now blocked). The AfD failed WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD-M by not considering the obvious merge, except for Cunard. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • New editors shouldn't have their contributions discounted just for for being new. Doing so is grossly unfair. If there is evidence of offsite canvassing, sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry then the closer would be justified in doing that, but there isn't. Being blocked also doesn't automatically invalidate all your contributions up to that point. That account was blocked for "likely covert advertising". Since their contribution to this AfD wasn't covert advertising I don't see how that affects things. You do seem to be overlooking the fact that any sort of merge is impractical unless List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter is completely restructured, which is well outside the scope of the AfD, and various proposals to make BEFORE into an enforceable policy (e.g. this one) have failed. Hut 8.5 09:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Realizing there are a number of editors involved who I respect, this is stupid people. We do *still* have a copyright problem--as long as that text from the footnote is in the history, it's still a technical copyright issue. So our choices are:
  • Ignore it. The language of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems seems to indicate that's okay unless the copyright holder complains. I've personally got issues with that...
  • Fix it by doing an undelete and redirect.
  • Fix it by doing a RevDel.
  • Fix it by finding who all contributed to writing the text and including them in an edit summary of a null edit (which sometimes pisses some tools and people off, but I think is a reasonable way forward).

Pick one folks. If no one is going to do anything else because it's too much work or too heavy of a process, I'd say undelete and redirect is the way to go. Hobit (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Undelete the history and redirect. That would solve all problems here and hurt nothing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement in policy that all copyright violations in a page's history must be revdeled. Hut 8.5 09:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the copyright holder objects, that is my reading also. It is still a copyright violation however and I'd prefer we avoid those where it's easy to do so. Hobit (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If I were to request at WP:REFUND that Squad (app) be moved to my userspace or Draft:Squad (app), would that request be denied? On what basis would the request be denied? Requests to draftify are routinely granted at WP:REFUND for improvements or for use in other articles. From WP:REFUND (my bolding):

  This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.

  Deletion on the basis of notability (and no other reason) does not bar the article's content from being "used elsewhere". My intent would be to use the article's content in a new column titled "Background information" in List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad.

  Cunard (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as correct reading of consensus. Merging, particularly late in the deletion process, as an attempt to do an end-run around a clear delete consensus is strongly deprecated; see for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Hobit wrote, "Fix it by finding who all contributed to writing the text and including them in an edit summary of a null edit". SportingFlyer wrote, "WP:RUD appears relevant here - the merge is fine, as long as it's properly attributed."

  Would an admin post the list of contributors to Squad (app) so that I can both comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and restore information about Squad to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad in a new column in the table called "More information about the acquired or merged company"? I think adding that information about Squad to the list in a new column (rather than as a footnote, which I originally did) would improve Wikipedia.

  Cunard (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: the article was entirely written by User:Mcorw22. Hut 8.5 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I added a new column titled "More information about the acquired or merged company" and merged material from Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad with the edit summary, "merged content from Squad (app). From this comment, 'the article was entirely written by User:Mcorw22.'" Cunard (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is redirecting then fully protecting the article, with history intact, sufficient for CWW attribution purposes? Would that achieve the goals reached by consensus at the AfD? Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just done the WP:RUD attribution method so that I could add the Squad content to the Twitter list now. But I agree that "redirecting then fully protecting the article, with history intact" would be sufficient for CWW attribution purposes. It would achieve the goal at the AfD of not having an article at the Squad (app) title.

  I do not understand why some editors object to restoring the article's history under a redirect at Squad (app). Instead of requesting undeletion of Squad (app) at DRV, I could have asked at WP:REFUND that it be moved to Draft:Squad (app). After completing a merge, I could have then redirected the draft to the list. I did not take that approach since it's preferable to have the history be under the mainspace title instead of the draft title. At AfD, I usually support retaining an article's history (if it does not contain BLP or copyright violations) when Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion applies since the history frequently has useful information and sources that can be used elsewhere.

  Cunard (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be an end-around to the result of the AfD, which really is something that should be avoided as it would create a deletion loophole. As I've noted, there are really two questions here: was the AfD correctly decided? And, if so, what to do with the merged information? As I've noted, I don't mind moving the information, but there was a clear consensus not to keep the page, meaning I think WP:RUD is the proper solution here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's correct. Very few times (Attack, promotion, copyvio) are articles to be excised along with all their content; in most cases, redirecting suffices, especially for issues like notability, and protecting a redirect is an appropriate remedy in case of disruption that 1) allows the salvageable content to be merged and attributed appropriately, while 2) making sure we needn't repeatedly re-redirect an article that had been judged and found wanting. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, articles are "excised" whenever a delete consensus exists at AfD, and we've in the past gone to arbitration about situations where similar things have occurred to prevent deletion. We've got a situation here where we have two viable options, but there's one that's "more correct" because it doesn't encourage an end-around to an AfD delete consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 17:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessary to protect, it isn't protected now. Peter James (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist or userfy I agree with Andrew's point here. Preserving attribution is a legal duty which needs proper consideration and it didn't get it in this case. Cuoxo (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse Attribution can be met by copying the list of major contributors to the article into the edit history. Runarounds of consensus like this are a dick move. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Or restore as a redirect (or move somewhere it can stay if a redirect isn't useful). If there is content that shouldn't be available, revision deletion can be used. That way if the source has ever been attributed with a permanent link it will still work, and contributors' names will be automatically updated (for example if they change username for privacy). Peter James (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Funkin' (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article has been deleted twice as a result of an AfD from December, but the topic has gathered attention surprisingly rapidly since then and I believe that it may now meet WP:GNG.

Sources:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

Multiple in-depth articles/reviews in multiple gaming news outlets would appear to satisfy GNG. Given the popularity of the game on social media, I imagine the dead article title is probably getting hits, so it should be restored if notability allows. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

allow recreation It does seem to me there has been sufficient new coverage since the afd that the page could be recreated (that’s not to guarantee it’s notable, but that the situation has changed to render the Afds consensus, for lack of a better word, obsolete). The article itself was completely unsourced and fancrufty, so I see no value in restoring it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete straight to mainspace. It was in development, and deletions reasons cited “TOOSOON”. It should have been draftified, not deleted. It now seems to be released, and there is a flurry of sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation, though if the article gets sent back to AfD, I'd note this discussion does not preclude it from being deleted again. I'm also against moving it directly back to mainspace due to the potential copyright issue noted in the final delete comment - if an admin reviews this and determines it's not an issue, then I'm content with a direct restore. SportingFlyer T·C 18:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation in Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no opinion (I deleted it in AfD) but it appears to have already been recreated on 28 February 2021 by User:Geekgecko. Missvain (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that saves some work then, assuming that it stands. In that case the relevant question (assuming this DRV overturns the previous delete decision) is whether the former article(s) that were deleted contained content that should be restored/merged. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, I had no knowledge there was such a big debate over this; I've seen it get a lot of attention on social media over the past few months, recently noticed a lot of news sources covering it even though it still had no Wikipedia page, and made the page from scratch. If previous since-deleted iterations of the page exist with info that isn't currently on there, you could add the info in them to the one I made.Geekgecko (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and move forward 1) The deletion discussion was arguably correct at the time, and 2) nothing about it prevents the new article from existing, thriving, and growing to FA status if new information. An AfD is 'delete this as it exists now' not a 'delete and ask-DRV-mother-may-I before creating an article on this topic henceforth'. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous recreation had been deleted referencing the AfD which is why I took the matter here to get an official word. BlackholeWA (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. So you're actually wanting to contest not the original AfD, but Ritchie333's G4 speedy deletion of the recreated content. I know, that can sound like an arcane difference, but it affects how we address this topic. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily that deletion, but if the former AfD was functioning as consensus to not have an article on that topic, I wanted to formally challenge that consensus given the new sources. I think this falls under DRV purpose point 3, to challenge "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". BlackholeWA (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. I agree, the verbiage is confusing, especially in light of DRV purpose not point #9, which states it is inapplicable in case of very old deletions with new info. I'm still pretty sure a G4 of a recreated article that has significant new information is not appropriate under that criteria, regardless of how old the AfD is or is not, so yeah--we could clarify it. My position, that substantial new RS information moots an old AfD and so if someone doesn't like the new one they can take it to AfD again, is unchanged. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Izuru Kamukura (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

See also: Draft:Izuru Kamukura (talk)

I created this article but in less than a week, the entire video game project deleted it despite my attempts to write as much as real world information as possible to pass notability guidelines. Instead, they deleted it, claiming it doesn't count because some months ago another user rushed a page of the character without any real world information. In the project people kept insisted it had a bad prose rather than notability issues and as soon as I requested a copyedit from the guild and rewrote most of the ficitional content, it got deleted. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure of Redirect, and Protect the Redirect due to the edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Timeline: unanimous delete and redirect at an AfD in January 2021, I've added the link to that discussion above. Tintor2 attempted to recreate a standalone article, which was reverted back to a redirect due to the clear result at the last AfD. Tintor2 then did what looks like a copy-paste merge at List of Danganronpa characters here. I can't look at the deleted version (no mop), which was created by a banned user. There's now a couple reverts as to whether this remains a redirect or a standalone page.

The AfD noted that a number of sources in the old version of the article made it seem like the character had more notability than they really do, and I'd agree based on a quick spot check of the new version of the article. However, considering the rewrite, it probably makes sense to send back to AfD, assuming this isn't G4-eligible, which seems to be an easy assumption to make, but I'm not bolding my proposal since I'm not certain this is the right result. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment, it's not G4. The sock who created the last version has edited the current version though, and was CU'd today. Tintor has no involvement or relationship to the sockmaster, to be perfectly clear, beyond operating in the same topic space. Just noting since G4 and G5 are possible concerns for this topic. -- ferret (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so from what I get, a sockpuppet once tried making Hajime's article back in January and got redirected. However, the only Danganronpa article I contributed in that month was Makoto Naegi since I took a break in the second half of the month due to vacations. When I returned the only characters present were Makoto which I had to rewrite when it came to to the in-universe information since the material from the character list was too confusing. The sockpuppet created the articles for Monokuma and Toko Fukawa based on what I remember. The only two articles I later created involved Nagito Komaeda, List of Danganronpa media and finally Hajime Hinata which the other user moved to Izuru Kamukura due to the complicated identity of such character. The rest has already been told. I tried rewriting Hajime/Izuru's appearances section due to how weird was his character section and then ask for guild's help but after it was deleted again, I had to remove the request.Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, based on that we need to take a closer look at those other articles, I think at least Toko Fukawa would be eligible for WP:G5. SportingFlyer T·C 00:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse redirect - Creative reworking doesn't substitute for meeting the WP:GNG. Best case scenario, WP:TNT, because it was very poorly written at last read. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried rewriting all the in-universe information from appearances and trim it. Not sure if it's easier to read.Tintor2 (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the AfD results, oppose protection of the redirect and allow recreation of the article. Tintor2 appears to be a longtime editor with good standing with the project, so they should be given the benefit of the doubt if they express a view that this topic meets WP:GNG. A closer examination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izuru Kamukura revealed that except for the sockpuppet creator, all of the participating editors advocated that it should be redirected without specifically saying it should be deleted as well, so there is no actual consensus for deletion on top of the redirect and the closer made an error of judgment. As per WP:ATD, asking for an article to be redirected is a valid alternative or compromise to deletion. There is no policy or consensus that ever precludes restoration if the contents are substantially different from the version being reviewed at AfD, and a recent example illustrates this point: if anyone is opposed to Tintor2's view of the topic's notability, they can always nominate their version for AfD. Haleth (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Im not sure exactly sure I'm following your reasoning on why the redirect part of the close/consensus though. I also don't think a single "no consensus" close a month or so back is as strong of a precedent as you think it is... Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD, Restore, and Send to AfD I don't think the draft of the article passes GNG having looked at the sources, but it's also not really a topic area I know anything about. Since this isn't a G4, I'd support moving this back to mainspace and having another AfD, under the assumption this is a different article than the one that was deleted per Ferret's helpful response above (not casting doubt, just can't prove it myself.) The original AfD seems valid and there's no reason to overturn it, so we're dealing with a recreated article here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so it's impossible to recreate the article only because somebody rushed it in January? Everything from this article was taken from the characters list and completely rewritten due to confusing inuniverse information so I can't understand what's the actual reason since it has nothing to do with the other article.Tintor2 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't think the draft would be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Has nothing to do with the old AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 14:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect (without the deletion). No idea how we got deletion out of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect (without the deletion), move Draft back to Hajime Hinata and restore redirect Because of pages moves by sockpuppet, the attributions here are a train wreck now. Restore the original Izuru Kamukura (19ish edits?) and redirect per AFD. Move what is currently Draft:Izuru Kamukura back to Hajime Hinata, where it was before the sockpuppet moved it, then restore that to redirect too. I know the latter part of this isn't strictly DRV territory, just trying to put the pieces back where they belong. I'm happy to do the work. Where Tintor goes from there, I don't have immediate advice. -- ferret (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support overturning and restoring article + WP:HISTMERGE for complete edit history. This shouldn't be at DRV at all and we're only having this discussion due to a series of misintepretations of Wikipedia policy which is unfortunate. First off, thing started with this AfD closure which, frankly, is questionable, since while the consensus was clearly to redirect, no editor advocated deleting the article history then redirecting. This is an improper outcome when the topic clearly has the possibility of becoming a separate article in the future when additional sources are found. Afterward, Tintor2 came and recreated the article, from what I gather, completely from scratch - although I don't know for sure thanks to the strange "delete then redirect" decision of that AfD. In which case I will assume it was a complete rewrite - in which case this rationale was inappropriate as the purpose of DRV is for the restoration of old content, not for the deletion of new content. (I might also add that the edit summary of that edit was quite battleground-y with the "do not revert this edit" and threat to salt the page when they don't have the ability to do so.) It is a long-standing principle of Wikipedia that it is not forbidden - indeed it is sometimes even encouraged - to recreate an article as long as its new iteration meets the relevant policies; its why we don't automatically salt pages after we delete them at AfD. I will also add that this move was inappropriate - the correct course of action when there is an active discussion is to drop the stick and leave things be until consensus is formed, not unilaterally move it to Draftspace.

tl;dr restore the article and the complete edit history because the AfD closure, subsequent attempt to re-redirect a completely rewritten article, and unilateral move to Draftspace are all not consistent with policy. Any editor is free to renominate the article for AfD if they believe Tintor2's version doesn't meet the GNG or whatever. I personally believe it does. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Satellizer: Don't necessarily disagree, except for the histmerge part. No histmerge should be needed. Tintor created his article at Hajime Hinata, as the character has two names and he thought that was the COMMON/primary. A sockpuppet (completely unrelated to Tintor to be clear) then moved the article over the Izuru Kamukura redirect. So I'd say: Move Draft:Izuru Kamukura back to Hajime Hinata, restore deleted revisions of Izuru Kamukura and redirect it to Hajime. -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivien Keszthelyi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

To a superficial first glance, this looks like an uncontroversial "keep" outcome. But look at the "keep" voters more closely. The accounts that !voted keep were:

• Grin, a good-faith account.
• Xia, an account with many edits; I've been through their last five years' worth and this is their only vote in an AfD during that time.
• Samat, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
• Minerva97, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
• Adumbrativus, an account that was registered has no edits prior to this month.
• The Bushranger, a good-faith account.
• Dodi123, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
• JSoos, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one; he has 1,000 edits, about a third of which were made on 19 October 2018.
• GhostDestroyer100, a good-faith account.
• Spiderone, a good-faith account.
• A7V2, a good-faith account.
• Mjbmr, a good-faith account, despite his curious history of starting AfDs about articles that he created.
• Nyiffi, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
• Hyperion35, who hadn't edited for 7 years prior to voting "keep" in that AfD.

