Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VfU)
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 December 11}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 11}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 11|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".



Active discussions

11 December 2024

Shakir Pichler

Shakir Pichler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

many new reliable sources have been added to sections to provide clear WP:SIGCOV but need to be structured properly into the References section rather than the further reading section with inline citations added to the biography section to them. Shakir Pichler shouldn't have to be punished with an AFK deletion/redirection decision due to the person editing the pages argumentative comments who will no longer be editing his page ever again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.211.83.46 (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse and speedy close. Looks like Ponyo re-redirected and semi-protected recently after the IP had contravened OwenX's closure of the deletion discussion as redirection. There appears to be conduct--COI and sockpuppetry--issues surrounding this, so I suggest we do absolutely nothing other than offer to educate the COI IP editor: either a clue will be obtained, or a block will, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considerable efforts have been made to educate the appellant, and multiple blocks issued to socks and IPs she's used. This is a SPA who doesn't care about policies or guidelines, and will continue her attempts to restore the article regardless of how we handle this. Technically, the appellant is still banned, but since I'm involved, it would be improper for me to block the IP in the midst of a DRV against me. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally understand your grievances with how I handled the AFD but I've never had one before and at the time, I didn't realise I was 'sockpuppeting' or what that even was. Therefore, I have informed you that there is now that there is a lot of credible references added to provide a good wikipedia entry which was the trigger for the afd to begin with and I am VERY happy to never EVER edit a wiki article again in my life, but as mentioned, I think it's extremely unfair that Shakir Pichler is punished for how I handled things.
    I honestly wasn't trying to deceive and I thought my role was to in fact argue and try to correct points of contention.
    And I honestly thought my user account was banned and not me personally, which was later explained.
    My heart was in the right place, just my skillset wasn't.
    Would be great if someone looked at the revision with the new links etc added just before afd closed and structured it better or allowed Shakir to find a good editor to take control of the page properly.
    I do apologise for my handling of the case but again Shakir Pichler shouldn't be punished for my mess-up. If any consolation, he has blocked me too! But Id like to make this right please as I feel terrible. 157.211.83.46 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9 December 2024

Pump.fun

Pump.fun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted due to a lack of sufficient reliable sources. However, new independent and reliable sources have been identified that address notability concerns, including coverage in the Nytimes, Wired, Bloomberg, Gizmodo, and Yahoo Finance. These sources provide substantial and independent analysis of the platform, demonstrating its notability under WP:GNG. I believe the article can now be reinstated in compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiffre01 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming I'm aware of this as the most recent deleter, and see prior discussion on my talk page at User talk:Pppery#pump.fun. I'm going to let other deletion review regulars comment before making a more substantive comment. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An assertion that "sources exist" without providing them is never enough to restore a page, but especially not for one deleted at AFD a week and a half ago. —Cryptic 20:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There were, admittedly, additional sources in the G4-ed versions that aren't in the deleted version. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was taking them at their word here that there were "new" ones. Almost all of the ones in the recreation long predate the afd. —Cryptic 21:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Original AfD nominator comment:) There are a couple of usable sources in the G4ed article, but there are also several sources that are being laundered through news aggregators. @Chiffre01: Just because something is syndicated by Yahoo! Finance or MSN does not make it more reliable; CoinDesk, CoinMarketCap, and Cryptopolitan are not usable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 and unsalt If there are new sources in a re-creation, it's not substantially identical to the deleted version. Now, if the same user keeps adding inadequate sourcing, that's a user conduct issue, and should be dealt with as such. G4 and Salt are blunt instruments best suited to when many people are trying to re-create and article. Having said that, I have no particular reason to think this will survive a new AfD, and would recommend it be worked on in draft space until everyone's satisfied about the sourcing. While that might not make everyone happy, it's better than out-of-process G4s or repeated AfDs, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Overturn G4. The deleting admin admitted there were new sources, therefore making the deleted version not sufficiently identical. I share Jclemens’ recommendation that this be moved to draftspace to allow interested users to improve the page to a point in which it would not be deleted via AFD again. Frank Anchor 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The temp undelete confirms that relevant content, in addition to sourcing, was added to this version, confirming that the G4 was inappropriate. Frank Anchor 15:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You (plural) are creating an absurd perverse incentive - deliberately don't include withold some of the sources you have found from the AfD so you can immediately recreate it and force it to go through the whole rigamarole again. We must not allow ourselves to be bound by that. (To be clear, I'm not accusing Chiffre01 of having done so, just pointing out that someone could). * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution to our admittedly informal 'rules' being subject to abuse by bad-faith actors is not to not follow the rules, but rather to note that bad faith application of any Wikipedia rule is a conduct issue, not one of content. We can argue that G4 should be changed, although I think it's fine the way it is, but to pretend that adding a new source isn't a substantial change to an article stretching definitions implausibly. Speedy deletions are to be uncontroversial; this one clearly was not. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the new sources? Given this area of the project is very disruptive, jumping to any sort of conclusion that a G4 should be overturned or that this should be unsalted feels plainly incorrect to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tempundeleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 - The version of the article that was deleted as G4 has information in the article body that was not in the article that was the subject of the AFD. The two versions of the article are not substantially identical. The differences are not just sources. The G4 nominator may nominate the new article for a second AFD, but it is entitled to a second AFD because it is not a repost. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to re-create the article as a draft page/ Any thoughts? Chiffre01 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ca talk to me! 11:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shay Albert Vidas

Draft:Shay Albert Vidas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I recently created a draft titled "Draft:Shay Albert Vidas," but it was deleted under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). I understand Wikipedia’s concerns about promotional content and would like to request that the draft be restored to my user page so I can revise it.

The draft was still in the draft stage and not yet published. I was working to present factual information about Shay Albert Vidas and his work in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Unfortunately, the deleting administrator, Bbb23, did not provide feedback on what was considered promotional, and I was not given the opportunity to revise the content.

Additionally, I cannot contact Bbb23 directly because their talk page is restricted. I am also unable to post on the Administrators’ Noticeboard due to semi-protection and my account status. I have no way to resolve this issue without assistance.

I am committed to addressing any issues raised and rewriting the draft to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability standards. I kindly request that the draft be restored to my user page for improvement. Thank you for your time and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayvidas (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, having not seen the deleted draft, but trusting the judgment of Bbb23, and being familiar with autobiographies. The originator should be able to reconstruct what he wrote about his own career if he didn't keep a copy on his computer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but it doesn't hurt for someone to email him the deleted content. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egregious spam. Endorse and do not provide the deleted content, on the slim hope he'll have to pay someone to write it again if he wants to use it elsewhere. —Cryptic 10:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect he did pay someone to write this. The standard of his English seems to vary from one contribution to another. Deb (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and do not undelete. Vidas or his company may well be notable but nearly every single sentence of that article is unusable because it's 100% promotional (about the only one that would survive is the one about where and when he was born; even the sentence about his wife feels the need to eulogise her.) Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    we are very known in israel, i can show you a lot of proof i'm not sure how to attach it,
    can i do another one, and you will tell me now if it will pass or not ?
    or adleast give me some info on What was wrong, so i will know to change it,
    i can do another draft and this time just tell me what to modify it ?
    would it be ok ?
    it's ok if it needs to be deleeted
    just to refrain from that happening again and again, can you look at a modified version i will write now and tell me what is wrong with it ? Shayvidas (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “I cannot contact Bbb23 directly because their talk page is restricted”.
This is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT on the part of User:Bbb23.
Userfy or email. User:Shayvidas, ensure that you have enabled email. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe I'm not entirely sure what else Bbb23 is supposed to do when your talk page history includes 57 protection entries from 21 different admins and 118 removals of offensive material via revision-deletion. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me either. Create a special mechanism to flag a desire to talk? Give the DRV applicant some benefit of the doubt? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky one. I'm sure there's some cunning way of getting around it, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't a tricky situation even before the editor became auto-confirmed. User:Bbb23 has email enabled. An admin who has semi-protected their talk page and has email enabled has made administrator accountability feasible. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate all the feedback and understand the concerns about promotional content in my draft. My aim is not to use Wikipedia for advertising but to provide factual information about my career and contributions to watchmaking i have no reason to lie to you, this is 100% true. I am committed to rewriting the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and notability.
I would be grateful if specific examples of problematic content could be highlighted, so I can address them in a revised version.I dont want to be blocked, as i worked hours on all the text and I acknowledge past mistakes and am seeking guidance to ensure my next draft avoids similar issues can you please tell me what in my last draft was bad as in spacific sentences ?.
I oppose providing any conflict of interest editor with specific examples of problematic content. They are asking us to do their work for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed suggestions about restoring the draft to my user page or emailing it for further revision. I would greatly appreciate this, as it would help me revise the content more effectively and align it with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you friends. --Shayvidas (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to acknowledge Robert McClenon suggestion that I can rewrite the draft with a more neutral tone. I am more than willing to remove or rewrite any sections that were problematic.
I didn't suggest that. I am often in favor of and never against rewriting promotional material with a more neutral tone, but I didn't make that suggestion. I said that the appellant should be able to reconstruct the draft without the need for undeletion. They should remember what their own career has been. If it really took them a long time to write a promotional autobiography, they just wasted a lot of their own time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest or advocate restoring the deleted draft. If they forgot to keep a copy of their work, we do not need to do their housekeeping for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to address the point raised by User:Bbb23about contacting their Talk page. As Owen× correctly pointed out, I was not yet autoconfirmed at the time I attempted to reach out. I made a genuine attempt to resolve this issue and avoid any misunderstandings.
If it’s possible, I would kindly request the restoration of the draft to my user page so I can make the necessary revisions based on the feedback provided.

