Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May

31 May 2021

Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame) – Overturn to No Consensus WilyD 10:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC) WilyD 10:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I believe the closure was incorrect. By agreeing very briefly with one Redirect statement, the closer essentially disregarded all of the Keep statements without addressing them adequately, which amounted to a supervote. The closer did not take in consideration nor address WP:BUILD nor any of the arguments but forth by those voting keep (which were the majority, with 8/11 participants voting keep and agreeing it met GNG). Finally, I tried to contact the closer to challenge/dicuss their deletion, but my post on their talk page was deleted and no reasons were given, not did they defend their closure.Eccekevin (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Spartaz didn't delete your talk page enquiry, Eccekevin, but he archived it without reply, which was rude of him. The rule that says sysops need to explain their deletion decisions is set out at WP:ADMINACCT. Spartaz broke it. He shouldn't do any admin actions that he's not willing to explain. But it wouldn't be fair of me to raise false hopes, so I should say now that, while DRV might give you a better explanation and a fairer process, it's not very likely to change the outcome because I think we'll find that Spartaz' close was right on policy.—S Marshall T/C 03:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC) He deleted it days after I posted it, without addressing it. He did not address any of the arguments brought by the keep voters, as outlined above, and the majority of participants agreed that it met GNG. Regardless, I'm not here to discuss the mertis but rather the way that the discussion was closed, which I beleive was wrong and should be relisted. Eccekevin (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I suspect that the reason Spartaz did not reply was that that editor considered that the close already explained things properly, and anyway the question seemed to coincide with a decision to leave Wikipedia. Statements that look like votes in AfD discussions should be disregarded if they don't explain how Wikipedia policies/guidelines come into effect, and here it was mostly the "keep" opiners who made such comments. I wish that plain "deletes" with no evidence were treated in the same way, but that seems unlikely to happen given the unwillingness of many prolific editors at AfD to lift a finger to actually look for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Comment The nominator's post[1] actually referred to Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) where Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination) was closed as keep by a different admin. Since there was no reply this may not make much difference to a process that is essentially arbitrary anyway. Thincat (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC) overturn to no consensus or keep. If I were king this would probably be a redirect. Buildings on a campus are generally not notable and I don't think this one is so far over the bar that we should have a full article on it. But A) there is a reasonable argument (using local, though independent, sources) that the GNG is met and B) that's not where the discussion got to. I think "no consensus" is about as far as this can be stretched to. From an organizational viewpoint, I'd rather see a paragraph or 2 for each of these in a single article...Hobit (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion wasn't showing on the main DRV page because AnomieBot kept removing it -- see this. Apparently the problem was caused by formatting issues. It's incredibly rare to relist deletion reviews, and I'm not sure what the process would be for it, but in this case I wonder if that might not be appropriate, so as to ensure that the community remains free to consider the matter for the requisite 168 hours.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Overturn to keep per the Badin Hall revised outcome, WP:ADMINACCT, the fact that what was asserted to be canvassing and accepted by the closing admin as such was at worst marginal in that it sought sources to substantiate a keep outcome but otherwise met all expectations, and that the closing admin improperly discounted a number of "sources look good" !votes after, wait for it, numerous sources had been posted in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Involved so not bolding any vote here but happy with the close - just because sources exist doesn't mean they demonstrate notability or even pass WP:GNG. Redirect is a good outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Sure, it's a reasonable outcome... it's just not supported at all by the AfD in question, which is the real issue here. And I don't know that there's a rule against an XfD participant having a !vote at DRV, so feel free to do so if so inclined. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC) I disagree, and I think it is supported - the keep votes aren't very good, as the closer noted, and properly disregarded. There isn't a hard and firm rule, but I've long held a view AfD participants should make clear they participated in the AfD, especially if their DRV outlook matches the AfD, as mine does (if you participate at DRV and that doesn't match your opinion at the AfD, I'd consider that a strong DRV !vote, but endorsing an outcome you advocated for at AfD really doesn't mean much in my mind, so I don't specifically vote.) I'm participating here only to point out the existence of sources doesn't necessarily equal notability, and this shouldn't be overturned on those grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Go back, if you would, and read the discussion from top to bottom, ignoring the assertions of canvassing. At the top, there's a few redirects, but they peter out as more and more sources are added to the discussion, and it then becomes overwhelmingly keep, ending with an unbroken line of five keeps. Now, you can look at that two ways: 1) either the sources swayed people and the final !votes took those sources into account even if only one of them explicitly used the right words, or 2) ABF'ing that all the keeps were canvassed. Extending AGF is an expectation, but was not followed particularly well by one of the other participants nor was it followed by the closer, who appears to have been swayed by that one accusation, and hence assumed less good (at a minimum) faith about those who said "I wasn't canvassed." That's why I can't see any way that 'redirect' would win the day in an impartial closing. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC) None of those later keep !votes you were referring to address the problem with the sources, though - they're all essentially "it's notable" without diving into any of the issues with the sources. I don't think it would be incorrect for a closer to discount them. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC) I think that what is needed is much more general than just one AfD discussion. There needs to be a change of culture whereby anyone commenting in an AfD should address the sources that are in the article, provided in the discussion, or, most importantly, that they can find themselves. A first step along this way would be for anyone who is not absolutely certain about the outcome to not put the words keep or delete in front of their comments, but that would be very difficult as most editors who take part in such discussions seem to be absolutely sure of their snap decisions arrived at in a few seconds. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Isn't that exactly why we have WP:NOTAVOTE, though? Some AfDs are simple and don't require much discussion. Others, like this one, have more nuance, and require engagement to make a good contribution. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Yes, we have WP:NOTAVOTE, but the vast majority of editors at AfD ignore it and vote without doing anything to look for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Well, but WP:ATD finally seems to be taken seriously by most, if not all, AfD regulars and closing admins. That's a big, positive change from a decade ago. Maybe by 2030 we can get higher quality AfD participation? One can always dream. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Overturn due to the closer going inactive means a WP:ADMINACCT failure. Let another reclose. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus'. I generally have a good deal ofskepticism about articles on university residence halls; this article, and the other similar ones for Notre Dame, are better than most, which usually focus of trivial student experiences. One argument for keep which is just plain wrongis the argument that it's a historic building. It is not, its just in an historic district. If we accepted articles on buildings just because they were located in an historic district, my absolutely undistinguished house and tens of thousands of equally undistinguished houses in the dozen or so historic districts in Brooklyn alone would be notable--what's notable is the concentration of century-old building which makes the districts distinctive, plus the 10 or 20 actually notable separately listed buildings in each district. For this article, I'm not sure how I would have !voted. I don't know if there was consensus to keep, but there was clearly not consensus to delete, and the obvious close is non-consensus. We can then discuss how to handle the other very similar articles in a consistent manner. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC) I love that in the US, a "century-old" building is "historic". That's awesome.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Yes, I have often noticed the difference in perspective. By this definition my house, one of the newest in the neighbourhood, would be historic. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus' as most participants found coverage adequate, others not.Djflem (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 May 2021

Table of plants used as herbs or spices – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 08:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Table of plants used as herbs or spices (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I think the people who said to delete it were... missing the point of what I was trying to do. I was trying to tabulate information on the *plants* used as herbs and/or spices (not just culinary ones), rather than simply listing them in another format. Tamtrible (talk) I would suggest that the appellant produce in user space or draft space what it is that they are trying to do. The overwhelming primary significance of herbs and spices in human culture is indeed culinary, and if the project would benefit from a more tabulated detail of these, that could have been done in the existing article, with an accessory article for those herbs and spices that are specifically non-culinary. I believe a speed deletion case was clearly made out in the discussion. BD2412 T 18:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC) I agree with the above counsel. Wikipedia has seen a reduction in tolerance for things in mainspace that are incomplete or not obvious to anyone other than the author what they will appear to be in final form. The good news that if you work in either userspace or draftspace, you're inevitably going to produce something that doesn't remotely fit criteria for CSD G4 as something previously deleted after discussion. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC) ...I'm not quite sure how to do that... Tamtrible (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Tamtrible Grab a copy of the text you wanted, like here, and then manually copy it to User:Tamtrible/Table of plants used as herbs or spices, then edit away to your heart's content. Then come get any of us to help you move it back into mainspace when you're finished adding stuff to it and it looks like you'd want it to. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC) I was hoping to put it somewhere that people besides me can easily access it, as I don't have the knowledge base to make the page what I hope it can eventually become. Is there a way to do that?... Tamtrible (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Draftspace isn't really much better. If you can't make it yourself, you may want to ask at appropriate Wikiprojects for help fleshing out what you have in mind. But unless you provide something that's obviously better in the community's eyes, you're likely to get a similar rejection if it hits mainspace, which is unfortunate but reality. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC) how do I put something in draftspace?... Tamtrible (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Tamtrible, Click Draft:Table of plants used as herbs or spices. (t · c) buidhe 13:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse. I actually think the table is a better form than the list, but to get there you need to convert the list, use the talk page to ensure you are br8ngin gathers with you in consensus. Do not content fork. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse, deletion discussion could not have been closed any other way. No objection to the above recommendations on drafting. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse Correct decision, no problem with the drafting recommendations. Tamtrible if this closes with a "draftify" result, the closer will create a link to the article in draft space where you can keep working on it. SportingFlyer T·C 11:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 May 2021

Draft:London School of English – It appears to me that this has been resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. Feel free to reopen this thread if that is not the case. Sandstein 08:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:London School of English (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Sort of unconventional DRV, I don't do conventional. Seems impossible to work out what is going here. According to article history the page was created by UnitedStatesian, 18:26, 28 July 2020‎ (when requesting a CSD and has subsequently been tweaked by DGG). But there seems to be an AfC comment from Ritchie333 from 2015. I added a {{Promising draft}} as seemed reasonable, added a bare URL, then noticed possible attribution issue and commented on talk page. I could probably do a few more muggle diagnostics but the audit trail seems wrong here. If there was a talk page or proper history it might have told me something. May simply need attribution history merge or talk page restored but this is a horrible start point as simple audit trail doen't make sense to me; and there appears to be a feeling notability is probable. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC) I've restored the rest of the history (19:14, 28 January 2020‎ and previous). —Cryptic 15:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC) I have no idea what I'm reviewing here, but that draft should not be accepted as-is, needs more sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse & Speedy close: To keep it simple now history is visible (thanks Cryptic) can endorse G13's (even if not happy about them). In retrospect ifI had looked at the deletion log first I'd probably have gone to DGG, hindsight is easy. Now intend to steward the draft with possible return to mainspace, as per Ritchie333's useful comments may not be easily citable as is but per DGG there is probably notable. Key will be get a WP:THREE and see what that will source and either cut or WP:V/WP:RS the remainder. No further action required in my opinion and this can be closed. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC) This is a very confusing request, but in effect it seems to be a Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. That has been acted on, and so I think this can be closed. Pinging Fastily, the G13 deleter, in case they want to comment beforehand. Sandstein 19:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC) The issue is that when DGG restored this on 17 December 2020 after its second G13 deletion, he only undeleted the most recent revision, making this look like the initial edit. As far as I can tell that was simple error; or at least, if there was copyright infringement, I couldn't find a source for it, and that's better handled with revdeletion than partial undeletion anyway. —Cryptic 18:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC) I am not sure whether or not I made an error. As always, any admin is always free to undelete anything I've deleted on their own responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC) @DGG: I think you certainly did far more right than wrong in keeping this {{Promising draft}} on the radar; and certainly no worse that me lot looking at the special delete/log and working out I really needed to contact you first. I actually guessed (incorrectly) I was dealing with something moved from mainspace and postulated I hadn't got a talk page (though the AfD archives would have told me that. If I'd have gone to REFUND I would have probably confused the guys there. Anyway I wondered why I am looking at an initial version that looks as if it was created with a G13 banner! In retrospect contacting you first would have been a better choice, and it had crossed my mind, but I was far from totally convinced I what I was dealing with and I think I had a couple of drafts in progress, one a German->English Wikipedia conversion I was trying to source up and this was just a quick side look at something else. IF you did make an error I assure you I make twenty times the number of technical errors a day that you do, bring this hear was one of them though DRV was a good place for someone to look at exactly what was going on. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 May 2021