In my view many, but far from all, of the "keep"-voting accounts are ducks for UPE. Many of them, in their posts to the AfD, significantly misrepresent the value of the sources. I ask DRV to find that this AfD is irretrievably tainted by bad faith accounts, and to overturn and relist with the suspect accounts duly marked. I would also welcome your advice on whether it's appropriate to escalate this to COIN, SPI or both. —S Marshall T/C 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For notification purposes, tagging closer Bungle (talk · contribs) who's asked me not to post about this again on his talk page.—S Marshall T/C 20:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure that this is the right venue? Why would DRV, rather than WP:SPI, be the right first step for this issue? Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, I'm tagging it for G5, even though it survived the last AfD, because the verbiage on G5's exemption from AfD makes no sense whatsoever, in that merely by pointing out that an AfD'ed article was created by a sock, a good faith editor would somehow make it *immune* to future G5's by mentioning the author's sock status. That's a nonsensical perverse incentive, so I'm IAR G5'ing it. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been pointed out to me, G5 was inapplicable; I was looking at the AfD modifications to the criteria, I failed to review the basic wording. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Since this was a controversial close by a non-admin, I think the close can easily be undone. Not sold on the G5 but won't be the user to contest it. I'd recommend relisting for another week for further comment and to weed out any ducks. SportingFlyer T·C 08:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider the "votes" from accounts regarded "good faith" by S Marshall (including an additional not mentioned), then taking all the alleged suspicious accounts out of the equation, the consensus to keep the article would still seem compelling. The suggestion numerous accounts are bad faith is currently an unproven suspicion, but I would wonder if it's worth a checkuser on those to ascertain with more certainty. I don't agree the close was controversial, but understand there has been controversial history with the article itself. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair characterization. I've seen non-controversial things become controversial on the basis of an otherwise reasonable action, based on information not available to the closer/admin/whomever took the action. However, as the closer (at least for now) would you say that the AfD had decided that G5 should/would not apply to the article? I based my tagging in part on the presumption that, while mentioned, the topic was not a major point of discussion in the AfD itself. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CSD tagging immediately after an AfD discussion was going to de-escalate what is seemingly a controversial topic. What I can't determine fully here is whether the topic/article is itself controversial, or if this seems to be inherited by the fact that it has been controversially recreated. There was an AfD that was closed as delete the week before, with considerably less discussion and the only !voter in that was DGG (who opted to just comment in the AfD now in question). Had this 3rd nomination been an overwhelming delete vote, and then the 4th one (of which we now discuss) had gone the complete opposite way, then there would certainly be a good call to look closely at this, but from what I see of the previous AfDs, there is not (and has not) been anywhere close to an indisputable consensus for this article to be deleted. The two delete !votes in this AfD were essentially based on the fact this was a recreation, rather than offering a compelling policy-based reason. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's exceptionally rare for a nominator to ask for a page to be deleted and salted, and the history of this article should have been obvious to a closer, so I don't think you can categorise this as "non-controversial." SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep closure - while I definitely understand S Marshall's vigilance given the history of this article, I really don't think I could (a) criticise Bungle's decision to close it or (b) contemplate closing it differently. There are a lot of good-faith regular AfD participants supporting keep, and among the rest it wouldn't surprise me if there's one or two suspicious accounts in there, but all of the questionable ones that I've looked at are, in my opinion, defensible. A pretty common theme among the listed 'keep' voters that aren't regularly participating in AfDs is "Hungarian editor", and to me it's perfectly reasonable that we'd have a selection of semi-active editors that would appear and contribute to an AfD on a person primarily of interest in Hungary. If there are any that smell particularly paid-editingy then raising them individually at SPI might be sensible, but I've got to say I haven't seen any on a brief review. I definitely can't conclude this AfD's had enough contamination to warrant invalidating it. ~ mazca ^talk 15:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While nationalism is a reasonably obvious possibility, the real question, and why I questioned whether SPI might be appropriate, is whether the participation is best explained by off-Wiki canvassing or meatpuppetry. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely agree that each of the accounts, when looked at individually, is plausible. It's the aggregation of them all that overwhelms my AGF -- that, and the beautifully-formatted hagiography of a Hungarian teenager that's the subject of the AfD. I put it to you, Mazca, that the article has been bought and paid for and that a substantial proportion of the accounts voting to retain it were either summoned by mailing list or else operated by a PR agency.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @S Marshall: Even if there is any credibility in that, there have been 4 AfDs on this subject and only one ended delete, and that was with a single !vote. The last one (of which we speak), by your own admission, had a considerable number of good-faith editors expressing a preference for retention. I do take your issue and it's plausible (though entirely unproven) that some of the !votes have suspicious origins, yet there was clearly no consensus for deletion (the two deletes did not consider the article content at all, only its recreation). Is this discussion now being held on the basis that it should go through yet another AfD (or relist) because of it's (re)creation history, despite the considerable good-faith editor involvement, or because of a disagreement with those that !voted (the basis for my conclusion)? Controversy and recreation aside, is the article credible? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • At DRV we've usually found that it's not usually possible to subtract the puppetry from a tainted AfD and then evaluate it like an untainted one. This is because puppet votes colour the perceptions and behaviour of those who come after them. It's been our normal practice here to relist the tainted discussion -- sometimes with a semi-protected or EC-protected AfD to mitigate the impact of puppetry, although that wouldn't help in this particular case. You're right to say that I can't prove that any individual vote in that discussion was a puppet. But that so many editors who're brand new to AfD would surface for that one discussion clearly exceeds AGF's breaking strain.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's possible, sure. I could certainly believe this was raised on a Hungarian motorsport forum or something and has gained off-wiki attention. But I'm just not seeing anything remotely unambiguous that would warrant invalidating this. The arguments to keep seem broadly sensible, and honestly outside of the history of inappropriate creation here, what delete voters there are just haven't made a good case. Your nomination is reasonable based on the history and the criteria in the SNG, but the arguments against deletion are primarily based on general notability through breadth of coverage. One voter is repeatedly banging a drum based on insufficient English language sources, which just isn't actually a policy at all, and the only other people arguing for delete didn't really add any points. Tainted AfDs exist, and this could possibly be one, but it just seems to me to be a bad example of one so tainted that DRV should be invalidating it. A history of inappropriate creation doesn't mean we have to hold a later, appropriate article to a way higher standard, and to me that feels like what's happening here. ~ mazca ^talk 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Start a new,AfD on the basis of being an inappropriate non-admin close. No matter how clear the closer thought it, considering that the arguments against it, dealt with the interpretation of contested policy, it was not an appropriate close. Furthermore it should be a new start , not just a reopen of the current one, in orderto diminish the influence of fans. We should discount the influence of fans just as we would discount SPAs or paid editors. Otherwise the guideline for notability wil soon become popularity as the ovcerriding factor. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist While not articulated in policy, I do think that unless new sources have clearly emerged in the interim, any article that has previously been deleted is probably not an appropriate non-admin close. --Enos733 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain if someone else, admin or no admin, could have read the consensus in a way that one of delete, no consensus or relist would have been appropriate (even taking into account the nature of some accounts already discussed). A concern may be whether reopening and relisting would mean any subsequent delete !votes are diluted by the considerably high keep opinion that existed in this afd. I wouldn't be surprised if this went to yet another new AfD as DGG (who previously participated) noted above, which may be more appropriate than a relist, despite the consensus to delete across all 4 AfDs being relatively low. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are correct. I was about to write that I supported DGG's proposal, but I didn't think that was fair for the users who did participate in good faith. An alternative could be to reopen so an administrator could perform the close. --Enos733 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would view a new AfD or relist as disdainful to the !voters. The idea it should be reopened and immediately closed by an "administrator" is unnecessary and serves only to pander to the "but this was an inappropriate non-admin closure" rhetoric, especially taking into account the compelling consensus. The analysis by S Marshall was based on enwiki activity, yet Xia makes a fair point that this is a global project. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. I try not to write a long essay here (despite it may be justified), so let me briefly give you a summary. I am familar with the various problems enwp community possess but I still have faith in the original guildelines of Wikipedia, which is to keep articles worthy, reject articles that unworthy, in case of problems discuss them and try to resolve them by consensus or cooperational forms, assume good faith for both new and old editors and do not engage in holding a deliberate stance against anything, be that articles, topics or editors. What I have experienced about this article is really sad: editors ignoring repeated requests of discussion and cooperation, editors ignoring article content for winning over a real or imagined enemy ("the sockpuppets", "the banned users", "the bad article"), editors spending large amount of time fighting for deletion, editors ignoring consensus and start various deletion requests all over again. While in the discussion various points were raised that neither the bans, nor the deletion was justified here we are again: a deletion review against the WP:DRV guidelines of "Deletion review should not be used:". After a speedy which was against both letters and spirit of WP:G5 (which specifically details that only applies to articles created by bad-faith editors and have not touched by others). But let me mention that the original bans may even have been a mistake, since they could have been resolved by communication: originally the user was banned because her identity was not established, so it was not even about bad faith editing, and this was used as the ongoing basis to ban others (who are different persons, based on the OTRS mail exchange), which is in turn was used as a basis for trying to delete the article without even considering its content, which fulfills the requirements of the various relevant guidelines. And now I see here some of those editors refusing to communicate and discuss, trying another round of deletion again, debating a closure of an AfD where the consesus was unequivocal. But let me touch another curious spot here. This request starts with a list of the voters, and shows a well-picked criteria (namely: are they active AfD regulars?). So let me pick a different metric: go and check for how many years are these editors editing Wikipedia. How many articles they wrote. And how many discussions were they involved in their home Wikipedia. Let me help you, here you can do that easily: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/hu.wikipedia.org/grin (replace my name with theirs). Then let me kindly mention that the discussions some of the present people have deliberately were skipping contained detailed reasonings about why there are way more non-English sources, why Hungarian editors can actually certify whether the topic has national level relevance and why this is especially the way the process shall work, since if there is a language you do not understand, or a country you do not know then you need help from that country to verify the claims. So any act of surprise that Hungarian editors came over and voiced their own opinions (and let me just tell you here that neither I nor anyone else actually asked anyone to come to the AfD and vote in any way or without getting informed about the problem!) seems quite dishonest to me. So, summarizing: this review is against the guideline, the article was rightfully voted and kept, and I kindly ask anyone voting here to check the background instead of relying on what have been said above. Thanks. --grin ✎ 18:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Also please realise that none of the criticised editors were pinged in, and I would not be even here if it was not for the kind help of Jclemens. Is it acceptable to discuss fellow editors behind their backs? --grin ✎ 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• so not commenting on an afd means I have no right to tell my opinion and vote? I've been a wikimedian for 15 years, i have almost 150,000 edits globally. this is a ridiculous witchhunt, nothing else... I mostly edit on huwiki and make smaller corrections in enwiki but I have also written dozens of articles here, among them GAs. My opinion doesn't matter because I am usually on an other wiki? Isn't this a global project? Xia ^{talk to me} 21:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. I think most of the users listed above (as me) came here to vote because we feel that this is a kind of nationality question around the article and not really about notability. Despite the text is created by a blocked user, puppet or anyone, all the references and statements are correct in it, though they are mostly in Hungarian. I added translations to titles to show that the statements are not exaggerated, she is a very young lady, with outstanding scoring at her age, and did first in history of Hungary as a female driver. Also added a reference of FIA official magazine in English. I must think that all the efforts to eliminate her from enwiki is not what is in her article, but because of something else (nationality?) which is not suported here by proper arguments. That is really "controversial", and not the "keep" result. JSoos (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that suggestion is nonsense, and this may be the first time at WP I ever used that word about another contributor's comment. I and others of the people saying delete have in general been trying as hard as possible to justify the inclusion of as many people and other subjects as possible from geographies where information is difficult for us to source, as well as people in careers that are hard to source. I at least am quite willing to adjust the interpretation of the guidelines of the reliability of sourcing to allow for sources that are as reliable as the subject & place & chronological period allows, though not as reliable as in some more fully covered areas. Your arguments: " with outstanding scoring at her age" is exactly what illustrates the problem. Very rightly for an encyclopedia, we decided way back only actual top-level performance counts, and those who are not yet read for the top leagues are not yet notable. I think exactly the same in my principal area, people with English language coverage who win high school science competitions, and similarly in all areas. Are we to go the route of having notability for various age levels of children? It's reasonable for local newspapers to cover them as "human interest". Temporary human interest of that sort is the antithesis of encyclopedic coverage. An unsupported statement of prejudice because of nationality is the same as an unsupported statement of racism. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: There was no real discussion of notability (it has been long established in my opinion, and see comments from motorsports editors), and there were no real problems recently with the article content at all, if you are interested in actually commenting the content you shall see the talk page, and respond there, preferably after reading through past comments. I am not sure what is the topic here, since this review is against the policy, it is questioning the judgement of decade-long established editors and generally seem to be a way to unaccept the AfD result in a long fight of I-don-even-understand-what and on what basis. Maybe English speaking people vs. the world, as many suggested. Maybe bad fixation on repeated use of specific policies while forgetting their origial purpose. Maybe abuse of seniority and experience, trying to force through one's will through unending opening of new and new processes onto the others. It is a really toxic behaviour to try to win and argument against a lot of people by process instead of discussion. --grin ✎ 07:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very purpose of the entire Deletion Review procedure is to question the AfD result through a wider consensus. The individual afds is where people primarily interested in deleting or not deleting a particular article or in a particular subject give their opinion. Usually their opinion holds, but it can be challenged in various ways. One is another Afd--a second AfD is likely to get wider participation--another is a deletion review, which almost always does. The consensus that finally applies in wp is the consensus of the community as a whole. and that of editors in a specific subject only if the general consensus agrees. The purpose of the notability guideline is to produce an encyclopedia with the sort of content that people in general would expect to find in a modern internet encyclopedia, which certainly does include sports at a championship level. -- for special fields, there are an abundance of special wikis and similar forums. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Not really. I hate excessively quoting guidelines, but I find it weird that established editors and regular deletionists seem not to be familar with them.

• Deletion review: "Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions."
  • Deletion review may be used: ... I do not quote it since none of them applies.
  • Deletion review should not be used:
    • because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment
    • to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
    • to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  • So, none of the "deletion review may be used" applies and multiple ones of "deletion review should not be used" does.
• Deletion process:
  • Alternatives to deletion:
    • If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
    • Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, […] Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.
  • In certain circumstances, poorly-attended deletion discussion may be treated as proposed deletions (PRODs). [This holds for the "delete" AfD as for example.] […] Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again.

And finally let me quote what I keep repeating, now verbatim:

• WP:DR: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. (And I save you from quoting all thoughout WP:EQ and WP:WINNING, which almost entirely relevant to my problem with the attitude of many editors here.)

So, no, the purpose of Deletion review is not to hold content discussion, nor a blank cheque to try to overturn a deletion discussion without any really relevant (and listed) reasons; and accusations aren't fitting either (and really, at that point a mass apology to the editors in the discussion is sorely missed).

The AfD is not for and about discussion of the problems of any article, nor for discussion of problems with editors: generally an article touched by established editors shall not be AfD's without relevant discussion, and AfD shall be a result of either a consesus or a failed discussion (or, indeed, many). Failing that is against multiple policies and guidelines, not to mention common sense. A second AfD shall only be opened if either there was a relevant change of affairs or if the discussion needs a wider audience; defintely not for doing it in a narrower audience nor doing it through unacceptable ways of canvassing. Opening repetitive AfDs is against the relevant guidelines, too.

