Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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


Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

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

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


Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

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

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

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

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2022 August 19}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2022 August 19}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2022 August 19|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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

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

Active discussions

19 August 2022

List of most-followed artists on Spotify

List of most-followed artists on Spotify (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer has deleted this article without considering the guidelines correctly. The closer has cited WP:VENDOR, despite independent secondary sources being presented. They have cited WP:SINGLEVENDOR and said that this is “essentially a music chart”, despite the followers of an artist not being the same as the popularity of a piece of music. They have also said that the article is “never going to be stable” and “there is a fundamental issue with an article that's going to be permanently inaccurate” – there has been no evidence presented that an article based on the secondary sources provided would be so. The closer also states that there is a “substantive numerical tilt towards deletion” contrary to WP:VOTE with most of them being delete per nom. I propose that the result is overturned to no-consensus. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Closer here. I stand by my close, and have a few responses to the above. First, the OP's understanding of WP:VOTE is quite incorrect; strength of argument is more important, but other things being equal (i.e., when two opposing arguments have equal basis in policy) numerical support does matter. Second, the stability (and therefore accuracy) of these statistics was a concern that many users brought up; where they are sourced from isn't relevant, when it's the actual data that could be changing. Third, the OP (and several !voters at the AfD) are in my opinion looking at the letter, rather than the spirit, of WP:VENDOR and WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Finally, SailingInABathtub did not discuss this with me at all, but went straight to DRV. Oh well. I look forward to reading input from editors who've yet to take a position here: I really hope we can avoid rehashing the AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Vanamonde93's close was reasonable. The strenth of arguments was equal-ish so the numerical tilt came into play. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments at this time. First, I count 7 for Keep and 9 for Delete including the nom as Delete, but would appreciate if someone else would count. That looks to me like a numerical basis consistent with either Delete or No Consensus. Second, I think that discussion with the closer should be considered purely optional. Some closers have said that they do not want to discuss AFD closures. Also, a closer should have considered the close carefully enough so that a reasoned argument by an appellant should only rarely be significant. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17 August 2022

Harriet Hageman

Harriet Hageman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was a former Republican National Committeewoman for Wyoming before running for Congress. Representing your state on a party's national committee easily passes the notability guideline for politicians. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 23:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endorse I disagree. The RNC has 159 voting members who are not elected by the public. I do not accept that being a member of that committee indicates a pass of WP:NPOL. She is almost certain to win the November election and the article can be recreated at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse for the same reason as Cullen. Also I have to have a laugh at the idea that she "won" a primary for a single occupancy seat by coming in third place. That's not how elections work. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Praxidicae, she got over 66% of the vote in a three person field. That is a decisive primary victory. Cullen328 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Her article said "came in third place" so... PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Third place for the 2018 governor primary. She won the 2022 house primary, and in Wyoming with an R next to her name, that means she's won the house seat. —Cryptic 01:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - The appellant's argument about the RNC is so far out of what political notability says as to be silly. However, what is the more important reason to Endorse is simply that the close was consistent with policy and with the input. The appellant isn't even saying that she is now the party nominee. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Whether to accept articles for candidates for state office has long been controversial, and the test to be applied to candidates, even to candidates for safe seats, is whether they meet general notability. A reasonable argument can be made that, following the 16 August primary, a draft should be considered for review based on whether she met general notability other than via her campaign for Congress. When a reasonable request is made for review of a draft, we should allow review of the draft. This has not been that request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Protect - In the meantime, based on the history of edit-warring in the past 24 hours, the redirect should be ECP-protected to control the edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ECP isn't gonna do anything considering the creator has 38k edits (and several ampol topic bans in the last 3 years.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment - Request for full protection has been made at RFPP. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the redirect close of the AFD in June, it really couldn’t have gone any other way. But explicitly allow recreation as she has since received significant national coverage for her primary win and for un-seating longtime representative Chaney, thus clearly passing WP:NPOL. I do not think DRV is the right forum for restoring this page since there is no argument as to whether the consensus was interpreted correctly (as evidenced by all votes being for redirect or delete). I personally think the best course of action is to just WP:BOLDly un-redirect it, which has already been done and undone several times, and allow someone to start a second AFD if inclined to do so, since the circumstances of the subject are very different than they were two months ago). Carson Wentz (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC) [minor edits for clarification Carson Wentz (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
    • When multiple people are reverting to a redirect citing an afd rather than on the merits, then DRV is very much the right forum. Even though the most it's likely to do is send it back for another afd as you advocate, closing this procedurally is going to result in the page staying a redirect, not an article. —Cryptic 04:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hence my !vote to procedurally endorse the closure of the AFD while explicitly allowing recreation. Carson Wentz (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Significant post-primary sources cited in the article and draft: ABC, LA Times, Business Insider, NYT, NPR. The ABC and LA Times pieces look like the least routine at a skim. The most influential !vote at the afd was the "redirect" from Curbon7, who said to reconsider after the primary, and most of the other redirects per-ed him. Especially considering Wyoming hasn't elected a non-Republican rep since I think 1976 and so winning the primary basically makes the general election a formality, I'm weakly at send it back for another afd at this point. —Cryptic 04:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • un-redirect Whatever the coverage was in June, she's got plenty more. Doesn't mean the previous decision was wrong, just that the world has changed in a couple of months. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn (revert the redirect). Something big has happened, and there is a rush of coverage of the subject in the last 48 hours. The landscape is changed since the AfD. Discourage renomination for deletion (or redirection) for two weeks, to see how the news settles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close, allow recreation Coverage and notability have changed since the discussion and close. Defeating an incumbent member of congress in a primary is unusual and noteworthy. --Enos733 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment It seems like there should be a way to allow recreation of an article without overturning a legitimate AFD closure from two months ago. I see a desire to have an article on this subject now that she has won the primary but no valid grounds for why this closure should be overturned. "Redirect" was the correct assessment of the AFD discussion that happened in June. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • And this entire discussion is moot as the Harriet Hageman redirect has already been reverted by El C before this deletion review was closed. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Nobody's disagreeing with the afd close, just for how long and under what circumstances it's applicable. —Cryptic 20:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Liz A redirect discussion isn't particularly normative--one additional piece of content added makes it moot. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Proper procedure to contest an old AfD redirect decision is to establish a consensus to do so on the talk page of the redirect target, to re-WP:Spinout the subtopic. That page, Talk:2022 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming shows some activity in that vein. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's possible, but not necessary. An AfD doesn't mean "keep deleted" or "keep redirected" until something changes; that's why CSD G4 is as narrow as it is. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If consensus was to redirect, and someone overwrites the redirect, contrary to consensus, they are guilt of disruption.
    G4 doesn’t come into it. Redirect was not delete. You can’t use G4 to enforce a redirect.
    A consensus “to redirect” does mean “keep redirected until something changes”. Here, something changed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • endorse redirect, allow article things have changed (this is the status quo). Also, please tell me we have a better (free) picture of her than the one in the article. Hobit (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16 August 2022

Matalena Daniells

Matalena Daniells (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn to delete. All but one keep vote is non-policy reasons to keep an article. IdiotSavant's rationale was debunked as not meeting GNG and evidenced by later Delete votes. There is clear consensus here to delete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse no consensus closure. This was reasonable based on several users' policy-based analysis of the sources posted in the article/AFD. Further, it is just your opinion that User:IdiotSavant's keep rationale was "debunked." Carson Wentz (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Start a new AfD as I recommend in the close. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What would that achieve, though? The editors who !voted in the last one would just make the exact same arguments in the new one... It's not like being shown particular sources fail independence or are routine mentions would discourage them from insisting those sources do meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse disagreements about sourcing is not a reason to delete something with this level of participation. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse. It seems like there was no consensus, which is how it was closed. CT55555 (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - The appellant is saying that the closer should have supervoted. Overturning a closer that matched user input because the closer should have supervoted should only be done in extraordinary circumstances (and these are not extraordinary circumstances). Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - But the appellant is in the wrong forum. The closer said another AFD was in order. There might be different editors in the new AFD. In any case, DRV is not the place to relitigate the debate unless there was closer error, which there was not. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The closer did not say another AFD is “in order.” The closer said “no prejudice against renominating,” which is true of any no consensus closure whether stated or not. And I disagree with a renomination within a couple months with the same rationale because it will likely result in the same persons making the same valid arguments on both sides and another NC result. Carson Wentz (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the finding of lack of consensus. The AFD nominator seems to accept there is one reasonable source but goes on to say ... but one source falls well short of both GNG and SIGCOV. That is a matter of opinion (and may be a reasonable one) but in fact our notability guidelines say "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Regarding "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" it seems to me that the subject is the main topic of the source material in question but the level of coverage is such that different people may reasonably have different views as to its significance. So, using the common sense allowed in considering our guidelines and allowing for occasional exceptions, different people may have different opinions that should be respected and taken into account in assessing AFD discussions. Thincat (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. The evidence presented of the subject meeting GNG was not the strongest, but wasn't so poor that an otherwise 50-50 discussion could be closed as anything but "no consensus". Vanamonde (Talk) 13:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Reasonable close. The fact that you disagree with the keep !voters does not equal grounds to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. There is some additional info needed to contextualize the claims of GNG that I think warrants a delete or at least reopen of the same AfD. A single source is only acceptable in the rare circumstances that it provides comprehensive and neutral coverage of the subject. Only one editor alleged that there was a source of independent SIGCOV, while three editors agreed that that source was not SIGCOV (and to be clear, the claim that the article contained "10 paragraphs" is completely misleading, since it's actually 11 double-spaced sentences) as it had only three sentences that were independent and on her:

    A FORMER Innisfail United player will get her first taste of senior international football next month.
    Moreton Bay United Jets defender Matalena Daniells has been named in the Samoan team for the Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) Women's Nations Cup.
    Daniells, a former Innisfail State College student, made 21 NPLW appearances for the Jets last season and played for Samoa Under 20s in the OFC championship in 2015.