MacDonnell Road – No consensus; in line with the process described at WP:DRV#Closing_reviews, I have used my discretion as closer to relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacDonnell Road (2nd nomination). Stifle (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
MacDonnell Road (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Although there were more Keep votes in this discussion, they did not make a legitimate argument. Two of the Keep votes cited the guideline WP:GEOLAND which is clearly not applicable to this article. GEOLAND is used for geographic regions, populated places, and natural features, not road. GEOLAND also has nothing to do with buildings which was another part of their argument. They said that since one of the buildings on that road is notable then the road must be notable too. I do not believe notability is transferable like this and we already have an article on that building there is no reason why a separate article could not be written about that building. The proper guideline is the one I cited, WP:GEOROAD. These two votes must be ignored because of their non-policy based argument and use of the wrong guidelines. The other Keep vote which cited WP:GNG actually did provide some sourcing, but they are articles about the local real estate market which seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage. I still do not believe it has been shown that the article meets WP:GEOROAD (or GNG). Even if you think the real estate articles provide enough notability, there is still only two votes (one keep and one delete) which is not a consensus to Keep. Perhaps a relist may be appropriate.Rusf10 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC) The building that you are referring to, and for which we already have an article, is located in Boston. The street under consideration is located in Hong Kong. Obviously that's not the same building and the one in Hong Kong, specifically the Hong Kong Branch of the The First Church of Christ, Scientist, is listed as a Grade II historic building and it does not have its own article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC) You are correct. I have edited my comments.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Do you have any objections to the first !vote? If not, the very best you can hope for is either a relist or no consensus. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC) I stated my objections to the first vote above. A newspaper article about real estate in the area is WP:ROUTINE coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC) So you did, not sure how I missed that. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse The two options here are endorse or relist. There wasn't really a strong argument made for deletion apart from WP:GNG - I can understand that because looking at the page, there's not much to go on, and sometimes you think an AfD will be obvious when it's not - and there were a couple sources provided that weren't rebutted. The last two keep arguments were very weak, though, but not so weak as to be completely discountable. Sometimes you just have bad discussions - looking at the sources presented through a translator I'd probably !vote delete, but disagreeing with the outcome of a discussion that could go either way isn't a reason to overturn an AfD. I'd try again in six months. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Comment I won't endorse as I closed the AfD, but the essential point is AfD is not a vote - in this AfD, Cunard gave the best argument in the debate, and it was not challenged. I'll also remind Rusf10 that he could have asked me to relist on my talk page instead of coming straight here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse The point about !votes 2 and 3 is valid, and they should be weighed appropriately. But the first !vote is a fine one and the closer can't discount those sources as "routine" if no one in the discussion did so. A relist outcome was available to the closer, but I think a keep outcome was the better choice. Hobit (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Comment The nomination says These two votes must be ignored because of their non-policy based argument and use of the wrong guidelines, clearly distinguishing between policies and guidelines. Is this claiming that the arguments breached some policy or merely that no policy underlay them? Rarely is policy (sic) involved in notability discussions. Thincat (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Perhaps I should have worded that differently, the "non-policy" I was referring to was the idea that if one thing is related to another thing that is notable then it must be notable too. In this case if a road has a notable building then the road must be notable too. I don't know if you want to call that a policy or a guideline, either way it doesn't exist. Additionally the two keep votes cited WP:GEOLAND, a guideline that is inapplicable to this particular article.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Relist - Two of the three Keeps were invalidly reasoned. The best strategy is neither to Endorse nor to Overturn, but to Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Relist - RcM makes a valid point, and of Cunard's sources, not all were equal. ——Serial 10:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Relist - as Ritchie obviously would have done if asked. P-K3 (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Do not relist, it does not deserve relisting. The nominator’s opening statement was too short. Badgering the respondents does not excuse a poor opening statement. See WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse. I'll admit I should have cited WP:GEOFEAT rather than WP:GEOLAND. That was a mistype on my part. But I fail to see how it could have been closed any other way, given nobody opted to delete. The nominator's rationale for deletion was weak, given WP:GEOROAD does not state any instances in which roads are presumed to not be notable, but merely states the circumstances in which they are presumed to be notable. "No indication of notability" just boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Okay, so you meant to cite WP:GEOFEAT, that's still the wrong guideline. GEOFEAT is for buildings, bridges, and dams, not roads. You also do not have an understanding of GEOROAD. When a road is not part of the group of roads presumed to be notable (which this one is not), then it is not presumed to be notable. This is a local road which according to GEOROAD is only "presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." (emphasis mine) No significant reliable source coverage has been found. "No indication of notability" is actually a very good reason to delete since we're only supposed to have articles on notable topics and it still has not been shown that this topic meets our notability guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC) You may not like them for one reason or another, but there are sources that can easily be claimed to (and I believe do) provide significant coverage in reliable and independent sources presented in the AfD. To say that no such sources exist is either stating an opinion as fact or being disingenuous. Hobit (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. That is in no way a proscriptive statement. So I really don't think it's me who does "not have an understanding of GEOROAD"! Three editors have opined that it "meets our notability guidelines". Trying to get their opinions set aside because you don't agree with them is not in the spirit of Wikipedia debate and consensus. As to GEOFEAT being the wrong guideline, you are being disingenuous as it is entirely the correct guideline for what I actually wrote at the AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC) It didn't say it was "proscriptive", what it means is that you actually have to prove the sourcing exists. And the sources should actually discuss the road, not a building that just happens to be on that road. GEOFEAT is still wrong because the road is not given notability from a building. Only one vote even made a case that GNG was met. Your vote and the one directly after that blindly parroted you made a completely invalid argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 May 2021

File:Goines_HSC_Poster_255x396.jpg – Deletion endorsed. The rights holder remains free to upload the file under a free license (and at high resolution) to Wikimedia Commons, from where it can then be used on Wikipedia. Sandstein 22:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Goines_HSC_Poster_255x396.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) The file was deleted despite the only commenter recommending a keep. I was the uploader, the rights are unequivocally mine, as it was a work-for-hire under contract to me. The date of the commission was February, 2006. Bill Woodcock (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC) It appears that at the time of deletion, it was an orphaned image without a clear fair use rationale. Bwoodcock, which copyright would it have been licensed under? SportingFlyer T·C 21:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC) It was used in the page Hillside Club, the organization for which I commissioned it. The work itself is CC BY-NC-ND, and this image of it would be "non-free poster." So, I guess, if we're going to use it, there's now a bureaucracy to work through first. Bill Woodcock (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC) It hasn't been used there for a long time. So the deletion seems correct. I'm not sure what the process would be to re-add it and have a new discussion about the image. Hobit (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Not really a bureaucracy, just trying to figure out what's going on - copyright is taken very seriously so want to be sure what we're doing. The file was deleted almost a decade ago and it looks like it was because it was orphaned (it was replaced in 2010 with the current image we see today and deleted in 2012) with no copyright/fair use in the description. It appears the deletion was properly done. If you still have the file, uploading again may be the best bet, but an admin can probably take a look and confirm that's why this was deleted, and potentially restore with the correct copyright tag. (The article also needs to have better sourcing, I'm seeing a lot of coverage from 100 years ago in a search but did do a BEFORE search.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC) The second time you uploaded it, on 6 August 2008, you tagged it {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. While that's neither revocable nor downgradeable to any of the no-derivatives or non-commercial CC variants, I can't see it making much of a practical difference here; the article wouldn't benefit from a low-resolution image of a promotional poster even were it free. Certainly no valid non-free use case could be made for it: imagery of promotional material generally requires sourced commentary about the promotional material itself, and such would be grossly undue weight in this article. —Cryptic 15:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 May 2021