Mentioning WP:NOTABLE is really improper here: notability discussion is a content discussion which indeed shall be done, and when it was (and it has been done on the talk page and elsewhere) it shall be accepted or contested by logical reasoning, and not by opening an AfD. I am the one continuously requested specifics of content problems and our fellow editors voting for delete and relist here were the ones avoiding those discussions. If you worry about notability first read talk page then reply there, using reasoned arguments, and be open for cooperation.

Please, read the quoted parts carefully. Understand them. Not only the words, please, but the intents, too. --grin ✎ 20:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at a fresh AFD per DGG. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There are some surprising contentions made above. It's suggested that my wish to delete this one article arises from some kind of anti-Hungarian prejudice. It's suggested that contributions to the Hungarian Wikipedia are equivalent to the English one, even though hu.wiki has an entirely different culture, different procedures, and different standards relating to notability or inclusion. It's implied that a discussion involving more editors who're brand new to AfD on en.wiki than established editors is perfectly normal and unremarkable, and my suspicions about this are unreasonable. I am very much looking forward to reading the closer's evaluation of these contentions at the end of this debate.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: You seem to be rather unfamilar with the core values of Wikipedia. Indeed, that is surprising. You seem to think that some editors are superior to others, you seem to believe that seniority trumps policies and behavioural guidelines and you seem to believe that you can call people (behind their back, too) "sockpuppets", "meatpuppets" and various other names without any consequence. You also have carefully skipped discussions, ignored very specific questions about your problems and repeated requests to explain your moves instead of continuously attacking people by words or through your actions. --grin ✎ 20:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to knowing the rules, I know how we usually interpret them at present. The rules that apply in WP are the rules as they are in practice interpreted now, not when I joined in 2006 (or you in 2003, or S Marshall in 2004-6). The arguments at most del revs other than complaints about an irregular NAC, are indeed whether the article should (or should not) be deleted. This can be justified when necessary because an afd decision that did not truly represent consensus is an error in the closer's judgment. What truly represents consensus is a matter of indefinite argument, especially when the question is whether to go by special or general consensus. Going by the local afd consensus if it is based on arguments that do not represent basic policy is an error.

If the problems in an article can be fixed by normal editing, they should be, either in mainspace or if necessary in draft. . If the article is such that normal editing cannot fix it, then it should be removed entirely, and if the subject is actually notable ,started over. Thousands of articles are deleted on this basis every year. . I am not now and have never been a deletionist--quite the opposite. I have always tried to rescue whatever is rescuable, but I accept consensus on what the community has decided should not be rescued. The question of what the community accepts in sports remains undecided, or more exactly, switches back and forth from year to year. AfDs and DelRev are how we find out the current view. I agree the results are erratic, but that's probably unavoidable in WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: (I would appreciate if you pinged me if there's something I should see.) I understand what you write and I completely disagree. What you describe is actually a bad state of affairs, when some groups of editors form a habit to "interpret" the guidelines in a way diverging from both their words and their intents; this is a well-known and very bad problem on enwiki (and in smaller extents on most of the Wikipedias) and repeatedly have been observed (obviously from the outside) on AfDs and "content-related" "discussions" (which are, often, not about content and are not discussions). Do not take me wrong! It is not about you, nor about the fellow editors here: it is a result of a bad turn somewhere in the past in the fashion/habit/customs people approach everyday tasks and problems. Pepole forgot to assume good faith, people forgot to engage in helpful discussions, people forgot that guidelines are to help to resolve problems not to ignore them, and they are not laws: they are, what they really are: guides. I am sorry if you are protecting these bad habits but in no way am I bound to follow them since neither the purpose nor the way of the guidelines and policies have changed in these regards. I may be even doing a service to remid some of the people here to reconsider their fight, since there shall be no fight at all, not in AfDs nor elsewhere, and knowing the usual process (to delete or to assertively debate deletion) is not enough without an active helping intent, and the only way we do have is the discussion. (And its place is not here, therefore I have to ignore all of your content based comments and remarks, which were discussed already on the talk page [and above].) --grin ✎ 14:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take each of Grin's points in turn. (1) I do not believe that some editors are superior to others. But on en.wiki, some accounts are superior to others, because it's so easy for one editor to operate multiple accounts. (2) Where an account at COIN or SPI or AN or ANI, there's a requirement to notify those accounts. But deletion review is a review of a debate and a decision -- it is not a forum that can take action against bad faith accounts, and therefore there's no requirement to notify. (3) At DRV, it's helpful for a debate to be reviewed by previously uninvolved people, and a DRV that's punctuated by colossal screeds written by involved parties is much less helpful than a DRV of dispassionate analysis. For this reason I have come to think it's appropriate for a DRV nominator to minimize their participation in the debate that follows. (4) I have found it necessary to share my suspicions about a highly unusual pattern of activity, in a topic area with a long history of conflict-of-interest editing. This necessitates an investigation of accounts and their editing history. Such investigations are a normal, and necessary, part of operating an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and are not normally understood as an attack on an editor unless they're employed in a retaliatory or vindictive fashion. But if you feel that I'm making inappropriate personal attacks on others, then you are welcome to bring my conduct before our administrators at a different forum. I would welcome this, and if it happens, I shall be quite happy to defend every word that I have written about it.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: I don't think I should give a detailed answer since I disagree almost with everything you wrote, for various reasons (one of them, incidentally, you not following your own advices and start a review of your own AfD instead of letting uninvolved people to do it, and if you see carefully you may notice other familiar names around), and I do not see any way our viewpoints have gotten any closer to one another. Indeed I have considered other dispute resolution steps against your behaviour but I don't believe it could positively change your attitude nor do I need to personally push you towards anything. The AfD was closed, this DR is against the relevant guidelines, it shall be closed and I expect you not to get in contact with this or similar articles unless you plan to extend or develop their contents since it would be really the best for everyone, emotionally and otherwise; and I only strongly hope you will not, ever, start to call established editors "vandal", "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" without strongly considering whether your better judgment is shadowed by some involuntary inner agenda. --grin ✎ 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grin, As for the article, what I hope will happen is that she will become notable. But as for WP, the rule-bound approach is not the way to go. For AfD, the 4 kye words in the GNG, substantial, reliable, secondary, independent are all of them ambiguous, and for most seriously contested AfDs, they can be interpreted in a way to yield any desired result. They're useful word to have nonetheless, because they focus the argument. But I and probably most people decide holistically, and then argue to convince those who have a fixed idea of the meaning of the criteria. . As for DR, a basic principle of fair process is that all decisions are appealable. So the way I interpret the wording of what counts as a error in closing is justified, if we want it to be, and we generally do. What counts is the basic rule of all, IAR, that the purpose here is to build an encyclopedia , and that if rules interfere, ignore them.Another way of stating it is, we make the rules, and we can make the exceptions. Obviously this kind of argument is dependent on consensus, not individual whim, and that's why we have discussions. No one person's view of what constitutes consensus is final. Every thing you or I or any admin can do can be reversed if the community of interested people decide to do it. (I consider the argument that we cannot do so the analog of the originalist view of interpreting the US constitution. Some support this view, some don't, just as here.. Not everybody agrees in either sphere, but here at least there are not really parties with fixed views, just a somewhat anarchic collection of individuals.) DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I gladly discuss our opinions and disagreements about either the process, our views of the process and your apparent difference with written guidelines on various topics but I still do not think this is the right place for it. (Also it's kind of repetitive of me to mention content discussion and talk pages.) If you feel like tell me and we can move over to any suitable page, be that anyone's talk page or an open discussion page about the process itself. As a short summary I can only repeat myself: I disagree with your interpretation and opinion and mainly I believe the opposite is true, and I am pretty convinced that my view aligns with the WMF one as well as with Wikipedia base values. --grin ✎ 08:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've no objections to a relist, especially as it is a NAC, but I find that even if I tossed out every single possible bad-faith/possibly canvassed account we *still* don't reach a delete outcome here. Same thing with the sources. I think there are enough 3rd party sources to get over the bar of WP:N. I could be wrong there, but the discussion of sources in the AfD is very limited... My 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: I am one of the "suspicious" accounts listed above. I have not edited Wikipedia for many years, due to unpleasant experiences editing in the past. I usually only browse Wikipedia. I recently became interested in motorsports, specifically Formula One and similar single-seat racing formats that are more popular in Europe, and I was browsing the Wiki article on F1 when I saw a mention of a womens competition to be run as support races this year, called W Series. I read through the Wiki page on that series, and read up about its previous season in 2019. I clicked on the pages of several racers to learn more about them, and I was curious as to why Keszethyi's page was nominated for deletion, it made no sense to me. Reading further, it became clear that the nomination was clearly incorrect, and so for the first time in years I logged into my account and edited the AfD page with my Keep comment, which you can read there. The fact that I had not edited for several years should not be a reason to ignore a good-faith comment that I believe added to the discussion. If you disagree with my contention that this racer is notable, the place to do so would be on my talk page or on that AfD page.

For the record, I have no connection to Keszethyi, to Formula One, to W Series, or to any other racing competition. I am an American, I have no connection to Hungary, except I think one of my great-grandparents might have emigrated from there over a century ago, before WWI at least. Nobody on Wikipedia or anywhere else requested my comments, and I have not discussed this topic with anyone on Wikipedia except for the comments that I left publicly on that AfD page. Thank you, kind sir, for reminding me why I stopped editing so many years ago. I believe that my comment on the AfD page speaks for itself, and the fact that another editor chose to do this rather than address the actual arguments made in favor of Keep speaks for itself as well. I have great difficulty assuming good faith here, based on the ridiculous, baseless, false insinuations made here. Hyperion35 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is such a negative experience. Given the history with the article and the fairly unusual crew this AfD pulled in, I think a certain degree of skepticism is reasonable. But I certainly see how that skepticism looks like an attack on the individuals involved. I'm not sure how to avoid such things while keeping Wikipedia as open as it is to anyone who wants to contribute. Sorry you got caught in that. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: How to avoid? For example actually checking the editors on, say, Special:CentralAuth before making accusations? You know, what you just said could be said to probably all of the accused. What does this tell you about the problem? --grin ✎ 20:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: Wikipedia's core rules explain how to avoid such things. Two core rules are "Assume Good Faith", and "debate the content not the editors". Mr. Marshall ignored both of those rules with this DRV. He admits that he chose not to assume good faith, but he defends this by citing the "totality" of the circumstances, even though the only thing that his list of "suspicious" editors have in common is that they chose to vote "Keep" on his AfD. Mr. Marshall has also made no effort to address the substance of the Keep arguments that were made, he merely seeks to disregard almost every Keep comment based solly upon some fact or another about each individual editor. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my curiousity I started checking the voters accused above, but had to stop at user:Adumbrativus who was, quote: "an account that was registered this month.". I stopped since that "2 months ago" was on 2018-07-16. Most of the other "sockpuppets" are registered 10+ years ago, many of them admins of some projects. Let this sink in. --grin ✎ 20:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, yes. Although that account's first edit was on 3rd February 2021, I see that it was registered in 2018. I'll correct.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe S Marshall is an administrator of this project (that is not in itself relevant though). I am also concerned that the accounts "investigated" by S Marshall have not had the suspicions backed-up by evidence or further material that would incontrovertibly support the accusations, which remain unfounded and contentious. As this review was initiated on the basis of suspicion and opinion, and that no further information has surfaced to substantiate the claims, I would wonder if continuation of this discussion is beneficial. It seems to have turned more towards character assassinations than discussing the credibility of the article. If there cannot be a definitive means of substantiating the claims raised, and if the consensus of the AfD cannot be disputed, I am unsure why this continues to remain an active discussion. Is it maybe time this was concluded by someone that is entirely uninvolved, who can make a fair assessment of how best to draw a line here? Either way, there will not be an outcome that will satisfy all participants. A relist would surely only exacerbate the existing high tensions and certainly shouldn't be considered solely on the basis of my own admin-free status. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A neutral, previously uninvolved closer will be along shortly.—S Marshall T/C 02:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closure. (Note: I supported Keep at AfD.) After appropriately discounting the parts of the discussion not based on reasoning, sources, or policy - as the closer should do, and, as one must presume, did do - the result of Keep did not "interpret[] the consensus incorrectly". (See some of mazca's comments.) Nor does an otherwise reasonable decision become a "substantial" procedural error solely because it was made by a non-admin. As for the suggestion that I am a "duck for UPE", I scarcely need to offer a rebuttal. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👾 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to reopen the old discussion over the 👾 -> Space Invaders redirect idea. As far as I can tell it was last discussed in 2016, with the consensus that at that time it wouldn't work, since the icon looked different depending on the font. Within these past 5 years, it seems that the majority of providers have decided on the video game character design. (see the emojipedia entry) ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 07:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse. Previous RfD closer here. This emoji still looks inconsistent across platforms to me - looks like a space invader on one device and a purple octopus on another. Deryck C. 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A major concern at the RfD was that the redirect is ambiguous. This emoji is supposed to be an "ALIEN MONSTER", but that doesn't necessarily mean Space Invaders and there were suggestions at RfD that it should point to Bug-eyed monster or Extraterrestrial life. That argument hasn't been addressed. Hut 8.5 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, concurring with the comments of User:Hut 8.5. On my Android, it looks like a purple octopus, except that two tentacles are either lost or hidden. On my Windows 10 desktop, it looks like a purple trash can, until I magnify it to 300%, and then it looks like a purple Halloween mask. So I have no idea what it is, and so I see no reason to unprotect it and allow this monster to invade us. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good close. No consensus that it means anything singular, let alone meaningfully. It’s use should not be encouraged. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation — We're getting this wrong. First, what is it: it's a unicode character, specifically U+1F47E, "Alien Monster", part of a unicode block called "Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs". We normally have redirects from unicode characters, they are in Category:Redirects from Unicode characters. We also have redirects from emoji unicode characters: Category:Redirects from emoji (over 1,400 redirects). There is no reason to exclude this particular emoji. Just as we have articles about letters, numbers, and other symbols, emojis are perfectly valid entries in the encyclopedia; even if they don't all merit full articles, they should at least be a redirect to a list of emojis or similar. People who want to know "what is this symbol" should be able to type it into the search box and get to an article that tells them what it is. (Keep in mind that the majority of our readers are reading on mobile phones, where these unicode emojis are easily accessed and commonly used.) Many of these unicode emojis come to represent specific concepts. I don't know if the article Space Invaders is the right target for this redirect (it probably is, but redirect target is a content issue), but look at Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs#Chart and click on those symbols. They're almost all redirects, and it's a very helpful navigation aid to have them as redirects. Not only is it a useful navigation aid, but it's also educational. It furthers our core mission to cover emojis in the encyclopedia. You want to know what one of those symbols on the chart means? Just click on it. (Except 👾... for now.) Pew pew, Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable reading of the RFD, and an implausible search term in any case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My "endorse" vote extends only to the original redirect. While I still believe the search term is unlikely to be used much, redirecting to a more appropriate article remains on the table. Allowing recreation as proposed by Cunard is a reasonable course of action. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation as a redirect to Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs#👾. I agree with Levivich and Neko-chan that 👾 should redirect to somewhere.

  A search in Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs for "👾" returns an entry in Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs#Chart.

  This could become a useful redirect for readers if Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs were expanded to have a table like the one in Miscellaneous Symbols that lists each symbol's "Official Name", "Glyph", "Unicode", "HTML", and "Common meaning". "👾" could be included as an entry in the table that says its official name is "ALIEN MONSTER". This Unicode.org page for "👾" and this Softpedia article can be used as sources to verify the material. If this table is created and "👾" is redirected to its entry in the table, I believe that an RfD would support retention.

  As Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs does not have such a table for now, I'd recommend that Neko-chan (talk · contribs) create one, and then start a new DRV nomination.