    NSPORT AfD precedent strongly considers such announcements routine and ineligible for GNG. Furthermore, an unbylined article, from a newspaper serving a town with just 7,000 people, reporting on someone who used to play for their local team is certainly not going to be sufficiently independent for GNG regardless of length. Two other keep !votes were apparently based on believing the earlier sources were sufficient for GNG, but since those were shown to be non-independent (prohibited by GNG) or routine trivial mentions (in violation of SPORTBASIC) (findings that were not rebutted), those !votes should have been discounted as relying on inaccurate information. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse keep/delete arguments more or less in balance, no consensus the clear outcome. Claims that sources lacked independence might have been given greater weight to the delete side had they not been assertions (eg an institution doesn't lack independence per se because of giving an award...otherwise the Nobel committee lacks independence!). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, the Nobel Committee does lack independence (in the WP source sense) from its awardees...a notice of the award released from the Committee would not contribute to GNG due to being primary and non-independent (but would be sufficient for demonstrating a subject meets ANYBIO). JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If a member of one of the prize committees was the awardee, a claim of lacking independence might be credible. In other circumstances, and that applies to this AfD, there's a burden of proof required for an assertion that an announcement by a body for the reasons why they will make an award is *per se* lacking independence. It cannot be asserted, it must be demonstrated. FWIW, there is broad community consensus that forms of recognition given to members of professional associations are legitimate measures of notability; not necessarily all, but, again, this was not raised in the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting. An awarding org is considered per se "affiliated" with its awardees. An announcement by the org discussing its recipients does not represent coverage by a disinterested party because the org is by definition "interested" in how the org itself is represented, and this cannot be separated from the coverage of recipient. Not to mention the clear financial relationship with the topic. The reason we require independence is not just to prevent a subject from directly influencing their own coverage; it is also meant to limit the potential for non-neutral POV and to ensure attention toward the subject is actually reflective of their real-life importance. It would be impossible to write an NPOV biography based solely on award announcements because it would include only the most positive aspects of the subject and would additionally promote the profile of the awarders (who are obviously incentivized to inflate the impact of both the award and the merits of the recipient). This is the same reason we don't count published statements from a university regarding their students or employees, press releases, or college newspapers covering college-related news toward GNG.
    The community consensus you refer to is with regards to awards satisfying ANYBIO or NPROF; none of the awards Daniells received would apply here, which is why that wasn't raised in the AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    DRV is based on arguments made. The closer has indicated no opposition to sending this to AfD again; that would be the best location for relitigating the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15 August 2022

Sameer Wankhede

Sameer Wankhede (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer_Wankhede (last year), and has been deleted again because "you copied and pasted 90% of the article from the deleted version",[1] as per DanCherek the deleting admin. But it would not make any sense to create an article without restoring the earlier content which was meaningful and largely written during the AfD itself and I was a significant contributor to it.

As for the subject itself, most of the participants of the AfD that voted for "Delete" had wrongly predicted that the subject won't get any coverage after the controversy that was going on at the time. This has been proven wrong and the subject is still getting significant coverage.[2][3][4] Subject undoubtedly meets WP:GNG.

I request restoration of the article version as of 15 August. Thanks --Yoonadue (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thank you for starting this discussion here. Just to expand a little on my reasoning for fulfilling the CSD G4 request, WP:RUD says: "If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia—even under the same article title—unless attribution is otherwise provided (or the page undeleted). Deleted articles may not be recovered and reused from Wikipedia mirrors, Google cache, or the view-deleted administrator right." Given the significant copying, I felt that the article should first be discussed at DRV before an administrator unilaterally restores the entire history for attribution purposes, so I'm glad to see that this has been initiated. DanCherek (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DanCherek: I am not disputing deletion since your response. This discussion can run for weeks but will be resolved ASAP if you close it yourself by agreeing that you are willing to restore the version I had created. Thanks --Yoonadue (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but the point I was trying to make is that given the previous AfD, I think it would be better for this DRV discussion to first establish a consensus for restoring the article as well as the old revisions. This is the perfect place to discuss whether those new sources are enough for re-creation. DanCherek (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse nothing substantial has happened recently that merits an article creation. The concerns raised on the AfD about the notability still hold true. The OP is using new updates of the same old case as different coverage. They are part of the same event. The deletion is appropriate and I thank the admin for their good decision. Venkat TL (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes no sense. I cited:
Before these sources:
  • From 2015, an article about his investigation into a criminal case.
  • From 2020, a biographical article about him.
  • From 2013, another biographical article about him.
Clearly you haven't even checked the sources, because none of them have anything to do with any of the "same event" you are talking about. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yoonadue, these sources were already discussed in the AfD and you are attempting to re-litigate the same by reposting them here. My comment is not making any sense to you because you need to understand that tabloid type sensational coverage that you are quoting are not used on Wikipedia. Please read WP:BLPRS and WP:RS. Venkat TL (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore The subject satisfied WP:N when it was created in 2021 and the case is even more obvious now per the sources provided by the nom. There is no issue with restoring. desmay (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At the last DRV, I made a thorough and comprehensive case for why we should allow this article in the mainspace, and which in my view torpedoes every argument thus far made for deleting it. I hope it is not necessary for me to paste all that text here before the closer can take it into account; but if, for some ghastly bureaucratic reason, it is, please let me know and I will do it.—S Marshall T/C 01:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @S Marshall, could you link to it? Sandstein 09:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Certainly. On why BLP1E doesn't apply; more on why BLP1E doesn't apply; on why NOTNEWS won't stretch that far.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn G4 Regardless of merits of keeping the article, 90% the same != substantially identical to the deleted copy. Any significant amount of changing earns a new AfD discussion... and possibly a user conduct sanction if it's clear the editor is gaming the system. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • overturn G4 while I think the original AfD reached the wrong result, the closer closed within discretion (and gets high marks for the explanation). But we have new sources and I don't see how BLP1E can be said to obviously cover them. So G4 doesn't apply and a new AfD is needed (if desired). Hobit (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13 August 2022

UP Halcyon

UP Halcyon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A non-admin closed a week-old AfD for UP Halcyon. I think the AfD should have been continued, reposted, for at least another week on this basis: The discussion was shut down far too soon after major improvements were made, thus allowing insufficient time for voters to re-assess.

The original article, while well-written and non-promotional was lacking citations. When it was suddenly PRODed I objected, desirous of fixing it. The proposer then placed it in an AfD vote. In that single week I cleaned up the page and added two references. Another editor added six more references, all of them correctly cited.

During the brief vote period, several editors voiced an early, short opinion, "Delete, no sources" or something like that, and most dialog occurred prior to substantive improvements to the article. I believe we have fixed the page, addressed the original (valid) concern about a lack of sources, and have established validity (~the group exists) and that it is notable, as an important part of its community. Therefore I'd like to give time for cooler heads to reassess. Note, the non-admin who closed the discussion created it as a REDIRECT. I do not believe this to be a helpful resolution. My opinion remains that the UP Halcyon article should be Kept, but I hoped the voters would come to that conclusion after seeing our improvements. The last six references were added only a day or so prior to deletion - maybe 30 hours had passed (I cannot see the page history to check). Voters didn't have much of a chance to see these improvements. I asked the user to re-list, but he/she declined. Jax MN (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Relist - The fact that it was a non-admin close is not the issue. But two of the first Delete !votes said that it had no sources, which was true, and has been rectified by adding nine sources as well as other material. I do not know whether I would !vote to Keep or Delete in its current form. However, when No Sources are cited, the addition of sources is a reason to Relist, and to ping the editors who !voted to see if they change their !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist would decide what needs to be done and allow further analysis of the sources. >>> 15:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Great. Thank you for those comments. Who then effects (~does) the relist? The current article is still a REDIRECT, and the article itself is suppressed. Jax MN (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    DRV is a consensus process, so other may comment yet. A DRV is nominally 7 days, this normally means it'll be open for at least 7 days after which an admin will close it. In extreme cases it can be quite a bit longer. There are circumstances where it can be closed earlier (withdrawn, initial closer undoes their close etc.) but normally it is going to be at least 7 days. -- (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist Although this was just about within the discretion of a NAC so its not like Astig did anything wrong, the discussion was still active and mildly contentious over whether the references meet NORG guidelines. More discussion wouldn't hurt. That said, based on the last comment by Rublamb I agree that more sources are needed to prove notability (and Rublamb !voted Keep) and the analysis of the sources and the argument for Keeping, I think we're simply delaying the inevitable and this will end up being a redirect anyway. HighKing++ 21:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist when sources get added to the article at the last minute, a relist so they can be evaluated is proper, regardless of the previous "no sources" objections, which immediately are deprived of any weight by AGFing the new sourcing addresses the source issue. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn. The nominator’s reason for deletion was overcome by the addition of sources. Allow immediate renomination (after the close of this DRV). This is different to “relist” in that there will be a fresh nomination statement, which is needed because the old one no longer applies. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to keep this was a WP:BADNAC as the outcome was at least somewhat controversial, as shown by valid "keep" and "redirect" votes, and what were at the time valid "delete" (though later addressed by the addition of valid sourcing). No prejudice against re-nomination if someone wishes to go that route. Per User:SmokeyJoe, this would allow better rationale for deletion since the AFD's rationale no longer applies. Carson Wentz (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn per SmokeyJoe. Note that User:Jax MN's DRV nomination statement seems to suggest that they think the developed version of the article is not available to them to be seen, but isn't that this version just before the redirect implemented. An AFD outcome of "redirect" does usually (as here) leave behind edit history. --Doncram (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Really nothing wrong with the closure. The delete/redirect !votes do have more weight than the keep !votes. As one of the delete/redirect !voters, our arguments aren't just the WP:METOO arguments. The sources added were heavily rebutted by HighKing, in which I'm convinced with the user's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree in general but one of the (IMO) valid arguments made above was that the additional sources had only been added ~30 hours before closing and the discussion was ongoing. A relist would allow the discussion to continue and allow other editors to comment. Overturning to Keep would be inappropriate. The nom said that it was a "non-notable organization" and additionally pointed out that there were no refs. Some refs have been added (and under discussion) but we haven't reached a consensus on the first part of the nomination, whether the org in notable or not. HighKing++ 16:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12 August 2022

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of JG 26

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of JG 26 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In context of the bulk nomination (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 2#Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the Fallschirmjäger), the template {{Knight's Cross recipients of JG 26}} was deleted. Since 2017, all of the referenced entries in that template have been fully expanded, attaining at least minimum B-class rating with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. The layout of the template follows similar templates such as {{WWII women snipers}}, {{Female HSU Partisans}}, {{Women fighter pilots WWII}}, {{Heroes of the Soviet Union 37th GRD}} or {{Heroes of the Soviet Union 46th GNBR}}, just to list a few. At the time, the template received two votes for keep and two votes for delete. In consequence, I would like to re-discuss the deletion. The closing editor @Plastikspork: has retired. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@K.e.coffman, Iazyges, AlfaRocket, and Cavalryman: Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore template (uninvolved). I've read through the brief discussion, and I honestly cannot say that a rough consensus was achieved to delete the templates. Even when discounting the !vote that is simply expresses a desire for keeping the template without motivation, nobody really addressed anybody else's arguments in the discussion and the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy were basically even. Given that the claim that the template would help with navigation appears to be reasonable, and the deletion discussion really doesn't appear to have achieved a consensus anyway, it makes sense to restore the old template and to allow MisterBee1966 cut it down to include only notable entries. I have no clue whether the other templates are worth potentially restoring nor if they would serve a reasonable navigational purpose, but undeleting this specific one seems reasonable as a time-saving measure if a navigational template for this group would be created anyway.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore Template - This is not presented as an appeal, but, on reading the TFD, my inclination would be to Overturn to No Consensus. That isn't be asked, and may be too late, but, in view of both the appellant's statement and the uncertainty of the closure, the request should be granted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robert McClenon: yes, this posting was meant as a request for appeal. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus, as per Redtailed hawk, and so restore the deleted template. I have no opinion at this time on whether to restore the other templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent discussions

11 August 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John West (cricketer, born 1861) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It appears that this Keep close did not adequately assign weight to !votes based on "reasonable, policy-based arguments" in accordance with WP:CLOSEAFD, as there does not seem to be consensus that the single source is SIGCOV and no editor made a guideline-base argument as to why this article should be exempt from the significant coverage requirement.