Forest Lake Resort – Clear consensus below that this AfD needs to be redone in some capacity. Two options presented were either to relist, or to do-over with a new AfD. I find the arguments presented by the "new AfD" camp to be the more persuasive of the two (and potentially stronger in number, for whatever that is worth), and therefore the closure of AfD #1 is vacated and the article sent to a new AfD. I will revert the redirect and procedurally create the discussion shortly. Daniel (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Forest Lake Resort (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Forest Lake Resort was a minor summer vacation resort that operated between the 1930s and 1960s. Four editors contributed to the AfD. Their votes and summary of arguments: Keep, the topic is notable because at least two books discuss it in some depth Delete, the resort was completely unimportant and no longer exists, or at best make it a footnote in the Boggs Mountain article Comment: "unimportant" is not a reason to delete Merge into Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest since the main sources are published by the state forest manager and discuss the resort only in context of the history of the state forest. A comment after the Merge vote pointed out that the main source was not published by the state forest manager and does not even mention the state forest. The merge vote was based on false information. Despite this, the AfD closer decided there was consensus to merge into Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest, and went ahead with the merger, leading to a bizarre result. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I'm honestly not sure there was a consensus to merge. When nominated, the article was the usual unreliable two sentence GNIS location spam, over the course of the AfD the article was WP:HEYed, only five users discussed this and three were on starkly differing sides of the argument, and the original nominator never checked back in after the WP:HEY. I also don't think there was any consensus here, and I don't think any other options existed for closing this apart from a no consensus, though if any alternative existed it would be to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Even if there were consensus the article should merged somewhere, there is no obvious target. The resort was not on Boggs Mountain, not in Cobb, California or Whispering Pines, Lake County, California, nothing to do with Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. The only possible target seems to be Lake County, California, but it would be weird to put this much detail on a minor, long-gone resort into the county article. {{Resorts of Lake County, California}} has many better known resorts. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Two important considerations are not noted above: The article was originally titled Forest Lake, California; Aymatth2 renamed it mid-discussion to Forest Lake Resort, meaning that the discussion was no longer about a populated place but about a specific business. Aymatth2 also moved the deletion discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake, California to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Resort. While not strictly prohibited, I have never heard of this being done before. It certainly confuses matters. In the discussion imitated by Aymatth2 on my talk page, I proposed that if they believe the merge target to be wrong, they could and should boldly change it to a different merge target. The fact that a proposed merge target in the discussion was disagreeable to them does not convert that into a "keep" !vote; the editor proposing the merge clearly outlined a basis for not having a separate article on this topic due to lack of independent sourcing. BD2412 T 17:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Therefore, if this outcome is overturned, it should be overturned to delete. I gather from the summary provided by Aymatth2 that they are also ignoring the argument of the nominator, Mangoe, which also counts as a opinion favoring deletion. BD2412 T 17:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC) A few points: The move was done to clarify that this was not a discussion about a once-populated place, where WP:GEOLAND could be relevant, but just about the resort, which had to meet the more stringent WP:GNG criteria. The editor proposing the merge had got the facts wrong. The sources are independent, and the resort was unrelated to the proposed merge target of Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. If they had looked again after these errors were pointed out, they might have voted to keep or to delete, or maybe to merge to some other target. We can only guess. As SportingFlyer pointed out, the nominator proposed to delete the original stub, and took no further part in the discussion after the article was WP:HEYed. Determining consensus is not just a matter of counting votes, but of weighing the arguments. The "not important" argument by the nominator and the one "delete" voter can of course be ignored. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse - per SportingFlyer, apart from the fact that the applicant hided and simplified the AfD Discussion totally. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I didn't endorse the close at all. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I don't really see a consensus for merging there, or anything else. The article was completely rewritten halfway through the discussion, so anything written before then isn't particularly relevant. (Before this point the article was actively misleading the reader and should definitely have been deleted.) There was quite a bit of discussion after the rewrite but there weren't many participants and there wasn't much agreement amongst them. There can definitely be a discussion about whether this should be covered in a standalone article or merged somewhere else (and importance is relevant to deciding this), but the AfD isn't very helpful to deciding that. Hut 8.5 19:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC) @Hut 8.5: I cannot tell a lie. There is a connection between Forest Lake Resort and the Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. The former brewer Jim McCauley who started the resort also owned forest land on nearby Boggs Mountain, a tonic water company and other properties. He died in 1942 and his property was split between his family. The resort remained a private enterprise into the 1960s and was later owned by a Pepsi subsidiary. The forest land was purchased by the state in 1949 and became the state forest. So there is a tenuous connection. But the resort is not part of the history of the state forest, as was pointed out in the discussion, and should not have been merged there. Anyone reading the state forest article will wonder why on earth it breaks into a description of the resort part way through with no context or explanation. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Comment to User:BD2412 and others - It is "interesting" to compare the language on the AFD notice on an article that is tagged for deletion with the MFD notice on a draft that is tagged for deletion. The notice on an MFD says not to remove the tag, and not to blank, merge, or move the page. The notice on an AFD says not to remove the tag, and not to blank the page. The notice on an AFD should be tweaked to add an instruction not to move the page. Moving the article while deletion is being discussed causes confusion, as we are seeing. The template should be edited. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Moving the article is not so bad compared to moving the deletion discussion itself. It creates the impression that this was the topic of discussion all along. BD2412 T 22:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC) There's been a couple instances very recently where I've been a part of AfDs which have been moved during the AfD. One was a result of a WP:HEY and wasn't a problem at all, I don't remember the other one apart from the fact it wasn't controversial. I'd discourage it, but there's no reason we need to create a rule on moving pages under an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I apologize if I caused confusion. The discussion seemed to be caught up in whether "Forest Lake, California" was notable as a populated place. Despite the name still being shown on a GNIS map, it certainly is not. The article was all about the resort, and the focus should be on whether it was notable in its own right per WP:GNG. Having moved the page, it seemed right to move the discussion page to match. Anyone watching either would see the move. I had no idea this was unusual. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) In my long experience the only time when it causes confusion is when one doesn't adjust the discussion heading to follow the page move and to note the original title. Otherwise, in many years I've never encountered a problem doing it. The idea that it is disruptive, or that we should prohibit this practice, is simply wrong. It has been acceptable practice since I first wrote the Project:Guide to deletion. Uncle G (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate the Close and Relist - The action in moving the article, and especially in moving/renaming the deletion discussion, was sufficiently disruptive, although meant well, that consensus cannot be assumed to have been achieved. There is no implication of error by the closer. The good-faith error was by the mover. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC) I actually have no strong opposition to that outcome, though I think the change in topic makes this better suited for an entirely new AfD, unencumbered by the issues connected to the initial WP:GEOLAND discussion. BD2412 T 16:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) I would go along with that. Recreate Forest Lake Resort from the Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest article, the latest version, then nominate for deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Relist The arguments were that it was defunct, which is irrelevant, that it was subject to Geoland, which it is not, it an organization subject to NORG, and there were no independent sources, which does not seem to have been the case. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Relist seems like there were a lot of issues. Now that they are hopefully sorted, let's try again. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC) I agree with the folks below: Starting a new AfD seems wise. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate and send to new AfD I didn't bold my first comment, so here's my solution. Per the agreement of BD2412 and Aymatth2 above from Robert McClenon's close, overturn the AfD and send the new page to a new AfD. I don't think a relist is helpful here, but rather an entirely new, fresh discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate and send to a new AfD. The weaknesses in the delete rationale of Alexandermcnabb were made at length and on solid policy and encyclopedia-building grounds by non-!voting participants, to the extent that the delete rationale could be regarded as refuted. I simply don't think AfDs in the state that one was in, particularly in view of the move, should be closed: I recommend the would-be closer weighs in if they have formed an opinion or relists, with a note on the unclosability of the discussion. SportingFlyer suggests a fresh AfD: I think this idea deals nicely with the issue of the move. I agree with Robert McClenon about the additional instruction on the AfD notice. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC) What's this weakness in MY delete rationale? I stand by my assertion, made in the delete discussion, that this former resort was not a populated place and therefor failed WP:GEOLAND. That was a discussion about the article before it was moved and was perfectly valid. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate and send to a new AfD As the original nominator, I did see the change to an article on the resort, and didn't participate after that because the notability of the place wasn't all that clear to me and because the discussion got rather muddled. In retrospect I'm still not convinced that as a resort it's notable, but the merger to the state forest article came out of the blue to me, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. A new discussion on the article as it stood after the move would be a reasonable approach. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate and new AFD Many issues with the AFD, such that the best approach is a redo.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Happiest Minds – Deletion endorsed. Daniel (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Happiest Minds (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Sandstein closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happiest Minds as "delete". Based on the strengths of the arguments in the discussion, there was no consensus to delete. The "delete" participants did not explain how the analyst reports I provided were "routine". The AfD nominator discussed how American companies and American CEO articles were being kept "even though they are entirely common and non-notable" and said this was Wikipedia:Systemic bias but did not explain how this applied to Happiest Minds, a company founded and based in Bangalore, Karnataka, India. The AfD nominator wrote "the list above is another collection of routine coverage that completely ignores WP:NCORP, like it doesn't exist, and makes a mockery of notability and the five pillars. I'll see what Arbcom says about it" but did not explain how the analyst reports were routine. The AfD nominator did not address the fact that the WP:LISTED section of WP:NCORP says analyst reports can be used to establish notability. The second "delete" comment was made about the existing sources in the article and before the analyst reports were provided. The third "delete" editor wrote "Run-of-the-mill company in its run-of-the-mill sector", which did not explain why the sources were inadequate. The fourth "delete" editor said "per the second delete editor" and did not explain why the sources were inadequate. The closing statement said, "Although analyst reports are mentioned as possible sources in WP:NCORP, that guideline also excludes 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage', so excluding routine analyst reports is guideline-compliant." The closing admin responded, "While you made a reasonable argument in favor of keeping the article, you were the only one in favor of keeping it. As I explained, I cannot discount the 'delete' opinions, because the relevant guideline instructs us to disregard routine reporting, which is the argument they invoked. And whether something is routine coverage or not is a matter of editorial judgment, for which I must defer to local consensus in the discussion." The AfD discussion included analyst reports published in 2015, 2019, and 2020. None of the "delete" opinions explained how the analyst reports were routine. None of the "delete" opinions explained what analyst reports would be considered non-routine. The closing admin erred by not discounting arguments that did not explain why the sources were routine or inadequate. Overturn to no consensus. Cunard (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I endorse my own closure per my reply to Cunard quoted above. While they made a good argument for keeping the article, as closer I cannot overlook that everybody else in the discussion discounted the analyst reports cited by Cunard as routine, and NCORP instructs us to disregard routine coverage. What is "routine" is a matter of individual judgment. I cannot substitute my own (or Cunard's) editorial judgment for that of the discussion's consensus. Sandstein 09:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC) temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse Not only were the !voters not swayed by the sources after they were voted, the !voters came out fairly strongly against those sources, even though they didn't necessarily specifically mention them (which is not a requirement.) I agree that routine is often in the eye of the beholder. Looking at the temp-undelete, I'm also not sure a mistake was made by deleting this. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse per the argument the closer brought up in reply, the executed close seem to be only thinkable one. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse and trout for nominator. Could not possibly have been closed any other way, and this listing is a waste of DRV's time. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse - No error by the closer, and the close appears correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse No error from the closer as local consensus about whether a source is routine should be respected. --Enos733 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse it was reasonable for the participants to judge that those sources represent routine coverage, and the closer should respect that judgement. Calling systemic bias in itself isn't a great argument for keeping something. If it was coupled with some argument that the best sources might not be easily accessible then that might carry some weight, but for a tech company that mainly operates in English-speaking countries I would expect the available sources to be on the internet and in English. Hut 8.5 19:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn with no evidence that any of the delete !voters considered the evidence presented in the AfD. The delete !votes are textbook WP:JNN responses and should clearly be assigned zero weight, in comparison to the detailed work done by Cunard. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse No error by the close and it appears to be the correct course. scope_creepTalk 20:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Cunard put in some proper source-finding work there, and I'm disappointed to see that there was no attempt whatsoever to analyse the sources he provided or engage with the arguments he presented. AfDs should be about sources and that one wasn't. So I think that what we're dealing with here is a good close of a deficient discussion. I would agree that the text in the history is incredibly promotional and I presume that this is what the debate participants were analyzing. On balance, I think the version in the history was properly deleted, but I do not see a consensus to disallow a freshly-written article based on Cunard's sources. I think the remedy DRV should apply is to endorse Sandstein's close, but if Cunard should choose to write a fresh version based on his sources, then such an article ought to be immune from G4.—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC) No, that wasn't the case at all and you're not assuming WP:AGF by denigrating other editors who were on the Afd. There was a clear consensus for delete. The analyst report made no headway due to WP:NCORP specifically WP:CORPDEPTH because they are routine coverage. The crux of the argument isn't the case the analyst reports donate notability. They don't. Any company that goes through an IPO, gets analyzed by groups who are looking to invest or investment houses that offer those types of services to their clients. It is an automatic response. All that does increase the number of people that are looking at a company. So reports cannot donate notability. The company itself must be notable in a special way. But there was no effort to look at the company or justify why it is notable here. Its mere presence was enough to make it notable. But trying to save a company that is exactly the same as dozens of others, is a joke It becomes an automatic response to save it if it shows up, pushing Wikipedia to become directory-like and pushing it further and further from the original vision. Mediocrity becomes the standard. Inclusions for inclusion's sake. NCORP might work here, but in the last two years, NCORP has been comprehensively hobbled, essentially ignored by a large number of editors who want these articles at any cost and it's becoming less and less effective. scope_creepTalk 00:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC) I do assume good faith; good faith users can be careless and inattentive, and we've all seen examples. I've noticed that some users display a tendency to disregard long comments. Some users even think it's rude to post more than a couple of sentences, as if a long source analysis were a disruptive waste of their time; and I think Cunard might have been the victim of those paleolithic attitudes here.—S Marshall T/C 10:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Why do you say we say we have paleolithic attitudes? scope_creepTalk 11:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn and relist - The case for closing as delete seems to turn on accepting scope_creep's argument that there is a tendency not to delete a certain class of weakly sourced articles about corporations, in that the later delete opinions seem to be agreeing with this argument. This isn't an argument I've seen before at AfD and Cunard's counterargument was not responded to. I regard the discussion as inconclusive, turning on an argument the merits of which I have not made up my mind. I think it would be good for AfD to reopen this discussion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC) You don't spend a lot of time at Afd, and you don't have any idea of the scale of the problem, nor do I think you understand what has happened in the internet in the last 10 years and its effects on here. scope_creepTalk 10:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Arg. If it hadn't been relisted so much, a relist would 100% have been the right way forward. But given it had been relisted twice already, I can see why the closer closed it rather than relisted. That said, the keep arguments were not addressed and they are 100% on point, directly quoting from WP:CORP indicating that the sources count toward inclusion. overturn to relist. It needs more discussion, and with the wider audience found in this DRV, it should get that now. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse: In my comment sandwiched between the 1st and 2nd relists, I distinguished verifiable evidence of a company going about its business from clear evidence that it is notable, perhaps unhelpfully posing this as an open question. I did review the subsequent discussion as it evolved, and saw nothing there, including the DRV nominator's list of articles, that would take me from leaning-delete to a keep position. When it comes down to it, what could be said if asked for a one-sentence summary of this company: "It is an IT services company" or maybe "It is an IT services company founded by people whose former venture was MindTree, another IT company"? - noting the indefinite article. Or maybe "It is an IT company about whose future financial prospects some analysts have written reports"? Rather than replay the financial reports which are churned out as the daily bread-and-butter labour by analysts, I really think we need to adhere to a need for demonstrable notable achievements regarding pages about companies, and I fail to see what this company has achieved that is of encyclopaedic note. In the absence of such, endorsing the close seems appropriate. AllyD (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Martok – Resolved. Reopened and relisted by the closer. Sandstein 11:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Martok (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) PMC closed this discussion with no justification and no indication they read the discussion. While a simple vote tally does give keeps a majority (10 keeps, 3 deletes incl. my nom, 2 redirects 1 merge) IMHO only a single keep vote is policy-based. Except for Daranios, the other votes were mainly WP:ITSIMPORTANT (Ched, Avt tor, castorbailey), WP:KEEPPER (Starspotter, Ched), and two keep votes very even the most useless WP:NOTAVOTE, with Dbutler and NorthWoodsHawatha not providing any rationale. Further, the discussion was ongoing and just yesterday, we obtained one paywalled source that earlier appeared to have potential and was described as one of the best sources to use, sadly (see here), it does not seem to contain any SIGCOV discussion of the subject, further weakening the keep arguments. Bottom line, AFD is not a vote, and most of the keep votes were just that - votes. I commend Daranios for trying to find sources, but the ongoing discussion suggests they are not good enough, so the keep side has a debunked 'there are sources' (no they aren't argument), plus a bunch of 'it's important' assertions and 'just votes'. If PMC disagrees with my analysis of the arguments of the keep side, they should have presented their own, as IMHO there is a very big disparity between votes on one side (policy based) and the other (much less so). The discussion could be relisted, so that more participants could look at the sources, but a close based on a simple tally is not correct. PS. Upon further investigation, which the closer should have undertaken given the suspicious nature of so many weak keep votes, most of which appeared in quick succession of one another, I will note that there are major concerns over WP:CANVASSING resulting in a flood of keep votes. Most of the low-quality keep votes occurred in few hours after the notification here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Martok, and while this is a public forum and making a notification there is IMHO fine, I find it strange that votes also came in from editors who have been inactive for weeks or months(! Dbutler1986 for example haven't edited since November last year and even had to ask for help "how to vote"). While I don't think off-wiki canvassing took place, it is clear that User:Starspotter has sent individual talk page messages about this AfD to over 50 editors (most of them members of the Star Trek WikiProject, starting with [3]). There was also more inappropriate canvassing on other unrelated foras like the WikiProject Anatomy which even led to a warning from User:Praxidicae (User_talk:Starspotter#WP:CANVAS). Such canvassing will obviously skew the simple vote tally, as happened here. The closer should've accounted for that, which there is no evidence of having been done. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC) <uninvolved> Overturn and relist: That is certainly canvassing – posting to multiple users' talk pages is mass posting and the message is not neutral. Discarding the canvassed and irrelevant arguments, keep is not the outcome here. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Relist I don't think PMC's necessarily done anything wrong here (apart from failing to explain the close, but that's not necessarily "wrong"), but given the canvassing and the fact the arguments for deleting are far stronger than those for keeping, vacating and relisting would be proper. SportingFlyer T·C 10:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Comment: Before getting into this, Piotrus, did you consider trying to get a rationale from PMC the short way, as suggested in WP:DELREVD? Daranios (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC) No, and I would have been willing to undo and relist had he come to me with the information about canvassing; instead everyone's time has been wasted with an unnecessary DRV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I have self-reverted and relisted with a comment pointing here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 May 2021

Zach Everson – Unclear if permission was even required here (current RfC ongoing at WT:DRV), but for the purposes of this discussion, recreation allowed pending normal AfC approval process. @15:, note Hobit's comment below. Daniel (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Zach Everson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The article was deleted 7 year ago. Subject has received considerable attention given his coverage of Donald Trump since then and based on the sources available, I believe him to pass WP:JOURNALIST (4). Possibly (1), too, given how often he is "cited" (his work/findings mentioned in RS such as the NYT or Washington Post). Sources are in Draft:Zach Everson, which I was about to publish until I saw that it has been deleted before. I'm technically not asking for the version of the article at its deletion to be recreated, but think that I have to gain consensus before recreating the page with a new draft. 15 (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse This is not what deletion review is for. We can only review whether the decision was the correct one to make based on the participation of the AfD discussion. With five delete votes and no keep votes, the outcome of the AfD was clearly correct. Maybe, things have changed since then and you could recreate the article through WP:AFC (which looks like what you're trying to do). Although, I will comment that in its current state the draft should not be approved. It needs to be written better.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Rusf10, I might be wrong but doesn't WP:DRVPURPOSE(3) compel me to? Or does that refer to procedural information, e.g., voters being identified as sock-puppets, so any AfC reviewer can recreate articles previously deleted in an AfD? I've stumbled upon multiple drafts having been previously deleted today so any guidance would be welcome. Yes, I would have to do some rewriting before publishing it or decline it in the hope that the original author returns. 15 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC) No, this falls under reasons deletion review should not be used, specifically 1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment--Rusf10 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry, Rusf10: DRV does have some poorly-documented functions that it's acquired over the years, and one of them is to review drafts where there's previously been a deletion. I know this is a bit of an easter egg, but in fact the nominator is in the right place. I'd say permit. The 7-year-old deletion was clearly correct but the new sources show that this person's notability has fundamentally changed in the meantime.—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure I would accept that draft at AfC since I don't think the sources are good enough (though I only cross-checked what looked like the best ones), but I have no problem with moving this to mainspace if it's ready. (Also, this question was asked at the right place.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Comment - The reason why the appellant is here is right there in Deletion Review Purpose 3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;". It appears that all of the regular editors here agree that that clause does not mean what it says. Maybe that clause needs to be reworded, because every time that an editor comes here for a case similar to this one, the filer is told that they should not be here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon:I would also support rewording or clarifying what that means. It is rather ambiguous. How do you feel that it relates to reason deletion review should not be used #1? (which I quoted above)--Rusf10 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Comment' to User:Rusf10 - The two clauses are unrelated. The one about when not to use DRV says: "because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". This case is not a disagreement with the outcome, because, in my view, the outcome is time-bound, and is what to do at the time that the XFD is closed. The outcome was to Delete, not to Salt. So the clause that you quote can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon I am not sure if you are right here, I, too, go by @Rusf10: The applicant states that he "believes that he passes WP:JOURNALIST" which we can translate in "I do not agree with the outcome of the AfD Discussion", so no reason for applying DRVPURPOSE (3) at all, DRVPURPOSE (1) is the right to apply. And based on this the only correct vote could be Endorse. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Allow Submission of Draft, although the filer had the right to submit a draft anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Sources are strong and this DRV really isn't needed. Yes, point #3 of DRV applies "The article was deleted 7 year ago. Subject has received considerable attention given his coverage of Donald Trump since then and based on the sources available, I believe him to pass WP:JOURNALIST (4)" ("if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"). But a 7 year-old AfD doesn't need us to give permission to recreate. Nom should contact me once this DRV is over and I'll approve the draft. Sources in the Washington Examiner (real reporter) and Forbes (real reporter) are enough to pass the GNG by themselves. Hobit (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Heavy equipment modelling – There is a consensus here that the consensus there should have been either delete or redirect, with redirect being the strongest option. Overturned to redirect. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Heavy equipment modelling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I don't feel that 'no consensus' close, which is de facto keep, is justified. There were only two keep votes, versus three deletes (including the nomination), two redirects, one merge and redirect, and finally, one draftify (with a comment about possible redirecting). Given the votes and arguments, I'd think that a redirect with SOFTDELETE allowing interested parties for a merge would be best, and before that, it would be polite to ask User:BD2412 if they were offering to host the draft of this article, just in case. But I don't think there was any consensus or majority to warrant keeping this article. Another option would be just to relist it, given the discussion didn't seem stale (three votes in the last 3 days). As such I request a review of this closure, with suggestions that it is either changed to soft redirect or relisted. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn and Delete (possibly with a redirect)- There were three delete votes and two redirects. That's five people who believe the article should not exist. You can make it six if you count the draftify since that basically is a delete with the only difference being the possibility to bring it back later. Finally, as it was pointed out in the discussion, the sourcing provided by one of the Keep proponents fell far short of meeting WP:GNG. I do not believe a relist would be appropriate here since the article has been listed for an entire month, although it oddly was not relisted around May 8 (a week before it closed).--Rusf10 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn, as there is a clear consensus that there should not be an article at this title. Regarding Piotrus' question, my proposal was to move the article to draft space, where it would either be improved or deleted. There is not much to merge that is not already in the logical target article, so a redirect would be in order. BD2412 T 03:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC) We have reliable sources that discuss the hobby, yes? It is niche, but I'm not seeing a reason to delete. That said, overturn to redirect is probably the right outcome from that discussion. Silly outcome. See the parable/story on the my personal page. I firmly believe we should have articles like this where we have reliable sources. In this case, we seem to. But that's not where the discussion went sadly... Hobit (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC) To be very very clear, there is no consensus to "redirect and delete" and there is no real way to get that outcome from the discussion. Redirect remains a form of keeping and there is no valid reason to redirect and delete that I can see. Hobit (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn Reading the discussion, the consensus not to have the article is significantly stronger than any consensus to have an article. I don't think a no consensus is incorrect if each individual outcome gets evaluated individually, but that's not really the correct outcome when the consensus is so clear not to have the article at that title. I'd overturn the close, I think redirect is probably the strongest/ATD choice here, but I will leave it at the discretion of the closer depending on consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 12:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn there was a definite consensus in that discussion that we shouldn't have a standalone article about the subject, and the fact that opinion was split as to whether to delete/redirect/merge/draftify it isn't a great argument for closing as no consensus. Furthermore the few people who did support keeping it didn't exactly have great arguments to present. Redirecting (or possibly disambiguating) sounds like the best compromise outcome. Hut 8.5 18:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC) There wasn't a consensus about what to do, so I think it's very harsh to give the closer a hard time for closing as "no consensus". The nominator's request for a relisting is reasonable in the circumstances and should, I think, be granted.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn and delete per Rusf10. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse The closer is an experienced admin who heard all the arguments and did not find a consensus to delete. The OP failed to discuss their finding with them and now just seems to want a recount. But, per WP:NOTAVOTE, it's the strength of argument that matters and the closer did not find this decisive. As for the facts of the matter, they may be hard to discern in all the verbiage but adequate sources were found such as Equipment World: Construction scale models... and Plant & Machinery Model World Magazine (sample issue) which demonstrate detailed coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC) WP:NOTAVOTE is the last thing you should be citing. Your argument could not have been weaker. You failed to find in depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. At one point in the discussion you even tried to argue that some obscure YouTube channel was a reliable source. When NOTAVOTE is taken into consideration, your Keep vote has to be discounted even more than it already is.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Notice how Rusf10 does not address the strong sources listed here, just as he refused to acknowledge them during the discussion. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Notice that your two best sources are a joke. The first one is an article found in a newsletter called Equipment World that no one has even heard of. And the second is basically a sales catalog. You simply do not have the sources necessary to back up your claim to notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC) I think it's a safe bet that I've not heard of the vast majority of sources out there. Is your best argument for dismissing those sources that "no one has even heard of (them)?" Hobit (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Its not that I personally haven't heard of it, its that there is nothing out there establishing the source's credibility.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC) We somehow hosted spam about their parent company, Randall-Reilly (AfD discussion), for almost eight years, for what that's worth. —Cryptic 02:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2021

Andrew Dismukes – AfD reopened and relisted in my individual capacity as an admin per WP:NACD and per agreement below. Sandstein 12:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Andrew Dismukes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This is a request to review the propriety of applying a non-admin WP:SNOWCLOSE to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dismukes. The SNOW was applied 10 hours after the AfD discussion was opened and after just three non-policy based !votes were registered (e.g. "Who are we trying to cancel next, Liz Cheney?!", "He's a cast member and writer on SNL" and "The very night he complains on his national television show that his article doesn't have a photo, suddenly that article gets nominated for deletion?! Obviously, someone was watching."). The closer, in a comment on their Talk page, indicates their close was based on a headcount ("In 10 hours that the AfD was open you got 3 Strong Keep !votes" [4]) It is not unusual, in AfD, for the initial batch of !votes to veer one way or the other, which is why we have a customary seven day discussion except in exceptional circumstances. SNOW specifically directs closers that "Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up." This is not a request to review if this article should or should not be deleted, this is a request to review whether discussion should be terminated after 10 hours on the basis of three early pile-on !votes that were not policy-based. Chetsford (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Sigh. If I were an admin, I'd revert the WP:BADNAC. But, even if that were the case, looking at the article, the AfD, and doing the most cursory of BEFORE searches, there's snow in the forecast. So not really sure what the right answer is here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC) I agree a cursory search would support a DeleteKeep conclusion. A nuanced and detailed search would not, I believe, support such a conclusion. One of the DeleteKeep !voters used a WP:GOOGLETEST argument which, as I acknowledge in the OP, does produce extensive results. On drilling down into them, however, we realize these are merely the appearance of a name in cast and credit lists and the substance of biographical matter is sourced to non-RS. These are arguments that would, correctly, be made over a period of days in an AfD discussion. However, the shut-down of discussion after ten hours precluded such argument from occurring. Chetsford (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC); edited 20:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC) I don't want to get drawn into an AfD argument at DRV, so I'll leave it at this, but I'd be surprised if you get even one other person to agree with you on this. I can provide WP:GNG sources in WP:RS if needed, and the program he's on has cultural relevance both in the US and abroad to the point where simply appearing is about as close to a notability lock you can get for that particular type of comedian. The procedure was incorrect, but the result's going to be the exact same. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC) "the program he's on has cultural relevance both in the US and abroad to the point where simply appearing is about as close to a notability lock you can get for that particular type of comedian" We have specific criteria for inherent notability of actors under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER and being a supporting cast member of Saturday Night Live television comedy program is not among those. Therefore, this BLP has to meet the GNG guidelines. Since the arguments against Delete advanced a substantially similar argument - that merely appearing on the Saturday Night Live television comedy program constituted inherent notability when our guidelines establish no such standard - they were not based in policy and a ten-hour close based on three non policy-based arguments is not what is envisaged by WP:SNOW. Chetsford (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Of course it's not inherently notable, no specific role is, but anyone who is a supporting cast member will inevitably pass GNG, as Dismukes does. The close was inappropriate and an admin should just come by and undo it, but this was a WP:TROUT-worthy nomination in the first place. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC) anyone who is a supporting cast member will inevitably pass GNG Unless we've recently adopted lower GNG standards for U.S.-based actors than the revolving door of Indian actors with more extensive credits than Dismukes whom we (correctly) purge daily, I can't imagine any world in which this is true. Like most actor BLPs for the American TV show "Saturday Night Live," the BLP is tortuously sourced to fleeting and incidental mentions in cast lists and show summaries in RS while biographical detail relies on non-RS sources. The result, for many of these, are actor BLPs that represent questionable snapshots in time of rep players that never were (i.e. Paul Brittain, who may actually be notable but barely so, though with a more extensive claim to it than this guy) and who disappear into obscurity after their run is done. While notability is not temporary, on the question of SNL BLPs we have allowed ourselves to indulge a CRYSTALBALL mentality in the permission of these BLPs which assigns to them inherent notability by inference, even if we're careful to say that's not what we're doing. But, I digress. Chetsford (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Relist - since we are here to discuss the formal procedure, a WP:BADNAC, closing was by far too quick CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn and Relist: The closer was out of line. The fact that the nomination was silly is not important here. The appeal here by the nominator is not silly. Maybe we need stronger instructions discouraging non-administrative snow closes. If there is an important reason why a nomination has to be snow closed, isn't it likely that an admin will agree to do the snow close? The statement that there were three pile-on non-policy !votes is wrong. One of the pile-on !votes cited notability guidelines. The fact that it also cited non-policy reasons doesn't make it non-policy. But it was a BADNAC. Maybe we need stronger instructions discouraging non-administrative snow closes. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC) A totally unsustainable close. I'm minded to summarily overturn it and relist the debate, any objections?—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Well, first, I appreciate the enthusiasm. However, I don't think there's any particular urgency to reopening/relisting it so it might be advisable to let the discussion here run its course. But, I'm a biased participant in this discussion so will defer to you and others on how to proceed. Chetsford (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Reopen/Relist Even if a SNOW close was appropriate, the floor I've always respected is 6-0 in 24 hours, not 3-0 in 10. Still, SNOW isn't ever essential or necessary and I agree that a premature SNOW NAC which leads to a DRV doesn't serve the purpose of shortcutting a pointless discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Reopen and relist. Textbook WP:BADNAC. A good heuristic: The closure being challenged in good faith is a sign that the decision was controversial and therefore ineligible for a non-admin close. A self-revert would have avoided the above ink being spilled. czar 01:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC) overturn, too little for a snow close but yeah, this is getting kept. Hobit (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Niraj Gera – No consensus to unprotect or allow recreation. Sandstein 19:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Niraj Gera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Purpose 3. I was reviewing this article and felt it was notable since many new sources were added. Reached out to blocking admin [5] but seems like they are inactive. Then reached tea-house where someone asked to come here if the deleting admin was not responding [6] Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC) @Nomadicghumakkad I am afraid but this is not the right place for discussing declined (not deleted) AfC Drafts. The Decliner has further been blocked (and is btw not an Admin). Better place to ask would be WP:AFCHD . CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC) @ CommanderWaterford, thank you. Will check that. I had a feeling this is a wrong place for this but then I was redirected here from Tea-house. Tea-house advises are always good so I thought why not. About comments on being promotional and REF bomb, like I had written on blocking admin's page, I would get rid of all of that and improve it to bring it to our standards before accepting. Thank you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Unsalt Niraj Gera, but leave Draft:Niraj Gera to be processed by an AfC reviewer. Google tells me the subject is notable, but there is promotion, and the draft is WP:Reference bombed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Comment - A version of the BLP was deleted as G11 by User:TomStar81 (who is an admin). If this is an appeal of the deletion, there is no need to consider the appeal because the draft can instead be reviewed. The title was then protected due to sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Downgrade protection of title in article space to ECP to allow a reviewer to accept when ready, as per User:SmokeyJoe. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Comment - Concurring with comments of User:SmokeyJoe, I have declined the draft as 'npov', written to praise the subject rather than to describe them neutrally. The image in the draft is the work of the submitter, which is strongly suggestive of a conflict of interest, and I have noted an inquiry about that. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Decline request to unsalt The more of these I see, the more I think that the right process to follow is: create draft, get draft approved, request any admin unsalt/move the approved draft. That is, it's a waste of our time to opine on every "I promise I'll write this COI article better if you just unsalt it!" declaration. Show us the encyclopedia article first; SALT is almost always negotiable. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Comment to User:Jclemens and others - The default protection level of a salted title should be ECP rather than admin. I am saying that existing titles should be downgraded from admin to ECP, and new salting should be ECP unless there is a reason to think that there is misconduct by established editors. I am requesting that this title be downgraded, not unprotected. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC) My comment wasn't intended to engage with your suggestion. Globally downgrading admin-only create to ECP seems like a reasonable step to me, but regardless of that, I don't see any need to take action on this specific request until and unless a decent encyclopedia article is made first. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Sorry for my slow reply in getting here, at first being an essential worker was wonderful because I still had a job and most of my friends didn't, but 18 months later...well lets just say I'm earning that vacation one set of sore muscles at a time:) ANYWAY...the draft looks better than the original version deleted, but I still have concerns about COI based editing here since of the last four accounts to edit before the axe three had no other edits anywhere else on site and the article gradually because a bloated pedestal for the photographer. On top of that the submission was rejected yesterday for not being there yet, and I therefore feel that it may be in the best interest to keep the article spot locked until this draft is accepted so as to have a safe fall back position in the event that the article degenerates into something resembling its previous appearance. That also doubles as a safety net since it avoids the issues of an AFD, which unlike csd can result in a G4 tag if consensus is to axe, which in turn would make it much hard to return the article to the mainspace. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Hey TomStar81, Happy to see you here! And please accept my gratitude for being an essential worker in these times. Last night I had spent considerable amount of time to improve the aritlce and I feel it's in a pretty good shape now. I hear you and agree with you about article degenerating into its old form. I am not certain if you looked at the draft I had improved though and might bother you with another look if it's okay for you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 May 2021