  Cunard (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation per Cunard. Redirects are cheap, and this would meet with the principle of least astonishment. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annalisa Malara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

About a year ago, the article on Annalisa Malara was deleted. Since then, she has received Italy’s top civilian award, Cavaliere dell’Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana, according to a recent article in The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper. She was also named “Personality of the Year” by the Sky TG24 news channel. I have also asked for the corresponding article in the talian Wikipedia to be restored. "How this Italian doctor found Europe's Patient One and became a national hero". The Globe and Mail. 2021-02-19. Retrieved 2021-02-20. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Creation, but there should be no need for deletion review. It appears that the article was not deleted for notability reasons, but because it was created by a sockpuppet, and there should be no barrier to creation by a good-faith editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have started a new article, but it's just a stub so far. I hadn't realized that the original article had been deleted for sockpuppetry, not lack of notability. I suppose that this deletion review can be closed now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ayree (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was not able to defend the page which I created and have new sources that could be used. Only three editors were involved in closing down the page and one of these said that if new sources came to light they may change their decision. Bivaldian (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but allow recreation - the close was procedurally correct, but you are of course always free to recreate the article if you have additional sources. You may want to use WP:AFC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The AfD closure was correct. However, you can recreate the article with additional sources that establish notability of him.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but the appellant appears to agree that the close was correct in October 2020. The article can be re-created, either in article space or in draft. In article space, it may be nominated for deletion if it does not establish general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correct decision, but new sources doesn't preclude recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 14:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As a presenter, he will be mentioned in many ghits, and that’s not good enough, and that’s all I see, and you have not given any examples of sources that overcome reason for deletion. If you want to try, draft in userspace or draftspace, and follow the advice in WP:THREE. For drafting, you may request a WP:REFUND of the deleted page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article has continued notability since 2010; subject has been interviewed by Chris Hansen as 'victim zero' among numerous people who have been the subject of an investigation (including possible FBI investigations) into sexual abuse against Dahvie Vanity since 2009. The cyberbullying case is directly relevant to this as background and has been mentioned in most sources covering the incident.

The issues around the 2010 deletion focused on the fact the subject was a child; this is irrelevant, as they are an adult now. They have given on-the-record interviews with numerous reliable sources, and the continued mentions in numerous reliable sources for over a decade establishes a degree of notability for the event. The reason this page was deleted more recently was due to alleged BLP violations due to the inclusion of people's personal names (which were mentioned in RSes) and alleged questionable sourcing, which can be fixed with a rewrite and revdels. Bangalamania (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that it's been over 10 years, I see no reason that this shouldn't be allowed to be recreated. Having said that, I'm not sure we need to overturn the past deletion to allow that. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I recently recreated the page with the new info, and it was deleted by SlimVirgin, who mentioned BLP violations due to real names and allegations in the article. As far as I'm aware these were all backed up by reliable sources. −Bangalamania (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, missed that, sorry. For the recent deletion, I agree with Stifle that G4 is inappropriate. For BLP concerns, I would suggest that the contentious names be removed and discussed on the talk page: if they are indeed in RS, there's no reason to scrub them from Wikipedia entirely as if they were unsubstantiated allegations, just to make conscientiously sure that they're not featured in the article inappropriately. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Speedy as G10, not G4, as the issue is really negative BLP material, not how close it was to a previous article. Based on the sourcing presented here, I agree that SV's action was correct, just listed under the wrong criteria, and that no encyclopedic article can be made from this mess without violating our BLP protections. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems correct, G10, not G4. Can anyone who can see the history say that some of the content is G10 worthy and unable to be temp undeleted for this review? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the recent G4 speedy deletion. G4 applies only to deletions via a deletion discussion. Whilst there was a live deletion discussion when this article was deleted, the deletion was expressed as done under WP:IAR. As such, the article did not qualify for speedy deletion and must be restored. If anyone wants to list at AFD, they can.
  If the closure of this DRV results in the article being undeleted, the closer should take care to only restore the edits from this month, and not the previously deleted content. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I deleted the article per WP:BLPDELETE because it contains serious allegations against a named individual and the sourcing is weak. There was no version I could revert to that didn't contain the allegations, which were not part of the article when it was deleted in 2010. I advised Bangalamania at WP:BLPN#Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case to open this DRV. During Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case, concerns included BLP1E, NOTNEWS, poor sourcing, lack of balance, non-encyclopaedic. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Which allegations and which named individual are you talking about? As far as I'm aware the sourcing was strong for all the allegations included in the article. If there was something so egregiously wrong in there, then I apologise, but as I say that could very easily be removed and the past revisions deleted ASAP. If you are referring to the sexual assault allegations against Vanity (which was my main reasoning for recreating the article), they are mentioned here in detail, and includes sources which mention the controversy and individual this article is talking about in their reporting. It should not be contentious to include allegations, so long as it's made clear they are allegations and not proven fact.

And re: the 2010 deletion discussion, as I've said before the BLP1E and NOTNEWS rationales no longer apply, as this is still something being discussed a decade after the actual events, and now links to a wider discussion about allegations of sexual assault and investigations into Vanity, which were revealed in 2018–19. These are interrelated events, but not the same. Perhaps the title and focus of the article should be shifted away from the 2010 events and focus more on the more recent allegations, but this is important as background – and was mentioned by a number of reliable sources which were included in the article. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow the advice at WP:THREE. Tell us three (and no more than three) WP:GNG meeting sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are sources which establish continued notability (& link to wider allegations of sexual abuse which are mentioned at the BOTDF article mentioned above): [10] [11] [12] – Bangalamania (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There’s something about these sources that I don’t like, “lacks a distant perspective from the subject”. It feels like rolling gossip magazine coverage. I recommend allowing a fresh AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The cyberbullying isn't the reason I deleted it. The issue is the serious allegation against a named person, and the sources for that are weak and gossipy. Those allegations shouldn't be in the other article either. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood. I am here not talking about overturning the G4, but about the possibility of ever re-creating the article based on sources like these. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Even ignoring the serious allegations, it just isn't an encyclopaedia article. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It agree, it does not look like a viable encyclopedic topic. But for the sake of respect for process, it might be best for an AfD to test consensus, if someone wants to insist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Stifle. I know this is not relevant, but I also found another source. [13] Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the article contained allegations that a named, non-public figure physically abused a child, as well as allegations that another person who doesn't have a standalone article here engaged in rape and sexual abuse of children. There was no indication in the article that either of them had been convicted of any sort of crime. The article even repeated allegations of sexual abuse made against one of these people which don't have anything to do with the ostensible subject of the article, other than that it was the same person. I'm sure there is scope for writing another article about this but we have to do better than that. Hut 8.5 20:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- given the BLP issues, there is no way the article history can be restored. I have no strong opinions about making a new article from scratch, so long as it does not repeat those BLP issues. Reyk _YO! 11:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Reyk:, I know you know a lot more about our BLP policies than I do. My sense is that when we have well documented accusations against a public figure, we do include them , but against a non-public figure we generally avoid doing so [14]. Am I getting our policies right? If so, are you saying that the person(s) named aren't public figures? Something else? I'd like to be consistent with policy here, but I'm not 100% sure I know what that is. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn speedy I don't see how this meets any speedy criteria. If there is an issue with a party being named in the article it can be removed/delreved as needed. And it's not even clear if naming the person is a problem per our policies given I *think* that those rules don't apply to well-covered stories when the person in question is a public person. All that said, if/when this goes to AfD, I might well !vote to delete via WP:TNT. But speedy deletion is for exactly the cases defined in WP:CSD and I don't see a case that this meets any CSD criteria let alone the one provided. I'm willing to be pointed to a policy that says otherwise, but I'm not seeing anything other than IAR. And without seeing the article I can't support IAR here. Hobit (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse given the BLP issues, the correct nature of the old discussion, and the seemingly correct application of the new speedy deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer:Could you clarify that? Are you saying it was a good G4, G10, falls under BLPDELETE, or something else? I'm not quite sure where you are going. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with the original discussion's result. I'm assuming the G4 is correct because I haven't seen the new version, but saying a G4 is inapplicable because there was no deletion discussion makes no sense as a speedy deletion was advocated for at the deletion discussion as an extreme BLP attack page. I think arguing otherwise is semantics. Also don't really care if this recreated but it does have to fix the problems of the old article, as Reyk notes. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I got the strong sense that the 11-year-old article about a then underage girl was deleted because it was an attack page against her. Now it is because the person she accuses of attacking her, a public figure, is named. Do I have that right? Could someone please send me the deleted article (don't need the history, just the version deleted)? I'm having problems understanding the basis for this deletion--maybe it's just because I can't see it. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Project (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Disputed Speedy deletion. This article cannot be deleted as speedy, since it's subject it's notable and the article already survived 2 AFDs (1, 2). I can't say about the last page version, but at some point in history the page has had a decent look, and eventually it can be restored at that state. XXN,

• Allow Re-Creation as Draft - The article was not deleted for notability, but as advertising. The article can be re-created in draft, and an extended-confirmed reviewer will be able to accept it. No need to restore any previous versions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Contra Robert McClenon, this (do we not have a shortcut for that anchor?) indicates that G11 is NOT one of the valid reasons to speedily delete content that has previously survived an XfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Survived AfD previously. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 as per User:SmokeyJoe] and allow AFD - In this case, the rule is strange but clear. Notability and Promotionality can be decided by the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Article was ineligible for speedy deletion under this criterion as it has passed an AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Send to AfD I'm not sure two "no consensuses" means it "survived" (I might read "survived" as "kept") but there's enough doubt to merit further conversation. SportingFlyer T·C 14:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperfry (company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article has got deleted through CSD as WP:G4 though it was not similar to the previously deleted article. It had many new sources added, with significant coverage. I placed two undeletion requests at the deletion admin's talk page with no response. Maybe, they are busy, and therefore, i request a deletion review here. The person who nominated the page doesn't seem to have checked it properly or it doesn't qualify for G4 in any way. The last version was completely different from the one deleted in 2016. Tungut bey (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Re-Creation in Draft - The draft title has not been salted. If the reviewer agrees that the draft should be accepted, the article title can be unsalted. Is the appellant asking for something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robert McClenon:, The article was submitted as a draft only, it was then accepted and moved to mainspace. The page was deleted through afd in 2016 and the last version was not similar to that. It had many 2019 & 20's sources added.Tungut bey (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete for review please. Can't assess G4 without access to the before/after versions, can we? Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, life, eh? WilyD 12:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Credible case that G4 did not apply, so send to AfD. Also, the AfD was years ago, and the SALTing was not done by consensus at AfD, so not generous leeway on the G4. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for keeping your perspective. I beg to differ with you on sending it to AFD and I would explain why. First, the person who marked it for speed deletion mustn't have checked when the previous article was afded and deleted or they wouldn't have G4 it only. The AFDed article was deleted in 2016 and the subject has since reveived a lot of coverage in reliable sources, an admin would be able to see it. They also don't appear to have checked online for new sources and to see if it now passes ncorp. I had cited around 30 reliable sources if memory serves me correctly and each covers the subject directly and in detail. Secondly, this article was put through afc and was approved because they found it to be notable. It was accepted by a seasoned editor. If the topic were not notable, they would have declined it there itself.Tungut bey (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I presume that the editors who tagged and deleted the article will want to nominated it a AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • An editor who has been around Wikipedia since 2014, who frequently participates in Article for Deletion discussions, and is an Autopatroller and GA contributors confused CSD with AFD? No way. If you see the editor has provided the link also to previous deletion discussion while G4'ing, so it makes this clearer they were not confused between CSD and AfD.Tungut bey (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If undeleted, list immediately at AfD. The deleted article was a woeful fail of WP:NOTPROMOTION. The sources are non-independent and promotional, and the end result is a completely unsolvable promotional directory of information with no third party coverage. At best, WP:TNT. A second AfD after five years is ok. AfD1 !voters’ claims of meeting WP:CORP appear to be entirely spurious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for undeleting Pepperfry. I checked the page history and noticed that the page was G4'ed on the 5th January 2021 and the speedy deletion was declined on the very day by an administrator who stated It has been four years since the AfD, and it does make a better attempt at meeting GNG which i completely agree to, i have stated above in detail why it was not qualifying for G4. I see then David (deleting admin) steps in, first removes the funding section and references from the page, and eventually deletes the whole article. How could someone delete an article under G4 when the CSD was already declined by another admin. G4 says "this applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." 80% of the articles i had cited as source were published after the AfD which took place five years ago (September 2016). The nomination/deletion was so erroneous it beggars belief. Jclemens did you check this Pepperfry (company)?Tungut bey (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tungut bey, DavidNotMD (the user who edited the article prior to deletion) and David Gerard (who deleted and salted it) are not the same user. If they were, I would agree that that would be improper. As is, it's not clear to me why David Gerard deleted the page, but he may have been working off an old list of tagged articles, even though Lee Vilenski, who is indeed an admin, had declined the speedy tag with a reasonable rationale. As the article existed before it was deleted, I'm not sure I see a good reason for it to continue to exist in Wikipedia--we do not exist to either be a directory of companies nor to be a promotional venue for emerging companies. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. James, Sr. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Reason for deletion: (Expired BLPPROD, unsourced BLP) Here are two sources:

• "Charles E. James, Sr". Departmental Office of Civil Rights. Office of the Secretary, U. S. Department of Transportation.
• "Charles E. James, Sr". Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. U. S. Department of Labor.

Not sure why this was unsourced. Please undelete it so it can be worked on. Philly jawn (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, per [15] this doesn't need to be at DRV. Any admin can just undelete if you promise to add those sources. To be clear, this doesn't prevent a future AfD etc. Hobit (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Hobit that this doesn't need to be at DRV, that any admin can undelete this in good faith anticipation that sources will be added as stated. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per request, which could have been done at WP:REFUND or by asking an admin. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so will anyone here do this? Do I have to now go elsewhere? Philly jawn (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If you had asked the deleting admin about it, it could have been solved immediately. Now, has you have initiated a formal DRV, you have to wait for this to close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and speedy close per, if nothing else, WP:IAR. The request was clearly just made at the wrong venue; someone should refund the article and close the DRV. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Nasheed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Person is not notable at all, this person frequently posts black supremacist views on Twitter Stonksboi (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close - This appears to be a misplaced AFD nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Twitter is not directly relevant to the subject's notability. Some Twitter trolls are notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close last deletion discussion was in April 2015 so it’s far to late to contest it. In this case a new AFD makes more sense.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy procedural close - This belongs at AfD, and in any event the nomination does not allege any violations of policy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1) New information has come to light- the origin of this nomination traces back to a December of last year when a series of category nominations relating to Asian diasporas. (Specifically it is a followup to this nomination) At that time I did not participate so I wasn't able to provide the necessary sources back then. It also appears that few of the voters had even bothered to research the subject WP:BEFORE voting for deletion, which they bear the burden of responsibility. Regardless of what the process was, the ball was already moving and by the time I came around to defend this category's existence, most of them had already made up their minds. I will also disclose that a third CFD over a category I created after merging the previous one with another. It was nominated for G4, but not flagged as such and thus currently remains an active discussion.

Specifically the new evidence I wish to point out is that there are a now sources which clearly illustrate from individual reliable sources how people seen in the category should belong, per WP:DEFINING guide. I linked an RFC containing this exact text to the discussion, however I'm sure if any of the participants have seen it. (all emphasis mine)

The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to^[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. For example, Italian and artist are defining characteristics of Caravaggio, because virtually all reliable sources on the topic mention them, so that article is included in categories such as Category:Italian Baroque painters.

• "Tung Chee-hwa".

  He [Tung] was a second rate businessman, viewed by the local business community as something of an outsider-a Shanghainese with most of his assets outside Hong Kong.