Although one editor did point to Cricinfo as significant coverage, they did not address concerns that this is only one source and may not meet SIGCOV due to being nothing more than statistics written as prose.

The remainder of the Keep votes point to the number of matches played, "common sense", "procedural keep on the grounds that I have no idea what is in Wisden to add to the article, although those who have access presumably do" and one editor's opinion that sources are likely to exist. None of of these arguments are based on current SNGs or GNG.

Given the lack of policy-based responses, I propose that this be Relisted. –dlthewave 22:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Relist (involved). No editor was able to find significant coverage; one editor did note that there was prose within the CricInfo article, but no editor claimed it was WP:SIGCOV. In the absence of any WP:SIGCOV the article fails WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 and WP:GNG, and can not be kept per WP:LOCALCON. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy close since the closer has relisted it herself. Note also that the nomination was made by a sockpuppet. StAnselm (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). Clearly no consensus to delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Is there a reason why this DRV and the previous one by the same appellant do not have an xfd_page link? The link is useful when it is provided. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added the links, my apologies for overlooking that. –dlthewave 15:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cheraldine Oudolf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe that this No Consensus close does not adequately consider the fact that none of the Keep !votes present evidence of significant coverage or make a policy-based argument for why it should be exempt from that requirement. Instead, both of the Keep !voters appealed to the fact that Oudulf played in many high-level games, which does not presume notability under the current NSPORTS guideline.

This leaves us with one Delete and two Redirects which are based on policy. This should be adequate to close as a Redirect, however a Relist would also be appropriate to try to get more input. –dlthewave 22:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Overturn to redirect (uninvolved). The two !keep voters were contrary to broader consensus, as they assumed notability based on appearances, a position that was rejected in the recent RfC, and thus per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and WP:LOCALCON can not be kept. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy close since the closer has relisted it herself. Note also that the deletion nomination was made by a sockpuppet. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - This DRV and the subsequent one, also by User:Dlthewave, do not have an xfd_page link. Why not? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 August 2022

Akash Ambani

Akash Ambani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

11 participants wanted the article to be deleted/redirected while only 6 participants wanted to keep it.

The reasons provided to oppose the article creation include WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:PAGEDECIDE/WP:NOPAGE and WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. None of these were refuted because it is beyond obvious that the coverage is being provided to the subject merely for being the son of Mukesh Ambani.

Overall, the AfD produced no new argument in favor of keeping than what was already rejected in the earlier AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akash Ambani).

Closing user Sandstein appear to be claiming that this was still not enough to "convince sufficient people to establish consensus",[5] which contradicts the reality.

The AfD should be re-closed as redirect. >>> 04:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse Sandstein has correctly read the consensus and it comes within the closer's discretion.

AFD is not a headcount hence 11 vs 6 is not a factor and closures are not done based on it. Akash Ambani became the chairman of Reliance JIO India's largest telecom company and one of the most important corporate positions in India with 340 million subscribers after this the subject received a lot of coverage .The entire Indian media covered him after his appointment The Economic Times .NDTV,Financial Times ,South China Morning Post ,India Today ,The Hindu Business Line,Business Standard ,The Times of India ,The Hindu etc and all television channels amongst others and with the coverage after his appointment as the Chairman of Jio and is not due to his father and hence meet WP:GNG. WP:INHERITED is not about literal inheritance or his inheriting money from his father.

Mukesh Ambani has 2 other children Isha and Anant they did not get any coverage only Akash got it as he was appointed as Chairman of Jio. Now how he became the chairman is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned. Coverage is a prima facie indication of notability. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG based on the coverage he is getting after he became the chairman. He is involved in the launch of 5G in India which Jio purchased for 11 Billion dollars.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT. This is not AfD. Nobody is asking here if Akash Ambani is notable or not. You don't have to throw a strawman like "WP:INHERITED is not about literal inheritance or his inheriting money from his father" just because you still don't understand what WP:NOTINHERITED is. >>> 06:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME can be ignored totally, it's a page documenting what is perceived by the author to be common outcomes of such discussions. i.e. if it is properly representative it follows xFD outcomes rather than xFD outcomes following it. WP:NOTINHERITED is not a content policy it's an argument to avoid, I don't think anyone was arguing his dad is notable, so therefore he is. Taking the one step removed, he got the coverage through his personal relationships, as it's not a content policy becomes rather irrelevant, he may have got his position "unfairly" and that may have lead to coverage etc. but that's going to all end up being pretty subjective and if we aren't careful lead to a thinking that anyone who could be insinuated got their notability by their connection to some other notable person/thing shouldn't be here. (e.g Coleen_Rooney I doubt if it weren't for her husband we'd know of her, but countless articles etc. have been written about her (in the British press anyway) and I would easily imagine many people know of her while knowing little or nothing of her husband). In the end I don't think there was a good consensus either way and I doubt one would have formed with further time. -- (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME cannot be ignored because it details the established community standards for business profiles, and this subject fails it. You seem to have read only first 2 sentences about WP:NOTINHERITED instead of reading the entire section about it. Azuredivay (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it's in an essay outcomnes and declares itself as such indeed on the page "Citing this page in AFD" - "This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones." etc. If the examples of stuff typically kept lead to requirements for all future stuff, the notability guidelines would get updated to reflect those requirements. And yes I've read NOTINHERITED many times, that it's not a content policy is kind of important to an argument which says commenters have to refute it (Not that it's really possible since it gives both argument and counter argument so unless it's refuting both side of that...)-- (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn (involved) to redirect. Most users agreed that this needs to be a redirect. There was no evidence to the contrary and not a single point of the nom was refuted. While headcount does not matter much, the closure's rationale is clearly depending on miscalculation of consensus as this response show. This is looking like a supervote. Azuredivay (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - No Consensus is a valid conclusion. AFD is not a vote count, at least not always. No Consensus is a valid close whenever opinions are scattered all over. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This AFD is a headache and a half. Being associated with a particular company, no matter how important, is the very definition of inherited notability; on the other hand, if we discounted coverage simply because of its proximity to activities media take note of we would have to delete... well, pretty much everything. There are perhaps very real concerns about the quality of sources (quantity is not a substitute) or whether a standalone article is appropriate, but delete and redirect !voters need to state them. In actual words. Liz and Sandstien were very nice about it, but I count two, maybe three or 3.5 !votes correctly applying PAG, and a 2-1 either way is generally not considered indicative of consensus of anything (I guess that makes this an endorse). If this is renominated in a couple of months, please for the love of everything encyclopedic try and keep things focused. Alpha3031 (tc) 13:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect. I had made it clear on AfD that even if arguments of Keep voters were correct (not that they were), still there wouldn't be enough content to justify the page per WP:NOPAGE. The claim that the consensus wasn't formed is beyond misleading. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I went over some of the sources listed. Most appeared to be paid bits: E.g.: [6]. [7] feels far too similar to the PR bits to believe it isn't more of the same but it does have a real byline at least. I think delete *redirect* may be a better reading--it just isn't clear there are real articles here, but NC is reasonable. weak endorse. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This is kind of weird - Sandstein closed with I can't assign either side's arguments more weight. If that was really the case, then redirect, not no-consensus, should be the close given the balance of (!)votes. Personally, I do believe the strength of arguments can be distinguished - several of those claiming NOTINHERITED to !vote redirect/delete did so under distinctly dubious interpretations of it. We also have various attempts to cite businesspersonoutcomes, which if the only thing cited can be ignored (although that was only sometimes the case). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn The closing note ("I can't assign either side's arguments more weight") reads more like "I am not ready to close AfD but I will do it anyway". The sources were of poor quality and couldn't address the concerns raised by the nomination, hence delete or redirect would be the appropriate outcome. desmay (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn (involved) Consensus was fairly clear; it favored redirection. Every relative of Mukesh Ambani is known to be getting massive coverage in media, that's why it made no sense to ignore the concerns about WP:NOTINHERITED. CharlesWain (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to keep while I'm tempted to endorse Sandstein's close--and his closes have become far more nuanced of late--the fact is that if a person is notable, a ton of other people showing up to disagree with that fact and aggressively misunderstanding NOTINHERETED doesn't change the outcome. "If he wasn't related to X, he wouldn't be famous" isn't on point. Rather, it says "He doesn't get an article just because he's related to X". Sandstein correctly noted that those arguments weren't compelling, and no consensus was a good way to try and split the difference... but I don't think he took it far enough in this case. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - There was strength in the keep arguments. However there was not a clear consensus for any outcome. Closing as no consensus was the correct choice in this matter. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse there was clearly no consensus to redirect. Further, the closing admin argued he "Can't give either side more weight" which I interpret to mean he determined the TOTAL weight of each side (i.e. combining quantity with substance) to be roughly even. Brad Hat (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus, though my rationale differs somewhat (uninvolved). It is extremely clear that the article subject satisfies WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC, which was established from the extremely strong arguments given by keep !voters in the discussion. There are many deletion arguments that boil down to "this individual didn't achieve anything significant", which is to say that the individual fails WP:ANYBIO. But failing WP:ANYBIO and passing WP:NBASIC satisfies the requirement #1 of WP:N, so the arguments for keeping are significantly stronger than this sort of argument for deletion (i.e. no argument given reasonably showed support WP:DEL-REASON#8 inasmuch as an individual can pass WP:NBIO without passing WP:ANYBIO). That being said, there's still the consideration of WP:NOPAGE, which at least one in favor of redirecting the page explicitly brought up, so it is not as if there were no policy-based reasons for alternatives to keep. WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is not a notability guideline nor a policy (nor does it plausibly provide a set of policy-based arguments like an essay might), so it makes sense to reduce weight to !votes made solely on that basis. As such, there is no rough consensus as to whether to delete/blank-and-redirect the article or to keep it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: It does not meet GNG. You need to verify the sources properly. WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is like WP:NACTOR and should be satisfied. It cannot be overlooked. One user cited WP:PAGEDECIDE which is same as WP:NOPAGE. CharlesWain (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The coverage presented in that AfD includes significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including the South China Morning Post (WP:GREL), Financial Express (sister to WP:GREL The Indian Express), and Business-Standard. This would be like a U.K. person getting significant coverage in the Washington Post, the Financial Times, and The Economist. Unless you believe that these sources are all paid for (which would require quite a bit of evidence given the reputation of the publications). I agree that we need to verify the sources properly (and for that reason labeled press releases like the alleged Economic Times source should be totally ignored), but I really do see a clear GNG pass here.
With respect to the argument that WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is like WP:NACTOR and should be satisfied, there are two fundamental and fatal problems. The first is that WP:OUTCOMES, broadly construed, is not a policy nor guideline and does not carry the weight of community consensus. In other words, it does not provide a basis for satisfying WP:N in and of itself, but it likewise does not provide any sort of support for claiming WP:DEL-REASON#8. The second is that, even if the two were to be treated as guidelines, your assertion ignores the fact that actors can still be notable even if they do not satisfy WP:NACTOR. This is because WP:N states that (assuming an article isn't excluded under WP:NOT), a subject is presumed to merit an article if it satisfies either (a) the general notability guideline (GNG) or (b) the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline. There is one notable explicit exception to this (for-profit corporations and businesses can't solely satisfy GNG), but no such exception applies for businesspeople.
I explicitly noted in my comment that at least one in favor of redirecting the page explicitly brought up WP:NOPAGE. I'm unsure what your comment means w.r.t. NOPAGE, but I agree that this cannot be wholly dismissed out-of-hand, which is why I think there was no consensus. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK folks, maybe I'm missing something, but as always this hinges on sourcing. And I'm struggling to find sources that aren't A) a press release B) an article that is clearly just a paid thing or C) something that probably isn't paid for but reads almost exactly like either A or B. Are there three decent sources here somewhere? I didn't look at all the sources, but you'd think someone would at least question the wisdom of this guy's appointment to his current job. I mean maybe he's qualified, but any reasonable independent coverage would at least raise the "is he really qualified for this job?" question. This feels like a wall of paid coverage. As I said, I'm okay with an NC outcome here, but I'm not sure why a lot of people think this clearly meets WP:N. What am I missing? Hobit (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think any of the sources satisfied GNG or WP:N contrary to the claims by some. Since this was closed as "no consensus", I think the discussion on talk page would ultimately decide whether this should be kept or be redirected/merged. CharlesWain (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but claims of "WP:N is met" when that is very much less-than-clear means the closer should have significantly discounted those !votes. I'd rather see a relist so the sources can be addressed in a broader venue. (yes, I !voted for endorsing the close since I think it was within discretion, but wow, the sourcing is bad.) Hobit (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse outcome. No other conclusion could have resulted from the discussion given. --MuZemike 00:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse, largely per Nosebagbear. Sandstein's phrasing was poor; there are more delete/redirect opinions than "keep" opinions, but the former rely on an interpretation of NOTINHERITED that's quite disingenuous. NOTINHERITED refers to coverage in reliable sources that is solely discussing the relationship of the subject to a different, notable, subject. It does not refer to coverage the subject has gotten for their own activities, even if those activities were enabled by family ties. This man is the chairperson of India's largest telecom company, and coverage he has received in that role cannot be dismissed simply because his father was its founder. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are numerous relatives of popular figures who get coverage for their own activities but when they don't meet the guideline or policies of Wiki then they shouldn't be having a separate article. Being a "chairperson of India's largest telecom company" does not ensure notability. Not to mention the sources were of poor quality. CharlesWain (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. A strong Keep argument was presented (based directly on GNG) and not refuted. An delete argument based on "he's only notable because of whose son he is" was advanced by admittedly more participants, but was logically weaker (there may be a number of purported reasons for notability, and the existence of one which in itself would not be sufficient to keep an article fails to negate any others), and in many cases referred to WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, which is an empirical summary not policy. A no consensus result is a reasonable read of such a discussion. Adding: it is possible that a more detailed examination of sources would refute their sufficiency for notability. But that argument was not made in the AFD. Martinp (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse simply no consensus on applicability of NOTINHERITED (or its interpretation). Agree, closer might have chosen their phrasing slightly less ambiguously, but intent was clear. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