Girasole (album) – Resolved. Not a matter for DRV. A copy of the redirected article can be found here. Sandstein 12:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Girasole (album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I didn't realise it was deleted and I want to make revisions to the page by adding sources, but I don't have a copy of it on my machine. I don't devote all my time to Wikipedia, and so only just noticed that it was gone Mikeyq6 (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Comment: No reason for a DRV provided. Sounds more like a WP:REFUND request. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC) In all fairness, they had the article title wrong here and so it appeared as a redlink until I fixed it. —Cryptic 10:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC) It hasn't been deleted, Mikeyq6. It's been redirected. The copy you request is visible here.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @S Marshall Also not a "comment", I guess.. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 May 2021

Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry – There is a sufficient consensus in this debate that the best course of action here is to relist the discussion for a further 7 days. Daniel (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) This was a clear supervote - not only did the closer clearly evaluate the sources when closing instead of the arguments, it's not clear they engaged with the arguments for deletion at all, which were WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and not WP:GNG (even though there's a few articles which use the word "rivalry," that's not uncommon in American sports - there's no significant coverage of this as a rivalry.) I am asking for this to be relisted, especially since opinions were split and discussion was ongoing. Also note I specifically did not discuss the close with the closer given their recent difficult history with these types of discussions: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Agg (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hoffmann, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 17, and my own personal history with them at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 6, where they refused a relist. SportingFlyer T·C 00:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse The close was per the numerical preponderance. SYNTH wasn't substantially addressed by the participants like sourcing was, so the closer looking and agreeing that the editors who'd found the sourcing adequate weren't off their collective rockers is not a problem. That is, just because an editor starts an AfD with deletion argument A (e.g. synth), if a bunch of others argue !B (e.g., sourcing) then the proper way to evaluate consensus is by the yardstick the majority of participants themselves used, not the one the nominator started with. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Apart from the supervote, the difficulty I have with the discussion is that GNG really isn't the issue here, but rather that the sources provided which "show" GNG don't discuss any sort of rivalry in depth apart from using the word "rivalry." There's significant coverage of two teams playing each other, but there's no actual significant coverage of a rivalry between these two teams. Of course, that's not why I'm petitioning for a relist, but it's frustrating that we're basically saying two teams are rivals when there's only one demonstrated source which doesn't use the word in passing. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC) With 4 keeps, 2 deletes, and the nom, the closing statement was aligned with the majority. I'm not sure what you're meaning by supervote, as I've usually seen that term used when the closer closes an XfD against numerical consensus. Feel free to explain more if you think it'll help me understand your perspective better. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @Jclemens: I appreciate you letting me respond to you. With discussion numerically at 4-3, a keep !vote which didn't discuss sources, and a keep !vote which said they understood the SYNTH argument and were waiting for more coverage, along with the fact discussion was ongoing, I expected this discussion to be relisted. (I'm not saying keep wasn't a possible outcome: I think there were three possible outcomes for a closer at that point in time: relist, no consensus, or keep, of which I think keep is the weakest choice.) The definition at WP:SUPERVOTE shows that the close reflects the preference of the closer, not the outcome of the discussion, and the way I read the close as written was that the closer substituted their own judgement in closing the discussion. Most closes don't/shouldn't read like votes. This one does. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Weak Endorse - A Relist would have been even better, but either Keep or No Consensus would have been valid closes, and the closer did explain why they chose to Keep. The question at DRV is whether the close was a valid conclusion, and it was. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Comment - I would have !voted to Keep. They are the two best national women's association football teams in the world, and the two best women's association football teams in the world. The Japanese team is the best opponent around for what is both the best women's football team in the world, and the best American association football team in the country. What is that if not a rivalry? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC) endorse Outcome was within discretion. Relist was an option, and maybe a better one. But reasonable close. Hobit (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse - as closing admin, it is ridiculous to suggest that a closing admin can assess the strength of arguments without assessing the quality of sources presented when they are fundamentally interlinked. The AfD was not unanimous but the keep votes presented sources that clearly indicated gng and as such the strength of keep votes was such that the outcome was clear. Fenix down (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate close I voted for Keep but agree this was yet another bad close by an admin who seemingly cannot resist a !supervote in these situations. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse as per JClemens, WP:SYNTH was not addressed by the participants like sourcing was. DRV only checks if the close was valid and it was. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Although I wouldn't support Bring back Daz Sampson's rather heavy-handed language in the preceding !vote, I do agree with him that we need to vacate this close. I also agree with him that "keep" was the correct outcome. The problem is with the closing statement. Fenix down says that they read the sources for themselves, reached their own conclusions, and made a decision based on that. This method is problematic for three reasons:- (1) The community has delegated sysops the power to make unilateral deletion decisions on their own authority, but only in the limited circumstances described in WP:CSD. None of those criteria applied, and therefore Fenix down's decision was not within their authority. (2) There are circumstances where a closer needs to read the sources for themselves when evaluating a difficult discussion, particularly where there is reason to suspect socking, COI or other bad faith editing, but in general the role of the closer is to read the discussion and summarize what the participants said. The closer's own opinion is neither needed nor even particularly helpful. If the closer finds that they do have a strong opinion, then they should !vote rather than closing. (3) The process Fenix down applied leaves no role for the community. The !votes in the discussion were treated as no more than a sysop's suggestion box. As a consequence, this close amounted to a sysop making a content decision on their own authority. So overall, right close, wrong method. Someone else should re-close with the same result.—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @S Marshall Please mark comments as comments and it would be nice if you do not forget to ping the Sysop you are mentioning. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC) There's no rule you need to specifically mark a comment as a comment. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC) It's ok: at DRV, our closers are very experienced. Anybody who has any business closing a DRV will read what I wrote, understand it in context, identify correctly whether it should be understood as a !vote or a comment, and apply the appropriate weight per DRVPURPOSE. They will not need a word in bold. But for your education, CommanderWaterford, that was not a comment. It isn't needful to constantly ping the sysop whose close is being reviewed, either. The closer and the DRV nominator are both assumed to take an interest in the DRV. Others I would ping, if that was appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Spot on, on both fronts, S Marshall. I have never ever seen an expectation that comments be bolded at DRV, at any point over the past 15 years. Daniel (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Weak endorse Possibly should have been closed as no consensus, but since the effect is the same either way, it's not worth getting into an argument over. Smartyllama (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate close and allow somebody else to reclose. I have a serious problem with the closer's statement above that it's their job to be evaluating sources. WP:CLOSE#Policy empowers the closer to enforce WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CP, and WP:NPOV, but that's it. They cannot be evaluating sources to see if they meet WP:GNG. If they're doing that as part of a close, it's a supervote. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC) PS, I've started WP:VPP#Need clarity around the role of AfD closers. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn and reclose by somebody else per RoySmith. Closers should not attempt to make editorial judgment calls when closing, such as source assessments; this is the AfD contributors' job. Sandstein 19:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Meh. I'd have called it no-consensus, but it definitely wasn't a delete. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hasan Moghimi – "Delete" close endorsed. Despite a lot of bludgeoning by the appellant, nobody agrees with their view. Sandstein 19:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hasan Moghimi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) After two times listing the page, only one user was in favor of deletion. No proper discussion or census had happened. The page had 20 references, many of them among most reliable sources. Erfan2017 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Please follow the advice at WP:THREE - evaluating unfamiliar sources for reliability, especially those in a foreign language, is time-consuming and sometimes difficult. (Though not so for the three I clicked on at random, none of which so much as mentioned the article subject except as an image credit.) —Cryptic 20:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC) @Cryptic: WP:THREE's lesser-known sibling, WP:LANGCITE, might also be of use here. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) @Cryptic: There are references from the most reliable sources in the country (including national news agency IRNA) (please see WP:NEWSORG) as well as Department of Environment (Iran) that is the most important source for wildlife in the country. The issue is the language. If they are not in English, it does not mean they are not trustworthy. In this link on IR Iran News Agency IRNA "https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fa&u=https://www.irna.ir/news/84228000/نامزدهای-دریافت-جایزه-مهرگان-علم-معرفی-شدند" dated Feb. 2021 as the latest news(I used Google Translate from Persian to English) you can search his name "Hassan Moghimi" and find his book is nominated for a national award. This is another news article by IRNA that you can find his name "Hassan Moghimi" as the winner of a national award (also translated): https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fa&u=https://www.irna.ir/news/80819699/محيط-بانان-نمونه-و-برگزيدگان-دومين-جشنواره-آموزه-هاي-رضوي-معرفي" . Moreover, the page is deleted before bringing up issues and trying to fix them. It is deleted without proper discussion. I suggest it to be undeleted and properly discussed. Please review these pages regarding references and achievements and compare them with above mentioned article: Nikol Faridani, Parisa Damandan and Mauricio Alejo.Erfan2017 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Neither of those are significant coverage, or even close. The one is limited to "Hassan Moghimi from Markazi province, Maziar Asadi from Alborz and Hossein Khademi from Markazi province won the first and third places, respectively", and the other to "The list of 14 environmental books that made it to the semi-finals of the Mehregan Alam Award in the fourteenth and fifteenth periods (1397-1397) is as follows: ... Foot of Zayandehrood, Heshmatollah Elected, Photo: Hassan Moghimi, Naghsh Mana". These are not the kind of sources on which you can write a full-length biographical article. Endorse. —Cryptic 10:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Weak Endorse - Either a Soft Delete or a second Relist would have been better, but this was a valid close. The appellant hurt their own case at AFD by making an overly long unfocused statement. The combination of an overly long statement and a reference-bombed article make evaluation difficult, and may have reduced the participation in the AFD. The appellant is advised to request help at the Teahouse in putting together a draft that is not reference-bombed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Please forgive me if I am a bit confused. I wonder why no one addresses my reasoning. I am saying that "there are valid and reliable sources for the article" the only issue is the language. We can talk about how other users could be sure about the content of a valid non-English source (like looking at the web address and using google translate, or even asking Wikipedia users in Persian service to review). But it should not mean it is not in the English language = it is not reliable. This creates a sort of downgrading non-English languages. On the other hand, there are lots of articles with a few weak references live on Wikipedia. If there is a fair measurement, they should not be there either (I provided a few examples). Finally the article listed 2 times with only one in favor of deleting, no discussion had happened. I would be happy to fix any related issue in a fair discussion. Moreover, if I am almost a new user and a bit inexperienced (so in your words hurting my case) wouldn't it be better to make clarification (instead of deleting)? Erfan2017 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Comment to User:Erfan2017 - I haven't seen the article, and am not requesting to see the article. However, the nominator and the one !voter did see the article, and they disagreed with your statement that there are valid and reliable sources. Your statement that there are valid and reliable sources has been heard, just disagreed with. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: You said that you haven't seen the article and you don't want to do it, therefore your endorsement is based on one person in favor of deletion and the nominator. If this is the common practice on WP, why we should waste our time to request for a review? Your reasoning would be a golden key and an answer to anyone who is looking for second idea or review (there are always a nominator and usually one in favor). Regarding references, I gave two examples to show that even English speaking users are able to investigate non-English sources -if they want. Also the example source is the official news agency of the country. I am not sure if you are insisting that my sources are not valid or they are not showing a distinguished person. There are 20 references, I can list them based on their importance. It needs a fair discussion not a quick deletion. Erfan2017 (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse - valid close of the AfD Discussion. DRV is not a second AfD Discussion at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @CommanderWaterford: Could you please bring up some reasons why "DRV is not a second AfD Discussion at all". I believe we are here to see the reasons not mere judgements.Erfan2017 (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @Erfan2017: First of all I would appreciate if you sign your replies. Secondly please take careful notice of WP:DRVPURPOSE - where exactly do you read "this is a second AfD Discussion" ?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @CommanderWaterford: Thank you for reminding me about the signature. I am almost new and it takes a bit of time for me to cover all details. Regarding WP:DRVPURPOSE I believe there was not a consensus about the deletion. After two times listing the article, there was only one person in favour of deletion (and certainly I am against it as another WP user, so we are even). Besides, no reasoning was mentioned by the nominator. I asked her on May 9 and she has ignored my message on her "talk" page up until now (while she answered others on May 12 and 13 on her talk page). So, I am still in the dark that what was behind the nomination and deletion. You said: "DRV is not a second AfD Discussion at all". This is what the nominator should answer because she didn't let the article to be discussed properly and my 3-4 days of research and work is gone -as simple as that. Also, she doesn't seem to be willing to answer in her "talk" page [[7]]. All I am asking is a fair discussion on the article page not here (as you mentioned). I should of ask you: why you recognize the closure of AfD as a valid one? Do you mean old users have priority over new ones and whatever they do is fine and there is no need to answer about their decisions? Erfan2017 (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC) temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 12:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Comment - Good-quality references are a necessary but not a sufficient condition to accept or keep an article in Wikipedia. The idea that more references will overcome a lack of notability is a myth, although good references will overcome a problem in establishing significant coverage. I have seen the deleted article, and have not checked the references in detail. This is not AFD, and it is not always necessary to check all of the references to determine either that an article should be kept at AFD or that an article should not be kept at AFD. One of the participants in the AFD did a Google search rather than checking the references, and did not find significant coverage, which was a reasonable approach, especially because an article should speak for itself. The time to have explained the importance of the references would have been during the AFD, rather than by inserting a comment in the AFD during DRV. There was no error by the nominator, the participants, or the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I believe I am lost between different comments and ideas. We were talking about non-English references and how we can find significance (like wining 3 national awards), but now you are talking about Google search in English language. I provided 3 examples (I can make it 10 or more) of live WP article with few references and no achievements, but no one wants to talk about them. No one wants to enlighten me if I don't understand the differences or if there is a double standard. As I said before, ignoring non-English references is downgrading their importance -that is sort of inequity. Moreover AfD is a place to discuss about the article, do you consider a few words of one user about Google search as a proper discussion? Can you find even one word of nominator (she has ignored my questions on her talk page -since May 9).Erfan2017 (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Not to relitigate the AfD, but maybe this could help clarify the notability issues for Erfan2017. I don't think anyone is/was disputing the quality of the references used, just the degree to which they directly cover the subject. Being merely mentioned is not enough, regardless of who is doing the mentioning or the context, and unfortunately it looks like even the Persian sources do not provide the in-depth profile of the subject that GNG requires. JoelleJay (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC) @JoelleJay: Thank you for the clarification. There are three types of references, one group shows uniqueness of Hasan's works. You can find his photos in text books, PhD dissertations, UNDP reports and various news agencies. The second type contains bios and interviews and the third part is reports of wining national awards (3 up until now). I would be happy to present these types in discussion page of the article. Erfan2017 (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Allow recreation. In light of my recent conversation with WP volunteers @info-en and reviewing notability conditions, I would like to present the Hasan Moghimi article based on WP:GNG. 1- Based on WP:ARTIST "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book....)" Hasan created more 10 reference books which are considered as sources of Iran's wildlife, natural heritage and Iranian's tribes life. Besides his works are widely used in different sources like news agencies, research papers and reports related to nature or tribe life. Based on his works he fits WP:GNG requirements. 2- Regarding references, I would like to ask you to note WP:NOENG "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided..." I haven't seen any of above users asking for a quotation while we are supposed to follow WP guidelines. 3- There is no such a guideline to emphasis on Google search instead WP:INVALIDBIO says: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking)". Therefore I am totally confused how some users take "the English" Google search results as their main reason for evaluation. I hope I was able to clarify the subject. I would be more than happy to talk about sources or to provide quotations.Erfan2017 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 May 2021

Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies – Delete closure endorsed. As usual this doesn't prevent an improved version from being written. Hut 8.5 17:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The significance of the article was not considered when deleting it. This is a serious research center, which is part of the largest university in Russia - MSU. [8] — information about the center on the MSU website, the information is essential. The source is more than authoritative. [9] - information about the center is posted. [10] - the publication is scientific, authoritative, the society (its scientific activity) is the subject of the chronicle section (see page 11), the center is mentioned in the publication of Anton Kuznetsov, a little, but in detail, he is an employee of the specified center; the publication of Maria Sekatskaya, who briefly mentions the center with other authoritative institutions [11] - magazine, founder's interview [12] - similar to the previous paragraph. [13] - mention in the book by Professor David Smith: [14]; [15] [16] - publication of the lecture on an authoritative resource-an additional argument that the center is not marginal. 2A00:1FA1:2E3:899F:AC02:1CE:4EBD:6C4C (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse the closure, which was the only possible closure. It appears that the significance of the article and of the center was considered. There were arguments for deletion and no arguments to keep. The title has not been blacklisted. If the appellant wants to submit a draft, they may do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse per Robert. I'm also a bit concerned about possible sockpuppetry; the petitioner is reminded that one account (or IP) is generally the limit. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC) You are only considering this article as an advertisement. I see it as a significant article about a serious organization that is part of the largest university in Russia. In the discussion for deletion, no links were provided that indicate significance. I opened this discussion to show such links. 2A00:1FA1:42C9:2A3F:791E:E74D:D808:B4FA (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Then, as Robert said, you're welcome to submit a draft through articles for creation. If you do so, take care to write in a neutral, encyclopedic way. But there were no errors in the AfD that merit reversing it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse the closure - The only possible closure, clear consensus to delete. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC) temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC) In your opinion, the article is not significant? That is, it is impossible to restore it based on the links provided and the article that has now been restored for clarity? Do you need to go through the draft thoroughly ? 2A00:1FA1:B0:6929:90D6:119C:941D:208C (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Temp undeletion is only to allow for non-administrators to view the article during the discussion so that they can properly make a judgement call. It does not express any views on whether the article should or should not be retained. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC) The above is correct; this undeletion is temporary, but the article could be permanently undeleted, or not. I honestly haven't looked closely enough to have any opinion, other than that it's possible seeing the article could inform this discussion. WilyD 10:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC) endorse Sources don't look great, but more so the tone is so problematic that we can't keep it. Reads like a PR piece rather than an encyclopedia article. Sounds like it may be been written by a PR company/group? Hobit (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Could not reasonably have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse - I rather liked this discussion: it was about whether the contents were good for the encyclopedia, rather than just myopically focussing on the application of our notability rules. Good close of a good AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 May 2021

Peter Fox (Welsh politician) – Restored by deleting admin based on N change since 2019 AfD. NAC. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Peter Fox (Welsh politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Peter Fox was elected to the Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament today. It may be more practical to augment a pre-existing article than to start a new one from scratch. Sionk (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Sionk, you know, you could have just asked at my talk page. I've restored it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Thanks Sionk (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Poland) – Recreation of the category is permitted. Sandstein 12:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Poland) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) First, Order of the White Eagle (Poland) is not some minor award, our article states that it "is Poland's highest order awarded to both civilians and the military for their merits". It's right there at the top of Orders, decorations, and medals of Poland (interestingly, we still have categories for two other Polish major civilian state awards, i.e. Category:Recipients of the Order of Polonia Restituta and Category:Recipients of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland; as far as I can tell the fourth, Category:Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Independence, never had been created on English Wikipedia yet). I am honestly not sure what is the American "top" equivalent, but would we delete Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients or the Category:Congressional Gold Medal recipients? Or the British Category:Recipients of the George Cross, which I think the British "top" civilian award? I think such a proposal would be laughed out. On that note, please keep in mind WP:SYSTEMICBIAS: this is a Polish award and many of its recipients (most of whom are Poles) still don't have an article on the English Wikipedia. Polish Wikipedia has biographies of about 1,000 recipients (pl:Kategoria:Odznaczeni Orderem Orła Białego) and the category exists on over a dozen other Wikipedias. Second. Three categories were nominated under the rationale "There are only heads of state, nobility, ministers and generals in these categories to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture." I have no issue with the other two categories that were deleted, they seem minor and perhaps that was an apt description for them, but the singled out category discussed here contains also many activists, artists, journalists and like (ex. Marek Edelman, Irena Sendler, Andrzej Wajda, Oswald Balzer). Granted, the order is also given to some dignitaries (presidents, queens, popes, etc.) who couldn't care less about it, but this is true for many major awards. With regards to the awards being defining, it is mentioned in the lead of some biographies (ex. in the lead of the Polish version of the biography of economist Wojciech Roszkowski). And for someone like the activist pl:Łucjan Królikowski it likely is very defining (in that particular case I don't see what makes this individual notable except the fact that he received this very award; in other words what makes him notable is the virtue of receiving the highest Polish state award). It may not be memorable for a President or a Pope whose biographies don't generally mention such awards in the lead, but it is very significant for a professor or activist and that award is granted to both groups (contrary to the assertions made at the deletion discussion). It should not have been deleted after few votes from editors who, with all due respect, considered it minor ("honorary gifts for already notable people", "merely a gesture") because they are not familiar with Polish culture/politics/awards and clearly didn't notice the status of this award (top Polish civilian award with over 200 years of history). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC) I think the 2015 consensus to delete the category has expired from the passage of time, and I would say that it's open to you to re-create it.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC) We frequently and routinely delete these sorts of categories with consensus and without much discussion, since there's heaps of non-defining awards. I'm happy with the argument this is defining for the purposes of overturning/re-creating, which wasn't presented in an otherwise routine discussion. It can be re-litigated at CfD again if need be. Given the passage of time, I'm not sure this needs to be explicitly overturned. SportingFlyer T·C 14:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Well, someone will have to work hard to categorize over 1,000 recipients. :-) I would suggest to create subcategories, because indeed it looks like >80% of awardees are courtesy awards and subcategories could help to weed them out. Lembit Staan (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC) @S Marshall and SportingFlyer: Is there any way to restore the old categories using an automated procedure? I am not looking forward to the mindless grunt work of reverting bot removal of categories from hundreds of articles... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Unfortunately, I have no idea. SportingFlyer T·C 12:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Asian-American librarians – No consensus to overturn the closure. Sandstein 12:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Asian-American librarians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Consensus was to oppose deletion of "Asian-American librarians," but instead it was changed into a container category titled "American librarians of Asian descent." Unfortunately subcategory American librarians of Korean descent was deleted in February. There's no way to maintain this as a container category since most of the categories will be challenged due to WP:SMALL. (An organization dedicated to this specific group has existed since 1980, the Asian Pacific American Librarians Association.) Skvader (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Comment (admin who closed). There were two discussions. In the December 2020 discussion, there was consensus to not merge Category:Asian-American librarians into Category:American people of Asian descent. In the January 2021 discussion, there no consensus to delete but there was consensus to rename Category:Asian-American librarians to Category:American librarians of Asian descent. But I don't see anywhere that there was a consensus to limit this to a container category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse I'm surprised this was a rename and not a delete, but rename was clearly the consensus at the second CfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 May 2021

Kevin Patel – WP:A7 speedy deletion overturned. Sandstein 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kevin Patel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) meets GNG, significant coverage in Men's Health, [17], yahoo uk [18], voyagela [19]. Tidekazan (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Allow Draft - Having seen the references, I disagree with the G11A7, because I think that a credible claim of significance is established. Whether general notability is satisfied is a matter for AFD to decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon It was an A7 Robert not a G11. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC) I knew it was an A7, which is why it was overridden by a credible claim of significance. Random error. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC) No idea what was in the article (not seeing it in Google cache) but sources would seem to clear the GNG and certainly over the A7 bar. So no idea if the deleting admin made a mistake, merely that the topic should be allowed to exist. If the article was horrible, fine, just recreate. Otherwise restore and allow someone to fix it. Hobit (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC) It is now available. Sorry for the delay. WilyD 10:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Thanks! Hobit (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Meeting WP:N is far more than needed to overcome an A7. overturn with a side of trout. Hobit (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC) There's nothing in the article text that would make me hesitate to A7. All three of those sources were there, though, as well as [20], [21], [22], [23], and a few more of lesser quality. Though I'm not usually in favor of summary moves from articlespace to draft, that's what was indicated here. —Cryptic 08:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC) @Cryptic: But A7 is "a lower standard than notability". So if this meets WP:N (which I think it plainly does), it's also well over the bar for A7. Put differently, reliable independent sources covering a topic is a claim of importance. Hobit (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC) I don't think what I said is incompatible with that? Or, for that matter, what you wrote before the temp undeletion - the article text is legitimately horrible, and doesn't say why these sources have taken an interest in him. Because these sources are there, it isn't A7able and shouldn't be deleted, but it shouldn't be left untouched in mainspace like that either. —Cryptic 13:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC) I think that moving something out of mainspace that meets our inclusion guidelines is generally a bad idea. WP:TNT is a thing, but I don't think it applies here. And I took a "summary move" to mean without an AfD. That I'd strongly disagree with. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn - Vox article is, at a minimum, too much sourcing for an A7 deletion to be at all justifiable. WilyD 10:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC) I'd say that you can inoculate an article against A7 by citing the reliable sources that have noted the person. (I wish that was the only way you could inoculate it against A7, but sadly not.) I think this one shouldn't have been A7ed because of that.—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn articles which cite press coverage like that shouldn't be deleted under A7. The wording of A7 makes it clear that A7 is a lower bar to meet than notability. Furthermore whether something is notable is evaluated through AfD and PROD, not speedy deletion, so any article which indicates the subject might be notable is also not a good A7 candidate. Hut 8.5 18:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn but note that the text of CSD A7 does not clearly indicate that sources can be where claims of significance can be found, unlike WP:SIGNIFICANCE which clearly states this. I'm not inclined to say this is troutworthy: if there isn't an unambiguous claim of significance made in the text of the article, the article is at risk of being speedied; this would be true even if we fixed the text of CSD A7 because human nature being as it is, admins are usually going to make the judgement call based on the text of the article, not on the basis of researching the references found. Maybe it would be better to draftify articles that fall foul of WP:SIGNIFICANCE if they have sources rather than delete them? — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC) "A claim of significance in a source" is the wrong standard to use. It's too lenient in that, for example, a bio shouldn't be immunized from speedy deletion because it links the subject's blog, no matter what they claim on that blog. And it's too strict in that a sysop should be referring source evaluation to AFD rather than doing it themself, except in the very clearest of cases. The right standard is a not-patently-trivial mention in a not-patently-unreliable source. —Cryptic 13:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn I'm not convinced this should be kept, but with the sourcing it leaps high over the A7 bar. SportingFlyer T·C 15:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn Speedy A7 and send to AfD if anyone wants to, per all of the above, with the exception that a single reference is enough regardless of whether or not it's an RS or not. A7 is entirely unrelated to V or N. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC) I'll disagree with that. A single reference isn't always enough. If there is no claim of notability and the sources don't count toward WP:N, A7 would still apply as I read it. So just linking to a workplace directory or your own blog isn't going to prevent an A7. Hobit (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC) It would depend on what the blog asserted, actually. If I make a credible claim of significance on my own blog, even if it's not picked up anywhere else, that needs a discussion rather than an A7. I mean, you're right if an article said "Joe Blow is awesome" and linked to the dictionary.com entry for "awesome" then yes, that's not a credible claim of significance despite having a link. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC) I'll still not agree with that. A7 is about what's in the article. A non-reliable source in the article isn't something I'd expect people to chase down. I mean imagine if there were 20 of them, only one of which made such as assertion. Hobit (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Speedy deletions are to be unambiguous; nothing with 20 links should be speedied in any routine event (except, of course, if G10, 11, or 12 applied), we have PROD and AfD for sorting out things like that. The temptation with declining admin:editor ratios is to expand the leeway for speedy deletion, but that is not actually the right way to solve the problem. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Having read the article as nominated for CSD-A7, I find the action entirely inconsistent with the article in the state it was at the time. CommanderWaterford, would you care to explain your actions? Was this just a Twinkle mistake? Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn and trout. That was nowhere near being even remotely close to an A7 candidate. The article contained at least three credible claims of significance, each of which would have disqualified it individually, and multiple mentions in sources at least 7 of the references would individually have disqualified it from speed deletion. Anyone thinking this was suitable for speedy deletion needs to reread the policy before taking any more admin actions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 May 2021

How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas – Endorsed - if/when the target article is deleted, the redirect can be deleted per WP:CSD#G8 . WilyD 10:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC) WilyD 10:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) 2 Merge Votes contra 4 Delete Votes, this is not a consensus for merging or redirecting+further redirect to an Article which also is at AfD !? CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Buddy, you've got several DRV nominations going on at the same time and you're quite new and very enthusiastic. I'm concerned that you might not really be understanding the decisions you're challenging and you're certainly not talking to the discussion closer before you raise a DRV. Will you consider withdrawing this, talking to Sarah about her decision and then coming back if you still think something is wrong?—S Marshall T/C 01:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC) @S Marshall First all I am not your buddy. Secondly of course I will not withdraw it. I am concerned that you are lacking some kind of experience regarding the closing of AfD Discussions. This is clearly not a consensus. Even more if there are duplicate votes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC) As you wish. I endorse this close, which correctly assessed the strength of the arguments in the light of policy and guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC) You are of course free to do so @S Marshall but a quick look at your Afd Stats tells me that my concerns are very well justified. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC) I'm intrigued. What are your concerns specifically and which stats support them?—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC) You have after 15 years an AfD Stats Result of barely 50% matching your votes the final result, in other words: Your judgement did not fit to the community consensus in around every second of your votes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Ah, I see. In that case, not-buddy, from the depths of my inexperience with these matters I still think you should have consulted the closer. I note with some amusement that you're adopting new users, and I admire your unselfconsciousness about that.—S Marshall T/C 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC) S Marshall at AfD. The majority of his votes are “non discernible”. Hah! Beware auto stats. Green is 58%, Yellow 15%. Errs on voting to delete much more than voting to keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse It could have been closed with "delete", but the ATD compliant "redirect" was the better close. It could not have been closed any other way. If the target is deleted, then deleted the redirect and the history behind it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Sorry to say but as far as I remember the result of an AfD is a consensus, not what single Editors believe is a better close. There is absolutely no consensus for a redirect/merge. The actual result was to delete the Article and this needs to be reviewed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Note that WP:ATD-R is deletion Policy, and several delete rationales cited notability, which explicitly does not mandate deletion if there is a plausible redirect target. On the other side, “advert” and COI arguments are arguments to delete the history. The two sides did not engage, therefore the closer can interpret, and redirect is better policy (WP:ATD-R) compliance, and better in that light. That said, I think the discussion could have been closed as “delete” or “redirect”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse good close: the prior delete rationale included no reasoning that would have defeated Cunard's merge rationale and there were no later delete opinions. While closing as a delete would have been acceptable, we generally encourage alternatives to deletion, and I commend the closer in having taken advantage of this option. If the delete !voters object to the merged content, they are free to edit the Munaf Kapadia page or nominate it for deletion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn and delete It was also a single book review, not multiple reviews as normally be required. That is not a logical argument. There was a clear consensus for delete and User:Dial911 voted twice, making the whole thing suspect. scope_creepTalk 11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC) @Scope creep Where did I vote twice? Are you crazy? Dial911 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Multiple reviews are normally required for a keep outcome, but the close was merge, which doesn't have a minimum threshold for sourcing. I don't see the illogicality?—S Marshall T/C 14:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse as per ATD policy. Merge was a better decision than deletion. If Munaf Kapadia survives in mainspace, it all makes sense to have his book listed there. Dial911 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC) @Dial911 As said before - the clear consensus was to delete, so WP:ATD does not apply - only "if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate." CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC) CommanderWaterfordWhat do you find inappropriate about the redirect? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Relist - Cunard's suggestion of a merge came at the end of the discussion, and there was insufficient time for it to be fully considered. Most of the delete votes did not take it into account, but Scope Creep's response to Cunard shows that there's no clear consensus about whether a merge would be appropriate, either. A relist permits further debate about whether merging would be appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC) What do you find inappropriate about the redirect? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC) I take it this was intended for CW and not for me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC) oops. struck and copy-moved Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse WP:ATD is policy; thus, when an appropriate merge or redirect target is identified in the discussion and not refuted, all delete votes become non-policy based. While counting noses may seem to support deletion in this case, the net policy-based count is 0 to 2 for merging. As such, there is no particular reason to relist such a discussion, and the AfD is nominally "successful"--the nominated article ceases to exist as a separate article. Note that this interpretation of policy is not universally held. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse clear consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article about the subject, but nobody offered a reason not to redirect/merge it and there was a reasonable argument for doing so. Admittedly the target article has also been nominated for deletion so this may well be a pointless coversation. I suggest the OP stop trying to find random discussions/deletions to nominate here, it's not a very constructive exercise. Hut 8.5 19:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn and Delete — Per CommanderWaterford & Stifle, i too believe the close did not correlate with community consensus. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Relist and Bundle with the author. There was no error by the closer. Redirects are cheap, and a Redirect, which is a backdoor delete, is consistent with a Delete !vote under normal circumstances when there is an obvious redirect target. However, the fact that the target article has also been nominated for deletion is a complication. Since two related articles were nominated at the same time, we should bundle them, and allow the community and the closer to consider whether to keep both, delete both, or keep one. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Comment to User:S Marshall - I do not see multiple DRV nominations by User:CommanderWaterford. I see one nomination, and another in which they are participating. Have I missed something, or are two editors, one of whom is new and enthusiastic, being conflated? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon No, you did not miss nothing. I guess "new and enthusiastic" was a mistake and as you can imagine I think many times and very carefully before I nominate an AfD for Review. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Two others initiated by that user are pending here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse This DRV really makes no sense: the article was deleted, the information is now at the merged article, the merged article is now up for deletion (NOTE: I did just !vote in that AfD, but I typed this out first and just realised I hadn't submitted.) If the merged article is deleted, the redirect won't go anywhere. If the merged article is kept, the information at that article is validly sourced, and the redirect is valid. SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC) And I predict we're going to see a WP:BADNAC protest of the merge target article AfD in 3... 2... 1... Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Andrew Gower – Endorsed WilyD 10:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC) WilyD 10:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Andrew Gower (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I found it quite disturbing that some editors at wikipedia believe that the creator of the greatest MMORPG in history has no significant relevance. If creating a work of this size has no historical importance, I honestly don't know what it is. Lack of information is not a reason to want to erase traces, did you learn anything from the story? He had been withdrawn from Jagex credits some time ago, if there were no other records, how would we know who started it all? I thought that keeping records was one of the main pillars of Wikipedia. A person does not need to continue creating content all the time to be relevant, whether you are ignorant about it, the fact that he is one of the founders of an MMORPG that today has more than 290 million accounts is an irrefutable relevance. Furthermore, there was no consensus for the page to be changed, basically the result of the decision was that the opinions were controversial, which makes no sense. Iammachi (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Good Lord, that was an excellent close of a difficult discussion. Barnstar-worthy.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC) endorse The keep arguments were very weak (very old discussion being kept, "he made a lot of money on something notable") and the deletion arguments are that the sources about him really aren't there. Delete wins. That said, if someone can find independent, reliable, sources that cover him in detail that would be different. The keep !voters really didn't try from what I can tell and it seems likely they would exist given his history. If good sources can be identified at this point, I'd be fine with a relist. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Comment It's kinda disappointing. Yes, there is simply not much information available about him. So a dozen people have decided that the little information that exists is not enough to be kept together in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps someone else needs the address Andrew Gower (Jagex) (?) I really didn't expect things to happen this way. I found out by chance when I went to research about him and the page had been deleted. I don't usually edit wiki, so whatever guys, your wiki, your rules. Peace. Iammachi (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Good close. Checking the article before redirection, there is very little there and nothing that is not well covered at Jagex and RuneScape. WP:BIO2E isn't really a thing, but coverage of Andrew and his brother at these articles is also very brief. Brief is the heart of the problem. Fails WP:BIO. Re-creation advocates can use draftspace, but see the advice at WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse, essentially per Hobit. The keep !votes mostly failed to assert substantial coverage, and so the closer was within his rights to disregard them. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse. If I'd taken part in the AfD, I'm guessing I might have put together a case for keep: the first search I tried found this among other results. But the closer has to go with the case made in the AfD, and besides the !vote of Stuhunter83 which linked to a substantive Ars Technica article, the keep rationale was hopeless. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Comment @Iammachi You need to inform the deletion closer of the review which you have forgotten - @S Marshall, who praises the result of the closer in the highest praises here, did inform the AfD closer for you. BTW: 5 Times had this subject been nominated for deletion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse We've now had five AfDs on the subject and even though the first four were in the early days, there hasn't been a single keep !vote which has clearly demonstrated notability via sourcing. Not only were the redirect/delete/merge crowd more numerous at this debate, but the keep !voters really didn't advance any sort of argument for keeping apart from notability being inherited from the product he created. I don't see any mistake here, but if he really is notable, we can always re-create through the draft process. Very good close. SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse the close, but allow the submission of a draft without waiting two months or six months, but with no guarantee that the reviewer will accept the draft. It was the right close, but the issue was not that the subject is not notable, but that the draft did not show notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse the rationale for deletion was that the subject doesn't meet the general notability guideline. This is, in principle, a perfectly good rationale to delete something, and I don't see much of an attempt to refute that in the discussion. The arguments for keeping were that he's notable as the result of creating a very successful product, and that the nomination is disruptive because of the previous nominations. The first argument doesn't have much grounding in the notability guidelines, and even if it did (e.g. "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" from WP:ANYBIO) it would be overruled if the subject doesn't pass the GNG. There is some scope for exceptions to the notability guidelines, but that would require a solid consensus at the AfD. Given that the previous AfD was 12 years ago it's not at all disruptive to renominate it. I suggest that anyone who thinks we should have an article on the subject try to come up with a draft which shows that he meets the GNG. Hut 8.5 11:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 May 2021

Template:Cute news – Consensus is to relist the RfD for a more serious discussion in which it should be examined whether this redirect from a misspelling is useful. Sandstein 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Cute news (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This redirect should not have been deleted, or speedily deleted again, because the "reasons" given in the deletion discussion appear to be sarcastic and joking. No actual policy or guidelines were cited in the deletion discussion. This is a useful template redirect (per WP:RFD#KEEP) for a common misspelling. If someone objects to the existence of typos like this in articles, a bot can and should simply replace these transclusions with the correctly spelled target of the redirect. When I created this redirect, I included {{R from misspelling}}, whose template documentation clearly states: Use this rcat template in any namespace. Redirects like this are used over 100 times in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Just a bit of information here: No actual policy or guidelines were cited in the deletion discussion is the norm at RfD, because the guidelines contradict what participants actually think (IMO the guidelines are right, but not many people care). The jokes were mostly opinions with no explanation. I think JPxG's argument was just a joke and he didn't want to actually keep it, but I'm not sure. FWIW, my comment was just a comment and not a !vote, but I trending towards keep if anything. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC) I do typo "cite" as "cute" sometimes, but it wasn't a particularly strongly-held opinion (is it really that much of a tragedy if, every once in a while, someone typoes a template invocation and has to go back and fix it?) jp×g 01:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC) I feel like I'm in some Alice in Wonderland world here. Nobody follows the guidelines? Is this yet another joke? I haven't found another venue within en.WP that says things like that in seriousness, so I'm guessing that it is. In any event, here's a request based on actual reasoning from WP:RFD#KEEP: Editors, including me, a template editor with more than ten years of editing experience, find this redirect useful. {{R from misspelling}} exists because editors make mistakes and find redirects from misspellings useful. Thanks in advance for restoring this redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Sadly, it isn't a joke. Often RfD seems like a venue where no sense is followed, immature editors are attracted to and trigger !vote delete with little thought. You go back and look through 2010 RfDs, and the results of discussions are much different. When people do reference the guidelines, they often do it mistakenly, failing to acknowledge RHARMFUL and K5 (and often K4). I've been frequenting RfD for most of the past year and a half, and I'd be interested to see my !vote/result percentage. 60% maybe? A lot of keep !votes and delete results. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC) I've never done a DRV before, despite more than ten years of editing at WP. Is there a way to get a speedy restoration so that editors making this typo do not unintenionally violate WP:REDNOT, a guideline? Should I expect any of the above commenters to actually comment in support of or in objection to this DRV request? This process seems as strange as your description of RFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC) I was just commenting to provide background, other editors will !vote to endorse or overturn the closure. Getting a speedy restoration in this scenario is pretty much impossible considering the !vote balance in the discussion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC) I guess that all I can hope is that a reasonable admin will look at the quality of the !votes, the lack of supporting guidelines there, and the multiple guidelines cited here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC) That would result in many, many, many RfD results being overturned. Anyhow, relitigating the RfD in a DRV is generally bad. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC) What? The top of this page literally says Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. Maybe I miss your meaning. That seems to be happening to me on multiple pages today. I need to take a break. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Relitigating the arguments of a deletion discussion. Sorry for the confusion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn: I !voted to delete in the RfD, not as a joke, but because I didn't realize it was a redirect from a typo, so I didn't see the usefulness. That was my mistake. Clearly, it's a plausible typo and some editors find it useful. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Relist or overturn since the original had enough joke responses that you can't really find a consensus either way. It might have made sense to have relisted it, tagged those who notvoted, with a relist message asking for serious responses. That said, I don't really find fault with anyone's actions here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Relist/Overturn. Users are often apt to quickly vote in these sorts of RFDs to make quips and puns without fully considering all the facts. It's definitely unclear how seriously participants took the RFD, since only Ivanvector gave an actual, grounded reason to delete that took into account the typo. That being said, it's hard to fault the closer given how the !votes split and WP:RFD#D5 technically does apply to the literal meaning of the redirect. Given the concerns raised here, it would be good to relist and tag participants so a cost-benefit analysis of having such an {{R from typo}} can be debated. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC) The jokey !votes should be treated the same as plain votes with no rationale would be – because they are genuine opinions supplemented by humour, not just full-on jokes. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse per Ivanvector's squirrel in the original discussion. There were 5 delete declarations and 1 keep declaration. The keep declaration did not have a valid rationale while one of the delete declarations did, so the closer acted correctly in closing the discussion as delete. To close a discussion with such a clear majority for deletion as a keep, there must be an exceptionally strong argument for keep. There wasn't. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC) I think we're looking at a case where the close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was Wednesbury unreasonable. Contributors to the discussion were enjoying a moment of levity and merriment to such an extent that they failed to read and understand the reasoning in front of them. On the rare occasions where this happens, DRV can either faint-heartedly relist for further discussion, or else boldly and decisively step in to resolve the problem. I would prefer the latter outcome. But in this it is very unfair to allow any criticism of the closer, express or implied. DRV almost always finds that closers should do what the consensus tells them to do even if the consensus appears, to the closer, to be wrong; this close was exactly what we would expect. For this reason I would wish to avoid the word "overturn". Can we say that DRV thanks the closer for acting as we have always asked them to act, but intervenes to alter the close because it's to the benefit of the encyclopaedia to do so?—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate/relist Undelete this and just start a new discussion from scratch with a clear link to this discussion/explanation this isn't a joke, it's rare that discussions themselves are defective but I agree with S Marshall here. ("Overturn" doesn't necessarily mean a closer did anything wrong, either, but I understand the implication. This was properly closed.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC) That the discussion was defective doesn't mean it was wrong. If we're to undelete this, relist it for a serious discussion so we can delete it properly. The misplaced arguments above - that this is a plausible typo (it's not, though {{cute bews}} might be) and that {{R from typo}} is common in the template namespace (it's not; almost all uses are to misspellings, not typos, and there's only two other misplaced-fingers typos, oneboth currently at RFD) - are easily rebuttable. —Cryptic 11:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn: There was a failure of process here, and it occurred at the start. Whilst the RfD was filed at 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC) by Dudhhr (talk · contribs) they were unable to carry out WP:RFD#HOWTO step I, because the redir was protected. Instead, Dudhhr did the next-best thing: they created Template talk:Cute news with a protected-edit request to carry out the appropriate tagging. Two days later, Xaosflux (talk · contribs) responded to that request and lifted that prot, and the content of that talk page was ultimately: == Edit request to complete RfD nomination == {{Edit protected|Template:Cute news|answered=yes}} [[Template:Cute news]] has been listed at Redirects for discussion ([[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news|nomination]]), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add: <code><nowiki>{{subst:rfd|showontransclusion=1|content= </nowiki></code> to the top of the page and <code><nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> to the bottom to complete the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Xfd edit protected -->[[User:Dudhhr|Dudhhr]] ([[User talk:Dudhhr|talk]]) 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC) :{{not done}} however {{ping|Dudhhr}} I've removed the multiple protections. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC) {{ping|Xaosflux}} Sorry, it was automatically done by Twinkle when I RfD'd this page [[User:Dudhhr|Dudhhr]] ([[User talk:Dudhhr|talk]]) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Despite this, the redir never got tagged for RfD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse - of the comments that were not obviously intended to be humorous, there were two deletes (nominator and myself) both arguing that a misspelling template redirect with only three extant transclusions (really only one actual misspelling, the other two were copies of the first) does not indicate a plausible error, versus one keep (User:J947) referring to frequent use (WP:RFD#K5, though it cannot currently be verified because the new pageviews tool cannot process deleted pages). Jonesey95's assertion upon recreating the page ("create template for common typo") is already refuted by the deletion discussion (a single good-faith typo is a very long way from "common"), so WP:G4 most certainly applies to the recreation, and they ought to earn a {{whale}} for trying to recreate it on the same day that it was deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC) AFAICR there were 150-odd pageviews, if that is any help. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Comment - Well, that answers vague questions I had about why there are sometimes frivolous comments at RFD, which is that some of the regular editors there make frivolous comments. I personally prefer sarcastic comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC) I've often said RFD is a silly place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse the arguments aren't joking, it appears some just took the page as unworthy of more serious commentary. Having {{Cute news}} in the wikitext of a page is both confusing and just ridiculous. If someone makes a typo accidentally, they should be prompted to that (or it added into a tracking cat for someone else to fix) so that the wikitext doesn't read nonsense. If someone wants to make redirects that prompt a bot to correct the typo (via automatic substitution) that's one thing, but the text shouldn't be redirected to the template. This was the argument made in the XFD (eg by Ivanvector). The redirect guideline is generally designed with article typos in mind, where it is indeed cheap to have a plausible typo redirect to another. It is not the same thing when applied to templates, where the redirect actually stays in the page source. DRV is not a place to relitigate the consensus of an XFD venue, but relisting may be an acceptable outcome. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse deletion. We don't need redirects from every possible misspelling, not least in template space. What possible value is there in this one? What's an editor who comes across {{cute news}} going to do? That's right, they're going to waste time looking up this template that they've never heard of before. What's next? {{cite mews}}? {{cite ners}}? {{cite nwqa}}? {{bite news}}? {{bite cook}}? Why create unnecessary problems? Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Relist as per Redrose64's comment about the failure of process. I rarely say this, but the closing admin really should've known better. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Relist per Redrose64. The lack of a tag is grounds for an automatic relisting, as noted at WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. - Eureka Lott 20:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate and Relist for various reasons, including frivolity and procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate and renominate per Redrose64. I would likely have !voted to delete, but process was not correctly followed and the standard of the discussion was poor so the best thing is to nominate and discuss it properly. Given how poor most of the rationales were it will be best if a new discussion is started rather than continuing from what went before. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Speedy Relist as original nominator. It was an honest mistake on my end and I believe it should be relisted to generate a clearer consensus without any semi-sarcastic !votes. Dudhhr (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Vacate for the reasons given by User:S Marshall and relist to come to a proper and perhaps less frivolous outocme. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 May 2021

Prema Sridevi – Endorse - that doesn't preclude the creation of a new draft, or a recreated article that meets the usual inclusion criterion, that's sufficiently different to avoid G4 deletion. WilyD 10:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC) WilyD 10:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Prema Sridevi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Daiyusha HighKing, Kashmorwiki, Vincentvikram, Mamushir, Celestina007, Muboshgu, i have reworked on the concerned wiki page in which all the references could be subject to proper verifications. I would request the people in this conversation to have a look at it and take it forward. But for that i need to get the reworked page up so that it could be reviewed by you all. There were reference links that expired- with no trace of it even on archive.org. Such links were taken off and the content is condensed, page is ready for review if you could restore the page. Could we get going with a second look at it with me remaining answerable and accountable for all the information on that page. Waiting to hear from you so that i can put up the page for review. Kindly restore the page so that i could update it and present the page for review.Thank you.pilgrimhawk 05:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Question for Pilgrimhawk: What exactly do you want to happen? If you would like to have the deleted article moved to draftspace so you can carry out further work on it, that should be possible if there is no BLP problem with the material. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Chalst Thank you for the suggestion. The revised and fine tuned content is moved to my user workspace and is submitted for review. I hope to have a constructive review/ critique that will help improve the mentioned article. Thank you. pilgrimhawk 12:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Update Chalst The draft page is reworked based on the suggestions of Rich_Smith. Kindly review and let me know what ore needs to be done. Notes on the updates are added at the top of the drat page. Thank you.pilgrimhawk 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC) The draft for review is here.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC) I haven't checked all the sources, but I have checked a random sample of them. I have yet to find a source that I think is satisfactory. For example this source is unreliable because it takes no responsibility for what its contributors say (evidence). This source is highly reliable and eminently trustworthy, but sadly it doesn't mention Prema Sridevi at all. This source mentions Prema Sridevi in passing, but it isn't about her and it contains very little usable biographical information. There are also a bunch of youtube videos. Pilgrimhawk: Please can you select the three best sources, the very most reliable ones that contain checkable biographical information about Prema Sridevi, and link them here?—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC) S Marshall , Thank you very much for these constructive suggestions. Will work on it and get back .pilgrimhawk 13:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC) S Marshall Update : Here is a bunch of text from he Wiki page with few new references. Kindly let me know your thoughts on it. "When with Republic TV, Prema covered a series of stories on the mysterious death of Sunanda Pushkar, an Indian businesswoman and the wife of Indian former diplomat and politician Shashi Tharoor." Published in Scroll.in https://scroll.in/latest/837898/bccl-sues-arnab-goswami-invokes-intellectual-property-rights-over-republic-tvs-expose-tapes Published in The New Indian Express http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2017/may/08/journalist-claims-tapes-on-sunanda-pushkars-death- handed-to-cops-delhi-police-denies-it-1602561.html Published in Asianet News https://newsable.asianetnews.com/india/republic-tv-says-tapes-prove-tharoor-lied-about-wifes-death Published in The New Indian Express http://www.indspice.com/breaking-arnab-and-prema-writes-letter-to-tharoor-on-latest-revelations-on- sunanda-case/ "Republic TV broadcast her taped conversations with Sunanda Pushkar and Sunanda’s assistant Narayan Singh hours before Sunanda's death. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (The Times Group), lodged a complaint against Prema Sridevi and Arnab Goswami accusing them of copyright infringement." Published in Scroll.in https://scroll.in/latest/837898/bccl-sues-arnab-goswami-invokes-intellectual-property-rights-over- republic-tvs-expose-tapes Published in The Indian Express https://indianexpress.com/article/india/times-group-files-police-complaint-against-arnab-goswami- reporter-4660840/ Published in Business Standard https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/times-group-files-criminal-complaint- against-arnab-goswami-for-ipr-breach-117051700902_1.html "Following this, Prema did over 2 dozen stories on the mysterious death of Sunanda Pushkar. In May 2018, Sunanda's husband Shashi Tharoor was chargesheeted by the Delhi Police for abetment to suicide." Published in ScoopWhoop https://www.scoopwhoop.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-republic-tvs-sunanda-pushkars-murder-tape/ Published in BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44109415 "Prema’s story titled “The Vadra Papers” exposed the alleged tax evasion of Robert Vadra’s firm. Following the story, Robert Vadra sent a legal notice to Prema Sridevi and Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami over "defamatory statements" made against his firm." Published in The Quint https://www.thequint.com/news/india/robert-vadra-legal-notice-to-arnab-goswami-republic-tv "Prema's follow-up investigations into the Bofors scandal led to a revealing interview with Michael Hershman - who is the President of the Fairfax Group, co-founder Transparency International - in which, he hinted that powerful politicians exist in India who risk being identified in Bofors Scandal. Prema Sridevi's Hershman interview was quoted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in its affidavit before the Court to request the Court to reopen the Bofors Case based on the startling revelations." Published in The News Minute https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/bofors-swedes-and-swiss-are-willing-assist-will-india-drop-ball- 76316 Published in Republic TV https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/upa-stonewalled-bofors-probe-cbi-admits-to- supreme-court-read-the-stunning-revelations-here.html Hi Pilgrimhawk, I asked for the best three sources, if you could narrow it down for me. Thanks very much—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC) '================================================= Endorse the close. If the appellant wants to submit a draft, it should be better than the sandbox, in which the lede is promotional stuff bordering on marketing buzzspeak. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure the close was actually contested, but if it was, I endorse it. Deletion review is not the place to review drafts: Pilgrimhawk should ask for review at WP:AfC when the draft is ready, and should identify the three best sources in the request and make sure at least two of them are reliable sources that are independent of the subject matter. This is not an arbitrary hurdle, but something necessary to ensure the article can be worked on by other editors and, particularly important for biographies, have verifiable content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 May 2021

The Cambridge Working Group – Non-admin closure reverted by S Marshall to unanimous agreement. Sandstein 06:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Cambridge Working Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was a contentious discussion closed by a non-admin, who was indefinitely banned on closing AfD discussions due to persistent bad closing, including by just counting numbers and supervoting. The topic area has attracted SPAs and sockpuppets, and a deeper analysis of arguments was required. The article itself is subject to ref bombing where some of the refs don't even mention the group and it likely fails WP:NORG. This DRV is on the basis that it cannot be said there's any confidence in this close; at minimum it should be reclosed by an experienced admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Agree as nominator that the close should be re-examined due previous issues with the closer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Relist. The NAC close was indeed extremely poor, even terrible. The "There are more keep votes" rationale indicates a simple vote count, without any attempt to evaluate the strength of the arguments presented. Moreover, apparently no consideration was given by the closer to the "merge" options suggested in the discussion. In particular, the article Gain of function research was created during the AfD itself and was mentioned as a possible merge target by the last AfD participant. I !voted "merge" early on in the AfD, before the article Gain of function research was created. I think this article presents a more reasonable merge or partial merge target than the one I suggested. I think that this AfD would benefit from some fresh input. Nsk92 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Relist/Reclose I am not even sure the closer is even right on the !vote count, with the nominator and Merge, I count 5 delete type opinions (at least 5 saying this isn't a standalone article), and 5 keep opinions. For me it's a perverse outcome to relist to gain a consensus with the following opinions to be 1 pretty weak keep and 1 delete, ending with keep. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC) I'm minded to speedily and unilaterally overturn and relist per WP:SNOW. Any objections?—S Marshall T/C 00:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC) As far as I am concerned, go ahead and save DRV some time. This is obviously an unacceptable NAC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Relist This is a bad NAC close (among other issues). --Enos733 (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Undo close since the nominator does appear to have been topic banned from such an action. An admin can close the reopened discussion as they see fit. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Note: At this point in the discussion, I summarily reverted the close and relisted the debate at AfD. I considered closing this DRV, but I think I should leave it open. It seems unlikely that anyone would support the original close but there may be a wish to review my own actions.—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC) It's a good action to take, and, again, if you had a mop it'd go completely unquestioned. I move to close this. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Overturn and Relist or Support Overturning and Relisting - Original closer has been topic-banned from closes, but also appears to have been blocked as a socktroll. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Endorse the WP:SNOW overturn This was an obviously egregious NAC. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.