• The Spirit of Cities - Why the Identity of a City Matters in a Global Age.

... were the Shanghainese capitalists, including the father of Tung Chee-hwa ...

• Uneasy Partners - The Conflict Between Public Interest and Private Profit in Hong Kong.

... Son and Heir Tung Chee Hwa‘s career demonstrated the political adaptability that was typical of the Shanghainese who came to post - war Hong Kong.

• "Hong Kong's first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa takes a trip down memory lane".

  An interview with Tung to mark the 20th anniversary of the handover provides an opportunity to reflect on the life of a man who was born in Shanghai

Further, there is a lot of information about how Tung Chee Hwa's career is helped by being a member of this group, satisfying WP:OCEGRS.[16]

• As a Shanghainese from the old treaty port of Ningbo which spawned many leading Chinese commercial families, Tung fits in with the so-called “Shanghai gang” around President Jiang. The group’s members are viewed as modernising and opportunistic but politically conservative.

Fundamentally there is an issue with the same five or so editors who consistently vote to CFD, leading to legitimate content being thrown out for whatever reason (Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater analogy) (if this allegation is against the rules I will remove it)

There were also a number of superfluous statements relating to social anthropology that were made, swaying the outcome of the vote towards deletion. For example I pointed out that the classification is in fact an ethnicity by some standards, but this was completely ignored by the other editors.

2) There was a procedural error in the discussion where one aspect of WP:OCEGRS was completely ignored. "Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one.

After I pointed out that Shanghainese people in Hong Kong exists, and two of the delete voters admitted that the article is perfectly fine. I found a piece of online journalism which explicitly lists 11 people who could forum the nexus of the category, and I was told it merely belongs in an article. There is no real reason this category should be singled out. I have also since expanded the head article to a length of 20k bytes, where as it was just a fraction of this before. Prisencolin (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as properly closed at the time. New information? Have you discussed this with the closer? You should. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spoke to @Good Olfactory: about this and he was the one who recommended DRV if I was not satisfied with the outcome.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean User talk:Good Olfactory#Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent. I meant, did you ask the closer about your new information and how to best move forwards. This DRV is not forward looking. You put GO in a difficult spot, he should not encourage you to take this particular issue to DRV, but as closer he must not discourage it, as a matter of principle. This is not for DRV because: No content is deleted; and, there is no criticism of the CfD process itself; and, there is no complaint that the closer mis-read the discussion. Instead, you have come forward with “new information”. Does your new information refute CfD !voting statements? No, not obviously, it is too subtle at best. The war forwards I suggest is a talk page discussion somewhere, and perhaps an RfC. Be warned however, my gut feel from reading the discussions is that in the end you may not be agreed with. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Gauging_possibility_of_DRV I did message him later presenting my new evidence, and he replied " I have no objection to a DRV for the discussion that I closed," and saying the decision was mine, and mine alone. The new evidence is an analysis of reliable sources which describe several individuals as belonging with the category (see one of my comments below for the link well). I opened a CFD at some point but it was closed (by a participant in the CFD) for violation of RFC rules.
      • I'm not trying to argue against fundamental nature of the CFD, as this is prohibited at DRV per "to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed)." However now that you specifically asked of me, I will contend that the CFD process has had issues with its insular nature for years. In 2009 DRV overturned the delete closing of a CFD, with the admin noting: "Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of CFD is that it is a very low-traffic page, so it is more likely than with, say, AFD, that a page which is genuinely encyclopedic and useful will be deleted due to WP:SILENCE". Note that several of the !voters at that discussion are still active at CFD and thus I believe is the same issue that led to Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent to be deleted. I have attempted to highlight this trend at WP:ANI after lengthy dispute with several users turned uncivil. --Prisencolin (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is true, there is a history of criticism of the CfD culture itself. You could try asking User:Good Olfactory if CfD is broken. I may have made that allegation myself, but it was a provocative allegation, and a long time ago. Back then, I had the impression that closers were sometimes WP:Supervoting CfDs with poor participation based upon how they usually closed. Subsequently, I modified my allegation to "CfD needs more diverse participants". Anyone who agrees with this may consider adding themselves to Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants. I learned that Wikipedia category lore is esoteric, hard to grasp initially, but based on a firm logic. Looking at this particular CfD, I see zero hint of a Supervote, or a problem with process. I believe that post-close new information calls for a fresh talk page discussion, not a DRV nomination. I am not sure what talk page is best, but except for asking advice, I advise against using anyone's user_talk page. If in doubt of the best place to discuss, I recommend asking at WT:CfD. It is possible that this DRV could mandate a "relist" of the CfD based on your new information, but that is not my !vote, I am not persuaded that your new information overcomes others' reasons for not having this category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • SmokeyJoe well remembers that "CfD is broken" is my trigger phrase. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • SmokeyJoe Just added myselfto Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants. I'm attributing the waning interest to not displaying cats on the mobile Wikipedia view. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Forum shopping (statement by participant, also in many of the listed CfD) — Prisencolin did not participate in the first 4 CfD; that does not make it "new" information. Rather, that makes it precedent that we follow for subsequent discussion. Multiple editors have explained that we don't categorize "by descent" from cities or regions. The original migrants may be categorized as "People from" the city or region, but only where notable and defining. That matches the claim for Tung Chee-hwa. A person born in China should not be categorized "of Chinese descent". Their immediate decendents after emigration may be of "Chinese descent". These are well established guidelines upheld at CfD. Prisencolin has been WP:VERBOSE, WP:BLUDGEONING, and spamming RFCs and other new discussions outside of CfD contrary to WP:RFCNOT.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple users have been peddling the same misinformation that you are, probably because you are the one who originated said notion. In no way is there a rule that says “we don’t categorize by decent from cities or regions”, and the fact that you are removing mention of Wikipedia:Category_names#Heritage or WP:EGRS, which ostensibly contained said guideline is proof that you’re making it up AND covering your tracks. Further, this should be of no concern because I have evidence that “Shanghainese” is in fact an ethnicity, which you have not only have you ignored at least twice, but continue ignoring after I pointed out you are ignoring.—Prisencolin (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two more examples of people of Hong Kong birth, Carrie Lam and Maggie Cheung, along with a set of quotations for each seen here: User:Prisencolin/sh—Prisencolin (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:People of Chaoshanese descent has existed since 2010 and survived a CFD in 2016 so the "precedent" about Chinese descent categories has not existed for very long. Further, the implied notion of "Their immediate decendents after emigration may be of "Chinese descent" is very divorced from sociological and anthropological reality... Chinese sub-ethnic communities persist long after the first generation of diaspora to a foreign country.
  • Actually, if you look at the previous four discussions in which consensus was said to have been reached. 1, 2, 3 (all nominated on the same day as the "Shanghainese" category) they were deleted more on the basis of WP:NARROWCAT rather than on the basis of the intrinsic value of categorizing by sub-national or sub-ethnic identity. There was a !vote saying "We do not generally split national ancestry categories by region (or dialect spoken), for any nation, as there would be no end to that. ", but that was met with a rebuttal pointing out that Category:American people of French-Canadian descent exists.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nothing wrong with the close. The forum shopping, bludgeoning, and darn near close to Wikipedia:Harassment should not be condoned. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:OCEGRS is apparently misunderstood by User:Prisencolin. The guideline provides a necessary condition for an ethnic category to exist, not a sufficient condition. On top of that, the discussants were not aligned (to put it mildly) on whether this concerns an ethnic category at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I presented solid evidence from academic literature which explicitly called "Shanghainese" and "Ethnicity" I had no objections to those specific comments, other than your admission that an article about the subject was suitable for the project. The only objections to whether "Shanghainese" is an "ethnicity" or "ethnic category" not only came before I brought up those sources but were also purely speculatory e.g. "But this suffers further from some misconception that "Shanghainese" is a definable ethnicity. We would never have Category:Los Angeles people of Bostonian descent or anything akin to that." (this comment itself errs in not realizing that Hong Kong was not even the same country as the mainland and remains on a separate passport/visa system)--Prisencolin (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse because the appeal is incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So its seems my English is poorer than I thought... what part needs clarification?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer to User:Prisencolin - None of it needs clarification. It is too long, and says too little. Any further attempt to clarify or explain would just provide more syntax without semantics. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok.... well what can I even do to reduce the nomination message down to something comprehensible? I thought I presented my new evidence clearly and concisely enough (initially I had three additional paragraphs written but I cut that out). Admittedly the AFD discussion does seem rather hard to follow for anyone without knowledge of the subject matter as to make it not exactly clear what I'm trying to refute here.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is there a .gif on this page that displays a visual pattern that causes appellants to post walls of text that are semantically valid and have no semantic meaning? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have to re-install your internet, I will mail you the floppy disk containing the software.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The nominator's rationale for deletion review was more succinctly stated in this edit on the closer's talk page which read in part:

It's clear that these people don't know what they're talking about ...

That's actually not an uncommon sentiment in CFD since there are often subject matter experts in a specific area interacting with generalists who are very familiar with category guidelines. That tension is productive though and leads to better categories for the encyclopedia since either side can carry the day. (Disclosure: I did not participate in this CFD nom but did provide feedback in a follow up nom.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional new evidence: The central question of this discussion seems to be "Is Shanghainese an ethnic group?" As such some kind of neutral source on ethnography needs to be consulted. I have obtained an excerpt of David Levinson's Ethnic Groups Worldwide (1998) which was cited as an WP:NPOV and authoritative source in the nomination for an article on another ethnic group (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian people) :

While not ethnically homogeneous, China is dominated by the Han Chinese, who account in general for 92% of the population but com prise an even higher percentage of the population in the densely populated eastern provinces and cities. Han number about 1 .05 billion and are the dominant ethnic group in the nation. There is significant variation within the Han and important distinctions are based on region (north or south), residence (urban or rural), and dialects of the Chinese language (Gan, Hakka, Mandarin or Pei. Min Nan or Hokkien, Min Pei, Wu, Xiang or Hunan. Yue or Cantonese). Experts disagree whether the speakers of the Hakka and Hokkien dialects should be classified as Han or as distinct groups. The Han are the culturally, politically, and economically dominant ethnic group in China.

• This should be enough evidence to at least overturn the assertions of !voters that Shanghainese (synonymous with Wu) is definitely not an ethnic group. Special thanks to WP:RS for help finding the book excerpt.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s been a few days... are there are comments/criticisms of this source I brought up? Hopefully this isn’t overlooked during closing...Prisencolin (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to ping anyone because I'm assuming all relevant parties have already seen this, but can I get comment on this new source?--Prisencolin (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read it: there significant regional variation between Han communities, and there is not a consensus on whether some should be viewed as distinct groups. Similar claims were already presented in the original CFD nom though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source still says it is an "important distinction," as such we can subsume that "distinction == WP:DEFINING" for the purposes of categorization.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the outcome was very clear, and nothing has changed which would make this a valid category. SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landspeeder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• • I have a problem here with the closer's statement that no consensus was reached. This is not correct. The vote was 12-4 to keep. We need to adopt a new policy in which when a vote, whether to keep or delete, specially by such a margin like this one (12-4 to keep) then the argument closer should not be able to close it as "no-consensus" because a 6-6 is a no consensus, or a 1-1, even a close vote like 12-10 could be called no-consensus, but 75 percent of the vote clearly shows a consensus. Many times also, the closer who writes "no consensus" happens to be the deletion nominator, so that comment can be used to benefit the closer's desired outcome since many arguments that are closed as "no consensus" are put back on VFD months later. Antonio Bunkers Martin (dime?) 04:02, 9 February, 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. The closer stated that they weighted arguments, not just votes. No consensus signifies that the arguments on one side, while less numerous, were in the closers opinion better than the arguments on the other sides. The closer should be commended on reading the arguments, and not just closing based on a simple vote count. Anyway, no consensus is a little different from the keep, so there is really no problem here unless anyone wants to argue for a deletion? Lastly per User_talk:AntonioMartin#Editing_other_people's_closes, editing other people's closed is a no-no. Please don't do this again (instead, a discussion here is the right choice). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have closed as keep, but ultimately there is no effective difference between the effect of a keep or a no consensus closure, so no action here. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a marginal case; as those advocating deletion were quite strong and convincing in their arguments, I thought NC would be more acceptable all round; plus as Stifle says, the net effect on the article is the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The OP's reference to VFD shows their seniority. The discussion was also notable in getting another veteran, Lar, to wake up. WP:DGFA advises closers to "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." and it doesn't appear that this was done. The entire discussion was absurd as the subject is such an iconic part of the Star Wars universe that deletion was never an option from the outset. The nomination proposed alternatives such as redirection and merger rather than deletion and so should have been speedily closed. All the Delete !votes should have been discounted as failing to understand what the nomination was proposing. The Delete !votes were instead based on WP:FANCRUFT which is not a policy or guideline. The closer's view that this was strong was erroneous and contrary to WP:DGFA which states that "Arguments that contradict policy ... are frequently discounted. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and think "common sense and respect[ing] the judgement and feelings of Wikipedia participants" was very much done, which a close like "The result was keep" (end discussion) .... doesn't. However, for the record I discounted the following !votes following Sandstein's relist : "Keep Current sources shows WP:GNG", "Delete Fancruft Fails WP:GNG" and "Keep I've read all the arguments above, and I find myself in the speedy keep camp" (implying the nomination was somehow in bad faith). A secondary reason for deciding NC was the excessive discussion between Lar and Piotrus, which drowned out a lot of other arguments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I'm sympathetic to the people who believe this should be "keep", but judging consensus is up to administrators. If we're going to turn it to a strict numerical !vote, a straw poll, then that concept has to be made policy. I !voted to delete. It was kept. That's the bottom line. What is the fuss? Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The “keep” !votes are all weak. The include empty claims of meeting the GNG, and “keep” !voters listing sources have listed non-independent sources. It couldn’t be closed as “delete” because the sources were not comprehensively demonstrated to be non GNG qualifying, and because WP:BEFORE requires looking at merge and redirect targets, which I’m sure exist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the keep !votes are weak, though not all (some provide sources that while debatable, aren't weak). The delete !votes however are also mostly pretty weak (no discussion of sources, just a "doesn't meet GNG, CRUFT". Hobit (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true. With a little GNG-source-analysis, some "keep" !votes could have been refuted, but merely asserting that sources don't meet the GNG is weak. The nomination was strong, except that the case was not made upfront for a deletion as opposed to a merge and redirect. WP:BEFORE requires this. I recommend those arguing deletion to first try merging to elsewhere, and only come back to AfD when that is blocked. AfD is not good for forcing mergers. On my first look, I was surprised at "NC" versus "Keep", but then came to see and agree with the closer's point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse I'm generally loath to overturn an NC outcome, but this one is close. That said, I think NC isn't a crazy reading. The nom was on-point. The delete !votes were mostly weak, but so were the keep !votes. Eh. Numbers were heavily keep. I think keep was a better close, but NC is probably within discretion. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I do understand this appeal. The appeal is concise; only the AFD is lengthy, and it is the job of the closer to review the AFD, which they did. The closer concluded that the Delete arguments are essentially that it is fancruft, and that the Keep arguments are essentially that it is fancruft, and they don't agree as to what to do with the fancruft. The close of No Consensus seems correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One lesson of this AfD, if there is any, is that interested persons should avoid getting involved in lengthy argumentation. It tends to cloud over the process and is helpful to no one. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No action I cannot endorse the close as it strains the edge of plausibility discretion. However, since a no-consensus close does default to keep as Stifle describes, I think a no-action close of this appeal is appropriate. I agree that the keep position could have been stronger as the closer described, but the delete position was also on the weak side as Hobit explains. --Enos733 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Andrew Davidson. NC is not an immediately harmful close, even if incorrect, but if the AfD is going to be noted in the talk page, this DRV should be linked as well to provide context for the next AfD whether or not the appeal is sustained--as there will inevitably be a next AfD sometime. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. For the 'no consensus' close to stand, the closer would have had to provide a lot more detailed explanation why the 'keep' votes were discounted. Nsk92 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. Ordinarily disputing the difference between a no consensus outcome and a keep outcome is a fool's errand, but this discussion invokes policy matters of consequence. The keep !voters essentially argue that the coverage of various expressions of the "landspeeder" fictional concept, both inside and beyond the immediate context of the underlying films, should be viewed collectively in assessing notability. The delete !voters argue that the coverage should be partitioned and viewed as discrete subjects. Neither argument is clearly unreasonable, and both are consistent with notability standards. The consensus as expressed in the discussion was to view the coverage collectively. For the closer to reject this consensus and preference a different reading of notability policy was an impermissible supervote; their action is therefore invalid and should be corrected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: If this discussion concludes as you suggest, the practical effect will be exactly zero. The article will still be kept. As far as I can determine, if it has any effect whatsoever it will be to encourage more discussions of this kind after AfDs that have no practical effect whatsoever. Am I mistaken? Isn't that the bottom line here? That an admin exercised his judgment and reached a determination under the rules. Or perhaps there will be an impact, a negative one, in that admins will be encouraged to treat AfDs as strictly numerical votes, and not to use their discretion in weighing the strength of arguments. That is of course precisely what AntonioMartin, who commenced this discussion, is seeking. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference between Keep and No Consensus is not zero. If the close is No Consensus then this encourages the deletionists to try renominations, mergers or anything else they can think of to make the article go away. A Keep provides some deterrent against further vexatious nominations. Though even a Keep is not a sure thing -- see Jack Schlossberg for a recent example of WP:NOTAGAIN. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. But I've seen articles deleted and then they magically reappear, so even a deletion is not a guarantee the issue won't go away. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I'm confused by your invoking WP:NOTAGAIN. That is in an essay on arguments to avoid. Coretheapple (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other policy and guideline pages which make the same point, such as WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." For another fresh example, see Caroline Killeen. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Given that 75% of the discussion wasn't actually about the subject itself but about a LEGO model, and a lot of the comments that were about the subject were vague handwaving, No Consensus is probably correct here. I may well have closed it the same way. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably be OK with a 'no consensus' close if the closing admin provided a more substantive closing statement explaining their reasoning. The closing statement given in this AfD is pretty strange and rather crypric. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- When you take away the vacuous votes and dishonest misrepresentations of the speedy keep policy you don't end up with 12-4 but closer to 3-3 and that's definitely in NC territory. AfD is not a vote count, and arguments that policy should be modified to make it one don't belong at DRV. I'm also concerned with statements like Many times also, the closer who writes "no consensus" happens to be the deletion nominator- that wasn't the case here so even if that statement were generally true (and I've seen no evidence that it is) it wouldn't apply here. Reyk _YO! 13:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Looking through the discussion, the keep !votes are so non-source-based that I would be persuaded to recommend overturning to delete if it wasn't for the fact consensus can override our notability policies when there's enough support to keep and not enough will to adhere to our standards. The keep voters made no GNG-based argument at all. SportingFlyer T·C 14:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superkombat Fighting Championship (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I request the undeletion of Superkombat Fighting Championship (plus all its pages - the years), because a mistake was made back in time. First of all this article had been deleted several times in the past because in the beginning the kickboxing promotion was unknown. And also there was a war on Wikipedia from the MMA "users" against kickboxing, until new regulations.