8 August 2022

Law and Chaos

Law and Chaos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer failed to adequately consider AfDs, and here suggests that "there was no agreement as to what alternative should be used" prevented a merge or redirection outcome. That logic gives perverse incentive to editors who want something to be deleted to argue "merge or delete" and then pick a novel target for merger (or redirection, whichever). Closer misreads the directive in WP:DGFA to "when in doubt, don't delete" upending it to mean "if we're agreed that there's no standalone article needed here, but can't agree on what should be merged where, then just delete it." Moreover while six editors had opined for deletion (two weakly), six (including three overlapping editors) argued for some variety of keep, cleanup, merge, or redirect: clearly not a consensus for deletion even if we were just nose counting. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Even the people advocating for keeping were advocating for starting a new article at the same title from scratch at the same title. Nobody made the claim that the exsistant article, Law and Chaos in Michael Moorcock's work, was notable. Alterntives to deletion were discussed, but there was no consenus as to what alternative to use and where to redirect/merge. I can't supervote or pick from a hat where to merge. Therefore, my close is a reasonable one. If Jclemens would like to write a general article about how law and chaos are used in lit, they are more than welcome to do so. Redirects do not require a consensus and are cheap. I don't think Law and Chaos is a reasonable redirect term for Michael Moorcock, but Jclemens could do that right now if they wanted to. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you had redirected the text, we wouldn't be here. Instead, you chose to eliminate it from view of me and all other non-admin editors. Instead, you make false statements ("Nobody made the claim that the exsistant article, Law and Chaos in Michael Moorcock's work, was notable.") which take more time to type than it takes to amend your close from delete to "redirect somewhere tbd", which is all that I ask and all that policy expects. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus with opinions scattered all over. No Consensus permits a redirect by normal editing, and subsequent discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. An editor supporting retention wrote (I added bolding for emphasis):

    I do think the plot summary content should be trimmed, but not removed entirely. clearly violates WP:V would mean that the missing references could neither be found in secondary nor primary sources. That could be decided only by a person who knows the relevant primary sources quite well, or has done the thorough attempts to find reliable sources which is the phrasing in the policy. And what would remain if one would remove all un-referenced content? The referenced content! I've allowed myself the fun to roughly count, and get to ca. 350 words of referenced content, which is more than one common threshold for being considered a stub already.

    An editor who weakly supported deletion wrote (I added bolding for emphasis):

    As stated multiple times above, this is a philosophical concept that goes far beyond the works of a single author, and having this current article be a massive fan-wiki style essay on that one author's work just gives a completely unbalanced view of the subject, and is a case of WP:TNT being the far preferable solution to leaving it as it is. I would probably be fine with keeping it if nearly all of the current material was removed, leaving just the bit of sourced material in the lead on Moorcock's work and the sourced material in the "Cultural influences" as a stub. But, the current article should definitely not be kept in its current form.

    Another editor who supported deletion or a selective merge wrote, "The section about influences on other works is better placed in the writer's article, if it is to be retained."

    I agree with Robert McClenon's conclusion about "opinions scattered all over" so I support overturning to no consensus. I conclude from editors' opinions that there is sourced content in the article that is useful to readers. Whether this material should be retained in a standalone article or merged elsewhere can be left for editorial discretion. As Robert McClenon noted, a no consensus result will allow normal editing to decide what should happen.

    Cunard (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse, although it would have been preferable for the closer to expand on the outcome reasoning. NC would also have been valid, but deletion is still legitimate given there was so little appetite for the content already in the article (there was some text users alleged was referenced, but other editors seemed to have concerns that even that was OR and couldn't be verified), and instead a lot of discussion on what could be in a potential article (on either the same topic, or one with wider scope). If little to none of the original content would appear in the "ideal" treatment of this material, and if it would take substantial effort to determine what original material didn't violate policies, then it makes sense to TNT without preserving history. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you have a policy-based justification for your rationale? WP:ATD is policy, WP:TNT is an essay. Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ATD-E: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Does not apply. No argument was advanced that the content wasn't verifiable to primary sources, just that it was not notable because those sources were not independent, reliable, or secondary. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Emphasis mine:
    • In good faith, the author tried their best, but the resulting piece is likely WP:OR that clearly violates WP:V.
    • Notability requires verifiable evidence,
    • I agree with Necrothesp that the concept of law and chaos as a whole, and its representation in fiction, definitely is an article that should be quite possible. However, this article just isn't it - its almost entirely just overly detailed, unsourced, in-universe plot summaries of the works of Michael Moorcock specifically. As stated multiple times above, this is a philosophical concept that goes far beyond the works of a single author, and having this current article be a massive fan-wiki style essay on that one author's work just gives a completely unbalanced view of the subject, and is a case of WP:TNT being the far preferable solution to leaving it as it is.
    • it drifts into other fiction that deals with chaos (which is a lot of fiction), making WP:SYNTH connections that aren't implied by the sources
    • The in-universe content is OR and WP:NOTPLOT.
    • Even if the core topic may be notable, there is no point in keeping OR indefinitely until someone decides to work on it.
    All of these are arguments that the content is not verifiable, and therefore not worth preserving. JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as correct. There was a consensus to delete. Even the arguments in favor of keeping the topic were in favor of a different article being written, with no verified content to WP:PRESERVE from the old article. Jontesta (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And from whence should the better article be generated? Oh, that would be from the redirect of the content... which can't be done if the content is deleted. If only we had a policy that preferred redirection to deletion. Oh wait, we do. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse, the close is a very reasonable interpretation of the discussion's consensus. Of course, if anyone else would like to start a more general article on the subject rather than one particular book on it, nothing would stop them from doing so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What would stop the creation of a new article is the unnecessary deletion of content when other options exist. This DRV does not ask for the retention of a separate article, but rather the content to exist under a redirect, per ATD. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. There is consensus that the content is not suitable for mainspace. I don't believe a no consensus closure is more appropriate in this case, but if the appropriateness of an ATD is to be determined, a relist note to refocus the discussion may occur (it is not, for example, unheard of to relist in order to determine an appropriate redirect destination). If nom wants the content, REFUND can be done at any individual admin's discretion to an appropriate destination. Alpha3031 (tc) 09:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. (Haven’t seen the deleted article) I read a consensus that it was WP:OR, debatable whether “entirely”, but it sounds “substantially” so. That makes it not appropriate content and not suitable for WP:ATD. It sounds like WP:TNT. Where OR is the issue, the author could have it userfied, but all editors should understand that the content is not suitable for re-use. This fits with someone’s call for “selective merge”. I recommend stripping out the references and listing them here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Guerillero’s closing statement was an inadequate explanation and should be improved. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Endorse This is was a close discussion, but from my reading the strength of delete arguments that the content is overwhelmingly OR, when combined with the general acknowledgement of the more ambivalent votes (weak deletes and keeps) of extensive OR, shifts the balance from no consensus to delete. My endorsement is weak on the basis that given the closeness of the discussion an expansive closing statement would have been more helpful. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sruthy Sithara

