Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WhenDatHotlineBling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page should be restored because deleting it impedes people's ability to identify sockpuppets of WDHB, and the WMF privacy policy says we may disclose your personal information if we believe that it's reasonably necessary […] to protect [Wikipedia] users [and] to detect, prevent, or otherwise assess and address potential [...] abuse, unlawful activity. I'm going here because the last one to delete it, who says to "please email [them] before unsalting or creating", has left WP since then. As Poyekhali said, this is not WP:DENY, which is also a mere essay. Ping IanDBeacon who tried to create the page. ミラP 00:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I will leave this up to administrators, who may have a clue as to what is going on here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know what is going on here either. It's another unexpected random thing by User:Miraclepine. I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive22#DRV needing SPI opinion, this look like something that the SPI people deal with. The log appears to indicate that a vanished user wants to be emailed? I emailed him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The deleted revision of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WhenDatHotlineBling is relevant. —Cryptic 05:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion. There is absolutely no reason, no value for having this page. WDHB is an obvious LTA and we don't need a guide for how to spot him. Praxidicae (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn by nom. ミラP 16:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Helminski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My redraft of the ‘Kabir Helminski’ article was deleted by JJMC89 for copyright infringement on 16 November. Here are the details of the deletion:

03:07, 16 November 2019 JJMC89 talk contribs deleted page Draft:Kabir Helminski (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://sufism.org/threshold/kabir-camille/kabir-and-camille-helminski-threshold-society-founders-2

I asked JJMC89 if I could be given access to the article once more, explaining that in fact there was no copyright infringement. On 28 November I wrote the following message to JJMC89 to explain:

I see the source of confusion now! Kabir Helminski (with whom I have declared connection) has actually posted my entire draft article on his own website (I shared it with him). He credited is as coming from Wikipedia but did not realise that it is only a draft and therefore likely to be viewed as infringing his own copyright! If I ask him to take it down, can my article be re-considered?(Danthedervish (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC))

Kabir Helminski immediately did as I asked and deleted from his own website (www.sufism.org) the text I had created on Wikipedia. However, JJMC89 would not consider my case. Here is JJMC89’s response:

It was a mistake to undelete it the first time. I have no intention of further helping you. — JJMC89 23:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The first time JJMC89 is referring to is when the article was deleted for being considered un-noteworthy and lacking independent citations. I believe the revised article successfully resolved these issues but it was never given an opportunity to be assessed on that basis. I therefore ask that it be given one.

Please note that Kabir Helminski’s books have been published into 11 different languages by reputable publishing houses, and he has been cited as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world. One of his books (Living Presence) has become a ‘cornerstone edition’ at Tarcher (an imprint of Penguin Random House) and was recently re-published as a 25th anniversary edition. Needless to say, Kabir Helminski is willing to verify that I have not infringed his copyright. Danthedervish (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For a start if you're that close to the subject you should read WP:COI and consider whether you should be making edits about this topic. Regarding the copyright issue I think we'd need some actual evidence of your claims before restoring it. The deleted version is not suitable for mainspace without major changes even if the subject is notable, it seems to have been written to describe the subject in a very positive light, in violation of WP:NPOV. It looks like you've left the deleting admin eight separate messages about this article in the last six months, I imagine that's why the later ones didn't get responses. Hut 8.5 12:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is this about Kabir Helminski in article space, or about Draft:Kabir Helminski in draft space? The article was deleted after a deletion discussion for notability reasons. The draft appears to have been deleted for copyright infringement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion of the article if that is the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I haven't seen the draft and cannot comment, but this is not a copyright forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Arg. It sounds like the (last) reason for speedy deletion has been dealt with. Could the nom here (Danthedervish) please provide the best WP:THREE sources for this topic? If the person is notable, it might be wise for a WP:STUB to be created and then see where we get from there. If the subject doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines, there really isn't a point in moving forward. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn.

  03:07, 16 November 2019 JJMC89 (talk · contribs) deleted page Draft:Kabir Helminski (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://sufism.org/threshold/kabir-camille/kabir-and-camille-helminski-threshold-society-founders-2 | TW)

The copyright infringement is not blatant, as there is now an explanation for there being a copyright detection false positive. Undelete back to draftspace, and if there is still a problem, take it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems or WP:MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, straight "Overturn and list at WP:Copyright problems for it to be decided there". Have the closer do this, don't leave it for others' discretion. If there is or was a debatable copyright problem, run it through WP:CP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - Thank you all for your responses. To clarify, I am asking for the draft artcile (deleted on 16 Nov) to be reinstated - which is the improved version. With regard to my three best sources, below are three reputable, peer-reviewed journals which profile Kabir Helminski. I reference all three in my draft article. I have copied and pasted some sample quotes from each journal below for your ease of reference:

Marcia Hermansen, 'Hybrid Identity Formations in Muslim America: The Case of American Sufi Movements', The Muslim World, Volume 90, Spring, 2000

"Kabir Helminski is a teacher in the Mevlevi Order who studied with Samuel Lewis, Ram Das, Reshad Feild, Tosun Bayrak, and Murat Yagan, among others. Kabir and his wife Camille have received recognition as teachers of the Mevlevi way from Jelaluddin Celebi, the leader of the Mevlevi Order in Turkey. A small Sufi circle has met in Vermont for the past twenty years. Since the publication of Kabir’s book, world-wide demand for spiritual instruction has led him to design a 99-day correspondence course, which is currently being followed by several hundred persons."

Mark Sedgwick, ‘Eclectic Sufism in the Contemporary Arab World', Tidsskrift for Islamforskning 11 (1), 2017, p.65-82

"The second stream in Western Sufism is represented by the two Helminskis, who run the Threshold Society, an American Mevlevi tarīqa with branches in the United Kingdom that (like all Mevlevis) draws on Rumi (Pittman 2012, 210). Algan, a Turk, is associated with the Threshold Society. The Threshold Society originated during the later “new age” period and favors liberal interpretations of Islam; not all of its members self-identify as Muslim. Kabir Helminski, like Shah, has a background in the Gurdjieff movement (Dickson 2015, 104). The Threshold Society draws on the Mevlevi tradition as taught in contemporary Turkey as well as on Western sources, and is thus also eclectic."

Kathleen M. Moore, ‘Muslims in the United States: Pluralism under Exceptional Circumstances’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2007; 612; p. 116

"For example, Sufi Shaykh Kabir Helminski of the Mevlevi Order of Muslims has written that God has not granted a spiritual monopoly to any one religion, and that the Qur’an in fact encourages competition among people of faith to promote virtue and cooperation. Islam is uniquely situated to reconcile the various religions because it is inherently tolerant and respectful of all faiths. This type of religious pluralism prohibits the humanist rejection of the signs of God and encourages prosperity in spiritual terms within the context of American pluralism (see J. I. Smith 2006, 170)."

If further evidence is required to show that there was no copyright infringement, can somebody tell me what kind of evidence would be considered acceptable? Who would Kabir Helminski need to contact to confirm I did not breach his copyright, and how would he verify his identity if he did so? Many thanks for your help!

Danthedervish (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn speedy copyright claim has been addressed and there is at least a reasonable chance this can meet WP:N, so it isn't just bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should list this at WP:CP. On the one hand this editor's case is very reasonable and plausible and we should assume they're in good faith; but on the other hand there are good reasons why it takes more than an editor's unsupported assertion to allay concerns about infringement. The CP people will know how to deal with that question.—S Marshall T/C 05:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kulinski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't know how to do this correctly, but KYLE KULINSKI of SECULAR TALK has been deleted by bad faith actors and biases of Wikipedia contributors. He is the host of one of the most popular political podcasts and YouTube channels in the world. He has interviewed political candidates, been invited to numerous forums, and in general is an absolutely noteworthy, influential, and culturally important figure in progressive politics. Please examine why he was deleted and reinstate his page immediately. 67.175.20.66 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note this has already been WP:REFUNDed and is currently at User:Trackinfo/Kyle Kulinski. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Well, the statement by the unregistered editor that they don't know how to do this correctly is true. If the draft is accepted, it is likely that unregistered editors and throw-away accounts will take a lot of interest in it (including possibly in a fifth AFD). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, WP:DRVPURPOSE #8. —Cryptic 02:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per Cryptic. For the record, Sandstein's close was absolutely on the money. There may have been a lot of keep !voters, but they failed to demonstrate significant coverage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse- the close seemed reasonable based on the discussion. I actually saw this AfD at the time and was going to !vote keep, but the personal attacks by other keep voters put me off participating. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I was easily able to find mass media coverage which had apparently been overlooked, such as [1] that I have already added to the REFUNDed draft. Here are some more:
  • "Kyle Kulinski, a co-founder of Justice Democrats and an influential left-wing podcast host, went further. 'If democratic elites really think they’re gonna casually override the will of the voters they have another thing coming,' he said...." Bowman, Bryan (20 February 2020). "Democratic Primary: What Happens if No One Wins a Majority of Delegates?". The Globe Post.
  • "'Bloomberg literally packed the audience for cheers for himself,' said Kyle Kulinski, host of the Kyle Kulinski show...." York, Mario Koran Adam Gabbatt in New; Belam (earlier), Martin (27 February 2020). "Trump campaign sues New York Times for libel over Russia opinion piece – as it happened". The Guardian.
  • "'Stunning middle finger to democracy and the democratic base,' said journalist Kyle Kulinski of the other candidates...." Higgins, Eoin (February 20, 2020). "The Most Unnerving Moment From the Nevada Democratic Debate". Truthdig.
  • "This year’s Politicon (the annual non-partisan political convention which aims to bring 'Republicans, Democrats, and people of all stripes together...') culminated with a debate between Charlie Kirk, the founder and president of Turning Point USA, and Kyle Kulinski, the co-founder of Justice Democrats and host of The Kyle Kulinski Show." Haworth, Ian (November 4, 2019). "Why The 'All' In 'Medicare for All' Is Not The Be-All And End-All". Townhall.

Do we consider such quotations as an authority to be substantial coverage or merely mentions in passing? In contrast, here is a Rolling Stone article which mentions him in passing but does not quote him as an authority. In any case, these sources lead with his name, so they seem like substantial coverage:

• MacDonald, Tyler (25 January 2020). "Kyle Kulinski Defends Joe Rogan After Backlash For Bernie Sanders Endorsement". The Inquisitr.
• "Justice Democrats co-founder Kyle Kulinski criticized CNN and MSNBC on Thursday for failing to do as much investigative journalism into President Donald Trump as Fox News has been doing into former Vice President Joe Biden...." Nash, Charlie (3 October 2019). "Justice Democrats Co-Founder: Fox 'More Impactful' Than CNN, MSNBC, Which 'Just Whine' Over Tweets". Mediaite.
• "Following Iran’s attack on U.S. installations in Iraq, President Donald Trump addressed the nation and suggested that America does not want to use its military strength on the Western Asia country. Progressive commentator Kyle Kulinski took to Twitter to comment on the speech in real-time...." MacDonald, Tyler (8 January 2020). "Donald Trump's Speech On Iran Attack Blasted By Kyle Kulinski For Being 'Full Of Lies And Insanity'". The Inquisitr.
• "Progressive activist Kyle Kulinski said Wednesday that 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is actually 'at his best' when he shows off his famous grumpy side...." Bonn, Tess (24 July 2019). "Progressive activist: Sanders 'at his best when he's an angry old man'". TheHill.
• Pfeiffer, Eric (11 July 2017). "Kyle Kulinski Of The Young Turks Says Democrats Need To Change Before They Can Defeat Trump". GOOD.

73.222.115.101 (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only piece that you listed which may be a RS is a Guardian piece, but it's a Guardian live-feed type story where all kinds of tweets, links and random commentary are brought up. I would not say it's an indicator of notability. This would all have been pointed out to you if you had participated in the AfD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only learned about the question from news reports of the deletion. Is The Hill considered a reliable source? It seems to quote and excerpt his vlogs regularly over the past year. 2601:647:5E80:1850:1C27:C6BB:65A4:13BF (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a news report by The Hill. That's a web-show hosted on The Hill. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does that change the reliability of the source? Same editorial staff, no? EllenCT (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but allow recreation with the newly discovered sources. The close was correct based on information at the time, but with these new sources that were previously unavailable, there's a good enough case for GNG to allow recreation. Smartyllama (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: So a quick google search brings up articles in notable sources online where this person is either directly quoted 1, 2 or mentioned in passing 1 ,2, 3, has even made televised TV news appearances on FOX News 1, 2, and three (1, 2 & 3) separate appearances on one of the most popular podcasts online 1, 2, 3. Funny how I could find all these links, while the contributors supporting the deletion in the original discussion couldn't find any, especially since most of these articles have been online for the past couple of years.

 _{The Lord of Moon's Spawn  ✉}  14:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your list of RS mentions, the only RS that mention him is the Guardian piece which mentions his YouTube channel once among many channels that an NFL player likes to watch, and a Rolling Stone piece which mentions him once as one of several founders of the Justice Democrats. The rest are not RS. This would all have been pointed out to you if you had posted that comment in the AFD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy ping Snooganssnoogans (who AFD'd the article several times) and Sandstein (who closed it as delete). ミラP 16:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. The closing admin was absolutely spot-on. It was a heavily attended AfD and 'keep' voters were repeatedly encouraged to list RS that actually provided substantive coverage of this individual. None of them did. Most of the 'keep' votes had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, none of the editors calling for overturning the close in this deletion review have been able to point to substantive RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment: I stand by my closure, the reasons for which are illustrated by this DRV nomination. I leave the question of whether adequate sources for a recreation exist to others. Sandstein 17:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse good close. There was essentially no attempt by anybody to demonstrate that the subject was notable by providing actual evidence, particularly sources showing the subject meets the GNG. The most that they came up with was bald assertions of notability with no supporting evidence. The other arguments raised amounted to bringing in irrelevant considerations (YouTube views, appearances on media outlets, the fact the debate is contentious, etc) and attacking other editors. The closer was justified in ignoring this. I'm also not very impressed by the sources which have been belatedly provided above. Aside from reliability if even the person providing the source admits that the subject is only "quoted directly" or "mentioned in passing" then it clearly doesn't pass the significant coverage test of WP:GNG. Hut 8.5 19:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, and Sandstein's rationale is absolutely spot on. When someone claims a subject is not notable, there is one way to definitively refute that: Show the sourcing that proves they are. Of all the people who argued to keep, not a single one of them said "Here, look at all these sources." Given that, it's reasonable to conclude it doesn't exist. Being popular or famous doesn't make one notable; being extensively noted by reliable and independent sources does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per everyone else, which is why this exists. ミラP 00:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, and Close. Clear policy based close. Keep !voters asserted notability, but were not able to demonstrate it. NOTE: I commented in the AfD, but did not !vote. - Ryk72 ^talk 01:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Several editors are now using this DRV to relitigate the AfD. - Ryk72 ^talk 20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. AfD close was correct, given lack of evidence of in-depth significant coverage independent of the subject. Neutrality^talk 02:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is anyone entertaining this request, which comprises entirely bad faith and a misunderstanding of what DRV is for? Close. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone and Cryptic had it right when he mentioned DRVPURPOSE #8. Also, leaving these open to run 168 hours isn't ideal. While we leave it open, viewers from offsite may be getting the impression that Wikipedia could be persuaded to host an article on Mr Kulinski. I don't think it's fair to raise their hopes in this matter.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation The closer may have been procedurally correct, since the Keep votes were not particularly well grounded in policy, though the majority of votes were keep. That said, Kulinski is a notable internet personality and the sources are there for a decent article about him. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No-consensus Not a fair reading of the AfD discussion. The subject clearly passes GNG. The sources presented at AfD are convincing. Basically there is no consensus for deletion in four attempts to delete the page, yet Sandstein cast a Supervote choosing arguments which supported their own view instead of assessing the community opinion. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to one RS that provides substantive coverage of Kulinski. ONE. Just one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons to keep the article and many notability arguments which were ignored. I am unsure as two why you have been so determined to delete the article. How about WP:ENTERTAINER. "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." He has 667,618,862 million YouTube views. His appearance on Joe Rogan (Oct 2019) has 2.2 million views. The subject meets our general notability requirements and meets WP:ENTERTAINER. We do not dismiss such notable subjects. As to the RS which you request... you have systematically dismissed any and all sources which were presented by participants, so it is a fruitless endeavor for me to present RS to you. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There seems to be some kind of conspiracy. Numerous prominent progressive (democratic socialist or social democratic) figures in United States politics have had their Wikipedia pages deleted within the past few days. This is likely a politically motivated attack related to Bernie Sanders’ recent ascent in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, as many of these progressive figures have endorsed him. In defense of Kyle Kulinski, he has 807,000 subscribers and 666,131,830 views on his YouTube channel, 284,500 followers on Twitter, and was the co-founder of the Justice Democrats (the group which supported Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's campaign). He has been on the Joe Rogan Experience three times, a podcast which has interviewed globally prominent figures such as Elon Musk, Robert Downey Jr., Sam Harris, and Bernie Sanders. The Inquisitr has already written an article about this concerted attempt to diminish his reputation: https://www.inquisitr.com/5913483/kyle-kulinski-wikipedia. Even Jimmy Wales (User: Jimbo_Wales) has directly responded to Kulinski's concerns on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1232828301082841088. Clearly, he meets all criteria for cultural relevance, other than by Wikipedia’s arcane and archaic standards which dismiss the importance of people who have risen to prominence on YouTube and other social media platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.20.66 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. Per Sandstein's rationale. It is incredibly frustrating that we are re-litigating this issue. Just take a look at the comment above mine, which might as well have been ripped directly from one of the AfDs, which was swamped by Kulinski's army of ill-informed Twitter activists. This is tiresome. If I'm a neoliberal troll for supporting Wikipedia policy, then I am glad to accept that label. KidAd (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have resubmitted the Draft:Kyle Kulinski for review based on the WP:ENTERTAINER following size criteria, the sourcing propriety misunderstanding explanation, and a search interest comparison. EllenCT (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal, but the article has already been re-created in draft space, and rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close because the article has already been re-created. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Will someone please either nominate the draft for deletion or move the draft to article space and nominate the article for deletion? The re-litigating should be done in an XFD, not here at Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The thing is now a wounded animal that needs to be shot. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I contested the draft's speedy deletion nomination, replaced the deleted resubmision rationale, and because {{salt}}ing was requested, I stored the wikitext in [2]. EllenCT (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It must be very difficult to close a discussion that has been the subject of partisan disruption, but here the closer made the correct call. As with any topic the article can easily be recreated if the topic is notable simply by citing the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that people are claiming to exist. I must add that it makes a refreshing change for Wikipedia to be accused of bias by those on the left - it is usually the far right who make such accusations. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several notable sources have been mentioned above which are routinely dismissed by those favoring delete. But here are a couple more [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and several others including the Washington Post which called him an "influential podcast host". At the very least this should not be allowed to speedy close, as some on the above editors have stated. The draft article should be allowed to incubate, though that's not likely to happen since it is "contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia" (whatever that means). The fact remains that sources are not especially difficult to come by and Sandstein's close, while perhaps correct, should probably have been No consensus. I honestly don't like the response of some in the Endorse camp (not necessarily Phil Bridger) who are very dismissive of Kulinski and some of his supporters on here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Frustrated AfD participant here. It says something about the article that someone needed to nominate for deletion 4 times and then it took a Supervote to delete it. A fair reading of the fourth AfD is a clear Keep - and if you think it is not a keep then it is certainly a no-consensus. For the record there were 13 keep !votes some with compelling rationales and there were 6 Delete !votes and some had good rationales. Sandstein chose to ignore clear community opinion. The fact that we need to go to these lengths in order to scrub the article from existence should be reason enough to pause. This is not how AfD is supposed to work IMO. Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close per Cryptic. Honestly the only reason why we are here and why we got to this many AfD's is because of Kulinski's canvassing Twitter (this DRV was requested just hours after this tweet). That being said I do not oppose allowing a draft to go through the AfC process, preferably under heightened scrutiny of sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Request would someone neutral on the question please summarize the extent to which political views are pertinent to WP:ENTERTAINER? Have we declared others with similarly large followings non-notable? EllenCT (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AfD was properly run and closed. Respect it for at least six months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good job not just counting votes. – bradv🍁 06:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not a fan of the canvassing that happened at the AfD, and I think the closer did a commendable job of ignoring them. But I'm also not a fan of the canvassing that happened here either (see below). All that aside, I don't think there's any reason we can't recreate the article should new sources appear. – bradv🍁 02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Kulinski was just featured in the Jacobin, which directly mentions the controversy on this page: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/03/kyle-kulinski-bernie-bros-secular-talk-joe-rogan-youtube. Again, Jimmy Wales (User: Jimbo_Wales) directly responded to him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/1234741084393287680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.20.66 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a piece of gentle advice, invoking Jimmy Wales is more likely to influence people against your position than in favour of it. His Twitter posts are no more reliable sources than anyone else's, and he is well known for supporting D-list "celebrities" who deign to talk to him at cocktail parties. I'm not saying that that has happened here, but it demonstrates why his opinion counts for very little on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a piece of gentle advice, WP:NPA is still policy at Wikipedia, and in addition to being manifestly false in all relevant particular, your comment is rude and insulting. First, no one suggested that my twitter posts are reliable sources to that's a straw man argument. Second, not only am I not well known for "supporting D-list 'celebrities' who deign to talk to (me) at cocktail parties" there is a reason why I'm not well known for that: it's an utter bald-faced lie. In general my opinion tends to count for a great deal at Wikipedia but for no other reason than that I am a good Wikipedian who deeply respects and defends NPOV and policy based reasons to do things in all cases. I highly recommend that you retract your comment, and that if you have any specific complaints you bring it to my talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you're a fan of citing NPA, perhaps you care to chime in at the MFD where you have a group of editors, including the one below accusing anyone in opposition of having an ulterior motive and demanding to know their political alignment? Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am pleased to see that the accuracy or reliability of Jacobin has never been challenged at WP:RSN, and has a circulation of about what Kulinski achieved in viewership over the past ten hours of his most recent video. EllenCT (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. This was a good close based on what was available at the time. But we now have a new RS which is a profile piece with statements clearly establishing notability, as well as people saying that there are previously overlooked reliable sources. This is a sufficient policy-based rationale to allow for a new draft to be put forward for improvement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse good close, being spoken about in passing mentions does not equate to in-depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Buchanan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted for concerns that are no longer valid. His most notable role is no longer as a supporting character on Designated Survivor (TV series). A couple months after the page was deleted, Buchanan get a main role Cobra Kai and has been part of the main cast for two seasons and soon to be a third and likely more. Buchanan was also the subject of reliable source coverage in an interview with The Blade (Toledo, Ohio) and was part of a The Hollywood Reporter article, both of which I sourced here. Mikeyshaw (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. I'm not up on the details of notability standards for actors, but with a two year old AfD and a claim that the concerns raised at the AfD no longer apply, there's no reason not to go ahead and recreate the article. My one suggestion is that before you do that, take a look at WP:NACTOR and make sure he meets the requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation Times change and notability evolves, there's no reason this individual can't be considered for an article now, AFD isn't rigid and forever. KaisaL (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Team Handball Conference (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two years ago my article about the Southeast Team Handball Conference (SETHC) was deleted. The reason of the Afd was "No secondary coverage from independent sources." In the meantime I found some articles from independent newspapers:

• The Atlanta Constitution
  • 1998
• The Greenville News
  • 1997
  • 1997
  • S.1 & S.2 2003
• The Index-Journal
  • S.1 & S.2 1997
  • 1997 (Detail)
  • 1997
  • 1999
  • 1999

Furthermore I learned that the SETHC was part of the NCAA Emerging Sports for Women program and they were supported by the NCAA. Are this articles enough to recreate the SETHC page?

