đ â Page unsalted. Recreation can occur at editorial discretion, and a nomination at RfD should that occur by any interested editor is also acceptable. Daniel (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comment - It took me a while to figure out what the context of this filing is, but I concluded that the issue is what should be done if the user copies and pastes this emoji into the search bar. The other way that an emoji could be targeted would be if an editor puts an emoji inside double brackets in a page, probably a talk page. That seems weird, but the whole thing is weird. Is there some other reason to have an entry for an emoji, other than if it is a search term? As a search term, I find the recent reasoning at WP:RFD cited by the filing party and by Gonnym that nothing is the wrong answer, and that there should be something. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This is the best answer. The search term does not appear in the encyclopedia. As the search term is not even present on any article, let only the subject of some text, a redirect is not appropriate. You can put it into google search for some results. Wikipedia is not google. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
DRV doesnât feel right for declaring the redirect ok. A lack of consensus to maintain protection, 5 years post XfD, suggests that protection should be removed, allowing anyone to re-create, and then a fresh RfD for the real discussion. âSmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@SmokeyJoe: I don't really think there's a clear venue for this type of thing? Protecting admin was desysopped so can't ask them. I'd be fine if this just closed as "unsalt", someone created the redirect, and we had a discussion at RfD about it. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Previous closing admin here. I don't feel strongly about this particular redirect, though I'm not convinced that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 22 § đ„ș necessarily supported a general requirement to bluelink every single-emoji title. I'm not opposed to such an editorial policy suggestion though. If it is decided that we ought to bluelink every single-emoji title, WP:REMOJI needs to be edited. Deryck C.20:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Oppose unsalting. No argument is made here what the redirect target on Wikipedia should be, taking into account WP:REMOJI, which suggests that there would need to be "a clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia". A redirect to Wiktionary does not meet these requirements. Sandstein 09:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
REMOJI isn't a policy or even a guideline, just a list of common outcomes. Deferring to a list of common outcomes to determine the outcome is circular logic. Are here readers really better served by a salted redlink than a Wiktionary redirect? I don't think that is the case - we can provide some information in the form of a redirect to Wiktionary, as opposed to the nothing we currently provide. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Unsalt the option of a soft redirect to Wiktionary is a reasonable one and it doesn't seem to have been seriously considered at any of the RfDs which have been done so far, the most recent of which was four years ago. Hut 8.517:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Milt's Stop & Eat â "Keep" closure endorsed. Although I happen to agree with DGG's lone dissent on the merits of the AfD, consensus in this DRV is that the AfD was correctly closed as coming to a different conclusion. Sandstein 10:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Closer incorrectly closed as Keep with a minimal number of participants evaluating sources using the "wrong" guideline when a "relist" was more appropriate. Closer also claims to have followed correct procedure but explanation at Talk page is flawed and contradictory but claims they're now being badgered (and oddly, claims they knew all along their close would be challenged??) HighKing++ 10:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm sorry, HighKing, but I'm afraid that Bilorv's close of that discussion was exactly what we would expect. The fact is that that was a well-attended discussion by today's standards, and nobody at all agreed with you, so the article won't be deleted on this occasion. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.âS Marshall T/C15:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
(Comment by the closer.) I've been here long enough to recognise the signs in an AFD that the nominator is going to go looking for trouble with the person who implements consensus that they are angry at. You've been here long enough to know better. â Bilorv (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
(Response to the closer) That's three times (at least) you've tried to make it personal. I'm not angry and I'm around long enough to know that almost no DRV's are overturned (don't think I've persuaded anyone to overturn) but I like to think its important to try and its important that we identify if our processes and guidelines stop being fit for purpose. This isn't personal and I'm sorry if something I said has made you appear to be taking it so. HighKing++ 21:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse â per the DGFA, !votes should be discounted in cases where they "were not made in good faith", "contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious". Workaday disagreements about the quality of sources don't meet any of those standards, and indeed choosing a minority view in this case would be an undeniable supervote. More broadly, the notability guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are not etched in stone, "occasional exceptions may apply" to them, and they are descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not a closer's job to disqualify one interpretation of them as "wrong". This closure accurately reflected the consensus; if you disagree with that consensus, feel free to renominate once an appropriate period has elapsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Serious Question Many editors attending NCORP-related AfD's don't know that NCORP has a stricter interpretation on references which may be used to establish notability than GNG and often quote from GNG instead. A serious question - why bother having separate guidelines for organizations (e.g. NCORP) at all if !voters can ignore it, safe in the knowledge that the closer isn't supposed to (or won't) take that argument into consideration because that'd be a "supervote" (or because "guidelines aren't etched in stone" or "IAR" or whatever) Isn't it just as much a "supervote" to decide which guidelines/policies to ignore (or allow to be ignored) as to implement? HighKing++ 21:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
You're absolutely right to say that closers are clearly and specifically disbarred from deciding which policies or guidelines to prefer. This is set out at WP:NHC: If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. The closer's role is to evaluate which policy or guideline is preferred by the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians participating in the debate.âS Marshall T/C22:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
At AfD, like elsewhere, decisions are made by those who turn up.
In some ways, AfD can be considered like a court, with rules and a decision by jury.
In another, it is a group learning exercise, where participants learn largely through the discussion. In this view, it is the role of participants to explain things to other participants.
Endorse Look, just because NCORP has 1) an expansive definition, and 2) is stricter than the GNG, doesn't mean it's the Rosetta Stone for deletionism's resurgence. The subject article is about a restaurant, not a nonprofit or a think tank, and as such it's got a building, a menu, a reputation... not just a boardroom and balance sheet. GNG applied, GNG was correctly evaluated, if I could move that this be dismissed with prejudice I would. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse Deciding whether a source is "independent" and "significant" is inherently subjective, and as long as the arguments are not clearly contrary to policy, it is going to come down to a vote in the end per WP:NHC, as S Marshall puts it. -- King of ℠⊠⣠â 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse. Guidelines such as WP:CORP are not absolute, and the unanimous (apart from the nominator) consensus was that the GNG was relevant and applied in this case. Relisting is supposed to be for unclear cases, or where there is almost no activity. In this discussion, the consensus was clear, the arguments well presented, and the turnout was moderately good so relisting would have been inappropriate. Sjakkalle(Check!)08:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse - not the wrong guideline, it's just a guideline anyway, not the wrong interpretation of consensus, and not the wrong close. WP:NCORP is the deletionist camp's argument de jour of late and we've seen it trotted out incessantly in the last little while, most commonly as an excuse for completely ignoring WP:BEFORE. Stâ lwart11109:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment OK, thanks everyone. I'm more than a bit deflated to be honest. I've probably been one of, it not the, most ardent supporter of NCORP and its strict guidelines on notability and I've participated in hundreds (at least) of NCORP-related AfDs over the past few years. I note there's some long-time editors here, who do great work and who've weighed in, very vocally, to knock a lump out of my position and me personally. I thought I was doing a pretty good job too but clearly based on the feedback here, I haven't a clue. Genuinely, I don't get why we bother with NCORP at all to be honest if all it takes is for enough !voters to turn up an say "Fails/Passes GNG" and the closer counts them up. And what's the point of any argument or debate at all if that's just going to be "bludgeoning" the process? I could make lots more arguments about consensus and guidelines and the role of a closer, etc, but lets be honest, I'm pissing into the wind. No hard feelings, good luck, I'll take my leave. HighKing++ 17:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thinking a bit more on my comments, I think NCORP should apply if the defining characteristic of a page topic is a corporation. There are plenty of topics that are organized as corporations, such as the LDS church, but are described in reliable sources substantially as another sort of thing--churches, restaurants, whatever. And I apologize if my comment came across as harsh and personal rather than emphatic--it was not intended to be an ad hominem rebuke, and I am sorry if it was taken that way. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure NCORP should exist in anything like its present form. It was an attempt to instruct people to !vote to delete more articles (or how closers should consider nonconforming !votes) whereas our guidelines are intended to be descriptions about how the community views matters. It purported to take priority over WP:N and it also developed an extended ambit beyond the promotional articles it was intended to target. There should instead be a policy against primarily promotional articles, regardless of notability. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think we should stick to the strict standards of NCORP for any organization or corporation, but for certain sourcing requirements the burden of proof is not on those wishing to keep the article, so long as the sources have been presented in good faith and do not obviously fail the requirement. For "significant coverage", this is a highly subjective criterion which will be decided primarily by !vote count. For "independent", too often I see "delete" !voters making claims of "churnalism" without proof. If it appears in a reliable source and is not a simple reprint of a press release, then the burden is on the "delete" side to establish that the source is not independent. Likewise, for interview introductions of significant length, the "delete" side needs to establish that they did not exercise editorial judgment and fact-checking when writing that bit. -- King of ℠⊠⣠â 20:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Making non-trivial claims of non-independence the responsibility of those asserting non-independence seems to be a good idea that should probably be captured and kept alive outside this DRV. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Especially when we have claims that despite being published by career journalists in highly respected newspapers and magazines, some sources are not "independent" because they include significant (or even some) interview-format quotes from company representatives. Stâ lwart11112:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Relist. (and delete) There's a reason for NCORP and it has nothing to do with deletionism or inclusionism. In practice, it'sour most effective defense against promotionalism . It doesn't matter as far as notability (or. the actual policy behind it , NOT INDISCRIMINATE) whether we include on more small restaurant chain or not; It does matter to our fundamental policy NOT ADVERTISiNG, that we are very careful about adding articles in field where so much of the writing is promotional: ifw e make it easy to add promotionalism , we are no better than google. . This article is not intended as promotionalism , but it is indistinguishable from it: most of the article is about the menu and links to local reviews. Add the hours and locations, and it would do for the chain's web page. Anything that would do as a firm's web page is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article . DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think this is a reasonable article and I'd be thrilled if we had similar articles on equally notable restaurants. I understand the concern about promotionalism and the slippery-slope argument. But I'd hate to see such arguments prevent us from covering topics like this. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Indeed, I think this is what happens when good editors and admins have been fighting promotion so long they adopt a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that says it's OK to delete companies that pass the GNG just because they're entities who might benefit financially from Wikipedia's coverage. By all means let's stomp undeclared paid advertising editing and promotional writing, but how about let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Letsgetgoing (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The article was recently posted and was deleted. Could not contest it either, it was gone right away giving me no option to defend it. The person is a real person and is on several web sites and social media. A social media influencer. I created the article because I felt she should have a page given those reasons, no different than others here. I've done articles before, so this making a new one in general wasn't impossible. WhoAteMyButter deleted it, saying it didn't have any reliable sourcing (Which it did), and duggested nothing could be done by me until a "special someone comes and reviews your request. They can then decide to undelete it and restore it, or do nothing and not undelete it." I did ask others like User:Athaenara?Athaenara but it went nowhere, until Graeme Bartlett suggested WP:DRV.[]
Please undelete the page. If anything needs to be changed or improve on, let me know and I will do it. But please give me a chance to do them or defend the page, instead of just getting rid of it. It's unfair, and I cannot do anything to make the changes if no one gives me that chance.Letsgetgoing (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn A7 Categorically, if something is legitimately a G11, it must be unambiguously promoting something such that I can't see any way G11 and A7 would apply to the same content. Having said that, I suspect G11 is likely to be sustained based on the appeal. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I stand corrected. This did indeed meet both A7 and G11. I've had my horizons broadened in a "Well, that's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back" way. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Temporarily undeleted. Endorse on both counts. How on earth have you never seen an article that's both solely promotional and asserts nothing of significance? âCryptic08:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse G11. Being entirely based on unreliable sources means that nothing in the content can be re-used. And is blatant promotion? Maybe. CSD#A7 applied, it isn't even promoting anything of significance. I still think that challenges of G11/A7 should go to AfD for a standard AfD discussion, with the useful AfD template links, even if it is headed to a SNOW G11. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse A7. I wouldn't say that this is promotional in the G11 sense, but I certainly don't see any claim of significance that could defeat the A7 - going by the article she just looks like a dominatrix with a vanilla web presence to me and all the sources are social media. I don't have a crystal ball but I'd be very surprised if the article were to survive WP:N-based deletion arguments at an AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Tips for the writer Letsgetgoing base the content on independent reliable sources, then A7 will not be applicable. Use an encyclopedic tone, rather than a press release tone, then G11 will not apply. If you can't find those kinds of sources, it means the topic is not notable. And if you are tempted to write about yourself, take a read of WP:Autobiography. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse. G11, I agree with SmokeyJoe's reasoning above - these type of discussions and evaluations of sources should normally be sent to AfD. HighKing++ 11:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse G11. The tone of the article is wholly inappropriate and it would have to be rewritten to be acceptable. "The woman who would be known as King Lexa"? "While building that success, she would use her influence and platforms to spread awareness on various topics"? "she made TikToks about the zodiac signs to both reach and build a level of relatedness and relationship within that community"? A7 isn't unreasonable either - I could possibly see "interviews ranging from iwantradio on Sirius XM, WTF TV, and even season 2 of Sex Life on Epix" as a credible claim of significance if I squint, but that's a stretch and nothing else in the article qualifies (the social media follower counts are low enough that they're a claim of insignificance, if anything). I would advise the article creator that their time would be better spent writing about other topics. Spicy (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse as A7 and probably G11. I'm not seeing a claim of notability or sources and it feels pretty darn promotional though maybe not to the G11 bar. No opposition to listing at AfD instead, but better sources than I can find better exist if it's going to have a chance. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Send to AFD in lieu of speedy deletion, because even a weak challenge to a speedy deletion should be sufficient to allow the AFD process to determine the view of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't see any prospect whatsoever of this content surviving AfD, so I think sending it to AfD would be a reprehensible waste of volunteer time that we could spend much better. It's spam: leave it deleted and move on.âS Marshall T/C13:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
ECOTIC â Speedily closing, this is an appeal of a deletion on the Romanian Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia, the various language Wikipedias are completely independent and an appeal of a deletion on the Romanian Wikipedia should be made on the Romanian Wikipedia. Hut 8.516:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
ECOTIC Association is one of the key players of the e-Waste management industry in Romania, implementing innovative projects focused on awareness raising and e-Waste Collection. As one of the most important players in the Romanian market it deserves an entry in the Romanian version of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. The article has been revised various times and new third-party sources have been added as references. Should there be need for new revisions these can be made once the page is restored. Thank you! Liviu843 (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Liviu843[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The original RFD for this article was only commented on (including the submitter) by a total of five editors and largely on the basis of supposedly being an "advertorially-toned page", which I dispute. This is a company which has largely taken the place of the old Silicon Graphics in making high-end commodity PCworkstations in the post-RISCUnix workstation era (2000s decade). The company is admittedly small but not new; they were founded in 2002 and, like SGI before them, their main costumers are in moviespecial effects and high-end graphics applications. The original article was not perfect in the sense of good third-party sources but this can easily be rectified. Also, BOXX Technologies was the first company to actually ship 64-bitx86 PC systems in 2003; this is provable with third-party sources. Bumm13 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The main issue in the AfD was that the sourcing didn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. If you have better sources then you are welcome to write a revised or draft version with those sources. As long as it's a significant improvement on the AfDed version it won't be deleted without a new AfD. Hut 8.516:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse - while it is true that the nomination started by citing a fixable problem, it did progress to less fixable problems and a brief assessment of the quality of sources. The other arguments for deletion, though, made no reference to anything "advertorially-toned" and focused on the quality of coverage and the reliability of sources, including one editor who clearly assessed each of the available sources and found one that might be considered an exception. I can't see any way the closer could have come to a different interpretation of consensus. Stâ lwart11109:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It has been revealed that 1/2 of the people giving opinions and 2/3rds of the people arguing for deletion were the same person engaging in sock puppetry. See [1] and [2][3].
Discounting this user's participation we are left with one comment in support of the article and one weak delete.
While this AfD may have come to the correct conclusion it is also possible that it may have been unduly influenced by sock puppetry.
I shared HighInBC's concerns about the sockfluence and had draftified it to see what I could do and had actually planned to bring it back here if I felt I got it to a suitable place to meet the GNG as AFC takes too long and as I was the one who brought the socking editor to ANI, I was too involved for a unilateral restoration. As it currently stands, it's not ready for prime time but I'm hoping to work on it in the next few days as I identified some sourcing that I think will get the article to where it needs to stand in mainspace. If relisting involves reverting it to as was at the time, feel free. If consensus is it's acceptable, we can do a histmerge with the draft additions I imagine? Would also love to hear possible merge targets as I feel their work in licensing Canada's first female architect is an important piece of history. StarMississippi00:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Relist. I wouldn't be against a WP:BOLD restoration by Star Mississippi for no other reason than WP:DENY. Why should one editor's disruptive behaviour force other editors to walk some arbitrary line? Honestly, its not the last article we'll see here at DRV because of this editor's disruptive behaviour; there are many where they are the lone supporter of deletion or have provided a seemingly policy-based reason for deletion only for a personal distaste for the subject to later become evident (eg. the last line in Star's comment). Stâ lwart11103:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Vacate AfD due to socking influence. A new AfD would be fine, if anyone thinks it really needs one, as would moving it from draft into mainspace when any editor thinks it's ready... but WITHOUT the threat of a G4 hanging over it--which as we well know here, is the most often inappropriately applied CSD. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I'm going to go with relist as well. I feel that we can't overturn without relisting, because that's unfair to the AfD nominator, who's a good faith editor making a cogent argument.âS Marshall T/C11:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Absolutely no issue with Czar or Novum Linguae's actions. The article, as it stood, was barely more than an A7 and consensus appeared clear. Unfortunately an issue with longstanding articles, since it's impossible to maintain and update all six million plus, and the general lack of participation at AfD. An architectural association isn't a topic that will engender passioned discussion. StarMississippi13:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I think Star Mississippi has rendered the issue somewhat moot - it wouldn't be fair to send it back to mainspace and AfD it again while it's being worked on, and comments made at the prior AfD wouldn't reasonably apply to an improved version anyway. I suggest we just leave it in draft space until Star Mississippi has finished. If it then gets moved back to mainspace then it can be AfDed again. Hut 8.518:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Move draft to mainspace - the new draft is solid and I can't see anyone having any reason to nominate it for deletion. I suspect the original nominator - who did nothing wrong here - would agree (so pinging Novem Linguae). Stâ lwart11102:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Athar Aamir Khan â Consensus exists that this is not a good NAC given the involved element. Some proposed relisting, others happy enough with the close but identified the procedural issues with it. Therefore, the close is vacated and overturned to procedural no consensus per this discussion, and anyone is free to nominate the article to AfD at any point should they wish. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
We've established in a thorough source analysis at a recent DRV that the Indian Express and the Hindustan Times are reliable sources, and they're clearly independent of the subject, and they're linked in the article. I can't see any realistic prospect whatsoever of this article being deleted. The discussion was open for a sufficient period, and it was closed by an uninvolved editor in an orderly manner. What's the problem exactly?âS Marshall T/C21:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes. The DGFA say you can't close a discussion you participated in. They don't say you can't close a discussion about an article you've edited. By our rules this was an uninvolved close.âS Marshall T/C00:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse The second relist was more questionable than the subsequent NAC. I agree this appears uncontroversial and just the sort of discussion we don't need an admin to close. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Vacate. A "keep" closure would be difficult to defend at all â barring a serious strength-of-argument issue, one delete, two keeps, and two unsure strikes me as a clear "no consensus" â but it's certainly a disputable closure, which means it shouldn't be closed by a non-admin. (If a good-faith longstanding contributor objects to your closure, that's a pretty good sign that it was too controversial for an NAC.) The fact that the closer had previously made substantial edits to the article makes things worse, per WP:NACINV. I don't think we need to decide at this stage what the correct closure is: since the NAC was out of process, it should be reverted to allow for reclosure by an uninvolved administrator. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've never looked at NACINV before, thanks for linking it. An interesting essay. I'm intrigued by the idea that editing an article makes an editor, but not a sysop, an involved closer. Can't say I agree with that.âS Marshall T/C00:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I hadn't noticed that the NAC closer had edited the article, thanks for pointing that out, although I suspect that should have been the job of the person appealing the closure. On the merits, though, no, I disagree: In two relists not one editor unambiguously agreed with the AfD nominator. That's not even a 'no consensus', that's a clear keep. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
If you are a creative author of the article, you are involved with the article. Minor edits, gnoming, or adding sources, does not really make you an author in a real sense, although technically you are by Wikipedia standards. An uninvolved admin should countersign the close. âSmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
This business of article authorship equating to involved closure is interesting. Rather to my surprise, it does seem to be widely believed at DRV, but WP:DGFA do not say that. WP:INVOLVED could maybe be read in that light, depending on whether you believe the closer's edits amounted to participation in the dispute. We might need to clarify our guidelines.âS Marshall T/C14:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Iâm not sure if a few non-creative (attribution legally requiring) edits, including adding three references, makes an editor black letter INVOLVED, but NAC-ers should be very conservative in their closing, and avoid the mere perception of closing with prior involvement. This is a borderline NAC involved complaint. Ideally, on being questions, a good NAC-er will revert their close. It is *never* net helpful for a non-admin to close a discussion if it means another week at DRV, even if the complaint will not be upheld.
Minimally attended discussion of nom that was potentially flawed because it ignored that the cat was part of an established category structure (Category:Italian propagandists, Category:German propagandists, many others). Subsequently cat has been recreated, speedy deleted, and is now populated as a WP:REDNOT. Suggest restoring, immediately relisting to allow broader discussion. Closing admin notified on talk page, here, has no opposition. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
endorse deletion, relist as a group I think the broader issue needs to be discussed. Where we ended up doesn't make sense and the issue of consistency wasn't raised. I'd be fine getting rid of all of these. A fairly distant second choice would be to keep these. And if folks really decide that American propagandists are different than other ones, fine I guess. But the issue wasn't even raised, so the discussion is, IMO, too flawed to be useful. The closer cannot be faulted here, thus the endorse. And I don't see the need to undelete this cat unless a broader discussion results in keeping this (a NC close of such a discussion should result in restoration IMO). Hobit (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The other categories may fare better at CfD, e.g. most of the entries in Category:German propagandists are people who made propaganda for the Nazi regime and it's not controversial to describe them as propagandists. But I have no objection to a relist together with those other categories. Hut 8.519:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Primary issue of the debate was the use Daily Californian articles as some of the main sources to establish notability. The newspaper is independent of UC Berkeley. In addition Berkeley Student Cooperative which Lothlorien Hall is part of, is independent of the University. Itâs only requirement is that residents are students, and just as many residents are Bay Area students from other colleges as from UC Berkeley.
I think another reason for some editors' failing to recognize Lothlorienâs notability, was that the 1984 Killing of Roberta 'Bibi' Lee was only briefly mentioned. A former resident of Lothlorien was killed by her boyfriend a resident of the house. At first she was considered missing, and a search party was organized by Lothlorien (with the the search center known as Treehaven) over 2,000 people participated and approximately 3 million flyers were distributed along the west coast. This was covered nationally.
Lothlorien retained a 60's new age/hippy/spiritual nature of the house's previous resident - One World Family Commune, which is embraced by a large portion of the residents. The killing has left an impact on this aspect and the ghost of killed âBibi' is considered to haunt the place. This has been addressed in detail by Daily California article as well as in a published book (this link is to an article about it). Lothlorien is one of the book's primary subjects. It was not cited at the time.
There is an article regarding Lothlorien, published in Communities, life in cooperative culture a quarterly journal. Editors have questioned the notability of the subject, even though there are approximately 1,500 communes currently established or in planning phase in the United States. The journal is carried in academic libraries of universities like Cornell, San Diego State and Universite de Montreal.
Also, like two other BSC houses - Cloyne Court Hotel and Kingman Hall, the 2405 Prospect Ave. part of the co-op carries historical and architectural significance. Unlike the other two it has not been officially recognized as a historical landmark by Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, however it does consider it to be notable - it has a facebook entry regarding it and it's part of their Berkeley tour.
The building was known as the Maxwell House because of its original resident George Hebard Maxwell the âFather of Reclamation" who was the co-author of National Reclamation Act that allowed the development projects like Hoover Dam, without such dams there would not be a western half of the United States.
Comment It appears that the impetus for this is 1) Rybkovich, the primary author and advocate un-redirected and substantially expanded the article, and 2) Onel5969, the AfD nominator, promptly redirected it again referring back to the AfD. My take on this is that the content appears to have changed sufficiently that a new AfD would be in order. Sourcing looks reasonable, but the acrimonious original AfD appears marked by a bunch of spurious arguments about independence, some users !voting multiple times (Bearian), and a lot of people not respecting the work Rybkovich put into the article, which is clearly idiosyncratic but appears a labor of love. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I think that the new AFD that JClemens mentions should be tasked to exhaust the alternatives before jumping to deletion or deletion-by-redirection. IMV the right solution would be to make a spinout article from Berkeley Student Collective, called something like Houses of the Berkeley Student Collective, where this content and the massive, inappropriate table in the BSC article can all be retained.âS Marshall T/C09:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Reyk: This should be closed. I've blocked the IP, they are an LTA who has been vandalizing and hoaxing in relation to the Titanfall series for over two years. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
There's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) writing a new article about the subject. However consensus is that neither of those two sites is a reliable source, see WP:RSPSOURCES. Hut 8.511:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse the AfD, obviously.
If you think new sources overcome the reason for deletion, you could:
Boldly re-create;
Ask the deleting admin;
Use AfC to draft and submit for an AfC reviewer to decide.
If you want to make use of the deleted versions, go to WP:REFUND and request undeletion to draftspace or your userspace.
Endorse the AFD result. Still no significant reliable independent coverage, regardless of what the OP thinks. Anything worthwhile (and independently sourced) about the publication can be added to the founder's article.
(BTW, I'm going to disagree with SmokeyJoe in that I think it is valuable that the OP came here instead of foolishly trying to recreate the article based on inappropriate sources. It's just not going to work and is just going to be re-deleted, so it's good for the OP to realize that now.) Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Eva Lovia â Endorse, folks are clearly opposed towards changing the AFD results. While less clear cut, there is also a lot of scepticism/opposition towards allowing recreation - especially non-WP:AFC recreation - due to sourcing concerns, e.g that folks consider the RfC cited in favour of certain sources inadequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rationale as per the REFUND request here. These are two articles I AfD'd a long time ago. A recent RfC shows that the common understanding of the reliability of these sources wasn't correct. As a result, I think these should be undeleted, and subject to new AfDs if there is still appetite to delete them. Sources of these articles at the time of deletion:
Sources from Eva Lovia
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
âČâČâČOppose recreationâČâČâČ Iâm seeing a very select group of editors supporting that rfc who predictably found reliable sources that the community has actively rejected over many years. This very local consensus does not overcome the wide practise and precedent that finds AVN and XBIZ inadequate for sourcing porn performer bios. If you want this to have any validity, Iâd suggest that you have that discussion very publicly in a place where a much wider range of editors can weigh in. SpartazHumbug!18:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
If more or less everyone contributing to the discussion is someone historically voting to keep non notable porn performers. I have had DRV spank me for closing an afd in accordance to a discussion at the village pump before so forgive me for taking a cautious approach to a poorly attended rfc. SpartazHumbug!18:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, I dunno about other editors but at minimum it's not everyone, since I'm the one who AfD'd the two articles in question, and also participated in that RfC. More below: ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I too am hesitant to accept the outcome of that RfC as a true representation of community consensus. My position is that this much more thorough and better attended RfC should be what we're enforcing, which is to say that the community's view is that there aren't any genuinely reliable sources that are specific to the porn industry. It's a topic area we can only cover where it's covered in mainstream sources.âS Marshall T/C22:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
That RfC doesn't seem to rule on the reliability of any sources. All it says is that PORNBIO be deprecated and GNG be used instead. GNG is not about "mainstream sources", it's about reliable sources. Those sources can be an obscure town newspaper, a radio show, a journal article, an old book... whatever, so long as they're reliable. Above is an RfC held at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, advertised through the same process as for deprecation RfCs and tagged with Wikipedia Proposals. It found a clear consensus on the sources' reliability. AFAIK, the only reason to exclude content that can be reliably sourced is either through a stronger notability guideline (eg WP:NORG), or through WP:NOT. I don't see the pornographic industry covered at WP:NOT. So... what's the problem here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Allow Recreation of Draft, and Allow Recreation in Article Space subject to AFD. I agree with User:ProcrastinatingReader and respectfully disagree with User:Spartaz and User:S Marshall if they are saying to disregard the RFC at RSN. I think that what they are saying is that they don't trust the pornography industry. However, one publication by the unreliable porn industry was found to be a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse both AfDs. Clear consensus to delete. If you think things have changed, make a draft and follow the advice at WP:THREE. If the best three sources are not good enough, no number of worse sources will help. âSmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Allow recreation Per Robert, consensus can change and in this case it clearly has. RSN is where you are supposed to make RfC's about source reliability so I don't see any reason why the consensus would be incorrect. JumpytooTalk21:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The RfC is fine: AVN (magazine) is generally "reliable". However, that is a far cry from: The sources in the above reference dump being "independent". In my quick review, they are not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
This is really the crux of the issue. The GNG doesn't just require reliable sources, and unreliability isn't why WP:PORNBIO was removed - the only part that wasn't redundant to WP:ANYBIO all but demanded non-independent sourcing. Five random clicks on AVN- and XBIZ-labelled sources in the reference bombs above gave me an interview, a piece indistinguishable from a press release, and three press releases from AVN itself about its own awards. Not a thing has changed. Endorse. âCryptic04:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse, do not allow recreation. The sourcing for these articles is unreliable garbage. Whatever the merits of the cited RFC, it's not applicable here. AVN (magazine) may have some reliability, I suppose, but none of the sourcing here comes from it. Instead, it comes from the AVN website, which is part of the AVN promotion / PR business, circulating press releases from industry sources and, on occasion, repackaged material from press kits. It has no reputation for factchecking -- indeed, it has regularly demonstrably false material from porn agents fictionalizing the the background of their newest "discoveries". It's utterly worthless. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Worse than utterly useless, actually negative. Fictitious information that they would love to see become believed, via Wikipedia and the process of citogenesis. This is perhaps the biggest weakness of Wikipedia, the biggest threat, easily worse than any allegation of left of centre POV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse and require any potential re-creation through AfC process on the basis of ongoing BLP sourcing concerns noted above. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse. Both AfDs were unanimous (or nearly so) to delete. Second-guessing the intent of the AfD participants based on some questionable RFC would be very strange. And, to be honest, I'm struggling to understand how it is that you nominated these for deletion and now you're arguing to restore them, even though you say you can't even remember what was in them. This seems like wikilawyering for no good purpose. -- RoySmith(talk)17:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I wish to challenge this deletion as I believe the deletion discussion seemed to be all over the place with incorrect assumptions, but later settles on Notability however the story itself contradicts that very argument. The topic matter is regarding a terrorist attack in Istanbul, Turkey in 2009 which later on a few higher ranking political figures have stated that it was in fact done by Turkish secret police or some clandestine organization within the Turkish government. This indecent was heavily publicized by Turkish media at the time. The blame has been put on the PKK even till this day by the Turkish state and media, yet that does not seem to be the case. A single person died due to serve burns, specifically from a thrown Molotov. In Turkey using a Molotov due to this case became infamous and thus carried a more heavy sentence after. I believe more were injured but I could not find any reliable sources -yet-. The insinuation that they would be satisfied if more people had died is not a real grounds to argue it is not unusual enough. The argument "A whole article isn't needed for molotovs being thrown at a bus." is grossly misunderstanding and ignorantly ignoring the history and factors involved. Specifically the Turkish state committing a state sponsored terrorist attack.
I have already messaged the closer Missvain to find out exactly why the final conclusion was made and to see if I could overturn, but was pointed here. User_talk:Missvain&diff=next&oldid=1026420936. Granted it was relisted a few times, but nobody came forward to support (I assume a lack of knowledge on the story) I tried to explain everything, but it seems like my points were ignored and the majority votes were rather followed. TataofTata (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse - The close as Delete was the only way that the closer could have closed the discussion. The appellant appears to be saying that the closer should have supervoted to Keep the article or to find No Consensus. That isn't the role of the closer. She acted correctly in relisting the discussion twice, and then correctly in closing it as Delete. I will add a few comments:
The appellant said, to the closer, that the attack was a false flag operation. The claim of a false flag operation is common. If reliable sources have reported that commentators have said that it was a false flag operation, then the appellant should create a draft attributing that claim to the reliable sources and the commentators.
The appellant says that the incident is still being talked about in Turkey. The appellant can create a draft reporting continuing discussion of the incident by reliable sources such as Turkish newspapers or international magazines.
TataofTata: to help us evaluate we really need you to cite sources. Can you give us three independent, reliable sources? They can be in Turkish.âS Marshall T/C21:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I am some-what a newbie to Wikipedia and do not have the full understanding of how it works, but I certainty did not suggest that the closer should have âłsupervotedâł, in fact I was simply under the impression that for example 20 people voting and their reasoning would be âłjust becauseâł would not be enough to warrant a delete of a page (same goes for poor arguments). As per Deletion discussions it states to voters to specifically not just vote and do research and most importantly make relevant arguments. Also for administrators (I assume closers) âłWhen a consensus is reached, it will usually be respected by the closing administrator, but not alwaysâł. also âłIf there is no consensus, the closing administrator will often default to keep the article.âł and considering the closer opted to relisting the discussion twice I believe a consensus to delete had not been properly formed based on the brought up arguments. If she did so out of respect of the votes, I guess I can understand her position to do so, but I believe that results in poor choices and hence I guess why the ability to review is in place. Secondly in this case we can see the opener of the deletion page completely disregarded âłCompetenceâł (Nominators for deletion should demonstrate a reasonable level of competence. This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved.) The article is clearly not just about "molotovs being thrown at a bus". Another vote stating it was a "Insignificant event" which is clearly inaccurate and I personally think biased. As for bringing up my argument during the voting regarding being a false flag operation, I mentioned this as my opinion as the very acts and later the Former Minister of Interior of Turkey Ä°dris Naim Ćahin stating it committed by turkish intelligence officers and subsequently being blamed on the PKK leads me to believe it was by definition, however nowhere in the article did it state it was a false-flag simply because I could not find any academic sources specifically saying so. The page was barely a month old when the request to delete was made, ignoring the content being built/improved.
Yes I can try to provide some sources for you, S_Marshall. Luckily I saved some of my sources and one copy of the page.
Turkish written source on the matter [1] Also translated version here: [2]
Turkish state sponsored media organization "AA" still using it to blame the PKK [6]
Here's another Turkish news outlet blaming the PKK, again without mentioning any of the statements made (6 days old article) [7]
Significance of Molotov's after this incident is referenced a little here. [8]
It is important to understand the difficulty journalists face in Turkey and the current regimes now almost complete control of governing bodies involving investigating this properly.
TataofTata (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you. On the basis of those sources I believe that the community may have got this wrong. Sarah's close was correct; but the incident itself was newsworthy because a former government minister claimed that it amounted to an execution by intelligence services, and sources exist. I believe that if this incident had happened in the USA we would already have an article. Allow creation of an article based on those sources. âS Marshall T/C09:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, endorse and encourage recreation. The nomination of the AFD was so unsatisfactory that it is a pity the discussion wasn't speedily closed, but it wasn't and two people came in as delete. That often wouldn't have been enough for deletion but the discussion was relisted twice and no one arrived to support the objection to deletion. Looking at the copies of the deleted article, it potentially looks in pretty good shape to me so we should allow recreation but it would be better to leave references in Turkish and not feed them through Google translate â let the reader decide on any translation. I recommend having fewer, really strong, references (when S Marshall asked for three references here at DRV you should have given three though you would have been forgiven four). Particularly at AFD people will not be willing to spend a lot of time analysing the article. Thincat (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
To clarify the last three links points out the significance of the event, as the case was referenced while sentencing two Kurds years later, the next two above points out how it is still used and mentioned till this day in (Turkish) media (one only a week ago) - refuting the claim to be insignificant, considering it is the only reasoning made by the only delete votes. The remaining is simply siting sources and background to the article. If recommended I can clean it up a little by removing the translation link for the first one, also remove the 5th and 6th as it really does not add much to what is already been said. I do not believe I could fit 3 sources to backup my points. TataofTata (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse deletion but allow recreation. Overall a sub-par discussion but a perfectly reasonable "reading of the room" to close. It's not the closer's job to consider sources and supervote (as above) but we can consider new (or newly discovered) sources here and overturn the consensus itself, and I think we should in this instance. Stâ lwart11103:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Meets notability requirements: Has played percussion on over 1,000 releases, is affiliated with more bands other than Toto such as Fleetwood Mac, Stevie Wonder, Christopher Cross, and Boz Scaggs, has been listed as one of the top five percussionists in various magazines. His deleted page still receives hundreds of visits per month, which demonstrates interest in Castro and his work. Additionally, the deletion process only lasted two days, which is much shorter than the standard seven days usually allotted. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The AfD started at 23:08, 31 December 2018 and was closed at 14:24, 7 January 2019. That was a full 7-day AfD and the consensus was to delete. If Mr Castro is indeed notable, please could you link three reliable sources that have noted him?âS Marshall T/C12:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I provided a few extra references for variety. A mix of biographies, interviews, reviews, and credited contributions are included.
Allow Creation of Draft with the following comments:
Occasionally we have a filer who makes a good-faith error as to how long a deletion discussion was open. Maybe a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guide to AFD for filers to read before filing might be in order. This filer seems to have looked at the time between the first and the last comments rather than the time that the discussion was open for comments.
The title has been salted due to repeated recreation. I am recommending that the filer should create a draft for review before the title is unsalted.
I note that the title is protected as a redirect. I think that when the article cannot be boldly re-created due to protect, by default it should be expected that a WP:THREE-compliant case is made (note, 3, not 9), or AfC is used. Protection should be immediately removed on request by an AfC reviewer, and this normally is what happens. People should be discouraged from coming to DRV without a draft or being able to point to WP:THREE notability-attesting sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Unsalt and allow recreation. There's enough here that while the original discussion was properly closed as delete, it's not too far off from a 'soft' delete, and for the name to be salted seems inappropriate. I don't think forcing a draft is appropriate, given at least marginal notability. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Also note that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 15 apparently came up with the idea of fully protecting the redirect, which seems to not have involved any specific discussion of sources. I see no reason it should be a precedent, since G4s were clearly inappropriate in that case. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Kinta Utara (federal constituency) â Restore. Pretty clear consensus here that A1 and A7 did not apply here. During the course of the DRV the deleting admin restored the article and redeleted it under a different rationale WP:CSD#G5. What the overall assessment of the G5 is isn't so clear: Some folks are clearly in favour of overturn on the grounds that the author wasn't blocked/banned at the time the deletion took place and that's a requirement for G5, some editors are uncertain or want to endorse because of third-party contributions, or stating that since most of us are not checkusers we can't definitively assessing the (de)merits. The deleting admin and checkuser has stated that they are fine with any outcome and noted some technical details (and uncertainty on some of the technical details, such as who is the sockmaster and who is the sockpuppet). Overall, this is strongly leaning towards overturning the deletion, and per the DRV instructions a no consensus close on a speedy deletion also implies restoring, so restore it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Overturn â the article apparently said, among other things, "Kinta Utara was a federal constituency in Perak, Malaysia, that has been represented in the Federal Legislative Council from 1955 to 1959", which is clearly enough context to satisfy A1. Constituencies are not "a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event", so A7 doesn't apply. And I can't think of any other relevant speedy-deletion criteria: indeed, the topic may well be notable under WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized place. While I appreciate that the situation here was unusual (see this for some context), speedy-deletion is one place where process really is important. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Using this loophole (which really ought to be closed), I can see that at least one revision of the article contained the above quote. It's possible that the article was later reduced to seven words, but that's irrelevant since, per WP:CSD, "a page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible". (A temp-undelete would be useful here.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Any outcome is fine with me, I just note technical details:
The article text was "Kinta Utara was a federal constituency in Perak, Malaysia." There were no references.
It was created by PPP001 (talk ·contribs), who is definitely same as MMM107 (talk ·contribs). I've marked PPP001 as a tentative sockmaster, but he/she might be a sockpuppet (they have access to a vast IP space, and CU logs are limited to the latest 3 months).
Not an A7 or A1 (there was a bit more text in the article history, which was removed as "uncited" a few weeks before deletion) but the deleting admin is a checkuser and if they think the creator is likely to be a sockpuppet then G5 seems reasonable. Hut 8.511:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
G5 shouldn't be based on some sort of spidey-sense, where it's applied based on instinct. Unless it's based on something concrete (similar patterns to x LTA etc), that opens it up to all sorts of abuse. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm willing to grant CSD appropriate under G5, NOT under A1/A7, if that's what is being argued by the deleter--obviously, something can be tagged for one reason and deleted for a different valid rationale. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Unless the closer can point to a specific ban or block that has been violated, I don't see how G5 could be met. (Anyone "might" be a sockpuppet: that's not sufficient to start deleting pages left and right.) It also sounds as if there may have been substantial edits by others in the page history, which would make G5 inapplicable regardless. (Again, a temp-undelete would be quite useful.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The creator is either a sockpuppet or a sockmaster, as there is technical evidence they abused multiple accounts. The only question is whether they had a previous account, and judging from Materialscientist's comment above we can't be sure for technical reasons. This is very different from "deleting pages left and right". Materialscientist restored the page and re-deleted it under G5, so yes that's what the deleting admin is claiming. The only substantial edit made by anyone other than the creator was Onel5969 removing almost all the content for being unsourced. Hut 8.517:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I am not sure DRV has authority to review G5 deletions made by checkusers based on technical evidence. I certainly don't see how we could effectively make a decision. What I'd suggest is that if there's a serious allegation that a G5 deletion by a checkuser was inappropriate, we use the Checkusers-L mailing list (I assume that's still around...) to request that a different checkuser review the evidence to reassure the community at large that the deletion was indeed proper. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse G5 deletion. Allow recreation by any editor in good standing. Materialscientist and the google cache indicate nothing of value in the deleted version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Looking at the text of G5, I see that G5 when applied by checkusers is excluded where there are substantial edits by good faith users. I'm not seeing those substantial contributions by good faith users, so I don't see why we would need AfD here. G5 is about contributors rather than content, so if the nominator here wants this article to exist, there's nothing to stop him creating it. I'd recommend that he puts some sources in it though.âS Marshall T/C12:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]
In all honesty, this isn't about whether I want this article to exist. This is about an article that was deleted against policy twice: first under A1 and A7 when they very clearly did not apply, and then after it was brought to DRV undeleted and deleted again under G5, despite the deleting administrator basing it on some sort of hunch rather than a specific block or ban. G5 is not retrospective. And G5 does not have special provisions for CheckUsers. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I might argue that maybe it should have special provisions for checkusers. CUs are very trusted members of the community who have technical powers based on their discretion and judgment. Their job is to de-sock the community and maybe it's best if we empower them to do it with the minimum of process? I mean, I agree that we could quibble this G5 as not strictly within criteria, but I'm not convinced that we should. Who, apart from a disruptive sockmaster, benefits if we overturn it?âS Marshall T/C21:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]
overturn speedy This didn't qualify as an A1 or A7, so there was some degree of error here. Later G5 was selected as a reason for deletion. G5 has a very high bar. "To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." The article was created in June, they were blocked in July. G5 just doesn't apply. I've no idea if this article should or should not exist--I just don't know enough about the topic. But CSD exists as a way to do things quickly in well-defined cases. This isn't one of those. Hobit (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Also, though I think it doesn't matter, there was at least one reference in the history. Again, I'm unclear if removing it was the right thing to do, but it was there. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Omar Hesham â Endorse-ish. Consensus here clearly does not favour outright overturning to deletion as requested by the nominator, with the majority of participants favouring to maintain the "keep" close. That said, two participants want to overturn to no consensus arguing that the keep arguments were inadequate - and some others concur with the assessment of the !votes being inadequate -, hence "ish". Keep and no consensus both result in the article being kept, but don't have the same significance. There are a number of people concerned about the guidelines being overly inclusive, but they also note that this is not strictly in the purview of DRV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The close as keep does not appear to reflect the consensus of valid arguments. The "keep" arguments were that he was a player on the Egyptian National basketball team and a professional team that won the inaugural competition of a new continental championship. Neither of these arguments satisfies either WP:NSPORTS or WP:NBASKETBALL. Even if we accepted that these SNG's were satisfied they are only a refutable presumption of notability. The nominator and Extraordinary Writ's relisting comment both point out this refutation. That's not to mention the article creator's double !vote and a !vote of "notable enough". The article itself also shows a distinct lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, being sourced to a Twitter profile, a tweet, and bare database listings. The only actual article in the sources (from FIBA) does not mention the article subject. I'm also relying on Alvaldi's analysis here about lack of significant coverage in Arabic and Egyptian media. Based on the complete lack of recognizable basis in policy for the "keep" !votes, the consensus should have been "delete". Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)16:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree (as I indicated in my relisting comment) that simply saying "meets NBASKETBALL since he played on the national team" isn't terribly convincing, but only one of the four keep !voters (Editorofthewiki) used that as his only line of reasoning. Others suggested that the sourcing met the GNG, that Arabic sources likely exist to meet the GNG, or that playing in the BAL should create a presumption of notability notwithstanding NBASKETBALL. While some of those arguments may be poor, I'm not really seeing how they're contrary to policy: disagreements about sourcing are perfectly ordinary, and "occasional exceptions may apply" to the deliberately flexible notability guidelines. Keep might not have been the only available closure here (one could argue for "no consensus", although "delete" would be out of the question), but it doesn't seem to be patently unreasonable, particularly since we should be quite reluctant to throw out !votes that aren't obviously illogical, nonsensical, or contrary to policy. I'll thus go with endorse, with the understanding that you're welcome to renominate after an appropriate period of time elapses. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse - This is an unusual case, but with so many Keeps saying that he played on the national basketball team, the close of Keep is, if not strictly by the book, a valid exercise of ignore stupid rules, and expresses a community opinion that maybe the guideline should be revised. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Our guidelines on sportspeople are so insanely inclusive that nearly half the biographies of living people on Wikipedia concern sports. We as a community do need to grasp the nettle and fix that, but this individual case isn't the right place to do it. We routinely keep such articles, even though in my view we're wrong to do so.âS Marshall T/C00:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I see, but I think it's important to add that a majority of those articles at the very least meet the (insanely inclusive) SNGs, which isn't the case here. JTtheOG (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to no consensus. I don't think it's reasonable to close this as Delete because nobody explicitly agreed with the nominator, but the Keep comments don't have much if any basis in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and the close should reflect that. The basketball considerations don't appear in WP:NBASKETBALL (one of our very generous sporting SNGs), and this attempt to add them didn't get very far, so I think it's fair to say there's consensus that these don't indicate notability. Only one person tried to argue on the basis of sources and they were described as "mentions", which is effectively an admission that they don't show the subject meets the GNG. Hut 8.511:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
endorse And as much as I tend to agree that we have too many sporting biographies, the SNG here actually greatly reduces the number of bios we have. There is a huge part of the media focused on sports. Without the SNG, we'd have articles on nearly every high school standout--a lot of them see national-level coverage... Hobit (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Hobit: SNG's don't supersede GNG so if a high school standout as enough national level coverage over a significant time to pass GNG then the article should be kept (they rarely do though). The SNG's actualy greatly increase the number of sport related bios as GNG gets routenly ignored. 13:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)â Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaldi (talk âą contribs) []
In theory, sure. In reality, no. People who haven't competed professionally rarely get an article. The SNG is cited and coverage in national-level sporting sources is regarded as "routine" or otherwise ignored. I think that's largely the right outcome. But don't doubt that the SNG keeps more out than it lets in. Western media covers sports at all levels in amazing detail. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse There is no way this could have been closed as anything other than keep. If the nominator chooses, he can renominate for deletion in six months and see if consensus changes. As it stands, the arguments generally favored keeping the article. Disclaimer: I voted in the original AfD. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 00:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The issue isn't that the inclusion guidelines are overly inclusive, it's that the article didn't meet the inclusion guidelines. Hut 8.516:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I have no opinion on that in the merits; I know as little as I can about sport-related SNGs. But what I can say is that the AfD participants who presumably know and care more than I do believed it should have been kept. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to no consensus. There was no consensus for deletion, but for the reasons explained by Hut 8.5, "keep" opinions without a basis in applicable guidelines or policies should have been given less or no weight. Sandstein 07:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Reza Abbaszadeh â Speedy deletion endorsed, consensus exists below that the article qualifies for G11. Explicitly allow recreation via the articles for creation process, where the article must be reviewed and accepted by an editor there before being moved back to mainspace. Daniel (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
In my opinion, the page was unjustly deleted under A7 speedy deletion criteria. The page was at AfD and before any discussion could happen the page was removed. The subject has enough coverage in Google searches that at least it doesn't fall under CSD A7 criteria. Vertinagin (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
This has been repeatedly, and correctly, deleted as pure marketing spam. Please list the three properly reliable, properly independent, good quality sources on which you propose to build a fresh article that's not in any way promotional. I note that you're a brand new account and this is an unusual choice of article to start editing with, so I'm curious: what's your association with Mr Abbaszadeh?âS Marshall T/C14:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I see. Was any payment or inducement offered to you in this business forum?I have reviewed the three sources you list. I concur that Outlook Magazine is reliable and independent but their article does not contain any biographical information about Reza Abbaszadeh, so it's hard to see how it can form the basis of a biography of him. I'm unfamiliar with Vanguard Magazine, but I'm tentatively willing to accept it as a source. Their article contains the following biographical information: He studied from the University of Vienna and now is committed to his business management company. This doesn't seem substantial enough to support a biography of him. I'm also unfamiliar with the Iranian Labour News Organization. Their article contains a useful amount of biographical information but I do not think it qualifies as a reliable source because it hasn't been checked. Anyone checking it would notice that, for example, it misgenders Mr Abbaszadeh in paragraph 4, and I do rather wonder if it's been automatically translated.âS Marshall T/C15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
It was actually a B2B import/export related forum and anyone can edit Wikipedia so why anybody would pay for it? Anyway, thank you for the feedback. There are other sources available online to substitute the Iranian Labour News Organization. Vertinagin (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
By failing to answer a direct "Were you paid?" question with a yes or no answer, you will be perceived by many English-speaking editors to have been evasive in your answer. There is a great deal of hostility to undeclared paid editing, which you are, perhaps unwittingly, in danger of calling down upon yourself. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Not a great A7 because the article did have 11 citations to press sources. However I'm dubious about its chances at AfD because those sources either include minimal biographical coverage of the subject or are extremely promotional and therefore potentially not independent of the subject. Hut 8.511:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I, too, am not 100% on the A7 deletion, especially if the sources above were among those included in the article when it was deleted. There was a draft at Draft:Reza Abbaszadeh but it was abandoned and deleted. Under the circumstances, I would support recreation in draft form and then AFC. There's always AFD if there is still a concern about notability. So I guess weak endorse deletion, support draft recreation. Stâ lwart11112:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse speedy deletion as WP:G11. It's essentially a CV, which is promotional content, not encyclopedic content, and contains no assertion of notability. Failing that, refer back to AfD because the article was speedily deleted during an ongoing AfD. Sandstein 07:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I dunno, the last version does not appear to clearly fit G11 and I concur with concerns that it wouldn't fit A7 due to the sources. OTOH I see the concerns about the source quality. Thus, relist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
World Pantheist Movement â Not the clearest outcome here, and I'm mindful to balance representing the explicit and implicit views of all without simply supervoting. I believe there is minimal objection to Sandstein's close in the circumstances, so the deletion is endorsed. As to the article moving forward, a rough consensus (via either draft/restore and relist) exists that this can be given another go in mainspace due to the new and/or newly-focused-on information, so this DRV will explicitly allow the restoring of the draft version to mainspace. To technically achieve this, I will re-delete the old history, and then once the new article is in place (ping S Marshall, please do this at your convenience), will undelete the old history behind the new article. There is no restriction on any time period required to relist at AfD, at editorial discretion (a-la a 'no consensus' close at AfD). Daniel (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
In my opinion, the article World Pantheist Movement was unjustly deleted, as it is one of the largest organizations whose goal is to spread pantheism worldwide. Moreover, other comparable organizations are still present on Wikipedia (Universal Pantheist Society and The Paradise Project) and so far not subject to any deletion discussion â although the sources mentioned there are mostly only primary sources as well. As can be seen from the deletion discussion page, the association has been mentioned in relevant sources (including by Richard Dawkins as a renowned scientist) and only requires further revision with adjustment of the sources. I would like to ask an administrator to review the corresponding page again. Thank you. P.S.: I have temporarily created a redirect to the relevant section of the article Pantheism. Lothaeus (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I'd probably have !voted to keep. The discussion was a bit flawed in that the nom here (finally) provided a reasonable number of sources to look at and no one really did. I'm not a huge fan of WP:THREE, but wow, it would have helped here. relist in the hopes of getting a better discussion of the sources. His source #3 is above the WP:N bar IMO. Oxford Reference appears to have a 700+ word entry behind a paywall. That hits the "multiple" part of AfD. There are also sources penned by the founder but found in reliable sources: [7], [8], and the 10th source listed in the AfD. relist for a fuller discussion. I'd urge the nom here to read and understand WP:N. What are needed are sources that discuss WPM in some detail (at least a paragraph, a page is better) that are independent of the movement itself and published in reliable sources--not just books. If there are one or two more of the quality of the first two I've listed, you should be in good shape. Hobit (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]
You know, it would almost be nice for us to have an advocacy service, a coaching service for inexperienced editors trying to defend works against deletion, as one certainly could have helped here. I don't think Sandstein erred in any way with 3:1 delete after 1 relist, but the article's lone defender was clearly insufficiently familiar with our processes and defenses (rationales) against deletion to mount an effective keep campaign, which, as Hobit points out could have been managed better. Jclemens (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Procedurally, the outcome looks almost OK, except for the limited discussion on the sources by the OP (maybe because it looked to cynical editors like just the usual CITEBOMB) - the fact nobody suggested an alternative to deletion isn't ideal either, but it's not something that can be faulted at this stage. Going more in-depth, I certainly see enough stuff and reliable sources (the OUP entry found by Hobit above is particularly convincing; source no. 3 spends at least paragraph or a few describing the movement and it's main beliefs and is written by somebody with no apaprent links to it) that warrant relisting (with a probably marginal keep, or an appropriate redirect target, as the likely outcome). I haven't found too much else than what Hobit already found. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I would endorse the decision to delete the version of the article considered at AfD, firstly because Sandstein made the correct decision given the discussion before him, and secondly because that version was mainly based on primary sources. I agree that AfD participants comprehensively failed to conduct a proper source analysis the twenty-five (25!) sources that the nominator introduced, and I don't think we should relist the debate because to conduct a thorough source analysis of 25 sources is incredibly expensive in volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's only limited resource so we should be conserving it. In the circumstances I would be minded to ask the nominator to write a really good draft of the article based solely on the three best sources, in their own time, and bring that draft back to DRV for us to think about.âS Marshall T/C21:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[]
S Marshall The nominator did give a more modest selection when asked. As for your suggestion, it is unnecessary bureaucracy as a draft substantially different from the deleted article doesn't need to go back through here. Speaking of unnecessary bureaucracy, I would personally not be opposed to forgetting the relisting and simply draftifying this, and letting the nominator work on improving it, with the suggestion to ask for the opinion of a more experienced editor before moving it back to mainspace (the re-created redirect can stay for the time being); especially now that the better sources have been identified. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The question is how the draft turns into an article. There are three choices:- (1) Direct promotion to mainspace by the article writer; (2) Submission via AfC; or (3) Review at DRV. We encourage experienced and trusted editors to use option 1, and less experienced editors to use (2) or (3). In this case we're dealing with one of the latter. The trouble with option 2 is that AfC reviewers are often understandably leery of moving an article to mainspace when the community has previously voted to delete, so all too often, AfC reviewers refer would-be content creators here. And AfC is usually severely backlogged besides, with long waiting lists. I'm suggesting coming through DRV because it's less process-intensive than the reasonable alternatives.âS Marshall T/C11:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I've tweaked your draft and would be content to move it to mainspace once this DRV is closed. The citation to an encyclopedia of religion is a killer argument that we should have this article IMO. Please would the DRV closer unprotect and make way for me to do this.âS Marshall T/C12:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I believe that the deletion review should be used because: significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. In addition, the justification for the original deletion of the page several months ago was not that it "wasn't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia" (as the Speedy deletion notes indicate), but rather that "deletion is the best solution as repairing the article would take what amounts to a huge amount of time". There was just too much information on that page for anyone to make sense of it. Yesterday, I spent the whole day researching this topic and found several new and notable sources and citations that I believe show the notability of this topic and warrant it to be reviewed. Since the reasoning was not necessarily notability but rather an overwhelming amount of information, mixed with self-published sources, I took the time to heavily rewrite the article (using a backup found on the Wayback Machine). I removed all of the self-published, Facebook and Instagram sources; I removed all of what was pointed as trivial information (a lot of it had to do with minute detailing of the website's design and non-notable radio show mentions). I also added new citations to reputable and notable newspapers and magazines that have quoted or republished articles written by The Obelisk: Vice,[1]Rolling Stone,[2]Classic Rock,[3]Blabbermouth,[4][5]MetalSucks,[6]The Baltimore Sun,[7]BrooklynVegan,[8]CVLT Nation,[9]Under the Radar,[10] and Boise Weekly.[11]
Nevertheless, my new article was twice speedy deleted, without the new information and citations being reviewed or taken into consideration. I would therefore really appreciate this topic being reviewed for Wikipedia inclusion, in view of these new findings. Fanofblackened (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Fanofblackened: The notice when you send me a message says, "Did I delete an article you were working on? If appropriate, read my Plain and simple guide to A7, and provided it's not a copyright violation or libellous, I can restore it to a draft - just ask!". The original AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Obelisk (magazine) was sparsely attended and the "delete" result was principally because nobody really argued the case for keeping the article. I had nothing to do with the G4 speedy deletions. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ritchie333: I understand that you were not involved in the deletion discussion, and had nothing to do with the speedy deletions. I was not the original editor of the article was deleted. But the steps/rules with deletion review indicate to "Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page...", and since you closed the original deletion discussion and deleted the original article on June 2nd, 2021, I just followed the rules. In view of the new findings though, would you be willing to take a look and contribute an input? I would really appreciate it. --Fanofblackened (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse As the original nominator, I don't see anything here that convinces me that the decision should be overturned. The citations given here never actually discuss the Obelisk, they just quote from articles it has published - this is not what I would consider significant coverage. The magazine does not meet the WP:GNG using the citations given here. Pinging Netherzone and Possibly as they may also want to take a second look. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse - The deletion was appropriate. There is nothing in the new draft that would meet notability requirements per WP:GNG significant coverage in reliable sources. Simple mentions of the publication or name checks (that someone writes for it) are not considered WP:SIGCOV. What is needed are in-depth articles about The Oblisk magazine. Netherzone (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ganesha811:@Netherzone: The new citations that I have listed in my message above are only the new findings and serve as an additions to the article which was created in May 2021. In that original article, there were several citations to detailed interviews covering The Obelisk and editor Koczan's writing. I only provided these new citations as supplementary sources to notable publications. If you would like to look at the most recent Draft, Draft:The Obelisk (magazine), you can see the new citations incorporated into the previously-established sources and article. Most of it has been re-written as well.--Fanofblackened (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ganesha811: No, I guess that I have to admit that I cannot in this case. There are dozens of mentions and discussions about The Obelisk sprawled out over many interviews (mainly interviewing Koczan as a person, journalist, author or musician, rather than focusing strictly and mainly on his publication/magazine), which together amount to a "significant amount of coverage", but as per Wikipedia:Extracting the meaning of significant coverage, I now realize that any single source would not constitute as individual "significant coverage" from a notable source. There are several non-notable publications that focus exclusively on The Obelisk, but only few notable publications that dedicate more than one or two questions specifically to The Obelisk. In view of this, and referencing said Wikipedia:Extracting the meaning of significant coverage article, I am hoping that this can fall into the "editorial discretion" bracket, where 1) the number of notable mentions on large-scale publications can weigh in, and 2) that Wikipedians can take an honest consideration as to the level of notability that is "significant in the context of the publication" (doom metal, sludge metal, stoner rock/metal community is not mainstream and would therefore receive less significant coverage). Nevertheless, a simple Google search for The Obelisk gives a great deal of results, showing that in its small community, it has achieved considerable acclaim and praise. I really believe that The Obelisk deserves to have a Wikipedia page, even if it means cutting it down to a stub for the time being.--Fanofblackened (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Fanofblackened, check out WP:INHERITORG. If you'd like to make a case for Koczan being notable, go ahead and do so - but that doesn't mean the Obelisk would be notable, or vice versa. The fact is that if the Obelisk becomes notable, music journalists will start to write about it. An article doesn't have to be solely focused on the magazine to make it "significant" coverage, but it does have to discuss the magazine as a magazine at length. I think patience is the best course here. If, in time, notability changes, the page can be re-created then. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Ganesha811 I appreciate you suggesting that. I don't know Koczan personally, I've just been a reader of his webzine for many years, but it's my impression that The Obelisk is more noteworthy thank Koczan himself. Or perhaps equally. By that I mean that people know Koczan because of his writing through The Obelisk, which is pretty much the biggest and most well-known stoner/doom/sludge webzine around. Or maybe they knew him through Metal Maniacs or The Aquarian. Most of the interviews profile him because he is the editor of The Obelisk, but it appears the interviewers prefer to interview him as a person, not as an editor. Nearly all of the interviews introduce him as "JJ Koczan of The Obelisk", or something similar. But I do see what you mean, that it might not be notable enough yet to warrant a Wikipedia page. Since you were the one who initiated the original deletion request, would you be in a position to look at the current draft article and let me know if maybe it's shy of just 1 or 2 "dedicated" interviews on non-Blogspot places? Is it close to inclusion with the current information provided? Because I would very much like to re-submit this for approval once the necessary coverage is available. He seems to do a few interviews each year.--Fanofblackened (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse The AfD is recent enough that I've taken that into consideration too, and I don't see any errors in the close that would invalidate that. As for the author's assertion that there is "significant new information", if the draft is any indication; there is no useable information here that isn't based on very poor sources (I went looking at the draft, and attempted a clean-up, but I was removing basically whole paragraphs) to support this claim. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Allow recreation when the DRV nominator thinks the draft is ready for mainspace (endorse the AfD close and overturn the G4 speedy deletion).
I agree with Ritchie333, the AfD closer, who wrote, "The current revision does not resemble the version presented at AfD, which was full of puffery and bloated refs, so I don't see how G4 could apply." WP:G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Despite the serious concerns about the sourcing being insufficient, the deleted article did not meet G4 owing to the DRV nominator's substantial changes to the draft.
I initially planned to support a relist after comparing the version of the article deleted at AfD and the version of the article deleted under WP:G4 so that editors can evaluate the new draft and new sources at AfD. But I changed my mind after reviewing the DRV discussion.
Since Fanofblackened, the DRV nominator, wrote, "I now realize that any single source would not constitute as individual 'significant coverage' from a notable source" (I am assuming Fanofblackened means reliable source and not notable source since there is no requirement for the sources to be notable) and "I would very much like to re-submit this for approval once the necessary coverage is available", I do not support a relist now. I support allowing recreation when Fanofblackened finds more sources that allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and thinks the article is ready for mainspace. The article should not be deleted under WP:G4 at that time since the speedy criterion does not apply to this substantially changed draft.
@Cunard: Thanks pointing out that there is a difference between reliable and notable coverage; I was not aware of the difference and was interchangeably using the two terms. Needing reliable sources does make it more feasible in this case, since the music scene covered on the webzine is not mainstream and therefore would not necessarily receive notable coverage. In view of this, I remember reading elsewhere that an article only needs 2 reliable sources with significant coverage to be admissible on Wikipedia. Is that so? Because Ganesha811 was previously asking for three sources. If only two are needed, then I believe that the article may be valid for re-submission with just one more significant interview.--Fanofblackened (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn the most recent speedy deletion. I see nothing above from the "endorsers" that suggests that this meets the requirement of WP:G4 that the speedily deleted article should be substantially identical to the article deleted at WP:AFD. That makes this an invalid speedy deletion, so the article should be brought back to AfD if anyone thinks that the new iteration should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn. Phil Bridger brings up a good point that has been side-tracked by other Endorsers. This is about the WP:G4 ruling and the article in question is considerably different from the one that was submitted for WP:AFD. I therefore vote to Overturn. There is no reason that WP:G4 applies in this case. I also don't agree with the Endorsers that "whole paragraphs" need to be removed from the current draft article. All of the information on there is relevant to the subject and merely needs better WP:RS.--Fallingintospring (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn the speedy . G4 doesn't apply, but it's easy to not check carefully that the article is different. I've sometimes done it also. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Withdraw - Article was closed incorrectly by a non-administrator with only about 700 total edits at the time. AfD did not run for a full 7 days. The !vote tally at the time of closer was: one Delete !vote (nominator) and one Keep !vote. The AfD was closed prematurely and should have been relisted. It should not have been closed as âkeepâ without a consensus. This is the second bad closure by the same inexperienced editor. Netherzone (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse as a reasonable NAC. No one beside nominator supported the deletion after two relists, and the closing statement makes a reasonable appraisal of the policy argument. You can make an argument to blind squirrels, but we do not assess non administrator closing based on the editor's edit count. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to no consensus â the IP's comment added nothing from a policy perspective, so it should have been discounted. That leaves one not unreasonable delete !vote and one not unreasonable keep !vote, which gives us no consensus. That being said, the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is largely academic: it's rarely worth filing a DRV over, especially if you're uninvolved. Additionally, this closer is clearly acting in good faith: if you have an issue with him, talk to him about it instead of dragging all of his closures here for no good reason. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Given the nominator's statement below, I won't stand in the way of withdrawing this. Although I do believe that, since we're here, we might as well correct the nominally mistaken closure, I'm certainly not going to drag this DRV out to make that point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse. Arguably meets criton number 9 of WP:SINGER for his performance as finalist in Junior Eurovision 2018, and that !vote was not responded to. As the !vote contained more information that the nomination, "Keep" was a reasonable outcome. The NAC was reasonable, this was not contentious, but a six weeks old, barley anyone cares, weak nomination by what looks like a fresh sleeper-SOCK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse, per SmokeyJoe. We'll overturn closes if there's anything wrong with them, but with this one, there wasn't.âS Marshall T/C08:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment I was the one that closed this. Thanks for the information. As you can see other editors have already agreed that I did not close this incorrectly. It was nominated on May 8th and I closed it June 22. This ran for over 6 weeks, well passed its deadline, so the close date is not an issue. We were really backlogged on the AFD closings at this time and I was trying to help out. Yes I am new at this so if you think I made a mistake, I welcome your advice and comments. But I should add that there were actually 2 KEEP votes, the first one did not actually state the KEEP in bold, but posted the comment to keep, so it is not so apparent. So it is not correct that there was One Keep vote. There were 2. In addition, the subject of the article meets WP:MUSICBIO, at least in 2 or 3 categories (criterion 9, 10, 11, 12), plus there appears to be also significant news coverage.Peter303x (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse While yes, technically the best close is no consensus, but the outcome is the same anyways (keeping the article) and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I agree with Writ here, there was no discussion with the closer before dragging this to DRV, and this was something that could of just been a "FYI" kind of thing. JumpytooTalk21:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse the close as a valid conclusion by the closer. No Consensus would also have been a valid conclusion by the closer. Is there some problem with the way that the appellant is viewing the AFD, or was the appellant simply mistaken in the comments that they subsequently struck about violations of timing, or is the appellant using a canned appeal that they forgot to edit? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I'd have closed as no-consensus, but the outcome's the same. After two relists, there would not be any sense in trying for a third. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I withdraw the DRV, as I have obviously made a mistake. Forgive me for wasting the time of the editors who have commented here, and apologies to the AfD closer Peter303x. Netherzone (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Cleckheaton bus station â Withdrawn/Endorse - Closing to avoid further wasting the communities time - I certainly don't agree with it but I can see the logic in it .... It is what it is and further whinging about it isn't going to change anything. No amount of RFCs will change anything so it is what is. I'll simply focus all of this energy on articles and not on my grievances with building vs company. It's stupidly ridiculous but it is what it is. Thanks again to all who have commented and again apologies for essentially wasting your time. âDavey2010Talk00:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The AFD was closed as Keep on the basis that local coverage is not generally excluded from supporting notability however IMHO there's nothing substantial or in-depth at this present time on this bus station - Most if not all sources are 1 bit mentions or LOCAL coverage,
My other issue is that Nu-Venture was deleted due to the exact same reasons (having Local/routine coverage only).... so at present we have contradictory information - Either RL0919 is correct with the Cleakheaton Keep (in which case the Nu-Venture article should then be undeleted/moved back from userpage), or they were wrong (in which case this should be deleted), Thanks âDavey2010Talk22:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse â you seem to disagree with the consensus here, but that's not a sufficient reason to reverse it: DRV isn't a place to relitigate an AfD. The (narrow but sufficient) majority view was that the local coverage was adequate to meet the GNG, and there's no policy basis to discount that view. As to Nu-Venture, it applied WP:NCORP (which includes WP:AUD), which is a stricter corporation-only guideline that isn't applicable here. (Regardless, AfDs aren't subject to stare decisis: articles are evaluated on an individual basis, which means that real or perceived contradictions may occur.) If you're interested in changing the rules for bus-station notability more broadly, an RfC would be the way to do that. But the closer correctly identified the consensus in this case, and I see no reason to undo that determination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse, my understanding of WP:GNG is that it does not exclude local coverage in establishing notability. As for Nu-Venture, I would like to see that article restored to mainspace too. NemesisAT (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Fair enough. I too had forgot about NCORP - I highly disagree with one page being kept and one being deleted for the exact same reason (with the only difference being one's a building and the others a company) - I can appreciate and understand a company is held to a stricter standard but why can Local/Routine apply to a company but not a building ?, I also agree DRV probably isn't the best place for this but I just find it ridiculous but I guess that's the way it is until something gets changed,
Closing admin comment: I did not close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu-Venture (3rd nomination), so I will not comment on its rationale, but as mentioned already by others, there is relevant difference between the two subjects. Nu-Venture is a company, and therefore covered by the subject notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which does restrict the use of local coverage for establishing notability. Cleckheaton bus station is not a company and to my knowledge not covered by any SNG that limits the use of local coverage, which is something I explicitly mentioned in my closing statement. --RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse Reasonable close, well articulated by closer, those objecting to it would need to have conclusive evidence that local coverage is inapplicable to overcome the Keep majority. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse Nu-Venture was a different topic -- see WP:WAX. The topic in question got more attention and there was certainly no consensus support for the nomination. If this seems inconsistent then that's just too bad -- see the disclaimers which make it clear that you get what you pay for and so Wikipedia makes no guarantees of quality. And WP:N is a guideline not a brightline policy and so it explicitly says that exceptions may apply. And, per WP:NOTLAW, such guidelines are supposed to conform to the outcomes, not vice versa. Andrewđ(talk) 23:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Afd was closed by a non-admin with around 700 edits to the account at the time. The AfD was closed prematurely and the !votes did not accurately reflect consensus. When the AfD was closed, the final !votes were: Delete â 3 (including the nom), Merge- 2, Keep â 3. One of the Keep !votes was by the subject of the article (who had double voted with an unsigned message, but that was corrected by another editor). One delete !vote was changed to merge (disclosure: that was me). Yet the D-3, M-2, K-3 was interpreted by the non-admin closer as âkeepâ. The closerâs rationale was: âThe result was keep. Per additional sources provided by voters and consensus.â Yet this rationale did not address the notability arguments by the delete or merge voters (that the subject does not meet WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG), and did not accurately reflect consensus. The closure seemed subjective and premature. Not sure if it is relevant to the DRV process, but the article has had COI editing since 2008. Netherzone (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Commentthe AfD ran for three weeks, so I wouldn't call it a premature close. I personally would have closed that as a no-consensus and let keep/merge be sorted editorially, but agree this should have been closed by a more experienced user. StarMississippi14:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to no consensus - I agree with S Marshall. There was no consensus. I also share in Star Mississippi and the nominators concern that the AfD was closed by a non-admin with such few contributions to the encyclopedia. Their input and thoughts are very much appreciated and desired but an AfD that was seemingly contentious and very close as this one was should have been closed by an experienced admin. The AfD was opened on July 2nd and closed on July 22nd so I can't rightly say it was closed premature but definitely closed incorrectly by someone that shouldn't have closed it to begin with. The COI and notability discussion should definitely continue on the talk page and if additional sources can not be found and included the article could come back around to AfD in the future. --ARoseWolf15:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to no consensus â the !voters were more-or-less evenly split, and neither the keep nor the merge arguments were strong enough to outweigh that fact. I agree that the closure wasn't premature: all the arguments had been aired, and participants simply disagreed. In such a case, "no consensus" is the correct closure. (And yes, this was probably a WP:BADNAC. The closer should be a bit more circumspect with regard to closing AfDs.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment Hello, I was the one that closed it. In my decision, I also reviewed the new sources provided and felt that if these were provided earlier some of the voters might have voted differently. I do agree that I should have closed it as NO CONSENSUS, instead, but the final results would have been the same anyway. In my decision, I also reviewed the new sources provided. FYI, if I didn't close it, I would have vote KEEP, which would in turn give it one more vote for keeping and end up being kept.Peter303x (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn Yeah, thanks for the effort, but no, this is not an AfD for a NAC. Relisting or an admin reclosing, I don't have strong feelings about. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to No Consensus - The closer's analysis "Per additional sources provided by voters and consensus" is hard to understand (or simply erroneous) since there was no consensus. Closer should have !voted Keep and allowed an administrator to close either as Keep or as No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Closer to âNo consensusâ than âKeepâ. Whatâs the difference? The recommended time to wait for a WP:RENOM. The discussion has talk of new sources. They look very thin to me. âSmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment - Is there something wrong with the way that the appellant is viewing AFDs? They made and corrected the same mistake in two appeals. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I think so. I need to be careful when doing date subtractions. Eg: What is the difference between 23:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) and
21:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC). Is it approximately 2 hours and 2 days? Add 2 to 2 to get 22. I find this trouble is bad post 2019, when dates have an excessive use of the characters "0", "1" and "2". I fear that next year will be the same. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Meh. It definitely wasn't getting closed anything other than no consensus or keep, which aren't different in effect. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
csda7 is invalid because the article asserted significance -- for example, its scanners out-performed four other notable companies.--RZuo (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn and send to AfD if desired. There's a CCS in one of the references that's even more explicit than those in the text of the article. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Speedy overturn and send to AfD. If someone wants a discussion, let them have the discussion. Donât make this wait a week here. âSmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn and send to AFD if nominated. This was a plausible A7 when it was tagged for A7. The originator/appellant then expanded the article and improved it. They should have contested the A7 on the article talk page rather than using DRV after the fact, but we are here now and the article should be here also now until a deletion discussion is held. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I would disagree; I think it was not a reasonable A7 when nominated, assuming a reasonable interpretation of WP:CCS. "CRUSE produces high-end scanners which are sold to institutions such as museums and archives. Their scanners are large and specialised." was present in the article as nominated for A7. Do you disagree that that is a CCS? Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category:Political prisoners â Overturn to no consensus. At the end of the day, the result of this discussion hinges on whether this topic unambiguously meets WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or whether that is a matter of subjective opinion. I find a slim consensus here that it is the latter, so the CfD closer was improper to disregard the numerical majority when the interpretation of the guideline itself was subject to differences of opinion. I recommend an RfC to clarify this guideline in the context of labels which are sometimes subjective but generally well-documented in reliable sources. King of ℠⊠⣠â 23:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was closed as "convert to container category" with the rationale "Although a majority of participants would prefer to keep the category and discuss inclusion on a case-by-case basis, on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers." This is very subjective - with the disclaimer that I was the category's creator and voted keep, I nonetheless find the keep arguments well-articulated, and the opposing one much less so. In particular, I note that I and others have replied to several voters who suggested containerization, but said voters never replied to us. It's disappointing that silent refusal to participate in the discussion is treated as "convincing". I could see this being closed as no consensus, or relisted, but I don't think closing this as de facto delete (containerize isn't much better) is the right action. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn â the âkeepâ voters were, on the whole, every bit as thoughtful, engaged, logical and policy-grounded as the other side. Ignoring our arguments is arbitrary and, frankly, insulting. â BiruitorulTalk13:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to keep At the very, very, least the closing statement is poor. "...on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers." is a fine reason to go against the majority, but you have to actually cite what policies are involved. Beyond that, BHG made a strong argument, but A) it was well refuted and B) most people didn't agree with it. And yes, we are capable of using sources to figure out category membership. Bad close that cannot be allowed to stand. Hobit (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn - I'm a bit shocked that, despite so many of us voting to Keep this important category it was unilaterally deleted anyways. Please, there are so many important historical topics about political imprisonment that predate modern NGO designations. --Dan Carkner (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
See WP:NOTVOTE. The closer's job is not to count heads, but to weigh policy-based reasoned argument.
The closer's decision was not made unilaterally. It was explicitly based on weighing the arguments made in the discussion: the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers.
Closer's response: Forgive me not going into more detail in the close. I will remedy that. As for the to-and-fro about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I was satisfied by the arguments that categories can be justified by text within the article, and if need be can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. However, I found that the justifications for the category did not satisfy WP:SUBJECTIVECAT: an inherently non-neutral inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. What about adding sub-cats by prison? Category:Boven-Digoel internees was made a sub-cat during the discussion â probably justifiable in my opinion, but POV. Category:Detainees of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was repeatedly brought up as a controversial case, to which the only answer given was WP:FRINGE, but that hardly avoids POV. Category:Prisoners in the Tower of London might perhaps also be put forward to be a sub-cat, because a lot of the members could be called political even if some were regular criminals, and WP:SUBCAT says When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also. I concluded that recording people in Wikipedia as political prisoners should only be done in articles, lists, and categories by designating organisation. â FayenaticLondon16:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Fayenatic, with respect, "political prisoner" has 6.8 million hits on google books, it's a very important topic, ranging across almost all modern nations and empires, not something that should be deleted because you find it murky to sort out one case study from another. It's a defining attribute of many important historical figures, especially victims of Soviet regimes and other totalitarian systems that predate modern NGOs; not something that is equivalent to the mere status of being someone who has been imprisoned for any reason. Dan Carkner (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Dan Carkner, that argument is based on a classic straw man: the notion that this CFD is to "delete" en.wp's coherent of political prisoners. No article has been deleted by this CFD, and no article's text has been altered. This CFD was solely about the use of categories to group en.wp's articles on people who have been labelled as political prisoners, and as the closer explicitly notes above recording people in Wikipedia as political prisoners should only be done in articles, lists, and categories by designating organisation. The claim that this amounts to "delete" political prisoners is nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 17:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Categories serve a useful purpose for someone who wants to navigate a topic, and can be be managed by editors much more easily than maintaining a manually edited list related to a topic-- and such lists are often incomplete and poorly sourced. Not to mention the sub categories by nationality offer a way to group articles related to the larger topic. The main article about political prisoners, and of course all the individual biographical articles about prisoners or prisons are not deleted, but the functional ability to navigate them for users is reduced. I feel OK with using the word delete on this deletion review, it's what we're talking about and not a straw man. Dan Carkner (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
"...and such lists are often incomplete and poorly sourced" - Categories are not an end-run around needing references. period, full stop. If you cannot create a referenced list article on the topic, that topic has no business being a category on Wikipedia. This is per long established policy, not just WP:CAT, but WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and so on. - jc3719:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Indeed, they have to be sourced, and can be. I've written my share of political prisoner biographies for people who were interned for membership in parties and which is reflected both in the contemporary journalistic coverage and secondary academic literature. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to describe them as a political prisoner in a category if the literature reflects it overwhelmingly. It strikes me as downgrading the validity of the topic to prevent people from using the term in categories.--Dan Carkner (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
You can have reliable sources saying someone thinks that, in their subjective opinion, someone qualifies for the subjective term of "political prisoner" and that is absolutely appropriate for the article space. But this category is making a radically different assertion: in the official opinion of Wikipedia, that subjective claim is objectively true. Good luck finding a reliable source for that! - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
If this was a problem, we wouldn't have any mildly controversial category, for rapists, scandals, conspiracy theories, etc. You can find reliable sources that are obsolete or just a bit fringe supporting many minority viewpoints, and we don't categorize them. Categories, after all, are for defining qualities, not minority viewpoints (which may or may not be reliable but are generally fringe and not defining, thus not categorizable). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Piotrus, there is no straw man at all. On the contrary, the 1981 Irish hunger strike is a clear example of a nation divided over the question to whether a set of people were criminals or political prisoners. Far from being an objective fact discernible from reliable sources, it was the core issue of a violent political dispute. Your choice to label it as a straw man displays a deep contempt for facts which do not suit your agenda. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 03:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
How about you start making your case by adding a section to that article about how it still divides those countries? You have cited the 1981 case several times, but despite my request failed to offer any citations backing your POV that the classification of prisoners from that time as political prisoners remains controversial (and for the sake of argument, let's say it is - you have also failed to show it would be a problem for Wikipedia - if it would be, please show us a single edit war or even a polite disagreement about whether such and such person or group, related to this incident, should be called a political prisoner). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Piotrus, you are trying to evade by reframing. The question is no longer live, because the prisoners were released over 20 years ago, under the Good Friday Agreement. The issue at stake here is how to present the historical dispute. If you read the article Bobby Sands you can see the dispute very clearly: Margaret Thatcher and the British government labelled him as a criminal, while the irish Republican movement and its supporters labelled him as a political prisoner. The article does a very good job of implementing WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but you want to create a situation where that must be set aside to either include him in a Category:Political priosners or exclude him. Either option amounts to Wikipedia asserting as fact one POV or the other. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 13:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Quite the contrary, Piotrus. The labelling at the time is the single defining attribute of the whole epsisode. The whole crisis was about whether or not they were to be treated as political prisoners by the British govt.
That point has been made to you several times in discussion, and it is very clearly set out in the relevant articles: the 1981 Irish hunger strike was a dispute about two opposing views on political status, and the Irish government was not a party to the dispute. That is set out in the second sentence of the wikipedia article on the topic; it could not be clearer.
I am alarmed by your obstinate and aggressive rejection of those two simple points of fact, because that degree of denialism seems to me to be explicable in one of only two ways: a) that your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand that the central dividing issue of a dispute is a POV issue; b) that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. Which is it, Piotrus? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 18:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Fayenatic london I appreciate your rationale, but you present a novel argument. Only one person brought up the SUBJECTIVECAT argument, which I attempted to refute. Nobody else as far as I can tell saw it as particularly valid (or not). As for the sub-cats by prison, I don't think this was discussed either. I think your explanation above reads like a valid VOTE but is not a proper summary for close - it seems, to me, like you found one voters argument persuasive and ignored everything else. Thus you turned your personal vote into a close. That I find not appropriate - you acted not as a neutral closer, but as a participant in the discussion. You should have voted and presented your arguments, some of which are quite novel, and given others the opportunity to comment on your vote. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for acknowledging that you "attempted to refute". I don't believe other participants found your refutation convincing, and neither did I.
As I read the discussion, the "subjective" argument was gaining weight, and was endorsed e.g. in its last words "per Marcocapelle". By way of example, I mentioned above two actual/potential sub-cats which were added during the discussion or mentioned in it, and suggested a third which (as a Brit) struck me as a third possibility. I had two reasons in mind for mentioning these here: (i) to illustrate the weight of the "subjective" problem; and (ii) to explain why the close would containerise only by designating organisation, not also by prison. â FayenaticLondon08:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for acknowledging that you did not find my "refutation" convincing, but I don't think you should make a claim about other participants. Some certainly did not find my arguments convincing, but judging by the similarity of arguments, clearly, some others did. Let's ping those who I think more or less echoed my viewpoint, and let them have their own say: @Dimadick, Biruitorul, My very best wishes, Dan Carkner, GizzyCatBella, Alansohn, Nihil novi, Volunteer Marek, and Darwinek: what do you say? Did any of you found my arguments at the previous discussion convincing, or is Fayenatic London right that no-one else found them of use? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Fully agree with Dan Carkner above. Piotrus, your arguments in the original discussion and here as well, were very clear. I am in line with your arguments.--Darwinek (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse "Political prisoner" is an inherently POV term, and the closer's rationale about needing more context for this seems a reasonable approach. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Having gone through and read the comments, I find BrownHairedGirl's argument persuasive and sufficiently aligned with NPOV policy that the keep !voters simply don't have a policy-based leg to stand on. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
As a further question to those advocating that this exist as a category, if he 1) actually had an article (he doesn't, we have articles on others of the same name) and 2) if his jailing was longer, should Canadian Pastor Tim Stephens [9] be included in a category of political prisoners? That's a rhetorical question, obviously, because the answer really depends on what one believes with respect to the legitimacy of Covid-19 restrictions affecting religious observances. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The only "problem" this term has is that it is occasionally abused as some folks try to claim they are political prisoners despite no support for these outside tiny minorities. But as I said, it is not a problem for us; fringe claims do not get categorized. Just like 99% of sources agree that Mandela or Ghandi were political prisoners, hardly anybody in reliable sources would support Stephens. As I said, we can have a category hatnote noting that inclusion in this category requires in-text citation to a reliable source that is not challenged or fringe. Usually, it's quite easy to find plenty of academic or respected NGO / journalists saying someone is a political prisoner. Fringe cases should not be allowed. Problem solved. (And again, this is not a new rule, this is normal - categories are not for fringe claims, which is why despite, let's say, the existence of Holocaust denials or evolution denials groups and like, we don't categorize The Holocaust or evolution theory as false or conspiracies or whatever). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
You have not presented any sources for your assertions. You may be right, or not, but each case like this should be discussed on the relevant article's talk page. In either case, and more to a point I am not aware any of the cases you cite have been included in our category, not to mention edit warred on. You are suggesting controversy time and again where none exists (certainly not on Wikipedia). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
There are plenty of sources in the articles, which could read if you were interested in the facts. It is wholly irrelevant whether or not those examples have previosuly been included in Category:Political prisoners, because if the category is to exist it must be possible to make an NPOV decision on whether to include them. Instead, you are using a series of evasion tactics to avoid answering the question of hpow that decision can be made in a NPOV way when opinion is clearly divided between major camps, and you have repeatedly misreprsented the balance of opinion on such cases as one of mainstream views versus fringe. You are pushing a POV, and denying reality. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 05:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse. The closer correctly applied the policy of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Deciding inclusion on a case-by-case basis is not a viable option when the definition of political prisoner is so heavily dependent on POV. It is deeply depressing to see how some editors in the CFD argued to disregard that core policy POV issue in favour of a majoritarian view of sources, and come here to continue their opposition to policy. That approach would entrench Wikipedia's systemic bias, because the inevitable prominence given to English-language sources by our English-speaking editors would tilt the population of this category towards the perspective of English-speakers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 17:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
PS In addition to my principled objection per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I have a very specific concern about this category: Ireland. One of the key episodes of The Troubles in Northern Ireland was the 1981 Irish hunger strike, which was about the prisoners' demand for Special Category Status, i.e. being treated as political prisoners. The British Government withdrew that status, and the prisoners' response was the hunger strike which became the major political crisis across the island of Ireland in 1981. Note that the whole dispute was about "who is a political prisoner". If we have a Category:Political prisoners to populated with biographical articles (whether directly or in by-country subcats such as Category:Political prisoners in Northern Ireland), then editors face a binary choice; either the prisoners such as Bobby Sands are categorised as political prisoners, or they are not. That decision comes down to a choice between the Irish republican POV or the British POV. There is no side-stepping this, e.g. by excluding all Irish prisoners from such categories, because any such exclusion would be an endorsement of one POV. In the mid-2000s, The Troubles was a vicious battleground on Wikipedia, with groups of POV-warriors in constant conflict. Restoring this sort of POV category will restart that editorial conflict by forcing Wikipedia to choose a side. Per WP:NPOV, that should not happen. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 23:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Regarding Bobby Sands, his case was controversial - 40 years ago. My review of modern literature about him suggests he is generally recognized as a political prisoner by scholars, as in, I am seeing him being labelled as such (ex. here), and no challenges to this label, which seems to make it defining. So the process would be to categorize him as such, until sources challenging this status are found, at which point they'd be reviewed on talk, and if the challenges are non-fringe, the category would be removed as no longer defining (since there would be a disagreement). However, since you presented no modern, reliable sources disputing classification of him as a political prisoner, I see no problem with this - the only attribution of such object is your personal POV. You *think* this is a controversial claim that invalidates the category, but this is just your subjective view, not backed up by any sources. In either case, cases like Sands are exception to the rule, most people called political prisoners are hardly challenged. The category is defining and uncontroversial for vast majority of people who'd be in it (the list is at Talk:Political_prisoner#Category_for_political_prisoners_recreated,_challenged and did not contain Sands). I'll end by asking a question I fully expect to be ignored by you (prove me wrong...): do you dispute that Aung San Suu Kyi, VĂĄclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, Liu Xiaobo, Adam Michnik and Alexei Navalny - to take a few prominent high profile cases - are recognized as political prisoners by majority of reliable sources? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Piotrus, you continue to miss or evade the very simple core point: this is not a matter of restrospective scholarly assessment. The question of political status was a major political dispute at the heart of a low-level civil war. You advocate throwing NPOV out of the window, and asserting as unqualified fact the POV of one side. Thank you for setting out so clearly your disregard for WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: no wonder you were so riled by the close of the CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 05:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Piotrus, you are back playing your old switch-and-evade game, and using your usual sleazy, gaslighting technique of bogus allegations. I am not going to play your game. I don't need to provide sources for the assertion that the 1981 Irish hunger strikers were defined by two opposing views of whether they were political prisoners, because I know of no reliable source which disputes that this was the locus of the crisis. The relevant articles are full of sources which uphold that nature of the dispute, and your demand for sources is nothing more than a transparently bad faith attrition strategy. For whatever reason, you are engaged in a bizarre form of historical denialism in which you use a succession of WP:GAMINing techniques to deny the well-documented facts that there are many high-profile cases where a dispute over political status was central to their notability. The only Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT here is your sustained and disgustingly ill-mannered attempts to deny that reality. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment I want to draw this review's attention to a crucial statement by @Piotrus, who requested this review. In the CFD discussion, Piotrus wrote at 03:58, 5 July 2021: Some categories may be too politicized, particularly in the US, to work on English Wikipedia. This one is not.. That is an explicit acknowledgement that the topic is a matter of political perspective, and it suggests that these categories not be used wrt to the country most heavily-represented among Wikipedia editors. It implicitly accommodates the highly-partisan notion that "political prisoners" exist only in some "bad countries", and that editors should not trouble themselves trying to apply the same principle regardless of regime. I assume that Piotrus's suggestion was a good faith attempt to avoid controversy; but it amounts to creating a structure which locks in differential standards, and it also provides an excellent illustration of the falsity of Piotrus's claim that the definition of political prisoner is settled. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 18:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
As I said in that discussion, no definition for any social science term is really settled; you ignored this point there, and you keep hanging into it as if proves anything - except that you are not very familiar, apparently, with how the existence of multiple definitions is a norm in social sciences. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
No, I did not ignore that point. I chose not to waste time engaging with your disingenuous attempt to conflate the fuzziness of some concepts with cases such as this where various definitions are in open conflict. I assumed that whoever closed the discussion would be smart enough to see through your exercise, and I was right. This is not complicated, Piotus: there are many cases such as the 1981 Irish hunger strikers or Julian Assange where well-reasoned mainstream views supporting labelling someone as a political prisoner, and other well-reasoned mainstream views opposing the label. Your attempts to wave away those deep divides are either disingenuous or woefully ill-informed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 03:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
How about "I've seen the term in several decades of political science and history literature" rather than "I've seen it on google"? We're not talking about a fringe concept here, even if it's open to being problematized as being used in a politicized manner at times. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The issue here is not that it's open to being problematized as being used in a politicized manner at times. The problem is that the term is inherently political. See e.g. Steinert, 2020: "the concept is ambiguously used in academic studies referring to both theoretically and empirically distinct groups of individuals". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 22:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
As I pointed out (being the person who found this source), this is normal in social sciences. Most concepts have multiple ambiguous definitions. A study of globalization even got several books and articles dedicated to analyzing the few hundred definitions of it (ex. here: "Many authors have attempted, with relative success, to define globalization in a variety of ways. Some claim that it cannot be done...")Â ; I am not seeing you trying to CfD Category:Globalization, however. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
No, Piotrus, it is not at all normal in social science to use contested terminology without clarifying which definition(s) are being used. on the contrary, that is a very basic form of bad practice. Furthermore, it is appallingly bad practice in social science to respond to evidence of conflicting definitions as the cause of major political division by falsely accusing the other person of "inventing" uncontested historical fact. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 05:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Down below, you wrote that I am inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category. That is is nonsense: it is a matter of historical fact that the 1981 Irish hunger strike was about two radically different views of who is political prisoner. You want to create a situation where Wikipedia must asert as fact the view of one or the other side to that conflict. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 13:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment (as participant) This DRV seems to struggle with the same issue as the CFD: editors talking past each other about the importance of this political concept versus the lack of a non-subjective process of actually picking which articles go in the category. The former is interesting and inspiring while the latter is pretty boring and mechanical. But actual categorization relies on the latter and no formula for escaping WP:SUBJECTIVECAT was ever presented. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse I find DRV most helpful with input from non-participants but, since most of !votes here are from the earlier CFD, I'll make my support explicit. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@SmokeyJoe: This is very clearly not a supervote. See WP:Supervote#Advice_to_editors_decrying_a_supervote_close: For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. This close was clearly founded in the core policy which to which the minority pointed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 23:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
On the contrary, I think Joe is very much right. This was the case "that reflects the preference of the closer, rather than according to the content of the discussion." Although I am willing to consider that the closer really tried to be neutral, but was still swayed by one side's arguments - but that compromises their neutrality, when, as many other parties point out, neither side had a clear superiority in their arguments (and of course, I lean towards the view that keepers were more persuasive - although I am sure you'd disagree). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
No, it is a Supervote if the closer makes judgements, including âgrounded in policyâ, that are not evident in the discussion. The purpose of discussion is not to find the right descison, but to educate the other participants. The close was too heavy handed in making a judgement. The closer should have !voted. âSmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I think the question of if a topic is too subjective to be a category is, itself, subjective. I don't understand how a closer can claim that their view is somehow an objectively true. (I !voted above). Hobit (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Hobit Indeed. There are "arguments" which can be dismissed out of hand (per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid) but the closer here did not identify any problematic arguments. Despite the clear no consensus, they chose to side with one side with a justification that I find quite lacking and I concur that it seems subjective. If FL found arguments of one side more compelling than others, but neither clearly disqualifiable due to being "just a votes", "personal attacks", "I like its" and uch, and in rough balance, numerically, they should have either closed as no consensus or simply voted themselves and let the discussion continue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Omit Bobby Sands and the other prisoners in the H-blocks from Category:Political prisoners, thereby endorsing the point of view of the British government, which expressly described the prisoners as criminals.
With categories, there is no in-between option, no opportunity to use cautious phrasing to covey nuance or dispute. Either an article is in a category or it is not.
If you are unfamiliar with the topic, please read the article Bobby Sands to see how opinion was polarised into opposing blocks.
So my question is: Please explain how either of those two options is compatible with the policies WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
Please note that this is not a theoretical question. It is a practical one about a very high-profile issue which will have to be decided one or the other if this category is undeleted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 04:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
On the contrary, @Biruitorul, it goes to the heart of the DRV question; whether the closer was correct to accept arguments that this category violates WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
I apologise if my first statement above is not sufficiently clear. I did not accept arguments that the category violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; on the contrary, I considered that they were successfully rebutted. It was WP:SUBJECTIVECAT that I found decisive. WP:NPOV is also relevant, of course. â FayenaticLondon09:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The case of Bobby Sands is to be discussed on his talk page first. And the alleged controversy is not even backed up by any sources (we only have your word that there is any modern neutralality problem and a British vs Irish POV in reliable sources). Plus he wasn't ever categorized as a political prisoner on Wikipedia. You are inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial - but it has never been so on Wikipedia (and on the contrary, it happily exists on dozens of other Wikipedias in various languages too - now that's a fact, unlike speculation on whether in some wiki future we will have a dispute over how to categorize Sands). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
More nonsense, Piotrus. Of course he wasn't ever categorized as a political prisoner on Wikipedia, because such categories have been deleted promptly after creation.
Similar your claim that we only have your word that there is any modern neutralality problem is based either on a failure to read the article, or on outright deceit. The question of whether Sands was a political prisoner is what the whole dispute was about. I am disgusted by your mailicious smears that I am "inventing" something. It is a matter of undisputed historical fact that the hunger strike was about whether or not the H-block prisoners were political prisoners, and your claim that I am fabricating it is very nasty conduct toward another editor, as well as contemptuous of historical fact.
I am inventing nothing. This is a real, practical issue, which is exceptionally well-documented: a search for "h-blocks" political status" gets over 500 hits on Gbooks and 128 hits on Gbooks. If Category:Political prisoners is re-created, either Sand belongs in the category or he doesn't. Which POV to you uphold, Piotrus: The IRA or the British govt?
Please stop your badgering with logical fallacies. "Which POV to you uphold, Piotrus: The IRA or the British govt?" is a pure and simple loaded question. Since you keep ignoring my questions to you and instead reply with numerous logical fallacies (and personal attacks like "more nonsense", "I am disgusted by your mailicious smears", etc.), I rest my case. The readers of our conversation(s) can judge who was right. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
No, it is no a loaded question, and it is not a logical fallacy. The crisis was about whether or not these hundreds of IRA prisoners were political prisoners: one side firmly aid yes, the other side formly said no. You want to create a situation where one of theose opposing views must be aserted by Wikipedia as unqualified fact. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 13:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you to BHG for asking that question. I don't wish to re-litigate the CfD, but I agree that it is necessary to show that there is a policy-compliant use for the category before it can be restored, so to that extent a certain degree of re-litigation seems inevitable to me.It's certainly true that categories don't permit nuance, and they therefore lead to hard cases. A good analogy is our process of deciding whether a historical figure was gay: some sources might say the person was straight, and other sources say they were gay, so we have to reconcile conflicting sources. But the fact that it can be hard to decide doesn't mean we have to delete, for example, Category:Medieval LGBT people. It merely means we have to use good editorial judgment about how we use the category. It's certainly true that there are people who were obviously political prisoners: the example that springs immediately to mind is Nelson Mandela. And it's certainly true that his political prisoner-hood is a defining characteristic of the man.I do recognise that restoring this category will lead to a lot of disagreement and much soapboxing on the talk pages of articles about the Troubles, and in plenty of other cases too. But on the other hand, I differ from you and from the closer in how I parse that debate. Unlike you, I cannot discern a consensus to delete the category and I therefore conclude that our rules require it to remain.âS Marshall T/C09:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
BHG, the answer is that the question needs to resolved in mainspace, by discussion on the article talk page. Much of what you said in the CfD is agreeable, but as cfd talk it has got ahead of parent article. âPolitical prisonerâ is POV? Cite that from the article please. âPolitical prisonerâ is not well defined? Is that what the parent article says? Or is the parent article incomplete? I read it has presenting a small number of definitions by organisation. Categories should follow articles, not lead. If a person cannot be defined as a political prisoner, that is a conclusion to be stated in mainspace, supported by sources, it is not a decision to be made at CfD. The CfD was doomed by the lack of consensus on the parent article. The categorisation problems have brought the problem to a head, but the resolution needs to be established in mainspace. I recommend an RfC at the talk page of the parent article, at Talk:Political prisoner.
My thought here and now is that the list of political prisoners should be a sortable table based on which reputable organisations declare them to be political prisoners, and that categorisation comes later, and that individuals will have to be in subcategories of Category:Political prisoners. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn, and restore the "Category:Political prisoners".
The question of whether a given individual qualifies as a political prisoner is resolved in the same way as any other question on Wikipedia â on the basis of reliable sources.
Since ancient Rome, it has been a principle of jurisprudence that "Nemo in sua causa judex est" â "No one is the judge in his own case." If Britons and Irishpeople disagree as to whether Bobby Sands was a political prisoner, it may be necessary to ask them to recuse themselves and to remand the case to an impartial court for adjudication.
Differences in judgment occur on Wikipedia all the time â and get resolved, usually satisfactority, without resort to the nullifying of useful, widely accepted concepts.
@Nihil novi, you completely misunderstand the situation, as has SmokeyJoe. This is not a dispute between British and Irish editors. On the contrary, the relevant articles are stable and describe the situation accurately and in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The issue here is that whole topic of the 1981 Irish hunger strike and Special Category Status is about an epoch-defining political crisis which the IRA prisoners adamantly insisted that they were political prisoners, and the British govt insisted that they were not political, just criminal. Both sides had well-reasoned, widely supported justifications for their deeply-held principles. No review by en.wp editors (from whatever nationality) can alter the fact these opposing views define the case, and that endorsing one side or the other is a breach of NPOV. However, the supporters of this category will create a dispute where there us none, because if individuals are to be categorised as political prisoners, then a binary choice must be made between either the Irish Republican perspective (categorise as political prisoners) or the British govt (not political). There is no room for nuance, or in-between compromise, because an article is either in a category or it is not. Having a Category:Political prisoners will require these articles to endorse one view or the other, which is a breach of the policy WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The irony here is that en.wp problem is actually the opposite of what you believe. Wikipedia editors from Britain and Ireland and elsewhere have upheld en.wp policy and collaborated to make stable, NPOV articles. But a bunch of partisan POV-pushers led my Piotrus are demontrating an active hostility to actually learning about the topic, and want to detablise the coverage by ignoring WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and instead assert one view as fact. That's not just contemptuous of policy; it's contemptuous of history and of those editors from many diffrent pespectives who actually know the history and are not willing to unbalance en.wp's NPOV coverage. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 21:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the ping. Nicely done. Now we can have Xfd part 2 here, just as DRV was intended for. (grabs some snacks ans sits back to watch the trainwreck). - jc3717:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn Far from citing any Wikipedia policies, the closer simply made an arbitrary decision. The decision translates to ignoring what any reliable source is telling us, and ignoring notability policies. Some people are notable because they were imprisoned and executed for their political activities, political affiliations, or their connections (real or imagined) to certain polltical factions. Ignoring this is little more than POV-pushing. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn - I participated in the original discussion and reviewed all of the responses. The close is entirely dependent on ignoring actual consensus of editors who gave a clear policy basis for their argument. I can't possibly summarize this better than by quoting Biruitorul, who stated above that "the âkeepâ voters were, on the whole, every bit as thoughtful, engaged, logical and policy-grounded as the other side. Ignoring our arguments is arbitrary and, frankly, insulting." I feel equally offended. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse, I participated in the original discussion, this is a perfect example of a WP:NOTVOTE closure. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT has existed for a long time and is very applicable here. Also note that OP's statement that containerization is not much better than delete is very inaccurate, because the Amnesty International subcategory contains a huge amount of articles and this subcategory is not affected by this closure. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Marcocapelle Seriously, SUBJECTIVECAT is about "subjective descriptions (famous, notable, great), any reference to relative size (large, small, tall, short), relative distance (near, far), or character trait (beautiful, evil, friendly, greedy, honest, intelligent, old, popular, ugly, young)". And even here we have exception; we don't have category for beautiful people but we have category for not just winners of beauty pageants but under "Beauty" for beauty deities and even professions for people who may or may not be beautiful (models). We have category Category:Evil deities (although not Category:Evil, and so on. And anyway, political prisoner is not subjective - there is a ton of scholarly literature on the concept and on who was (or wasn't) a political prisoner. As for AI category, it's useful but the problem is, among others, that it is not retroactive. AI didn't exist in the 19th of the first half of the 20th century, but notable political prisoners, for whom being a political prisoner is quite defining, did (here's an academic article on "The Emergence of the Political Prisoner, 1865â1910") and I'll just thrown two names out here: Mahatma Gandhi ([10]) - who died before AI was established. Second, is Nelson Mandela, often described as the world's most famous political prisoner, but whom AI did not recognize as a prisoner of conscience (due to their controversial stance of avoiding awarding this status to anyone who advocates or even accepts violent means of protest), see [11], [12]. Containerization is a solution which denies proper categorization to two of the most famous and uncontroversial political prisoners in existence, and therefore is obviously a failed solution. This and this is just shameful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse I appreciate the passion of the advocates of this category, but categoryspace is still different from articlespace. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT should not be simply hand-waved away. Perhaps the issue is that the term "political prisoner" is so highly emotive, and the advocates of it believe the topic is somehow diminished if they cannot arbitrarily assign articles to it. So I might point out that there are ice hockey players whom every single hockey fan ever born would label an enforcer. Any hockey fan could watch a minute of play and identify who the enforcers are. They are an enormously important part of the game historically, as much as the NHL struggles to downplay it. Being identified as an enforcer is much more defining than what position you play. But ultimately, there are no universally agreed-upon criteria for whether one player or another is an enforcer. It is only by reference to a sportswriter or other RS that we can have a list. We have a List of NHL enforcers and no Category:Enforcers as a consequence. Considering how vastly more serious a matter it is to be labeled a political prisoner, it boggles my mind that such an inherently WP:SUBJECTIVECAT can have defenders. Keeping it as a container category was, I thought, the best possible compromise that retains the integrity of the categorization system. -- choster (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
So how to we determine if a category is too subjective? I get that *you* think it is. But how, other than discussion and consensus building, do we make that determination? Are you comfortable with one person invoking WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and an admin ignoring the many other !votes and deleting on that basis? I know I'm not. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but when subjective opinions conflict, we generally give a great deal of weight to the numeric consensus. Are you claiming that any objective person would conclude that this category is too subjective? Recall, DRV is about reviewing the closure of the discussion, not relitigating the underlying issue. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
choster, you're entitled to your opinion of course, but the way I see it a hockey enforcer does not have a legal status nor a robust academic literature dedicated to analyzing them. With political prisoners many had distinct legal statuses depending on the time and country under discussion - not simply a matter of armchair feelings by wikipedia editors - if they were arrested under statutes that prohibited membership in a political party. In other cases of course it was done extralegally or of course there are people arrested under regular laws whose supporters hope to rally people to their causes by calling them political prisoners. At the very least the people in the former category of detainees who belonged, or were accused of belonging, to a political party have a clear status no different than the categories for Murderers or other legally imprisoned people. Dan Carkner (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment. It is uncontroversial and widely recognized that Ghandi and Mandela are some of the world's most famous political prisoners. It is a defining quality for them. There is no container category for them. This and this is just shameful, as well as an obvious information loss for the reader and anyone who uses the category system. (They are of course categorized as political prisoners on dozens of another language Wikipedias where this category exists, and as far as Ic can tell, it has never been challenged or deemed controversial or too subjective in those projects). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Your examples prove the subjectivity at play here though since they are from South Africa and India. In contrast, there were no subcategories for the United States or the United Kingdom and it's unlikely that they would ever be created, not from any malice or prejudice amongst Wikipedia editors, but from seeing domestic disputes as very nuanced while far away ones are cut and dry. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@RevelationDirect While I certainly see how they could be controversial, they are topics discussed by reliable sources and academia. For example, while at first I thought it is a fringe theory, I researched a claim on whether King was a political prisoner, and a bit to my surprise, it seems that yes, he is recognized as one by modern scholars and I couldn't find a single dissenting view to even suggest this is controversial now (arguably, I am sure it would have been 50 years ago or so); see Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Was_Martin_Luther_King_Jr._a_political_prisoner? and my unchallenged edits to the article. Now, I am also reasonably sure that things would be much more heated about modern-era people like let's say Manning, but that's fine - their status is disputed, not defining, and hence, when we create a Category:Political prisoners in the United States, it should include King but not Manning (although maybe Manning will be recognized a one by future scholars and will be added to this category in 2070s?). PS. Categories aside, the topic of Political prisoners in the United States is a notable one and I'll create it soon (plenty of RS exist); and anyway, it is good to have a main article for a category first, defining the scope (I created Political prisoners in Poland yesterday, and note that quite a few of "political prisoners in Fooland" already existed). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Exactly so. Moreover, the article about Mandela does mention that he was on the US government terrorism watch-list for a very long time. How much more subjective can this be? Marcocapelle (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Marcocapelle That's historical. Labels change. Mandella was considered a terrorist in the past, he is no longer considered one. Categories can reflect this, as they are updated with new developments (classic example is people who are alive vs those who are dead, but there are more - people whose awards are stripped, people who are exonerated of crimes, etc.). Our system is farm from ideal yet due to many categories still missing, so Mandella could be categorized as someone formerly recognized as a terrorist (if there even is such a category now). Another example - see Category talk:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience; we need to separate it into current and former. There are people who are in prison now for mundane offences, who were once AIpocs. It is confusing; for example the sole entry in Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience held by Poland is for an individual who was AIpocs few decades ago, but is now in prison in Poland for fraud. The category tree suggests he is still an AIpoc, which is wrong. As we refine the categories, this will be solved. The solution here is more categories, not less; the choice is not just binary (yes or no). A binary set is problematic, but that's why we have the category tree solution. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Of course it has changed, but that is exactly a reflection of how subjective this is. Labeling Mandela as a political prisoner instead of as a terrorist became more widespread while the support for the apartheid regime crumbled down. It fundamentally remains a matter of two opposite views (by supporters of Mandela versus by supporters of the apartheid regime) but the quantitative balance in amount of supporters on each side has shifted dramatically in the course of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Not all of them are organizations (there is an event, and there is an award, among others); but you can't deny they share a common and clearly definable characteristic of being related to the concept of political prisoners. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I definitely see and acknowledge the systemic bias concerns here. Yes: we're happy to describe political prisoners in South Africa or India but we're much less likely to do so in the US or the UK. If you look at WP:RSP, you'll see the explanation. The vast majority of sources that Wikipedians evaluate as "reliable" come from the Western democracies, which means that en.wiki describes the world pretty much how the mainstream media in Western democracies describe it. This is certainly a huge issue that affects an awful lot of our coverage, but I don't see how it disbars us from having a category for political prisoners. Incidentally, if you do require an example of a political prisoner who was detained by Her Majesty's loyal government, I would put forward Emmeline Pankhurst. âS Marshall T/C07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@S Marshall It's quite fascinating to me as a sociologist (from Poland), even if it can be offensive for some folks here, but yes, I think a part of the problem is the knee-jerk reaction from folks in the "Western democracies" when they are told that they also had political prisoners, just like us poor schucks from the Second World. Then there is the lack of realization that for people from the (former?) Second World, the political prisoner category is very important, as many political prisoners are today's heroes of the fight for independence, democracy, and so on. But they are also historical heroes, we don't have political prisoners in Poland now. But in the US, for example, there is a modern day controversy about Guantanamo Bay, Manning, even Crosby, and the term is "current". So the systemic bias can be seen in American(?) volunteers seeing the term as controversial based on the (relatively) recent media coverage, and (unfortunately) ignoring the much more neutral academic coverage of this, and co-incidentally, in the systemic bias of trying to deny to the rest of the world a category that in many places (ex. former communist Europe) is not controversial and very defining. I am willing to bet my academic / professional wiki expert reputation that if anyone tried to XfD this category from Polish, Russian, or Hungarian Wikipedias there would be a speedy close and a WP:TROUT to the nom. Maybe I should publish a peer-reviewed paper about this :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, the problem of bias in favour of Western/Anglo countries and against poor/non-Anglo countries may also relate as much to what people are researching and writing on Wikipedia as the category of Political Prisoner itself. There is not so much coverage of political imprisonment of anti-colonial figures or dissident party members in the British, French, Dutch etc empires, not to mention the fact that many "third world" political prisoners were arrested with the support of Western Countries (see the US supplying lists of communists in the 1960s crackdown in Indonesia). The problem of bias and responsibility is fairly complex but it shouldn't mean that we can't link articles that are clearly about political prisoners, such as Lie Eng Hok which I wrote lately, who was not known for anything else but his political imprisonment.--Dan Carkner (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
... and incidentally, I've just been through this debate totting up the !votes of the people who didn't participate in the CfD. I commend this exercise to the closer. I evaluate SmokeyJoe's contribution as a flavour of "overturn to keep", and if I'm correct in that, then I get to a near-unanimous "overturn" (with only Jclemens dissenting).âS Marshall T/C07:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I think you misspelled "Taking NPOV seriously" in characterizing my response here. I think that would be a much more NPOV category to put me in. Do you not agree? ;-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn The close clearly indicates that a majority did not support the stated outcome. It justifies this by reference to WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The trouble is that this is not a policy; it's just a guideline. Guidelines specifically allow exceptions and so shouldn't be used to impose a minority view. Andrewđ(talk) 09:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment - This is a difficult case as a Deletion Review, because the local consensus of !voters was wrong, and also because the whole concept of !vote is subtle and weird. The purpose of a deletion discussion is to determine local consensus. There wasn't a local consensus. The closer isn't asked to count votes, or to act as a judge, but something in between. The deletion discussion reflects a lack of a consensus, and some editors think that the close should be overturned to No Consensus. On the other hand, there is a right answer based on logical application of Wikipedia policy, which is that User:BrownHairedGirl is right. The category is a textbook case of a subjective category. The local consensus was right in four previous discussions, in recognizing that the category is troublesome. The category should have been deleted, or changed to a container category. If the category exists, it poses the problems that User:BrownHairedGirl says it does. The editors who favored keeping the category offered good arguments in support of their position. The only problem was that those arguments didn't address the question of how to decide whether to put a living person or dead person in the category. The editors who favored deleting or containerizing the category offered better arguments. This is a difficult case because the local consensus was wrong, in that there wasn't a local consensus, but it is very clear what the consensus should have been, because the category is a subjective category. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
What is subjective in declaration of that one side of the argument is better or not when no arguments violate the policy by being low quality. Your entire argument here is based on the view that you support one side, i.e. you state as the fact that this category is subjective. I disagree since a) it does not appear very subjective for 'most' cases and b) for cases where it is subjective (i.e. disputed) we have simple solutions of not including such subjects in it (based on FRINGE or UNDUE policies). You are also - like most of the people who dislike this category - ignoring all arguments in favor of it. Sticking to the extreme interpretation of a minor rule while ignoring the proverbial elephant, i.e. that this is a WP:DEFINING and uncontroversial descriptor of many people (particularly in some under-represented parts of the world, per the SYSTEMICBIAS discussed above) is hardly best practice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment - To summarize, the local consensus should have agreed with deletion or containerization of the category. There is no right answer for the closer in that situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse per the other endorsers and SUBJECTIVECAT, which is global consensus (even if it's a guideline, still global consensus) that shouldn't be overturned by counting local consensus votes. "Political prisoner" is an inherently subjective label, and the Nelson example is a great one, because we wouldn't put him in a "terrorist" category, even if RS have described him as such, and we don't even have a terrorist category because it's such a subjective label. So it is with "political prisoner." Terrorist or freedom-fighter? Political prisoner or criminal? Who decides? Not Wikipedia. Some topics simply can't be categorized in certain categories because those categorical labels are inherently non-neutral. "Terrorist" is such an example. "Political prisoners" is another. (So it would be with "Category:Good guys," "Category:Beautiful people," "Category:Delicious food," etc.) Levivich17:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse the problems related to SUBJECTIVECAT and ATTRIBUTEPOV cannot be resolved in any policy-compliant way other than by not including individuals in this category at all. The "keep - defining attribute" votes didn't address that, and were correctly discounted by the closer. Surely there is some other way of categorizing those people. User:ć (power~enwiki, Ï, Îœ) 23:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
May I ask if you have any other suggestions for how to categorize people imprisoned for membership in a banned political party? I have been writing a fair number of these articles and I'm kind of scratching my head how to do it from now on. Dan Carkner (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, I appreciate the good faith effort, and we'll see how this whole decision shakes out, but yes I will have to think of ways to categorize them that are less wordy than Category:People convicted of being members of banned political parties. It doesn't really work for people who were detained in concentration camps or special prisons for party membership (whether they really were members or not) without being charged with crimes, as was the case in many countries and colonies. Dan Carkner (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Based on that description, I think you're trying to create a category that fundamentally shouldn't exist under our category policies. All the people who were ever detained for party membership (whether or not they were members) without actually being charged with crimes... probably don't have anything in common that they should be categorized under. Meaning, if you are identifying a common thread, you're doing so subjectively. Because in the category you are describing, we can include all the prisoners in the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, and MLK. This is how you know it's a inappropriate category. Levivich02:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I disagree, it's not me subjectively doing something when I am citing academic literature or using categories that are well established in it. But I'm just repeating what I've said upthread so I'll leave it at that.--Dan Carkner (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse per WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:WTW, and the requirement that categories be defining and unambiguous. Designations like "political prisoner" and "terrorist" are the absolute canonical examples of policy overriding votecounts: I respect that the "keep" votes were made in good faith, but the standard for keeping such categories is very high. Categories are simply not good fits for such inherently subjective matters. If we absolutely had to have some sort of category like this, it might be "people considered political prisoners by Amnesty International" or the like to attribute it, but categories like that aren't really appropriate either as they privilege one viewpoint too much. This isn't to say that this topic shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia; it should just be covered in individual articles and subarticles of Political prisoner, where they can be given the nuance required. SnowFire (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Does it really matter?. This discussion has generated much heat, both here and elsewhere. Do we have any figures of how many non-editing readers even look at categories, or how many actually take them in, or how many actively use them? My gut extinct agrees with the very unscientific straw poll I have taken with far too few readers to provide a statistically significant sample, and gives the answer "very few" to all of those questions, but it would be good to get a more conclusive answer. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Heh, you are probably right most readers don't even glance at categories. No, their usefulness is less so for navigation and more so scholars. Wikipedia categories are widely used by scholars, and recognized as the best attempt to, simply put, categorize the world. Although even that may be in the past, as Wikidata is increasingly more influential here, and wikidata:Q217105 exists and is used in a number of biographies. If you google or use Alexa or such and ask about political prisoners, the odds are the answer you get will be based on Wikidata, maybe Wikipedia's prose, but almost certainly not on the category. On that level, this is really a question of why should English Wikipedia be the exception? Dozens of other languages Wikipedia have this category and so does Wikidata. Consistency is good. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here13:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Why? Because a) no wikipedia is a reliable source; b) other wikipedias may not have the same policies as en.wp wrt categorisation, NPOV, etc; c) those cateories elsewhere may not hae been scrutinised against policy. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse on strength of argument. The argument for deletion/containerisation is that "political prisoner" is a subjective, non-neutral term. There wasn't much of an attempt by the Keep side to actually refute this. Most Keep comments focused on the category being defining, which is confusing necessary and sufficient conditions - categories have to be defining, but the fact something is defining doesn't always mean we should have a category for it. Many comments mentioned that plenty of reliable sources describe people as political prisoners, which doesn't mean the term is neutral or objective, and an approach involving adopting the view of one particular source is hardly neutral. Hut 8.511:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I join issue with you on this point. NPOV doesn't stand for "no point of view." When you say an approach involving adopting the view of one particular source is hardly neutral, in fact, there are plenty of times when we should prefer one source over another. It is not, actually, controversial to say that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner. I know there are some very horrible people who want us to believe otherwise, but Wikipedia does not represent them and I don't know why we would care what they think.âS Marshall T/C12:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
In the case of Nelson Mandela that definitely makes sense, but in that case we're not relying on the opinion of one particular source, but rather on near-universal agreement. In a more typical case we're more likely to just have one source or a small number of sources which describe the subject as a political prisoner. If that source is used as the basis for adding the subject to Category:Political prisoners then we're effectively putting the opinion of that source in Wikipedia's voice, which is not neutral. The existence of sources labelling people as political prisoners isn't in itself a solution to the neutrality problem. Hut 8.516:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@S Marshall wrote there are some very horrible people who want us to believe otherwise. That statement is true, but also thoroughly POV. "Horrible people" is a wholly subjective concept, and dismissing views solely because editors don't like the people who hold them is the complete opposite of WP:NPOV. In the example of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, there is a wide body opinion in Ireland elsewhere who regard those prisoners as horrible people who shot and bombed others. There is another wide body of opinion which regards the British government as horrible people who backed a sectarian statelet that suppressed peaceful civil rights demonstrators, ran an illegal shoot-kill policy, and ran state torture centres. It is also not Wikipedia's role to make a moral judgement on those views of Northern Ireland, and is also not Wikipedia's role to make a moral judgements on the apartheid regime in South Africa. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 18:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@S Marshall: I am disappointed by that question, because my personal view is no more relevant than your personal view, or that of any other editor. (I do have strong personal views on this, but I will not disclose them on this or other matters: WP:NOTFORUM.). The South African govt viewed Mandela as a violent criminal, who had been convicted of criminal offences. The anti-aprtheid movement regarded him as a political prisoner, whose turn to violence was a political act since all paths to non-violent change had been brutally blocked. As in Northern Ireland, both sides had fact and reason to underpin their stance, and both had wide support globally (though the balance of global opinion swung heavily agisnt apartheid in the 1980s). Wkipedia's role is to dipassionately report the views of the players and of significant third parties and of scholarly sources, and let the reader decide. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 19:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll look you in the eye and say that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, according to the recent reliable sources and the recent academic consensus. I don't see any ambiguity there at all. What source would you cite for the view that he was a "violent criminal"?âS Marshall T/C19:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I am even more disappointed to see that an editor thinks that a) this is a suitable forum to weigh the sources on such a well-covered topic; b) that they have pronounced a conclusion before reviewing the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) âą (contribs) 20:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
To your first point, I'd say that it's necessary to weigh sources in order to move forward. Your position is that it's not possible to use this category in an way that complies with NPOV; my position is that it is; and therefore the burden of proof is on me to show how it can be. By the normal rules of reasoned debate, only an example can meet that burden; but any example suffices. I've chosen to use Nelson Mandela as my example of a person who is, according to reliable sources, a political prisoner. You've said no, there are sources to say he's a violent criminal. I've asked you to produce them.
To your second point, I'd say that I'm not pronouncing a conclusion before reviewing the evidence. I've read sources that convince me that Mandela was a political prisoner. Once again, I respectfully invite you to produce sources to the contrary.âS Marshall T/C21:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
"I am even more disappointed to see that an editor thinks..." is always going to end as a personal attack. Please address the issues, not the people. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I know you well enough to have expected that, which is why I said something. I'd rather it not become a common thing here. Hobit (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Also, just saw the ANI thread and went over all that since my post above. OK, this one comment is pretty minor in the scope of everything it turns out. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn the closer essentially super-voted by favouring an argument made only in some comments and not weighing it with the counter-arguments made in the other comments, additionally disregarding obvious policy issues about surmountable problems (WP:DINC), notably with the fact the argument the closer favoured (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT) was in itself a strawman (some candidates for this category being controversial does not mean that all of the others who are not controversial [according to the WP:MAINSTREAM view as shown in reliable sources] aren't properly categorised - it just means the category potentially needs some clean-up). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to No Consensus in order to "split the difference" between a close that is consistent with policy and guidelines and a local consensus that is inconsistent with policy and guidelines. Just saying that political prisoners are a usable category, when they are easy to define in the abstract and impossible to define in many specific cases, doesn't make it a usable category. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn - this one is a no-brainer as far as Iâm concerned. All arguments behind it are pretty much covered in the above conversation, so I'll not duplicate them. I'll add that I don't find the new arguments about SUBJECTIVECAT convincing at all, and I entirely concur with points made by Hobit, Piotrus, Nihil Novi, Dan Carkner (about the merits of this category) as well as S Marshall, SmokeyJoe, Darwinek, Alansohn, Andrew, RandomCanadian and Biruitorul (regarding there being no consensus in the first place and this being a SUPERVOTE) GizzyCatBellađ04:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse. The argument was made in the XFD that this is a subjective categorisation, and therefore a violation of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. This was not effectively rebutted, and the closer was therefore correct to view the discussion through the lens of that guideline and weight those arguments strongly. By contrast, the "keep" arguments focused broadly on the fact that (a) political prisoners are a thing, and (b) there are some examples that all reliable sources agree upon. That isn't strong enough though. To overcome SUBJECTIVECAT, the category needs to be definable for all cases, yet it's very clear that some people are labelled "political prisoners" by some sources and not by others. Overall, the closer's arguments were well made, this is a good example of WP:NOTAVOTE rather than WP:SUPERVOTE, and the proposal so switch it to a container category for specific sub-categories where a named source labels the subjects as political prisoners, is a good one. Cheers  â Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The argument was discussed at length in the XfD. It's not the job of the closer to favour a lawyerish interpretation of some guideline (the examples at SUBJECTIVECAT seem to refer to more obvious subjectivity, such as for example a hypothetical Category:Beautiful places in Europe or Category:Cute animals in Canada; not something like a historical fact, especially if such can easily be confirmed in most mainstream works on the subject). The category doesn't need to be "definable for all cases". If there are problematic cases, you just remove them from the category. There are plenty of non-problematic ones. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment. The "endorse" crew is saying that it's a not a lawyerish interpretation of SUBJECTIVECAT, it's a straightforward one that is complicated by the strong emotions involved. Nobody really contests that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, that Bob Probert was a hockey enforcer, that Neuschwanstein Castle is a beautiful place in Europe. These facts aren't being denied, just saying that they are best discussed in article-space, not in category space which requires an objective in-or-out test. Not every true thing is suitable for the category space. There's an old saw that "bad cases make bad law"; maybe there's something to be said for the reverse case, that good examples don't make good categories. Mandela "deserves" a political prisoner category if we decide to have one at all, sure, but Wikipedia has to maintain a sustainable category for all the cases, and attempting to maintain a non-container "Political prisoners" category for individual people is asking for hundreds of individual edit wars on borderline cases where indisputably some sources say XYZ was a political prisoner, and some sources explicitly say XYZ was a criminal/terrorist/etc. The only correct answer for those tough cases is to discuss the nuance in the article itself - not as a category. The "clear" cases like Mandela aren't having their status as political prisoners denied, it's just saying it's best discussed as prose, not as a category. SnowFire (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse by the excellent explanation given by SnowFire immediately above, and, frankly, by the original arguments in the discussion, such as by BrownHairedGirl which Piotrus does not do justice to. Yes, there are some very prominent people that would easily fit. But they are few and far between, while 90% of the content (such as the hundreds in Guantanamo, the imprisoned members of the IRA, and the PLO, the Black Panthers, Weathermen, other various 60s-70s radicals, etc.) will always be so extremely debatable, that we need strict inclusion guidelines, and making it a container category "political prisoner according to notable organization X" does that. Well argued and well closed. --GRuban (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn. With due respect to many people above, I think SUBJECTIVECAT was misapplied in the CfD, and was given too much weight in the closure. Very many labels are contentious; we should apply them in binary form when consensus among reliable sources is clear, and not apply them otherwise. When a label is disputed and has no consensus among RS, then discussion in the text, but leaving the cateogory off, is appropriate. If we apply that guideline as it is being cited here, we would have very few categories left. Genre labels are contentious; political position labels are contentious (we have Category:White supremacists. Are people seriously saying that that binary categorization is less of a problem?); targeted vs non-targeted violence is contentious (Category:Violence against women); whether something is terrorism is contentious (Category:Terrorism in Australia). Vanamonde (Talk)18:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn to keep. There was no consesus for closing the discussion the way it was closed. Moreover, this is generally a useful category simply because the terminology (a political prisoner) is widely used in publications. The categories are needed to simply facilitate the navigation, nothing else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Overturn - Since when do we shy away from something because of what it might do or what we think it might do? Could having a category that says "Political prisoners" cause edit disputes? Sure. Could having an article on "Name your notable political event" cause edit wars? Yes and it does. We deal with them though. We don't shy away from an article because it may cause us to have to have more discussions with some being heated or because it may cause vandalism and edit warring. I am not convinced that we delete an article, category or anything simply because of the disruption that may result from its existence. We deal with the individual disruptions according to guideline and policy. No one said this was going to be easy. I think most of us realize it hasn't been and will continue not being simple. Is the category useful? I believe so. That's just my common sense look at this issue. --ARoseWolf18:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Shaurya Doval â The original deletion is endorsed. The excellent analysis of sources below provides that there may be enough for a really good-quality draft to be created and submitted to WP:AFC for review. Therefore, the applicant (Ht24) is invited to create and submit a new draft article for consideration. As part of this close and per the consensus below, a) any draft that is created must be submitted via the WP:AFC process to be moved to mainspace; and b) it is strongly encouraged that the reviewer of that article at AFC (if and when the time comes) applies a stringent assessment of the sources, to determine their suitability. Unlike the current AFC threshold which is "could this maybe be kept at AfD?", I ask the AFC reviewer to raise that standard to "I believe that the sources meet a stringent reading of WP:RS/WP:SIGCOV", before accepting the draft and moving to mainspace. If the applicant needs any assistance during this process, they are encouraged to use the AFC Help Desk: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Daniel (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The BLP is NOTABLE and has been discussed directly in detail by various reputed media houses of India. Ht24 (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse deletion in line with the consensus at the deletion debate. Deletion review is not a place to argue or re-argue points that belong at the AFD discussion. I would also point out that it is recommended to discuss with the deleting admin prior to making a listing here, and is mandatory to notify them of your listing; neither of these were done by our nominator.Stifle (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Deleting admin comment. This was discussed with me at User talk:Explicit#Regarding deletion of an article on Shaurya Doval. However, as explained on my talk page, many of the sources in the article at the time and presented post-deletion did not adequately address the concerns brought up at the AFD. Namely, there are a lot of drive-by mentions or not independent from the subject (because Doval is quoted in the news articles). There were at least four news articles written about the subject during or after my closure and some in Hindi that had already existed, the latter of which I could not adequately assess due to the language barrier. Analysis of the sources would benefit from Hindi-speaking editors. âplicit09:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Endorse the conclusion if this is an appeal of the close. (It isn't clear whether the filer is arguing the close or wants to submit a draft.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Weak Allow Re-Creation of Draft if this is a request to create a draft with better sources. It isn't clear whether the filer wants to submit an improved draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Dear Stifle,
The deleting admin User talk:Explicit was notified and I have had discussions with him regarding undeleting the page. Dear Robert McClenon, I am arguing to undelete the page or allow me to submit a new draft for re-consideration as an article in line with the Wikipedia policies and terms of use. Ht24 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear Stifle and Explicit,
Kindly respond to my previous query. Thanks! Ht24 (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I would request you (Stifle) to undelete the page or ask some Indian editors to review the same as per the recommendation made by Explicit.
The reasons why Wikipedians are so leery of these sources is well explained in our article on Paid news in India. We certainly can't accept anything published by the Times of India group or the Hindustan Times group as sources. These so-called newspapers provide positive coverage for pay, and they don't disclose when they've been paid, so we have no choice but to treat everything they write as promotional. And it does rather appear that everything that's ever been written about him on Wikipedia is hopelessly promotional, so I can sympathize with our practice of just deleting it as spam.However our reliable sources folks have evaluated the Indian Express and decided it's reliable (WP:INDIANEXP), and there's an Indian Express source that's clearly about him here, and I note with some sadness that (1) neither AfD unearthed that source, and (2) I've already done a more thorough source analysis in this one post than both the AfDs put together.Ht24, we don't require you to submit a draft, but a draft would really be very helpful right now. If you can find any other article by the Indian Express, or any article by The Hindu (which is another source we evaluate as reliable, see WP:THEHINDU) that's about him, and if you can write a draft that's not promotional in any way at all, then I think there is some chance of this nomination succeeding.âS Marshall T/C23:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, Cryptic. If I was reviewing a completely encyclopaedically-written, non-promotional draft that cited those sources, I'd be willing to move it to mainspace.âS Marshall T/C06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Dear S Marshall
I found this Indian Express article but didn't mention it because I was told by one of the moderators that there shouldn't be any quotations from the person whose article is being written. Also, I didn't know that only The Hindu and The Indian Express were considered reliable sources. Can you please let me know what National Hindi Dailies would you consider as reliable because Shaurya Doval's home state is a Hindi-speaking state and many articles have been published about him in the native language? Also, would you consider the media house The Pioneer [15] as reliable? Please let me know. Thanks!Ht24 (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Good question! I don't know, but now that I've read our debates about source reliability in India, I think that some of the right people to ask might be User:Fowler&fowler and User:Tayi Arajakate. Maybe one of them would be kind enough to share their knowledge.âS Marshall T/C15:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the invite. I don't know who Doval is, but if s/he has not appeared in some essential description (i.e. specifically about her/his actions) in several of the following English-language newspapers then s/he is not notable in my view. The newspapers are:
Times of India is an old newspaper, but no longer reliable. ("The Times of India, English-language morning daily newspaper published in Mumbai, Ahmadabad, and Delhi. It is one of Indiaâs most influential papers, and its voice has frequently coincided with that of the national government."(Britannica)) Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh I see, he's male. The Pioneer used to be a good newspaper but isn't any longer. (Kipling worked there long ago though he was not the cause of the newspaper's rise or fall). I don't know much about the Hindi-language newspapers, but I've been told by people in the know that they are not reliable. What shows up on Google? Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
PPS There is also The Wire (India), which seems to be reasonably reliable.
S Marshall, the newspaper Hindustan Times itself is not known for undisclosed paid news or misinformation in its own reporting and can be used with some considerations, their issue is more with using unreliable syndicated material, being pressurised into self censorship which has happened quite a few times recently but they are much better at appropriate disclosures of sponsored (anything attributed to "HT Brand Studios") or syndicated content.
Otherwise, I think Fowler&fowler has already provided a decent range of sources, but I'd disagree on a couple like Deccan Chronicle and Outlook if we are talking about undisclosed sponsored content particular in the entertainment industry, the former is usually good for current affairs (see if they have bylines) which this subject seems to be more about. Also note The Free Press Journal has a dying circulation and they are resorting to more sensationalism in recent times. Hindi newspapers are in even worse condition with regards to misinformation and paid news, I'd just suggest avoiding them altogether but if one really has to use them, there are some usable ones like the Rajasthan Patrika, Jansatta (same publisher as The Indian Express) and Dainik Bhaskar, although they have their own caveats.
Regarding the AfD itself, I don't see an issue with the close, I'd endorse it. It is a case of WP:BLP1E. The only significant coverage in reliable sources, that he has is about a controversy where he being the son of the National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval (a civil servant) is seen attending functions with ruling party leadership. It at best merits a section on Ajit Doval's page and a redirect to it. Tayi ArajakateTalk20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
That sounds reasonable to me. The article had all of two sentences about this (and one of those was that the subject was suing The Wire for defamation); the rest is promotional enough that I wouldn't have blinked twice if it showed up in CAT:G11 instead of at AFD. Endorse on WP:TNT grounds at a minimum. The text and all of the usable references were identical to the version deleted at the first AFD besides. âCryptic23:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah. I think that what we're saying is that we endorse the decision to delete that draft, but we would encourage the nominator to submit a fresh, scrupulously non-promotional draft for review. Our notability rules require at least two decent reliable sources, and I can see that those sources exist: the Indian Express articles here and here, and the Hindustan Times articles here and here (based on Tayi Arajakate's evaluation of that source as usable). With all due respect for the submission that BLP1E applies, I am quite confident that it doesn't. There are three limbs to WP:BLP1E and all three of them need to be satisfied for it to justify deleting an article. The second limb is that the subject needs to be a low-profile individual. It's quite obvious to me, from reading the sources, that Mr Shaurya is very happy to be interviewed and discussed in the Indian national press.User:Ht24, considering that all of the previous drafts ever submitted have been adverts and not encyclopaedia articles, and considering that you're a relatively new editor who's not yet fully aware of all our rules, it would be wrong of me not to ask you: has anyone ever offered you any money or other inducement, to get a Wikipedia article published about this gentleman?âS Marshall T/C14:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think it satisfies the second limb, he is arguably still a low profile individual at present even if he doesn't mind or even encourages media attention, the concern remains that it is likely not possible to provide a balanced overview in a biography since independent coverage is primarily about a single event. The two Hindustan Times articles for instance are almost entirely composed of interviews and quotations from him or people associated with him. That said, I have no objection against a draft and an AfC nomination, in case it can be shown otherwise. Tayi ArajakateTalk15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah. Those sources are spread over a period of about eight or nine months, so it's not a short-term flurry of coverage in the aftermath of a single drama: I think it amounts to sustained speculation about his political ambitions. I certainly agree that we don't have the sources for a full, balanced biography, but then, by our rules we're required to allow biographies when all we can say about the subject is that they played football at an international level for fifteen minutes in 1973. (In my view we mainly permit those because the Wikipedians who ask for them are persistent and articulate in English, which is a massive systemic bias issue, but having permitted them we really ought to permit this.)âS Marshall T/C16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for all the valuable inputs by the moderators here. I am really happy to see the kind of environment you people give for others to learn. S Marshall, hahaha. I haven't been provided any remuneration for this discussion. But, thank you for asking.
I will try to draft a new article in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines.
Please know that this listing will be open for a minimum 7-day period and then an independent person will judge what action to take. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh. Didn't know that. Is there a maximum time limit as well? Stifle
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This AfD was closed early by an involved non-admin participant less than twenty-four hours after nomination and after only two editors had weighed in. Most obviously, this violates WP:NACD, which states in relevant part "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion". On his talk page, the closer attempted to justify his closure by invoking WP:IAR, but this is precisely the case that the "rules" were made for: involved participants should not close discussions in their favor, particularly when a clear consensus hasn't yet formed. Not only is that supported by the guidelines, it's also common sense. See WP:NOTIAR. This is a textbook WP:BADNAC, so the AfD should be relisted, perhaps speedily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Actually, there is a way it can stand, since it meets WP:SK Clause 1: The nominator advances no argument for deletion, and no one else argues for deletion, either. Now, WP:INVOLVED applies, but the result itself is actually correct as I read the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The AfD nominator advances an argument for deletion. One might quibble whether the argument offered is adequate, but for SK ground 1, there's no test of adequacy: it merely has to exist.âS Marshall T/C08:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Speedy overturn - clearly well meaning but also well short of community expectations. Maybe an experienced admin or non-admin would like to mentor this particular closer if they plan to spend more time at AfD? Stâ lwart11108:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.