Sruthy Sithara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi,I would like to request the undeletion of the page Sruthy Sithara deleted under CSD WP:A7. She is an International model and beauty pageant who is the title winner of Miss Trans Global. As per WP:NBEAUTY, she passes the notability criteria. I do believe that the sources I provided proves her notability. Please restore the page so that I can edit more. Imperfect Boy (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go back to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Sruthy Sithara and request userfication or draftification. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is Sruthy Sithara not even mentioned at Miss Trans Global?
You should improve existing content before trying to write new articles. Can you improve Miss Trans Global? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, since it was speedied after the second time Imperfect Boy moved it into mainspace, undeleting to draft just means we'll probably be back here again in a few days. —Cryptic 04:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Imperfect Boy had come to Requests for undeletion first, and I had declined it there asking him to take it to DRV. Please do not ask users to go to RfU for A7 or other CSD deleted articles specifically mentioned at the lead of RfU. Jay 💬 04:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see plausible notability for the subject. I recommend draftification. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sruthy Sithara has been mentioned at Miss Trans Global since Dec 1, 2021. Jay 💬 04:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SmokeyJoe, Sruthi Sithara is mentioned in Miss Trans Global, see titleholders. And she becomes first Indian to win Miss Trans Global title. Imperfect Boy (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn, send to AfD Being the winner of the Miss Trans Global is a credible claim of significance. This should have been sent to AfD instead. Jumpytoo Talk 07:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unfortunately Imperfect Boy speaks poor English and has ignored all advice to work on articles in draft, but simply moves them back to article space. I believe there is a COI here too. I vote to delete as I see no evidence that Miss Trans Global is notable - it's only been held twice, and virtually, and most of the article on that subject is promotionally worded. Deb (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do agree with Deb, that my English may be poor. But the article which I wrote is in good English. You can have a look. And see, The Week, Femina, Indian express, News 18,Exonomic Times and lot more arricles are there to prove the notability of Sruthy Sithara. Those articles are from National Newspapers and Magazines of India. See the article on Manorama, kerala's number one newspaper. And as you said, the Miss Trans Global held virtually because of the Covid Pandamic. I don't have any COI here, I swear to God. -Imperfect Boy (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore, I don't think deletion under A7 was justified, unless Deb provides a rationale other than that provided here. Miss Trans Global has been an article from Oct 2021, and edited by several editors. Notability of the pageant is a separate discussion. Jay 💬 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore and draftity, ECP create-protect, and submit for review via WP:AFC. An extended-confirmed reviewer can then move the article from draft space to article space upon approval. @Imperfect Boy: as a new editor, you should gain more experience before deciding whether something you wrote is suitable for article space. Work on it in draft space and let an experienced reviewer look at it after you submit it for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore and Draftify as per Anachronist with ECP protection. Clearly a contentious BLP, so not a clean A7, but also not a clean accept; needs to go through AFC (or AFD). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Jay, See Draft:Sruthy Sithara, someone created new draft. Imperfect Boy (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm going to have a try of finding sources. Google News has over 200 results, so maybe I could bring it up to standard? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist @Imperfect Boy @Jay @Deb @SmokeyJoe I've been working on Draft:Sruthy Sithara. Not paying attention to the (barely written) content, do you consider the sourcing adequate enough if it was published to mainspace? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well done, but personally I'm not convinced, because all the references appear to be about this one event - one edition of a contest whose inherent notability is far from proven. But clearly I'm in a minority. Deb (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two events (one of which doesn't have a page), which doesn't help my point, but yeah. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 12:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would !vote "keep" at AfD on the basis of two WP:RSPSS "generally reliable" sources more than six months apart, both describing discussing Sruthy directly. This is despite it being a WP:BIO1E case.
If not kept, it should be merged and redirected to Miss Trans Global#Titleholders per BIO1E, and I would urge you to find sources that compare and contrast the different winners and runners-up. Surely, if the award is notable, there is comment on the candidates and winners? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To help your chances, I advise you to reduce the WP:Reference bombing. More sources are not better if multiple sources are sourcing the same information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove sources that are mostly just subject interview. This read as promotion/advocacy, which is a reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cut down the advocacy section. Is this fine for you? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 13:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me yes. Let’s see what others think. It definitely overcomes A7. I don’t know about the version of 15:09, 7 August 2022. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have access to that version, so... — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 01:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Am I able to withdraw this review discussion? Vortex created a better version now. -Imperfect Boy (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7 August 2022

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

Since the situation in the United States changed as of May 2022, I request userfication of this article content, for the purposes of recovering verifiable material and sources in order to build a policy-compliant article. Elizium23 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you are not requesting the overturning of the previous discussion, you should see WP:Userfication and WP:RFU. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow Userfication Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not in scope The world has changed since 2015, and no one is arguing that that seven year old discussion should be normative. I see the title is not create-protected. I have no objection to userification or simply starting on a new draft, realizing that the 2015 article is going to be a pretty poor starting point. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow userfication. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What Jclemens said, and I can confirm that the old article is unlikely to help. As of the last revision, it was, hm, nine sentences long; cited eleven sources, of which six were tagged unreliable; and half of the article and all but one of the untagged sources was split between very brief summaries of Jim Pouillon and Theodore Shulman. —Cryptic 04:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I agree that the article is unlikely to be helpful and I'm skeptical that there's potential for a viable article here, as the deleting admin I'm perfectly happy with userfication. Sam Walton (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 August 2022

Goth Angel Sinner (closed)

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

I believe the closing admin has errored by going along with vote counting instead reading the rational offered. In both cases, editors in favour of keeping the article said so on the basis of sources existing that satisfy WP:GNG. I provided some appraisal of the sources and pointed out that music articles primary must meet the relevant music-related criteria. In this case, its WP:NSONGS, which clearly says coverage should be independent of press releases and label coverage. Several of the sources provided are reprints of the same material. Furthermore the guideline says notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article - there isn't in this case. Futhermore, WP:GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I believe that on the base of the sources discussed, this article meets neither guideline. The closing admin doesn't seem to have acknowledged this. The second editor who wished to keep the article, did so on the basis of what the first said without any meaningful discussion or commentary. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse close - absolutely terrible DRV case. It was all keep !votes and over 5 dedicated, reliables sources were presented and referenced in the keep stances. The nomination failed BEFORE and this is even worse. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay @Sergecross73 - I think its time to point out assuming good faith here, its entirely subjective that the DRV case is terrible. Its been brought in good faith to ascertain whether guidelines were correctly understood and applied. Whether or not its appropriate for you to endorse the close I dispute considering you were the main editor disputing the article's deletion/direct. It's disingenuous to say all votes were "keep" therefore the article should kept. AFD has never been a simple vote count. You provided a keep vote with some rational, another editor provided a keep vote with a comment endorsing what you said. Discussion was just beginning about the merit of the sources - their reliability or appropriateness was never disputed. However, as often happens, people count the number of sources and instead ignore the parts of the guideline where it says about there being significant coverage beyond trivial or passing mentions, or the reproduction of the same material by different sources. That said, as an administrator (and someone of experience), I would expect you to have remained neutral allowing a third party opinion to endorse or not endorse the outcome. That's the whole point of DRV is to ask for a third opinion other than the closing administrator. It's clear you support the decision to close the AFD, at the very least the conversations should have continued about the level of significant coverage provided that would pass Nalbums or Nsongs rather than closing prematurely. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have no doubt you did it in good faith, but it still doesn't make it any less of a bad decision to make. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The AFD ran a week, was unanimously policy based keep !votes, and you took it to DRV. Not a great move. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    DRV is there for disagreeing with the decision to close it based on what I believe to be a flawed assessment of the discussion. It was basically 1 vs 1 on whether the sources provided enough coverage to warrant a page - I am discounting the second vote as the editor didn't provide any specific rationale, simply agreeing with you. The closing admin closed the discussion just as it was beginning. An album, EP or single with little information beyond a track listing is not notable for its own page regardless of how many sources are provided that are reliable. Several sources re-hash the same content, obviously taken from a press release or something similar. SIGCOV was lacking. Closing an AFD as a discussion was starting or happening and the merits were being discussed is not a good move IMO. If this DRV leads to clarification its certainly not a bad thing. Either way, the DRV isn't a bad move at all when I believe the admin has erred in the result and/or the close. I wouldn't expect you to agree given your involvement in the AFD hence the request for a third party neutral opinion. Anyway, we'll see what others say regarding this but just because it's clear cut for you doesn't mean it is terrible. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - A reasonable call by the closer. I have not considered whether No Consensus would also have been reasonable (and it wouldn't matter). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse DRV is not a place to relitigate the AfD. It was a 3-1 towards saying the sources are sufficient, and that is enough to close it as Keep. Jumpytoo Talk 19:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. The AfD nomination was weak. “Keep” was the correct close. Read the advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse: All the voters agreed that the sources indicated in the discussion are sufficient enough for the EP to pass WP:NALBUM. It seems that the nominator refused to drop the stick and accept the consensus, which is a clear "keep". ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-TICE CUBE) 10:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak endorse (uninvolved). All participants in the discussion seem to have been able to evaluate the sources and, while there was an editor that initially agreed with the nom, they changed their mind after another editor produced sources. A relist would also have potentially worked here (the discussion was quite small), but I can't see an argument made for any outcome but a keep. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) Not a great deal of participation, but in the end every !vote was to keep (except the nom), including one who even changed their !vote from redirect after additional sources were presented. The closure was on the same day as one of the !votes (which is fine), and had been open for the 7 days required. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment As the discussion closer, basically, I accepted Sergecross73's fair recommendation of the sources that they found and the other Keeps affirmed that these were decent, if not exceptional, sources that establish GNG. It wasn't simply a vote count, Lil-unique1, you disputed Sergecross73's evaluation of the sources but I found his argument more persuasive and his opinion had the support of other editors. I didn't see the other Keeps as simply "Me, toos" that should be dismissed but as indicating agreement with Sergecross73's evidence. I don't think every participant in an AFD discussion has to put forward their own, original assessment if they read over other editors' evaluations and find it convincing.
I think you need to accept that editors acting in good faith can disagree with each other about Wikipedia's standards of notability and how these standards are applied. And also accept that not all of your deletion nominations are going to be closed in your favor. Also, good faith extends to AFD closers, too, whether or not you agree with the closure. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Really nothing wrong with the closure. As one of the keep !voters, it was done in good faith. The nom's reason is pure IDONTLIKEIT. SBKSPP (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Poomagal G