@James Allison, Atlantic306, Ammarpad, and K.e.coffman: were the other AfD contributors. Malo95 (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of those on their own are very significant coverage. I have no problem if someone wants to restore the draft of the article for you to work on, but I probably wouldn't accept an article that featured only these sources. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but allow recreation/restoration. Endorse because the old AfC was obviously closed correctly. But, two years have passed and some reasonable sources have been located. I agree with User:SportingFlyer that these sources are marginal, and may not hold up in a second AfD, but they're certainly enough to get past WP:G4, which is really all we require for a rewrite. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draft the AfD close was correct but as new sources have been found it seems fair to put it in draftspace for improvement or start fresh, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but Allow Review of Draft since this appears to be a request to resubmit rather than an appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. At two years old, at 6 months even, you are allowed to recreate the article using new sources that overcome the AfD reasons for deletion. If you're not sure, use draftspace/WP:AFC. You can start again from scratch, or use WP:REFUND to work from the deleted version. Do not come to DRV unless the REFUND request is refused. DRV will not protect the new mainspace version from being immediately AfD-ed. DRV will not help you pass AfC submission. DRV is for examining the old process and decision to delete, and there were no problem. The proffered sources here are thin with respect to direct coverage of the topic. You will waste less time, yours and others, if you follow the advice at WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The original AfD was correct. I started this deletion review because of reason three "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" but it seems this was the wrong place. Sorry. Would an administrator please recreate the article as draft and I would use a WP:AFC. --Malo95 (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piano Concerto No. 5 (E flat Major) - Movement 1 - Allegro.mid (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is an old one, but it's not clear from the FFD page whether the referenced OTRS ticket included a claim of originality in the content, or merely asserted a claim of copyright over the MIDI file. (Deleting admin no longer active.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the merits, but Pigsonthewing you might want to ask at WP:OTRSN for someone to check the ticket. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly suspect this is copyrighted. The score is in the public domain and it's being played by a piece of software, but if there's any creativity or judgement at all in how the software was set up then it would be easy for whoever made the file to claim copyright on it. Hut 8.5 12:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're arguing for a blanket rule that MIDI files of PD scores are copyright, then this is not the forum for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what I said. However if we aren't reasonably sure that something is public domain or available under a free licence then we shouldn't restore it. Here that would include information about how the file was created, which we don't have (the uploader didn't create it themselves). Hut 8.5 20:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (OTRS agent) ticket:2011020310016284 does not make any copyright claim for this file. It is a permission statement for c:File:Beethoven Piano Concerto No 5 Movement 1.ogg, c:File:Beethoven Piano Concerto No 5 Movement 2.ogg, and c:File:Beethoven Piano Concerto No 5 Movement 3.ogg as derivative works of File:Piano Concerto No. 5 (E flat Major) - Movement 1 - Allegro.mid, File:Piano Concerto No. 5 (E flat Major) - Movement 2 - Adagio un poco mosso.mid, and File:Piano Concerto No. 5 (E flat Major) - Movement 3 - Rondo - Allegro ma non troppo.mid, respectively. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sure that in some situations, a MIDI file of a piece in the public domain could be subject to copyright. If any actual work was done other than a direct machine translation of the sheet music that required a human decisions, it may be (and probably is) copyrightable. That said, it sounds like we have a permission statement from the creator. Assuming the ORTS release is otherwise believable, it sounds like there is no copyright based reason to delete this file. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment from JJMC89 doesn't say there's a permission statement from the creator, it says that there's a permission statement for some other file as a deriviative work of this one. Which is bad, because if this one is copyrighted then it means that one is as well. The deleted description page says the uploader got it from here, which is selling the file for money. I doubt they're OK with someone uploading it to Wikipedia for everyone to use for free. Hut 8.5 18:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That someone is selling a file does not mean that it is not PD; we don't need them to be "OK", if it is PD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do need evidence that it is PD though. The only evidence provided by the uploader was If I understand correctly, midi's of classical music cannot be copyrighted...Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure they are wrong for the reason I gave above. It's not impossible that the file is PD, but we don't have the necessary evidence. Hut 8.5 22:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • What evidence would you like? Beethoven's death certificate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, details of what went into creating the file. From the legal page S Marshall linked below: a manually encoded MIDI or a captured performance in which the creator chooses instruments, their relative volumes, their pitches, and/or the timing of the composition could arguably succeed at overcoming the originality threshold. If that occurs, the MIDI would be a copyright protected derivative sound recording. We don't know if the creator did any of that. Hut 8.5 18:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Meta:Wikilegal/MIDI_Files. I think the original uploader was mistaken about US copyright law and SchuminWeb was right to delete it. I'm afraid that the derivative works also need to be deleted: sorry.—S Marshall T/C 00:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis? As has already been noted, this is a machine rendering of a PD score, not an interpretive performance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the basis that the page I linked to sets out the current WMF legal dept's position on the copyright status of midi files in the US. I am neither a lawyer nor an American, so US law is hardly my bailiwick. I'm very open to the possibility that I'm wrong. Can you provide a source that shows that midi files aren't copyrightable in the US?—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean the page that says it is arguably questionable whether the use of software alone to translate a musical score into a MIDI file without any input or creative decisions (e.g. instrument types as opposed to file names) would contain more than a trivial amount of originality? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I do mean the complex and nuanced page that contains that snippet. I think it needs to be read in context, though. But there's hope in that thought, isn't there? Someone may be able to convert Beethoven's score into a midi file using automated tools and upload the result to Commons under a free licence, thereby resolving the whole issue.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Tiedtke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was about to prod/AfD it myself, then I reviewed the old AfD and... seems like an improper closure. One vote for deletion is not the same as no consensus. It might have been relisted again, but overall, the consensus is pretty clear, isn't it? No arguments for deletions where refuted, and instead they were endorsed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Take to AfD. I almost certainly would have closed it as WP:SOFTDELETE, but as a practical matter, we're not going to overturn a four year old AfD. For all we know, in the past four years, he's done enough that he's notable now, and AfD is the place to figure that out. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disapprove of close, but...  Looks like a duck to me—in other words, it looks like a soft delete—however, as RoySmith pointed out, circumstances may have changed. Maybe or, more likely, probably not. Nonetheless, I think you've got a stronger case for AfD now as you can say that the two participants in the previous deletion concurred with deletion and that it was erronenously closed as no consensus. Doug Mehus T·C 15:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• He appears darn likely to be notable. [8] is strong IMO. [9] isn't nothing. There are a few more. On the merits of the close, I agree with Roy. But I think we are better off improving the article than deleting it. Hobit (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as Overtaken by AFD - Let the new AFD decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as Overtaken by AFD (pragmatic) - per Robert McClenon. (Just passing and taken a peek). However I am minded AfD's should not be opened while a DRV is in determination and if that is what has happened AfD nom. should be warning. But per RoySmith the prior AfD was 4 years ago so and we've noted likely should have been SOFTDELETE best let the current AfD run; albeit possibly improperly raised.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Historic BADNAC for sure. Take it to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BJP Mahila Morcha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New information. WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination did not explicitly stated this is the Women's wing (I believe Mahila Morcha (Hindi) can translate as Women's Front) of the Bharatiya Janata Party, one of the two major parties of India (population 900 million). When presented like that it is difficult to see how notability is almost certain to be inherent, especially as seemed to have been formed in 1980 with a hierarchial structure with 75% of 406 districts having local branches c. 1998. (oclc=654547053 pg 99-100) The organisation has had significant exposure recently, per [10]. I have not seen the article in question but the closer has been urged not to draftify it for me on their talk page so undeletion is controversial. I find unbelief this was not retained for improvement or in all events a redirect, the fact it is not seems to worryingly indicate a flawed AfD. Closer has given me the go ahead to go to DRV, that should not be implied that they agree with my case and they may well disagree with it, but please note closer seems busy with important commitments in RL which we need to respect. Subject use-case is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Mahila Congress which is the women's wing for the other major party (I think) which is how I came to realise this was deleted. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: temp-undelete requested, albeit I have some trepidation with what will appear.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. That's a... heckuva history for what amounts to three sentences of prose. —Cryptic 21:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for temp-undelete. 10 years of history and isn't even worthy of a cleanup tag for a month or two per WP:BEFORE criteria c.3 before landing route one at AfD! I can work with it though, its got good boilerplate templating, and its not cloudbusting my superforecasting.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Due to events I am recusing from this discussion and may or may not longer participate in any future AfD discussion. I have to be minded of the risk of discretionary sanctions if I continue. I may also choose not assist in attempts to improve the article. It is unclear to me if others would wish to take this up, but a REFUND or RELIST on my account is no longer necessary. I apolgoise to the closer and participants for raising this DRV. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - The closer did not make an error in closing as Delete after one week, but with a request to re-open, relisting seems like the course of wisdom, rather than either just endorsing or overturning. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to allow for more input. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I had participated in the AfD. The closer has done a good job of closing the AfD to reflect the clear consensus of the participants. The concern was lack of sources that prove independent notability. Even the new link that has been presented above is a news link covering the controversial statement of an office bearer. Politicians are known to make such comments on daily basis and some of them find coverage in news. This article above is entirely based on the org's Press release doesn't even talk about the Org, quite far from passing WP:ORGCRIT. I see no reason to not endorse the close. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is judged based on the coverage of an org, not the population of a country. The party BJP is notable, but the same notability is not automatically WP:INHERITED by its numerous sub orgs. As per the criteria of DRV, I note that there was no procedural errors in the closure of the AfD, the closer judged consensus correctly and there is no significant new information that has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and Relist- this was a sparsely attended AfD so, even though I can't find fault with the closer, I also have no issue with it being listed for another week. Reyk _YO! 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. A discussion this sparsely attended should have either been relisted or closed as WP:SOFTDELETE. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but amend result to soft delete WP:REFUND applies, to which any editor can request undeletion. If there wasn't a lot of participation, I see no basis for relisting. Just let it be undeleted and wait for someone to invariably re-nominate it for AfD. Let's skip the bureaucracy. Doug Mehus T·C 00:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as it could benefit for some more discussion. The closing decision to delete was not wrong as there were no keep votes. However, for the women's wing of a major political party in India, a bit of discussion would be helpful.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per RoySmith....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and I'd argue it probably should have been relisted the first time around. Hobit (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above arguments - I know it's lazy, but I agree with RoySmith and Robert McClenon and have nothing more to add, but want to add to the consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but as redirection. The topic is the "women's wing" of the Bharatiya Janata Party. This is important, but first it is the internal structure of the Bharatiya Janata Party. It needs coverage in its own section of Bharatiya Janata Party before there is justification of spinning it out. It appears to have little recognition, if any, outside of the context of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Add content to Bharatiya Janata Party#Organisation and structure.

Overturn the deletion, due to the obvious redirect target, and the failure of WP:BEFORE #C, #4. Allow merging from the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 1151 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Now in the news, so apparently relevant. bender235 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The general rule is that with an AfD that's a year and a half old, and new sources having become available in the meantime, there's nothing to bar anybody from recreating the article, without needing to drag it through DRV. I do suggest you look at WP:NASTCRIT and make sure you satisfy that first. It says you need (point #3), multiple, non-trivial published works. The above article is one. Nobody's quite sure what "multiple" means, but it's usually taken to be two or three, so make sure you've got two and three and you're good to go. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Bender235: A couple of quick points in addition to the ones made above by RoySmith. First before opening a Deletion Review it is customary to discuss the matter first with the deleting admin. In this case that would probably have saved a lot of unnecessary trouble as I would have just told you to recreate the article provided that you were satisfied it now passes our notability guidelines. Secondly the only question that is normally addressed at a deletion review for a page deleted as a result of an AfD is whether or not the deleting admin's interpretation of the discussion and consensus was reasonable. In this case I stand by my close. I would gently encourage you to withdraw your request for a review and just go ahead and recreate the article per the advice from RoySmith. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to recreate the article from scratch when it already existed. Why would I do that? --bender235 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bender235, How about I restore the old deleted article to your userspace, you can work on it there, and whenever you feel it's ready, you can move it back to mainspace? If that works for you, I'll do that and close this DRV.

Astronomy isn't my field of expertise, so I don't see how I would be able to improve this article beyond what is already there. All I wanted was to point out the fact that this particular star now is "relevant," so the article should be restored. --bender235 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is a request to overturn the deletion; either Delete or No Consensus would have been valid closes. As per User:RoySmith, go ahead and either create the article or create the draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation- there was nothing wrong with the original close, but this star seems to have become notable later. Reyk _YO! 19:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question @Robert McClenon and Reyk: do you mean by "[a]llowing recreation" in Draft: namespace, that Bender235 can go to WP:REFUND and request undeletion to the Draft: namespace, and not have to recreate it? The existing AfD decision would, of course, still stand, but just thought I'd add this question to the record, should that be the case. Doug Mehus T·C 23:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with that, but I like to make a distinction between overturning a close because the closer messed it up and allowing re-creation because the situation later changed. Reyk _YO! 23:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it's important to distinguish that. This would not in any way alter the original AfD decision. Doug Mehus T·C 00:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow WP:REFUND, whether to userspace, draftspace or mainspace, on the basis of new sources. For cases like this, WP:REFUND should be tried before DRV. I think the AfD failed a BEFORE investigation of a possible merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see the issue: I went to the wrong place for this matter. --bender235 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no. Often, administrators will not allow restoration if the AfD result as a clear "delete," so you might've had to make a trip to DRV anyway to request that we permit restoration. Nevertheless, it probably wouldn't have hurt to have tried asking at WP:REFUND first, which is, I think, what SmokeyJoe was getting at? Doug Mehus T·C 01:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a simple request to access a deleted page, and the intention is to overcome the old reasons for deletion as opposed to challenging the old decision to delete the old page, then ask at WP:REFUND. See DRVPURPOSE, #NOT, #9. Only if the request is declined at WP:REFUND, then go to DRV for a formal discussion. Reasons for refusing at REFUND have included: a history of bad recreations; a contentious or controversial topic. I think this topic would be readily REFUNDed to userspace or draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation at WP:REFUND The close seems reasonable on the basis of a strict nosecount, without even assessing the arguments. The two "keep" !votes would've had to have had outstandingly rock solid and convincing arguments to get this even to a "no consensus" territory. Thus, the closure seems fine, but since we're not a bureaucracy, allow Bender235 to reference this DRV thread when requesting restoration to main namespace, draft namespace, or elsewhere, as SmokeyJoe said. Doug Mehus T·C 00:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation per Reyk. Close itself was fine. SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy (Black Christmas) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Request to re-create a stand-alone article to be reviewed and then accepted (Original AFD was nine years ago) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:Paleface Jack has developed new draft of a stand-alone article. I was almost ready to accept the draft, but at this point I think I have become involved as a proponent, and should let another reviewer review the draft once permission is given for the review. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The history of the afd'd article is at Billy Lenz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); it's been recreated and reredirected multiple times in the intervening years. —Cryptic 17:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Thank you, User:Cryptic. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Addressing the name and redirect, I felt that the article's name itself (Billy Lenz) was improper since that name is referring to the remake character's name rather than the original character's commonly referred name (My research into that name uncovered that the character was never even listed in the end credits, and people just decided to call him "Billy" because of the dialogue at the end of the film). By having the original article as Billy Lenz, it defined the character by the remake and not the original. With that said, when I was working on expanding the article in a userspace draft, the original article was unfortunately deleted, and looking over one of the older consensuses, the discussion was that there were not enough sources that constituted its own separate article. That in itself improperly reached since the original article was developed so badly, mostly consisting of a plot summary. Since then I have been working on expanding the revision draft and have come up with 24 literary sources and twice that much in web sources, which all discuss the character, their significance, and development. I hope this will all clarify everything and help the article be reinstated in its new and improved state, please let me know if I have not covered something and I will do my best to address it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm confused. There's a nine-year old AfD, a title that's not salted, and a draft being reviewed. Why does this need DRV involvement? If you feel you're not able to review the draft, leave it for somebody else to review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong forum. Spinout. Get consensus at Talk:Black Christmas (1974 film). Do not allow spinout drafting in secret from the parent page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is Draft:Billy (Black Christmas). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one posting it. The user reviewing the submission did. They just wanted me to discuss it here and at the other talk page since it was a redirect and its consensus to do so was controversial. I will post more to the other forum as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have mainspaced the draft, now at Billy (Black Christmas). The question was not in scope for DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe has, as is sometimes the case, probably been right on the merits, but quite unpleasant about being right. Thank you for reviewing. Also thank you for not being a regular AFC reviewer and therefore not frequently biting the newbies. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This deletion discussion was closed as "no consensus," when it probably should have been closed as "delete." Despite the vote count slightly favoring keep (13-18), consensus is not a vote and the arguments in favor of deletion were far stronger than the arguments for keeping it (against deletion). This article has been nominated three times and there has been canvassing for votes in favor of keeping the article. However, many of the "keep" votes offer underdeveloped points, make off-topic or opinionated analysis, or are conclusory without support in sources. I believe an objective third opinion here is necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interaction that I believe exemplifies the point I made above. This is taken from the last discussion. The editor arguing against makes valid points for deletion and notes the dearth of coverage in objective sources. The editor responding, who voted keep, misses the distinction being pointed out between objective news articles and op-eds, and seems to suggest the editor arguing for deletion is merely voting delete over a "content disagreement."

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Delete - I should also point out several problems with this article. It doesn't cover any year before 2015. Apparently, Bernie served for decades in Congress before there was suddenly any bias, which magically appeared in 2015. There were articles published about him like "The Socialist Senator". Additionally, there is no mention about articles which talk about how a significant portion of his supporters attack other people online. Finally, notable coverage in 2020 is insignificant, it seems. Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders#2020_primary_campaign

None of those things would make the article notable however, as most of it is not highly significant. — Ylevental (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders wasn't a presidential candidate, before 2015. Thus the reason he got little to no national negative coverage. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Delete - In addition to all of the cases I made in the original deletion discussion, it's worth pointing out again that this article is a clear WP:POVFORK. Editors who voted against deletion all expressed the same POV: that Sanders is the subject of some kind of conspiracy by the media. Saying that there are numerous sources when nearly all of them are op-eds is misleading at best, and several of the oppose votes were just personal attacks against me or anger that the article was being re-AfD'd (previous nom ended the same way, without consensus). --WMSR (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Delete - In addition to the above, it's clear that there was WP:CANVAS going on (judging from the offsite notification, the arguments made by the 'keep' participants, etc. "Not a ballot" belonged on this page, both as a reminder to users hearing about the AfD, but to admins as well that such activity was going on and that should be factored into the consensus. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Point of Order - I believe the 3 editors above have used the wrong statement. 'Endorse' is support of the Closer decision. The substance of the comments conflicts with that. Slywriter (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Options are relist, delete, or endorse. Seems like the above editors are "endorsing deletion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I personally support Delete. Ylevental (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: on a point of order, there are technically just two options - endorse or overturn. Within overturn though, you would usually stipulate which of the usual AFD outcomes to overturn to. That includes Relist, Delete, Keep, No consensus, Redirect, Merge, Move. Obviously in this case you can't overturn to "no consensus" as that was the closer's decision, but any of the others are available, including "keep", which means you think there was an active consensus for that.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I've struck my comment so as not to cause any confusion. I think that this discussion actually includes a number of "merge" votes if we consider than an option. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. That discussion could not be closed as "delete", not even close. See advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RENOM is not policy. That page contains recommendations, not requirements. In addition, the problems that afflicted the last discussion were also endemic to the first and second. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to my sympathies, but a horrid mess of a discussion like that, with very weak !votes on both sides, cannot be massaged into a consensus to delete. If you like, you can have my sympathy.

The nominator makes a very weak nomination. A number of statements that don't go to deletion. The string "seems to have" in a nomination statement is a sure sign of an inadequate deletion rationale. The nominator needs to be sure of his facts. "Some of this content may be merged ..." is a technical reason to not delete, see WP:MAD. "is far from encyclopedic" and NPOV issues usually are fixed by editing, not deletion. "my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed" is a statement implying a need for dispute resolution. WP:AfD is not a good forum for dispute resolution.

A click on the AfD google link gives two strong notability-attesting sources, 1 & 2.

I advise you to read the advice at WP:RENOM. If you still think this needs deletion, then slow down, and write a better deletion rationale for a new AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a poor job at summarizing the rationale behind the deletion arguments, which are 1) that this article is primarily a WP:POVFORK giving superfluous, short-shrift to opposing views and 2) that this is not a significant enough topic to warrant a spinoff article. The two sources you provided discussing Sander's media coverage are case in point: both are second-tier outlets at best, Inquisitor and Boston.com, warranting at most a brief mention in the main page, not a spinoff article. The rest of the sources included in this page, which is at the same time relatively short but and lacking in much substance, are roughly on par with those, and primarily opinion editorials. Opinion editorials do not carry weight for notability because they are the opinion of a single person.