My reasons are:

1. These are precious info for the history of the sport, SUPERKOMBAT of top promoter Eduard Irimia is considered the 2nd best promotion of Europe all-time after the Netherlands-based It's Showtime. Before it was called Local Kombat (2003-2013). SUPERKOMBAT had headquarters in Bucharest, Romania, but also in London, Las Vegas and New York City.

2. SUPERKOMBAT was named Promotion of the Year in 2011 in front of GLORY (Ultimate Glory), that now is according to the Kickboxing task force "the kickboxing's UFC - World No 1. promotion in the world". Additionally, In 2015 SUPERKOMBAT was nominated in the top 4 kickboxing promotions of the world.

3. GLORY champions Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira and Pavel Zhuravlev competed in SUPERKOMBAT. GLORY title challengers Benjamin Adegbuyi, Daniel Ghiță, Errol Zimmerman, Mladen Brestovac, Anderson Silva, Yousri Belgaroui and Yoann Kongolo competed in SUPERKOMBAT. GLORY tournament winners Ismael Londt and D'Angelo Marshall competed in SUPERKOMBAT. Other top 10 kickboxers in their divisions competed in SUPERKOMBAT: Roman Kryklia (currently #2 heavyweight), Zabit Samedov (current #6 heavyweight), Murat Aygün (current #8 heavyweight), Tarik Khbabez (current #9 heavyweight), Felipe Micheletti (current #8 light heavyweight), Zinedine Hameur-Lain (current #10 light heavyweight), Igor Bugaenko (current #6 middleweight), Jamie Bates (current #5 welterweight) and many more from the past rankings. Several of these are SUPERKOMBAT products, it is proved that no other promotion has been feeding GLORY like SUPERKOMBAT.

4. SUPERKOMBAT is not on Wikipedia, but even regional kickboxing promotions are allowed, such as King in the Ring, W5, Global Fighting Championship and more. Just saying, make justice for SUPERKOMBAT.

5. SUPERKOMBAT had received coverage from the largest European newspapers such as MARCA, Gazeta Sporturilor etc. It had a contract with the most known sports European channel Eurosport and also with CBS Sports in the United States of America. SUPERKOMBAT's official YouTube channel has fights with over 1 million views. 1 and 2

6. SUPERKOMBAT only in its SUPERKOMBAT Academy invested 5 million dollars. source

7. SUPERKOMBAT was still deleted, although 5 people said to Keep it and 3 to Delete it (4 with the nominator). The nominator Jayjg retired later from Wikipedia.

8. Superkombat breaks attendance record in Europe Superkombat garnered an astounding 34,000 people in Comănești. The previous record was set over nine years ago at the Amsterdam Arena in the Netherlands during the K-1 World Grand Prix 2007 in Amsterdam.

9. Superkombat co-promoted together with K-1, including at the K-1 finals with Superkombat offering them their fighters. Nearly all the fighters in K-1 were from Superkombat in 2012. https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/4/17/4235276/superkombat-partnership-k-1-k1-grand-prix Superkombat officially ends partnership with K-1]

10. Superkombat appears in the movie Creed II, the ring advertizing with Superkombat source

.karellian-24 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide the best two or three sources that count toward WP:N? All the rest doesn't really matter if you can't. The bar for articles that don't meet WP:N is very high indeed and the closer has significant discretion when considering how to treat those WP:IAR arguments. Hobit (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Here they are, basically 2 sources saying Superkombat is a big kickboxing promotion, being named Promotion of the Year in 2011 and being nominated among the top 4 promotions in the world four years later in 2015. 3rd and 4th sources, Superkombat is a broadcast on CBS Sports Network and on Eurosport. Is that enough? If not, find out Glory champions Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira and Pavel Zhuravlev competed in Superkombat. Glory now is the kickboxing's UFC.—.karellian-24 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another highly valid source for re-creation. Superkombat breaks attendance record in Europe. —.karellian-24 (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of any of the numerous deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Does the appellant have a conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. I don't work in sports, just a kickboxer editor asa hobby. It is a bit hilarous because Superkombat is not on Wikipedia, when there are valid reasons. Everything from Romania is rejected at the highest level, otherwise I can't explain! The article was well written, it does not even need a draft. I can just correct it a bit. See this: Superkombat breaks attendance record in Europe. —.karellian-24 (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation in Draft if that is what the appellant is requesting, but, in view of the history, the appellant should be aware that the reviewers will be skeptical, and that the title may be salted if the draft isn't a reasonable effort, and that the question about conflict of interest must be answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. No evidence or rationale provided in support of the assertion that the consensus at the previous and numerous AFDs is incorrect. The nominator's submissions, particularly the writing of Superkombat in all caps, tends to suggest a conflict of interest. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are you serious? And this is an argument? Superkombat Fighting Championship is written "SUPERKOMBAT Fighting Championship", it is their official stylization, not mine. I have 2 and a half years on Wikipedia, was Superkombat on Wikipedia to be part of a conflict of interest? I am mainly editing kickboxing. See ONE Championship, we refer to this promotion as "ONE". Glory is also stylized "GLORY" in their official description on the official site: "The world's premier kickboxing league, GLORY World Series maintains six different weight classes." This is really big injustice, think before! I just want to emphasis it is about this promotion and the people to read. I did not even know how to request this review but I got help from another administrator. —.karellian-24 (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Being World's No 1 kickboxing promotion in 2011 and Top 4 in 2015, is not enough for you? Being live on CBS Sports and Eurosport for years? Or providing most of the top fighters in Glory (kickboxing's UFC) now? Superkombat also co-promoted with K-1 at their finals. Superkombat officially ends partnership with K-1 —.karellian-24 (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Superkombat also appears in the movie Creed II, the ring advertizing with Superkombat source —.karellian-24 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I asked .karellian-24| to supply links or references for "coverage from the largest European newspapers". Has that happened yet? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sorry, here is it. MARCA and More, Frank Muñoz after the win became in 2013 Sportsman of the Year in Menorca and also honorary citizen, also received the gold distincios of Spain. And from Gazeta Sporturilor, source. From Prosport, source. I can also bring multiple sources where Superkombat are called "giants" or the "promotion No 1 of Europe". But all the sources were there in the former article, just that a mistake was made.—.karellian-24 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Largest martial arts magazine in Germany had also often sent teams in Romania for coverage even on Youtube. Bloody Elbow in the USA had also written about Superkombat multiple times. Here the first 6 sources say Superkombat is big or the largest promotion in Europe.—.karellian-24 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for letting me know about the issues with style at One Championship. I have fixed them. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In this case the appellant has posted at length on my user talk page, whether because there is a disorienting visual pattern or for some other reason, and the post on my user talk page seems incomprehensible, so I am not changing my Endorse, but have struck my Allow Re-Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, undeletions I request of those pages. My English may not be very convincing. —.karellian-24 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The appellant has again posted on my talk page, asking how long the Deletion Review runs. This time their post is short enough that I understand it. I answered that a Deletion Review normally runs for a week. I see no reason to change my post, let alone to ask anyone else to change their posts. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draftspace. Most of the arguments the OP makes are completely irrelevant to notability but a few of the sources provided do indicate that the subject is likely notable. The highly chaotic nature of this request suggests to me that it would be a mistake to simply restore the deleted pages directly to mainspace. Almost certainly the page(s) need further work and updating with WP:RS and preferably should be routed through AfC. In fact, given how many times the page had been deleted, I think that routing its recreation through AfC should be mandated here as a part of the DRV close. Nsk92 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The subject is indeed notable. It should be on Wikipedia and if I remember well there are well written all these articles. I will personally bring improvements. But imagine I work at kickboxing history for 2 months maybe, what guarantee I have it will be kept after so much injustice? Do you know how much work it is? Better would be to restore it completely. I really appreciate it if you decide to undelete and correct this big injustice. Maybe it was not notable at the beginning of 2011, but at the end of 2011 it was already the world's No 1 kickboxing promotion according to WIPU. And from there because it was previously deleted they kept deleting. In 2015 it was nominated again between top 4 kickboxing promotions of the world. Today we have on Wikipedia even regional promotions, 20 or 30th worldwide, but not Superkombat which is important part of the kickboxing history. —.karellian-24 (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Stokes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. The closer of this deletion discussion erred in that the close was "Notability is not inherited and therefore the consensus is this doesn't meet GNG." emphasis added. But "notability being inherited" was never an issue in the discussion. And was not an issue in the article.

2. Furthermore, the closer did not take note that 2 of the votes were by editors who relied on an essay. While ignoring GNG.

3. Also, the closer did not take note of the fact that up until the last substantive entry in the AfD, a half dozen GNG-supporting articles had not been considered by the voters. That last post set forth those GNG-supporting articles, which satisfy GNG. Specifically:

a) "Fallujah "Point Man" Earns Silver Star" in Newsweek, which has a link to b) tv station KCRA coverage (and mentions c) Marine Corps Times coverage of the fellow);

d) "Marine Cpl. Sean A. Stokes, 24, Auburn; killed by improvised explosive" in the LA Times; and

e) "War hero awarded Silver Star after his death" in the San Francisco Chronicle; and

f) "LOP mourns Marine's death" in Gold Country Media; and

g) "The American Platoon; The Battle of Fallujah and its impact on a group of young Marines" in the National Review has a few paragraphs on him.

4. I was unable to inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion, as closer has limited those who can leave talk page messages for closer.

2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC) ~[reply]

• Overturn. Perhaps the closer thought this was like most of the other soldier articles being sent to AFD recently where some editors stated that having a military ship named after you was a notable award, and others argued you didn't inherit notability because a ship was named after you. Or was it because I mentioned he was notable enough to have coverage of his him and his historic battle featured in a notable book and an episode of a show on the History Channel? Coverage equals notability. Plus reliable sources found covering him as mentioned above. Dream Focus 18:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with trout When you have this level of RS coverage, an "it's not notable" !vote should not be accorded any weight at all. The real question is whether votes based on WP:SOLDIER are reasonable. WP:SNG makes it clear that they are not. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the closing admin has been notified by DreamFocus already, and didn't indicate an inclination to participate here. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To further dive into WP:SOLDIER, it basically starts with the GNG, and elaborates a number of categories of people who should be presumed notable in absence of clear, obvious RS evidence, such as general/flag officers, capital ship captains, and the like. It's simply not possible to pass the GNG and "fail" SOLDIER, because of how that essay is structured in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• relist OK, I get why the closer didn't relist--it had been listed a ton. But we *finally* got a real discussion of sources. I think the numbers make a keep close hard. I don't think NC is quite right. So I'd say the best thing to do here is a relist with a remand to discuss the sources. Or probably better, the closer should have chimed in with their thoughts on the sources and let someone else close. But you can't delete material with sources that *appear* to be so good without discussion of those sources. I'm also okay with overturning to NC or even overturning to keep if that's the outcome here, but I think relist was the best option. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I discussed the sources. The closer saw the sources. Everyone here can see the sources. The sources don't merely "appear" to be so good. They are so good. We can consider the sources at deletion review. This would not be the first time that a deletion review ended w a keep because the sources clearly in the eyes of the reviewers met gng. And as Jclemens says, the votes based on Soldier were not reasonable ones to be given any weight either. Finally - adding to how peculiar the closer's actions were - the afd had just been relisted two days prior. And these refs were shared .. and for some reason within hours of when they were shared, the closer rushed to close the Afd. Very peculiar.2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the page was based on a number of unreliable sources not amounting to SIGCOV in multiple RS. I assume that the IP above is the same one who added the low-quality Newsweek article to the page yesterday, but as they refuse to create an account its impossible to know. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the a-g sources linked above in this DRV, please articulate which, if any, you believe to not count as contributing to notability, and why--it's not clear to me that any of them are obviously unreliable, so I'd appreciate your reasoning. Also, please stop ABF'ing about the IP address: he's arguing from sources and policy. If you suspect a sock, WP:SPI is thataway.... Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I explained my issues with the sources at the AFD. In relation to the IP, I do not AGF when an IP appears out of nowhere and argues policy. Of course they're a returning User, but the entire setup of WP allows IP's to edit easily, while proving them as socks is time-consuming and too frequently inconclusive.Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have any opinion about this article, but we really need to knock on the head this argument that new users can't possibly argue properly. My first edit to Wikipedia, in 2007, was to an AfD discussion and I was perfectly capable of citing policy although I had never edited before. Where do people get this idea from that it is impossible for a new editor to be intelligent, or simply to be able to read? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you first edit from an IP in 2007 or did you create an account? Clearly the IP is not a new User. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you must know I created an account, but that question is totally irrelevent to my point. As you seem unwilling to take the few seconds needed to see my first contribution it was this. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Mztourist So, to make sure I understand your arguments, this is the sum total of your objections to all of the sources presented both in the AfD and/or as repeated in the DRV request above? Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the Newsweek article is rubbish for the reasons stated. The Marines story is WP:PRIMARY. LA Times is just a very brief note of California's dead in OIF. The DoD Silver Star list just states that he was a recipient. Military Times just gives his medal citations. In relation to We Were One: Shoulder to Shoulder with the Marines Who Took Fallujah see the Publisher's Weekly review which states "Though these Marines fought with great courage and the details of their battle make gripping reading, the author's uncritical cheerleading reduces their accomplishment to fantasy heroics." Sean Andrew Stokes Memorial is obviously a blog and the story is written by the same author who wrote We Were One. D-Day Fallujah on History Channel is of dubious reliability. The Wikileaks story is about the incident in which he died but doesn't identify him by name. So to me its a scrappy collection of low quality sources that do not aggregate to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm asking about the sources a-g posted here in the DRV. The LA times link above is this. In no way, shape, or form does it remotely resemble "a very brief note of California's dead in OIF" as you've characterized it immediately above. I'm guessing that you read a different LA Times piece, and didn't notice that this link was to a different and more substantial piece directly relating to this subject. Am I correct? Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm referring to all the references on the page. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please participate in the discussion by reading and commenting the sources provided above. I am unclear why you are commenting on the sources in the article, rather than those raised in the AfD and/or repeated here. Notability decisions are to be based on the existence of sources, not the sources currently in the article, per WP:NEXIST. Again, please review sources a-g listed above and articulate how any of them are not independent reliable sources that cover the article subject in detail. Jclemens (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Request Temporary Undelete. Can't decide whether close is appropriate without seeing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily undeleted for DRV. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 04:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The numerical preponderence of "delete"s makes a delete closure in one way understandable, but a full assessment of an AFD requires the strength of arguments to be analyzed. In this discussion, a number of sources were presented as evidence of notability. Apart from a WP:BITEing of an IP-editor along with unsupported allegations of the IP being a banned user, the entire argument on the delete side amounted to "fails WP:SOLDIER" or something along those lines, with no arguments as to why the sources were insufficient. As such, the merits of the argument should carry the day for the "keep" side, and if the "delete" side still wishes to delete, some arguments refuting the impact of the presented source material must be made. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle see my comments on all the page sources above. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus:
  • • Closing is not a vote count, but votes should be counted.
    • Deletion is not warranted by a naive vote count.
    • Deletion is not warranted by strength of arguments.
    • The strongest arguments were that the subject passes GNG, and GNG is always an argument in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I was saddened to now read this exchange.[17]2603:7000:2143:8500:90B2:2512:1834:A779 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to 'No consensus'. As noted by others, all of the 'delete' votes, except one, were perfunctory and did not try to justify their opinion(s) that the article fails WP:GNG/WP:SOLDIER, while several of the 'keep' votes discussed the sources in significant detail. Moreover, as the OP notes above, the 'Notability is not inherited' rationale invoked by the closer looks completely mysterious and appears to be some sort of a misdirected supervote. Nsk92 (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The AFD discussion was almost entirely bereft of reasoned discussion, dominated by unsubstantiated assertions on both sides about the reliability of sources. Since several presumably reliable newspaper sources were listed, and none of the delete !voters made any substantive arguments to undermine their weight, whatever balance there was in the discussion tilted to keep. The closer's "not inherited" rationale is unexplained and not reflective of the discussion. It should therefore be overturned absent a substantive response from the closer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Did not notify WikiProject Venezuela, and if they had someone would have told them "heroine" is an actual title - these women were given the honor "heroine"/heroína - not a neutrality concern, i.e. see at the articles in the category like Ana María Campos. Kingsif (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This does seem like relevant information. Pinging interested parties: @Lettler: (CfD nominator), @Rosiestep, Dimadick, Marcocapelle, RevelationDirect, Justus Nussbaum, and Johnpacklambert: (!voters), @Good Olfactory: (closing admin). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question The CFR template automatically added the notice right here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela. (I can't do a section link but it's on the right, about half way down, under Article alerts, Categories for discussion.) @Kingsif: What do you mean that WikiProject Venezuala was not notified of the rename? - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another notice appeared right here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Article alerts. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XfD templates being automatically added to a procedural page is not notifying a WikiProject; at least, not suitably. A courtesy message at the talk page is expected. WP Venezuela even has a deletion discussion page that this was not added to. Kingsif (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not our documented process.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Would you might putting a strikethrough the part of this nomination that said the WikiProject was not notified, since your concern is how they were notified not whether they were notified. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I wasn't so much saying there was a procedural deficiency, but that if anyone in the original discussion had thought to ask someone who might have subject knowledge (i.e. at the WikiProject, and would have endeavored to make sure the message was received) then the mistaken basis for renaming wouldn't have been made. I'm not arguing for or against rename or deletion, nor that the original decision be discarded for not being filed properly, but that all the !votes were made on an incorrect assumption and nobody bothered to seek the truth. If your proposal for rename/deletion is coming from a name issue, you should make sure to find out if there's actually an issue at all first. That's the complaint about not actually trying to communicate with the WikiProject. Kingsif (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (as participant) for four reasons: 1) There was no procedural deficiency in the nomination; the multiple WikiProject notices were just overlooked. 2) The claim that there was not a neutrality violation because there is a non-defining award called "heroine" just moves the issue from WP:NPOV to WP:OCAWARD. 3) The !votes here were not close. 4) The reason they were not close is because Category:Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence is a clearer name more likely to aid navigaiton. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you claiming that this award isn't a defining characteristic of most of the people in the category? It seems likely it would be. And the new name is really an utterly different thing. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It appears that the appellant is saying that "heroine" is a specific honor that is conferred, often posthumously, on women who were freedom fighters in the Venezuelan Revolution, comparable to a knighthood or a medal. You have the honor if the government confers the honor on you. The question for navigation should be whether the reader who is using the category to search is looking for women whom editors think took part in the Revolution, or for women who were given the title of "heroine" for their participation in the Revolution. So it comes down to whether we expect that the reader wants to use the category as a list of people who have received a certain honor. User:Kingsif - Is that a correct statement of what your appeal is about? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. And I guess "Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence" is also vaguely inaccurate since many of them didn't fight, either (I'm actually not sure if any did at all). I.e. the original discussion was opened for the wrong reasons (someone falsely assumed a neutrality issue, people voted based on that), and the new name is wrong for the pages being sorted. There shouldn't be any name discussion besides reinstating what is accurate; if you now also want to discuss whether having a category for these women is valuable, that's a different thing that perhaps needs a different discussion. Either way, I think the Wikipedia view is to rather not have a category than have a poorly-named one. Kingsif (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• From a procedural point of view this discussion may be relisted. The outcome of the discussion will most probably not change however, because the new information will be discarded per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even if they were given the title of heroines, it is POV to use it as a category title. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. That's like saying it's POV to describe people given the honorary title "The Most Honourable" as "The Most Honourable". Use heroína is you have to, but it's a title not an adjective. Kingsif (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not categorize by honorary title. IFF there were a membership in a notable organization, that might be something else.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert: I agree that the project should have been notified directly, a CFR template is not enough for the recent (low) activity of the project. Also I do not agree that it is an inaccurate title. The Venezuelan National Pantheon has a list of "heroinas/heroines", soldiers or not, this title is the actual descriptor. Maybe it can be renamed afterwards to National heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence or something like that, but the removal was maybe too quick. --ReyHahn (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of CFD discussions could be overturned on the basis of not manually notifying WikiProjects instead of relying on the automated templates. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as non-participant — the usual notifications were posted, no procedural deficiency. There is no main article for an award of "heroine"/heroína. In general we don't categorize by posthumous awards. If many/most of the women listed were not in fact participants, then "in" should be changed to "of", matching parent Category:People of the Venezuelan War of Independence.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may well be, but an overall new discussion is probably best for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Emdorse it is POV-pushing to use a title like heroine. We do not slavishly follow biased promotional language. Beyond that as designating a specific award this almost certainly violates Over categorization by award. However the general intersection covered by the award is categorizable by, but we should not limit this category explicitly to award recipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few kneejerk counterexamples. —Cryptic 20:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: Those exceptions have been steadily dwindling in CFD though: Category:Heroes of Labour (GDR), Category:National Heroes of Barbados, Category:Places named for Confederate heroes by state, Category:National Heroes of Turkey, Category:Tatar heroes and Category:Heroes of Kosovo have all turned red. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or relist on the presumption that the title is a formal award name, and hence if POV, intractably so based on RS'es and something to be explained rather than suppressed. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close - I really do hate to be bureaucratic, but this was a requested rename, not a requested deletion. The forum for review of rename discussions, including at CfD, is Wikipedia:Move review. I would recommend a procedural close of this discussion without prejudice to its being reopened at that location. See WP:PCLOSE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The category was deleted, so deletion review seems perfectly appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the category wasn't deleted. It was moved to Category:Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence. See this log entry. As such, move review is the correct forum. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move review supervises proposed moves. Deletion review is the supervisory body for AfD, MfD, CfD, and FfD. This is the correct venue.—S Marshall T/C 12:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That used to be accurate, but as a result of this 2018 RfC, move review was given jurisdiction over CfDs and RfDs that were "limited in scope to renaming". This is why the policy at MR states that "CfDs and RfDs can only be reviewed [at move review] if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion Review" (emphasis added). The CfD at issue here was "limited in scope to renaming," so it "can only be reviewed" at move review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That rather poorly-attended RfC says you can use move review for these, but it doesn't say that you must. I revise my position to read: this is a correct venue.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the clear intent of the RfC was to state that "the deletion review process is not suitable for reviewing move-related discussions." I can't see any contributors expressing the view that move review should become an alternative forum. If anything, that would create an undue degree of bureaucracy, and it would encourage forum-shopping. (It's also just illogical: Why would deletion review review something that wasn't a deletion?) However, since my view pretty clearly isn't going to carry the day, I'll !vote in the alternative to relist for consideration of the newly presented information. Although we do not and should not require notification of WikiProjects, we do allow relisting when new information is presented. That's the situation here, so (if venue is proper, which it isn't) I would relist without expressing an opinion on who is actually right about the category name. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proper forum. CfD is a place where deletion discussions take place, and deletion was a potential outcome in the discussion, even though it was moved. I'm not sure this is the right forum for move discussions on article pages, and I'd never heard of move review until now, but discussions which occur in venues in which deletion could be an outcome are more than welcome here. Enforcing a move to a lesser-used venue on a technicality hurts the project. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The folks at move review are generally more informed about the nuances of naming policy than we are here at DRV, so I do feel that there would be a tangible benefit in enforcing this "technicality". (I freely admit that I'm in the minority here, which is why I cast an alternative !vote.) That being said, the very fact that we have two forums doing the same thing (evaluating consensus in XFDs) is in my view a clear sign of over-bureaucratization, and I would thus support a merger of DRV and MR. That, however, is perhaps a discussion that will have to be saved for another time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't ask deletion nominators to inform WikiProjects, and we never have. In this case the WikiProject was informed but not in the WikiProject's preferred manner. I can't find any procedural defect whatsoever in that respect. However, setting aside that concern, it's clear that the CfD participants thought the "Heroine" title was awarded by Wikipedians, and it wasn't. Contrary to what's posted above, we absolutely do categorize by honorary title, such as Chevaliers of the Légion d'honneur; Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath; and so on. Although deletion review normally corrects procedural defects, it does on rare occasions find that it's necessary to overturn a decision that might have been procedurally correct when the discussion got the facts horribly wrong (example), and I recommend this outcome here. Please would the closer consider specifically saying in the close that it's not needful to inform WikiProjects of deletions.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• relist discussion was flawed. Maybe we shouldn't have the category, but the reason for the move doesn't make sense with the notion this is a specific title/award.didn't sign, sorry, Hobit (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I would relist the article if there was a main article, but we don't have one, so I endorse the change. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I !voted above I for one am finding this discussion to be a bit disappointing. If the original discussion was flawed, we should have another one. There may well be other reasons to delete/rename this category. But those reasons should be debated and they haven't been. Arguments about not having a main article, or not categorizing by honorary title, or whatever don't belong at DRV--they belong at CfD. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: I think we all agree that flawed CFDs should be relisted and CFDs should not be relisted just to add a minor point in the discussion that won't change the outcome. We just happen to sincerely disagree about which of those options describes this situation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every single !vote involved the issue of neutrality, which I think we all agree doesn't really apply. I don't see how that's "adding a minor point". If there are other reasons to delete it, that discussion goes at CfD, not here. The folks here aren't experts on categories... Hobit (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every single !vote supported the nom to keep the category but change the name to better aid navigation. Whether the problematic original category name was due to WP:NPOV or WP:OCAWARD is a minor point. (I appreciate your viewpoint here as an effort to improve the encyclopedia by following the process; people who disagree also think they're improving the encyclopedia by following the process.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm seriously having a problem seeing it that way. Not one person said anything about better navigation. We can agree to disagree here, but I just can't see how you are seeing that. And I don't see a single argument, here or there, that this isn't a defining award for most of these folks. I don't see how we can do something based on OCAWARD without evidence this isn't a defining award. I've no doubt you are trying to improve things, I just feel you are pulling arguments out of the CfD that aren't even vaguely there as far as I can see. Could you explain how you think the discussion at CfD was about better navigation? As I see it, every comment was about POV/neutrality issues, not navigation. What do you think I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that; we likely won't agree here, but I appreciate the conversation. The intro to WP:CAT reads "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages". The WP:CFD discussions are part of that effort to improve navigation, again per the intro to WP:OC and a POV pushing category without navigational benefit would have been deleted outright. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I continue to not see a single argument in the CfD that says anything about navigational benefits and this lacking said benefits. Could you quote something from the discussion that leads you to believe the discussion concluded something about navigational benefits? Hobit (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I've probably missed something, but from what I can tell (several Spanish language searches) this doesn't appear to have been a posthumous award at all, but rather they're just referred to as "heroines" by secondary sources. Overturning this on grounds that it was an award doesn't make sense. If I'm mistaken and we do have evidence someone awarded them posthumously, I don't think OCAWARD is met, but it's probably close enough for an additional discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: Did you mean to leave Endorse or Overturn as bolded? Hobit (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse the rename/the result of the CfD. SportingFlyer T·C 15:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Craig (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer misinterpreted the consensus saying "The result was no consensus. Split between "keep" and "merge" - either of which can be a discussion after this." Completely ignoring the "Redirect" votes which are functionally equivalant to merge, giving a clear consensus for Merge/Redirect Mztourist (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - I concur with the nominator that the closer appears to have overlooked that Merge and Redirect are functionally equivalent. At this point, rather than overturning the close, the least disruptive approach is to Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and merge/redirect - I truly don't see how this could have been closed as anything other than merge/redirect. Including the nominator, there are five policy-based arguments for that outcome, compared with two against it. There's no reason that should have been closed as no consensus, and even a relist would have been inappropriate: there were many participants and the arguments are policy-based. See WP:RELIST. There's a clear consensus that the article should be converted into a redirect, and there's no objection to merging relevant content into the target article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has changed a lot since I !voted, so I want to comment again for the benefit of the closer. The AfD was in order because the nominator proposed deletion. This was not originally a request for merger/redirection, so separate discussion is not required. And even if it was, that's an argument for a procedural close, not for endorsing the no consensus close. The main argument I see throughout this discussion is that the AfD consensus is wrong, whether because the nominator should have discussed, because the nomination was part of some bad-faith mass nom, because the sourcing was adequate, because the article actually could have been merged somewhere else, and even because "the 'keep' !votes were reasonable." But those were issues for the original AfD, not for this discussion. By their !votes, a majority of the AfD participants rejected each of these arguments. The only question now is whether the closer correctly interpreted the consensus, and on that issue the answer is clear: He did not. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree merge was a more accurate summary of the discussion. That said, I really can't imagine the Navy dedicated a DD to someone and doesn't have documentation as to why. Should be a fine source. So with some searching, work and a bit of luck hopefully we can get the bio article back. Hobit (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I told the filer that they could just be bold and redirect as a much simpler option than causing dramah here, but was ignored. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because you ignored the consensus at the AfD and closed it as "no consensus", which is a problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so aggressive? The encyclopedia isn't harmed, nobody died. Chill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above demonstrates exactly why I'm "aggressive" by this. You mis-closed an AfD, doubled down, and are tripling down. To paraphrase an infamously oft-used NASCAR ruling, your actions, quite aside from being frankly wrong, are detrimental to the reputation of the admin corps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the !vote is 6-2 to merge to USS John R. Craig (DD-885), and the keep votes don't really argue against a merge, merely against a delete. (The claim that GNG is met is made with no evidence.) Due to the extreme vitriol in one of the keep votes, I think a DRV is justified here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's exactly the point I was making. Since no administration action is required, a decision as to what to do with the article (add sources and improve it, blank it as a redirect, selectively merging with sources) can be done outside the scope of an AfD, and probably requires a more in-depth discussion. I did not "completely ignore" the "Redirect" votes, I just forgot to write it in the closing rationale, as I was in the middle of closing about 15 other AfDs because we have a backlog. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact you closed as "no consensus" can only be good-faith justified by having skipped over the redirect !votes. The alternative is that it's a WP:SUPERVOTE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist there have been two developments since my previous comment. First, several veteran editors have implied that the purpose of an AFD close is not to assess consensus, but simply to determine what administrative actions are necessary. This is clearly not established practice (or else the AFDCloser options would just be "Delete" and "Do not delete"), and generally seems bizarre to me. Second, Ritchie333 has added another source to the article; this helps the Keep argument and weakens several of the Merge/Redirect arguments. (if you squint there might be an INVOLVED issue, but best to ignore that) It seems more prudent to re-list and to determine whether the added source is indeed substantial coverage of the person (and not the boat). I will note that consensus is clear we should not straight-up delete articles on people who are namesakes of ships which have stand-alone articles, further nominations of that type would be disruptive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • power~enwiki the consensus clearly established here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability is that ship namesakes are not notable by virtue of having a ship named after them, they must independently satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that matters. They must satisfy GNG for the stand-alone article, but when there's a clear alternative-to-deletion that has consensus and that the nominator knows about, an AFD is disruptive. It in fact is not "articles for discussion". power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was responding to your specific comment that "consensus is clear we should not straight-up delete articles on people who are namesakes of ships which have stand-alone articles" to point out that consensus is that just being a ship namesake doesn't establish notability and absent SIGCOV in multiple RS the namesake pages should be merged/redirected into the ship page. Mztourist (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse An AfD was premature, as no merger had been proposed on the talk page and thus regular editing had not yet failed to effect a proposed merge. As one of the participants pointed out, this was previously part of a mass-nom, and then this opened by the same nom after the mass nom was procedurally declined. Is it OK for this to be merged? Sure. Should we be erring on the side of mass nominators? Absolutely not. Procrusteanism is the bane of collegiality, and that is obvious here. Sustaining the Keep closure is not a miscarriage of wiki-justice, as there are two detailed RS'es present in the article, even though only one is cited in our preferred format. Thus, I strongly suggest we in effect remand the merge/redirect/keep discussion to a discussion at the article talk page, rather than subjecting it to arbitrary processes which highlight themselves for drive-by involvement. If the editor proposing the merger/redirection lacks the time to participate in an article-specific editorial/improvement process, then he or she is of course free to not pursue that option. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That defeats the entire purpose of the AfD. The consensus was to merge/redirect. The closer ignored that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually, I think the more correct response would be that using AfD without discussion defeats the point of starting a merge discussion on the talk page first. The nom skipped that, and based on the huge number of individual items in the rejected mass-nom, it's reasonable to assume paid no specific attention to the topic. Overturning the correct answer (and yes, merge/redirect/keep are all functionally equivalent with cosmetic differences) by enforcing a more specific outcome for which no editing discussion was attempted inappropriately rewards 'bad' behavior, and is clearly not the right outcome unless you want to reward those who don't bother with discussion before proposing deletion. By sustaining the close, we send a clear message: Discuss before you nominate, or risk being send back to discuss like you should have done in the first place. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, AFD is the discussion. Requiring Users to first raise a discussion on the Talk Page simply prolongs the process for deleting thinly sourced pages. Merge/redirect/keep are not "all functionally equivalent", otherwise what is the point of AFD? By sustaining the close you are saying that consensus will be ignored. Mztourist (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:PEREN is thataway. It's not Articles for Discussion, and if deletion isn't on the table, it shouldn't remotely be the first resort. If you want to start an RfC to rename AfD, I'd be happy to support it, BTW. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know its articles for deletion, Merge and Redirect are commonly used alternatives to Delete at AFDs and are included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. If the closer doesn't want to close as Merge/Redirect when there is a clear consensus to do so then they shouldn't step up to do the close. Mztourist (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not correct to say that AfD can only be used when the desired outcome is deletion. This RfC established that AfD can be used in cases where the nominator wants to redirect the article and that is disputed, which has been written into the deletion policy. At least two people disagreed with redirecting in the AfD, so it's fair to say that it's disputed here. AfD can't be used for proposing merges, but there is very little difference between redirect and merge in this case. Hut 8.5 08:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Correct, but it was not disputed at the time of nomination, was it? No, because no prior discussion had taken place anywhere to the best of my knowledge. That is the issue: there was never a reason for deletion OR a disputed merge in play, so the number of people saying merge/redirect is all just fine, and that outcome is fine to editorially accomplish. What's not fine is 1) bludgeoning articles with AfD when it's neither needed nor appropriate, and 2) jumping to AfD without prior discussion. AfD is full of nonsense like this, and the best thing we can do is when it's brought to our attention at DRV note that it was never ripe for a deletion (or enforced merge/redirect) discussion in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • These AFDs arose after I PROded a number of pages of single Navy Cross recipients in WWII, which were dePRODed without explanation. Discussion took place on my Talk Page: User talk:Mztourist#Navy ship namesakes and User talk:Mztourist#Proposed deletion of the article Paul Leaman Clark and following that articles were put up to AFD by me and others, many of which closed as delete or merge/redirect (e.g. Paul Leaman Clark. As there are approximately 3-500 such pages it is unrealistic to suggest an individual Talk Page discussion of each, particularly as has been shown 1 or 2 Users will reflexively argue for retention and the page will end up at AFD anyway. Mztourist (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Your PRODs were necessarily out of order, because you later proposed that these articles be merged. PRODs are only for 1) uncontroversial, and 2) deletions--the only way they would have been OK is if you discovered the possibility of redirection after trying to delete them all. The equivalent resolution process for uncontroversial redirects should have been a BOLD redirect. But after the PRODs, you did the mass AfD nom, rejected on procedural grounds, and then this and other AfDs. So you're 0 for 3, by my reckoning, on actually using the right processes to do large-scale cleanups. If you can't be bothered to yes, go through multiple articles and actually be sure there's nothing to sustain them (per WP:BEFORE), the most correct process would have been an RfC. AfD requires individual research to substantiate the topic, individual discussion per situation, and individual outcomes. How many of the "successful" AfDs are actually notable articles that have now been deleted because you couldn't be bothered to spend the time to check each individual Wikipedia article to see if it really merited inclusion or not? Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You should have done a BEFORE and seen that I didn't propose the mass AFD nom, so your analysis and "0 for 3" is flawed. After the articles were dePRODed without explanation I raised the issue on the dePRODer's Talk Page and after receiving a response that indicated that this would be controversial I put the pages up individually for deletion. The mass deletion was closed as a procedural Keep to allow individual discussion of each page. You are welcome to go back through each of the deleted pages and see if any of them "are actually notable articles that have now been deleted". Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Sorry if the details are getting a little fuzzy here, and specifically if you were personally offended by any of it. WP:BEFORE doesn't describe my responsibilities, but your point is taken regardless. People who object to process clarity forget that this kerfuffle is the whole reason such processes exist: to protect the encyclopedia who desire to Right Great Wrongs by deleting things: it's supposed to be hard to do, and I would prefer it were harder still. Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • The fact there was no discussion prior to the AfD doesn't mean AfD was inappropriate. It would be entirely reasonable to start a discussion instead of taking a BOLD action if the decision was expected to be contentious. And if that was what the nominator was expecting then they would have been right, because it was contentious. Above you've compared a BOLD redirect to a PROD. One of the first things the PROD policy says is "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." It's perfectly reasonable to do the same for BOLD redirects. In any case none of this impacts the close. Regardless of the reasons for ending up at AfD, we've had the AfD and the consensus was merge/redirect. Hut 8.5 08:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You can think that, and advocate that, but that's simply not what deletion policy says. The AfD was never proper in the first place, absent a contested merge, and as such, the only thing that it got right was the closer not enforcing a not-elsewhere-previously-discussed outcome. Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Yes, "merge" and "redirect" are functionally equivalent results, but they are both also equivalent to "keep". None of those outcomes requires an administrator to hit the "delete" button, which is the point of AfD. Deciding between those outcomes is a matter for normal, non-admin editing which can take place on the article talk page without any of this attention-seeking at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not how AfD works. At all. If the consensus of a discussion is to merge/redirect, the closing administrator closes it as merge/redirect, not "no consensus because you can do it yourself". Redirect is a perfectly cromulent clsure option. Also your casting aspersions at the end there is highly dissapointing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Either I have misunderstood, or I think that User:Phil Bridger has completely missed the point that User:The Bushranger has made. I have explained in more detail in WP:Purpose of XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reclose as merge/redirect - the closer has said they closed as no consensus because No administrative action is required, so whatever happens to the article after the debate can be done by ordinary editors - which indicates either a fundamental misundersanding of how the AfD closure process works, or a WP:SUPERVOTE. When an AfD's consensus is to merge or redirect an article, the closing administrtor closes the discussion with a result of merge or redirect. They do not entirely ignore the !votes to redirect to claim there is an even number of keep and merge !votes and that therefore there is "no consensus", and they also do not (as seen in the diff above) claim that t the votes were all about as appropriate as each other and thus consider it "even" somehow - in that case the number of !votes does become a factor, and as noted above the merge/redirect has a heavy consensus, while the keeps have one that is very much arguing against a consensus on the subject and the other very heavily castsing aspersions. If I had not !voted in this one and came across it while patrolling AfDs to close, I would have closed as "redirect with content to be merged from history by editors as desired" without hesitation or a second thought; I am utterly shocked at how the closer handled this and has handled the questioning of their clousure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment - I agree with User:The Bushranger. See this essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I just re-read the closer's statement above. a decision as to what to do with the article (add sources and improve it, blank it as a redirect, selectively merging with sources) can be done outside the scope of an AfD, and probably requires a more in-depth discussion.. Wow. I have no idea how to respond to this, aside from that "in-depth discussion" is exactly what the AfD was for! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was not aware of WP:SUPERVOTE before reading it here, but that is clearly what is happening, particularly with the closer becoming WP:INVOLVED by adding a reference to the retained page. The close showed a complete lack of proper process, the consensus was to merge or redirect and that is what the closer should have done. I have serious concerns about the closer's competence to assess and close AFDs given their comments above, ignoring the basic requirements of GNG, i.e. SIGCOV in multiple RS and relisting comments such as this [18] that completely dismiss the views of other Users. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my above comment, I don't feel there's an INVOLVED violation here, it just looks a bit like one. If Ritchie added a reference and then closed the AFD, there would be an issue. If he first closes the AFD based on consensus, there's no reason he or any other editor can't then improve that article. And the re-listing with Edward Costello was clearly correct IMO; none of the delete votes addressed Mccapra's well-made argument. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Just looks a bit like one"? Closer made an incorrect close and then went and added sources to the page to try to justify the NC after being called out on their Talk Page. In relation to Edward Costello, the relist was fine, the relist comments are not valid, the noms, mine and at least one other's are perfectly valid deletion arguments. Mztourist (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge even though I personally think just to have the thing closed was a good idea (but not within discretion in this case). My experience is that merges done by mandate from AFD are not so well done as those done "editorially". Sometimes redirect is taken as delete and redirect by the closing admin. This is undesirable unless there has been consensus for the delete aspect and it would have been a wrong result in this case. Thincat (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect (or merge). The main issue in that discussion was whether the subject should be covered in a standalone article or in the warship article, and consensus was on the side of the warship article. It doesn't make much difference whether this is done through a redirect or a merge, a redirect wouldn't stop people merging later and a merge wouldn't stop people removing the content from the target article later, which would make it functionally equivalent to a redirect. I don't agree with the closing admin's reasoning here. Merge and Redirect have always been valid AfD closures and the fact they don't involve admin action isn't a reason not to close with one of them. BOLDly redirecting it also wouldn't be a good idea because the redirection is disputed. Policy says that in this case the best thing to do is to have a discussion at an appropriate venue, one of which is AfD. Hut 8.5 12:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect or merge, pretty much exactly per Hut 8.5. A controversial WP:BLAR certainly can be discussed at AfD and at the moment AfD can have other outcomes besides 'keep' and 'delete'. A separate merge proposal is not needed because we already have the consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, reasonable close. Absolutely no consensus for “delete”, and “redirect” may mean pseudodeletion, as it is not clear how to merge. The “keep” !votes were reasonable. Also, I note that the subject is connected perhaps more so to USS Grampus (SS-207) than USS John R. Craig (DD-885). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The keeps were one against consensus and the other casting asperions left right and center. 'Pusedodeletion' is a scare tactic used to reject consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bushranger, you may criticize the "Keep" !votes, but they were not sufficiently criticized in the AfD, just at the "merge" !votes were not seriously discussed in detail, and with "merge" there is important detail.
      Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection is a very real distinction. There is very little to say about Craig in the USS John R. Craig (DD-885), as he had nothing to do with that ship, but another ship, and if the "merge" amounts to a mere mention, that is pretty close to a pseudo-deletion. AfD is for deletions, and while a consensus for something is a consensus, a merge is not competently ordered in a closing statement. "Redirect" should not be read as synonymous with "merge". An AfD rough consensus for a merge means that the merge process should begin, and in that process newly raised details may mean that the merge does not go ahead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Jclemens and SmokeyJoe. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There is a clear consensus not to delete the article, but none on what precisely to do with it. Anyone wishing to merge, redirect, etc. is empowered to do so by WP:BB, or to open a discussion on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion was at the AfD. The discussion had a very clear consensus for an outcome that would result in the page being redirected. "Redirect with content to be merged by editors as desired" is a standard closing statement in this case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge/redirect as that is a valid AfD outcome and was the consensus of the discussion. There is no need to have another discussion elsewhere.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There is no consensus in favor of any one outcome, and redirect can be slightly different than merge in practicality.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]