User:Poomagal G (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

G1 does not apply to pages in the User namespace. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion. Yes, G1 does not apply, but this content so clearly fails WP:NOT that it has no chance of being kept in a MfD. Particularly because this user has done nothing on Wikipedia but create this user page containing gibberish. This DRV is ill-judged and a waste of community time.
For those who are not administrators, the deleted user page read, machine-translated into English:
Extended content
Formal titration of soran with amizanoic acids. Valuable amazanoic acids are two amine group derivatives of proteins and their jundyl group confers corbamsabothiric properties. Amino acids occur both naturally and as proteins in many tissues Free amino acids are structural molecules of proteins, and the amino group and corpoyl group impart amphoteric properties. Important in clinical and clinical data from the study. Solvent or ring amizanoic acid diagonal acid is the neutralizing agent in the solution. The amizano acid group is an alkylene and basic symbol in ethane, but the cortical group of amizano acid in ethane forms a Sacon Witch anion molecule, which appears to be completely neutral at the dissociation end point. However, in the forme altitide precursor, Amisano's amine and foran diathermy xyol deriv. As dimethizalol is acidic, the presence of formaldehyde prevents the base amino acid from forming the Switer anion and allows the excess acid group to escape from the carboxylate. Opposite Soman's Mutarayona is the basis of Mutara. Estimation of amino acids. Opposites are hundredfold. 1) Deform Aldide 2) 0.1 N oxglic acid 126 Distilled water with 0.126 Oxylic acid Accurately acid and liquid flush ... value 100 ml vat. 3) NaOH in Lindt Kadara..4) Bisenolphthalein in 0.1% alkyl. Abnormal titration I and 10 ml of oxalic acid with dapaptapat. Within a clean and conical flask. Add drops of phenolphthalein to the titrated NaOH solution taken in butyrate. And the pour is the look of faded permanent blonde. Color, color, and literal cancellation for similar values. Calculate the normal concentration of NaOH. After comparing Amisano's standard glass and using the formula for the Lithate value of formaldehyde, the number 1 note. Aiyya Ainana Ailam is a sign of 75 Kitalas. 18 0.135 N leakage or leakage of Kakadukappadi ainana kick Ainana tribe is found. 10 being in Kakadukkapatty Yadiri
Sandstein 19:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since the user in question has no other edits and these writings are plainly unrelated to Wikipedia's goals, this is also a valid U5. Endorse. —Cryptic 19:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as U5. For what it's worth, deletions using criteria that don't apply to the namespace given are much more common than one would think. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as U5. The machine-translation is chemical terminology, but it makes no sense as chemistry (or as anything else). Question for appellant: Why are you appealing? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I appealed because G1 does not apply to pages in the User namespace. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You might want to take a look at WP:NOTBURO, if someone tagged the wrong thing when deleting (or even tagged what they meant to mistakenly believing it did apply), if there is another sensible reason to delete it's rather bureaucratic to worry about undeleting so it could just be deleted straight away for a different reason -- (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If nothing else, this DRV highlights a contradiction between speedy deletion criteria that genuinely merits reconsideration. We carved out specific exceptions to allow patent nonsense and other testing in userspace so as not to discourage experimentation by new users. A decade or so later, we started to speedy pages specifically in userspace, created by new users, that's not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. The latter includes all patent nonsense and most tests. So we're only allowing newbie tests by non-newbies. Swell. —Cryptic 20:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and send to MfD. U5 is a stretch too far, when I think "web host" I'm never thinking about collections of gibberish, I'm thinking of someone using Wikipedia in lieu of something else they'd have to pay for. Still very deletable, just not speedy. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment as deleting admin. Sorry, this is a result of me not reading the text of CSD G1 closely enough. If I had realised that G1 does not apply to user pages, then I would likely have sent the page to MfD instead of using speedy deletion. I have no issue with this being overturned. Having said that, I can also see the case for this being a borderline CSD U5. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The machine-translation is probably as good as any translation could be, because it is my opinion that the original text was probably produced by a jabberwock-bot that produced chemical nonsense in Tamil. It looks a little like the output of other jabberwock-bots. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Objecting to the deletion of this nonsense because it didn't comply with a criterion for speedy deletion is almost as silly as the content. The appellant seems to be causing a waste of human time just because of a silly rule. Maybe a trout wrapped in South Asian leafy greens and flavored with South Asian herbs is in order, accompanied by an incomprehensible note. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not inclined to disagree. While I take a very dim view of expansive readings of CSD, my impression here is "Why on earth would anyone contest that?" Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and re-delete per WP:U5. Advise User:Mr._Stradivarius that it’s better to use the right codes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Advice taken. I will be more careful when reading the CSD text next time. When I read WP:G1 before I performed the deletion, I remember focusing on the part that says the criterion does not cover "coherent non-English material", but I somehow missed the part that says it does not apply to "user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace". — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • IAR Endorse While technically an invalid speedy, this has no chance of surviving MfD and this whole DRV is a complete waste of our time. Smartyllama (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep deleted, possibly the wrong criterion but the content has no realistic chance of passing MFD. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is neither U5 (or at least I don't see how this is being used as a web host) or G1. I'm not even sure it would get deleted at MfD (you are allowed a lot of room in your userspace and sandbox). So overturn speedy. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Speedy deletion criteria are not defined by their header. Usually with U5 the web-host "summary" is much, much broader than the criterion, which is why a majority of U5 deletions are of userspace drafts despite them being explicitly excluded by the criterion. This is a rare example of a page which meets the criterion but not the summary. —Cryptic 19:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You are correct. endorse as U5 small trout to the deleting admin and myself for acting/!voting without enough care. Hobit (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5 August 2022

Lemusa Alatasi

Lemusa Alatasi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were exactly five keep votes in this AFD. The very first one cited WP:NFOOTY as a reason to keep, which is now a criteria that has been phased out and is therefore invalid. All other votes just said "notable person, without citing why" or "needs work", all invalid reasons to keep an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse "There is no grandfather policy" is just as devoid of substantive meaning, and comes across as somewhat antagonistic. There's simply not consensus there; I think either keep or delete would have been wrong conclusions, and relisting about the only acceptable option to no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. The arguments in favour of deletion were the only ones solidly based in policies and guidelines. The keep arguments were 3 rejections of the recent NSPORT RFC (and subsequent consensus changes to NSPORT) and 2 unsupported bare assertions of notability – best summarised as "I don't like that" (SNG changes) and "is notable" – such arguments should not be given much (if any) weight in the face of the delete arguments which clearly cited notability guidelines and demonstrated why these were not met, and were not countered. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the keep votes correctly point out that with a recently changed policy, tagging the article is a more appropriate option than deleting the article, while the delete votes correctly point out that there is not currently the SIGCOV needed for GNG passage. So no consensus is the way to go. As the AFD was well attended, a realist wouldn’t establish consensus. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    the keep votes correctly point out that with a recently changed policy, tagging the article is a more appropriate option than deleting the article, -- except that, as multiple editors pointed out, there is no grandfather clause for old articles and the editor alleging that there was refused to provide evidence. JoelleJay (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete Clear source-based evidence from the delete voters that the topic isn't notable, no evidence from the keep side showing otherwise. Avilich (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse The fact that you disagree with the keep !votes does not mean there was consensus to delete here. I'd probably have !voted to delete but this is a reasonable close based on the discussion that took place. DRV does not exist to relitigate the same arguments that took place at AfD and any attempts to do that here should be disregarded. Smartyllama (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No-one here has tried to relitigate the AFD. It is the weighting (and validity) of the arguments that is being disputed. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • weak Endorse A) I think that we should have a process for dealing with articles that did meet our inclusion guidelines and now do not. B) there was no consensus. However, unless better sources can be found it appears we have consensus our current guidelines are not met in the article as it stands. The only question is what process to follow for those articles. So I'd urge both sides to agree on a process that deals with this and, I'd hope, allows us to get all articles in question to either be improved or deleted in the next (say) 12 months. Hobit (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is only "no consensus" if you completely ignore ROUGHCONSENSUS... Where did any of the keep !votes make an argument based on P&Gs or logic or really anything that isn't literally an ATA? Grandfather clauses were rejected by !voters at the main RfC and the followups, just because a small cohort of editors deliberately ignores one of the most global and decisive consensuses we've had doesn't mean they get to exert an invalid LOCALCON at every AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse. There are valid arguments on both sides to keep and delete. I sense that the delete side feels like guidance is on their side, and I think it is, but it's also OK for people to make logical arguments that don't align with guidance as per WP:5P5. In that context, there was valid arguments on both side, and no consensus. CT55555 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By this reasoning, literally every argument is valid and there is no reason whatsoever to have guidelines or a deletion policy or even a concept of "consensus" at all. I'd really like to see what you think an illogical argument would be if not one that relies on reasons explicitly rejected by enormous consensus for being illogical. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. There were exactly zero policy-based arguments provided for keeping the page, while there were several arguments for deleting the page that had firm basis in WP:DEL-REASON. That the closer saw that there were 5 !votes one way and 4 !votes the other way is not a valid basis for closing it as no consensus per se; consensus is not ascertained by bean counting but instead bythe quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, I will remind folks that NFOOTY was eliminated by community consensus and a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. There were no valid arguments from the keep side, like it is actually remarkable how devoid of any P&G-based reasoning those !votes were... The single thoughtful attempt at expanding on keep reasoning still failed to even acknowledge the NSPORT requirement for SIGCOV to be sourced in the article, and did not offer any evidence to support their assertion that newspapers could be expected to contain SIGCOV. This was a very clear delete and quite a good example of the type of protracted disruptive AfD participation that the ArbCom RfC will hopefully address. JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. As explained by the DRV nominator and above, the "keep" opinions in this AfD were unfounded in applicable inclusion guidelines, and should therefore have been discounted by the closer. Sandstein 09:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete as a re-read of the AFD shows no policy-based arguments for keeping, focusing on procedural pleas that aren't how Wikipedia works. Jontesta (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete <involved> essentially per JoelleJay and Red-tailed hawk. Most of the keep !votes are at odds with the global-consensus sigcov requirement, so the closer should have discounted them and closed as delete. This is a pretty clear example of a case where the numbers are evenly split but the strength of argument points decisively in one direction, in my view. As an aside, if there's no consensus to overturn, I'd support a relist to attract additional policy-and-guideline-based participation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - closer has every right to give more weight to arguments that are supported by policy and/or guidelines. It's quite clear from the discussion that those in favour of keep were offering, at best, 'procedural keep' arguments whereas those in favour of deletion were pointing out that the nominator's assertion that the subject fails GNG was not appropriately countered at any point. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - there was no substantial refutation of the failure to satisfy SIGCOV or the GNG. Unlike, for example, cricket in South Asia, where a claim to non-English/English pre-internet offline sources would have greater plausibility, a single claim here to offline internet-era sources is weak and not enough to counter-balance the weight of lack of SIGCOV/GNG statements. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - A lot (maybe even all) of Keep votes failed to formulate a valid enough argument (the closest being Savant's vote, if not for the fact the article had already existed for more than a year). Closing AFDs is not a vote count, but measuring up which arguments were stronger. Here, it is clear that Keep voters failed to counter the main nominator's angle: the failure of meeting WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