As for the discussion itself, the arguments in favor of deletion, show far more grounding in policy and careful analysis of sources. The arguments against deletion, almost as if they had been the result of canvassing, offer little-to-no rationale other than declarative statements of "notability," despite the fact that there are few reliable sources on this matter to provide factual information. This has nothing to do with any form of dispute resolution other than those offered by WP:AFD review, and given the problems apparent in both deletion discussion, disregarding the suggested guidelines in WP:RENOM seems appropriate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a poor job at summarizing the rationale. That is my skim reading of the AfD nomination statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You note the "dearth of coverage in objective sources", except there is no such thing as "objective media" (most so-called "reliable" sources are corporate-owned and profit-driven). CompactSpacez (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can guess where this one is going. This is not the place for socio-political arguments about the media. The distinction is between objective news reporting, which involve the discretion of paper editorial boards, and op-eds, which reflect the opinion of a single person. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse the closest thing to consensus here is that the article needs fixing. It might need protecting (I'll leave it to people who understand our protection rules and the state of the article better) from partisan editors. But there was no consensus, numeric or policy-based, for deletion that I can see. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the "merge" side had it, on the strength of the arguments. But I won't fault the close as "no consensus". That's what we tell sysops to do when there isn't a consensus, so it seems harsh to give them grief when they follow the instructions.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in part. You make a reasonable point about rules admins are subject to, but when one side's arguments are noticeably stronger, and there's evidence of canvassing for keeping, I think policy permits -- and perhaps requires -- that that side be considered to have formed the consensus. Votes can be misleading and don't carry much weight, esp. in closure discussions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• From the large number of times you've posted in this discussion, I would tend to suspect that you might be very concerned about the outcome. It's up to you, but I do suggest that you consider not replying quite so much.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - It would've been a good idea to include more of a closing statement, but I think most admins would probably close it as no consensus. Merge still seems like the strongest argument to me, and few people addressed why it needs a stand-alone article, but I wouldn't say there's consensus for that (indeed only a couple people explicitly advocated for it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure as No Consensus. The only real question seems to be whether to trout the appellant. The appellant seems to be arguing that the closer was obligated to supervote and delete, and that the closer erred somehow in recognizing the Keep arguments. If that is what the appellant is saying, then the appellant either is demanding that the closer supervote, or is re-litigating. If the appellant is saying something else, then they need to re-explain what the else is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address this briefly because it's directed at me and is a misrepresentation. 1) Nowhere do I suggest that the closer was "obligated" to "supervote." The closer is obligated to make a decision based on the strength of the arguments, not tally votes. I do not believe this policy was followed here. The "keep" votes are cursory and in many cases follow arguments that are textbook arguments to avoid on deletion discussions. The votes to keep are more in-depth and offer an analysis of sources. See above for specifics. 2) The purpose of an AFD review is to request the review of an admin's closure. Doing so is not trouting or "re-litigating" (pejorative). It is a valid use of process. WP:AGF. So far, two of the "endorse" votes have taken to attacking me personally rather than honestly addressing the arguments by myself and others above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as no consensus. I noted early on that one of the editors questioned GoodDay's argument that the mainstream mass media and DNC are opposed to Sanders winning. That right there is, perhaps, the strongest argument for why this article should exist, and it is disingenuous to suggest GoodDay's argument is "not valid" because GoodDay didn't cite a wiki shortcut. Notability of the topic is not in question, so it can exist. WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability, as I understand it, aren't, in themselves, reasons for deletion by dynamite. They are reasons for cleanup. Even some of those favouring deletion used bolded !votes in favour of merging, which is a variant on "keep." I'd argue it's, perhaps, closer to a "keep" or "merge" than "no consensus," but I'm not going to fault the closer for that. No consensus is an appropriate outcome in this case, given the strength of the arguments on, and the nosecount of, both sides. Doug Mehus T·C 19:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noted early on that one of the editors questioned GoodDay's argument that the mainstream mass media and DNC are opposed to Sanders winning. That right there is, perhaps, the strongest argument for why this article should exist... WP:USEFUL. A classic example of an argument that is not relevant to a deletion discussion.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC's Chris Matthews basically called Sanders a communist. Then there's James Carville. CNN over-covered Klobachar's third place finish in New Hampshire. CNN & other mainstream media continue to push the Buttigieg won Iowa narrative. Then we have the tone-deaft CNN debate question on 'sexism'. I don't have any control over whether this article is kept or not. But my goodness, do we need to have the heads of MSNBC, CNN & other mainstream news media, come out & announce that their news networks are against Sanders? GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of WP:SOAPBOXING that has tainted each of the deletion discussions. A strongly held POV is not a basis to do an end-run about Wikipedia's sourcing and notability policies. I'll also note that this statement includes an implicit acknowledgement that the subject of this article lacks notability measured according to reliable source coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No consensus was clearly the right way to close this AfD, as while a good portion of Keep votes were declaring that it should stay because it was true and not citing any relevant policy, a good proportion of Delete votes were stating that because it cannot be proven that the media contains a bias against Bernie Sanders, an article on the Media coverage of him does not deserve to exist, regardless of coverage of the topic. The discussion itself was clearly a No consensus result. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus. DR lister claims: "the arguments in favor of deletion were far stronger than the arguments for keeping it." That is patent POV in itself. Inclusion in the encyclopedia shouldn't be determined based on how loudly or persistently some group that is opposed to the content, but on both the policy of WP as well as the spirit of the encyclopedia. It simply doesn't make sense to use POV to argue POV. Incidentally, it's quite exhilarating the effort put in by a few people to WP:SNOWBALL the article by abusing the DR process. If that doesn't concern anyone, I don't know what would. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Most of the above !votes to overturn are just attempting to relitigate the AfD. That's not what DRV is for. It's clear there was no conesnsus, maybe even consensus to keep, but certainly not consensus to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Repeating a pattern from the last AFD nom, a number of endorsers of the closure are attacking me personally as the review nominator or (unironically) making accusations of POV or "abuse of process/re-litigation." Use of the AfD review process is not an abuse, and disagreement over the conclusion of an AfD is not POV. These attacks should be stricken, IMO. Votes against the closure in this discussion have identified two serious problems with the afd: 1) canvassing and 2) the apparent reliance on a vote count, rather than assessment of the arguments. Even the endorse votes have acknowledged these issues, particularly that the delete votes had the better of the arguments. As with AfD, an AfD review is not a vote count. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so determined to nuke that article? GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting your arguments is not a personal attack. In fact, it's the exact opposite of a personal attack and is exactly what WP:NPA says to do when you disagree with another editor. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For what it's worth, any time someone challenges whether something is notable because it's titled media coverage of x, I know, immediately, it's almost certainly notable because there's almost certainly reliable, independent source coverage of the topic. The case could be made for an article on Media coverage of Pete Buttigieg, written neutrally and objectively and within the confines of WP:BLP, Media coverage of Joe Biden, Media coverage of Donald Trump, and you get the idea. What this article may need is cleanup; not deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 22:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD delete arguments noted that the problem was a lack of reliable sources independently addressing the subject. Sourcing is external to WP, so it is false to frame this as a just a cleanup issue. Further, most of the reliable sources in this article discuss the subject, Bernie Sanders, primarily in the context of his contemporaries, not on his own. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Doug Mehus.  As I mentioned in the talk page, this article could be cleaned up by replacing several of the sources with the Colombia Journalism Review piece, "Coverage of Bernie Sanders suffers from a lack of imagination".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is an extremely notable topic with no shortage of reliable sources (there are a bazillion of them like this coming out essentially daily now), which should raise a parade of red flags about why a handful of editors keep trying to get the article deleted. This is well past ridiculous. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: You are free to raise any "red flag" you like at WP:ANI. I'd suggest you read WP:AGF on your way there. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A notably aggressive response. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I concur with the above; this reminds me, a bit, of the Megxit AfD, with those arguing for deletion or redirection claiming it was "tabloid gossip" and unencyclopedic and, thus, not notable. It closed as "keep," but thankfully, none of the dissenters brought it to DRV. This DRV needs closure, and that's about it. There's not a snowball's chance in hell this topic ever gets deleted; cleaned up, most likely. Merged, maybe. Deleted, never. Doug Mehus T·C 23:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The argument in the past deletion nomination identifying this article as a WP:POVFORK is supported by discussions present at Bernie Sanders. Wherever editors are unable to obtain consensus for piling on more material on bias against Bernie Sanders the candidate, all of a sudden it magically is dumped into this page. That, along with the extremely limited "fourth wall" mentions of the Bernie Sanders campaign's complaints, and the fact that no other such page exists for another political candidate, all clearly weigh against keeping this page. The fact that these arguments were dismissed in favor of cursory votes and conclusory statements about notability (WP:ITSNOTABLE) or the "need" for such an article to serve the greater good (WP:USEFUL) is why the past discussion should be subjected to a more rigorous and objective review. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're beating a WP:DEADHORSE in your attempts to get the article-in-question deleted. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Personally, I think the article should be deleted. But, I can't argue with the closing. O3000 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the no consensus viewpoint - not sure any other close would have been anywhere near as appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The delete proposer claimed a lack of notability due to unreliable sources. In reality, before nomination there were reliable, secondary, independent of the subject sources that wrote about it in detail (svaboda.org, sb.by, tut.by, kp.by, Interfax, onliner.by, abw.by). Also, notability is not related to the reliability of the sources in the article (WP:ARTN, WP:NPOSSIBLE). References to awards, that is, to professionals, confirm the notability of the subject. Closer to the discussion wrote that after the nomination sources were not added. He did not write anything about notability. Also, in reality, sources have been added, including found in Google Books (Uli Cloesen books) and others (German specialized editions "Custombike" and "Dream Machines", Russian "Moto", a directory of the Belarusian Union of Designers, several American materials). Discussion without consensus to delete. Article can be improved (WP:NEXIST). Improved on the home wiki (be:), did not translate into English until I finish. Sources can and can come new. In 2020 there is a new publication, it was added to the article. Maksim L. (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but Allow Recreation in "Draft:" namespace I'm not seeing any qualifying, reliable, independent sources doing a Google web search. There's a couple articles from Motonews and Jalopnik, and potentially, Interfax, on which WP:GNG may be at least plausible; however, I have my doubts as to whether there's enough independent source coverage to meet the second WP:CORPDEPTH test. Thus, I think the close was reasonable, on two relists, but am fine with allowing a draft and have it go through AfC as a second set of eyes. Doug Mehus T·C 20:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small company (<10 employees, my assessment) is not separable from Yuri Shif. A significant coverage will be a biography of the person. I can do it. If the move to Yuri Shif (customizer), the article will only have the date of birth and the foundation of ShifCustom in 2003. The usual situation for companies in the customization industry. But he builds motorcycles, rated as notability items of a Kustom Kulture. The Jalopnik has a retelling of material from the Onliner.by. The author also writes that he does not know the Russian language and uses a Google translator. It is not clear why a Jalopnik can be more reliable than a Onliner.by (editable media owned by Alexa). The reasons for the unreliability of RFE/RL and the largest national newspaper Belarus Today and the online media TUT.by are also not obvious. Maksim L. (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow draft as per User:Dmehus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the deletion, since I think consensus was clear at the AfD. But allow a draft as above. Reyk _YO! 19:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Colleagues, please write on what exactly doubts are based on for the article. To make it clear what to seek and improve. Is it true that doubts are not about the notability of the subject or the reliability of the sources, but about the significant coverage in the sources? Perhaps non-English sources does not allow us to estimate the significant coverage in them? The article has an English source[11], what is its problem with the significant coverage? RFE/RL provides three large materials with a description of the company, a description of the company's projects and plans, and a list of awards (800-2000 words; I used chronologically the latest material). This can be said about the materials of Interfax, Tut.by, Onliner. The printed directory of the BUD (about 300 notability persons and objects of Belarusian design) provides short information about the date of birth and education of the founder of the company, the date of foundation, projects, awards. Is this not a significant coverage? I used news materials and brief references only to details. Specialized motorcycle media by default consider the subject notability (usually they write "the next project of Yuri Shif" and the like); they wrote more about the company 10-15 years ago, now they describe motorcycles. Maksim L. (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim L. I concur with PK650. DRV is not about having a second attempt to re-hash an AfD. It's about evaluating the closure was properly ascertained, which in this case it was. No one refuted that the page shouldn't be deleted, so it wasn't enough to restart the existing AfD. That said, given that this is for a Russian motorcycle shop, whose sources may not all be in English and because even after two relistings, it only generated participation from one other participant besides yourself and the nominator, we've endorsed, unanimously thus far, the idea of draftifying the article, so that it can have a second set of eyes look at the sourcing in Draft: namespace. You might even be so fortunate as to have Robert McClenon as your AfC reviewer. Doug Mehus T·C 21:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did not understand that DRV only estimates the correctness of closing procedure AfD. Formally, AfD closing procedure is correct. It is a pity that consensus is determined by the counting of votes (and only one), and not by a reasonable opinion. So can delete any article if someone proposed a discussion about it in AfD. Thanks. Maksim L. (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The deletion review nominator doesn't seem to understand the process. This is not a venue to rehash AfD discussions. The consensus was clearly and correctly interpreted as delete, therefore I am endorsing it. As for creating a draft, they're perfectly allowed to edit such a page, but please bear in mind the page is likely to be deleted again unless SIGCOV is demonstrated when it wasn't previously. As others have already mentioned, new sources (that none of us have found) are unlikely to enhance the subject's claim of notability. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did not understand the en:wiki procedures. Sources in the article comply with SIGCOV; no one has expressed any other reasonable opinion. I did a good search in Russian, English and German. Available (and reliable) now on the Internet in these languages - found. To find additionally (and reliable), I think, is not possible at the moment. There are also printed sources that are not available on the Internet, I received copies of some of them, others may become available on the Internet over time. There are enough sources in the article. The notability and significant coverage is not measured by quantity. Thanks. Maksim L. (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Allow WP:REFUND to draft, but I think it is a WP:Reference bombed WP:CORP failure. The google cache shows something that looks like a faithful translation of ru:ShifCustom. Discourage resubmission within six months of the AfD result, short of dramatic new sourcing that clearly overcomes the reasons for deletion discussed at AfD. AfD decisions need some respect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of hyperspace depictions in science fiction (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Misinterpreted consensus. There are 3 keep comments, 3 redirect, 2 delete, and 1 merge. Clearly, to me, this is a case of "no consensus" and the article should remain in place. Guinness2702 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closer correctly recognized that there was consensus to not keep the article, even if there was no consensus about delete, merge or redirect. In those circumstances, "redirect" is an appropriate compromise because it allows editors to further discuss what, if anything, they want to merge from the history. Sandstein 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close by Tone looks good to me. AfD nominator Zxcvbnm wasn't necessarily arguing for deletion or redirecting, only that the article, as written, fails our notability guidelines and contains a lot of original research, both of which were accurate. Despite this being titled as a list, it doesn't look like a list to me; looks more like a broad-concept article on hyperspace depictions in science fiction. Thus, the arguments that this list meets WP:LISTN are, in my view, incorrect. The arguments for merging are essentially the same as redirecting, so there was a clear consensus against keeping. There were some arguments towards deletion later on and, perhaps, if this had been relisted again, that would've been the outcome. This probably could've also been closed as "merge," but to close as anything but "redirect" or "merge" would've been incorrect, I think. To add to what Sandstein said and what I was thinking but hit "publish" too soon, there's no prejudice on properly proposing a splitting of the target article, and that's arguably what should've happened.^{Added to my comments} --Doug Mehus T·C 17:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The close is a plausible close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if you look beyond the bolded !votes the Delete, Redirect and Merge supporters all think this should be a short section in the Hyperspace article and that this list contains large amounts of unencyclopedic content. There was consensus for that view. Exactly how it gets implemented is much less important. Hut 8.5 12:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- consensus was clearly not to keep the article as-is. If opinions are split between, say, delete and merge then it would be perverse to argue that this is no consensus and no consensus defaults to keep. Reyk _YO! 23:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment historically redirect and Merge have counted as keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 03:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Endorse. First, it's disingenuous for the nom to say there were "2 delete" !votes. Surely, the AfD nomination should be included in that total? But, more importantly, there was clear consensus to not keep this as a stand-alone article, and the redirect leaves the history behind so anybody who wants to recover material is free to do so. In a all-over-the-map discussion, that kind of middle ground is a good outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Correct reading of the consensus.

The page was plagued with WP:FANFICTION and WP:NOTPLOT excesses. What was encyclopedia overlapped with Hyperspace, Plot device, and the many individual articles of on the respective works of fiction. There was no good reason for deletion, and deletion did not occur, so this does not belong at DRV. There is potential to recreate as a navigation list. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. I recommend a sortable table format to help with discouraging the addition of WP:FANFICTION and WP:NOTPLOT excesses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list of Belgian families (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It looks as if no one but the article creator argued to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest Belgian families, against delete supports by Piotrus, myself, and Eggishorn, and a comment by Peterkingiron stating in part " Basically this is families recorded in a certain genealogical dictionary, I am not sure that is an adequate basis for a WP article". Wouldn't a "delete" be the more logical conclusion from this than a "no consensus"? Closing admin argued that there were no new comments after the last relist, and that a renomination is always possible, but we already had a 3-weeks+, 5-editor discussion, it's not as if a new nomination is likely to get a sudden influx of commenters, and it's not as if the opinions were that divided when only the article creator argues to keep it. Fram (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What a weird AfD. It was full of points that were at best tangentially relevant to this list. The question AfD needed to resolve was: "What's encyclopaedic about this?" Without a good answer to that, the best possible outcome would be a merge, which wasn't considered. Maybe there are no good merge targets? AfD should have considered that. Relist as a defective discussion.—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or overturn to delete given that (counting my presumed vote as a nominator) it was 3:1 for delete (the only keep coming from the creator). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. I couldn't close as "delete" as Sandstein had already relisted the debate to no further comment after 9 days, and he's been working long enough at AfD for me to trust his judgment that there is no consensus (after all, AfD is not a vote, but a discussion). A relist would have been problematic, as the procedure says "Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice." The discussion seemed to primarily centre around an argument with Fram and Brookford; also there had been no comments since Brookford did some work on the article, cleaning it up a bit. If consensus was that obvious, somebody else would have come forward in the final 9 days and said something; that they didn't it somewhat telling. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinion about the close itself, but do want to comment on the above. When closing a debate that's been relisted, I pretty much ignore the relisting comments. You shouldn't feel painted into a NC corner just because some previous admin relisted it and there wasn't any more discussion. It's your close; own it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • In what way does the fact that no one commented on these two changes have any importance? They do nothing to help determine whether this should be deleted or not. Fram (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could have said "despite the recent changes, I still don't think we should have an article on this". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and then get accused by you of bludgeoning the discussion again probably... Adding a comment to an AfD to state that "some edits to the article, which had not been remarked upon in the AfD or used as arguments, do nothing to sway me from delete to keep" would be an utterly pointless edit, which would probably be seen as an attempt to mock the editor and his useless edits or something similar. Not everything that "can" be said "should" be said. Fram (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist or delete and, who knows, maybe someone who would have !voted delete had they seen the discussion come along and !vote delete. ——SN54129 12:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, or delete if Ritchie333 as closer is OK with that. After the second relist, either delete or no consensus would have been acceptable closures. After the first relist, I still held out hope that some more useful discussion would occur and clarify the situation. Sandstein 14:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or overturn to delete per above. This list does fail our criteria for categories, navigation templates, and lists and WP:CLN. The "keep" argument makes a good point on notability except that this is a list, so as I understand it, the relevant policies are WP:AOAL, WP:CLN, and WP:LISTN, which this list fails. It, nonetheless, has useful information, so I'd support allowing userification or e-mailing the page on request, at the processing administrator's discretion, at WP:REFUND. Doug Mehus T·C 17:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. I would have !voted to Delete. This is not a revote. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is re-voting. ——SN54129 09:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serial Number 54129 - Re-litigating the original AFD is, as we all know, common in DRV, and it is often useful to restate that a DRV is not a revote. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: as usual, you speak much sense. Please return to the RfA process. ——SN54129 20:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete- 3 to 1 in favour of deletion, with strong arguments made for that position and the only keep vote coming from the arrticle creator, sounds a lot like consensus to delete to me. Reyk _YO! 23:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wilson (reporter) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

For context and background, the subject redirect Christopher Wilson (reporter) was originally targeted to Rebel News, but subsequently found following the latter's page move from The Rebel Media. There was no context to which this redirect was targeted there, so it, along with Sheila Gunn Reid (which closed as "delete"), was subsequently nominated for discussion at RfD. In terms of assessing its usefulness and utility as a plausible search term and redirect per WP:R#K5, or lack thereof per WP:R#D8, it generated all of 22 views. For context, for redirects deleted on similar grounds, that low of usage typically, in my experience, results in deletion.

Nevertheless, among the arguments presented, Shhhnotloud noted potential for ambiguity and confusion, presumably, per WP:R#D2, and Rosguill noted the lack of a mention. As nominator, I argued for deletion, despite the fact I didn't attach a bolded !vote to my argument, which was that there was no mention, it was an implausible search term demonstrated by its unnecessary disambiguating parenthetical qualifier, and lack of usage. Narky Blert advocated for retargeting to Christopher Wilson (biographer) because the proposed new target subject article was also a journalist and cited recalling a similar requested move discussion, but didn't specifically address the lack of utility and usefulness, when queried, of having a second redirect for a secondary occupation with an unnecessary disambiguating parenthetical qualifier. Subsequent to the January 31st relist, I added comments that the redirect was created by a sockpuppet account VivaSlava, which, while not yet discovered at the time of its creation, was created by a banned sockpuppeteer in Charles lindberg, for which I cited was "crud."

Presumably, due to an administrative backlog, it wasn't relisted or actioned a second time, but nevertheless, BDD added the argument on February 10th, noting that this Christopher Wilson (presumably there was a non-notable Christopher Wilson that worked for Rebel News) was fairly well known for his secondary occupation. Nevertheless, all five participants (including myself) expressed equally solid arguments based on policy, guidelines, and common sense. There was some degree of consensus, albeit light consensus, to deleting this redirect, if you equally weight all the arguments. Even if giving extra weight to BDD's and Narky Blert's arguments, as I explained on the closer's talk page, that would still get you to a "no consensus" close, to which the closer explained to me, "'No consensus' was not an option since no one advocated that the redirect be kept as is." That's true, in that no one was arguing for keeping this redirect at the current target, but as I stated in reply, a no consensus result was still viable as a closing option, and that since it was unsuitable, the closer could've retargeted boldly after closing as "no consensus." It seems to me that in order to get to towards a retarget result, there had to have been one of four things happening, either (a) the closer applied a super vote, which I doubt was the case, (b) the closer incorrectly ruled out a "no consensus" result despite there not being a clear consensus towards retargeting in the discussion, (c) the closer inadvertently discounted my lack of a bolded !vote in assessing the arguments, or (d) there was an incorrect assessment of the relative weights of the participants' arguments.

So, my question is as follows: what does a "no consensus" result mean, and does that mean it can be ruled out when no one is arguing for keeping the redirect at the current target?

While it was a close close, I'm actually not advocating overturning because Steel1943 is an experienced editor and non-admin closer, who has completed solid closes. I don't necessarily disagree with the outcome, but disagree with the interpretation of the consensus. Thus, my preference would be for Option A.

Should we:

• Option A - Endorse outcome, but amend result to no consensus (preferred);
• Option B - Overturn to no consensus;
• Option C - Overturn to delete;
• Option D - Relist;
• Option E - Something else
  --Doug Mehus T·C 01:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer comment: Here's the comment I stated to Dmehus on my talk page:

  "No consensus" was not an option since no one advocated that the redirect be kept as is. The "delete" comments were based on there not being mention of a "Christopher Wilson" at Rebel News. Multiple participants made arguments that the subject at Christopher Wilson (biographer) is also a reporter and an appropriate option for retargeting since the redirect could refer to Christopher Wilson (biographer) and not be ambiguous. Even one of the first "delete" comments acknowledged the existence of Christopher Wilson (biographer) and of it as a plausible option. The close was based on existing subjects on Wikipedia at the present time; if another subject is created later, the redirect can be retargeted to Chris Wilson (the target of redirect Christopher Wilson) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} since that would satisfy the primary concern presented by the discussion participants, and there shouldn't need be another discussion for that.

  ...And yes, per Dmehus, I offered that they consider WP:DRV if they still did not agree with my close, but I find it rather peculiar that they brought it here still after stating they would not... then a few hours later, apparently, changed their mind. (I have a feeling that this DRV is in response to a completely unrelated discussion, but since it is at worst a red herring, that's as far as I care to reference it.) I also find it rather peculiar that Dmehus did not include a straight-up "endorse" as one of the "options" ... makes it sound like they by default have already decided that my close, in its entirety, is wrong ... ... Steel1943 (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • For clarity, I didn't include an "endorse" because I'm not advocating "endorse the result". I'm not saying the end outcome is problematic; rather, it's only the result with which I disagree. Participants are entitled to "endorse" in whichever matter they choose, but I would appreciate, then, getting some clarity as to how there is consensus here. Doug Mehus T·C 03:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • ...So, as the closer, I obviously endorse my close without any changes to the close ... even thought for some reason, that is not one of the options presented by Dmehus. (Correction: Apparently, it's "Option E".) Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Steel1943's added comment, yes, I did say it may not be worth pursuing at DRV, but truthfully, I am unsatisfied by the response I received vis-a-vis the consensus determination. The "multiple participants" referencing that there was no ambiguity numbered two; Shhhnotsoloud said it was "ambiguous" and did not, explicitly, endorse retargeting. The fact that Shhhnotsoloud did not specifically endorse retargeting could be evidence that, though plausible yes, they didn't see the utility to endorse retaining the redirect. Those arguing how it was of little use, an unnecessary disambiguation qualifier, and potentially confusing, numbered three. I'm not certain how that can be construed as "consensus." Nonetheless, I think it is useful to have this fulsome discussion and fuller airing of things, and get things clarified because I'm just not certain how I see a consensus to retarget. It seems to me, the only way to get to a clear consensus toward retargeting, one has to do one of those four options I mentioned, or "read between the lines" and make guesses. Doug Mehus T·C 02:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Endorse Simply, the only user who argued the redirect shouldn't target Christopher Wilson (biographer) was Dmehus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that involves mind reading, in that one has to interpret what they think someone might be in favour of, no? The close should be based on the arguments presented, not presumed, no? Doug Mehus T·C 02:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the absolutely correct closure, and recommend that Doug drops the stick. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix What do you mean by "drop[ping] the stick," though? Several of the commenters below suggest there was only a rough consensus, though, so it wasn't unreasonable to bring it to DRV. RfD discussions go to DRV so infrequently that it's good for the purposes of community audit and review to occasionally have discussions brought there to undergo a finer and wider scrutiny by the community. Equally, if not more, importantly, though, I wanted to get clarified the statement that because no one advocated retaining the redirect at the current target, "no consensus was not an option." That seems to have been clarified below, so my primary motivation for bringing this to DRV has been clarified. Doug Mehus T·C 14:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both the outcome and the result, and strongly suggest we not waste any more time with this perplexing and futile wikilawyering. Reyk _YO! 06:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original outcome. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because the close was absolutely good enough for its purpose. However, in the ensuing discussion the comment that "No consensus" was not an option since no one advocated that the redirect be kept as is is not correct. A close of no consensus is always an option if the discussion did not arrive at a rough consensus. However, the result of such a close may vary depending on the circumstances. Thincat (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Maybe I should have worded my response as that "no consensus" was "not really an option" per etc. to allow a bit of ambiguity with my statement. Yeah, now that you mention it, I've seen RfD discussions where multiple retarget options were recommended, resulting in a "no consensus" result of a disambiguation page being created. (In fact, I'm pretty sure I've even closed out discussions in the past to that very result ... specifically something in the "Wikipedia:" namespace ... but I just cannot recall any specific discussions at the moment, considering they most likely happened years ago.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, generally no consensus leads to things being left alone but in this case that would have been silly. I think what you did was fine in the circumstances. Thincat (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thincat That's what I am getting at in my nomination, that the fact no one advocated for retaining this redirect at the current target meant that "no consensus" wasn't an option was incorrect, and this was, principally, my reason for bringing this to DRV, to get that point that clarified that it was possible. Consensus was against retaining the redirect at the current target, so that would be a rationale against keeping the redirect, but no consensus is still valid even where the result of which may produce an undesirable outcome. That's why, even though there was, arguably, a rough consensus for deleting the redirect, there wasn't quite a consensus to retargeting. Thus, I thought the closer's boldly retargeting after the close was still reasonable, to avoid keeping the redirect at the current target. Doug Mehus T·C 14:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you'd given me that debate and asked me to close it, I'd have found a rough consensus to retarget.—S Marshall T/C 11:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Correct close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse retarget is the rough consensus of that discussion and there's a reasonable argument for it. I don't see any consensus for deleting it, and two of the Delete participants left comments that wouldn't contradict a retarget result. Given the length of the DRV nomination and the rules lawyering in it I was expecting this to be a debate about a contentious article, not a very minor redirect. Hut 8.5 19:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 Your last sentence gave me a chuckle. Perhaps it would be helpful if you, or anyone really, but you're an experienced administrator/editor and as good as any, could explain the thought process behind the (a) "rough consensus" here and (b) how there's no consensus to deletion despite 3 of 5 editors making solid arguments toward deleting? Doug Mehus T·C 19:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can see a rough consensus toward retargeting, but I can also at least a rough consensus to deletion, too. How do we decide to tip the scale in favour of one or the other and avoid closing as "no consensus"? Doug Mehus T·C 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist: you were the only person who actually argued for deletion instead of retargeting. The other two just didn't think the previous target was appropriate, and one of them mentioned the biographer article as an alternate target. Those arguments are absolutely consistent with a Retarget close. Your arguments amounted to (a) a previous article at that title was created by a sockpuppet and (b) it doesn't get many page views, neither of those are terribly compelling. Seriously though I suggest you try something more useful instead of arguing over this stuff. Hut 8.5 19:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - As much as I love debates over semantics, I prefer them outside of this venue. Good close.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is silly. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not engage in endless wikilawyering. The original issue was that the target was unrelated to the redirect term. People at XfD agreed with that, but somebody found a better target that made sense, so that was done. Move on and do something useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Awada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Back in 2013, the football player did not satisfy the WP:NFOOTY notability conditions, as he hadn't played in either a fully professional league, or a Tier 1 International Match. As of 2020, the player has played in 20 official Tier 1 International Matches for the Lebanon national football team between 2013 and 2016 (source: national-football-teams.com). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation- nothing wrong with the original close but, if there are reliable secondary sources describing this player in detail, there should be no reason to forbid recreation. It's been over six years after all. Reyk _YO! 06:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation looks like it's salted, but looks like he's also notable now. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I've just unsalted it, so feel free to write another article there. The deleted version was a very short stub which only mentioned the teams he's played for. Hut 8.5 08:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a highly contentious AfD that attracted more than 50 participants and had 30 editors express support to keep the article. Seems like an obvious no consensus result, but the closer ruled that the consensus was that the article "is a POVFORK". There hardly seemed to be a consensus around this. Furthermore, the argument that Race and intelligence is a POV fork of History of the race and intelligence controversy is not compelling given how the later was developed from discussion and compromise on the talk page of the former back in 2010; see Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 76#History section as proposed by Mathsci. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn "X" is not a fork of "History of X". I think a lot of the deletes think this article is racist. If I believed that, I'd grasp at any reason to delete as well. But I think it discusses the issue neutrally. So, since it's incredibly notable and NOT CENSORED is still a policy (I think), it's clearly a no consensus keep. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted keep in the AfD. Should have mentioned that. Sorry. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG made a good point down below. You overturn this delete, then you have a keep. Some people seem to be saying overturn this delete so we can get a better delete. Is that an option I haven't heard of? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure what this means, but the closer has gone dark on wiki since they did this. Strange. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good number of people who want to reopen, and then reclose with an admin who already said they want to delete it. I guess I'd be cool with a reopen and a reclose with an admin who wants to keep it. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus. The closer's rationale makes no sense, but I appreciate the difficulty he had dealing with this AfD. (I voted Keep but realize that other points of view have their force also). Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment Above 2 participants participated in the AfD,[12][13] just like I had. I would like to urge all involved parties to allow uninvolved editors analyze the closure because this section is on the verge of turning the debate into another round of the AfD in question. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to stop hitherto uninvolved editors from contributing. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse- I didn't participate in the AfD. It looks to me that either no consensus or delete could have been justifiable, and I'm certainly not going to condemn an admin for correctly judging strength of argument over volume of prose. Reyk _YO! 06:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Didn't participate either. There was an AfD I was involved in a long time ago which ended similarly, basically a "I know this will go to DRV so what's the point?" and not thrilled the close wasn't that detailed. However, I do agree on the whole that there is consensus that this is a POVFORK and that the information is already neutrally covered elsewhere, and the onus on the keep !voters at that point would be to argue against it, which only a couple voters attempted. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn for procedural reasons, this doesn't rule out a deletion for a different reason. I didn't participate in the AfD. It cannot be a POVFORK of another article as it is the oldest article about the topic. It changed a lot over the last 10 years (especially in April 2010, when the history article was created) but there was never a complete rewrite of the article, I checked. In addition there is clearly no consensus to call this a POVFORK. Even among the "delete" opinions there is no consensus for it: People criticize the title, claim that the topic overall wouldn't be notable, are concerned about redundancy with the history article, or point out issues within the article. Apart from the notability (which is clearly there, given the countless articles about it) these are all valid concerns, but they do not give a consensus for anything. What I find particularly odd is the idea to have an article "History of X" without having an article "X". Imagine an article "History of Paris" without an article "Paris". --mfb (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to confuse "procedure" for "bureaucracy". The specific age of the article is a technicality, and the status quo doesn't automatically need to be preserved. Treating this as an abstract concept which can be directly compared to "Paris" presumes that every article must be treated in a similar fashion, regardless of sources or context. This is absolutely not accurate. We have many, many articles on historical concepts, and we all agree that fringe topics must be handled with caution. Grayfell (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mistaken conclusion because our articles are mot set in stone. An older article can have its contents changed sufficiently to turn it into a POV fork of a younger article. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the article isn't the only reason for my comment: The closing comment claimed a consensus that isn't there. I never said (or implied) everything must be treated in a similar fashion. Having an article "X" with a history section and creating "history of X" if it gets too long is a very common procedure across Wikipedia, however. @RexxS: Do you see a forking event in the history? --mfb (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a "forking event" for forking to occur? I don't think that's necessary. Over time, an article's content can change gradually. The article in question's title has made it liable to accumulate dubious content that ends up turning it into a POV shadow of the history article, without that article's rigour. Nobody has given a satisfactory answer to the question of what reliable sources can be legitimately used in an article titled "Race and Inteligence" that can't be used in History of the race and intelligence controversy or Scientific racism. --RexxS (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At this AN thread, Jo-Jo Eumerus proposed a team close for this AfD, and Barkeep49 offered to help out. Would overturning this closure on the procedural concerns, and having it reassessed by an admin team, seem a reasonable approach to everyone? GirthSummit _(blether) 07:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the original nominator, I would be content with that. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Spartaz was not obliged to follow that discussion. There is no policy which could enforce it. If any admin would like to comment on the closure then they can do it here. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4, I do not mean to imply that Spartaz was obliged to have followed that discussion, or that they mis-stepped by having closed it without input from others - it just seems like a way forward that people from differing positions might be able to get behind. In terms of policy, surely 'Overturn' and 'Relist' would allow for this to take place? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a team close may be the best possible situation here. This close was fine but not adequate. SportingFlyer T·C 10:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, per my !vote at AfD. A difficult debate to parse, but I think the correct result: nobody managed to rebut the central argument for deletion, which is that this is a POV fork that gives undue weight to a racist trope. Guy (help!) 09:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  User:JzG - please could you look at this again? The DRV is to review the close, not the debate itself. You say that the POV fork argument wasn't rebutted, but it was, perhaps in most detail by the IP 2600:1004:B11C:DD81:9097:4C1A:1A0B:AEA5, who looked into what POV fork actually says, and the nominator Sirfurboy agreed that their rebuttal had merit. I would say it's at best "no consensus" on the POV fork question, isn't it? I'm asking for your opinion as an impartial admin, not as someone who supported the deletion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG/Guy, yes, a number of editors rebutted the central augment including me when I wrote: "Unfortunately, it seems that much of the argument in favor of deleting this article is motivated by a sort of ideological science denialism. When you have two or more populations of humans that have bred largely independently of one another for thousands of years, the chances that those two groups will have same mean and distribution of cognitive/psychological traits is vanishly small. A similar dynamic is obvious and non-controversial to most people when it comes human psychological traits or any traits when applied any sort of non-human life forms. But the human brain has not been except from the same general forces of evolution. The subject of this article is area an of legitimate scientific investigation." The real POV push here is the trope you and some others have advanced, that any investigation or regard for this topic is synonymous with racism. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody rebutted the central argument that no connection between race and intelligence exists. There are almost no populations of humans that have bred independently for the amount of time necessary for significant genetic differences to emerge. Homo sapiens is one of the most genetically homogeneous species on the planet, and is more homogeneous now than it was thousands of years ago. The idea that two populations from the same species have statistically significant different means and variances of any measure of cognitive/psychological traits is laughable. Any differences in samples will down to random chance, and it's only the racists who have been pushing the view that differences exist. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument why we should have this article, not an argument for deletion. The article contains your argument, and much more. --mfb (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mfb, not sure I follow your reasoning. I think if RexxS's argument was sound, it would be an a good rationale for deletion. But his argument is based on a false premise, that "there are almost no populations of humans that have bred independently for the amount of time necessary for significant genetic differences to emerge." Anyone with a high school biology-level understanding of genetics who has also met or merely seen pictures of people from all over the globe should have enough common sense to understand that this is false. If you need a specific academic study that drives this point home, here is one of many: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04191-y?fbclid=IwAR0_4Kl89niAM4NrnKpma2HGNFLSQjp0UQCI6TLLH_XvqA9AtRYjvr9jGlk. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the reason for deletion? I interpreted RexxS' comment as "there is nothing to see here, we don't need an article". But the topic is notable, as the countless papers, news articles and so on show. Even the attention the deletion discussion got, and RexxS' concern that some argument wouldn't get enough attention, shows how relevant the topic is and how important it is to have an article about it. As long as enough people talk about it it is notable independent of what is right and wrong. Vaccines and autism, Homeopathy, Moon landing conspiracy theories, ... --mfb (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mfb, what RexxS and others are essentially saying is that while History of the race and intelligence controversy is analogous to Moon landing conspiracy theories, maintaining the article in question, Race and intelligence, is as if we had an article called Faked moon landings that presented NASA's faking of the moon landings as if it were actual history. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Jweiss11: What I don't need is another of your primary studies - especially not one that doesn't even address the point. I thought we were talking about "cognitive/psychological traits" not hip-to-waist ratio. You don't have a shred of credible evidence for your contention that measurable differences in intelligence exist between races. It's obvious that such a complex phenotype hasn't differentiated between populations in the short span of time that modern humans have existed. Here's one conclusion of a modern review among many: Research has found no significant genetic determination of race differences in IQ. Explain why the article doesn't start with that, instead of the pandering to the neo-racist speculations that the current lead provides. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: The article that you linked does not represent the scientific consensus. A leading behavioral geneticist, James J. Lee, writes "the absence of decisive evidence favoring a genetic contribution does not entail the truth of a hypothesis attributing the entirety of the differences to environmental causes. In my view the evidence in its totality does not support either of these hypotheses clearly enough to bring closure to this contentious issue." The article you've linked is evidently not written by a geneticist and contains some non-sequiturs. For example, he writes, " Given so many genes determining IQ differences, and the fact that each of the implicated genes contributes so little, it seems unlikely that a large race difference in IQ could arise from the tiny DNA difference of only a 0.01%." Differences in traits between populations cannot be ruled out because of the number of variants that contribute to the trait. Moreover, his section on admixture is now outdated, with some recent results supporting the Jensen view. --Nstein86 — Nstein86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Nstein86: The review I quoted does represent the scientific consensus. Just take a look at the references in Scientific racism and what we state in Wikipedia's voice: "Scientific racism employs anthropology (notably physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniometry, and other disciplines or pseudo-disciplines, in proposing anthropological typologies supporting the classification of human populations into physically discrete human races, that might be asserted to be superior or inferior." This is what UNESCO says in its constitution "a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races". Your "leading geneticist" James J. Lee doesn't even have a mention in Wikipedia, let alone an article. You're citing a book review that he wrote criticising Nisbett, and you think that represents the scientific consensus? Ludicrous. You think you're equipped to dispute Andrew Coleman's peer-reviewed paper? Coleman is Professor of Psychology at the University of Leicester and is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society whose published works have 2853 citations. And your credentials are? Your determination that differences cannot be ruled out is pure speculation and not supported by the modern mainstream view. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: [James J. Lee] has 6272 citations and is an actual behavioral geneticist, . So I win this round of appeals to authority :) Nstein86

Yer, but Lee isn't disputing Coleman: you are, and you are not competent to make your amateur analysis of Coleman's work. Race is not a genetic phenomenon; it's a social construct. I think you'll find that a psychologist is far more competent to judge sociological issues than a biologist. --RexxS (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he's disputing Colman (well, he's not in conversation with Colman, who has no knowledge of genetics or behavioral genetics): Colman is saying the evidence demonstrates there are no differences in intelligence between population due to genetics, and in addition we have a priori reason to believe there can be no major differences in intelligence due to genetics. Lee has reviewed the evidence and says the jury is still out. This is basic reading comprehension. I am also more competent than Colman to assess the claim that "Given so many genes determining IQ differences, and the fact that each of the implicated genes contributes so little, it seems unlikely that a large race difference in IQ could arise from the tiny DNA difference of only a 0.01%." This quote shows that he doesn't have even basic knowledge of complex traits and is unfit as a source to guide you on this matter. Nstein86

Of course he's not disputing Colman. Lee does not address Colman's work: you did. You're the one who is deluding yourself into thinking you can analyse a published author's peer-reviewed work. Come back when you have a clue about WP:PSTS. You are totally incompetent to assess Colman's conclusion "Given so many genes determining IQ differences, and the fact that each of the implicated genes contributes so little, it seems unlikely that a large race difference in IQ could arise from the tiny DNA difference of only a 0.01%." You have merely shown that you have no idea about Wikipedia's policies on original research and that your entire contributions to this thread amount to little more than trolling. --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are unhinged. I hope the resources I've linked to can be useful to others. Nstein86

• • Dlthewave is the one saying your vote should be discounted because you have not been here long, in case you are wondering. His edit's timestamp would be a little bit before my this edit if you want to check the history. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I did not participate in the discussion, but I have 2 points. First, I agree with Peregrene Fisher than X can't be a POV Fork of History of X, because the second naturally follows from the first. Imagine saying that Basketball is a POV Fork of History of Basketball. Second, even disregarding the first point I find no consensus to be the clear consensus. On a final note, I agree that the article has racist fallacies, but these can be clearly documented in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the AfD, this is an article of the form "X and Y" where there is no credible evidence of a link between X and Y, and where we already discuss the attempts to pretend there is in another article. Guy (help!) 09:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, this is simply a false assertion on your part. There is abundant, credible evidence that at least a correlation exists between race and intelligence (in terms of means and distributions of large groups of people). I think an inability or an unwillingness by many to acknowledge this fact is the principal reason why were are in this mess. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no credible scientific definition of either race or intelligence, so how do you manage to come up with one for a correlation between race and intelligence? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed credible definitions of intelligence and race. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are, but not the ones you're using. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11: that is patent nonsense that you're spouting, and dangerously close to racism. There is absolutely no credible evidence that any sort of link, correlation or association exists between race and intelligence, and you've failed consistently to support your stance with a single modern reliable source. The reason we're in any sort of mess is that you and others have been pushing that myth to the detriment of the encyclopedia. We should not stand by and allow disinformation to be spread like that. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, there are number of reliable sources currently cited in Race and intelligence that show credible evidence for measured differences in average intelligence by racial group (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000895?via%3Dihub). As for accusations about me, you've got reality inverted. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even close to being a reliable source, and that's half the problem with the article. Intelligence (journal) is an outlet for the International Society for Intelligence Research, well-known for its links with scientific racism and eugenics. Wasn't Lynn on the board of Intelligence when the article was published? There's nothing credible about the way that you and the article conflate NAEP with intelligence and ethnic groups with race – see https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf for an example. I hope you're aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence #Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended) because if you don't come up with some mainstream reliable sources to back up your statements, you're heading for AE. That's the reality. --RexxS (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a bit confused. The speakers at ISIR this year include Ian Deary, W David Hill, and Matt McGue, all well-cited and serious researchers. Nstein86 —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — Nstein86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And I'm damned sure you're confused. The paper was published in 2013, so you're looking at the wrong conference. Nevertheless here's what New Statesman reported in 2018:

The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field. Yet Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures”, serves on the editorial board of Intelligence, along with fellow director of the Pioneer Fund Gerhard Meisenberg, who edits Lynn’s journal Mankind Quarterly. Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligence, helped to organise recent ISIR conferences. Linda Gottfredson, a Pioneer Fund grantee and former president of the ISIR, famously authored a letter in the Wall Street Journal defending Charles Murray’s assertion that black people are genetically disposed to an average IQ of “around 85”, compared to 100 for whites.

You'll excuse me if I treat your paper with more than pinch of salt. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing in circles. The people you quote are highly controversial because of their publications on race and IQ, so dismissing out of hand the evidence of race/IQ gaps because they're controversial is a bit silly. However you may find Achievement gaps in the United States relevant. Nstein86

The people I quote are controversial because they advocate racist views that are unsupported by the mainstream view. Pretending that you can identify a group of people taking IQ tests with a race, and then claiming that one race has inferior intelligence to another has been the bread-and-butter of racists throughout history. Research has found no significant genetic determination of race differences in IQ does the dismissal without my help. No I don't find Achievement gaps in the United States to be relevant to the issue of race and intelligence. That article confirms my belief that children of rich parents achieve more academically than poor kids who don't even get a square meal each day. It's a good indicator of how important the environment is in academic performance, but does nothing to bolster your mistaken belief that one race has inherently greater intelligence than another. --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(redent a bit) This is the kind of conversation we need to be having on the non deleted articles talk page. Anything that doesn't meet RS should be removed. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, you're being hostile and your threat here is way out of line. I merely quoting sources presumed to be reliable because they're been in the article for some time. I didn't put any of them there. Is Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press unreliable? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's really disingenuous. The source is used in the article to illustrate that those mistaken beliefs exist, and you are now attempting to say that it proves they are true. They are advocating a fringe theory in violation of WP:UNDUE, and once more this shows how the current article can be used to legitimise racist views. Let me be clear: I don't know you and I have no hostility to you personally. I am hostile to the views you're promoting, and I will make sure that such disinformation is called out whenever it rears its ugly head. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, huh? What is disingenuous? Is Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence (2010) reliable in your estimation? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG (talk · contribs), perhaps a better analogy would have been Vaccines and autism. It wouldn't make sense to have an article talking about the history without first identifying the controversy. We should approach the race and intelligence article the same way - The vaccine article opens "Extensive investigation into vaccines and autism[1] has shown that there is no relationship between the two, causal or otherwise,[1][2][3] and that vaccine ingredients do not cause autism." It would make sense to open the race and intelligence article much the same. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus; arguments on both sides of the discussion were well-made and neither side prevails for me. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reclose by somebody else. I withhold judgment about whether the closure was correct on the merits; it may have been or it may have not been. But a discussion this long and complex, in a contentious topic area with active arbitration remedies, merits a more thorough evaluation of the opinions given, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.

The closer(s) should make a headcount, summarize the arguments for and against deletion, explain which arguments are particularly strong or weak in the light of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and then explain why, on this basis, there is or isn't rough consensus to delete. Only a closing statement of this kind could then allow DRV to properly scrutinize the closer's reasoning.

As it is, the closing statement makes reference to only one argument advanced in the discussion. This makes it difficult for us to determine whether the closer properly analyzed the discussion or just gave preference to an argument they personally agree with most.

The fact that the closer referred to the "inevitable DRV" indicates that might have been aware of the shortcomings of their closing statement. Closers should not expect DRV to solve complicated XfDs for them. Rather, they should attempt to close XfDs so convincingly that no review is sought, or that no DRV could succeed in overturning the closure. (Expanded, Sandstein 10:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

• Speedy overturn and relist and then to be closed properly, with thorough analysis of the arguments. The sense I get from the closer's rather unusual closing statement is that they are attempting to hand the final decision on this AfD off to DRV, rather than closing it in the usual fashion. No detailed analysis of the discussion was offered, other than a glib one-liner "The argument that this.article is a POVFORK is clearly the consensus of this discussion" - which even those endorsing the close accept it wide of the mark. (There might be a rough consensus that it's a POV fork but the consensus, if any, on that point is very very far from "clear"). This sort of close, handing off the decision and responsibility for the decision to DRV, rather than by admin-close, is not how Wikipedia works and it is not how Wikipedia should work. As Sandstein says, DRV needs an admin's decision to analyse, it is not here to make the decision itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing !vote to overturn to no consensus. The more I look at this, the more I think it's very clear that there was absolutely no consensus in the discussion at all. It's actually not even close to a consensus to keep or a consensus to delete. Both sides make completely valid points, most of the assertions were open to debate and interpretation and refutation, and frankly there is no conceivable way to close it any other way than no consensus. Per DGG below, who sums up the matter well, applying a panel to this show isn't actually going to help. Even though "no consensus" isn't the same as "consensus to keep", the outcome is the same, so "keep" !voters may end up happier, but that's the way WP works, and I think both the original close and suggestions that a TNT is self-evidently needed fail to fairly sum up the debate that took place. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and reclose by somebody else. Regardless of the final decision, this was not the right way to close this AfD. There was no "consensus" to delete (even the count was circa. 30 Keep versus 25 Delete; and got more Keep as the AfD developed). There was also no "consensus" for the close action taken, even amongst deletes. The policy argument is also is against the close (e.g. X is not a fork of history of X), and the topic is notable (per quantity of academic papers specifically on the topic). "Boldly closing" a huge – split !vote – AfD as delete, on the basis that it can be debated at DRV, is also inappropriate, as there will be an inevitable further split !vote at DRV that locks-in the bold close. The issue here is that while the subject is notable, the article is very problematic, and probably falls under the rare, but legitimate use, of WP:TNT for such cases. We have lots of very poor articles on notable subjects that are kept in AfD under NOTCLEANUP, however, this is a VERY sensitive topic, and I have a lot of sympathy for the outcome advocated by the closer of deleting it, and redirecting until somebody can write a proper one. Britishfinance (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, per my !vote at AfD. Regarding 30 Keep versus 25 Delete; and got more Keep as the AfD developed, during the AfD editors noticed 4 instances of off-wiki canvassing in support of keep, and at the same time (5 Feb) a huge spike in pageviews for the AfD and a sudden dramatic increase in the proportion of keep votes. There is no doubt that on the Internet generally there is much support for the fringe view that some races are genetically inferior to others, and so off-wiki involvement can especially skew the process on an article like this one. NightHeron (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From reviewing the AfD !votes, there are plenty of experienced editors on both sides of the debate. We are all familiar with "canvassed AfDs" for "youtube stars" (that have zero GNG), that attract lots of IPs/SPAs. That was a much more limited effect here. It wouldn't alter the fact that from a participation perspective, there was "no consensus".

However, I do think that while "classical policy" would support the article (e.g. notable topic, not a fork, AfD not cleanup etc.), the article has problematic writing in a highly sensitive area. Some editors asked if we would have an article on Gender and intelligence, which we do in Sex differences in intelligence, but it is acceptable as it is a much more tightly written and specific article, rather than Race and intelligence, which feels like an essay/POV, and thus problematic (and per my TNT point above). Britishfinance (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion reached a different conclusion from several previous ones, and personally my sense is that the Wikipedia community hasn't reached cloture in this matter. I would suggest that the AfD route has failed, and we might benefit from referring to a more expansive debate format such as RFC instead. This isn't an "endorse" or "overturn", it's a recommendation to leave Spartaz's close undisturbed while we try something else.—S Marshall T/C 13:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (Later) The sheer length of these discussions makes them singularly hard to close. I do still urge the closers of this debate to consider punting the whole matter to RFC, where it can be divided into its various component parts, each of which the community can dissect in a more structured way. This free-form rambling isn't reaching an intelligible and coherent conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If anything was clear it was that there wasn't any consensus. However, I am more sympathetic than some here to the closer's remark about DRV. I don't think they mean that the closer needn't take their close too seriously because DRV can handle things. Rather, it reads to me that the closer is ruefully acknowledging that whatever their close – keep, delete or no consensus – someone will take the matter to DRV. Thincat (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The close rationale reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE as it does not seem particularly connected to any reading of the breadth of the comments. At best, it cherry picks only those comments that agree with the closer. --Jayron32 13:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus I disagree with the closer's reading of consensus. A team closure would have been better, but I believe no consensus would be the proper result regardless of who closed it. And yes, I participated in the AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reclose by somebody else per Sandstein and others. I'm in favor of deletion, but this closing statement is far too brief and doesn't demonstrate that the closer weighed all arguments against policy and other factors such as possible off-site canvassing and IP hoppers. –dlthewave ☎ 13:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, it would be a massive process failure if the outcome of this discussion was "overturn as Keep because the closer didn't write a good enough closing statement". Nobody is explicitly making this argument, but it could be an unintended outcome. Closers don't need to fully explain their rationale although in this case I think we need a better explanation in order to fully assess the validity of the close. Jo-Jo's draft statement looks good to me. –dlthewave ☎ 20:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - and the heat carrying to here, uninterrupted, was 100% predictable. (A DRV that will also need a team close.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I did park off this AFD in a "pending close" state and requested a team close at AN because such a complex AFD merited a detailed analysis not a single admin close - but didn't say so on the actual AFD page (only on the talk page). I think I should have.

  Anyhow, while I agree with Sandstein and Amakuru that closing an AFD as "delete" and then putting it on hold is not a good idea as it leaves the article in a limbo with no clear conclusion, I am going to go by what I was planning to propose as part of a team close and thus endorse deletion (and not redirect). Crucially, and contrary to what some keeps in the AFD/overturns in this discussion assert, neither Wikipedia:Content forking nor Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion §5 imply that the first article on a subject cannot be a fork and this was pointed out during the AFD. If "it's the first article thus it can't be a fork" was policy, a "no consensus" close would have been warranted indeed.

  Finally, and this is a procedural note for the closing administrator(s)/editor(s): Given that both Race and Intelligence and Talk:Race and intelligence have over 5000 edits, if this DRV concludes as "delete" the closer(s) of this DRV will need to ask for deletion at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous as local admins can't delete a page this big. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (edit conflict) I agree with others who are concerned that this closing doesn't do justice to the depth of discussion. This is a case where, even if the "delete" answer is the correct one, the process looks to have been short changed. That's not OK and for that reason alone it should be reverted and a more thorough closing analysis performed. I did not participate in the original discussion. Springee (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Jo-Jo Eumerus. --JBL (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong overturn and reclose by someone else – I think this may be my first "strong" !vote at DRV. I did not comment in the AFD. Honestly, I don't understand how anyone can endorse this close. Putting aside the entire question of whether the page should or should not be deleted...
  • It had a {{closing}} tag! The closing tag was placed 10 Feb 10:09 by JJ. When Spartaz closed it the next day, the page had the usual big closing notice at the top. There was discussion at AN forming a panel, a closing tag was placed, and then someone else closes it with four sentences. How could you not notice the closing tag, and if you saw it, why would you close it anyway?
  • The close was "delete and redirect to History of the race and intelligence controversy". What the heck is "delete and redirect"? Put aside whether there was consensus to delete, or no consensus, or consensus to keep... one thing we can all agree on is that there was definitely not consensus to delete the page and recreate it as a redirect to a specific target. There was no consensus to redirect. There was definitely no consensus for a specific target. Very few editors talked about redirecting, and those that did, did not agree on a target. "Delete and redirect to [target]" is a supervote, and a very clear one if you ask me.
  • 58 !votes and 160kb of text... and we're going to close it with four sentences–and I'm sorry to be pedantic but, four typo-laden sentences? Come on! That is such a dismissive slap in the face to the amount of time that was put in by 58 editors into this discussion. If you're going to close a 160kb-, 58-editor discussion, you really need to be writing a detailed closing rationale that fully addresses all major arguments put forward in the discussion. If you're not going to do that, at the very least take a moment to proofread your four-sentence supervote.
  • This close was a punt to DRV, which is wholly improper. It was basically, "I'm not even going to bother writing a close, let's just let DRV decide." That's extremely counterproductive. A thoughtful and "real" close, such as the one Jo-Jo posted on the talk page here, may very well have avoided a DRV altogether. If there were a DRV from such a close, it would make DRV participants' jobs a lot easier if there was a real close to analyze.
  • This close should be overturned, and re-closed. At AN, there was talk of a panel of admin to close, which is a great idea, and there were already two admins (BK and JJ) who volunteered, and they were looking for a third. Spartaz could be that third if everyone involved is on board with that (or someone else can be the third, or it can just be closed with a panel of two). Even if the close JJ posted on the talk page (which also has a delete result) were posted to the AFD to replace the existing close, that would be a huge improvement, and it would be very quick and easy to do since the close is already written (thanks JJ). (And if someone wants to, they can take the new close to DRV.) But this close is so poor it cannot stand, even if it has the "right" result. But I'm not commenting on the result, I'm just saying overturn because it was so far below what the minimum required close for this discussion should look like.
  • To all the comments about "heat" – it's the dismissiveness and the laziness that generates the heat. People feel better about disagreeing, and they feel better about not getting "their way"–meaning, consensus is stronger–when people feel like they've at least been taken seriously rather than ignored or dismissed out of hand. Levivich 16:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-close by Jo-Jo Eumerus and co. This was already being closed. Closing it despite that is, I'm sorry to say, discourteous. This should be closed by the group of admins that was preparing to do so. That this close may be problematic in a number of other ways is less relevant to me at this time. El_C 17:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-close by Jo-Jo Eumerus and, optionally, by a team.. Full disclosure: I am the original nominator, and do wish I could just endorse this closure, which I clearly think is right. Yet it is not enough that a decision be right. It must be seen to be just. Perhaps many will never agree that is so in this case, but a close statement that is carefully explained, showing how the admin has followed and concluded the result from the debate, should go some way to demonstrating that the process is fair and in the best interests of the project as a whole. I had no prior indication of Jo-Jo's thoughts on this topic but believe that they should be allowed to close based on the fact that they had begun the process, and spent over an hour reading the whole thread. Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) has also read the whole thread and either a team close or an admin close by Jo Jo, having discussed as appropriate with other admins would both be fair. I will make no other comment on the arguments - arguments are all in the thread. This discussion is merely about the fairness of the process. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist close was low effort, the closer did not even take time to read the whole page or he would have seen the plans for a multi-admin decision already in progress. The current discussion clearly looks like no consensus for me, so I would like to have it listed for discussion for another week. I tallied up all editors who made a boldfaced !vote. Among all editors there were 32 keep and 26 delete. People are correct though when they say that there were several canvassed SPA accounts that voted keep, but a very small percent of all editors who participated in the AfD came to it naturally (i.e. by browsing AfD listings) so its hard to say what distortions were going on. I tried to quantify this by making note of edit count when I collated !votes. This of course is very crude, but if we exclude users with low edit counts we can mostly remove outside people with low commitment to the project. Among editors with more than 10,000 edits there were 15 keep and 16 delete. Either way it reads like no consensus to me. (see spreadsheet) Antrocent (♫♬) 17:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and close by Jo-Jo et. al It was abundantly clear that any close would need to be ironclad...which was why Jo-Jo was assembling a team of closing admins, as evidenced at AN and on the page itself! Spartaz's close was far too short, didn't explain adequately, and looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Combined with being full of grammatical errors, and assuming, defeatedly, that the article was heading for DRV anyway, it is a close that lacks teeth. I think Spartaz created a self fulfilling prophecy: by not putting in the proper time to a close, and just assuming it would go to DRV, voila! it sure did end up at DRV. But if it had been closed, as was the original plan, by a team of admins, then we wouldn't have needed to head to DRV. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I voted keep in the AFD, so I won't vote again. Instead, I'll ask a question: if the discussion is re-closed by Jo-Jo Eumerus, does that amount to the same thing as upholding the decision to delete, except with a different closure summary? Jo-Jo Eumerus has already stated in his comment above that his intention is to uphold the decision to delete. I understand everyone's desire for the correct process to be followed, but it seems somewhat pointless if it is a foregone conclusion that the outcome will stay the same. For the reason explained by Antrocent, I think a "no consensus" close is the correct decision here, along with possibly relisting it. 2600:1004:B15B:2EA6:B81C:E7DF:7B3C:DB13 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did Jo-Jo indicate whether they wanted to delete or keep? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peregrine Fisher: see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I give no recommendation here, but would ask the question of what the difference between the topics of Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy is. Maybe this is relitigating the AfD issue, but it seems to me that we should only have one article about this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, for a number of years there was only one article, Race and intelligence. History of the race and intelligence controversy was developed in 2010 as a sub-topical expansion. "Race and intelligence" should cover more or less everything about the topic that is outside the controversy, namely the straightforward investigation and evidence of these group differences, and theories and investigations into environmental and genetic forces driving them (sections 3, 4, and 5 of "Race and intelligence"). Unfortunately, many editors will conflate that entirely with Scientific racism. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, there clearly should not be an article titled Race and intelligence. There are no "group differences" to investigate, much less any test "groups" that can be shown to correlate with the social construct of "race". Once the modern mainstream scientific view is accepted, we can completely reject the attempt to give credence to the discredited myth that a connection exists between race and intelligence. --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, it doesn't serve anyone or this project well to advance that sort of denalist argument. That sort of denialism is the main reason we are here in this mess. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of "denialism" against User:RexxS and other editors by the OP of this DRV is deeply troubling, because it shows the frame of mind that seems to be behind the passionate desire to keep the article and overturn the delete closure. The term "denialism" (as in climate change denialism or Holocaust denialism) is used for a fringe view. But RexxS is correct that the modern mainstream scientific consensus is that there are no intelligence differences between races. To call that a fringe view is the opposite of the truth. It is the belief that some races are genetically inferior to others that is the fringe view, which is covered in a WP:FRINGE-compliant way in the articles Scientific racism and History of the race and intelligence controversy. NightHeron (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The denialism of human biology (which has been summarized as blank slate mythology by Steven Pinker and others) that you see largely on the political left is rather analogous to the climate change denialism you see largely on the political right. Wikipedia gets the later correct. What we are seeing in this episode is more or less a litmus test of this community's own bias. Let's hope it doesn't get the better of us. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NightHeron and RexxS are promoting the fringe theory that science sees no difference in IQ between races. Let's be clear here— there is complete consensus amongst scientists that the differences in IQ are real, as the data has been produced in hundreds of studies, over hundreds of years. It so mainstream that it is taught in Psychology textbooks such as Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence, and Nicholas Mackintosh's IQ and Human Intelligence. The only controversy in science is about whether the cause of the difference is nature or nurture. The theory that there is no difference is willfully ignoring hundreds of reliable sources citing hundreds of studies, and is entirely WP:FRINGE. It does not belong here. --Toomim (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toomim That's pure fiction and typical of the misinformation that is spread by racists. The fringe theory is scientific racism, that is the "pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. It is typical of the sort of closet racism to point out that groups of people perform differently on IQ tests. The place where it deviates from mainstream science is when you decide without any justification that you can classify a study group as representative of a race, and you pretend that performance on a particular IQ test is a perfect predictor of intelligence – without any consideration of all the confounding factors. Using your methodology, a researcher could apply an IQ test in English to two groups, one who spoke English and one who didn't, and because the English-speaking group naturally did better, then declare that people who spoke English were more intelligent than those who don't. That's the sort of lie that you're promoting. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, you aren't even following the logic of this argument. If you want to comment on this issue you'll need to distinguish between the scientific consensus that there are group differences between self-reported races on IQ scores and attempts at racial discrimination or racial superiority. The first is just data. There's tons of data. It's extremely robust and reliable. It's been developed over centuries. You simply can't argue against it, without finding new data-- and you'll need mountains of it. That is like arguing global warming doesn't exist. Thus far in the debate, you and NightHeron have failed to show an ability to distinguish between data and theory. That's the distinction between reality and your own POV. And now you're trying to censor the data, gathered from real experiments, because you can't distinguish it from a POV.

As for your unrelated claim on racial bias in IQ testing -- perhaps you're not aware of the science on this issue. This claim has been examined in-depth, and many scientists who believed that the difference in IQ scores could be explained by test bias tried to prove it by designing reverse-biased tests, where e.g. blacks would perform better than whites. But they failed. No scientist has been able to come up with a reverse-bias test. And as for your specific example of the English language -- the actual data shows that blacks perform better on verbal skills; not worse. And the data shows they perform better on American cultural tests; not worse.

But since you are ignoring the data, and trying to censor it, you remain in ignorance, and make these WP:FRINGE claims to hide the data that challenges your POV. That is classic science denialism. Toomim (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toomim, you're attempting to do the usual trick of looking at data and imposing your own interpretations on it. Data shows nothing; it's the interpretations of the data that produce conclusions. Here's the logic you're proposing: there is data that shows some people do less well on IQ tests than others; so if the ones doing less well are assigned to a particular race, the conclusion can be drawn that a given race has inherently inferior intelligence. Feel free to deny that's what you're suggesting. Or even better, give a concrete example of this robust and reliable data that shows a difference in IQ scores between races and we'll all be able to see what a house of cards you build your POV on.

We all agree there's tons of data, and some real conclusions can be drawn from it: rich kids achieve more academically than poor kids, for example – cast-iron and incontrovertible. But we don't feel the need to have an article on Wealth and intelligence, nor seek to find the gene that differentiates the rich from the poor. And that's exactly analogous to what you're arguing for here. You simply want to give oxygen to the myth that blacks have less intelligence than whites. Again feel free to explain your position on that myth if it's different from what I've stated. After all, there are only three choices: (1) blacks have less intelligence than whites; (2) blacks have the same intelligence than whites; (3) blacks have more intelligence than whites. Which one of the three are you claiming is the mainstream scientific view? Or do you want to duck the question and tell us that you don't know what the mainstream scientific view is? --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close the closer correctly interpreted the strength of the arguments in the AfD debate, and closed it within the range of their admin discretion. They were quite entitled to give much less weight to arguments that mistakenly insisted that meeting GNG meant that the article had to exist. They were also entitled to give more weight to the arguments that whatever content could legitimately be placed in an article titled "Race and intelligence" was already present in other, related articles. Those asking for the close to be overturned need to show that the delete arguments were refuted, and that the closer did not see that. I do not believe that either of those happened. --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Overturn Per the majority of editors here as well as Levivich. Also it is good to remember just because you agree with the outcome does not mean it was a well reasoned close. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If the outcome of this DRV is overturn the close in some way I would continue to be willing to be part of a group close (with Jo-Jo or others). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no consensus. First of all, there was no consensus to delete. Second, the closer said the problem was POVFORK. However, the article under AfD is several times bigger than article History of the race and intelligence controversy where it suppose to be redirected. If the content should be merged on one page, a much better course of action would be to start a "merge" discussion on the page. Third, the previous discussion was clear "keep" [14]. What has changed? The only thing that has changed was the internet being extensively used for various propaganda and disinformation (as several people noticed during the AfD). This is not a valid reason for deleting the page. Finally, looking at the draft of closing by Jo-Jo, it tells: "On balance, it looks like we have a consensus that the topic is notable and that being contentious isn't a reason for deletion ... but it's not clear if it should be covered at Race and intelligence or in the various sub-articles mentioned w/o a central race and intelligence article.". Well, covering a subject without having a central page on the subject is ridiculous My very best wishes (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I saw no consensus on the matter. And a number of the delete votes amounted to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reclose with a team of three admins, not including the previous closer. The close was clearly very hastily done and did not address many of the points made. While there were keeps from SPAs, some delete votes were dubious political arguments (even though it is better to show that RS do not agree with racists' claims) and irrelevant claims that the title is POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. It's clear there was no consensus. This was a classic example of a supervote. I don't see any point in reclosing by a team (has this ever been done at AfD--it's needed sometimes at AfC, because there's not standard review mechanism of a close, but it is not needed at AfD because that's exactly what this Del Rev procedure is for, because we can just as well clarify right here that it was non-consensus. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deciding the close here would be rewarding the "punt to DRV". I think it would encourage other admin in the future to do the same thing (write a close guaranteed to be brought to DRV) in similar circumstances (a contentious discussion they think will be brought to DRV anyway). Rewarding undesirable behavior reinforces it. Levivich 04:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, why would a closing admin want to "punt to DRV". No admin is compelled to close any particular XfD, correct? Why would they volunteer only to punt? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • FWIW when I saw Jo-Jo's initial post at AN my reaction was "a closing panel for AfD seems like a bad precedent". Then I read the discussion and it has far more in common, in my opinion, with a really knotty RfC where panel closes are done but are not required, than with even contincious AfDs. The discussion convinced me that Jo-Jo was right and a panel close would be best for the encyclopedia and is why I then volunteered. But I agree with you that this should not be the norm even for well attended contincious AfDs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, let's scrap this panel idea. They've been tried a few times, and the only one that's really worked quite well is Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request, where the panel spent a good chunk of time talking to each other off-wiki, and came to a conclusion that they could all jointly sign off. I don't see that happening here, the participants being talked about for the panel have already been far too involved in the matter, including Jo Jo who's already made up their mind and posted a "decision" before the panel is even convened, and without any discussion with their fellow panelists. That's no way to approach such a thing. As DGG says, and per my amended !vote above, the discussion didn't reach a consensus and it's time to move on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clearly with DGG on a overturn to no consensus here and now and let's all be done with it. Jo-Jo Eumerus has already filed a draft of his close on the talk page here, and while he clearly put more thought and effort into it than Spartaz did with his, ultimately his close delivers the same unsatisfactory result that fails to properly assess the consensus (or lack thereof) in the AfD in favor of his own supervote. If Jo-Jo Eumeru had closed instead of Spartaz, I still would have initiated this appeal. Also, since we are thinking about precedents, is there a limit to number of times a particular XfD can be appealed? Are second appeals frowned upon or considered to be Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass? Because we could be engineering a sort of moral hazard here, whereby a hasty or poorly-formed close could be issued to burn up the first appeal, only to be replaced with a more thoughtful second close that delivers the same result. I'm not suggesting that that sort of strategy was employed here, but thinking about precedents, that's something to consider for down the road. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that an overturn to 'no consensus' would result in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (5th nomination) very soon after, don't you? There's no prospect of a 'no consensus' close resulting in "let's all be done with it". Incidentally, a DRV is not the appeal against the decision you think it is. A DRV is a request for an uninvolved admin to assess whether the AfD was closed properly, and all the re-litigating of the original AfD has no bearing on that whatsoever. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, I understand what the DRV is. It's an appeal/review of the AfD's close, which was obviously wrong. When I said "let's all be done with it", I was referring to this deletion episode. I was not suggesting it would be an end the controversy around this article nor the end of AfDs for it. If we need to do AfD #5, then so be it. If it happens soon, I see no reason to believe it won't result in another no-consensus (if properly closed). Jweiss11 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 and DGG: Regarding the precedent question: Team closes have been done in other circumstances, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination). Both of which concerned contentious societal topics, incidentally. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and close by Jo-Jo et. al I argued for deletion in the previous discussion. The rather bewildering closing statement cannot be very satisfactory to anyone, whatever you think of the decision. Agree with Levivich on this one. Ewulp (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be willing to serve as one of the closing triumvirate. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There was clearly no consensus to delete at the AfD (which I did not participate in). Should be re-closed as “no consensus”. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Jo-Jo Eumerus. (I participated in the AfD.) The closure here was clearly suboptimal from a procedural standpoint. But it reached the only viable conclusion (AfD is not a vote, etc., and [remainder of sentence removed]). There's no point in creating additional work for the sake of mere formalities. -- Visviva (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visviva: your unfounded and erroneous personal attack on me is noted. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't occurred to me that simply calling the reader's attention to your comments would be interpreted as a personal attack, but I did not intend to create a distraction. I cheerfully withdraw the characterization. Henceforth I shall endeavor to keep in mind that your comments do not speak for themselves. -- Visviva (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was not your calling of attention to my comments that I have a problem with. It was your malicious mischaracterization of my advocacy for honoring facts, reliable sources, and logical coherency as evidence that I'm a racist. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I hope the closer(s) will clearly explain why the arguments against this being a WP:POVFORK did not apply. According to the project page POV forks are created to avoid engaging with the opposing POV, which is clearly not the case here. Also, I hope for a better explanation about why the fact that this article was created first does not apply. WP:POVFORK reads: "another version of the article [...] is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first". If anything Scientific Racism is the clear WP:POVFORK here: it was later in time, its title clearly assumes the conclusion and it does not engage the opposing viewpoint. 165.225.64.74 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC) (anonymous since there is a lot of accusations about racism here, which I expect to heavily influence how many and which people contribute. I hesitated a long time before deciding on leaving a comment).[reply]
• Comment: inasmuch as various participants here have pointed to the numeric totals as evidence of dissensus, it's worth pointing to the proverbial elephant here. Intentionally or otherwise, Wikipedia in general and AfD in particular has provided a safe space for white supremacists for a very long time, with predictable consequences for the makeup of the community. In the interest of not creating further distractions, I'll refrain from citing specific examples here; I'm sure we've all seen these processes at work many times over. Any effort to use the raw numbers as a proxy for consensus/dissensus (a questionable enterprise at the best of times) must take that background into consideration. I think the actual closure, as well as the draft team closure, dealt with this issue appropriately. -- Visviva (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's cute and all, but we know who you are talking about and what you are trying to say. Lepricavark (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. I participated in the AfD and saw no obvious consensus, certainly not on POVFORK. Hzh (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should also say that I have no objection to it being closed by someone else, unfortunately Jo-Jo Eumerus has already made clear their position, therefore any closure by Jo-Jo or a team with Jo-Jo in it can be seen as prejudicial, therefore the closure would be best done by a team without Jo-Jo if that is to be route taken. Hzh (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe that as Jo Jo was undertaking the close at the time, had expended the effort and was willing to submit his analysis thus far constructed to a team, that the only case for a re-close is if Jo Jo carries it out. If Jo Jo does not carry it out, then it is of note that the closer thought this was a delete, and that you are opposing Jo Jo because you believe Jo Jo is minded to view this as a delete. If Jo Jo does not reclose this, I would say this is a clear case for endorsing the close, as two admins would then be deemed to have found a case to delete, independently of each other. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure if I follow your argument. Anyway, the point is that someone else ignored Jo-Jo stated intent to close the argument, and did it in an unsatisfactory manner that warrant being overturned. Some people are arguing that it should be re-closed by Jo-Jo, the problem is that Jo-Jo had already stated their intent, whether the intent is to delete or keep is no longer relevant, because it's it being already revealed that is the problem, you can't really ask someone to act as an impartial arbiter when their intent is already known. It's not Jo-Jo's fault that it happened, but it did. Hzh (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the result is not already known, as we do not know what the team will discuss. Yet, if you are adamant that Jo Jo cannot close this, then my view would necessarily have to move from "overturn" to "endorse" based on Jo Jo's stated rationale alone. This would be based on the fact that we now have clear evidence that two admins believe delete was correct, and that further gerrymandering of the close team looks remarkably like an attempt to keep objecting until you can find an admin that agrees to keep the article. This comment is not just directed at you. Two other editors have spoken elsewhere of their desire to exclude Jo Jo (who, I repeat, was already carrying out the close), simply because Jo Jo made a statement that we requested. To my mind it has to be Jo Jo or else there is simply no case to overturn. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what I said, which is that any admin, however many there are, who have already stated their intention, then they should not close or assess any closure be it individually or as part of a team. You cannot use anyone with a declared intention to keep or delete to be an impartial judge. This is true whether they want to keep or delete and whatever the outcome maybe. If you want to characterise other people who have a different opinion from you as gerrymandering, then there is nothing further to discuss, and I should say nothing more apart from restating that my original opinion, which is to overturn to no consensus. Hzh (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and close by JJE and friends per El_C and friends. Yes, clear consensus that was POVFOLK, SR/M, and all that, but my concern is that Spartaz' action was out of process and would not have happened if Template:Closing had told admins "Unless you are Jo-Jo Eumerus do not close". ミラP 00:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn and close by JJE et al So the closing statement was suboptimal to put it mildly, and it shouldn't have happened because there was a group close in the works and ignoring the ongoing efforts of others was at the very least impolite, and the punt to DRV was completely unacceptable, and continueing to relitigate the AFD dispute here just rewards that kind of behavior which will encourage future similar action by others, and the best way to prevent that in the future is by requiring a reclose now and every other time it happens. Yet it pains me to say this, because I find JJEs draft closure convincing. We don't need anymore bureacracy than we already have, and this is just going to come right back here for another review with just as much acrimony. And yes it was always going to come to DRV regardless of the closing statement. I've always hated process for process sake when we know the outcome will be the same, yet in this case the negligence was such that a reclose is the appropriate action. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or Overturn and close by JJE et al - I think either of these options are justified. Wikipedia is not censored, but is also not a dumping ground for inexpert analysis by Wikipedians of every study done on race and intelligence. Coverage has to be encyclopedic and based on reliable secondary sources with a NPOV. The original discussion was closed with the correct conclusion, though I agree the process was not properly carried out, hence my two positions above. I did not participate in the original discussion. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus per DGG. What was the purpose of the close if the closer states that it will not be enacted "until there is either a DRV or it is clear this close has been accepted"? That proviso is an admission that the closer knew such a perfunctory close could not stand on its own, either before the community or before a steward needed to perform the deletion. Why take on the responsibility of closing if you intend to immediately pass the buck? "Its seems pointless". Regardless, the reading of the discussion as forming a 'clear consensus' is wrong. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and salt or endorse and redirect to scientific racism. There's absolutely zero link between "race" and intelligence no matter how much a bunch of neo-Nazis want to feel superior to black people. There's no need to engage with a debunked racist theory, so scientific racism is a valid redirect target. EDIT to clarify, since people think my comment is directed to "overturn" voters: I'm not saying that people who want to keep this article / overturn the deletion are racists. I'm saying that this debunked theory is promoted by neo-Nazis, and we don't need to engage them in the slightest. (Ergo, concerns about presenting both sides are unnecessary, since we don't need to offer any of the pseudoscience that neo-Nazis try to use to argue that they are superior to black people other than to mention it and debunk it with real science.) Hence, delete or redirect are both valid outcomes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

even if this statement is a political opinion shared by all right-thinking people, I do not see how it is relevant in a deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reaper has made a good comment. Instead of pretending in order to win a AfD/DRV, they are saying what they mean. Not many here have the b*lls to say whay they mean. I think "overturn" means your a racist, and "endorse" means your not in about 30 percent of people here. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling everyone who disagrees with you racist, now that's a winning strategy! I think we need the article in the same way we need homeopathy, vaccines and autism, Moon landing conspiracies and so on. They are all nonsense, but they are nonsense so widespread that an encyclopedia should cover it. --mfb (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See edit to my comment. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clarification, so those that disagree with you are not racist, just supporters of neo-Nazis. PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I interpreted Reaper's comment to mean that we shouldn't engage with a debunked theory that is elsewhere promoted by neo-Nazis. I don't believe he was extending that label to anyone in this thread. Mind you, I don't agree with Reaper's stance, but I think we owe him the courtesy of interpreting his words as he intended them to be interpreted. Lepricavark (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peregrine Fisher: that's way over the line. Please strike it. Lepricavark (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think the source of the chaos in the AfD thread, now spilling over here, is that the formulation in the AfD nomination was defective for purposes of eliciting actionable views and consensus ----- and that because of that, having new judges carefully parse the conversation is fruitless and will not lead to a good decision (whichever it is). The Afd nom was long, confused and confusing. Instead of a few clear and well-understood grounds for deletion it put forth multiple intellectual ruminations that only made sense if you shared all of the proposer's assumptions. Theories included: that the word "and" in the title is inappropriate; that Everyone Knows it's impossible for there to be any correlation between the things in the title; a novel notion of "synthesized WP notability" based on this impossibility; that the whole article should be deleted (vs renaming) when the reasons given focused only the title; and more. Individually, none of the intellectualized arguments would have gained much traction by itself, indeed they seemed to lose traction as rebuttals were posted, and the arguments for deletion then kept mutating. But discussing the vagaries of those arguments diffused enormous time and energy that might have converged to a conclusion in a more focused AfD. The lone surviving mutation was "it's a POVFORK", not by conquering the opposition, but only in the sense that arguments about whether the article is a fork or not were stopped in the middle when AfD was closed. This somewhat explains the current state of things, but I don't see how putting a panel of new eyeballs on the same mess would accomplish anything. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a criticism of my nomination, I shall answer: You were the second most prolific writer to the AfD thread, and fully one third of all your Wikipedia edits in total were to that thread. Despite this, you never mentioned that you were confused, nor that the nomination was confusing. You did say you thought it was misleading, but several editors answered that, and that is now a record in the discussion. AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion between editors. I think you had plenty of opportunity to challenge any confusion. At the time of closure, discussion had gone quiet for about 2 days. It does not appear to have been cut off in the middle at closure. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been so long, I forget what your reasons for delete were. Can you provide a short summary to remind me? I mean short, like GNG, NOT CENSORED, etc. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. All the arguments are in the AfD thread and can be reviewed there. The question for DRV is on process only. — Sirfurboy (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the aim of the question is not to re-argue the AfD but to point out that the nomination did not contain a specific WP deletion reason, only a cloud of vaguely deletionish rationales surrounded by philosophical argumentation. For example, not only was the current deletion reason POVFORK not mentioned, but you stated in a comment that the article is *not* a POVFORK... but is a (sort-of) content fork as you sort-of argued in the nomination (i.e., that it is similar enough to be a sort-of fork, and although the article has no apparent POV problem, it qualifies as some sort-of POV because of some philosophical or linguistic objections to putting the words Race and Intelligence near each other in the title. Or something). 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the AfD thread, opinions on the general structure of the nomination were less relevant than discussion of the particular arguments advanced for/against deletion, so I didn't pursue it. I did spend three words calling the arguments in the nomination "misleading" and "severely POV". Nobody (and certainly not "several editors") addressed the first characterization at all as far as I can tell, and opinions on the second correlated with opinions on deletion. The discussion had not gone quiet for two days, and the time spent on analysis of FORK had been mainly consumed by the questions of whether an earlier article can fork a later one, or a history-of-X can fork X. Those are, as several Delete voters argued, WP policy technicalities that are secondary to the question of whether the material in the article is inherently subsumed by the other articles, e.g., how much of the group differences stuff is there and how much more would fit there. The arguments and counterarguments about that were never explored much, probably due to 20 other things emanation from the aforementioned cloud having been argued to the point of exhaustion. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2 Seeing that History of the race and intelligence controversy has been raddled with missing references I discovered some of them in this article. I have therefore copied them over now(diff) in case this article is deleted. There are other referencing problems I can't resolve so I hope someone else sees to these. This all makes me deeply sceptical of the claim for the article's rigour (above) of the history article. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse or recommend close per Jojo's rational - I am uninvolved here and I agree that this subject as a whole is a POVFORK of Scientific racism. Other than that, continued advocacy to keep the article while arguing endlessly on talk page every single day for more than a decade by some White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis also gives a bad taste in the mouth. Orientls (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure your POV makes sense, although in fairness I don’t watch list or edit in this area so could be missing something.... The controversial research into racial group and IQ showed that Jews and East Asians had the highest IQs while whites came out very average. Any evidence that any race, Jews in particular, are of superior intellect to whites is the exact opposite of the (anti-Semitic white supremacist) ideology of neo-Nazis and white supremacy and is a contradiction in terms, but anyway.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the aim of the bogus research was to show that those racial groups and their respected countries and communities are homogenous, that's why their IQ is high. The proponents and creators of the bogus report claim that Whites have very high IQ but average IQ is in decline due to mass immigration to their countries. For a name, Lynn's report include that Northern Spain has a very high IQ because of white people but Southern Spain has much lower IQ because of Africans and Arabians living there. This is why I said that this subject is nothing but a POVFORK of scientific racism used for advancing White Supremacist and Neo-Nazi agenda. Orientls (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of this meta-analysis which the full text shows white IQ to be average and Jewish and East Asian IQ to be higher than whites IQ. I am not saying this oldish meta-analysis is the end of the debate or ‘the truth’. It may well be wrong. I know there are social, educational and discrimination that may explain some and perhaps all of the IQ gap, and we should strive to describe these scholarly viewpoints, that are not written by fringe racists, rather than just delete the whole article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be done at Scientific racism which is only 11k bytes as of now. Orientls (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, white supremacists manage to use IQ scores to perpetuate harmful stereotypes against groups that score both higher and lower than themselves. –dlthewave ☎ 22:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and deleting race and intelligence article from Wikipedia will just remove this article from google and push curious interested people in the direction of white supremacy and other racist websites to seek out information on this subject matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. If liberals and mainstream institutions like Wikipedia can't speak honestly about the how the constituents of various racial and ethnic groups score differently, on average, on IQ tests and other measures of intelligence, then the only people left to speak about it will be racists and right-wing fascists. And they will surely have that conversation for all us, loaded with all their distortions. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literaturegeek (talk · contribs) deomonstrates one of the major problems of this article by saying "Any evidence that any race, Jews in particular, are of superior intellect to whites." NightHeron (talk · contribs) already refuted this in the AfD with multiple sources making the point that "that the consensus view among Jews is that Jews are not a race." The refutation was a direct response to this same claim from Literaturegeek there. Thus by repeating this here, we see demonstration that (1) their fuzzy definition of "race" allows equivocation in the article that appears unresolvable. Heritability of IQ is an important topic, but mixing it with talk of race just muddies the waters; (2) despite the refutation of a point we see it repeated again and again; and (3) some people seem to have mistaken a deletion review for an extension of the AfD. The question here is whether the close process was correct, not whether we can make new arguments - or repeat the same arguments - for keep/delete. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, races are fuzzy, roughly-continental super-groupings of ethnicities. Ethnicities, like Ashkenazi Jews, aren't hermetically sealed either, but they are still meaningful groupings along many dimensions, including genetics. As such, I wouldn't be opposed to renaming Race and intelligence to Race, ethnicity, and intelligence. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Jweiss11's earlier point about how white supremacists will have this conversation if we don't, I should mention that white supremacists have already created a set of articles about race and intelligence at their own alternative to Wikipedia. I'm not going to post links to the articles, but you can find them if you look up "Race and intelligence" at Metapedia. That site's articles about race and intelligence are extremely one-sided, but I predict that if Wikipedia's article about race and intelligence is deleted, some people who want to read about this controversy will end up reading about it at Metapedia instead. By deleting the Wikipedia article, we would eliminate Metapedia's most important competitor in this area, and I think that's an outcome we should try very hard to avoid. 2600:1004:B15E:CAD3:5D7C:318E:D85D:4E77 (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy. To the best of my knowledge NightHeron provided zero sources to back their position up. I informed NightHeron that claiming Jews are not a racial group could be considered very offensive to some Jews and to be anti-Semitic. NightHeron never replied to this. I think you are mistaken--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Literaturegeek: Since you again are accusing me of making an anti-semitic comment, and you didn't read my reply to your earlier accusation made during the AfD (even though I pinged you), I have to reply to you again, hoping that this time you'll read it. Obviously none of this belongs in a Deletion Review, but I can't let such a scurrulous accusation go unanswered here. The following is the text of your accusation and my previous response (you can find the links to the 4 references in the AfD): NightHeron, actually your comment claiming Jews are not a race is one of the most anti-Semitic and offensive things someone can say about or to Jews. Although I am not suggesting you are anti Semitic, rather I think you are ill-informed of this subject matter. And Judaism and Jewish ancestry are not the same thing, although they heavily overlap, obviously.--Literaturegeek (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Literaturegeek: If you wish to become at least a little bit informed about issues of Jewish identity before you next express a strong opinion on the subject, that's not hard to do. A 1-minute Google search reveals many places that discuss this intelligently, such as: [1], [2], [3]. It's clear from the sources that the consensus view among Jews is that Jews are not a race. Moreover, many Jews consider the notion that Jews are a race to be dangerous, because it is a common view among white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, and other anti-semites. So no, I was not expressing an anti-semitic view when I said that Jews are not a race. Quite the contrary. NightHeron (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

From the publication "Confronting Anti-Semitism" of the Anti-Defamation League: "Today, anti-Semitism can be based on hatred against Jews because of their religious beliefs or their group membership (ethnicity), as well as the erroneous belief that Jews are a `race.'"[4]

NightHeron (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literaturegeek, here's another source, and another. But according to the tenets of scientific racism, Ethiopian Jews must be both above and below average. Perhaps there's a flaw in the science somewhere. Ewulp (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence on intelligence that shows "Jews" having a high mean is generally evidence about Ashkenazi Jews, a different ethnic group from the Beta Israel of Ethiopia. See also: Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Generally, the "flaw" in what you're calling "scientific racism" can became explained with straightforward mathematical logic. It can the case that Group A has a higher mean than group B on given trait, while at the same time a subgroup of B has a higher mean than a subgroup of A on the very same trait. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which evidence? "Tests conducted in the first two decades of the 20th century routinely showed Ashkenazi Jewish Americans scoring below average. For example, the IQ tests conducted on American soldiers during the first world war found Nordics scoring well above Jews. Carl Brigham, the Princeton professor who analysed the exam data, wrote: 'Our figures … would rather tend to disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent'. And yet, by the second world war, Jewish IQ scores were above average ... A similar pattern could be seen from studies of two generations of Mizrahi Jewish children in Israel: the older generation had a mean IQ of 92.8, the younger of 101.3." (source) Ewulp (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just cited some yourself: "by the second world war, Jewish IQ scores were above average". Also from Steven Pinker's 2006 New Republic article (https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes): "Their average IQ has been measured at 108 to 115, one-half to one standard deviation above the mean." Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's cherry-picking of the evidence to disregard the early-20th-century scores and the Mizrahi scores. Pinker does this too in the linked article. The field of "race science" is rife with such sleight of hand. Ewulp (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mizrahi scores don't negate the Ashkenazi scores. And the more recent Ashkenazi scores that Pinker refers to are more robust than the WWI scores. It's also the case that environmental/cultural/educational factors influence an ethnic group's score over time (e.g. Ashkenazis in the US largely being poor immigrants circa WWI, but largely middle and upper-middle class a generation or two later). I'm seeing a recurring theme here from a number of the elocutionists. First they say there's no evidence. Then when you provide the evidence, the say it's racist BS. Blank-slate denialism is rife with this sort of tactic. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I provided that evidence, remember? I quoted the article about the WWI and WWII IQ tests. And I'd like to know exactly what "evidence" you think I've denied. "Environmental/cultural/educational factors influence an ethnic group's score" – exactly, but the article under discussion is supposedly about "race and intelligence", not the well-known effects of education.. Ewulp (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NightHeron, that is very weird, you formulated the ping correctly and I never got it, I even checked my list of notifications and it is not there (I never cleared them). I thought you had not replied as I checked, probably shortly before you did reply, and thought you had chosen not to respond. Anyhow, I apologise for not being more careful in how I worded things here and not checking more carefully into whether Jewish people regard themselves as a race, ethnic group etc. You are indeed correct that many Jews do not like to class themselves as a race for several reasons, although some do regard themselves as a race, it is controversial amongst Jews. Perhaps I confused race with ethnic group. Though there is controversy and debate amongst Jews about how to describe themselves. The Jerusalem Post says the following: “Jewish” was never a category for race in the US Census, Ostrer notes, even though genetic studies “would seem to refute this.... I will have to be more mindful about how I comment on this delicate subject matter, like I have said I am new to this topic area and certainly no expert, just an editor who saw a deletion discussion advertised on a wiki project page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology. Please note that the article you cite from the Washington Post (which is one of the ones I cited before) does not say that whether or not Jews are a race is controversial among Jews. It says: "Ethnicity? Nationality? Faith? Culture? Heritage? Even Jews don’t agree on just what Judaism is." It does not list "race" as one of the alternatives. The article also explains why it doesn't make sense to classify Jews as a race. Another source I gave, from an official publication of the Anti-Defamation League (perhaps the leading organization in the US that campaigns against anti-semitism) specifies the erroneous belief that Jews are a race as a source of anti-semitism. I'm not familiar with Israeli sources, but I believe there are some Jews in Israel who interpret the Biblical concept of "Chosen People" as a justification for racial supremacist thinking and for the illegal settlements -- just as there are some anti-semites who also embrace the notion that Jews are a race. According to the Washington Post article you cite, "Early Americans commonly viewed Jews as a separate racial category...That perception became far rarer after the Nazis' racially motivated Holocaust." NightHeron (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs NPOV editors to edit against fringe extreme left and fringe racist right wing POV pushing in this subject area to bring about content and maintain content that reflects differing academic viewpoints, not just delete the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn in favour of keep or at least no consensus Personally, as far as this article goes, for social, religious and moral reasons I really really WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And for personal reasons as I have started a relationship with a biracial woman recently. I do not like the idea that research, albeit conflicting, exists to suggest that one racial group has advantages over another, but we cannot ignore notable academic sources — what we can do is summarise the different theories (social deprivation, discrimination, educational standards, genetic, diet etc.) and make sure racists don’t skew the research to suggest genetic causes are proven or known to cause all or any of the deficits, the jury is out and debate continues in reliable sources. However, it is very notable as far as reliable sources go and if we delete the article then hundreds of thousands of readers over the coming years will turn to other sources, which will include white supremacy, racist and other fringe sites to get their information which will be far more biased, harmful and dangerous than a Wikipedia article which attempts to explain the subject neutrally (and can be improved upon, the article is not perfectly written). I believe the bizarre close as delete is basically a super vote that has thoroughly biased this discussion; the previous, at least, three deletion discussions resulted in a keep close, but now the debate has been skewed and biased the whole discussion to one of delete versus no consensus with no one putting forward a case that the article should be kept despite strong keep voters and arguments in the discussion (the keep people are fighting the unreasonable delete closure by arguing for the middle ground, hence the biased direction). The delete closure without summary could be seen to have acted as a calling to other admins who agree to back them up. I agree with @Amakuru: that JOJO’s proposed close is flawed and I agree with @My very best wishes: that JoJo’s posting of a deletion closure draft before the panel has convened is further heavily biasing this already problematic close process as I explained here and here. Now we have delete supporting editors advocating for JOJO to be the closer or to be on the closing panel as JOJO has written a draft to support a delete closure.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why you forgot to mention that you commented many times on the AfD? Orientls (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I got distracted focusing on what I was writing and forgot, thanks for reminding me. I am more than happy to state here that I voted keep in the deletion discussion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong overturn. I am a Research Psychologist, and this deletion attempt is a clear POV-based attempt to censor data (with known scientific consensus) that disagrees with a political viewpoint. The editors in favor of deletion are openly admitting in this thread that their motivation is to stop "white supremacists", "Neo-Nazis" and other far-right conservatives. That is clear and compelling evidence of a biased POV. To accept this deletion is to give up on neutral POV in Wikipedia.

My argument for overturn is that this admin incorrectly judged consensus when saying that there is consensus that this article is a "POV fork" of "History of the Race and Intelligence Controversy". There is certainly no consensus there. Anyone claiming that consensus exists will need to respond to the obvious argument that this article is actually the neutral one. There is no POV in the data on "Race and Intelligence". The POV is in the interpretation of that data: the stuff in the "Controversy" article! These editors are trying to delete raw data and redirect everyone to their POV-filled arguments about the data, without letting anyone see the data itself! If they can hide the actual data from anyone else's view, then all anyone can see is their POV! Orwell warned about this kind of doublespeak in 1984. It happens when a single political orthodoxy gains authoritative power. It also happened in the USSR under the name Hypernormalization -- a phenomenon where everyone starts using words to mean the opposite of their actual meaning.

Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's 3 "core content policies"-- all other policies and rationale come second to these. If you are voting to censor data because it feels racist to you -- that feeling is your POV bias. Data itself cannot be racist. Only people are racist. Racism is the result of ignorance. You won't help anyone become enlightened via censorship. That's only furthering ignorance.

Save Wikipedia! Don't succumb to this biased POV censorship! Toomim (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)— Toomim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Why you forgot to mention that you commented a few times on the AfD? Providing defense for ""white supremacists", "Neo-Nazis" and other far-right conservatives" while showing contempt for USSR is not going to put you in a good light at all. Such comments, if anything, serve as a dead-giveaway to acknowledge where you are coming from. Orientls (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just did exactly as I described -- attacking POV and political affiliation, rather than addressing any substance in the argument. Orientls, you are totally off-topic with this blatant POV politicking. And for what it's worth, I'm a Berkeley liberal. So you're wrong, too. Toomim (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of what you are, you have still not backed your claims. There is no censorship but an agreement that the article is a POVFORK of Scientific racism. You can create many similar articles such as Comparison between IQ levels of Blacks and Whites, but is contrary to WP:CFORK and that's why such creations including this article on race and intelligence needs to be avoided. Orientls (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought we agreed this X was a fork of History of X. Now it's a fork of a different article Y? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orientls, are Wikipedians expected to look favorably or even neutrally upon the USSR's despotic information suppression and manipulation? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You did not listen or respond to anything I said, and you are talking about the wrong article entirely. We are talking about "History of Race and Intelligence Controversy", not "Scientific Racism." You are very off-topic. Toomim (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If there's a claim that you want backed, you need to say which claim it is. As it is, it looks like you aren't listening at all, which means you aren't trying to find consensus, and do not belong in the discussion. Toomim (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jweiss11, I would say neutrally but my point was that comparing all of those USSR's history with how we are doing things here shows contempt at least for USSR if not just towards Wikipedia.
• Peregrine Fisher, the AfD mentioned a few similar articles though I agree most with Scientific racism being the correct page where this article can be redirected.
• Toomim, any important sentences from the article can be reasonably added to Scientific racism where this subject fits inclusion instead of having stand-alone article. Orientls (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Orientls: If there would be an agreement this page (and the AfD) would look different. No. A minority claims that there is consensus to delete this as POVFORK, which is a very strange view. Another minority wants to delete the article because they don't like its existence at all, and another minority wants to keep it. At least the first and third group has reasonable arguments. There is clearly no consensus, no matter how often you might claim that there would be. --mfb (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I am biased as I !voted in favor of delete, but crucially deletion review is a judgment about whether the closing admin properly evaluated the policy based arguments in the discussion and properly assessed the informed consensus. It seems the admin did exactly that. I do not see a good argument made that this was not the case. Counting !votes, making WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, or claiming that this is some great wrong seems to the be the most common features of the opposing opinions here. That's not how discussions at WP:DRV are supposed to work. jps (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to keep the dialogue on topic. However, there is still some lack of agreement about whether the closing admin properly assessed consensus. I don't see consensus that this is article is a POV fork. For instance, there is still an outstanding argument that (I just made above) that the article Race and Intelligence is actually from a neutral POV, and that the article about the controversy is the biased one. How do you resolve that? Toomim (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I resolve it by noting that the admin already took that into account and found your proposal that the racist version of the article was "neutral" was lacking serious plausibility. jps (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral in that the close appears to be a valid close that has reached what I consider a stupid result. The purpose of DRV is to review the close, not to second-guess the fact that the community has messed up, and there is a lot of re-litigating here. I would prefer to see a team close, but there is no reason to overturn this close except to get to a better answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus. Reasons: the chaos of the original discussion due to defective formulation of AfD; resulting failure to resolve or address basic questions around the current deletion rationale (e.g., is it a POV- or C-FORK? If so why is the core content, group psychometric differences, missing in the other articles? Aren't those article even more POV as a home for that material, and do they have enough space?); and the lack of confidence in the post-AfD process to date and unlikeliness of resolving that with a new review panel. The best course of action would be to restore the pre-AfD status quo, and either resolve the FORK questions on the Talk page, or in a second AfD purely about FORK. Deleting without resolution of surrounding issues will effectively create irreversible censorship of the group difference data on WP, which is a major decision to take with neither consensus nor announcement. Several of the Delete voters were explicit about wanting that outcome, but it should not be backdoored by proxy through this AfD (or even a second AfD) without a direct clarification of WP's position on such censorship in the future, in the event of a deletion. (Added: I commented extensively in the AfD thread and voted Keep) 73.149.246.232 (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As one third of all this IP editors edits to Wikipedia have been on this AfD process, I added the standard: — 73.149.246.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. as a note to the closing admin. The IP editor has reverted my edit so I am forced to make this an explicit comment. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty clear to anyone following the details of the AfD and attendant phenomena that Sirfurboy (the AfD nominator) was manipulating the discussion on a number of dimensions. Adopting a loose and ad hoc standard of what constitutes SPA so as to (in this case and possibly some of the others in the AfD, falsely) attach the tag, just to squeeze out another ounce of manip potential, is not a good look. Let it go already and allow people to reach a decision based on the issues. There are enough of those as it is without adding "nominator control-freaking the process" to the list of problems. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, I did not add the majority of the SPA tags there. You may want to strike your accusation that I was manipulating the discussion. Looks like a personal attack to me. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i.e., you did add some SPA tags there, and now here, in addition to conducting forensic investigations of a number of Keep proponents in both threads (whereas blatant canvassing by a certain Delete voter did not seem to trouble you or cause any investigative fervor). You are not exactly an uninterested party in these questions as the AfD nominator, and if others were already pursuing the sockpuppets and SPAs, letting them continue on their own would have been enough. In addition, sealioning anyone arguing in the direction of Keep in the AfD; purporting to referee your own AfD (this was in effect the content of many of those voluminuous sealion replies); avoiding objections while giving the appearance of answering (your exchange with GardenofAleph in the AfD might be the easiest example of this for onlookers to parse); gladhanding; showing up on Jo-Jo's user page to "direct" what happens post-AfD, and on the Admin noticeboard of this case to tell people what they are and are not allowed to talk about are examples of steering, pushing and POV-ing the process. There is a difference between attacking persons and criticizing behavior and this is the latter. I can give as much detail as needed if you would like to continue pursuing this but I would rather just leave it at that and let the administrative decisions run their course. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not going to get involved with relitigating any of the arguments, but as you have launched into all this, and I feel I need to make some kind of reply, I shall also deal with your arguments to overturn. You say that the "core content" on "group psychometric differences" is absent from the other articles. This is false. Scientific racism speaks specifically about psychometrics, following which there is much discussion of testing of group difference. It is also covered fully in History of the race and intelligence controversy. Heritability of IQ discusses this too (see section "Heritability and caveats" for instance). Thus there is no "irreversible censorship" going on here. The information is there. It is not going anywhere. Nothing is being censored, and censorship was never the purpose of the AfD.

Your reply being enormously long, I will take the liberty of interspersing indented replies instead of one super-answer at the bottom (and may add further interspersions as time permits; I cannot answer it all at once).

re: core content, I explained in the AfD thread specifically why Scientific racism and Heritability of IQ contain essentially nothing relevant from the race and intelligence article; and that the History Of article contains only a couple of sentences quoted in passing from other sources, not any exposition of such material per se. If the current article is deleted there will be massive opposition and edit-wars if any of its Jensen or Murray-Herrnstein style of data are copied into the other articles. Some of those articles very obliquely mention group differences on tests without saying what they are or which groups differ in what way, and only by way of making some arguments about what these unstated differences do not mean. I.e., the writing is enforced to remain at the level of Victorians writing about sex, in extremely indirect terms, and such restriction will be stronger, not weaker, if R&I gets deleted. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now, concerning the renewed personal attack on me. I have broken your observations down into individual bullet points, but these are all very off topic for the DRV. I have spent some hours trying to decide whether I should ignore it (as I have for your various other digs at me), whether I should write on your talk page or whether I should write here. I have decided that my reply needs to be here, but I will collapse the discussion as an off topic defense, that can be safely ignored by the closing admin and others. No discussion of policy reasons to endorse or overturn are found in the collapsed material.

As for manipulating the process - that is a pretty astounding claim when I have said above that I would prefer that this close be overturned and handed back to Jo Jo, who was already doing the work to undertake a team close. I say that knowing that Jo Jo et al. could come to a different conclusion. Although Jo Jo has now presented a partial rationale that was already written at that point, it would have been and still will be subject to discussion by the others in the team close if we allow a team close. I have actually argued for something that could overturn the result I wanted here.

To be clear, if I wanted to manipulate this process I would simply endorse the existing close and fight to get everyone else to endorse it. A no consensus here would lead to the deletion being upheld. I have done the exact opposite of manipulating the process here. I have shot myself deliberately in the foot in suggesting that we overturn and reclose, and I argued for that because I believe it is important that we do this properly and fairly. You, on the other hand, have simply argued that the whole thing should be over-ruled entirely. It is pretty clear that I, at least, am not manipulating the process here, and I do think you should strike the accusation. That is an unwarranted personal attack that is not relevant to the DRV (as it was not my decision that is being reviewed, after all). -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over 50 edits about other topics before the AfD started, some more afterwards. For an IP that might change? That's a lot. Clearly not a single-purpose IP. --mfb (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a determination the closing admin can also make, because edit history is visible to all, and the template merely asserts that editors have raised a concern that this editor has made few or no other edits when commenting here (in this case it is few rather than none). My comment above was correct about one third of the user's edits being on this process alone. I have looked again at the figures. The user had actually made 36 main space edits from their fixed IP since 7 November 2019 and prior to commenting on the deletion, but has now made 52 edits on the matter of deletion of this page. As I said, one third of all their edits are on this deletion. 61 of their edits are to talk pages. That is the information. I have raised it and it is up to the closing admin to decide whether it is relevant in their considerations or not. I also add that I was not the first person to apply this template to this IP. That was done in this edit by another user so I am not the only person to feel that this IP is taking disproportionate interest in this subject. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this had been about merely providing data to admins, that was accomplished by adding the SPA template, signing the accusation and stating the quantitative reason ("one third of edits"). It doesn't actually look so neutral; all of the SPA notices were attached by Delete supporters to users arguing for Keep, and the same for the the sockpuppet investigations, with no corresponding interest in determining how many of the Deleters arrived due to canvassing by an activist editor. And if this really were just out of a neutral interest in the abstract integrity of the AfD and DRV, as nominator maybe you have some COI and should step back from trying to control things overmuch, but let's ignore that. In this pureminded quest for purest purity, it was obviously totally unacceptable that someone (Mfb) should contradict your data and give the admins the wrong (i.e., correct) idea by pointing to other relevant numbers. So we got another forensic investigation trying to prove the point with numbers fudged even worse than the first attempt.

Pretty obviously, counting *edits* rather than *number of comments* or *number of pages/topics* (this recent flurry of AfD, DRV, Talk pages, etc is all essentially one matter) will overcount discussion threads, in which replies are long, numerous, and multiply edited, compared to normal small edits of random WP pages. Another way to manipulate the data is to exclude non-AfD edits since the AfD, which of course artificially raises the fraction of "edits on this topic". Then, ignore the age of the account; if any of the most active participants in this topic had created their current account 6 weeks ago, and then decided to participate in the R&I threads, it would have been a large share of their WP use to date. Finally, when the numbers still do not point to SPA, keep lowering the standard to something ever looser, from "single purpose" to high percentage of activity (after data fudging) to the rather Orwellian-sounding "disproportionate interest in the topic". 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Anyone can add an SPA template. The fact no keep supporters were so marked is perhaps because they all had significant numbers of edits. It is near certain that someone would have marked them otherwise. (2) The only identified/suspected sock puppet was Sprayitchyo. Yes, he supported keep. (3) All three IP editors who expressed a view were keep supporters, so again, does not look likely there was any ban evasion on the delete side. (4) The only canvassing noted is what is in the thread. 4 cases of off wiki canvassing on sites or feeds skewing strongly for keep. (5) I personally canvassed no one, and contacted no one. You may check my edit history to confirm. I also conducted no off wiki canvassing, nor even mentioned this to anyone I know. (6) There was permitted awareness raising on both sides. One editor from the keep side contacted all active editors who had previously expressed a view in a past AFD, one editor from the delete side left messages on related pages. These were both within the rules. (7) On wikipedia, edits is the preferred measure of activity. Yes, longer entries may involve more edits, but then that is also a fair indication of the time taken to construct them. It is not perfect but it is what we use. (8) My point, and the point of others who raised the issue is therefore that your contributions to this one debate are wildly disproportionate to any previous activity on Wikipedia. You did not start editing 6 weeks ago, you began 15 weeks ago. In your first 12.5 weeks of editing you made 32 main space edits. In the 2.5 weeks this issues has been going on, you have made twice as many edits on this topic alone. Although you are, of course, entitled to comment on the issue, it is the level of you activity and the influence you are trying to assert on the debate that makes you look very much like an SPA. New editors do not tend to get so heavily involved in Wikipedia admin so quickly. Can I just check - are all the edits on your IP since 7 November yours? and did you use another IP or account in the past? If you have other edits you can claim, then that could obviate the whole discussion. (8) mfb was perfectly entitled to say what he said, as I was to say what I said. (9) the SPA template says that you have made few or no other edits. WP:SPA says: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards." I believe I have treated you with respect and civility (to the point you complained about my politeness), but you should indeed expect additional scrutiny seeing as the greater part of your Wikipedia career is now demonstrably focused on this topic alone. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)

• Comment. The seemingly off-topic 'are Jews a race' is a great illustration of the downside of deleting articles like Race & Intelligence. All the WP Judaism articles heavily avoid the R-word (race), and Jewish race redirects to Jews exactly as proposed for R&I, instead of expounding the common question of whether and in what sense Jews are/aren't a race. The result is that total ahistorical nonsense along the lines "of course Jews are not a race, that is a complete misunderstanding and possibly anti-Semitic" propagates. Until 1945, both Jews and non-Jews uncontroversially used terms like "Jewish race", and similar language with "tribe" or "nation" (in the premodern sense of the term) to designate the very same thing that is now unironically called "the Jewish people", as though that were different (I admit "Chosen race" must have sounded bad even before WW2). It is true that after the war, some Holocaust-traumatized liberal (Reform) Jewish modernizers began to advocate for the idea that Jewishness be redefined based on religious belief independent of ancestry. Historically membership by belief is a Christian concept, and it is not exactly a fringe view in Judaism today, but it is very far from being a majority view among Jews. Surveys (e.g., Pew Research in the middle of the last decade) confirm that ancestry, previously known as "race", is the predominant concept if not the only ingredient in the soup as far as most Jews are concerned. In some ways ancestry is more predominant than ever because secular Jews need something other than religion as a basis for their Jewish identity. See for example this article in the Jewish Daily Forward or the article on Who is a Jew. The problem is that it's hard to write about this on Wikipedia, and impossible under an article of its own, because of the panic about all things "race". 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For roughly the last 75 years since WW II there has been a consensus that the word race should be used carefully, and not interchangeably with such words as nationality, people, ethnicity, or common ancestry. This consensus is reflected in Wikipedia, as it should be. This IP-editor takes a mocking tone toward Wikipedia policy, takes a mocking tone toward the notion that categorizing Jews as a "race" is now viewed as anti-semitic (e.g., by the Anti-Defamation League founded by B'nai B'rith), and even takes a mocking tone about the effect of the Nazi Holocaust on our understanding of race and racism ("some Holocaust-traumatized liberal (Reform) Jewish modernizers"). Whatever the intent of this editor might be, the tone and content of this comment are anti-semitic. NightHeron (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny (I'm Jewish). This must be the tenth or twentieth time in the past two weeks here that you called someone or something racist, anti-Semitic, pseudoscientific, white/male privileged and so forth.

Literaturegeek was right the first time: many Jews would find it outrageous to be told, especially by Gentiles, that they, the Jews, are forbidden to think of Jewish identity in racial terms because it is "erroneous" and offends modernity. Jewishness is ancient and its internal worldview pre-modern in many ways. It's interesting that it's often enlightened Jews (in this case the ADL), and in earlier decades the reformers I mentioned, who promote the nonsense, but that does not change the reality that it is nonsense and that we can't easily upgrade the presentation on Wikipedia to have less of the nonsense and more of the reality. The educated consumer (e.g, a traditionally religiously educated Jew) knows that ADL is a political organization and hardly an authority on religion or genetics, and as surveys of Jews show it is not even speaking accurately of what most Jews think today. ADL did not provide sources for their statements and are speaking ex cathedra to an external audience, about interpretations of "Jewish race" that even 80 years ago weren't current anywhere outside Nazi Germany. The more ordinary common sense interpretations, of race as an extended tribe or clan (or collection of such) with many distinctive genetic, phenotypic, and cultural markers, matches up pretty well with how a majority of Jews talk and think about themselves, and although "race" is not the perfect description of the situation, it is closer to exact than any of the alternatives like "ethnicity", "religion", "nation". It looks like we can't document that on Wikipedia at the moment. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your venom (toward me and toward the Anti-Defamation League) is matched only by your contempt for sources. Your statement above cited the article Who Is a Jew?, as if it supported your POV. The word race occurs in that article exactly 3 times, all in the context of the Nazi classification of Jews. The article's lede says that Jewish personhood [has] cultural, ethnic, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions.... Jewish identity is also commonly defined through ethnicity. Opinion polls have suggested that the majority of Jews see being Jewish as predominantly a matter of ancestry and culture, rather than religion. Nothing about Jews being a "race." This consensus is properly reflected in Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP does also seem to make the excellent point that neither "race", nor "ethnicity", "religion" or "nation" are quite right for this article. He is wrong to say nothing is exact though. The exact term he is looking for is heritability. I think he makes an excellent case for an article on Heritability of IQ instead of one trying to use a nebulous concept of race. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The closing was premature. No clear or even rough consensus seems to have been developed at the time of closing, with policy-based arguments being made on both sides. The closing was done prematurely for such a big article, especially one that has hundreds of academic references, has been on the site for years, and has even been nominated for good article status; to make such a big change, a consensus made by a broad sector of the community is needed. The weakness of the consensus is demonstrated by the closer's acknowledgement that a deletion review was basically inevitable. Jancarcu (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as it is pretty unclear what direction it was going in. It looks to be a no consensus, but a team close should at least summarise arguments, what policies apply, and what a recommended action is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist in order for a clear consensus to develop. If one doesn't come about in a reasonable time, then re-close by blue-ribbon committee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the sound of that. What is a blue ribbon committee? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus, SilkTork, Barkeep49, Mazca, and Scottywong:, though this may or may not need a five-member committee; it may or may not need more, I'm not sure. But yes, I like the sound of the term "blue-ribbon committee" of experienced closing administrators. Doug Mehus T·C 15:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Peregrine Fisher I just realized you might not have been asking who might make up such a blue-ribbon committee, but rather what such a committee is. See blue ribbon committee—typically, it's a committee, usually appointed by governments, made up of distinguished academics, senior business executives, former heads of government or state, and current or former distinguished judges or lawyers, to examine large-scale issues and problems. I noted that blue ribbon committee was moved to blue-ribbon panel. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that's the WP:COMMONNAME. I think we should request to move that back. Doug Mehus T·C 15:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where SilkTork, Scottywang, and Mazca come in. Also I'll point out that should this DRV be closed suggesting there should be a group close, RoySmith is confirmed as part of the closing panel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes, RoySmith would be great to include. My reason for suggesting any of the other three editor editors is because of their demonstrated ability to determine consensus in particularly tight, or at least highly controversial, deletion discussions. SilkTork for the Erica C. Barnett AfD (and others), mazca for the Megxit AfD, and Scottywong for his work closing many controversial and/or tight MfDs. Fair enough, though, to limit the blue-ribbon committee to those previously identified as wanting to volunteer for the group close. Doug Mehus T·C 16:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think @Jo-Jo Eumerus: is at all suited to be on a 5 member panel, as I explained here, because, I feel, they have behaved somewhat like an activist for the delete side. Spartaz’s close effectively acted as a request for other admins to back them up and then Jo-Jo seems to have pretty much straight away spent a lot of time drafting a backup delete supporting close and then publicly posted here a link to their draft delete as if to influence and bias the future panel. It was as if Jo-Jo could not wait for the team panel to be set up, that they themselves at the time requested to be set up, so they had to take a course of action that backed up Spartaz’s problematic close. Of course then many delete supporting editors inevitably saw what I saw, that Jo-Jo would fight their corner, and they started posting in support of Jo-Jo doing the close or being on the closing panel. Replacing one inappropriate or biased close with another inappropriate or biased close is not the way forward. One person who is experienced is Sandstein and I suggest he is asked to be on the 5 member panel — I do not know Sandstein personally, only interacted with them very rarely on-wiki and I’ve never communicated with them off-Wiki but have seen their closes before and was impressed by their in-depth knowledge of policies and their interpretation. So I have no idea how they would interpret this close except that they would do a high quality close free of bias or advocacy. I am not suggesting that Jo-Jo is a problem editor, I have no doubt they do very valuable productive work for the community and encyclopedia, just suggesting that in this instance they are not best suited.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  To clear up some confusion, the reason why I posted here was because I thought that after Spartaz's close the panel question was moot. Not because I was expecting that people then would ask for a panel. The "as if" part is simply wrong. That said, I see there are at least three or four admins other than me who are volunteering to be a new panel, anyway, so I'll probably step aside unless the DRV close says otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your reply Jo-Jo. I am still confused because you posted publicly here on this page that you had requested — on the admin notice board — for other admins to join you in a team close. Is there any material difference between a ‘team close’ and a ‘panel close‘, or perhaps you have misremembered events?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Panel close=Team close. I think you are misinterpreting that comment; it was meant to say what I had done prior to Spartaz's close, not what I wanted to do after it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Jo-Jo Eumerus' close rationale: After spending over an hour reading the articles, the arguments here and at the AfD discussion, I believe that Jo-Jo reflects consensus far better than Spartaz's close. I am impressed with Jo-Jo's careful analysis of the discussion, and their representation of the arguments. I did not vote in the AfD. Waggie (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, after reading through the deletion discussion again, I see stronger and more consistent policy-based argument on the deletion side (discounting all the "IDONTLIKEIT" arguments). Both sides did offer policy-based arguments, but Jo-Jo's close outlines a more consistent case for deletion in the arguments, while keep arguments varied but seem to surround "it's notable on it's own" from the other related articles but couldn't really point out precisely how it differs, with arguments like "This article is about the correlation between IQ score data and self-identified Race data. Those other articles are not." - doesn't specify how they are not - (here) and "This is a notable, if controversial, topic, and it does not fit neatly into any pre-existing article." (here). I do agree that it's a narrow margin, but I do feel it falls on the side of delete, rather than keep or no consensus, based on the strength of the WP:*FORKing concerns which don't seem sufficiently refuted on the keep side in my view to make it no consensus (if, like Jo-Jo points out here, that the "first" article had some sort of precedence in policy, then things would probably be different in my view). I also found strength in the deletion argument that suggested we are (in Wikipedia's voice) suggesting that there was a link between specifically race and intelligence via the article title when there is not any reputable modern science that suggests a direct link (even some keep arguments suggested (here) and here) that there was no direct link and expressed concern that the title might imply as such). I have opinions on potential alternative outcomes, but this venue is for discussing the merits of the close only. Thanks for reading folks, I apologize for the wall of text, I just wanted to clarify my position and explain why I am endorsing per above. Waggie (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it was a self-defeating closing argument by Jo-Jo Eumerus. In conclusion of closing they said: "On balance, it looks like we have a consensus that the topic is notable and that being contentious isn't a reason for deletion [this is certainly correct, but a reason to "keep"] ... but it's not clear if it should be covered at Race and intelligence or in the various sub-articles mentioned w/o a central race and intelligence article.", and so on. Well, but covering a subject without having a central page on the subject is simply ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinged to this discussion. Reading the above comments, I'll be available to reclose as part of a blue-cheese committee if required. SilkTork (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I would of course welcome serving beside you if there is a need for a closing committee. However, it might be more helpful now that you're here if you would consider closing this DRV instead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah @My very best wishes:, the keep argument was actually strong but the inappropriate close as delete has biased most of the keep voters to argue for the middle ground as if the keep argument was not strong. This whole discussion is biased by Spartaz’s poor quality close.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I simply tink that deleting the page does not make the subject (that actually exists) go away. If we have numerous subpages on the subject, we must have main/central page about it (some sub-pages might be deleted if necessary). This is also not just a history, but something really existing in the modern discourse, whatever one might think about it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• At the point the original close really ought to be overturned for process reasons. The closing admin gave a weak, policy-free close that immediately punted to DRV, then has gone offline for over a week. We should not endorse that as a proper practice for difficult issues. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bassam Adeel Jaleel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no where near enough input for a redirect or even a delete and the article should be restored under no consensus, there was, what I felt some decent sourcing and Adeel Jaleel has a very high position in his country, was WP:POLITICIAN also ignored? Govvy (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm endorsing my own closure because I wasn't contacted prior to this deletion review. This review request is unfounded, just like Govvy's "weak keep" in the AfD. According to the article, this person never held a political office, so WP:POLITICIAN does not apply. President of the Football Association of Maldives is not a political office. Apart from that, Govvy only wrote: "I see room for improvement, there are sources on the internet and I see WP:GNG could be met". This is not useful as an argument in AfD, because it could be said about almost any article. A "keep" argument should indicate which specific reliable sources indicate the notability of the specific topic at issue, or why the reason given for deletion does not apply. In my view, I therefore properly did not take into account Govvy's view, which was at any rate only expressed as a "weak" preference. Apart from that, nobody else wanted to keep this article. Sandstein 09:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Govvy, if you say there is coverage about Jaleel, why haven't you posted those in the AfD then? It doesn't help anyone to just say "I found sources", yet not share them with anyone nor improving the article. For that, I agree with the closure (for now, plus you just invoked WP:POLITICIAN which is a WP:VAGUEWAVE that gets discounted). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Govvy:, what exactly do you want from this DRV? Looking at the sources there's every chance he's notable enough (though many of them don't really mention him), but the article also fails WP:PROMO. He also doesn't pass WP:NPOL. I don't have any problem if you want to clean up the article's promotional concerns and demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG, but I also don't have any problem with the close. SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Er, there are 5 sources on edition.mv Interviews on YouTube, Does he position mean nothing here? There are a number of articles with his involvement in Maldives football like Gulf Times article, he passes WP:GNG it's easy enough to google his name. It's not a redirect, there where over 10 citations on the article, for which I thought only half of them were any good. It's clear to me the article was okay'ish, needed a cleanup for sure, but he didn't need a redirect and didn't fail GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and point 2 regarding WP:POLITICIAN - President of the Football Association of Maldives, a Football Association makes and sets the rules on the Maldives football league, that's still a national office if I am not mistaken for that organisation body. Govvy (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Saying a non-policitian/judge passes WP:POLITICIAN because he holds a national nonpolitical office is as preposterous as saying he passes the GNG because you can google him. No case to answer. Endorse. —Cryptic 10:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Govvy's !vote doesn't address the other arguments. "I see room for improvement" - well yes, most articles could be improved, especially spammy ones. "there are sources on the internet and I see WP:GNG could be met" - GNG doesn't just require the existence of sources, it needs the right kind of sources. Linking to specific examples of sources would have been a lot more convincing. "Also doesn't he qualify for an article via WP:POLITICIAN for his position?" - WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply to the president of the Maldives football association, it isn't a major national or state-level political office. In the UK for example POLITICIAN would apply to MPs, MSPs etc, but not to the chairman of The Football Association. There wasn't much participation in the AfD and I don't think there would be any problem with somebody rewriting the article to remove the spam and add better sources. However the sources in the article don't look sufficient to me to get the article across the threshold of the GNG. Hut 8.5 12:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply Thanks Hut 8.5, compared to other comments, you're the only one who I can really understand. I think what bothered me most about the AfD is only GiantSnowman and myself made any comments, and the lack of detail in the close for why go with GiantSnowman's suggestion, I had a good look at this article and felt, not only was the argument for redirect lacking detail as is normal for GS's comments in AfD, he was never a man of many words, but the undetailed close. I see multiple faults with the AfD, the fact that a lot of editors seemed to stay away and not make any comments. Now here are people asking me to raise my arguments why an article should be kept. I feel it's dam right unfair that other people suggest one person do all the work on one article. Wikipedia is suppose to be a collaboration, I fail to see how every aspect of this article isn't questioned, people are getting lazy at AfD. I questioned if he falls under WP:POLITICIAN, I don't understand why people would throw stones at me over that. I expect more from some admins and would gladly criticise anyone who fails to do what I would call an admins due to do things correctly. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want a longer explanation from the closing admin then the best thing to do would be to just ask them, which you are strictly supposed to do before filing here. Sure, lots of AfDs don't get much participation, and this one was relisted twice, but after that we really ought to close it and I can't really fault the closer for disregarding this argument. If you have some strong argument that wasn't mentioned in the AfD then that may justify reopening it, but there doesn't seem to be one. A Redirect closure, unlike Delete, can be undone through normal editing, and even if the guy is notable it's hard to argue that the article doesn't need major surgery. Hut 8.5 14:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. A straightforward and correct close. No evidence supplied that the GNG is met. Govvy’s proffered sources do not satisfy the GNG. WP:BIO1E applies. Add move content at Football Association of Maldives, and seek consensus on the talk page if a spinout is desired. There has been no deletion, so this is not a DRV matter. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. After two relists, it had the Delete by the nominator (assumed since nominator did not say anything else), a Weak Keep, and a Redirect. Redirect is a reasonable split-the-difference by the closer. No error by closer, and the appellant has not claimed an error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I disagree with User:SmokeyJoe as to whether this is a DRV matter, because a redirect is a partial deletion, but I agree with SmokeyJoe as to Endorse. The issue is not whether political notability applies; that claim is silly. It is whether sports notability applies, and whether general notability applies. Sports notability does not apply to commissioners (North American usage), so the issue is general notability. But we are not re-litigating, but reviewing the close, and the close was satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, a couple of us debated this once previously, and came up with the following essay: Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection as accurately describing the dividing line. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse- I see no procedural issues with the close. Reyk _YO! 04:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Martenson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reason for deletion was the supposed lack of notability. Notability is not admissibility or correctness. There are citations in the original AfD page from twenty years ago on him plus citations find able of news sites discussing him. Wikipedia articles should be edited to reflect the information on a noted source. Noted and notable because the subject appears in the news. Hfarmer (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- closer correctly judged consensus at the AfD. Reyk _YO! 07:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- "The supposed lack of notability" when his videos have gathered half a million views each about the critical pandemic threatening the entire Earth civilization? When other media are trying to shut him down and ridicule him? What a joke. Even if the article were not "notable", I would wait till March purely not to take sides in this (as the article had been up for a decade).--Adûnâi (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn- Over the past two weeks Dr. Chris Martenson has been specifically talking about the 2019-nCoV outbreak from the perspective of his academic education in virus research and pandemics on YouTube[15],. Presented as part of his broader work in understanding global instability and effective solutions related to intersecting issues of global finance, health, energy, et cetera[16]. This looks like Dr. Martenson's page was unreasonably deleted when he became notable this week for expressing his relevant academic knowledge on a topical subject. After one article authored by Ali Breland opined that he was doing this on YouTube just to 'Cash In' and 'make money'[17]. Using Breland's underlying assumption from his own article that humans only publish for their own financial gain, we can say that Breland must have written this article just to 'Cash In' and 'make money' for himself. In addition a Wikipedia editor expressed a rash opinion that Dr. Martenson is 'now a conspiracy theorist' that seems to have been taken as fact, however that is a false claim. Jaspercool (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh God, here we go. Hi, everyone from YouTube! Welcome to Deletion Review, where we don't "oppose" things. We "endorse" the decision to delete, or we "overturn" it. On Wikipedia notability is admissibility and nobody cares how many million billion trillion times your videos have been viewed. Nobody is going to provide sourced quotations to you. The burden of proof is on those who want to include disputed material. That burden is satisfied only by providing direct links or unambiguous citations to mainstream, reliable, secondary or tertiary sources that have discussed the subject of the article.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Be nice to the newcommers.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My previous remark made more sense when I wrote it; but it seems that some of the contributors to this debate are editing their contributions even after they've been replied to.—S Marshall T/C 00:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Not the best AfD of all time, but there's no other way this could have been closed. I'll also make some popcorn for everyone who wants to contribute. SportingFlyer T·C 14:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse but... [18] (listed above as the 3rd reference) has significant (though largely negative) coverage just in the last 5 days. Not enough, even with previous stuff, to get over the WP:N hurdle, but just noting that this could change quickly. One more "mainstream" (yes, I just called Mother Jones mainstream) article like that and he's probably over the bar. It will likely be a largely WP:NBLP if the 2nd article is like the MJ one, but... Hobit (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that the article existed so long if just a bit more coverage.... One article can do it keep it. An article need not be about a hot topic, or positive. If the sources say negative things add them. He just made a Chinese news website. 虚假内容圈粉 部分YouTube视频作者大发“病毒财”--Hfarmer (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- it doesn't matter that an article is X number of years old. There's no "grandfather clause" that exempts articles from WP:V or WP:N once they hit a certain age. Wikipedia is a big place and bad articles sometimes escape notice for a long time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't clean them up. Reyk _YO! 18:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  True... there is also no expiration date on a PhD in pathology. There is no obligation to keep an article around forever. However, a subject being written about in the media for a prolonged time makes them notable.

  Things that were notable for a decade don't cease to be notable because they get some negative press. Remember being in Wikipedia isn't a value judgement. In fact if someone strongly believes Martenson is a quack given the situation it would be more logical to use the negative press mentions to edit his WP article to say so. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Are people actually arguing he passes WP:ACADEMIC? No evidence for any of the criteria: no substantial number of citations, any professorships, etc. As for SIGCOV, there is none at this time. Apart from the MoJo article, there is nothing significant, so more articles such as this one should appear for a decent notability argument to be made. Nobody's arguing about the time issue. No quality sources have been presented from a decade ago either. Note that earned media is of particular concern these days. We're not futurologists, if there is coverage in the future, so be it. He fails the GNG at this moment. I also agree with Fourthords and others in pointing that this discussion is not supposed to rehash the deletion arguments but should pertain to whether the AfD was properly closed, which it obviously was insofar as the consensus was adequately assessed. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Merely arguing that he's notable. The reason given for deletion was that he was not notable. He is not an academic but I would dispute the idea that we equate being a Scientist with being a Professor. Plenty of people who have advanced degrees in the sciences leave academics to find something that pays better. That or they just get tired of the many MANY aspects of being an academic that have nothing at all to do with ones learned discipline. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody's saying he needs to be a professor. Which criterion of WP:ACADEMIC does he meet? PK650 (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion's instigation does not meet WP:DRVPURPOSE. That being said, I see no obvious problems with the AFD, and endorse the closure by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the criteria you cited is "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" Which this very discussion brought to light. As Hobit said he is right on the line of being notable. Mainstream sources are covering what he is doing. The coverage is not positive. In fact some think he is spreading misinformation. If so that is all the more reason to keep the article and edit it to reflect that fact. SO yes it does meet the reasons to have such a review.

  I request that this discussion be kept open so that this can be openly and transparently hashed out so as to avert any real conspiracy spreading type talk. Lets show people how WP works.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So, in the 33.63 hours between closing the AFD and your opening this discussion, "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating [this] deleted page"? If so, that could've been communicated better, but feel free to hash out those claims. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It won't be closed until, at the earliest, 168 hours after you opened it, so Dr Martenson's advocates will have plenty of time to make their case. You can try replying to most of the people in this discussion, if you think that'll help; but Wikipedians as a group are skeptical, critical thinkers and we respond to evidence, not rhetoric. The effective way to get this article restored and improved will be to provide links or unambiguous, checkable citations to two reliable, secondary sources that discuss Dr Martenson and/or his work. If you'd like a clear definition of the Wikipedian definition of reliable source, this page is a good starting point.

  You might think that Dr Martenson's professional qualifications make him a reliable source in his own right, but on Wikipedia, this only applies insofar as his work has been published in scholarly journals or other sources that are peer-reviewed or have another kind of fact-checking regime that we can verify. We don't accept academic experts' opinions via their Youtube channels or blogs, because those aren't checked by anyone else and I'm afraid that there are people with PhDs who'll put their name to all kinds of idiocy; if you're interested in the reasons why we take this view, try this page.—S Marshall T/C 00:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  He had written a contribution that was published in Nature.[19]. Yes I got that information from his rebuttal video (in which I happened to feature, because I was the only opposing voice at the time).[20] But it is still a publication in a respected scholarly journal. Someone Not Awful (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I know about those policies. I wrote on Wikipedia a lot from 2007 to 2019. Please don't assume people who disagree with your interpretation of policies are ignorant of them. Especially if those people played a part in shaping those policies over a decade ago. :) Evidence has been presented, not rehtoric. Those presenting rehtoric have been those who want this to stay deleted. Here's a story on him from the Hong Kong China News Agency http://www.hkcna.hk/content/2020/0205/807117.shtml is that unreliable for some reason? Do you think only news from Xinhua is reliable? --Hfarmer (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of notability that's potentially a source for an entirely negative article about Dr Martenson in which we say that he's described in the sources as a purveyor of misinformation. I would maintain my opposition to Wikipedia hosting any such article, on WP:BLP grounds.—S Marshall T/C 00:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not admirability .... not "admissability". Notability is not that someone is a great person we like. Again you couch your incivility in civility. Do as you please. In light of the revelation that Chinas Hubei province was not counting cases correctly, they have admitted to underreporting by a factor of nine, people are right to be very concerned about this. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/13/805519117/a-change-in-how-one-chinese-province-reports-coronavirus-adds-thousands-of-cases --Hfarmer (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal from the close. If it is a request to re-argue, which it appears to be, that is not the purpose of DRV, but the appellant should be permitted to submit a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I see no newcomers here. I see editors with varying amounts of experience who should all be treated with civility. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. I was responding to the comment which said with exasperation "this is how we do things on Wikipedia". Let us be welcoming to those who want to contribute. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not what S Marshall said. If you're going to use quotes, quote accurately. Lepricavark (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Restore - this deletion smacks of cleansing by those opposed to his presentation of information or opinions. He is published. He has been present in media. There are hundreds of people with Wikipedia articles with less press or research presence (recent or past). How long has the article been up? Then in the midst of the virus outbreak he's deleted. RE-INSTATE. Review after the hubbub has died down. (say Jan 2021). -User:Alanbrowne —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 7 February 2020
  • Could you provide sources that meet the requrements of WP:N, our primary inclusion guideline? I'm only seeing the Mother Jones article. We need things that are in-depth, independent of the subject (so not his website etc.), and reliable (which is a bit harder to define, but most newspapers, news shows, and the like all count). Without that, we won't host an article, especially about a living person. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. To all the people being canvassed off-wiki to this discussion, this page is not to re-argue the deletion discussion. All we do here is determine whether the person who closed the discussion judged the consensus correctly, and there's no way anyone could credibly claim that Sandstein wasn't correct in judging that the consensus in this discussion was in favor of deletion. ‑ Iridescent 15:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Robert McClenon, fourthords and others. This is not the place to rehash AfD arguments. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but permit rewriting. The final state of the artile was unsatisfactory, giving little indication of why ther might be any controversy. A NPOV might be able to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC) �[reply]
• Comment Only administrators can view the article. So how about making a copy available on a nonindexed page so we can judge for ourselves? Someone Not Awful (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a correct reading of the consensus, although it might have been preferable to relist it at least once given the limited participation. Lepricavark (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am for relisting the article. There wasn't much participation. It should get a second chance. Someone Not Awful (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FWIW - seems copies of the original article — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Martenson ("currently deleted" from Wikipedia, a/o 20200204) — may have been "preserved" at the following ArchiveSites: https://archive.ph/ixWLX (at ArchiveSite => https://archive.ph/ ) - and - https://web.archive.org/web/20191109165809/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Martenson ( at ArchiveSite => https://archive.org/web/ ) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A lot of what was criticized about the subject of that article has been proven correct see here https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/13/805519117/a-change-in-how-one-chinese-province-reports-coronavirus-adds-thousands-of-cases

--Hfarmer (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JackSucksAtLife (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe that JackSucksAtLife's should have his own Wikipedia page. He is currently blocked from having his own page because his fans repeatedly kept creating the page and now he is blocked from having his own page. He should have his own Wikipedia page because he is influential enough to qualify for his won Wikipedia page. He has 1.11 million subscribers on YouTube and he is verified. Another reason why I believe that he is influential enough to won his own Wikipedia page is because he keeps getting more subscribers and he keeps making viral videos and some big names such as Memeulous who has 3.87 subscribers copy his idea as well .I believe that now is the best time to create the page as his fans have quieten down and there won't be as much people editing it. - AwesomenessCrafty (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC) AwesomenessCrafty (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse salting (i.e., keep deleted) none of those are reasons to keep or create a Wikipedia article, please read our guidelines on notability. Furthermore, Jack is presumably a living person, which tends to make the default towards deletion given our policies on living persons. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think we should have an article on this person then I suggest you write a draft version which demonstrates that he passes WP:BIO and submit it for review. Simple subscriber count isn't enough to make someone notable enough for Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 11:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with Hut 8.5 on this point because I don't think it's fair to raise false hopes here. I'm afraid that although Mr Welsh has uploaded a prodigious number of videos to Youtube and reached a colossal number of subscribers, he clearly doesn't reach Wikipedia's minimum threshold for having an article because he hasn't received coverage in mainstream reliable sources. I advise you not to spend time on a draft.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion/salting per John Wolfson. I also agree with S Marshall that recommending this be made a draft would be a cruel waste of time. Reyk _YO! 23:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, there isn't anywhere near enough meaningful coverage enough to have an article at this time. That said, it's quite believable that there will be and I view it as a reasonable draft to have around. But YMMV. Hobit (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse/Salt I could see an argument that this is a marginal WP:A7, but if not that, then WP:G5 also applies. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HollyElizaa. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per RoySmith. SportingFlyer T·C 14:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse/salt One of the few circumstances where G5 should actually be applied. I've said many times, including at DRV, that G5 is abused and overused, but in cases like this where socks repeatedly promote the same non-notable individual and try to circumvent the process, it's appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am not qualified to offer an opinion on the page itself, because I am not an administrator and have not seen it. My thinking is to Endorse the Salting. However, I will note that the title is only salted for Extended-Confirmed Protection, so that a neutral editor can create it. The fact that an editor has popped up to complain is evidence that the Salting against creation by throw-away accounts is needed, and that editors are probably being canvassed or brigaded from somewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute holiday (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The content of the page, although short, contain more than simple dicdef that was accused to be the only content on the page when the original proposed deletion request was written, which I believe was not an accurate description of the original content on the page. A simple dicdef would mean it only explain what is a substitute holiday. But the page did more than that, as it have also explained how those substitute holiday are arranged in calendar by different countries or government that implement such system. C933103 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The entire text of the article consisted of, Substitute holiday, compensate holiday or make up holiday refer to holidays created due to overlapping of some other holidays. In most of the cases, it happens because a holiday with a fixed date occur on weekends which is also holiday in most of the world.. It had been tagged as having no sources for five years. Surely in the five years since it was tagged, or the seven days since it was proposed for deletion, you could have found some sources? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original reason for the deletion proposal was that it is dicdef, not because it have no source, so I didn't attempted to resolve that issue during that period of time. If the article can be preserved by adding sources in then I could do that. C933103 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both reasons apply. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]