If this isn’t feasible, I would greatly appreciate detailed guidance on how I can approach a new draft that aligns with Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you again for your time and understanding.

Endorse No LLM-generated deletion reviews. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i actually wrote it myself and it took quit a lot of time.
and also talked to friends, revised it over and over and over again
and it took hours. i can show proof if needed. Shayvidas (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can easily tell that you wrote it yourself because it only concentrates on the good things about you and your company. That's not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If the friends to whom you showed it were familiar with Wikipedia, they would have been able to tell you that we don't accept promotional articles. Deb (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 December 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Beast (Canadian band) albums (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article that was in this category, Beast (Beast album), is not an eponymous article for the category, and the category does not meet the criterion for C2F speedy deletion. The category is for albums by the band, regardless of the title of their albums. If it happened to be titled Beastmode instead of Beast then you couldn’t speedy it? The eponymous article criteria would be applicable if the category was named after the album itself not a general category for any album the band released, like if the only article in Category:American Idiot was the album American Idiot. If the only album Garth Brooks released was Garth Brooks (album) that would not mean the criteria was met to speedy delete Category:Garth Brooks albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's entirely possible I made an error here, and I'm happy to admit it when I do so. I often make mistakes but know that other wikipedians will bring such foibles to my attention. I was away from keyboard last evening, but I'm wondering why in the last day User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars felt it necessary to request another administrator then file here, but chose not to ask me directly? This even after specifically being instructed to do so. Am I a scary figure to anybody? Compared to many older admins, I'm relatively fresh at speedy deletion; I certainly have little experience with categories and in this case responded to what I saw as a good faith CSD tag. MY eyes were focused on the adjective "one". One album in the category, category name same as album name same as band name. I think arguing this was not eponymous is entirely splitting hairs. To extend Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's argument, if Garth only made a single album, (but other than the world being a much drearier place) I wouldn't normally expect such a subject to have 1) an article about him or 2) a category holding that single entry. That's my bias, I'll concede. BusterD (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I thought I was just following procedure. I requested a reversal of the deletion which you denied so I figured that made you aware of my reasoning. Your denial was followed up immediately by another editor who said my concerns can be taken to deletion review. So here we are. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 13:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you point me towards my first refusal? I'm not seeing it in my contribution history, and I have no recollection of the exchange between us. BusterD (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What was the purpose of this category be, or what will its purpose be? So why is the appellant filing this DRV? It appears that the band made one album, and the album is eponymous, and the band no longer exists. The category is about the band. The article about the band could be put into the category, making it a category with two articles. If we were to overturn the speedy deletion, which appears to be consistent with a precise reading of the guidelines, then the category could be sent to CFD, and there would still be a question of what its purpose will be. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 December 2024

Category:Hypoiodites

Category:Hypoiodites (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was upmerged because it only had one member (silver hypoiodite) and proposed that there would not likely be more. Now we also have sodium hypoiodite. And per the other Category:Hypohalites, Hypoiodous acid would go in it as well. This would make a consistent diffusion of Hypohalites. DMacks (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Satisfactory discussion and close, noting the previous CfD Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 20#Category:Iodites. Respect the consensus to delete for at least six months before attempting recreation. Two members is not impressive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disagreeing with the close for Hypoiodites from a year ago, but instead that the facts on which it rested have changed, and I think one logical detail was mis-applied. There are now existing three articles that would go in it. Ammonium hypoiodite also appears notable though we do not yet have an article, so that's four. Chemicals containing the ion has been known since at least back to 1900 and there are still current publications covering various of them. Clearly the fact that they are unstable is not an impediment to there being a definable set of related (potential) articles--the notability of them seems in fact to rest specifically on their high reactivity. The precedent/other XfD from 4 years prior is not about the same topic or any of the same articles, despite the similarity of the cat names and resting on the same principle of cat-size at the respective time of discussion. DMacks (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a strong opinion on this, but including an article that's not written yet in the category is a bit disingenious. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It addresses the lack of potential for expansion, given "does not seem as if it'll be gaining any more in the near future" were the basis for the nom. I could write a stub in a day or so if that would help. I'm not sure why SmokeyJoe seems opposed to a certain lag-time for cat creation subsequent to new articles existing. DMacks (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread the year. 11 November 2023, not 2024.
    If you have new articles that overcome the reason for deletion, which was over 1 year ago, then boldly recreate and see if it gets listed at CfD. DRV is not required to give you permission, and if DRV gives permission, it doesn’t protect the recreation from CfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. DRV isn't needed in a case like this unless and until the recreation is G4'd. —Cryptic 11:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. There are three articles, which is fine.—Alalch E. 17:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have no problem if is boldly recreated and I'd have no problem if anyone wanted to discuss it at CfD after it was created. It's not that the DRV is pointless but there's not much to do... SportingFlyer T·C 17:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What SportingFlyer said. Just do it and let folks bring it to CfD if they desire. Things have changed. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 December 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Term Paper BD (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am writing to respectfully contest the speedy deletion of the Draft:Term Paper BD under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which cites the page as unambiguous advertising. I believe this page can be significantly improved to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality and verifiability.

Term Paper BD is an educational organization that has provided academic writing support to students since 2013. Over the years, it has completed more than 5,000 successful projects and assisted thousands of students, making it an important contributor to the academic community in Bangladesh. The purpose of the article is to document the history, impact, and activities of the organization, not to promote it.

I acknowledge that the initial draft may have unintentionally contained language that could be perceived as promotional. However, everything written in the draft is factually accurate and based on the real achievements of Term Paper BD. If it seems promotional, it is not by intent—it is simply the truth. The information is meant to provide an objective overview of the organization's history, mission, and contributions to the education sector. please give me back my article. I have been working for for the past whole week on this. I have spend many many hours one day. please give it to me back.