29 July 2022

Soda Popinski

Soda Popinski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion is over two weeks old, but I've decided to bring it here for a review. Anyway, the closer said there's no convincing arguments for non-trivial mentions. Haleth and I provided ample evidence that the character has received significant coverage, while Oinkers42 and Smuckola agreed, but no one in support of the merge attempted to refute the specific sources brought up. I'm not saying all the merge votes were invalid, but I see more of an equal amount of weight between those who support a keep vs. those who support a merge. I think the discussion should at least be overturned to no consensus or be relisted. MoonJet (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Overturn to keep Of the 5 merge/restore redirect opinions, the last 3 provided no policy-based support for why it must be merged. Sure, it could be merged, but that's not an appropriate AfD conclusion unless there's no policy-based argument for keeping it. When Piotrus finds the reception section worthy of a standalone article, that's a pretty good indication that it actually is. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good point. Just because the article can be merged there, doesn't mean it should. We have tons of sub-articles that can easily fit into the parent article, but we keep them anyway, because they clearly satisfy the notability guidelines. Unless they can provide a reason why it must be merged there, then it probably shouldn't be. MoonJet (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just a note that there is no contradiction between merging (copying...) some content to expand said list and keeping the original article too. Anyway, my vote was merge or keep, so whatever happens, I am fine. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, absolutely. I do not object to the content being merged as an editorial decision. I do not think the discussion supported a requirement that it be merged, based on the rough consensus of the discussion, and I do not support folks using AfD in lieu of a redirect or merge discussion when there's really no reasonable possibility of a deletion outcome. Jclemens (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist I assess the AfD in question as having a consensus that "what matters in terms of keep/merge is how many of the sources have non-trivial coverage of this character in question rather than the game as a whole", but widespread disagreement as to whether enough of the sources do have that coverage. Several of the comments on both the keep side and the merge side don't seem to be sufficiently focused on this to gauge consensus. The AfD would probably work better if it were reopened and focused specifically on the main point of contention. --ais523 10:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist to see if rough consensus emerges between Merge and Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm fine with a relist given A) it wasn't relisted in the past and B) things didn't get settled. I'd urge the closer here to try to direct folks to touch on the evaluation of sources that specifically describe this character. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dua Zehra case (closed)

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

Ever since the incident took place, it has been in the news since March 2022. This was followed by many other incidents like suspension of police officer, court trials and protests etc. Definitely passes WP:EVENT (WP:LASTING and WP:COVERAGE) Ainty Painty (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse the coverage cited in the article was news articles from between April and June 2022, which doesn't exactly refute the WP:NOTNEWS argument. And the nominator did have a point when they said the article "appears to be an unsalvageable BLP nightmare". Hut 8.5 07:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse if the appellant wishes to overturn the close. If the appellant wishes to submit a draft, I haven't seen either the article or the draft and can't comment on the BLP nightmar. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Of note, the deletion rationale was "BLP nightmare" which is a perfectly fine deletion rationale. The supports were NOTNEWS which is a valid deletion rationale, but not anywhere as serious as the nom's. Iridescent is not known for frivolous or inappropriate deletion nominations, and was the admin who explained speedy deletion to me 15ish years ago, so the source of the deletion nom bears much weight in my mind. Having not seen the article, the fact that the appellant hasn't addressed the central cause for deletion means that this is an endorse from me, even though I haven't seen the article and know nothing about the subject. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 July 2022

Tender Claws (closed)

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

This is a significant game design company that has won multiple awards, and the article had many citations. I unfortunately did not see the deletion discussion until yesterday, or I would have argued against deletion/redirect. If anything, it would make more sense to delete the separate article for The Under Presents, and redirect that to Tender Claws, because the game company has made MANY significant works apart from The Under Presents.

The reason for deletion given by User:Alexandermcnabb includes the statement "When you're presenting a gaming company as interesting because one of its games is unplayable, you're in the weeds, folks..." I completely agree that if that game is unplayable (I haven't tried) it probably shouldn't be included in the Wikipedia article, but that's easily fixable by deleting that line, which was added by an anonymous user on March 8, adding "VVR2 got released, should probably add that. (And the part about how terrible the game is)". This unsourced statement surely shouldn't lead to deleting the whole article. User:Alexandermcnabb states that the article fails WP:GNG but this is a game development studio, not an actor. He also states that it fails WP:CORP but I don't see how this can be the case, given that Tender Claws has extensive media coverage (the deleted article included references to a long article in the New York Times, a review in the Theatre Journal and several others, and several of their games have won awards - and the article that was deleted has citations for many of these awards.

I think both Samantha Gorman and the studio Tender Claws clearly deserve their own articles, and ask that the community reconsiders their deletion. I am also happy to help revise both articles to improve them. Lijil (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse the redirect consensus was unanimous meaning there was no way this could have been closed.-- (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse redirect the redirect consensus was, indeed, unanimous (6 editors voting) which is why this close was appropriate. The company Tender Claws does, indeed, fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. There seems to be some confusion here about actors and WP:GNG - there was no mention of actors in the nomination or debate. The New York Times article is 1) not readily verifiable as it's behind a paywall 2) about a product, not the company. In fact sourcing is problematic in this article, failing to show a clear pass of WP:GNG let alone the more rigorous standard of WP:CORP - the company is simply not notable and it is NOT the subject of "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The sources presented are ALL about the company's apps, not the company. The first source is the company's website, the second is a Polish research paper which mentions the app Pry in a secondary mention in a footnote - and the other 11 sources are all reviews or apps featuring in listicles, or incidental mentions of apps (the Sundance source is a broken link, but searching Sundance's website shows that the Associate programmer and Festival coordinator likes Virtual Virtual Reality, a Tender Claws app - this is pretty typical of the standard of sourcing presented here). There simply isn't any evidence that the company is notable. The redirect to its most successful/well known application is therefore entirely appropriate and should stand. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with almost everything said though the bit about paywalled sources not being verifiable is wrong per WP:PAYWALL. That being said the New York Times article still isn’t useable since the article isn’t about the company itself.-- (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair I merely noted its not readily verifiable and did confirm that it is not about the company but an app, but yes policy is indeed that the source shouldn't be discounted just because it's paywalled. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you saying that if media coverage is about specific games rather than about the game developer overall, there could be articles for each of the games but not for the developer? Lijil (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does that mean news coverage about Tender Claws unionising is the sort of thing that could support notability for this game development studio, but articles about the games they make cannot? Lijil (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read WP:INHERIT. -- ferret (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I should make articles for each of their works instead? Lijil (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only if those works are themselves notable per WP:GNG. Each topic is looked at under its own lens. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse redirect There's no other way this AFD would have been closed, and the close is proper. Note that the OP has approached WT:VG about this review, perhaps unaware that most of the !voters at the AFD are from WP:VG in the first place. -- ferret (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm glad to hear that the voters are from WP:VG! I am trying to understand the system here and have not been able to find clear guidelines for notability for game developers, which especially in the case of indie studios surely have more in common with authors or artists than corporations in general. I'm a professor of digital culture trying to contribute to Wikipedia, so I have a lot of content knowledge but clearly have a lot to learn about the editing system. If the correct way to do this is to make an article for each of the studio's works and not have an article for the studio that's fine with me, but it does seem strange!! Lijil (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Studios are WP:NCORP. Specific indie developers, like say Eric Barone (developer), fall under WP:NBIO and Creative (Generally, but not always). Individual video games themselves are simply WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The redirect preference was clear, but I question whether it was correct. Looking at the redirected text--and thank you to the closing admin for NOT deleting it before redirection--the software Pry (or PRY?) appears to be itself notable based on the references included in the now-redirected Tender Claws article. One good reason to cover this non-notable company is that it has two separate notable products. This isn't invoked in NCORP, but is really an application of WP:BAND criterion 6. Our current iteration of NCORP is written terribly exclusionary, and I get that it's designed to keep corporate spam off of Wikipepdia. Still, there's a reason N is a guideline rather than a policy, and this is one instance of it. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that Pry is notable itself. I just revised the article on Samantha Gorman (co-founder of Tender Claws) to provide more reliable sources for this. Lijil (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid close and the only appropriate close. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse, couldn't have been closed any other way. User:Lijil, the standard for reversing a consensus, for convincing everyone that everyone was wrong, is WP:THREE. Provide three quality sources. As the result was a redirect, the place to make the case is at the talk page of the redirect target. However, don't waste others' time making arguments without the WP:THREE sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for explaining about WP:THREE, I was looking for guidelines about how to do this, so this will be useful in future. Lijil (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse It was a valid close given the lack of evidence of notability that was ever provided in the AfD discussion. See WP:GNG which is a general guideline across all of Wikipedia, not just WikiProject Video Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 07:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Patrick Lancaster

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

Request overturning or relisting of this deletion discussion. Closer did not take into account a lengthy article by Zaborona covering the subject very significantly and a discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 379#Zaborona where most editors said Zaborona is reliable. The Zaborona article was removed as an administrative action which I challenged on User talk:EvergreenFir#Your administrator actions on Patrick_Lancaster and the administrator subsequently changed their position in the aforementioned Reliable sources noticeboard discussion. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak Overturn to No Consensus - I count 8 Keep !votes, and 8 Delete !votes plus the nom for 9, and guideline-based reasons for both, so that the closer's disregard of the Keeps was a supervote. That is enough participation that a Relist is not required or appropriate. The appeal would be stronger if the appellant hadn't bludgeoned the AFD. The bludgeoning may have, almost reasonably, made the closer think that the appellant was shouting because they didn't have a case. Usually shouting and bludgeoning is the sign of a lost cause, and the closer may have thought so. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus Solid policy-based arguments were made on both sides, and the closing admin incorrectly dismisses the NBC and Vice sources while also failing to acknowledge a few other reliable sources that came up in the discussion. Frank Anchor 17:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to NC the Task and Purpose profile, linked in the AfD, was sufficiently compelling to 'win' the GNG argument, but seemed to be lost in the back-and forth and accusations of sockpuppetry and bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Within admin discretion, "no consensus" and "delete" both defensible. Many "keep" !votes were not solid. Potentially this should be considered WP:TNT, it sounds like the article was littered by low quality source; consider trying again in draft with WP:THREE quality sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article already was rewritten through the AfD process. See latest version of deleted text here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don’t approve. This shows disrespect for Wikipedia and the deletion process and attribution good practice. Please have it deleted and wait for this DRV discussion to finish.
    If the outcome is to consider the deletion WP:TNT and allow a re-start, the only thing that can be re-used is the reference list, and even then the point is the discarding of all low quality sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If any other user had requested a temp undeletion, it would have been granted. Rather than griping at this editor, how about we do that instead, so all of us can see what the text was when it was deleted? Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure what the gripe is about. Sometimes the Wikipedia deletion process goes astray, as was the case here. The only reason this article was deleted was because I was accused of being pro-Russian and a stock of another editor. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There was no consensus in the AfD discussion about whether the sources were sufficient for the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The closing admin mentioned the NBC News and Vice sources but additional sources were discussed such as this comment that said:

    I actually recognized this name because his name has been mentioned in Dutch media more than once in relation to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 being shot down. This article in NRC (newspaper) (definitely a reliable source) for example mentions "Lancaster" 7 times: [8]. [9] by De Telegraaf about Russian media is also clearly more than a passing mention.

