Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 1

Elephant Robotics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant Robotics, the AfD closer wrote, "After a thorough discussion of the available sources, people are divided about whether they are sufficient to establish notability. There are valid reasons for both points of view, such that I can't determine whose arguments are stronger. But in terms of numbers, we have 7 delete to 3 keep (including a "weak" keep"). This is above the two-thirds threshold that I use as a benchmark for rough consensus, ceteris paribus." Three of the comments were made before any sources were provided. Two of the "delete" comments were from IP addresses.

Administrators must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion.

My view is that in a close heavily based on a vote count, Sandstein should have discounted the arguments of the IP addresses. Overturn to no consensus. Cunard (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep as the primary delete !voters argued that a higher standard than the GNG is required for companies, which itself not a policy-compliant position. The anti-business bias here is troubling, as is the number of administrators who seem to be willing to go along with non-policy-based arguments. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a right-to-reply, we keep going round in circles on this issue and I agree there are potentially conflicting passages in our policy and guidelines, but calling it "anti-business bias" is totally out of order and has no basis in fact or reality. If you had bothered to ask (and others have and I've pointed this out to them) WP:N policy says a topic is deemed notable if it meets WP:GNG *or* one of the SNGs (like, for example, NCORP). This is used as an excuse by many editors to just ignore those parts of NCORP which are "inconvenient". Yes, NCORP is pretty strict, but to label its implementation as "anti-business" is just trolling. But, even if you wanted to ignore NCORP and follow WP:GNG (as suggested above and as invoked on countless AfDs), that also doesn't work because the WP:SNG section of GNG specifically refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Finally, your argument that NCORP is a "higher" standard is also untrue - "stricter" doesn't mean "higher". HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course you have the right to reply. I don't think it's appropriate to label my interpretation of policy as trolling, however. Yes, you're correct that 'stricter' is a more accurate term than 'higher' standard. Whether or not the intent is to be anti-business, that is the disparate impact, and that troubles me. We should be fair to businesses, neither allowing them to get away with promotion nor holding them to stricter standards than other topics. NCORP and other SNGs neither replace nor limit the GNG, they augment it, describing other ways in which notability can additionally be established in those specific topic areas. So yes, they can be valuable, but do not serve to restrict topics adequately meeting the GNG without them. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the response. According to your description, there is therefore a hierarchy of notability guidelines with GNG taking primacy and the SNGs merely "augmenting" GNG by providing "additional" criteria in specialist topic areas in which notability can be established. This very topic has been previously discussed at WP:N and many editors disagree with that interpretation and there is no consensus for it either. For example, many SNGs weaken GNG by watering down or removing some the GNG's criteria. Only a very few GNGs are more strict, including NCORP. Rather than recounting the entire discussion (and RFC) here, check our the archive. Leaving that aside though, there are always going to be borderline topics and there are also certain topic companies which (in my opinion) fall between different SNGs (e.g. include record labels under WP:NMUSIC, add a "creative" notability criteria for companies in certain fields, etc) but I disagree and am appalled at your labelling of Delete !voters for following NCORP guidelines as being anti-business. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:N Still says "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right." Discussions and archives aside, the guideline says what it says: or, not and. To the extent that you find my characterization of non-policy-based !votes appalling, feel free to educate me as to the actual motivation, but understand that "because the guideline says so" isn't a valid reply, since the guideline most explicitly does not say so. My admonition of the closing admin stands, regardless of the number of other editors in this thread who appear unable or unwilling to apply the actual language of the guideline to this question. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to NC because A) the first two !votes for deletion don't address the sources found and B) because I don't think the arguments for ignoring the sources are all that solid and C) I really don't think !votes for deletion when the GNG is acknowledged to be met are reasonable. Hobit (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as nominator, but Allow Creation of Draft. User:Cunard appears to be discounting the comments of User:HighKing and User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, who made their comments after User:Cunard supplied sources. There are two questions:
  • a. Did the closer make an error that should be overturned?
  • b. Should either a draft be reviewed or an article accepted?
    • Was the article improved during the AFD? If so, I would like to see a temporary restoration only in order to see whether Heymann would apply. If the article was not actually improved, then the listing of sources was just a URL Dump.
    • I disagree with User:Jclemens in that I do not see an anti-business orientation in any of the arguments. The nomination was not anti-business, but I assume that Jclemens knew that. My nomination was an alternative to disruptive move-warring of a poorly sourced stub into article space.
    • There was no error by the closer, who took into account the initial Delete arguments, the later Delete arguments, and the Keep arguments. A draft can be prepared and reviewed using the additional sources.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument wasn't that the nominator or nomination was anti-business, but that the whole deletion process is. Statements by HighKing clearly expect more of organizations than the GNG, which is simply not policy, no matter whether an SNG wants to override the GNG or not. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the GNG and the SNG are guidelines, it is not possible for one to "override" the other. I'm happy to implement whatever is written in NCORP - if editors want it watered down or made less strict, go look for a consensus to change it. Trying to cast my participation and those who understand the criteria in NCORP as "anti-business" is an ad hominen attack without any foundation in fact and just looks like you're throwing your toys out of your pram because you don't like it. It isn't helpful and it isn't constructive. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the article improved during the AFD? If so, I would like to see a temporary restoration ... – I wrote in the AfD, "I've added these sources to the article." This is a clear indication that you did not notice the improvements I made to the article after you made the AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as correct. Either we bother to have WP:SNG's and we pay attention to them, or we don't. There was substantial debate on the quality of the sources and none of the Keep !voters provided a compelling argument. Attempts to circumvent NCORP's strict interpretation by invoking loopholes and perverse interpretations of GNG, if anything, lends weight to the Delete !votes. The closer's rationale recognised the division between the different points of view and correctly assessed consensus in terms of numbers. Cunard points out that two of the "delete" comments were from IP addresses but there is no evidence that those !votes were made in "bad faith" and even disregarding those !votes leaves a rough consensus to Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I believe the closer did a good job of reading and evaluating the discussion. There was disagreement about the substance of the sourcing in the discussion, and the closer was correct in evaluating how participants felt about whether the sourcing was sufficient (with most participants believing the sourcing was not sufficient). I do think that the article could be recreated. --Enos733 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse wikipedia the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, unless you are an IP and !vote on a close AFD, in which case we'll presuppose your motives and disregard your opinion - no thanks. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please WP:Register if you want to contribute to projectspace discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closure was not manifestly unreasonable and where valid arguments have been made by both sides, the closer is entitled to look at the numerical strength. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. My WP:ATD !vote was ignored, contrary to widely accepted practice. AfD has not been an include/delete dichotomy for a long time. This close was not up to Sandstein's usual high standards. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, correct call of consensus, although I support draftification as per Charles Stewart in the AfD. I see lots of claims of sources meeting the GNG, but when I examine them I judge them to be failing as not independent. References repeating information obtained from the CEO are not independent sources. In draftspace, a better source analysis, and culling of poor sources, can be done. Please follow the advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Morton (plant breeder) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted by Woohookitty under CSD A7. Morton was a founding member of the Open Source Seed Initiative and is famous as a lettuce breeder thanks to a variety of his being the first plant grown and eaten in space. There were ten reliable sources in the article to back this up and three more on the talk page, eleven of them are archived in my sandbox here (two of those are from Morton's website, which wasn't used as a reference in the article). I don't think A7 was appropriate here, and I've said as much on the deleting admin's talk page, but looking at their recent activity (and considering the fact that they didn't bother to notify me at all), I don't know when or if I'll be getting a response from them. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7 with prejudice. This wasn't even remotely borderline, although "On August 10, 2015, 'Outredgeous', a red romaine lettuce bred by Morton in the 1990s, became the first plant variety to be planted, harvested and eaten entirely in space, as a part of Expedition 44 to the International Space Station." (citations omitted from quote) should have been part of the lead. This wasn't tagged and then acted on, but unilaterally deleted, was it? Woohookitty, am I missing something, or do you owe the creator an apology? Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note. I've ping'ed the deleting admin on their talk page, as no response to the prior inline ping was forthcoming and such a discussion really shouldn't close without input from the deleting admin. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I had already left two messages on their talk page about this. They have made a few edits since then. I object to keeping this discussion open any longer than strictly necessary, considering the strong unanimous support for overturning the deletion (I'm not a DRV regular, do they do SNOW closes here?). All the same, I would like to hear why they logged in on January 1st and deleted this article and the talk page, their only admin actions since last November and one of their few actions (less than ten) in the past twelve months. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn – the article contains sources sufficient to establish notability, so it obviously doesn't meet A7. When the article is citing coverage in the BBC that claims "Morton is a pioneering breeder of lettuce", the credible claim of significance test is certainly met. I agree with Jclemens that this is not a close case, and I can't help but wonder how many valid articles have faced similar fates (and how many new editors have been driven away) over the years simply because their creators didn't know how to challenge a manifestly improper speedy deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ^this. I checked WP:REFUND before coming here, and the fact that an admin can summarily delete an article under any of a number of criteria, without involving or even notifying anyone else, and non-admins can't even request a simple undeletion to review their work, subverts Wikipedia's otherwise open and transparent nature and means that the whole processes is subject to mistakes and abuse. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mysterious Whisper cites Plant Breeding Reviews, and I have checked and FM does appear in there. That is a good suggestion of notability. Certainly not CSD A7 anyhow. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• overturn and trout This isn't close to an A7. At worst it should have been sent to AfD. It's important to get A7s right. Anything that looks like it might pass WP:N isn't an A7. Full stop. Hobit (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - A7 shouldn't be for well-sourced articles of more than one paragraph. Those aren't what A7 is for. A7 is primarily for stupid stuff. I haven't analyzed the sources for an AFD, but this isn't an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was a credible claim of significance. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 17:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think it's debatable whether the "plant in space" thing is a claim of significance for the breeder, sounds more like a claim of significance for the plant instead. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more people whose names we'll never hear involved in making that plant and its ancestors. But "Morton is a pioneering breeder of lettuce" is unambiguously a claim of significance for the breeder. "99 of the 104 lettuce varieties were bred by Frank Morton, for whom leafy greens, especially lettuce, is his major focus." is more debatable but a debatable claim of significance is a reason for declining an A7 deletion request, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Bad A7. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dates for Easter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The content generated by the template was essential for List of dates for Easter and merely informative for Easter controversy (where its verbosity could have been limited by the use of parameters), but it was not substed upon deletion as had been suggested in the discussion. — Christoph Päper 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you need the whole thing undeleted, or just undeleted so it can be subst'ed? Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Did the template use an algorithm to calculate dates or did it simply issue the predetermined text? Here is an archive of the article (see table top right). Thincat (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If I remember correctly, I recently changed the template to be able to show an arbitrary range of Easter dates by calculating them. (The results are cached, of course.) In Easter controversy, it should only show a very limited set, as it used to, while in List of dates for Easter it does not harm to show all dates since 1583. — Christoph Päper 07:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for a better discussion. If the template implements an algorithm then it could be of future use. If it simply outputs a table it could, I suppose, be subst'ed. However the nomination, as written (and therefore also the "per noms") was unreasonable. We do not delete templates just because they "mess up" a particular article. We remove the transclusion. Thincat (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Fedotov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article about Viktor Fedotov was created and then deleted following a deletion discussion. Then I recreated it rewriting it anew. I don't have access to the original deleted article but I took into account the issues raised at the deletion discussion. Then it was speedy-deleted again. The subject is clearly notable, there are multiple articles about him in media (for example in Forbes Russia)and continuing coverage of his issues in the UK (see this Guardian article which is less than one month old). Alaexis_¿question? 10:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: temporarily undeleted for DRV (both versions of the article). Daniel (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know well how the DRV process works. Is the discussion supposed to take place here? Alaexis_¿question? 19:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, discussion will take place here. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4 as ineligible. Cullen328, did you mean to use another criterion, or are you misunderstanding what "substantially identical to the deleted version" means? Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD the articles are different enough that it's not a G4. I don't think it's an A10 anymore either, but that's more debatable. Given the low attendance at the original AfD and the improved nature of the article, I'd prefer it get sent to AfD for a discussion rather than an A10 at this point. Hobit (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 because the two versions of the article have scarcely any similarity other than topic. The matter is hugely party political so the result of any AFD will depend on who turns up to !vote. Coverage in UK newspapers is restricted to rather a few titles but when The Times also addresses the matter there are A10 and notability arguments to be had. The coverage in a deprecated newspaper will be discounted. Thincat (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 The two versions are not the same. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 21:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]