if you still not convince. please mark my mistake I will figure out how to fix it. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.U Shadin (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and speedy close. The draft was not only shameless advertising, it was also a COI - the author and appellant is the company's "Chief Writer & Advisor". The sources cited are all from the company's own website or its Facebook page. DoubleGrazing was right to tag it, and BusterD was correct to delete it. Owen× ☎ 15:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am the writer of the article, and I am also the Chief Writer & Advisor of this organization. Our company is not widely known in the media. Although it is popular among students, they are not likely to write about our organization on social media, right? I don’t have any sources that have written about Term Paper BD, so how can I provide sources? But our organization still exists, doesn’t it??? So how can I give external sources if they aren’t available? Should I pay someone to write about my organization???
    And regarding neutrality—there is nothing negative about Term Paper BD. No customer has been dissatisfied with our work (except a few), so how can I write anything negative? Everything about Term Paper BD is positive, and I wrote exactly that. Where is the problem? H.U Shadin (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @H.U Shadin: this deletion review isn't really the venue for such discussions; let's take this to your talk page User talk:H.U Shadin, I've posted some advice there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, H.U Shadin; I appreciate your honesty. I think you told us everything we need to know when it comes to the notability of your company, your paid role in it, and the promotional purpose of your editing here. While Jclemens is right that a declared, paid promoter may submit a draft, you admitting that the company is virtually unknown outside your local circle, and isn't mentioned by the media, makes it clear that a draft would be a waste of your time and that of the AfC reviewer. Please heed the helpful advice left on your User Talk page by DoubleGrazing. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours. If you want to have this review closed, just say that you wish to withdraw your appeal. Owen× ☎ 12:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't see it, but sounds like an easy endorse. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same. Don't even see the need for a temp undelete. SportingFlyer T·C 05:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that you can start a new, less-promotionally-worded draft as a COI editor without restriction and without restoring the old draft. I'm sure some admin would be willing to email a copy of the deleted draft to you if you really want... but based on what's been said about it, I am not sure that would be a positive starting point for a potential future, better version. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse as nom says I don’t have any sources that have written about Term Paper BD, so how can I provide sources? But our organization still exists, doesn’t it??? so no, the issues cannot be overcome and the company is not notable so restoration would be a waste of their time and the community's before it's ultimately rejected as a draft. @H.U Shadin: that your company exists is irrelevant for inclusion. Please promote it elsewhere. This is not what Wikipedia is for Star Mississippi 13:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, in your word I will not promote it ( although I know I am not promoting). I will figure out I will find ways to provide information from the neutral point of view of my organization as you wanted. But how can I provide external sources??? As I mentioned a very valid reason why I don't have external sources. So what can I do in this? give me the solution H.U Shadin (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait until someone else completely independent of your company writes something about it and is published in a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's the short, short version of what's needed to have an article here (the long version is here); being written neutrally and non-promotionally is merely sufficient to not have your draft be deleted on sight. There's no point fixing the latter if the sources for the former don't exist - you'd just be wasting your time and ours. —Cryptic 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen to this carefully, @H.U Shadin: no one wants this article here except you and your partner. Repeated attempts to introduce it to Wikipedia will only result in you losing your editing privileges. Your company, much beloved by students, does not qualify for an encyclopedic article. But feel free to come back if the company makes it to the news - for example, coverage by Dhaka Tribune about how students got expelled for using your services may improve your chances of an article here. I also note that you still haven't added the {{Paid}} template to your userpage as instructed, which means you are now in violation of policy. I know you don't care about any of that, but you may wish to reconsider. Owen× ☎ 15:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What! I have to wait until some completely independent person or media writes about my organization? I’ve told you many times that my company is not well-known in the media. There is very little chance that a well-known source will write about my organization. What can I do then? Where is my fault in this? Can you specifically answer this and provide a solution, please?
    {{Paid}} I definitely don’t know what that is! What if I read it, understand it, and then add it to my article—will you publish it? I assume you will not. I’m asking for a solution, but you’re not giving me one. All you’re doing is pointing out what I didn’t do, or what policies I’ve violated: “You didn’t follow this policy, you violated that guideline, read this, read that.”
    I mean, am I in school or something? It feels like, “If you want to publish a simple article, you have to read thousands of pages of rules!”
    I’ve noticed that whenever I ask a question, you respond with lengthy paragraphs. Why not do this instead? I see you’re answering all my questions, maybe because there’s a rule that requires you to respond if someone asks. You clearly love following rules, right?
    If you’re already spending time answering these questions, why not write the article for me? After all, you know every policy inside and out. I’ll provide you with all the information you need. I can even give you my clients’ contact numbers—talk to them, and they’ll provide unbiased information. What do you say? H.U Shadin (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @H.U Shadin: I don't know what OwenX will say, but I'll say you should stop digging, that proverbial hole is quite deep enough already. Please go and make that paid-editing disclosure now, before you find yourself blocked. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on the merits, btw. It's my experience that any article that uses the word "journey" as anything but a proper noun or maybe - maybe - a synonym for literal travel is going to be a G11 overall. If you're writing about someone's "educational journey", what you end up with is never an encyclopedia article. —Cryptic 15:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Recent discussions

2 December 2024

Controversy over Baidu (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Controversy over Baidu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am a course instructor supervising students writing and translating articles here for 10+ years and this is the first time I've seen a properly translated article (with references, interlanguage links, etc.) subject to speedy deletion (under strange rationale - G10, attack page). The page in question was just a translation of criticism of Chinese company Baidu from Chinese Wikipedia (zh:对百度的争议 - wikidata:Q10956638), perfectly normal for large companies - see Category:Criticisms of companies and articles like Criticism of Google or Criticism of Starbucks. It is simply the main article for the subsection present in our article at Baidu#Controversies. Now, the name should probably be Criticism of Baidu rather Controversy over Baidu (although we also have MSNBC controversies or Controversies of Nestlé - some name standardization of entries in this category may be in order...), but there is no good reason to speedy this. If someone dislikes the page, WP:AFD could be used, but I am pretty certain the article would be kept, per numerous precedents (dozens of articles in criticism of companies category). With all due respect, whoever speedy tagged it and deleted it needs a WP:TROUT and a refresher of policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Could the page be undeleted for non-admins to review? I don't see any reason that a page about controversies related to a company would automatically be considered an attack page, but I didn't see the content of this particular page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an admin could either temp undelete this or confirm it's an attack page that doesn't require undeletion, that would be fantastic. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G10 I don't need to see it, I've disagreed enough with Piotrus in deletion discussions over the years to know that he knows what is and isn't an attack page, so it can go to AfD if someone disagrees. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G10 assuming good faith that it is a faithful translation of the Chinese page, this shouldnt have been speedily deleted. If there are other concerns, send it to AfD and let the community decide if it should have a place here. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the page is visible, which it was not at the time of writing, I do not have to make assumptions about the content. I still stand by that this was not a G10 candidate. If there are notability concerns about the coverage of the controversies as a whole, send it to AfD, however, an overview a summary of controversies in a psuedo-list is a copyediting problem rather than a notability issue. The language used is strong and literal, however, that is inherited from the phrasing of the source language, and an artifact of it being a translation of another article. To me, this means draftify for further copyediting, but an attack page it is not. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. After reviewing the deleted page, I completely understand the action of the deleting admin. The page is not like the other "Criticism of ____" pages mentioned by the appellant. It does not attempt to place these controversies in appropriate context or treat them encyclopedically. It's just a laundry list of negative content about the company, and it appears to be based on original research as the sources presented describe individual instances, not covering Baidu-related controversies as an overall topic. (As a translation, it has several significant defects as well.) I think there's probably some room for interpretation here; another admin might have reasonably decided this didn't meet the definition of an attack page, but given what's here (content that exists primarily to disparage...its subject) a G10 is definitely within discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This matches my thinking when I tagged the page for G10, including the "another admin might disagree" bit which is why I didn't use my own admin tools to push the delete button. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I do think that was a G10 within discretion. There are also salvageable parts, so a draft might be a good idea if it's allowed, but it shouldn't be in mainspace as is. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Dclemens1971 comments above. The fact it is a translation from the Chinese WP is irrelevant, the existence of an article in another language WP is not a guarantee there should be a similar article in the English WP. --John B123 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It sure looks like the only purpose of that page was to disparage its subject. --Here2rewrite (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). Having read the comments above, I am sure we can remove any parts that are based on weak sources/OR if such parts are tagged, and rewrite content that is not neutral if it is likewise tagged (and feel free to be WP:BOLD and nuke stuff). I don't think this is bad enough to be WP:TNTed, however, and the topic seems notable per coverage (ex. [1]) --Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). I've notified WP:CHINA and WP:COMPANIES about this discussion.--Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G10. I don't think it was ready for mainspace, but I don't think this could reasonably be characterized as an attack page. The fact that it came through the translation process without sufficient encyclopedic context for EN readers is an important concern but doesn't make it speedy deletion material. I think draftification (or re-userfication) would have been a more appropriate remedy. As a professional translator and occasional Wikipedia translator, I think I understand what went sideways here. IMO Wikipedia translation is best approached as transcreation, and by the same token a faithful translation is mostly wasted effort; it's better to just use the source article as a jumping-off point so you can focus on the challenges of the target wiki-culture rather than on the challenges of the translation process. I am not here to cast aspersions on anyone who is willing to contribute such an enormous amount of necessary and important work. But much of the content of even the best translation, especially of a substantial article like this, will need to be removed or reworked before it can survive in mainspace on EN wiki. -- Visviva (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and send to AFD. It was not unreasonable to tag this for speedy deletion, or to action that tag. Absent context (and there was none provided in the article), it does seem to "exist primarily to disparage" and raises various other questions. But SD is for uncontroversial, clear deletions and this is not the case here. In particular, it seems there is content that is salvageable. So send it through normal processes to figure out what best to do. No trouting for anyone needed, just people acting reasonably (in creating, tagging, and deleting) and now needs sorting out. Martinp (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G10. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial and clear cases, which this is not. It can go to AFD if needed, but it is clear that the uncontroversialness criterion isn't met. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy I can understand why it was deleted as a G10, but per Stifle, this isn't clear enough to be a speedy. It does lack needed nuance in places, but that's fixable. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G10. This does not come off as "exclusively" an attack page. Individual sentences that come off as attacks can be removed via editing. Frank Anchor 17:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. G10 doesn't exclusively cover BLPs, but the wording of WP:Attack page makes it pretty clear that they're the priority juridstiction for the criterion, implying that the bar should be very high for other pages to be deleted under it. This article is pretty bad (it's translated worse than Piotrius makes it out to be, and seems to include of WP:NOTNEWS content) but in terms of prose or sourcing or severity of allegations its no worse than other Criticism of <corp> pages. Mach61 00:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G10, draftify. Seems more like NEGATIVESPIN than ATP. Rather more detail than seems necessary in many of the subheadings. The only bit that seems more like an attack that criticism of poor quality control is the final lvl2, ==Title==: there's already a critic quoted elsewhere in the prose referring to the company by the unkind pun 百毒; we could just explain it once and move on. Folly Mox (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G10. I really don't see how this qualifies for WP:G10, which only applies when pages serve no other purpose than to disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity. And there is a purpose to that page—controversies surrounding a large company, like Baidu, may well be encyclopedic, just as we have Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Tesla, Inc.. The telos of this page is not to attack; even if it is a spinout of material that doesn't reflect well upon the subject, that doesn't ipso facto create an attack page when the primary aim of the page is to cover encyclopedic content. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G10. It looks like WP:NEGATIVESPIN explicitly allows this kind of article. It also looks like, as Folly Mox pointed out, G10 is aimed mainly at BLPs. A lot of this article is cruft cited to social media with no lasting significance, and those parts should be removed, but the topic is clearly notable and appropriate for the encyclopedia. Toadspike [Talk] 21:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to know if the page can be reinstated as draft since new sources presented in the discussion were ignored. Svartner (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own close Just so we're on the same page here: This process is for contesting the closers' reading of the consensus of the discussion. It is not the closers responsibility to evaluate sources, but to gauge consensus, which I believe I did.
Your remark was there for a week without being replied to, so seemingly it was not found to be compelling by the other particpants.
Of the other comments in favor of keeping it, one made arguments not based in policy, one baldly stated that better sources exist and did not follow up on that when asked to, and one was self-identified as "weak".
Commenters supporting deleting or redirecting made more valid, policy-based arguments than those favoring keeping it, so deleting and redirecting seemed the most reasonable course of action. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you aren't asking that, as I tried to explain. You are asking to overturn the close. If you wanted it restored as a draft so you could work on it, you could've just asked me to do that for without opening a DRV and I would've done it, and none of this would be necessary. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD which runs a long time and where consensus is delete, but the very last vote is a keep !vote with sources, is always a bit difficult. At the same time there was also plenty of time to evaluate these sources, and no one bothered to. I think the close was generally fine, but the question is really whether the sources show that the consensus that GNG was not met was incorrect. These are foreign language searches about a topic I'm completely unfamiliar with, and one is paywalled, but I am not convinced this is a clear keep based on the three sources in the AfD. If it were up to me alone I'd endorse the close and draftify the page to allow more sources to be added, but I'm sure there will be others here more confident in their source analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence my saying solid posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the distinction you describe does exist. There was no depth to the final comments made by the appellant here, "here's some stuff I found" is not that compelling if you don't explain more clearly what it is. That fancy tool that generates an analysis table is pretty nice for this as well. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close, if this is an appeal of the close. The new sources were presented after two relists, and the closer had no obligation to relist a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to Draft and allow review of draft. When the consensus at an AFD is Redirect, the article is usually Blanked and Redirected, so that the deleted article remains in the history. In this case, it was Deleted and Redirected. Is there a specific reason why it was deleted this time? I don't think that the appellant is making an unreasonable request to have the article restored in draft. They will be well advised to expand the article to summarize what the additional sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore history to redirect, which would allow any user to create a draft from the prior version. The redirect close was correct, but I see no reason to have deleted the history as a blank and redirect would have had the same effect. None of the AFD participants made any objection to retaining page history (which is very common in a redirect and, in my opinion, the greatest benefit to having a redirect). Frank Anchor 05:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should really get rid of the delete-and-then-redirect as a common practice. It's great for copyvio, attack pages, or other abuse, but for run-of-the mill NN content, it's both overkill AND makes it more difficult for someone to come along and repair the deficiency later. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC. Or relist. There's no good reason that after a relist, when the only editor commenting after the relist posts sources and opines keep, an admin should find a consensus to delete. Admins don't all have to defer to each other's relists, but that doesn't pass a sniff test. I've commented on other issues above, but that's the heart of the policy-based reason I find the close problematic. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close which is consistent with the discussion. If we're going to raise issues not raised in the deletion discussion, then I will point out that this article and its companions are magnets for cross-wiki LTA. Simple wikipedia article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Spanish article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, French article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Afrikaans article created by a globally-locked sock puppet, etc. etc. All this talk about needing the page history: it's here, where it's been since the last deletion discussion. The content is insignificantly different from all the other times this content has been blanked, restored, deleted, recreated, redirected, and argued over. DrKay (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Redirect without history deletion. There was no valid reason to delete the history, and indeed, none of the Redirect !voters suggested it. The Redirect !votes were for an alternative to deletion, not for a grave marker. If any revisions contain copyvio or attacks, those specific revs can be deleted. Owen× ☎ 11:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt the decision was spilt between those calling for redirecting and those calling for deletion, which is why I made the decision I did. It may not be what every other admin would have done in this case but I believe it was within the realm of admin discretion when determining consensus. I also really don't think using hyperbole like "grave marker" is helpful, or even makes sense in the case of a redirect, which is a more like a signpost if you want to use metaphors. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks to User:DrKay for providing a link to the deleted content. It seems that the deletion of the history by the closer didn't delete the history because there are two or more versions of the article with different linguistic forms of a preposition, a form of gaming a title. The appellant can copy the deleted article to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Redirect without history deletion While a close of redirect was within the discretion of the closer, there was no reason given during the discussion that suggested the history was problematic. --Enos733 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but restore to draft (or restore the history under the redirect, no preference). JSS' close was correct, but no reason not to allow requestor to try and improve this in draft space. That's why I lean that way vs. history restoration but either way fine. Star Mississippi 01:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC, or at any rate restore history, since there was plainly no support for the unusual step of delete-and-redirect. I am troubled by the closer's statement above that a lack of replies to a !vote indicates that the other participants did not find it persuasive. By that standard none of the delete !votes were persuasive either -- indeed even less so, since more time had passed. In this way and others, it seems clear that the closer took it upon themselves to pick away at the rationales for keeping without applying any comparable scrutiny, or apparently any scrutiny at all, to the rationales for deletion. Indeed the closer does not appear even to have weighed the rather obvious problem that the AFD nom failed to make a valid argument for deletion in the first place (improperly basing the claim of non-notability only on sources present in the article).
    But setting all those quibbles aside, even by the most favorable application of WP:DETCON, there was simply no consensus -- that is, reading the AFD discussion as favorably as possible to the close, the best that can be said is that both sides raised plausible arguments that were neither conclusively refuted nor found persuasive by their opponents. Looking at Svartner's sources I don't see anything that would justify rejecting them out of hand. (I can imagine that people with deeper knowledge of the subject matter might find reasons to do so, e.g. maybe these particular outlets are unreliable in this area, but nobody suggested that in the AFD.) IMO the best argument for deletion is the one raised above, that these articles are part of a larger program of promotional abuse, but that is not an argument that was raised in the discussion or considered in the close. -- Visviva (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I did not reject those sources out of hand. I didn't even look at them. That's not the closers job, I was there to read consensus, not sources. And the very first comment after the nomination does in fact mention the broader issues with this subject area, although it didn't seem to gain much traction. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 04:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draft, or (no objection to) restore history under redirect. We struggle with situations where a discussion sputters, then someone brings up potential sources, and .... crickets (i.e., silence). Did others evaluate the new sources and find them lacking? Or no one looked at them (since foreign language, or people were just tired of this discussion?). Layer on a topic area with history on wp, and I don't fault any decisions made. But sending to draft, as requested by appellant here, seems a sensible way forward. BTW, I agree with the commentary above that closers should be careful about delete-then-redirect closes. A preponderance of !votes arguing for either delete or redirect should not imply delete-and-redirect is necessarily the consensus outcome; it's quite possible many of the delete !votes merely mean "should not be a standalone article" and would not object to a redirect instead, exactly as the redirect !voters are saying. BTW, I know nothing about independence of various sources in Portuguese, but the sources provided at the end of the AFD seem not unreasonable. Martinp (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think NC and redirect were both valid outcomes based on the discussion. This was not. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to re-iterate what I've stated above, I was not asked to restore it as a draft before this drv was opened. If I had I would've done so. I'm pretty much always willing to do that, as are most admins, but drv shouldn't be the method for asking for it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the page should be restored to draft. The three sources presented by the appellant are weak, and likely won't survive AfC or a second AfD anyway. Your Redirect close was correct. It's the history deletion I and others here find questionable. Self-revert that deletion, and we can probably close this DRV with a broad endorsement. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I necessarily disagree but I'd rather let an uninvolved admin close in the usual manner. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It was not unreasonable to find a rough consensus to delete, and the specific "delete and redirect" outcome is just "delete" with the deleting admin noting that they are also creating a redirect (which anyone else could do). "Delete and redirect" may look unusual, but that does not matter when it's really just a "delete" close. The real "redirect" outcome as an ATD was certainly an option but it was not a requirement; I particularly lean toward not seeing it as a requirement when a BLP is concerned, and in the AfD it was said that the content is weak due to poor sourcing and that there is recycled information from articles about other people, which really makes for something I'm fine not using an ATD on. The "new sources" are bad and I don't like the idea of a draft, as no amount of drafting can make a non-notable topic notable. Still, restore to draft, per the usual practice in this situation.—Alalch E. 02:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite DrKay's disturbing revelations about this subject on other wikis, no serious issues have been raised about this article in this discussion yet, so deleting and redirecting was highly inappropriate. I don't particularly care what happens in this case but I am shocked to hear from JSS that they deleted and redirected simply because a few people !voted delete and a few people !voted redirect. Unless a CSD applies, delete and redirect is never a valid alternative to deletion. Never! Toadspike [Talk] 21:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mount Barker United SC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The credibility of this page relates to the Mt Barker United Soccer Club and it's history. The legitimacy of this page can be traced to Football South Australia Club Directory - https://www.footballsa.com.au/sites/ffsa/files/2024-11/Senior%20Elite%20Club%20Directory%20-%202024%20FINAL.pdf which shows Mt Barker United in the state league competition. Other sites include: https://fsa.dribl.com/fixtures?date_range=default&season=gld4EkGmW5&club=3pmvZMrmvJ&timezone=Australia%2FAdelaide and www.collegiatesoccerleague.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henge2024 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 November 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Electrabytes04 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I deleted this as WP:U5, a non-contributor's misuse of Wikipedia as a web host (external link added with the first edit from the account). The nomination and/or deletion have been questioned on my talk-page by Tamzin, so bringing this here for review/clarification. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this falls under the "Meh" category. I doubt many here would care enough about this either way. Seeing as the page was created less than a day earlier, I would have left it alone, and given the new user a chance to find their footing and figure out how things work around here, rather than greet them with a speedy deletion of their test userpage. That said, seeing as the user's only other edit was a rejected request to usurp their(?) old account name, which also had zero edits, I fear this editor might not be here to build an encyclopedia. Delete or delete not; there is no DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn U5 though I largely agree with OwenX’s opinion of “meh.” I don’t consider adding a personal GitHub account as using Wikipedia to be a web-host. Persons who think the user page is inappropriate can take this to MFD if desired. I commend Justlettersandnumbers for seeking clarification at DRV. Frank Anchor 18:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. To be clear, the current page is not what was deleted, but rather a transclusion of their global userpage. The deleted page said (paragraph breaks replaced with slashes) "Hello? / ... / Is.. Is this thing on?? / ( For now, this is all that's here ) : / https://github.com/electrabytes04/" That is a painfully normal userpage, and the only think JN&L and I seem to disagree on is the propriety of that GitHub link, but I still don't understand where in policy they're getting the idea that the link is inappropriate, when WP:UPYES goes out of its way to say that non-promotional links to personal sites are allowed. And by policy, anything allowed under UPYES is exempt from U5. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse after reading WP:U5, I think it applies here: little to no edits outside a user page, and the user page is unrelated to Wikipedia's goals. That's two for two. Good deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer: There are four clauses, not two, the last being an exception for "adhering to Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?". What content do you see in the deleted text that does not adhere to that policy? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However, if a link to your home page is the only thing on your userpage, this may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion. Pretty clear. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, whether something adheres to "what may I have in my user pages?" - WP:UPYES isn't exactly a list of things which are acceptable and unacceptable, is it? It's "you're broadly free to do what you wish." But if you're a clear non-contributor, as OwenX points out, there's nothing at all wrong with this deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 05:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's the exact opposite of how the policy is written. If you want to remove the UPYES exception to U5, by all means, propose that. If you'd like to remove the bit of UPYES saying that non-promotional links to one's personal site are explicitly allowed (which you've intriguingly only quoted the latter half of, not that "may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion" means "may be summarily deleted" regardless), by all means, propose that. As both policies are currently written, however, a UPYES-compliant userpage is categorically exempt from U5, and a link to one's GitHub is UPYES-compliant. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely disagree. A userpage consisting solely of a link to a personal webpage, github or otherwise, is not explicitly UPYES-compliant per UPYES. This will be overturned on the assumption this was a new user who got bit (even if that may not be the case per OwenX), and I would not have deleted it myself, but I do not believe it's an obviously erroneous deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 00:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ? If Tamzin's quote is correct, then it didn't solely of a link. There was additional text. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused, are you referring to the full sentence here: You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language. However, if a link to your home page is the only thing on your userpage, this may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion.? SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose technically I was referring to A userpage consisting solely of a link to a personal webpage, github or otherwise, is not explicitly UPYES-compliant, but essentially, yes. The link was not the only thing in the userpage, so the carveout about "may appear promotional" is not applicable. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply adding, in short, "for now, this is all that's here" shouldn't be the difference between keeping and deleting. It doesn't matter, though. I think this was quite acceptable, others don't, it'll get sorted. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - WP:DELETEOTHER says, among other things, user's contributions that consist solely of a lone edit to their user page should not normally be speedy deleted unless it consists solely of spam or other speedy deletable material. I don't think we should be WP:BITING users who decide to introduce themselves with pages like this. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn as per Frank Anchor and Hatman31. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked through the linked github repository. If, as SportingFlyer suggests, this was an attempt at self-promotion, it was spectactularly inept. Not that self-promotion has anything to do with U5 anyway.
    This page was harmless. Restore if the user wants it. I see nobody's bothered to speak to them except for the twinkle template generated by the obscenely-inaccurate G11 tagging of their userpage, not even to inform them of this review. On the other hand, they haven't edited at all since then either, and who can blame them. —Cryptic 05:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn per Robert McClenon etc. Somewhat of a WP:BITE failure. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh Overturn due to WP:BITE SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh We have established editors seeing this differently. While I don't see grounds for an overturn, that probably means it's not suitable for a speedy as its YMMV territory. Advocate for restoration and if it's an issue down the road, it can go to MfD. Right now I think we'd see an N/C close since on one feels strongly. Star Mississippi 03:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh and overturn Yeah, this should go to MfD per all of the above, even if it's borderline. We're not overturning a discussion, just undoing a speedy here and sending it for discussion, so much lower bar. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. U5 did not apply. Not a page in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, and a single link relating to the new editor's interests or hobbies does change that.—Alalch E. 17:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 November 2024

Ancient TL (closed)

  • Ancient TL – No consensus. Opinions are split, and therefore the closure remains in force for lack of consensus to overturn it. Relisting a twice-relisted overlong discussion would not help in establishing a clearer consensus. Sandstein 19:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ancient TL (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was an unfortunate AfD featuring wall-of-text comments, COI meatpuppets, and a generally poor signal-to-noise ratio. My metaphorical hat is off to the closer, OwenX, for tackling this. However, that said, I do think he missed some crucial signal amid the noise.

During the discussion, three of us !voted to keep on the basis that papers in the journal are cited frequently in reliable sources including Science and Nature. See [2] [3] [4] for specifics. These arguments were founded on Criterion #2 of the WP:NJOURNALS essay, according to which frequently cited journals would count as notable. In determining consensus, the closer discounted these !votes on the grounds that C2 requires frequent citations of the journal itself, not of papers in the journal. See their closing statement and this clarification for details. However, this subsequent discussion on the NJOURNALS talk page resulted in a unanimous consensus that that C2 is indeed satisfied by frequent citations of papers in a journal.

So putting aside the COI !keeps, there seems to be an even split among the P&G-based !votes, which doesn't look like a consensus to me. Botterweg (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse: OwenX gave a detailed closing statement that says it all. (Disclosure: I was the nom of this AfD). --Randykitty (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, you have completely skipped over the very salient point that NJOURNALS is not a guideline and GNG is the requirement for this journal to have a standalone. Therefore it is completely irrelevant what anyone's interpretation of NJOURNALS criteria is when the subject demonstrably does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse (and I have mixed feelings) the NJOURNALS essay is indeed used as the basis for closing as keep when there's local consensus. In this AfD, nobody cited the issues with NJOURNALS as a reason to delete, so I don't think that's a factor in determining what the consensus was. Botterweg (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of people cited the fact that GNG is not met, which, as an actual guideline, is what closers should be paying attention to over any essay. That this journal also doesn't meet the criteria of the essay (and there definitely is no indication that some articles getting hundreds or even thousands of citations elsewhere is enough for "frequently cited") is just further evidence against it being notable. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse to my knowledge showing citation counts would be, as Headbomb said, through things like impact factors, not just individual instances of citations. We're on thin ice with NJOURNALS as is, I see no need to push it further. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep there are two possibilities in a 5 keeps vs. 3 delete situation read as a deletion. In this case, it's pretty clear that the P&Gs with respect to journals are unsettled. In such a case, outcomes must be held to be descriptive: a delete is a supervote assuming that the folks arguing based on the currently recognized inclusion guidelines somehow trumps the numerical preponderance. Journals are a particularly thorny example, because notability doesn't work well for journals. The best journals are read and cited, but essentially never talked about. That's why notability is not, has never been, and will never be a core policy. It's a guideline, and to the extent that reasonably well-cited journals don't meet the GNG or an SNG, we obviously need another metric besides notability to measure inclusion. The Procrustean, if conventional. answer that journals don't fit well into our notability guidelines and thus should be excluded has everything backwards. Oh, and a no consensus might have been a better way to handle this, but I still believe that keep is the correct outcome based on the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in that discussion, the fact that a paper has been cited in Science or Nature is not an indication that the journal in which that paper appears is notable on en.wiki. Simply relitigating that discussion here as if it hasn't already been demolished is not bringing any additional light to the AfD. The point has been made, taken account and refuted. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm equally entitled to explain why I think it's suboptimal and doesn't serve the encyclopedia well. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For information, I was attempting to reply to the OP. I don't know why it appeared here, it might have been my ineptitude. You are entitled to your opinion, I was expressing mine about the OP using DRV to repeat points made in the AfD. JMWt (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it my have been my error in indenting an unbulleted comment that appeared to me to be a reply to me, in which case you have my sincerest apologies. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the keep !votes didn't even establish that this journal met any of the essay criteria either? Merely being cited in RS is not equivalent to "frequently cited", which necessarily has a higher threshold. And surely you're not giving any weight at all to the meatpuppet COI editors who offered zero P&G-based rationales......? That leaves 3 keep !votes, only one of which attempted to be based in any guideline, and their argument rested on a handful of one- or two-sentence passing mentions by non-independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When there's no relevant guideline, how can we demand !voters adhere to one to have their voices considered? Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a relevant guideline: GNG. The fact that most journals don't receive GNG coverage is a strong indication that they should not be covered as standalone articles, not that our guidelines aren't appropriate for them. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse At the end of the day, GNG applies here, and there's no evidence in the discussion we're able to write a neutral, encyclopedic article on this journal. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Evenly split discussion. Keep arguments of Botterweg and other established editors can not be discounted. There was no consensus around the question on notability. Deletes claimed near-total absence of independent sources, stating that there shouldn't be an article without them, which is fine. But then a participant brought a handful of independent sources which clearly support some basic statements, and some third-party sources had also been added to the article during the discussion.—Alalch E. 12:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alalch E., but merely independent sources are not enough to establish notability, and not even the keep !voters claimed they were anything close to SIGCOV, which is what is required. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Serious and non-discountable reasons for why the page is suitable as an encyclopedia entry were given in spite of the admitted lack of notability under the guidelines. The content was described as encyclopedic and verifiable using third-party sources. This was not contested especially strongly. It's rare that such strong keep rationales exist when the topic doesn't meet wiki-notability criteria, but what underlies this is the fact that notability guidelines are imperfect, as they do not totally and definitively describe when it is possible to have an article (they do a good job, but they can't cover every scenario). —Alalch E. 11:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - Sometimes when a discussion is lengthy, tedious, and inconclusive, there really is No Consensus. A major part of the problem is that we don't have a useful guideline on journals, because the SNG is not an SNG because the G stands for Guideline and it is not a guideline. The absence of an applicable guideline, and the misfit between journals and the general notability guideline, make it difficult or impossible to reach consensus. The closer made an effort to tease out a consensus, but unintentionally wound up supervoting. The community has not provided AFD or DRV with useful guidance on journals, and so there is No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Are you saying that any lengthy AfD about a journal should be closed as "no consensus" because we don't have an SNG? That journal AfDs should be closed by nose-count? When there's no SNG, we fall back on the default GNG, which would have seen this AfD closed the exact same way. I went out of my way to give some weight to NJOURNALS per the Keeps, but stopped short of accepting a minority interpretation of a criterion that would essentially see almost all journals qualify as notable.
    Yes, journal AfDs are tricky and often contentious, and community hasn't settled on an SNG. But that is no reason to retain them all under a sweeping "no consensus", as long as we have other guidelines that apply. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with this general reading of academic journal notability. If we are to accept that papers which are cited by other papers published in big journals like Nature gives notability then there is no end to this. Not only does the average Nature paper cite papers from many journals, in total over hundred of years of publication there must have been many many journals that have papers cited. Multiply that for the other “top journals” (whatever that means) and almost everything would be notable. JMWt (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This close seemed like a correct reading of the consensus in that discussion to me. While I think OwenX may have a slightly unusual reading of C2, I don't think it changes the reading of consensus in the discussion, where most Delete voters disregarded the arguments around NJOURNALS C2. Suriname0 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Lycée naval (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lycée naval (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Administrator asilvering relisted this "don't delete" discussion requesting more evaluation of sources for the subject to determine between keeping the article or merging into a related topic. The non-administrator closer seems to have ignored that comment and only counted the bolded comments when closing as "merge" without any more comments in the discussion. The closer did not respond when asked about it and has not edited in nearly two weeks. This discussion should be relisted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close. The nominator makes a fair point that there were no further comments after the last relist, and a further relist might have teased some out, but there were no actual keep !votes on that discussion. The closest was my own, where I said I was leaning keep because I had found mentions (but not SIGCOV). I would have been persuadable to keep, but I could not find more sources myself, and my actual !vote was merge. Now the reason I think the merge close should be endorsed is this: the school sits within the Brest Naval Training Centre which also is home to the École de Maistrance and the École des Mousses. By merging these into a single article, we now have an article that is still poorly sourced, but is approaching a decent start class rather than a set of minimal unsourced stubs that had poorly machine translated names. On the back of this close I merged them all together into this article. Redirects exist so an interested reader will find their information need met, rather than finding a stub that tells them nothing. Overturning this close would mean demerger, and that would be a net negative to the encyclopaedia. I also presume that if the Lycée naval de Brest part of this article becomes more cleary notable in its own right, and the article section balloons as a result, then spinout is perfectly possible, and I marked the redirect as with possibilities and printworthy for that exact reason. Please also note that I renamed the Lycée naval to Lycée naval de Brest before merging under WP:MADRENAME. That is how it is known. You therefore need to view the history of the redirect at Lycée naval de Brest to see how the article looked prior to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally would probably have read the lack of further input as "no opposition to merge" and gone with merge -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - As noted, Asilvering had relisted to see if there were any other votes. When there weren't, a non-admin close of Merge was reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:Mattdaviesfsic - When four of your AFD closes are taken to DRV at the same time, a lesson should be learned. When you resume editing, I suggest that your first task be to decide what the lesson should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a correct reading of a non-controversial discussion and suitable for a NAC. However, at the same time an AfD closed as merge should never be implicitly construed as a barrier to a spinout should more sourcing arise suitable to justify one. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Jclemens.—Alalch E. 13:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. I agree that there could have been a relist, but with engaged (and interested) editors suggesting a merge, and no pushback from the original nominator, this is a very reasonable close. --Enos733 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Zainal Arifin Mochtar (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Zainal Arifin Mochtar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In a relisting comment, administrator Liz noted that the discussion should be closed as no consensus if there were no further comments. The closer, who is not an administrator, appears to have counted the bolded "keep" comments without reading the discussion nor the relisting comment, did not reply to inquiries on their talk page, and has not edited in nearly two weeks. Discussion has already been relisted twice and should be overturned to no consensus. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - re-closed as no consensus, being an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity per WP:NACD. Ivanvector, you can relist or re-close BADNACs yourself, assuming you are uninvolved. No need to bring those to DRV. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Stephen Barlow (conductor) (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Stephen Barlow (conductor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer failed to observe WP:RELIST and closed this discussion on the basis of a single comment. Closer did not adequately explain their close, did not respond to comment afterwards, and has not edited at all in about two weeks. This should be relisted to give time for additional comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I relisted the AfD as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity, per WP:NACD. Feel free to close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 18:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election

International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not only was this a WP:BADNAC per criteria #2 (this is covered under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics), the close didn't explain why merge !votes were weighted more heavily that delete ones, especially given the technical considerations such as WP:TOOBIG. On a purely numerical basis, there were 18 !votes mentioning delete (14 of which were to just delete without merging), 15 !votes that mentioned merging (including an equal number of "merge or delete" and "merge or keep"), 9 !votes mentioning keeping, and 1 !vote specifically opposing merging. Since merging didn't have a strong numerical advantage over deleting, I have a hard time seeing a clear enough consensus to not have relisted instead of closing. An attempt was made to discuss this with the closer at User talk:Mattdaviesfsic#Recent non-admin closes at AFD, but the closer immediately stopped editing when that was posted and has not been active in the 11 days since. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • With this one honestly I think the thing to do is vacate the close entirely, and start a non-deletion discussion somewhere about splitting more lists out of that monster of an article. Enacting the close results in a 100+kB list being added back into an article that's already over half a megabyte; I said somewhere else that the resulting page would be in the top ten longest articles on Wikipedia by byte count, and I was already having problems loading the page on a gaming system that's less than a year old. More of the target article needs to be split off into companion articles and lists, not have more added back into it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this is a BADNAC, fair and true, and should be quickly vacated. I have no comment on what should happen here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus Relist. This is clear WP:BADNAC as there was nothing close to a consensus to merge, delete, or keep (or even to not keep with a delete/ATD split). These decisions are best handled by an administrator with significant experience closing AFD discussions. Relisting is an acceptable option as well, though I think it is unlikely any consensus will form based on the already high attendance. Frank Anchor 19:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC). There is possibly consensus building to not keep, with a delete/ATD split. In that case merge would be an appropriate close, though we are not there yet. The closure of this AFD, whether now or after another relist, would be best handled by an admin with significant closing experience. Frank Anchor 15:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. Agree that this is obviously a contentious close, but given that the merge appears to already be in progress, I'd be inclined to leave this one. Normal editing can sort out whether all of the content is worth merging or just some of it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This looks to me like a clear cut case of WP:BADNAC. There has been one try at merging already, but that one was reverted due to technical issues with size. Like @Ivanvector I am also having issues with the article loading without a merge of another large article, I am also on a Desktop Gaming PC. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, but definitely not to "no consensus" as there was a clear consensus against keeping the article as a standalone. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not overturn to no consensus which would serve the participants poorly where there was clear consensus that it should not be kept. The merge could be pragmatically upheld (the information would necessarily be pared back in a merge through editor decisions) or it could be overturned to delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate BADNAC but I am torn between merge, relist, and no consensus. Delete !voters ignore ATDs and the NOTNEWS arguments are simply tired and wrong, so there's clearly no consensus to delete, nor any policy-based way for such to develop with a relist. Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reclose by admin as merge, as a formality, instead of vacating. The close is correct.—Alalch E. 12:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not opposed to not doing anything as well. —Alalch E. 15:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action. They say even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while, and apparently, even a BADNAC can land on the right outcome every so often. I agree that this should have been handled by an admin, and the call to vacate is justified and well anchored in policy. But if the only purpose of reclosing as Merge by an admin is to rebuke the well intentioned but inexperienced closer, we've already accomplished that right here at DRV. Which is a long way of saying, I second asilvering's "Eh". Owen× ☎ 13:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action I agree with OwenX and others that merge (or possibly redirect) are the only real options here, and merge/ATD had the most support. As Sirfurboy points out, there is no consensus to keep the article, and there is also no consensus to delete the information. How a merge is performed is an editing decision. I do agree that this should have been closed by an administrator. --Enos733 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus as a bad non-admin close in a contentious topic. I am counting Keep or Merge as 0.5 votes each for Keep and for Merge, and Delete or Merge as 0.5 votes each for Delete or Merge. By my count, we have 5 votes for Keep, 9 votes for Merge, and 15 votes for Delete. Merge would have been a reasonable Alternative to Deletion except that the parent article is already too big, a point that was noted by some Keep and Delete voters. There really wasn't any consensus, and sometimes a discussion that is lengthy and inconclusive really should be closed as No Consensus, which is unsatisfying, but any other close would be worse. A Relist after 31 responses is worth considering, but is worth considering and dismissing. After some of the other sections of the parent article have been split off, a merge might be in order, but it then might also be apparent that this page is another subpage like those that were split off. Sometimes the best response to No Consensus is to wait a month or two, and this is probably such a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The merger has been performed. See Special:PermanentLink/1259459012#International reactions. The content is commented out currently due to size limits, and it's up to editors to figure out how much to bring back, how to summarize, and whether to trim or spin off something else. There is no need to revise the AfD outcome. There was strong consensus that the stand-alone article should not exist. An administrator would not have closed this as no consensus. —Alalch E. 18:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to WP:PEIS and WP:BADNAC. I would additionally suggest that the article be re-instated, as there is precedent for having "international reaction" list articles. But as I am in the minority here, I will instead provide no comment on how the overturn should be handled. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a very clear consensus that this article should not exist as an independent article. Accordingly, do not overturn to no consensus. Technical limitations should not overrule content decisions. I would have preferred deletion but as between merge and keep/no consensus, the latter is clearly wrong. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13 November 2024

Alexander Tetelbaum

Alexander Tetelbaum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I ask you to consider restoring the page "Alexander Tetelbaum" as being deleted without fair justification by Diannaa.
Initially, the reason for deletion was that the page had infringed Amazon copyrights. Namely, had an image and text about the book "Executive Director". The page never had this staff--only a reference to the book.
Later, Diannaa changed the reason and stated the similarities between the page and Amazon's Author BIO. Yes, the two BIO's are similar and it must be expected--if they had been different it would mean that one of them or both are incorrect. Also, this BIO is not the property of Amazon and got into Amazon about 15 years later than was published in Wikipedia.
Also, Dianna questioned notability. Alexander Tetelbaum was the founding President of the first Jewish University in Ukraine, the author of 20 books, and dozens more achievements.
It took 5 seconds to delete the page and now Dianna suggested resubmitting the page--and this is 40-50 hours of work. There is also a difference in that the original page was created in 2007 vs. a possible new one.
This does not look right when one person can make such decisions and constantly change the reason for deletion. In case of resubmission, it can be also rejected taking into account that we are not happy with how Dianna handled this issue and we are afraid of retaliation.
I honestly do not see any serious arguments to remove the page with 17 history, fully true, and all facts are supported by multiple references. I do not want to speculate, but the page was deleted soon after Dr. Tetelbaum published his book "Executive Director" which had some criticism of Wikipedia. Also, he recently published a joke on X and Truth websites where Wikipedia was mentioned among other organizations.
To conclude, I ask you to restore the page and if you see any issues, we will fix them. Thanks for your consideration.
Respectfully, Natalie Heroux (nheroux) Nheroux (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor couldn't figure out how to post here, so I have copied the above from my talk page at her request. Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't check the old version, but copyright violation is one of if not the most serious reason to delete a page on Wikipedia, and Diannaa is one of the most experienced users here with dealing with copyvios. If the person is notable, there is nothing preventing you from starting a new version which does not copy text from anywhere else - and yes, it could be rejected for various reasons, but not liking the content is not one of those reasons. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nheroux appears to have misunderstood some of the things that I did. The deletion was triggered by a report at CopyPatrol for the book "Executive Director" Book, where all the content was a match for content present at Amazon. After redirecting this to the author article Alexander Tetelbaum I noticed that everything in the author's article was a match for content present at Amazon as well. Since Amazon's webpages are not archived in the Wayback Machine there's no way to confirm whether or the content at Amazon was copied from Wikipedia or the other way around. So absent that proof, I decided that the author's article should be deleted as well. I never changed the reason for deletion; I noted from the start that the article was a match for the content at Amazon, noting "foundational copyvio, copied from Amazon" in my deletion rationale. I suggested that a new article could be started in draftspace. Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but you are welcome to start a draft in your own words, using independent reliable sourcing about Tetelbaum. Star Mississippi 01:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a matter of taking copyright seriously, even when no one else on the Internet takes copyright seriously, and of trusting the judgment of an experienced copyright administrator. I have multiple comments:
      • I doubt that the material was copied from Wikipedia to Amazon. If it was originally on Wikipedia, it should not have been. It is written in an Amazon style. It looks more likely that it was copied from Amazon to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not allow that.
      • I find the claim that it will take 40-50 hours to write a biography of a living person to be lacking in plausibility, even if there was a large amount of information beyond the Amazon blurb that was deleted.
      • If the appellant was the original author of the article, why didn't she keep a copy on her computer? I find pleas that an author needs the deleted Wikipedia article in order to start a new article unpersuasive. In 2024, large amounts of solid-state storage are cheap. I don't know why authors don't have copies.
      • The deleting administrator refers to the Wayback Machine, and says that Amazon is not archived. But Wikipedia is archived. Even if the author forgot to keep a copy, doesn't the Wayback Machine have a copy? It is a copyright-infringing copy, but that is a legal detail, and it can be rewritten from.
      • Notability is not mentioned in the deletion log. It is not necessary to argue that Tetelbaum is biographically notable.
      • The appellant has already been asked about an association with Tetelbaum, which is a conflict of interest, and does not appear to have answered the question.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The only relevant appeal for copyvio deletion is "It wasn't a copyvio, and here's why." This doesn't accomplish that. Jclemens (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and enjoin the appellant from editing this topic, broadly construed. The appellant created the page three times. The first two were essentially identical, while the third was a stub she expanded over the years to the version that was deleted last month as a copyvio. Statements such as, this is 40-50 hours of work and the two BIO's are similar and it must be expected--if they had been different it would mean that one of them or both are incorrect make it clear she is not here to copyedit, but to copy-paste. Her declared inability to write a bio that isn't a verbatim duplicate of the one published on Amazon tells us all we need to know. Her failure to respond to the question about COI, the aspersions cast against the deleting admin, the disruptive edits on her Talk page, her use of the first-person plural pronoun when talking about her edits, and the Tetelbaum-centric contribution history paint a clear picture. The only article we can expect from this SPA is a duplicate of the one that was deleted. I'd welcome a draft from an unrelated, experienced editor, but for the WP:TENDENTIOUS appellant, a topic ban would be appropriate. Owen× ☎ 14:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - Deletion Review is a content forum. I agree with the criticism by User:OwenX of the conduct of the appellant, but what should we (DRV) do other than endorse the G12? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer, if an admin, can choose to action both pieces based on feedback from participants. Star Mississippi 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nheroux has now stated on her talk page that she is the daughter of the subject of the article. She mentions that the content at Amazon also originated with her (no surprise there) and that's why they match. She thought if she removed it from Amazon there would not longer be a copyright issue (which is not true; that ship has sailed) but has agreed to my suggestion to instead start a new Wikipedia article on her father, rewriting with new content in draftspace. I have no comment on the still to-be-determined issue of notability. Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Educating this editor on the proper way to do this seems like a win all the way around. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Nheroux wrote: this BIO … got into Amazon about 15 years later than was published in Wikipedia.
    That’s good enough for us to accept that it is not a simple copyright infringement. It is, however, a WP:COI issue. COI authors are required to not write into mainspace directly.
  • Undelete to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftification is not intended for articles that are more than 90 days old. WP:DRAFTNO. So I am opposed to this idea. Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're missing a piece of that RFC, @Diannaa. Consensus can be behind the draftification. Personally I think starting fresh would be easier if the editor really does intend to make a compliant article but that's also draft space so distinction without a difference unless you're opposed to giving her the material. Star Mississippi 14:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She already has the material, so refusing to give her a copy seems a little bureaucratic. So I am not opposed to giving her the material, but I don't see the point of doing so. Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not a copyvio, it makes more sense to restore the article to mainspace rather than move it to draftspace. Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Diannaa here, I don't see the point of draftifying this if it's a copyvio where the author already has the original material. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COI editors are required to use AfC to write articles. Draftification is retrospectively correcting their mistake. If the page is ok, an AfC reviewer will approve it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense to me. I have no preference where she creates the article. I just thought draft space would be easier for a relatively inexperienced editor without the threat of an AfD hanging over her article development. Star Mississippi 16:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Diannaa, you are referring to unilateral draftification. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the G12 deletion. WP:G12 is not met, there is no unambiguous copyright violation. Send to XfD to resolve any doubt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking at some of the deleted revisions, and I do see it to be a copyright. Are you suggesting @Nheroux release the text for use, or otherwise that it's not a copyright violation? Star Mississippi 02:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you see an *unambiguous* copyright violation? There’s a claim that Nheroux published it all on Wikipedia first (thus released the text under the GFDL), making the Amazon copyright claim invalid, or at least generating enough ambiguity for it to go to XfD as an apparent copyright violation.
    If you are sure, then email the deleted page to her, that is allowed.
    In either case, Heroux is a coauthor on a for profit book with Alexander Tetelbaum, and that is a clear connection establishing a WP:COI, and Heroux is not allowed to write on Tetlbaum in mainspace, she must either use draftspace and AfC, or talk page suggestions.
    I think the copyright violation is ambiguous enough to justify an XfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Justifiable suspicion but the suggested scenario of this content proliferating from Wikipedia onto Amazon is very plausible, and the deleted article (accessed via the Wayback Machine) does resemble a legitimate Wikipedia article, and copied content often doesn't. Editors should look at this and figure it out in an AfD.—Alalch E. 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...or rather, at WP:CP —Alalch E. 11:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The article was created on 25 February 2007, and he didn't start publishing books through Amazon until 2017 or so, so I have no reason to think Nheroux's claim that the profile got into Amazon about 15 years later than was published in Wikipedia isn't correct. At a minimum there's enough ambiguity to send it to a discussion (which would be at WP:CP, not AfD). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The author is working on a new version in her sandbox. User:Nheroux/sandbox-- Diannaa (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 November 2024

2024 Duki coal mine attack (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2024 Duki coal mine attack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Firstly, AfD is not the right forum for MERGE or REDIRECT discussion. Let me also remind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE.

Secondly, the over a dozen references within the article itself assert notability while fulfilling and meeting the WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:NEVENT which reads:

"Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."

Thirdly, at the expense of being called out for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'll still say that having articles on street brawl and stabbing incidents in the West but not one on a terrorist incident that occurred outside of an active warzone in the Global South is a pure example of WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated to "restore/allow recreation." There's nothing wrong with the AfD, but I'm satisfied there's been enough continued coverage that this no longer fails WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD a poor forum for a merge discussion, but is not the wrong forum. AfD is the right forum on whether to turn a page into a redirect. Sources can assert notability but that notability, i.e. real-world notability, is not wiki-notability. There was a rough consensus to stop the article from being live, redirecting was a valid WP:ATD, and the closer noted that the content can be merged from history.—Alalch E. 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the consensus is concerned, there were 4 Keep, 2 Merge and 2 Delete !votes (excluding the nominator) before @Liz: decided to re-list the AfD discussion for the second time on 28 October. So, there was a rough consensus to Keep the article at that point in time. — Mister Banker (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Youre actually admitting there was not consensus to keep at that point. This is based on numbers and not looking into the reasoning (since AFD is not a vote). Four keep !votes and five delete/WP:ATD !votes (including the nom) is not consensus. A relist at that point was a reasonable choice. Frank Anchor 13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It was a poor nomination, people should not go to AfD with a vague merge proposal. And doing so is usually a train wreck. However, in this case the discussion recovered and I agree that it is a consensus to redirect. AfD is not not good for merges, but is perfectly good with redirection. Elements in the discussion were strong on the points that the article should not continue, and that there is no great ongoing need to merge anything, as the content is already at the target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD is the perfect place for redirect discussions. For poorly sourced articles that have a natural redirect target, a redirect is the best outcome. Once you discard the VAGUEWAVE !votes in this AfD, the redirect result reflects consensus well. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to clarify how the article was poorly sourced? — Mister Banker (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would gladly do so if this were AfD. But this is DRV, where we are asked to review consensus among AfD participants, not to rerun the AfD. Owen× ☎ 07:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Many of the keep !votes were weak while the redirect/merge !votes were more based in policy. Consensus to not keep appeared to form after the final relist. Frank Anchor 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:Mister Banker - What is the right forum for redirect discussions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the article's talkpage. This attack has also received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, thus merits an article. (see: ANI, DAWN) — Mister Banker (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think those articles clear the continued coverage issue, and would vote to restore. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Nominator's statement Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met[5] makes it clear to me that they do not understand that routine events like this do not have or get enduring coverage, AFD is often the venue where the consensus for merging/redirection emerges so the closer was correct in redirecting this article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse - Appellant has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but ...
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1188230539"