    Cunard (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to NC or relist. The close summary does have problems (per Cunard) and I just don't see consensus having formed in that discussion. That said, something does seem off about the discussion and I'd not object to a renewed (or entirely new) discussion. Hobit (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7 July 2022

Megan Huntsman (closed)

  • Megan HuntsmanOverturn to No Consensus. Most people here feel that the close was inappropriate. On the topic of "nobody mentioned a move", there's no requirement that an AfD close pick from the options mentioned in the discussion. The guiding principle is to come up with a decision which as broadly as possible summarizes the consensus opinion. In some cases, that may be something which was not explicitly mentioned in the discussion. That being said, people here felt that closing this as "move" was not something which met the "broadly summarizes" criterion. I'm closing this DRV as "No Consensus" and suggest that people read WP:RENOM before bringing back to AfD. Since there was no real discussion of a rename, there's no prejudice against starting a rename discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Megan Huntsman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I discussed concerns about the close at the closer's Talk page but continue to have concerns that consensus was interpreted incorrectly and the result should be overturned to delete, or in the alternative, that a relist would be appropriate due to the circumstances of the discussion and a possible procedural error, as discussed with the closer. Beccaynr (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I definitely don't think a move was the right outcome there, given that nobody suggested that in the discussion. There was voluminous disagreement about whether she met BLP1E or not but I don't think it came to a consensus. Ritchie333 relisting the discussion suggests they were of that opinion too, so the finding of consensus by the closer after no further discussion is surprising. I'm leaning towards opining this should be overturned to no consensus (without prejudice to RM) but I'm going to think a bit more before bolding anything. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think an overturn to no consensus would be right, given the complete lack of policy based justification from the keep !voters. I'd much prefer a relisting. ––FormalDude talk 04:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Thanks Thryduulf. Although a move was not explicitly mentioned, I felt (as the closing admin) that it was the logical implication of a discussion which, in my mind, seemed to conclude that the individual does not meet notability but that the event might. I feel that the discussion was bogged down by the fact that some were discussing BLP1E, some EVENT and some a bit of both. My reading of the discussion, is that this will either end with an event article and a individual redirect, or a deletion (for which there is not yet consensus). The most efficient way forward would be, in my opinion, for there to be a discussion on the event, after the event article has some slight reworking so that it is clearly about the event (as discussed with Beccaynr on my talk page [10]). The problem is that if it is relisted as the article about the individual, then we are back to the original issues with the discussion. I don't think that a no consensus close would best serve resolving the issue because, again, I think that the consensus will eventually move to "event article + individual redirect" or "delete" and we should find the most efficient way to facilitate that. TigerShark (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to add to this. I feel that the article as it currently stands is really about the murders than the perpetrator anyway. Reword the opening sentence, remove the infobox and change the "early life" title to "the perpetrator" and you effectively have an article about the event (which arguably should be listed, as previously discussed). I see no point in deleting the article and then inviting it to be recreated (with a redirect) as has been suggested as an alternative, because that puts the article exactly where is it now (or would be with those minor changes). TigerShark (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn - I !voted delete in the AfD. From my view, arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact and/or are logically fallacious should be discounted. This includes the use of original research to support keeping this article, e.g. asserting it is "highly unusual" without RS support and with RS contradicting this conclusion. Even as an event article, BLP issues related to sensationalist coverage still exist and are also contrary to policy. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. Beccaynr (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. It seems like there was (a) a consensus that an article on the individual was not appropriate and (b) no consensus regarding whether or not an article on the event (i.e. the murders) were notable. It's not the best phrased close, but I'm not exactly sure what this practically means for whether to move the page (there is a notable event and not a notable person) or to delete the page (there is no notable topic here, article title be damned). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with that analysis, and I think it lends to a delete closure without prejudice to someone creating an event article. The article as it stands is about the individual and not the event. ––FormalDude talk 07:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). There was very clearly no consensus to delete here. I am neutral on the move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    From my view, your !vote should have been discounted because during the discussion, you did not address the second prong of WP:N, i.e. whether the subject should be excluded per WP:NOTNEWS, also used personal opinion/WP:OR to support keeping the article, as well as a logically fallicious argument related to WP:BLP1E, and did not address the WP:BLP issues. Asserting WP:GNG based on sensationalist news churnalism and academic WP:RS with only superficial coverage also seems to be an unsubstantiated argument. Beccaynr (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe you should review WP:ONLYESSAY: Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Something many deletionist editors in recent years seem to have forgotten in their zeal to delete, delete, delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The link to discussions, not votes leads to the Polling is not a substitute for discussion essay, which includes, If Wikipedia were to resolve issues through voting on them, editors would be tempted to also use voting with respect to article content. This might undermine Wikipedia policies on verifiability, notability, and the neutral point of view. From my view, opinions such as WP:ILIKEIT, unsupported assertions of significance and WP:VAGUEWAVES at policy should be discounted, especially when an article is based on sensationalist coverage of living people and there is extensive discussion of sources and P&Gs by delete !voters. Beccaynr (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to “no consensus”. There was no consensus to keep or delete the article. There were not BLP violation noted (BLP1E is not a “BLP violation” but a lesser issue), so the no consensus defaults to keep. There was no consensus for the move, that was a Supervote. Feel free to submit a rename proposal through WP:RM, but I note an abundance of sources name the person, and the location is incidental, so the merits for the move are dubious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My references to BLP issues in the AfD includes the sensationalist churnalism; the BLP1E aspect is a separate issue that keep !voters do not appear to have addressed with P&Gs or support from RS. Beccaynr (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not see how that is on point to anything I said.
    I just reviewed your 20 posts to the AfD. I note that there is no evidence that you persuaded anyone. Your “references” did not achieve consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus". I was involved. I argued to keep. I was surprised by the result. I noted that slightly more voters wanted to keep (but also note some arguments were brief), but that the delete advocates also provided credible arguments. I was curious to see how this one was closed, to see what people made of my counter argument to BLP1E delete argument (but that wasn't mentioned by the closer) and I assumed it was heading towards no consensus. The "move" result did surprise me, because we were making polarised arguments and while it is never nice to fail to reach reach consensus, that appears to be the only outcome here. I don't think the current move is an improvement to the encyclopedia. I would find re-opening for more time a good outcome too, as I think we needed more input, rather than the primary contributors just repeating our polarised opinions. Peace. (P.S. I hope this is okay to comment here, I'm not an admin). CT55555 (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes. Deletion Review is open to anyone's well-reasoned opinion. Well I guess technically it's open to any opinions, but you know what I mean. Star Mississippi 13:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Following on from my comment above, and having read the comments from others, I'm now firmly of the opinion that no consensus was the correct outcome for that discussion. Move is a valid opinion, but not one that was discussed at all by the participants so the closer should have expressed that as a !vote. There wasn't consensus that the article should be about the event rather than the person, as otherwise there wouldn't have been strong arguments in favour of keeping, and most arguments made did not express an opinion one way or another. It would be an appropriate question to raise at an RM, but given comments here I don't think it would find favour. I think a new discussion would be preferable to reopening the closed one, so that arguments for and against BLP1E being met can be made without the bludgeoning that was a large part of this one. (Beccaynr you are getting dangerously close to that here). Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - Move is consistent with the original recommendation ('move or improve') of CT55555, which was only changed to keep following a poor quality argument by FormalDude, and where CT55555 continued to maintain a preference for some ATD outcome over keep. Closing with an ATD outcome that has been proposed and not refuted in the course of the AfD is defensible when neither 'keep' nor 'delete' are good outcomes. While 'no consensus' would also have been a reasonable close, I see no positive case for overturning the close that does not involve relitigating the AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CT55555 said merge, not move, so no, this closure is not consistent with their "original recommendation". Even if it was, it would still be a supervote, considering it was supported by only one editor. ––FormalDude talk 15:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are right about merge/move: I misread the !vote, as perhaps did Sandstein. You are wrong about ATD closes, however: choosing the best ATD suggested outcome is not a supervote if there is no consensus for either keep or delete. Next time, please acquaint yourself better with our policy on closing deletion discussions before lecturing DRV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A close in favor of a solution that no one even mentioned, or which was mentioned only in passing but not supported, is the definition of a supervote. If one has a solution to propose, it should be included in the discussion as a comment. If it's too late, it can be suggested in a later discussion. The extant discussion must have a close that reflects its actual contents. Clearly you are the one who's struggling to understand our policies here. ––FormalDude talk 11:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to either "no consensus" or "keep" Solid policy-based arguments were made on all sides. There was little to no discussion regarding a move so I believe restoring its original title is most appropriate. Frank Anchor 12:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I mistakenly closed this DRV too early and undid the move. I've reverted the DRV and AfD (re)closures, but not the move, so as to not to generate too much confusion. If the closure is endorsed, the article should be moved to its new title again. Sandstein 12:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, almost per Thryduulf, although it seems that some ATD outcome is appropriate and there is some value to improving the XfD record with a less toxic conclusion to that AfD. Also singling out FormalDude for overzealous behaviour in the AfD with a WP:TROUT: please cool down if and when the article is relisted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you serious? Two other contributors both commented more than me. I'm not sure what you feel the need to single me out for. ––FormalDude talk 10:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • TROUT is meant to be less serious, but since you insist on raising the temperature: if the AfD is extended and I see you carrying on as you did before, I will notify AN/I. Your behaviour was worse than editors who wrote more and injured the AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      TROUT is meant to be humorous, but with that threat, I am now laughing, so I guess it worked out. ––FormalDude talk 14:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I certainly do not see consensus that the serial murdering was notable, much less a reason to bypass RM. Overall, neither the perpetrator nor the event seems notable in light of our guidelines and the quality of sourcing found (a whole lot of primary and self-published pieces). A relist might encourage addition of other viewpoints to the discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the closer may well have reached the right outcome, but should have !voted rather than close. I'd prefer a relist (yes, I know the last one got nothing, but maybe now it will) but okay with an overturn to NC and the move being discussed on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{subst:drt|1=Spot News 18 (closed) ====

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Spot News 18 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I want to write something about this topic, allow me to write on it. Here is my write-up about this topic which I want to publish. Please check it and everything is good, then only allow me to proceed ahead if any changes or suggestions are welcomed.

Spot News 18 is a digital news publishing website and media production company.[1] It was founded on 30 June 2019, by Ashish Kumar Mishra who also serve as the CEO. The company is headquartered in Mumbai, India.[2]

Spot News 18 was one of the first digital publishers in India to offer 24-hour news coverage, and it was also one of the first all-news digital publishers at the time it was launched in 2019.[3] (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse close and this would be a G4. AfD was a sock mess, so this should only be created by an established editor and/or go through Afc. Courtesy @Liz: as closer. Star Mississippi 13:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spot News 18
Improve existing content before attempting to write new articles. Writing new articles before gaining experience improving content is too hard.
WP:Register before you start to attempt new articles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - I don't think that there is such a thing as a Speedy Endorse, but if there were, this should be done. When the review of a topic has been polluted by sockpuppetry, an unregistered editor should not be appealing the closure of an AFD. There is no error by the closer, but there is an error in this DRV request. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "'Spot News 18' Becomes The Most Preferred Website For Credible News Among Readers | 🇮🇳 LatestLY". LatestLY. 2022-02-10. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
  2. ^ "Spot News 18: Disseminating news that brings authenticity to the table". 2022-03-31. Retrieved 2022-04-04.
  3. ^ "Spot News 18 Creating New Milestones With Authentic And Credible News". OutlookIndia. 2022-03-11. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec