Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June

List of fatwas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

To be clear, I'm not opening this DRV just because I disagree with the outcome, but because the closer's rationale was wanting. I have raised this issue on their talk page, but they have not responded. By raw vote count, there are 3 deletes (including nom), 1 merge, and 5 keeps, but more importantly, none of the keep rationales made policy- or guideline-based arguments. I'd like at least a consensus here that the closer's judgment was correct. Ovinus (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. In reading through the comments, while many keep voters did not specifically wiki link to policies they did use the language of notability policy at WP:SIGCOV in making their arguments. Therefore, I don't think one could accurately state that the keep voters were not making a policy based argument. Further, I don't think either side made a particularly strong argument in proving or disproving SIGCOV/ NLIST . The failure to do a proper source analysis made arguments on both sides, but more so on the delete end, weak. The list uses many types of sources, including academic journals and scholarly books in addition to newspapers with inline citations. Therefore, the general argument that the article lacks scholarly sources and fails WP:NOTNEWS by the nominator is not convincing. Without actually providing details about the sources, one can not prove original research and synthesis. On the flip side, the fact that so many sources are used in the article does hint at a passage of SIGCOV/NLIST. However, without a specific source analysis it too is not provable. While I personally think this should have been closed as no consensus, a keep closure is within the realm of reason given the weak deletion argument and the number of individuals voting keep.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the arguments to keep were not appreciably less policy based than the ones to delete it. Rather than DRV, I might suggest the talk page to address concerns that can be solved by regular editing, e.g., documenting and implementing inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like it restored so I can make the appropriate corrections (which I was making but it was deleted before I could post them) since it was deleted for a WP:G11 not for copyright infringement or anything else I can change the sentences and make it encyclopedic and objective Jdtw2022 (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restored in draft at Draft:Italianwinepodcast, please use the submit from review button when you've finished with your corrections. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There's already a sandbox version (User:Jdtw2022/sandbox) and you've posted at Teahouse. There's still no indication of notability. Perhaps it's best left for someone without a conflict of interest in promoting the podcast. Star Mississippi 14:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion as G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Either version of the draft should be Declined if submitted as written from the viewpoint of the podcast rather than presenting what third parties have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to appellant - We know that the queue for review of drafts is backlogged, and sometimes review takes a few months. Please don't try to use Deletion Review as a device to jump the queue. It annoys the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robert McClenon: To be fair, at the time of the listing the article was deleted and the userspace sandbox didn't exist. The nominator isn't trying to jump the queue. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think the current state of affairs with the article in draft/userspace and the main article deleted is satisfactory and this nomination may be closed. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Obhakhan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AFD was closed as delete. However, I do not think the closer recognized that a policy based argument made by Reading Beans (who quoted NPOL directly using green text and connected how the subject passed it) had shifted the final comments all to keep. This was further supported by evidence from Soman. This should be overturned and re-listed to allow further discussion or be overturned as no consensus. 4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist so that recent edits and improvements can be given full consideration. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse as a valid conclusion from the discussion, although No Consensus would have been better. However, also Allow Review of Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist if there is indeed not enough significant coverage, the presumption of notability from NPOL is irrelevant. However it always seems to me to be a bizarre outcome if on one day if consensus is considered not clear enough that a relist occurs, and all following opinions are for one outcome and we then close with the opposite opinion. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to allow further development of consensus. These commissioners are state-level officials, but it's not clear to me that they're state level politicians, so I don't want to directly overturn.--Jahaza (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep in the 11 days since the comment 4meter4 references, the count is 3-0 keeps. The previous delete !votes don't address the topic and never revisited it; according them equal weight is problematic. Another relist isn't necessary, because there was a whole relist after the turning point without any further deletion input. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus the tone of the debate changed after User:Reading Beans cited [WP:NPOL]] in their argument. Should not be overturned to keep as the delete votes have merit as well. Frank Anchor 12:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, no opinion whether to keep, no consensus, or relist. The WP:NPOL argument had clearly turned the tide at the point of closure and there was no consensus for deletion. Because the argument was well-founded in a widely accepted notability guideline, one cannot merely discount those opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn NC or relist are both viable here, deletion is not. Both sides made guideline-based arguments, I honestly can't tell from that discussion what the right outcome is. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist slowly shifting to keep, could use more discussion. 75.99.8.58 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khae Rai Intersection (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe there was a clear majority consensus that the article should be deleted due to a failure of WP:SIGCOV. There was consistent comment that the sources did not meet the standard of that guideline per WP:ROUTINE, and there was no rebuttal of that argument. As such, I believe this close should be overturned in favor of deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Without attempting to restate all of the arguments, and everything else about, IMO the close was clearly incorrect and should be overturned. On one new point, that closer argument was in essence an argument by the closer, and was for a synthesized topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very poor close regardless of where you fall on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. This close was basically, "I have disregarded every single vote and comment in the AfD and have therefore decided it is no consensus." It should be overturned. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. The closer substituted her own view, which could and should have been expressed as a !vote, for a proper assessment of the consensus of the debate. This is a failure to follow correct deletion process. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by closer
  • To clarify, I did not "disregard every single vote and comment in the AFD". Nom statement was that this was an "intersection of two roads", that there is no practice under wp:outcomes to keep intersection articles, and that there was no indication of notability under GNG. The first delete comment (by Trainsandotherthings) echoed that "It would have to take something extraordinary for a road intersection to be notable." The second delete comment (by David Fuchs) was also based on it being about an intersection - "it's extremely rare for any intersection articles to exist because the content makes much more sense in other places..." The third delete vote (by Doczilla") indicated that it was a "barely-sourced item about a street intersection, of all things". However, as the non-delete comments pointed out, this article is not just about the intersection, but about the neighborhood around and named for the intersection. This tells me that the first three delete comments did not adequately engage with the content of the article or the arguments that had been made earlier in the discussion. The later set of delete comments all actually cited policy, either WP:SIGCOV or WP:ROUTINE, however Ms. Snoozy Turtle's comment again cites it being routine "for a road intersection." None of these commenters provided explanations as to how they felt it violated WP:SIGCOV and WP:ROUTINE, and none of them engaged with the sources found by 3 kids in a trenchcoat.
  • Regarding the keep arguments, the first two argue that the focus of the article is or should be the neighborhood, rather than just the intersection. However, the first two do not provide sources indicating that the neighborhood meets notability. 3 kids in a trenchcoat is the only commenter in the AFD who provided a substantive attempt to engage with sources. However, they were hampered by their lack of fluency in the language, and those sources have not made it into the article. Lerdsuwa did do some independent evaluation of the sources found by 3 kids in a trenchcoat, but did not go into detail as to how they did or did not meet the requirements of GNG.
  • The closer's job is not to merely count votes, but to evaluate the arguments. I did not find either the keep or delete arguments persuasive. Thus I closed it as no consensus. I added the clean up tag to the article as the title of the article causes confusion (at least as far as was apparent in the delete comments), and it does need more sourcing.
  • I disagree with the assertion that my closing statement was "in essence an argument by the closer". I was not making an argument about the article, I was not substituting my own view (I have no view on the article). I was merely summarizing my reading of the comments made in the discussion and the weakness of the arguments on both sides, which lead me to close as no consensus. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also like to draw attention to wp:NHC.

  "Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."

  ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Right now I feel like a meme of some one who keeps running back going "and another thing!" but if the commenters in a discussion cannot even reach a consensus about what the article under discussion is even about, how can there be consensus about what to do with said article? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The failure to deliminate a topic is a result of the poor sourcing to support said topic. If we had sources addressing this topic "directly and in detail" we wouldn't be having problems with delimitation. It's not surprising that in a case without significant coverage that issues like this exist. To my mind this is further evidence of a lack of notability in support of deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as no consensus. The closing admin correctly pointed out most of the delete votes lacked policy-based rationale. Frank Anchor 19:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:ROUTINE is part of Wikipedia:Notability (events) and thus isn't applicable to an article about a junction. This weakens the delete argument. The closer's statement seems like a reasonable explanation why they closed as "no consensus". NemesisAT (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete If I view the initial relistings are reasonable in terms of consensus, followed by one "marginal" keep (lean), one "debatable" delete (considered it just to be the intersection) and three deletes - perhaps the deletes weren't comprehensive but their meanings were clear - how many more delete opinions would be required to move from not a clear consensus? clearly a perverse outcome relisting was essentially meaningless. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It seems like the burden of proof these days has fallen disproportiontely on those editors who want to keep an article to find and demonstrate that there are reliable sources that prove notability while those seeking deletion can simply say that a subject isn't notable or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed). I think the closer was correct in discounting Delete "votes" that just reflect an editor's opinion on whether or not an intersection should be considered notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that is indeed what WP:BURDEN states. If you feel you'd like that to change, do feel free to gather a consensus for your proposal in an appropriate talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, actually WP:BURDEN applies to content within an article, not entire articles. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  " or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed)." - it may not be able to be confirmed, but it can be rebutted by finding those sources, which is exactly the point, no one can prove the negative here, I can't show a picture of stuff I couldn't find because well I couldn't find it, or are you proposing I have to record in someway all the searches done and prove to the satisfaction of those opining to keep that the searches were comprehensive somehow? Of course those saying the sources exist, can point to them and demonstrate it which would seem a much easier standard. 81.100.164.154 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you have spent time looking for sources and failed to find any, then say "despite searching, I've not found any sources", rather than just "there aren't any sources". Better still say what you did find, e.g. if you found a sources that mentioned it in passing, say "I found an article [link] that mentions it but nothing more.", if you searched the archives of a particular newspaper and failed to find any coverage, say that. If you can't even verify that the place exists, say that. Mention what search terms you used, especially if you used multiple ones. In other words - be specific about what you did and what the results were. Not only does this make it clear that you have spent time looking, it helps other people with their searches and reduces duplication of effort and can explain differences in results (someone searching for "Place, Country" is going to see different results to someone searching for Place, Province). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So as one of the delete opinions states "The obvious caveats about searching for foreign language subjects applies, but I wasn't able to find any evidence that there's significant coverage of the intersection itself" seems to meet much of that. Regardless it makes little difference the objection is coming for the form of expression of the opinion expressed but not the substance. The stuff about being helpful to others is of course well taken, but not really the terms of the original complaint - and frankly I'd expect those of the opposite opinion to want to search and examine for themselves rather than take my word for it. 81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't able to find any evidence that there's significant coverage of the intersection itself is only partly relevant given that the article is not solely about the intersection. I'd expect those of the opposite opinion to want to search and examine for themselves rather than take my word for it and well they might, but that's their choice. If you say "I've searched X and Y for Z" then someone else with limited time can start by searching different places and/or using different search terms, and it is better all round to see "I found nothing when searching X and Y for Z" followed by "I found the following sources in X and Y when I searched for ZA and ZB" than "There aren't any sources" followed by "well you can't have done a proper BEFORE as I found sources within 5 minutes". Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse I think there were two threads in this AfD, was the intersection notable, and was the neighborhood that contains the intersection notable. The consensus to the intersection was a clear no, while the neighborhood question is closer to a yes. While I feel the best close would of been to draftify to change the primary topic and discuss the title, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is a valid argument, so I'll weakly endorse this. Jumpytoo Talk 05:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete I believe that participants in a discussion have an expectation to discuss the sources found in the article if another participant points toward additional sources that may meet GNG. In this case, the four delete comments after 3 kids in a trenchcoat's keep comment all suggested the sources found were not sufficient to meet GNG. And looking at most of the comments favoring deletion, there is a suggestion that the coverage is not significant. I do understand where the closer was coming from, as many of the comments also referred to intersections not being notable . --Enos733 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - This was a poorly written close that reads more like an !vote than a close, but it was a close that properly reflects the lack of consensus. It is a waste of time to say that the closer should have drawn a conclusion from the discussion when the conclusion was not there. The conclusion did summarize the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It's clear from the AfD that there is consensus that the road junction alone is not notable, but there is no consensus about the wider neighbourhood of which the road junction is a part. As the article is about both neighbourhood and junction and not every topic covered in an article needs to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, we're left at no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: May I suggest that those arguing to overturn and delete take a look at the present article, now at Khae Rai, Nonthaburi Khae Rai, which has since undergone major restructuring and expansion, and confirm that their positions still hold? Cc: 4meter4, Stifle & Enos733. PS Also North8000 and Trainsandotherthings. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)–14:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So now there are two questions. Review of the close and the future status of the expanded and renamed (and possibly new-scoped) article. On thee latter question I would try to learn if the surrounding neighborhood truly has an recognized identity as such and my answer would follow that. Perhaps the pragmatic answer here should be to reopen a new AFD. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Major changes during the course of a DRV are difficult to usefully address. I would also suggest a new AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree a new AFD would be preferable. --Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete The consensus throughtout the article was for delete. There was two editors who who were pushing for a keep, but that consensus was never sustained throughout the article. The large comment in the middle presented a whole series of newspapers in Gbooks, that mentioned as its an address and stuff is being done, without any deep analysis or anything of significance. The supposed argument about their many articles in the category is false, because they all lists. Nobody is creating intersections articles. Editor ONUnicorn completely ignored the consensus for deletion. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference that caused editor Paul_012 to move to keep stated: The traffic at Khae Rai intersection is critical. They are going to build a tunnel. The second reference "Police station ready to dust the Khae Rai tunnel to solve traffic problems ". Typical road and car for this mediocre and generic article. That is why the consensus for delete. There is currently 40million road junctions in America, making for about 300-500million across the world. Is that what we are aiming for. scope_creep^Talk 15:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Scope_creep, there seem to be typos in your comments that prevent me from understanding what you mean. I guess you meant discussion rather than article in the first instances, but I can't figure out what "The supposed argument about their many articles in the category is false, because they all lists. Nobody is creating intersections articles." means. Also, there's no reference that "caused [me] to move to keep". I offered the news report in addition to my main point, "The sources already cited in the article go in-depth into the junction and neighbourhood's name and history" (emphasis added). Frankly no one in the entire discussion bothered to argue why those two sources (DD Property and the Royal Society) were inadequate for establishing notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My spelling and grammer are woeful. The DD Property is real-estate company who has prepared a profile on the area for investors, as they investing in area because they are talking about possibly putting a tunnel in and building a electric train station. The Royal Society talks about the area. The rest of the articles, "History of Nonthaburi Municipality" an investment newsletter, "Police station ready to dust the Khae Rai tunnel to solve traffic problems Waiting for villagers to understand the benefits of the project" the tunnel, "Dust off and restore the Khae Rai Tunnel.", a video that 1200 people watched, a pdf that even can't translate, so its non-rs, Ref 9 details building a train station, ref 10, 48billion for the train station, and so on. The whole article is a brochure article/advertisement for the upcoming tunnel and train station. That was the reason why the consensus was consistently for delete. scope_creep^Talk 08:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's your reason personally, but I can't assume it is for any of the delete !voters in the AFD as none of them cared to comment on the sources individually (DD Property and Royal Society were the ones that were in the article during the AfD). --Paul_012 (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep an article not being in English and not being machine translatable does not mean it isn't a reliable source, it means speakers of that language cannot determine whether it is reliable or not. It might be reliable, it might not, but we can't write it off as not-reliable until we know. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thryduulf: How goes it? I managed to get it translated. It is a hand-written proclamation by Field Marshall Plaek Phibunsongkhram dated December 1945 and contains a list proclamations renaming certain roads and bridges in honour of certain individuals. It doesn't add much really, the most cursory information. It is a passing mention, more reason for deletion. The presence of the article is an advertisement, due to the electric train station and tunnel being built. Any decent train station if its done properly, brings masses of investment. Who would write about an intersection in any case. It has to be most boring subject in the world. scope_creep^Talk 19:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All this isn't relevant for deletion review. Maybe if another AfD is made as some have suggested above, you could present the case there. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who would write about an intersection in any case. It has to be most boring subject in the world. Well the article isn't just about a road intersection (it's also about a community) but even if it were then your opinion about how interesting a topic is is completely irrelevant. Documenting the existence of transportation infrastructure in a place being advertising is (as Paul_012 correctly notes) irrelevant for DRV but also an argument that I've never seen before (and frankly find absurd). Finally, some intersections are notable and people write about them (e.g. Almondsbury Interchange, High Five Interchange, Berenkuil, Eindhoven, Glorieta de la Palma). Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumika Gurung (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The afd is rejected simply everytime without any logical reasoning. The actress has clearly passed WP:NACTOR with her multiple lead roles in the shows Nimki Mukhiya, Nimki Vidhayak and Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2. She is currently playing the lead in the show Hara Sindoor. So she is eligible to have a Wikipedia article with the four lead roles she has played. I don't understand what is wrong with afc reviewers that they are constantly rejecting this draft without any logical reasons when Gurung has everything required for an article. Commonedits (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I request a proper review of the draft by a good capable reviewer unlike the ones who have reviewed till now because the xfd: [1] is no more valid. The xfd [2] happened in 2018 when Gurung had got her first lead role in Nimki Mukhiya. Now Gurung has four lead roles, so she has fully passed WP:NACTOR so why are the reviewers not allowing the creation of her article?Commonedits (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Just here to note Draft:Bhumika Gurung, and that the nominator just got blocked for a month (for something entirely unrelated, to all appearances). —Cryptic 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close because the appellant is blocked for 30 days for personal attacks. But this is an "interesting" case. The title is create-protected, admin-only, due to a history of sockpuppetry in 2018 and 2019, and the protecting admin said that any request to unprotect should only come via Deletion Review, so here we are. The appellant has created a draft, Draft:Bhumika Gurung, and is requesting that it be reviewed, and so has come here. Another reviewer declined the draft two weeks ago, and then I Rejected the draft, largely because the submitter was being disruptive by accusing everyone else of being disruptive. What the blocked appellant mostly does is to insult other editors and accuse them of stalking. (This is not a block review, but I concur with User:KrakatoaKatie in blocking the appellant.) However, the draft as written does not support acting notability, but the subject does now appear to satisfy the conditions for notability. I was hasty in Rejecting the draft, and a draft submitted by a reasonable editor may be reviewed at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:Cryptic - The block is only mostly unrelated. The block is for having a modus operandi of insulting other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close per Cryptic so that the nominator can fully participate when their block expires. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The list was deleted under WP:LISTCRUFT, however there was nothing indiscriminate about the list. It was a straight up factual list of players who had won this specific cup. The information was straight forward and clear. Some argument was that the list violated WP:SYNTH, which is bizarre, as lists can't be a conclusion of information. Lists are a collection of information. From List of Star Wars books or List of PlayStation games (A–L) or List of James Bond films. This list just needed work to bring it up to standard, which no one had done. I suggest over-turn to draft space for improvement and put a hold on this AfD. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin I do not have time at this moment to re-evaluate my close so no comment on that until I can. However, if @Govvy or another editor would like it for draft space, I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 16:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I went back and read through the AfD. I don't see any other way that I could have closed this. But still fine with draft space incubation. Star Mississippi 13:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. The close is a valid conclusion from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation of Draft if that is what is being requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is no need to overturn the close to create a copy in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closure is valid. I don't support creating a draft version, as the circumstances of the article mean that it is very unlikely the reason for deletion can be resolved; therefore, the only possible outcomes would be the draft going stale, in which case we are back where we are at the moment, or it being moved to mainspace in an end-run around consensus, which is undesirable. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - there was clear consensus. GiantSnowman 17:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - no issues with this closure - it reflected the consensus from the participants Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a 'per nom' is only half a !vote when one of the two arguments put forward in the nom is a clear misunderstanding of WP:CLN. I can't see the sources to opine on those, but I think the deletion arguments are structurally weak; seeing the sourcing would help me opine further. Jclemens (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I disagree with deleting the article and tend to agree with nom's arguments. However, consensus says otherwise. It was quite clear that the "Delete" close was correct, as much as I wish it weren't so. DRV is not for relitigating arguments expressed in AfD - I've made that point in DRV when I've been on the prevailing side in these kinds of AfDs and it's only fair that I point that out when I disagree with the outcome as well. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation I think a deletion of the article was a hasty decision. To be honest, I totally regret that I started a talk page in WikiProject Football which resulted in this deletion. It was a mistake to trust it for solving edit disputes for the article. Instead of solutions for the article's edit disputes and problems, we got a total eradication of it. It did not have WP:SYNTH as it was not a case of an original research. I think that the article can exist in Wikipedia. It just needed a little improvements. I support Govvy's suggestion even though many will disagree with me. NextEditor123 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It seems cut and dried. I understand a lot of work was put into the article, but the pertinent thing would have been to inquire about the article's validity prior to creation. Seasider53 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alberger process (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagree with the closing admin that the nominator failed to advance a valid deletion rationale. I think they were attempting to express a concern about notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, I'm not sure from WP:BEFORE that this topic is notable. Most results are mirrors of Wikipedia, primary, or non-RS, except for Encyclopedia Britannica. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The rationale presented there "Page does not seem to justify a stand alone page" is entirely ambiguous. Is it due to notability concerns, promotional/advertising concerns, copyvio concerns, WP:NOT concerns, which one is it? The way the deletion rationale is worded, anything fits. A specific guideline- or policy-based rationale was not advanced. If we're going to base assessments of nominations that lack any said rationales here at DRV with guesses such as "think they were attempting", based upon subjective probability assessments of what the nominator was getting at, then why bother having any nomination rationales at all? My close was entirely valid per WP:SKCRIT #1. That all said, feel free to renominate the article for deletion with a valid rationale relative to Wikipedia's deletion policy. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid deletion rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My reasoning for nominating (that I admit that I did not articulate well) was based around not meeting WP:GNG. I tried to phrase it in a way designed to start a discussion (i.e. is this page something that should be deleted / merged?) rather than a firm perspective (i.e. please nuke this page!). I do not plan on renominating it for a couple of weeks but would support someone else doing so. Gusfriend (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The text reads like a merge proposal and not a deletion argument. As such, it was a proper speedy close. The nominator can always re-file with a properly formed deletion proposal if desired. That said, if the nominator truly believes a merge is a good outcome, perhaps filing a WP:Merge proposal in the proper forum might be a better option. AFD should really only be used for deletion arguments, not merge discussions (at least from a nomination standpoint). We only merge as an alternative outcome to a deletion proposal per WP:ATD and are not a proxy for WP:MERGE.4meter4 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, with no prejudice to a speedy renomination with better rationale, as the nominator does not say that the page should be deleted or the specific reason why. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse "Page does not seem to justify a stand alone page" is not a deletion rationale, instead it's basically just saying "I think this page should be deleted, redirected or merged". Which is obviously true, since the page was nominated for deletion. If the rationale for deletion was notability-based then it should have mentioned notability somewhere. This isn't asking for much. Hut 8.5 14:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - The closer, and the above editors, are correct that a valid deletion argument was not provided; but it would have been better to !vote Keep and ask the nominator to clarify their reasoning. Closing an AFD seven minutes after it was entered looks like the closer is watching the AFD log or a deletion sorting list, which is permitted but has a meh quality to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no prejudice against speedy renom with better rationale, although if a merge is desired... why bother going through the AfD process until a merger is contested? Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as valid closure, the D in AFD is there for a reason and proposals to merge are not in scope. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse If no one is going to put forward a good rationale for deletion in the deletion debate, then it should be there (I've seen "procedural" nominations arising from DRV too, same view on those (and why can I find no such procedure...)). If someone wants some broader view/perspective there is the talk page. If someone wants to make a case why this shouldn't exist, then they can make that, this outcome doesn't preclude that either from the original nom or someone who would argue here that it shouldn't have been closed - realistically that would be a quicker outcome than waiting a week here to continue the (non) discussion anyway. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Afd was wrongly closed by the nom with rage statement. I am not challenging the outcome, but for future reference, it is requested to redo the close by an uninvolved user. Consensus discussion about the bad close at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd short circuited with inflammatory and accusatory statements. Venkat TL (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's cut out the heat and the bureaucracy here. Is there anyone other than the AFD nominator who currently wants the article deleted (or some other ATD)? Iffy★Chat -- 15:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No one that I am aware of. Venkat TL (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse per WP:NOTBURO then. If that changes, anyone can open a new AFD. Iffy★Chat -- 15:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There were a couple admins in the VP discussion who seemed to think it should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay FWIW, 4 admins commented in that thread and no one said so. Dear admins @Lee Vilenski @Black Kite @Visviva @Redrose64 speak up and clear your position, lest you risk being misrepresented. Venkat TL (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly, I would re-open that AfD, because as a closer I would ignore every single one of those Keep rationales. There isn't a decent source which actually discusses the subject in that article - every single one is a database listing, from a website where it isn't clear if it's even reliable. Obviously, there may be good sourcing for such as list, but it doesn't exist at the moment. This is a pretty strong indictment of the article and its keep rationales. Not necessarily advocating to delete, but I think it's clearly not pro-keep either. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are quoting Black Kite, I cant speak for him but FWIW I note in his second comment there he said "I'd actually close it as No Consensus [...], or more likely I'd re-list it,". Venkat TL (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the outcome but not the closing statement. Does it need to be reclosed? no. Would it benefit the project if the closing statement was replaced with something reasonable? Maybe. Would I reclose it if this comment didn't make me arguably invovled? No, I don't think it's that important. Will I object to anyone else doing so? Also no - if someone else feels that it is worth the time then as far as I'm concerned they should feel free to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Just popping in to say that adminship status should be of no relevance in determining consensus (or the lack thereof) on AFD. (That's not exactly what anyone was saying above, but I think it's a necessary point.) Apart from that I guess I'm with Thryduulf. -- Visviva (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, per WP:WITHDRAWN as it seems that the early closure is an attempt to force the discussion to close, and that the closing statement does not show that the nominator has genuinely changed their mind. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Well the closure is fine, per WP:SK the discussion can be closed as speedy keep if the nominator withdraws the nomination and nobody else supported deletion, which is the case here. I do think the closing statement should be removed though as it gratuitously insults the Keep participants and accuses them of acting in bad faith. Hut 8.5 14:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have re-closed the AfD with the same result but a neutral statement, as suggested above. Hopefully that resolves this DRV. Another AfD can be filed in due course if desired, though I am not suggesting it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  With Newyorkbrad's closure, this DRV has served its purpose. This DRV can also be closed now. Venkat TL (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with {{diet trout}} to the nominator and to the rage-quitter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above.4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the outcome (with thanks to Newyorkbrad for re-closing the discussion). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nishan Velupillay (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as keep at 5k to 3d/r with zero given close rationale and apparently without weighing !votes. Talk page discussion suggests the closer simply agreed with the keep !voters that someone playing at the top level of football in their country "is notable". Since that argument is invalid, due to NSPORT being subordinate to GNG and NFOOTY being deprecated, and since the only GNG-based reasons put forth by keeps rested on unreliable sources and passing mentions in routine match reports, the close should be overturned and the AfD relisted. JoelleJay (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my talk page comment with examples of similar AfDs being closed as delete or relisted:

[3], [4] (relisting comment, at 7k 3d: Clearly some significant coverage, but no overriding consensus. The keep view wins the voting but doesn't really create a strong enough consensus right now with just the single source of significance presented.), [5], [6], [7] (including three !votes calling The Football Sack unreliable), [8], [9] The "keep" arguments consist only of references to WP:NFOOTY, which presumes notability for high-level players. But this presumption is rebuttable, and it has been rebutted here: the "delete" side argues that the subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and that argument has not been refuted (or mostly even addressed) by the "keep" side. Based on the strength of the arguments presented, in the light of applicable guidelines, we therefore have rough consensus for deletion. [10], [11], [12] ...The first keep vote rests solely on the premise that paying in the Egyptian Premier League is sufficient for notability when no league carries that presumption..., [13], [14] Although opinions are divided, the "delete" arguments are significantly more convincing in the light of applicable guidelines. These guidelines have recently been revised to make it clearer that mere participation in high-level sporting events is not a guarantee for inclusion at the article level if a search for sources does not establish notability to WP:GNG standards. [15], [16]. Note that some of these were from before NFOOTY was deprecated; those same keep arguments weren't even persuasive then. JoelleJay (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse at the very very best this could have been no consensus. Folks have argued the sources aren't good enough but there wasn't anything close to consensus on that point. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Whether it is Keep or no consensus is up for debate (given that it is 5/3 I'm leaning towards the latter), but the end result is the same. 12.148.188.220 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No realistic chance that a relist could turn the discussion to “delete”. See advice at WP:RENOM, especially the part about a better nomination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I personally would have read it as no consensus. Relisting is not mandatory and I don't think it's necessary here given the participation (though I would say it's also within discretion, not that we usually get relists at DRV). Keep a reasonable margin within discretion, considering the distinction is not that substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The closer actually tried to close it at 4k 3d but then accidentally relisted, leading to another (substanceless) keep !vote, so the discussion was certainly not dead. A relist would've at least allowed more editors to contribute valid !votes; we cannot achieve consensus from arguments explicitly rejected by our guidelines (presuming notability from his playing pro football, assertions of GNG being met from sources that are unreliable/not independent). The remaining GNG claims rest on articles specifically excluded from NSPORT due to being ROUTINE match reports and bare mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear: the sum total of info referencing Velupillay from the RS brought up in the AfD (aside from the Daily Telegraph tabloid piece that is paywalled) is 8 sentences at best, 6 of them strictly from routine recaps. The other two sentences are only found in a drop-down box after clicking his name in a list, and are far from SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I admit I may have been intending to comment on that AfD between the relist and the close, and based on the discussion at that point and the assumption I'm not substantially better at finding sources than existing participants (a fairly safe assumption, I think) I likely would have !voted delete, but (maybe I'm too cynical) I doubt a couple of delete !votes would have made much of a difference. Especially with the keep !votes also continuing to come in, whether or not they post their own independent reasoning. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alpha3031 A couple of delete !votes, even if they contained just the bare minimum argument, would absolutely have warranted at least a relist. The issue with most of the keep !votes is that they do not actually have any guideline backing (which, per the examples I linked above, means they should be given very little weight), and, importantly, do not bring the subject into compliance with NSPORT (as the IP said below, SPORTSBASIC now requires all athlete articles have at least one piece of SIGCOV in IRS in the article). The closer should have been familiar with at least the revised NSPORT consensuses and therefore should have weighed arguments with those in mind. JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per above editors. Keep was a valid conclusion, and No Consensus also would have been (and that is a distinction without much difference). It is true that the Keep statements did not say much and that the close did not provide analysis, but that wouldn't have changed the outcome or made it a bad close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I might have closed no-consensus but that wouldn't change anything. Relisting would not have achieved anything meaningful. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. The close-comment in the AfD includes nothing beyond the decision to keep, and in particular did not address how, or even whether, the arguments were assessed for weight. Only two keep !votes were even close to having substance, in so much as they produced the two articles of dubious significance expanded on below, and these two also mix in clearly insufficient arguments such as "has Google autocomplete suggestions" and "is on a notable team". Two other keep !votes only produce routine match reports and the last provides no further argument.

There is no evidence of SIGCOV; certainly not in the article, and not in the AfD discussion either. Sportscrit #5 requires all articles to have at least one piece of significant coverage. Only one keep !vote even explicitly asserts SIGCOV, but provides only routine match reports to support it. As explicitly said in WP:NSPORT, routine match reports don't count as SIGCOV. That leaves The Football Sack article (an article on a "volunteer-based website" written by an undergraduate) and the ABC News article (two sentences in a listicle attached to the end of an article).

Again, the closer gave no indication of having considered the content of the votes, rather than just counting them up. 46.235.225.42 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. The keep voters and the closer all supported a non-policy based rationale that contradicts the policy at WP:NSPORT per the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. At some point we have to start enforcing the new updated policies. This is one of those times.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Guidelines aren't policies. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or relist Not seeing a consensus that the sources constituted significant coverage: some keep voters asserted it, the delete voters all denied it, the latter more convincingly in my view. A relist for more policy-based input would have helped, but a forceful delete would not have been inappropriate either, considering the need to enforce the updated guidelines. Avilich (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus would also have been a reasonable closure, but there wasn't a consensus to delete there. I don't think a relist would be appropriate, since there was plenty of participation and there weren't any substantial changes during the discussion. The fact an AfD didn't come to the "right" outcome is not grounds for a relist. Hut 8.5 11:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees. Two said to keep it, one said to redirect, the nominator and two others said to delete it. An administrator should close this. Dream Focus 19:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in NAC that says "everyone must agree" for a NAC- it's about consensus and consensus doesn't require total agreement. It requires majority agreement and pertinent arguments. So Endorse. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay. Is there any guideline or policy page about this? Dream Focus 20:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You literally implied that WP:NAC doesn't allow for a closure, yet you're asking for guidance on what policy does while declaring that it doesn't allow for this at the same time? PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: Closer is experienced and the decision was not a close call or controversial. Dreamfocus only mentioned the !votes, and of course it is not a vote. ––FormalDude talk 20:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Praxidicae, I am not aware nor can I find any evidence that there is a policy or guideline that states A non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees, and there are as far as I'm aware hundreds if not thousands of NAC's where not everybody agreed. So Endorse -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The guideline for non-admin closers (it's at WP:NACD, for the nominator here who doesn't seem to know how to follow a hatnote) states that close calls should be left to an admin. Deletion discussions that could have more than one outcome, like this one, are close calls by definition. While the closer was right to discard both keep votes, an administrator correctly closing this would also downweight the minority, barely-explained redirect !vote since the redirect target contains zero mention of any songs recorded by this person. Yes, we could just take it to RFD, but there isn't reason to when this has already been discussed and incorrectly closed. —Cryptic 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (involved somehow) Please also read the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd short circuited with inflammatory and accusatory statements - related to the nominations by the nominator on all similar lists — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was the nominator and I don't see any discussion with regard to my behavior nor was I notified of any such discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Damn, thought it was RandomCanadian. Still that discussion is relevant — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing an obvious connection between that discussion and this deletion review...4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per policy at WP:NACD. There was clearly not a consensus to redirect (or keep or delete for that matter), and with very little participation, this probably should have been re-listed to give time for further comment in order to build a consensus.4meter4 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Relist - With opinions all over after one week, a Relist is the right action, and any other close by an admin would have been appealable also. A Trout to the appellant for one of the more wrong reasons to appeal, but both the closer and the appellant made mistakes here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: re-close by admin or relist, not obvious enough to qualify for WP:NACD (guideline). Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – non-admin closures are reserved for straightforward cases, and this was not a straightforward case, as explained above. On the merits, the closure isn't too far off the mark, but a relist – to obtain further participation and to discuss the proposed alternative to deletion – would perhaps have been a better option. (I don't quite agree that NACs are only acceptable when "everyone agrees", though: there are plenty of non-unanimous AfDs that are still straightforward enough for a non-admin closure. The real question non-admins should ask themselves is "could anyone disagree with this closure in good faith?", and if the answer is yes, the AfD should be left for a sysop.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Relist followed by an admin closure after more discussion. Same reason as last 3 above me. Venkat TL (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Relist: While "non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees" is absolute bullshit, looking at the arguments, both keep arguments are very weak on their own, and have already been countered with a much stronger argument. However there is no clear consensus among participants if this should be deleted or redirected, which is why I wouldn't want this to be closed the same way by an admin as well. ~Styyx^Talk? 15:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Relist: This is a clear relist candidate. Extremely weak keep arguments, no real arguments for and against redirect, redirects are cheap but there should be discussion about it.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Obvious WP:ATD-R. The nominator should take WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD more seriously. The merge or redirect target was obvious, and the nominator made no effort to explain why it shouldn’t be done, and this failure regularly leads to undisciplined deletion discussions. Do not relist because the nomination was faulty. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I was at first torn between endorsing the closure and going for a relist after a similar AfD was reopened after it was closed as delete. The rationale of the ones who !voted keep are very weak as they mentioned other stuff exists instead of list-related policies, compared to the rationale of the ones in the AfD I mentioned. As the one who !voted redirect in the AfD because I believe that it's a valid ATD-R, along with the reasons above, I'll endorse the closure. The nom's reasoning is vague. SBKSPP (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Given that the only other possible outcome would be to delete, which I assume is not what the appellant wants, I'm not sure what the point of this DRV is. Reyk _YO! 01:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Tye (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. Mo, Yu 莫雨 (2021-07-30). ""在中國，自由都是表面的"：一位逃離牆國的美國網紅" ["In China, freedom is superficial": An American Internet celebrity who fled the wall country] (in Chinese). Voice of America. Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-06-19. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-06-20 suggested (help)
2. Liu, Youwei 劉又瑋 (2021-08-26). "賺的錢比中國多7倍！台灣擁2戰略關鍵 老外讚：一直想搬回去" [Earn 7 times more money than China! Taiwan has 2 strategic keys. Foreigner praises: I always want to move back] (in Chinese). FTV News. Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-06-19. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-06-20 suggested (help)

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

• If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

The article was deleted in two AfDs: 17 May 2017 and 2 July 2018 (an 8 August 2009 AfD was about a different person). I supported deletion in both AfDs. A deletion review was closed as "Decision endorsed" on 30 October 2021. As noted in the DRV, the DRV was started shortly after this 16 September 2021 Reddit thread where the subject asked his followers to recreate the Wikipedia article. This led to a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Off-wiki nonsense and a series of unfortunate coincidences.... Owing to the significant controversy surrounding the article and the full protection of the title, I am bringing this article to DRV for community review. Since the two AfDs closed as "delete", Matthew Tye has received significant coverage in reliable sources. After I rewrote the article at Draft:Matthew Tye, "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" does not apply.

Restore the article by moving Draft:Matthew Tye to Matthew Tye. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the most recent deleting admin, I've been notified about this request, but I have no opinion about it. I don't have the time to re-read all these discussions and form one, and I don't read Chinese. So I'm neutral here. Sandstein 13:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Downgrade Protection to ECP to Allow Review of Draft including acceptance of draft if reviewer accepts draft. The draft is currently admin-protected, which was appropriate until a neutral editor had a draft for review. Lower the protection to ECP so that a reviewer can accept. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the article by moving Draft:Matthew Tye to Matthew Tye. and downgrade protection as needed. I can't verify the sources due to language issues, but the draft looks fine. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the sources are enough to establish notability, but since it's been nearly four years since the last AfD, this attempt by an experienced editor to recreate the article based mostly on post-2018 sources seems fine. If anyone feels that the sources are inadequate, they are of course free to start another AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. No issue with the AfDs at the time they ran, but circumstances have changed and experienced editor has provided a solid draft. No reason not to allow Star Mississippi 13:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hablemos de Salud (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Another involved non-admin closure by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) I discovered while collecting evidence for an Arbcom case. The article was unilaterally redirected by TPH. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with this particular case, except perhaps the original deletion nomination. The nominator simply withdrew the nomination with no outstanding delete opinions, per WP:SK#1(a), and if anyone disagrees with redirection they can revert it, which means that a talk page discussion will be needed to reinstate it per WP:BRD. What outcome are you looking for? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Seems a reasonable procedural close per WP:SK#1(a).4meter4 (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This was essentially withdrawn after Matt91486 merged the page's content. Treat the closure as such and let's not get caught up in semantics. ✗plicit 13:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, AfD nominators are allowed to speedily close their own discussions as "keep" where there are no !votes to delete. They can then subsequently redirect the article as a normal editorial action. That redirection can be reverted by any editor. TPH has compressed those two separate decisions into a single outcome.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a withdrawal which is permissible as long as there's not been any votes to delete. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ignore - I won't say Endorse because the nominator-closer made an error in combining the roles of nominator and closer, but it was an error without effect, as it would be silly now to overturn it and have someone else take the same action. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, withdrawals are often closed by the nominator who is withdrawing and there is nothing in our procedures and policies which forbid this as long as there were no delete votes.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to go with overturn to withdraw which is probably a largely irrelevant difference here, but I think more accurate. Some people take an AfD closure to merge as carrying some weight and I think "withdraw" is just more descriptive of what happened. But eh. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to withdraw (change the close from "merge" to "nomination withdrawn") per Hobit. This is similar to the case at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 5#Darkover (TV series), where TenPoundHammer's close as "redirect" was overturned. TenPoundHammer was banned on 20 June 2022 from closing XfD discussions.

  A nominator should be closing their own deletion nomination only when the page has been speedy deleted or the nominator is doing a Wikipedia:Speedy keep withdrawal close. A close as "merge" is not a Wikipedia:Speedy keep. A "merge" close means there is a consensus after a WP:SNOW or full AfD discussion to require a merge. That was not the case here as the AfD was closed after having been open for a little over an hour. A "merge" close would make it harder for a standalone article to be restored as an editor would have to contest the close or substantially improve the article. It is fine to impose such requirements after a seven-day discussion but not after a one-hour one. A "withdraw" close would not impose such requirements.

  I am fine with the subsequent action of editorially redirecting the page to Élmer Huerta as a good alternative to deletion after the merge given the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that were found. So I support an "overturn to withdraw, keep the redirect in place but allow any editor to reverse the redirect without having to gain consensus to reverse it".

  Cunard (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse simple procedural close/merge with no dissenting opinions on the AFD. The closure was technically in violation of WP:NACD but was done in good faith and and this DRV violates the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. Frank Anchor 18:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn to withdraw per Hobit and Cunard. This probably didn't need to be brought to DRV, but since we're here "withdrawn" does seem a better summary of what took place, and it also prevents any possible issues if someone wants to recreate the article somewhere down the road. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie Pwerle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I only just saw this page was deleted recently. I would have contributed to the discussion or strengthened the case for notability if I had known the page was being considered for deletion. This page was part of an Australian women artists project and may have been started by a trainee editor who may not have been aware of all the policies re notability for artists and may not have access to the same sources I do. There were mistakes made in using a commercial gallery as a reference for the non-commercial and important Holmes a Court collection, which is an early and ongoing non-commercial collection of Indigenous art. So there are two non-commercial galleries for Jeannie Pwerle and I might be able to find more given time for more research. I also find that the notability standard for female Indigenous artists is very difficult as it generally requires references to reviews or articles written by white Australians. The work of Indigenous artists can be notable amongst curators and the collectors of Indigenous art without being written about. However as Jeannie Pwerle was an early Utopian artist and paints her personal yam dreaming stories, it may be possible to show notability as an artist who has contributed to a significant new art movement which is one of the criteria for notability for artists. I have looked at the site for the admin user:Stifle who closed the delete discussion and he seems to have waived his right to be consulted first. So I am asking here for two things before I do any more research and draft a new article on Jeannie Pwerle 1. Is it worth me doing some more research to see if there are more references for her notability and more examples of her paintings in collections or will it be a hopeless waste of time if a new article is going to be deleted again or if no-one is willing to re-open her page for me to work on? 2. Is it possible for me to find or be sent the draft of her page that was deleted so I can see what needs to be changed or where mistakes were made? And apologies for this long comment. I have not tried to object to a deletion before. LPascal (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal[reply]

• Endorse and allow recreation. This was a difficult close, as the commenters pointed to one work in a national collection and a 32-word entry in Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies. Other comments suggested that WP:NARTIST 4(d) usually means at least three prominent exhibitions and the bibliography entry does not meet WP:GNG. While a no consensus close may also be appropriate, the close, "The keep !votes based on WP:ARTIST part 4 and WP:ANYBIO have been adequately refuted," is based on policy. --Enos733 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, pretty clear case of a supervote. If "consensus" means "I agree with the policy arguments on this side and disagree with the policy arguments on the other side", we might as well give up on having these discussions at all. I understand the OP to alternatively be requesting that the article be restored as a draft, which can't be done until this case is resolved. If someone can ping me at that point, I will happily undelete it and userfy it to LPascal's userspace. -- Visviva (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but draftify per request. There was nothing wrong with the close, but LPascal makes a good case for more time to work on this article to make notability clear. This is why draft space exists. Star Mississippi 01:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but draftify per Star Mississippi.4meter4 (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus - The close was a supervote. There was strength of arguments on both sides. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I do think no consensus was probably the better close. But delete may have been within discretion. That said, I don't see the need for this to go to draft--if better sources (or evidence that an SNG is met) is found, just recreate it. allow recreation with no prejudice to a new AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own deletion as within reasonable range of outcomes. No objection to draftifying. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know the policy or etiquette for my making this comment so apologies if I'm not following policy. I am satisfied with the suggestion that I write a new article for Jeannie Pwerle with the aim of finding better sources to support her as a notable artist. I would only write the article and post it to Wikipedia if I could find supporting references. I would do this slowly in my sandbox as I have other articles in the pipeline first and it would take some time to research. I don't expect the deletion to be overturned and the original article to go live again on wikipedia. But I would like to get a draft of the original article if possible and I would dump it into my sandbox to look at. I don't really know the technicalities of how this can happen and what it means to draftify or recreate an article, so if the decision ends up being to allow me to work on a new article, please notify me of how I can get a copy of the original deleted article.LPascal (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal[reply]
• Endorse This is not a supervote, but appropriate weighing of the argument, regardless of the number. When looking at the discussion, I can see that neither the NARTIST #4, nor the ANYBIO #3 criteria are met. The former because the galleries aren't museum collections, the latter because Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies isn't a national dictionary as required. Everyone simply saying "Keep NARTIST 4(d)" has their argument refuted, and, again, regardless of how many people !vote keep based on them, the arguments are weak, and outweighed by delete !votes. ~Styyx^Talk? 13:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lottery Corporation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I agree there was not sufficient notability to keep the article, but the proposal to redirect to Tabcorp rather than delete was a valid alternative to deletion that should have been considered prior to deletion being approved as the consensus. Redirection was raised by a number of users as an alternative outcome. The only comment against redirection was made by a user who was investigated for sockpuppetry during the process, and the fact that it was a demerged entity from Tabcorp does not make Tabcorp an inappropriate redirection. Deus et lex (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.@ Deus et lex, I don't think we need a formal deletion review here. Creating a reasonable redirect to Tabcorp can be done now by anyone outside of the AFD process. I also don't think we should preserve the article history because of it's likely re-creation by the Puppetmaster Custodi2 who created the article with one of his numerous socks and has successfully evaded IP blocks numerous times. As such I am going to be WP:BOLD and just create the redirect now. Tabcorp is the parent company of The Lottery Corporation, and the article does address the topic so it is a perfectly reasonable redirect target. 4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not see a consensus to redirect instead of deleting the article. Only the OP !voted to redirect; everyone else was split between delete and redirect. I have no objection to a redirect as a normal editorial action under policy --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, a redirect is a perfectly suitable alternative to deletion, and a redirect exists. Happy days! Nothing left to be done.—S Marshall T/C 15:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Given the evident shenanigans at play a delete-and-redirect seems like it was a more appropriate solution than the more usual merge-and-redirect. -- Visviva (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot. A redirect exists. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. UPE spam. Redirect is fine. MER-C 04:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is there an issue any more? There is a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (assuming this review is still active), Reverse deletion. The AFD seems to have been muddied by sockpuppetry, and the main argument for deletion is a generic-sounding name alleged to fail WP:NCORP. I'm not convinced it failed. I got here because I noticed the edit to remove it from the ASX200 template. My quick checks:
  • It is a member of the S&P/ASX 200 - [17] (click "See all")
  • Story, Mark (20 May 2022). "Lottery Corp (ASX:TLC) leaps into ASX 200 24 May". Market Index.
  • Darmawan, Melissa (17 May 2022). "The Lottery Corporation (ASX:TLC) joins the ASX 200 as of 24 May". Finance News Network.
  • Chanticleer (24 May 2022). "The ASX's new 'infrastructure' giant is also a takeover target". Australian Financial Review.
  • Lawler, Mitchell (25 May 2022). "Could Tabcorp's newly demerged Lottery Corporation become a takeover target?". The Motley Fool.
  • "Is The Lottery Corp (ASX: TLC) the best ASX dividend share?". The Inside Investor. 3 June 2022.

That seems like a set of articles about this company, which has only existed for a bit over a month. It looks like the original article was OK, just short and poorly referenced. There should be a bit more to add from these, ping me if I should help to make sure I notice. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self-replicating machines in fiction (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First, the last comment was from a day ago, so as the discussion is not stale, it should be relisted. Second, per WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, strenght of the arguments should be considered. The closer says " those arguing for keep are fairly convincing", but does not explain why. The first keep vote did not provide any rationale ("Keep, but weed out uncited material"). IMHO neither did the second keep vote, which also suggested a rename (but never explained how to rename this), and later agreed that a merge to Self-replicating machine is possible. The third keep argument presented decent sources for rewriting this from an unreferneced list of trivia into a stand-alone article, but did not present arguments for why we should keep this article that, in the list format (in all but a name), fails WP:LISTN (I don't believe anyone even quoted a single sentence from the article that is worth preserving). The fourth keep comment is a simple WP:KEEPER/WP:ITSNOTABLE. The last, fifth one, is subjective, arguably again confusing the fact that the topic is notable, from the fact that the execution (list of trivia) fails WP:IPC. I'll also add that a ton of identical articles have been recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smuggling in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles in popular culture (2nd nomination), etc. (see here for dozens of other examples of nearly identical lists of trivia, most ending in delete). I do not believe the closer is familiar with those cases, and it's a jarring inconsistency. Lastly, oh yeah, while NOTAVOTE, let's look at a tally: there were a total of 5 keep votes, and 9 delete ones (not counting my nomination, which would make 10). With 5 keeps (out of which, IMHO, three fail Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), 10 deletes, closing this as no consensus a day after the last vote is IMHO not a best practice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Relisting is only appropriate when there has been very low quantity or quality of contributions. It is not a substitute for closing as no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse though I don't like it. There is enough input here, the problem is there is no consensus. I don't feel we're in a good place with this and I'm not sure what way forward would be ideal. But this isn't a great article and it seems unlikely to be a great article. I could imagine it being a true-and-solid breakout article of its parent. I just don't know if it can reasonably get there. Hobit (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete The keep argument boiled down to "self-replicating machines" meeting GNG, not "self-replicating machines in fiction" meeting NLIST. The arguments for deletion (especially WP:IINFO and WP:CFORK) were barely addressed at all, and the notability of a different article should've had no bearing on it. It seems like someone decided to dump several possibly non-relevant sources just for the sake of winning the argument, failed to check if they really required this separate page (a serious editor would've tried to improve "self-replicating machines" and split it if necessary), and the usual bandwagon of people who vote keep over the slightest mention of a source showed up. Avilich (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misrepresented my comments from the deletion discussion in the above statement. I'd like to invite you to reconsider them. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see you arguing that the list is suitable. Avilich (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See [18] SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You called for improvement through normal editing but didn't indicate how it should be done in order to maintain it as a list. Your mention of POPCULT addresses nothing, which leaves as your best rebuttal to the other side's arguments an essay called "TNTTNT". Also, your best source, Taylor & Dorin, is about self-replicating machines, not the machines "in fiction" as you understood it. Avilich (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the diff I just quoted I said “the article would be better written in prose”, so again you are misrepresenting my comments. Your source assessment is also incorrect. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - It looks like No Consensus to me; the closer was right. If the purpose of a Relist is to get consensus one way or the other, when do you stop? Does the AFD eventually become a self-replicating machine? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the Delete arguments were that the topic is unencyclopedic (WP:NOT#IINFO) and that the content is so poor quality that we should delete it (WP:TNT). These are both very subjective arguments which are largely down to editorial judgement, and the barrier to a TNT deletion in particular is quite high because we expect that articles shouldn't be deleted because of fixable problems. The fact that discussion was ongoing isn't a reason to relist it, we usually only relist AfDs if there hasn't been enough participation to produce a consensus or something has been missed in the previous discussion. Neither was the case here. It's a very poor article and I would have supported deleting it, but I can't fault the close. Hut 8.5 13:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - to re-list. Similar to what I wrote earlier, this feels like a fair compromise. Second preference - overturn to delete given the delete to keep votes ratio. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete or relist. I do not see how Whether a list of self-replicating machines in fiction is separately notable and encyclopedic is still up for debate, and those arguing for keep are fairly convincing on this point is a remotely acceptable rationale to give 2x weight to all keep !votes. The closer did not explain how keep arguments successfully rebutted the delete side's policy- and guideline-based justifications (NOT, OR, and LISTN), and did not address the very reasonable observation that the topic is redundant with the article from which it was forked, with zero reliably-sourced content added since the split. To restate: it appears the only salvageable material from the list was already word-for-word present in the self-replicating machines article history. Therefore, any new prose or examples from the sources identified in the AfD, which would be required to rewrite and proseify the current list, could just as reasonably be turned into a section of the original article instead. JoelleJay (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Per JoelleJay, the reason for giving delete votes extra weight seems faulty.Lurking shadow (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep Sources were provided, most of the previous deletes did not return to comment on them, and those who commented afterwards made inappropriate arguments such as that the sources pertained to a different article--no policy suggests that a source cannot be used for two similar articles, and this is especially true when one of them is a list. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What? It is not inappropiate to say that - these sources are about non-fiction.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Romania (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Evidently a supervote ("potentially a notable topic"). Closer seems to not understand how NLIST works: the entries need to be discussed as a group, it's not about the verifiability of individual entries. He also ignored the argument that the article fails WP:NOTCATALOG. The best of the keep votes merely said that the content is verifiable. Avilich (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm happy for this to be reviewed, but I suspect that the more important question is whether all of the articles listed at Lists of people on postage stamps meet WP:GNG and WP:NLIST and are sufficiently encyclopedic. My closure is in light of several "list of people on stamps" articles that were up for deletion and were closing around the same time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of China, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Sweden, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Republic of China. In addition to the one I closed, there is at least Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands (2nd nomination) which was closed as "no consensus". Across all of these discussions, there seems to be consensus that most of these lists are in poor shape, tend to be fancruft, and are prone to be indiscriminate lists of information, but to the extent that sources were included to establish notability, that these are potentially encyclopedic lists. This is what guided my decision to delete the unsourced and underdeveloped lists and keep those such as List of people on the postage stamps of Romania where WP:NLIST is met (there is a book describing the subject of Romanian stamps that is referenced in the article). Perhaps in this case, I should have also closed this discussion as "no consensus," but my broader reading after multiple closures was that there was emerging consensus about these lists and that the List of people on the postage stamps of Romania was in good shape and established notability as a whole. Finally, I can assure you that I did not ignore WP:NOTCATALOG and did not ignore WP:NLIST. Malinaccier (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see also that there is a deletion review of a similar closure by another administrator of an AFD discussion of List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland that is drawing substantial controversy. I think again that a more broad discussion about Lists of people on postage stamps is clearly warranted. Malinaccier (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(there is a book describing the subject of Romanian stamps that is referenced in the article)

Which reference describing people on Romanian stamps was invoked in the AfD? A book discussing one person being on a stamp, or one discussing a small subset of Romanians who general topics from one county that are on stamps, is clearly not what NLIST licenses. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Spineanu books. You can also look at the first three references in the article. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the stamp catalogs from a non-independent source? Which even if they could contribute to GNG (they do not, as they are not independent), no one has shown they directly address specifically the subject of people on Romanian stamps with any significant coverage? Which were thoroughly dismissed by later delete !votes for these reasons without rebuttal? JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the first two sources in my comment in the discussion (I also addressed a third one, a random blog which thankfully it seems someone removed). Of those two, one is a reliable and independent source, but is about how stamps have represented Alba County, and while this includes some local people (as well as buildings, etc.), it is not about how Romanian people are put on stamps broadly speaking. The relevant topic would be Alba County representation on Romanian stamps. The second is a press release from the Romanian postage service (thus not independent) about a single postage issue covering three people. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep those ... where WP:NLIST is met How do you determine that NLIST is met? emerging consensus about these lists and that the List of people on the postage stamps of Romania was in good shape I cannot understand how you reached this conclusion since the overwhelming majority of such lists are being deleted, and in the Romania AfD all of the newcomers after the relist were for deleting. Avilich (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people/archive, I was unaware of these other AFD discussions and I was basing my decision on the four discussions I saw today (including this one). I see a lot of deleted lists of stamp articles, but few of those articles had the same support for keeping them that List of people on the postage stamps of Romania. And again, WP:NLIST says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." There are a book and several sources in the article that discuss the subjects of Romanian stamps. Malinaccier (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to quote NLIST back at me, I just want to know how you concluded that a stamp catalog discusses the subject of Romanians in postage stamps in a way that allows for an encyclopedic article to be written, and why you felt that the editors who disagreed with this were deserving of having their votes ignored. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Involved) Overturn to delete or relist for someone else to close. This 7d-5k discussion, with all four !votes after the last relist being unrebutted paragraph-long delete arguments, was closed as keep based on, apparently, some other such lists being kept and the mysterious claim that a sufficient reference on the subject exists in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete- The discussion was relisted because the keep !votes, though numerous, were of low quality. The subsequent discussion consisted of in-depth and thoroughly thought out delete opinions. What is the point of relisting an AfD if no amount of discussion, no matter how substantial and unanimous, can affect the outcome? It is not the closer's responsibility to make a supervote, nor to scrape and scramble here there and everywhere for reasons to veto a clear consensus. Reyk _YO! 03:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete <uninvolved>. "Keep" is a rather odd closure here: given the !vote tally, it suggests that the delete !votes are substantially weaker than the keep !votes, which is particularly difficult to swallow. Many of the keep !votes lacked any real grounding in our policies and guidelines and instead use reasoning that we've long understood to be fallacious, for instance arguing that other stuff exists or expressing the unsupported personal opinion that the list is "intrinsically noteworthy". The delete !voters, by contrast, address the sources and cite applicable policies (WP:NOTCATALOG) and guidelines (WP:NLIST) in support of their conclusions. Perhaps there are reasonable arguments for keeping this list (or not–I don't know), but we can only close based on the cards we're dealt, and the keep !votes here should have been discounted substantially. In the Iceland DRV, I supported a relist, but this AfD received high enough participation that I don't think further discussion is necessary: considering both the !vote count and the strength of argument, there's a rough consensus to delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (disclosure, I voted to delete) First I am making this closure based on a synthesis of the discussion here and in several other AFD discussions about similar articles - I thought an AfD was to be decided by the discussions which take place at that AfD, not other AfDs? Second While some make arguments that the list still fails WP:LISTN even with sources for individual entries, the existence of books of lists of stamps seems to contradict this argument. That completely disregards some of the comments made by those who voted delete (like myself), who argued that mere indiscriminate catalogues of all Romanian postage stamps (published by the government, no less) don't mean specific subgroups are magically notable under NLIST because SIGCOV to the phenomenon of Romanian people being on stamps is not being addressed. Third, The argument that these lists are inherently more notable than a more general List of Romanians is also convincing Huh? Is this a strawman? This was a supervote. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete or relist. The closer's comment " the existence of books of lists of stamps seems to contradict this argument" is invalid, as we are not talking about a List of Romanian stamps. Unless we can find a source that discusses the topic of "people on Romanian stamps", and contain a list of such individuals, this fails WP:NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NLIST makes it clear such a source would be helpful, but not that such a source is required One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.... And There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists.... Hobit (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    We really need to figure out what are other accepted reasons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. But as it stands, claims that such sourcing is required aren't really true. Hobit (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC There is no consensus to delete or keep. I understand where the closer was coming from. And I very much believe that these articles should be part of an RfC rather than an AfD. But NC summarizes where we are in this discussion and about the topic overall. NLIST doesn't have the requirements many of the delete !voters claim it does. Hobit (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus as per Hobit. There was no consensus. It is true that an overturn to no consensus has the same effect in the short run as a Keep. In the long run, there should be an RFC on a mini-notability guideline. When multiple related closures come to DRV, maybe the guidelines are vague. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - to no consensus, seems like a reasonable middle ground. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Yes, there is no consensus on other reasons to keep. The WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument coming in very late is a good reason to delete, but because it came so late I prefer relist over delete.Lurking shadow (neetalk) 14:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer reasonably discounted arguments that are not based in policy, since NLIST does not provide a basis for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not passing WP:GNG is a widely accepted basis for deletion. Not passing WP:NLIST is obviously, too. Not passing the obvious criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NLIST switches onus for keeping the article to the "keep" side. And it has been established that the "keep" side didn't give policy- or guideline based reasons. Lurking shadow (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please quote the text of WP:NLIST that provides a criterion for deletion that could ever "not be passed". The fact that many AFDers have developed a practice of ignoring policy does not mean that this practice has any sort of community support or consensus behind it. -- Visviva (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You misunderstand. Referring to WP:NLIST is just telling others that there is no obvious reason for inclusion. That's all you need to prove.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's such an extreme misreading of WP:ONUS that it seems unlikely you are advancing it in good faith. But just in case anyone else is confused, WP:ONUS is not a deletion policy, and has nothing at all to do with notability. It qualifies WP:V by giving guidance on how to resolve good-faith disputes (within the wiki process) over whether a particular article should include particular information. At AFD, the question is whether an article should exist at all, or should instead be removed from the wiki process through the drastic remedy of deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a consensus in that discussion, and I don't see a policy basis for giving one side a whole lot more weight than the other. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 11:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Like Lurking shadow said above, LISTN is an inclusion criterion, and failing it means the accepted reasons for inclusion have not been demonstrated. The topic strictly fails the first paragraph of LISTN, with there being no SIGCOV of the group in general, and there is no consensus on whether there even are other criteria for cross-categorizations like this that don't fulfill an obvious navigational need. Arguments vaguely along the lines of it "being useful" did not receive substantial support, especially when any utility of the information being in this format is better supplied by the catalogs from which it was derived. Lists still need to be notable, and with no basis in our notability guidelines and no other valid rationale for keeping advanced, a delete outcome would have been completely appropriate. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree with that if LISTN was the only inclusion criterion for lists. But we also have CLN. Generally the rule is that if you could have a category for it, you can also have a navigational list. In fact, lists are better than categories for this because you can embed sources into a list, which you can't do for a category.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CLN is inapplicable. It does not spell out notability criteria and says "Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems." One of the guidelines for lists is WP:LISTN, which says "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables."

  WP:CLN does not offer notability criteria for lists. Lurking shadow (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, absolutely -- because there are no notability criteria for navigational lists. The correlation with categories is exact, and categories don't require notability criteria either.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is incorrect."Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables."(WP:LISTN)

  "following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems."(WP:CLN).

  WP:CLN says that there are guidelines and standards for each of these systems. One of these standards is WP:GNG and its subtopic WP:LISTN. WP:GNG applies to stand-alone lists. WP:LISTN applies to standalone lists. Articles and lists not proven to be notable are deleted. WP:LISTN is just the application of policy. If you cannot show that this group or topic is discussed by reliable independent sources the list is WP:SYNTH anyways.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You're confusing informational lists with navigational lists, which to be fair is understandable because WP:LISTN fails to explain that navigational lists are a separate thing. LISTN thinks all lists are informational. WP:LISTPURP successfully makes the distinction. At one stage there was a proposal to move all the navigational lists to portal namespace (see this discussion), but it failed, and now we're left with a messy system where some of the navigational lists are called outlines, some are called indices, some are called timelines and some are just called "lists".—S Marshall T/C 13:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Navigational lists must still meet WP:NLIST. They would be WP:SYNTH otherwise.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you see where WP:NLIST itself says: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability?
  WP:SYNTH is when you combine disparate sources to reach a conclusion not stated in any one of those sources. It's unrelated to how we organize and index content in the encyclopaedia. There's no source for Index of health articles and there couldn't be one, and that's why NLIST has that specific exemption for navigational lists written into it.—S Marshall T/C 15:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it is trivially easy to find sources that discuss health. Index of health articles is a navigational list for a clearly notable topic with clearly notable entries with easily findable sources discussing the relationship of these entries to health. That's fine. The topic here is "people on the postage stamps of Romania". You should also recognize that I say "Relist", not "delete". SYNTH is combining "List of Romanians" and "List of people on postage stamps" without having reliable sources discussing this combination. Lurking shadow (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we don't have 100% agrement on if navigational lists can completely ignore notability as a notion (IMO, some sources that show the topic of the navigation has been considered elsewhere maybe should be required in most cases). That said, I believe that S Marshall's summary of the situation is largely accurate. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is no evidence that this list actually has any navigational purpose. Being able to get to our articles on some of the people appearing on Romanian stamps, who have no relationship with each other outside of (presumably) being notable in Romania at various points in history, is not fulfilling a navigational need because, based on the utter lack of independent SIGCOV of the topic, there is no indication that anyone has or would group them in this way. Meanwhile, there are plenty of reliable outside "health indices" to suggest that an index of health-related topics would be valuable to readers. JoelleJay (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. Given the lack of consensus in the AFD and at this deletion review of that AFD, I think this is the only option. 4meter4 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not relist? And when the last four !votes after a relist are substantive, uncontested deletes, that's pretty strong evidence a consensus has emerged, since those !voters assessed the existing arguments and determined the keeps had insufficient P&G backing. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete or relist. Reviewing the discussion, it appears none of the !keep editors provided policy-based reasons to keep the article, and as such their !votes have very little weight. BilledMammal (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• General question. Many above argue that the keep !votes in this discussion should have been ignored because they were not "policy-based". It's been a while since I read WP:CON or WP:DEL, so I took another look at them but I still can't find any policy basis for discounting the positions of editors if the closer believes those positions are not "policy based". In fact, I note that WP:DEL contains the following helpful guidance: "If you disagree: Go to the review page and explain why you disagree." It does not say that any disagreeing opinion must cite chapter and verse from Wikipedia policy. Nor can I find anything in WP:CON that gives a closer the authority to delete an article over community consensus simply because the community's view is at odds with the closer's. In this case I think this is academic, because the lack of any policy basis for the delete !votes speaks for itself. But can anyone point me to the authority for ignoring !votes that the closer deems to be insufficiently policy-based? -- Visviva (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Guidelines: WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

  Policies: WP:CON: consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)...Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

  WP:DELAFD: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.

  Other process pages: WP:CLOSEAFD, which says Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.

  WP:DISCUSSAFD: Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive.JoelleJay (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Were you under the impression that AfDs instead went by !vote tallies...? JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I don't see anything in any of these policies would give the closer the authority to place their understanding of policy over the community's, or over the plain language of the policy, but it is helpful to understand how the language of policy is being distorted to support these kinds of arguments. I'll note in passing that claims like "fails WP:LISTN" cannot possibly count as "individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines" since they ignore the language of the guideline they pretend to cite. In addition, there is nothing here to support giving no weight to the positions of Wikipedians in good standing who might not be au fait with the latest AFD shibboleths, as some above have argued. -- Visviva (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't allow the closer to place their understanding of policy over the community's. A good example of this is with discussions about what constitutes WP:SIGCOV; if editors can reasonably disagree about what constitutes WP:SIGCOV, then the closing editor isn't permitted to discount votes on either side, regardless of whether they consider the coverage to be significant or not.

  While it doesn't allow them to place their understanding of policy over the community's, it does require them to discount !votes that do not align with policy. For example, if an editors !votes "Delete, I don't like it" or "Keep, I like it" the closer is required to discount that vote. This is the case with many of the !votes in this AfD; for example, arguing for intrinsic notability (Notable due to the subject matter and This is an intrinsically noteworthy subject) does not align with policy, and so must be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds to me like placing one's understanding of policy over the community's. To say "X is intrinsically noteworthy" is simply a shorthand for saying that the nature of the subject matter is such that it serves the purposes of the encyclopedia to have an article on it. All policies are valid only to the extent that they serve the purpose of improving Wikipedia, so absent some sort of bad faith or manipulation, that is a perfectly cromulent policy-based argument that the closer has no authority to ignore. The !votes of AFD regulars who know which all-caps shortcuts will be taken seriously should not be given any more weight than those of ordinary Wikipedians. -- Visviva (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The all-caps shortcuts are "the community's" understanding of policy, and if you can't attach one to "X is intrinsically noteworthy" then that's a strong indicator that it doesn't meet the community's standards of what's encyclopedic. Avilich (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one should be participating in AfDs (or DRVs) without being cognizant of the current policies and guidelines. Of course !votes that go against those should be DISCARDED; for example, we still get folks who !vote "keep meets WP:NFOOTY", and those !votes rightfully carry zero weight because NFOOTY was repealed. It would be MUCH more problematic for closers to personally decide that following [X policy], as raised by AfD !voters, conflicts with their opinion on what "serves the purpose of improving Wikipedia" and overrode consensus. In fact, there was an entire ArbCom case on this that led to tool resignation under a cloud. JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an article serves the purposes of the encyclopedia is determined by policies and guidelines, which the wider community has determined. This wider consensus cannot then be ignored at AfD because some editors are either not aware of it or disagree with it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having inadvertently wandered back into this discussion, I realize I must not have expressed myself with sufficient clarity, because that is exactly my point. For example (as relevant here), AFDers have no authority to rewrite guidelines saying "X that are Y are generally notable" to read "all X that are not-Y are not notable", nor to rewrite a policy that encourages specific citations of policy into one that mandates them. -- Visviva (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a correct reading of consensus. I'll note that the closer suggested several alternatives to deletion which seem calculated to prompt reasonable continuations of discussion in a non-deletion venue. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hrvatska metropola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Mali Beč (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Specific examples, these were neither recently-created nor implausible. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirects to Zagreb, created on 27 August 2015 and 17 July 2015 respectively. However you care to define "recently-created", nearly 7 years doesn't reasonably meet it. Individual admins haven't been authorized to delete such redirects, no matter how implausible you argue they are. Should have gone to RFD. —Cryptic 14:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll just undelete them right away so we can dispense with at least this part of the formalities. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Monster (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

we have 2 relists, it was nominated for deletion and Fact Monster is not notable and should be deleted. But, the keep votes decided to notable and relist it, then relist on May 2022 and wrong, then try again to relisting, but closed as no consensus after 2 relists. 2001:448A:6000:482D:4C4F:3C22:D3F5:FB75 (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse You're missing a step here, which is why something wrong happened here. You've merely provided a correct summary of the discussion. And "no consensus" looks like a reasonable evaluation of the discussion to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; couldn't have been closed any other way given the lack of participation. You're free to renominate the article if you'd like, but you'll need a better reason than a mere WP:NOTNOTABLE, particularly since StrayBolt has pointed to a number of sources that, from a cursory look, do appear to show notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse an AfD with two participants who didn't agree with each other can't really be closed any other way. Hut 8.5 18:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per Hut 8.5. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - As stated by other participants, no error by closer noted, and it looks like No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Locatelli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Davide Locatelli's page was in draft for two months and was subsequently approved for publication. After a while it was questioned and a debate with conflicting opinions opened up. I believe that the cancellation of the page is not justifiable, as it has come to a unanimous opinion. I also reiterate my opinion: in Italy Davide Locatelli is an established pianist, with the Sony label. Searching on Google (especially in the Italian results), the main Italian newspapers have written and are writing about him. He is doing a lot of things in America too. I, being the author of the page, am fully available to edit the content, add other sources that make the element more relevant, but I would like the deletion of the page to be restored. Thank you - Diegoferralis (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We'll not going to undelete it so that you can then maybe add more sources. Present your sources first - bearing in mind the advice at WP:THREE - and we'll consider it. —Cryptic 10:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your answer @Cryptic. Should I attach the sources here, in this discussion? Diegoferralis (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, please, or ideally in a draft.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, can you confirm that I can recreate the page: "Draft: Davide Locatelli", so I can directly update the page with the new sources? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's in order.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In the meantime, I am attaching here the latest articles, from the most important newspapers, concerning the artist, so as to be able to discuss his possible presence on Wikipedia.

  https://www.ilgiorno.it/spettacoli/davide-locatelli-1.6679710

  https://themillennial.it/cultura/musica/davide-locatelli-imagine-pianoforte-consolato-ucraina/

  https://tg24.sky.it/spettacolo/musica/2022/03/02/pianista-davide-locatelli-imagine-consolato-ucraina-milano-video

  https://www.allmusicitalia.it/news/inno-milan-davide-locatelli-pioli-is-on-fire.html Diegoferralis (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cryptic Can I have an opinion on these sources that I have attached? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin comment: courtesy ping @Liz @Praxidicae @Numberguy6 who were involved in the discussion on User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Page:_Davide_Locatelli. As nominator was more interested in aspersions rather than understanding consensus, we're here. I believe then and now that my close reflected consensus but am not formally standing in the way of any decision here. Star Mississippi 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close - The statement by the appellant is in Italian rather than in English. Please either translate it or close the appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Diegoferralis (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I would say the sources look acceptable and I'm tentatively minded to permit a brief, neutrally worded article about Mr Locatelli. I'm not sure why it was deleted from it.wiki and I would just like to understand that.—S Marshall T/C 20:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Marshall Thanks for your reply. I would like to understand it too :) I believe that on wikipedia Italy the page has been created and deleted several times over the years by different users, and this has probably affected. He is an artist who has published several discs, has made multiple appearances on TV in important programs, is quoted on many sources in important newspapers, collaborates with equally important artists. I just can't understand what doesn't allow the artist to stay on wikipedia. Diegoferralis (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi Could I have your other opinion regarding the sources I have attached and the opinion of @S Marshall? Beyond the dispute over the closed page, can it change your opinion on whether this page can be on Wikipedia? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I prefer to remain neutral on any restoration since I closed the AfD. I will say that this appears to be a very good source. My Italian isn't great so it's based on an assist from google translate. Creating a draft might be the easiest solution here, which I believe was what @S Marshall was also suggesting. Star Mississippi 19:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Draft:Davide Locatelli This is the page published in draft, I await your opinions on it. Thanks @S Marshall@Star Mississippi Diegoferralis (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I understand what are the steps to follow now? Is the page eligible or not? Do we have to wait for other opinions or can proceed to make the page public? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone will close the discussion and may or may not weigh in on the draft. AfC and DRV tend to be different groups of editors but the closing admin might decide to make a decision on both simultaneously. Star Mississippi 13:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK thanks. Greeting Diegoferralis (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While creating it and adding references in Draft may have been appropriate, and is somethig I have no quarrel with, submitting it for review is akin to asking the other parent. It feels like an attempt to game the system, and I find it not to my taste. Neither accepting it there nor declining it there is useful since it short circuits this established review system. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you haven't followed the story. The page had already been in draft for 2 months, was approved, and it was subsequently decided to delete it. I opened the deletation review here because in my opinion there was no unanimity for the cancellation. The "important" sources were already on the page, but they were probably not analyzed correctly. The same user who deleted the page here says the sources look ok. Here the users asked to put the page in draft, to get an opinion on the matter. So there is no attempt "to game the system", of any kind. Diegoferralis (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PanaBIOS (African Union) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Editor IAmChaos deletes any PanaBIOS articles within seconds of posting. The article is about a seriously notable African COVID-Tech project/platform that is extensively researched and referenced. I have reviewed in great detail Wikipedia's policies and believe that IAmChaos has absolutely no grounds for these speedy deletions when he could not possibly have read the article within the timeframe that he/she has been deleting the articles. IAmChaos appears to be motivated by some perverse political or personal agenda against African-related subject matters that have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. The editorial decisions are rushed, reckless, and suspicious. They are clearly disruptive. We totally believe that PanaBIOS is an important project that deserves documentation on Wikipedia, having been covered extensively and connected with very notable actors in Africa and beyond. Quodprod (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to you on my talk page, I did not nominate the draft for deletion. I nominated a redirect that was in violation of policy for deletion twice. Now that I have said that for a second time, please revise your statement. Also, do not accuse me of perverse political or personal agenda against African-related subject matters I have already quoted WP:NPA against you once today. Also this is a completely malformed request. Also, I did not delete any page, I literally CAN not delete a page, I am not an administrator. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been speedily deleted twice - once at PanaBIOS and again at PanaBIOS (African Union). Neither deletion was by IAmChaos. Rather than seeing through the DRV process, Quodprod has recreated the article again - so I have tagged it for speedy deletion again. - MrOllie (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, MrOllie, you have tagged the article for speedy deletion because you do not feel inclined to do the diligent review necessary to establish that the 30+ references establishing both objective notability and clear neutrality of the subject matte of the article are in fact rebuttable. Both the earlier speedy deletion decisions were conclusory and should not have happened. The article relates to an active area of scholarly, academic and geopolitical interest and plugs the gaps in current coverage, which is highly deficient on African-focused content. Speedy deletion was not created to serve the arbitrary tastes of editors. There should be better evidence that the article is written merely to promote the initiative as opposed to providing useful knowledge about a clearly notable matter pertinent to the encyclopaedic coverage of the COVID-19 phenomena, especially in relation to technology dimensions of the pandemic. Quodprod (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Quodprod, and welcome to DRV. I think the article you wrote has been moved to Draft:PanaBIOS. You come across to me as very passionate and rather cross. Could you tell us, what's your connection with PanaBIOS, please?—S Marshall T/C 07:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear @S Marshall, I am a very frequent traveller in Europe, N/America and Africa. Throughout the pandemic, I observed how these new screening technologies were being deployed and receiving attention. I used PanaBIOS many many times across Africa, and more recently elsewhere too. Yet, whilst wikipedia seems to have kept pace with developments in this area in the global north, there is a persistent blackout on coverage of trends in Africa and the global south. I took it upon myself to fix this anomaly. I am beginning to see that Wikipedia articles on global topics skews heavily to Europe and North America. Given my context, this is a subject worth being passionate about. Quodprod (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. We Wikipedians are often accused of bias by people who are angry about our rules, and we've grown very accustomed to it. Calling us "biased" will not get the article published. Please be kind to our volunteers. We need articles that are strictly neutral. Why is the draft so promotional?—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Marshall, I am not being cantankerous. Believe me, I have read that article a hundred times and can't fathom what in it or about it is "promotional". Everything I have added is in a matter-of-fact tone. So far, no one has pointed to any specific aspect of it or particular piece of content that can be described as "promotional". I simply did a ton of reading, found credible reports that describe exactly what it is and what it does. And I have faithfully recounted as best as I can. I will of course take a hard look at any specific element of the narration that is clearly pointed out as promotional. Everything I have written is what reputable, independent, sources have mentioned as relevant about this initiative. Happy to see specific rebuttals or counter evidence. Thank you.-Quodprod (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have blocked Quodprod indefinitely for persistent promotion and likely undisclosed paid editing, see my block rationale on their talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 16:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Added independent reliable sources directly relevant to article topics for satisfying WP:GNG WarpingSpacetime (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - This is not an appropriate use of deletion review. There was an obvious consensus for deletion, and the discussion was held open for an appropriate length of time. The DRV proposer is simply rehashing an argument made in the AfD. PianoDan (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OVERTURN - Per WP:DRVPURPOSE Deletion Review may be used: 1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly; 2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed; 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; 4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or 5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion. Clearly, 1, 3 & 5 come into play during previous deletion group discussion. Counting votes is not an appropriate method for determining deletion ruling but all arguments and evidence must be acknowledged and carefully considered. Article was nominated for deletion citing WP:GNG. In response to WP:GNG concerns, the article's author, in good faith, argued for and provided directly relevant independent reliable peer-reviewed sources on article title, topics and subjects. Author believes there was a misinterpretation of WP Policy and WP Guidelines during previous discussions. Specifically, there appears to be confusion between notability request for exact Article Title vs Article Topic/s vs Article Subject/s. WP:N Wikipedia's guideline on Notability states that "If a TOPIC has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the SUBJECT, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (See [4],[5],[7] for directly relevant to WARP Reactor ion ring pinch/compression, fusion and radiation topics; See [8]-[11],[13] for directly relevant WARP Reactor inertial fusion, high energy density physics and next generation pulsed power topics; See [14] for directly relevant WARP Reactor DPF/Z-Pinch topic). FURTHERMORE, WP:NPOSSIBLE "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access (See [1]-[14]) Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of sources existing even if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. Finally, if it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. WarpingSpacetime (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It was pretty clear the AfD addressed all the issues that the creator brought up here as well--ad nauseam. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, and will address the appellant's reasons in detail:
  • • As to point 1, the appellant's argument appears to be that the closer did not supervote. DRV does not overturn a close simply by stating that the closer had a duty to supervote.
    • As to point 1, maybe the appellant is conflating length of argument with strength of argument. They did provide the greater length of argument, but that doesn't matter.
    • As to point 3, why didn't the appellant provide the additional sources while the AFD was in process?
    • As to point 3, the title has not been salted, and the appellant is permitted to submit a draft for review.
    • As to point 5, the appellant has not identified a procedural error.
    • User:DGG - You accepted the draft via AFC. Do you have a comment either on its notability or the close?
    • Bludgeoning wasn't useful at AFD and is not likely to be useful at DRV.
    • The appellant never addressed the question about conflict of interest, although they did respond evasively to it.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse DRV is not the place to make the same arguments at even greater length to drag the process out even longer. (I participated in the original discussion.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Even if it's real and will be awesome someday, no one has written about it yet. Consensus was clear and entirely in line with Wikipedia's purpose. We don't aim to be the first to cover something like this, nor should we. Sorry, but feel free to come back when the mainstream press actually picks up on it. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It rings loud of a physicist’s original research, for which WP:NOR was written. Advise the proponent that if they are sure we are all wrong, to create a small draft and to follow the advice of WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Klein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Inappropriate close per WP:EARLY due to only being open for just over 24 hours, and per WP:BADNAC as a non-admin close where the result will require action by an administrator. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist per WP:NACD: "Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages". I'm sure this was a good-faith closure, but there's longstanding consensus (see Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Non-admin closures for a fairly recent discussion) that non-admins shouldn't be closing AfDs as delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist - A clear violation of guidelines on non-admin closes. If we decide that AFD is badly backlogged, and that non-admin Delete closes are needed, that admins will then rubber-stamp, we will decide that, but we haven't decided that, and maybe won't. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, process for the sake of process is discouraged, second, if you endorse the closure, you can simply endorse it and that's the end of story. If the rules clearly say you can't, you have my permission to relist. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pursuant to WP:DPR#NAC, I have vacated Szmenderowiecki's well-intentioned closure, which they seem to have self-reverted anyway. This DRV can also be closed. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Otten (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Wrong close. The consensus was weak delete and result would have been delete if a relist was made (second relist is mostly done in such cases). It is a biased and wrong move from admin to cause aspersions. If they think someone is a sock then surely file a SPI, but don't judge if something is not proven. I would like a relist so I can share my findings. 2A02:8108:4CBF:AE80:F875:1E6D:E013:D624 (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your editing history? You look like an old editor editing project space while logged out. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comment as I said, anyone in good standing is welcome to open an AfD if they feel there is merit. That discussion was infested from the beginning and there was no basis for relist with @Gidonb:'s the only !vote (@Oaktree b: is a comment) from an established editor. OP, please log in. Star Mississippi 13:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an appropriate close of a low-participation AfD. SOFTDELETE would have been within discretion, but is never a mandatory outcome. Jclemens (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - To restate what the closer said, something is still rotten in Denmark. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, dubious circumstances around the nomination and no evidence to suggest that the deletion process has not been properly followed. Relisting is a discretionary action and not simply spinning the wheel to see if more opinions will show up. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as within discretion. Another relist would have been fine as well, but closing as no consensus certainly isn't out of bounds for an already-relisted WP:NOQUORUM situation, particularly given the suspicious circumstances. The closer has no objections to a follow-up AfD nominated by an experienced editor; that path might be worth pursuing given Otten's uncertain notability. Still, the closure was reasonable and reasonably explained, so there's nothing for DRV to do here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a second AFD open, this one initiated by User:Scope creep. I suggest that this DRV be closed as overtaken by a better AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darkover (TV series) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Involved NAC, discussion only open for 16 hours. Withdrawing an AfD and redirecting would have been acceptable and within process, but presuming that this action gives redirection the imprimatur of AfD is not. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Literally everyone in the AFD was calling for a redirect. This was a clear cut WP:SNOW case and I don't see why it should be contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for substantiating the issue. Again, per my discussion on your talk page, the fact that you think this was acceptable is clearly part of the problem. No one, ever, gets to close their own nominated AfD as delete, redirect, merge, etc. They can withdraw it, but not close it. What is more problematic is that you currently have your own ANI open about alleged poor behavior in deletion, and did this anyways. That would constitute a lack of insight if you hadn't already been admonished you for such conduct last month. Now? Failure to accept appropriate feedback at a minimum. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. WP:NotEarly was violated.

1. Discussion did not run for 7 days, which is literally the first thing mentioned "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)."
2. No viewpoints were expressed as "Keep", which is the only way a nominator is supposed to close the discussion. "The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. "
3. TPH is neither an administrator or an uninvolved editor, therefore has no right to close the AfD that they opened. "An editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances"
4. I do not feel WP:SNOW applies because it states "This clause should not be used to close a discussion when a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement." Having the discussion open for only 16 hours doesn't give very many editors a chance to review the discussion and research it.
5. TPH has opened and then closed their own AfD's multiple times, which can be viewed as circumventing the discussion process in order to push their own agenda for deleting any articles they don't like.

DonaldD23 talk to me 03:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I'm sure the closure was in good faith, and I understand why someone might want to close a straightforward AfD sooner rather than later, but "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion" is a pretty ironclad rule, and there's no good reason for ignoring it in this case, particularly since there's been a good-faith request to reopen the discussion. Process is important; there's no deadline; etc. I hope an uninvolved sysop in their own capacity simply reverts the closure per WP:NACD; it would be ironic if a measure intended to speed the AfD up only served to drag it out for another seven days. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is clearly process for the sake of process. What would be gained from reopening it when four other people called for redirection? I would literally bet money on it closing as "redirect" if the discussion is reopened. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing gained is it might educate you on what not to do. You don't close discussions that you opened. Period. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. From WP:DEL and WP:AfD perspectives, that was a perfectly reasonable nominator withdrawal and speedy keep. Probably the close should be modified to that. Subsequently, it was a perfectly good bold redirect, given argued support for that from multiple others, in the AfD. Post bold redirection, you can revert and contest on the talk page, or propose re-spinning out at the target talk page, Talk:Darkover series.

A relist could be justified on the basis of Jclemens’ protest here, if he has articulated a !vote of “Keep, do not redirect”. I support the close as OK, but a good NAC-er will always revert their close if it is contested. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This effectively ended in a merge, which is what it should have been before it was even AfDed. As a courtesy withdrawing and then redirecting would have been preferable but I’m seeing little benefit in arguing the toss after the fact. That said, I would still appreciate greater accuracy and care from TPM over the deletion process and if they’d just done the obvious thing first per BEFORE we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Artw (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist, which I have done as any other contentious NAC, ANI aside. Can someone else please close the DRV? I broke the formatting last time and don't want to again. Star Mississippi 13:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purshottam Lal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Subject: Request for review of the deletion decision dated 26 April 2022 of Mr Sandstein- Case of Purshottam Lal

Dear Reviewing Authority,

(1) The Article on me - Purshottam Lal- created by Ms Sneha and approved by Wikipedia for publication on 27 January 2022 was deleted under the orders of Mr Sandstein ( herein after referred to as the  deleting administrator , or DA in short)  dated 26 April 2022 following a deletion discussion lasting 2 weeks. The final order said that  there was lack of notability and not enough secondary sources.

(2) Normally, the creator of the page-Ms Sneha-should have made the review petition. However, since she is blocked for reasons presumably nothing to do with the  Article on me, she cannot communicate , and hence this review request by me.

(3) As per advice on Wikipedia site , I first took up the matter with the DA  and sent him a note on 20th May  2022 on his Talk Page. He very kindly responded and wrote  : "Mr. Lal, consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purshottam Lal was that there is not enough significant coverage about you in reliable secondary sources that are independent of you. That is needed for an article about you. Could you please read our guideline page WP:BIO and then tell me what the three best pieces of such coverage about you are? Sandstein 17:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)"

(4) Thus, in his response, he did not mention the " notability " aspect which was the main reason for deletion.

(5) Since three independent References had been asked for and since most of my work as a writer and as a police officer had taken place in pre-internet era, I searched for feedback and comments of READERS of my articles in the print media since 1992 ( the year I started my writing endeavour ;  more than 115 articles have  since appeared in important newspapers, and four books published , all released by two different Governors of Punjab state ), and also newspaper reports of my work as a senior police officer , and after scanning them ,  sent the same  to the DA  on 25 May 2022 in PDF format,  uploaded on Wikimedia. It , inter-alia, contained 31 feedbacks in respect of 20 articles of mine.( The link to these additiinal scanned References uploaded on  Wikimedia is as follows:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ADDITIONAL_LINKS_DGPIPSLAL.pdf).

I had the impression that the Wikipedia's first efforts are to retain the Article by making improvement etc if possible. However, the DA finally replied on 26 May  2022 vide  which he did not touch upon this aspect at all, and commented that the three most important References mentioned by me in the deleted Article were not sufficient to justify an Article on me.

(6) I understand AfD (Article for Deletion )is concerned with the substance of the Article whereas DR ( Deletion Review )  is concerned with  the process by which the decision was reached.

(7) The following breaches of due process took place in my case which deserve consideration .

(A) During the deletion discussion , the creator of the Article , Ms Sneha, was not allowed to participate on the ground that she had been  blocked. In fact, two posts made by her from her mobile data ( which was not blocked at that time, since only her IP address was blocked ) giving clarifications on points raised by certain esteemed members of the Wikipedia community were struck off. Thus, the creator of the Article, went totally unrepresented and unheard. This is a breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play. At least, for this case, her block should have been removed so that her view point could also have been available for consideration.

(B) Mr  Bonadea started the deletion discussion on 11 April 2022. He later blocked IPA address of Ms Sneha, creator of the Article, for the so-called sock-puppeting . When she put her viewpoints - twice- during the discussion through her mobile data, Mr Bonadea blocked her  mobile data connectivity, too. He also struck off posts so put by Ms Sneha. Thus, in this case an inevitable clash of interest took place  leading to denial of the opportunity of being heard , by virtue of both actions - deletion discussion and blocking- having been initiated /ordered  by the same party i.e. Mr Bonadea. This is against the principles of natural justice in any society/country governed by the rule of law. The blocking decision should not have been taken by Mr Bonadea as he knew that he had already  initiated the deletion discussion. He ought to have referred the blocking decision to some other Administrator. Thus, due process of fairness and unprejudiced discussion have  been violated in this case.

(C ) At least two members who participated in  the discussion majorly misread the Article. They presumed that I had been the Head of the Punjab Police Force. No such claim was made in the Article. It rather said in the Introduction : " ....retired from the rank of Director General of Police". Thus, it was the rank which was mentioned, and not the actual post. There are a few posts in the Punjab Police  , all manned by DG rank officers. Though the two gentlemen spoke in my favour, yet their impression was wrong , and I pointed it out at the very first instance to Mr Geoffrey Lane of the Wikipedia in an email dated 28 April 2022 ) .  Such a misreading by not only these two esteemed members of the WP community but by some other participants also- like the one inquiring about the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service in respect of which clarification was provided by the creator of the Article ,the same , however,having been  being struck off-  shows lack of proper understanding and appreciation of the contents of the Article  by some of the esteemed  participants. The number of participants , most of them not well-informed about the Indian system of policing except two, was also too less, about 5 or 6. This  type of discussion amounted to a process not germane to a meaningful discussion , laying too much stress on the so-called independent References which , though present among the list of References, were not found adequate by the participants and ultimately by  the DA. Instead of looking at the totality of the material available , they rather looked only at a part of it resulting in miscarriage of justice.

(D  ) The DA's  final note dated 26 May  2022 on his Talk Page says that the first two  References mentioned speak  of  my book , and not of  me. This is, to say the least, not a very correct interpretation. When somebody is talking about my book ,  he is naturally talking about me also as the book is my creation. About the third Reference, he mentioned it was by an organisation to which I belong and hence was not independent. First of all, he could not appreciate that the Reference was picked up by the creator by the  internet search and mentioned as such  just to show my qualities as a senior police officer ,  and referred to my past association with the organisation ,  and not the present one as I am no longer a member of it. Secondly, I was associated with it but had no control over it. The Reference also mentions the names of the former Governor Punjab and former Chief Secretary Punjab just to show that I was, at one time in the past,   in the category  of highly notable persons in the administration of the  Punjab government , thereby supplementing my notability.

(E  ) The DA's  final note dated 26 May 2022 is silent on the suggestion to allow, for improving the Article,  the use of  31 feedbacks provided in respect of 20 articles of mine in PDF format uploaded on Wikimedia ,   as  independent secondary sources for my writing work, which PDF file  contained some References for my police work also ( all relating to pre-internet era). Perhaps these or some of them could have been considered for addition so that the Article could have been  improved and saved , as I understand that the first endeavour of the Wikipedia , as a positive step, is to retain the Article by improving it. Pre-internet References would naturally be in paper format, and only their scanned copies can be attached. Some 58     References ( out of which some might be common to the list already in the deleted Article)  also sent for my articles and TV discusdions for possible use in improving the Article were also not touched upon by the DA in his final note of 26 May 2022. ( Please see the link and list  of  scanned References and other 58 in paragraph (5) above).

(F )  The Article was approved on 27 January 2022 by Wikipedia ( Mr John B 123- more than 1,89,000 edits and more than 248 active Articles to his credit) after satisfying about notability and References. No new facts came to light  after that. No falsity of any information was ever alleged. Hence, in the absence of any fresh material, it is not fair to declare the same Article as ineligble on grounds of lack of notability and inadequacy of References, though later the DA  in his note of 20 May 2022 on his Talk Page did not raise the issue of notability , and only of secondary independent References. Thus , there has been an apparent lack of consistency . I think an Article duly approved by an esteemed and experienced Wikipedian-Administrator  should not be put up for deletion discussion unless fresh damaging material became available.

(G )  I have suffered loss of face by the deletion effected 3 months after its publication after due approval . I am now more than 75 years of age. My endeavour to write the fifth  book- Origin of the Aryans-  which was half-way through, is stalled due to this upsetting development.

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, it is requested that the Article may kindly be restored. It can, however, be improved by adding more References or even amending it. 

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely, Purshottam Lal Sukhmanik95 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original consensus.

• This is a breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play. At least, for this case, her block should have been removed so that her view point could also have been available for consideration. This is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, as blocked users are not allowed to edit anywhere else on Wikipedia other than to appeal their block on their talk page.
• See @Sandstein's response to the sources at their user page.[19]
• I think an Article duly approved by an esteemed and experienced Wikipedian-Administrator should not be put up for deletion discussion unless fresh damaging material became available. @John B123 marked the page as reviewed, but they are not an administrator. The consensus at the AfD was to delete.
• it is requested that the Article may kindly be restored. It can, however, be improved by adding more References or even amending it. If you would like to improve the article by adding more references, you could request it to be restored as a draft by going to WP:REFUND. Ms Sneha, whom you have paid to edit your article, will not be allowed to edit the draft since she is blocked from editing. 0xDeadbeef 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the wall of text was causing a side scroll. If someone else has a better suggestion, feel free to modify. Star Mississippi 13:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion was “delete” and then User:Hemantha 09:28, 20 April 2022 nailed it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to try and address some of your "due process" points

  (A) Wikipedia isn't a system of laws etc. Ms Sneha apparently had their editing rights removed over an alleged breach of some of our policies, so they weren't allowed to participate further e.g. don't play by the rules and don't expect to be heard. The article isn't the property of the original creator, and articles should stand on their own e.g. it should be clear how they meet the relevant guidelines etc. so the creators presence really isn't required for a fair defence of the content - indeed others did try and search out additional material to try and support the article. This is totally in line with normal process and would apply in any case where the creator was blocked, so in terms of fairness you are aligned with everyone/everything else here.

  (B) Being blocked is the removal of the right to edit as applied to the individual, as such any admin would have done the same action in blocking the evasion. Maybe it wasn't ideal who did the blocking, but the outcome would be the same for anyone and so again no change in the real outcome here.

  (C) This probably suggests the article didn't present the information well if there was such a confusion. However as the argument was that there was no special carve out for senior police officials and there was nothing else supporting notability, remove the former and you are still left with the latter point that there is nothing supporting notability. That would still have needed to be adequately rebutted and wasn't.

  (D) That wouldn't be the standard meaning and understanding on wikipedia. If I talk about "Harry Potter" say, what facts does that tell me about JK Rowling? Can I discuss Harry Potter without knowing anything about or even considering the author. Of course I can, it's totally possible to have interest in the work and little real interest in the person behind it - I would say that's the case for the vast majority of newspaper columns etc. It's also wrapped up in our guidelines on creative people WP:AUTHOR merely writing works even many works is not the yard stick. Likewise on a more general basis the general notability guide requires that the articles discuss the subject directly and in detail. So this is totally in line with normal wikipedia practices.

  (E) The PDF seems to have been deleted for copyright problems, I had a look at some of your links above but they were similar to what had already been reviewed, and I don't intend to go through all of them, you are better picking out the best few which talk about you directly and in detail.

  (F) This is again in line with standard practice, one editor doesn't get to bless an article.

  (G) I don't see this as a due process issue, though it does suggest you've go this the wrong way around. Wikipedia serves as a tertiary source covering things which the rest of the world has already found significant/notable. Your notability stems from those things, not from having a Wikipedia article. In real terms there will be articles on wikipedia about things which are of little real world notability and many of those will be deleted at some point, there will also be gaps in coverage of things/people which are genuinely notable - this can be for a range of reasons, but not being here doesn't change their genuine real world notability. And finally there are many people who decidedly don't want an wikipedia article and indeed argue for removal (we don't always do this, but are sympathetic to those of lower notability), they don't necessarily like that the articles are not owned by anyone and can be edited by anyone, including adding coverage which may be considered negative (assuming that's well referenced etc. and not just made up) --81.100.164.154 (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse first of all I definitely suggest that the OP try writing more concisely - walls of text rarely get read in full and put people off participating. The AfD was closed correctly, the only argument in favour of keeping the article was that the subject was notable just for being a senior police officer, and as that isn't found in the notability guidelines for people it doesn't carry much weight. We usually determine notability according to the general notability guideline, which says that subjects are notable if they have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I haven't read most of the huge pile of citations above but they appear to be to things the subject wrote for a newspaper (or letters he sent them), e.g. this is a letter praising the customer service of an Australian company. As a result they aren't independent. I agree with Sandstein's evaluation of the three sources picked out as the best [20][21][22], one isn't independent of the subject and the other two are very short book reviews.
  Of the other arguments: the fact the creator was blocked doesn't affect the legitimacy of the discussion, and they seem to have evaded the block and participated anyway. The fact that a new page patroller reviewed the article doesn't automatically make it suitable, that just means one person didn't immediately think it needed to be deleted. I don't think it would be a good idea to restore it to draft unless someone other than the (blocked) author or the subject of the article wants to work on it, since we strongly advise against people writing about themselves. Hut 8.5 17:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I do want to acknowledge the huge amount of work the subject has put into tracking down offline sources and attempting to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think that's at least deserving of detailed responses to some of his concerns. Other editors have addressed most of the points raised, but one minor aspect that may have been confusing to Mr. Lal is the designation of "independence": any organization with which a subject is or has been affiliated is not considered independent of that subject. This is not (just) because the subject could have control over what the org says, but because material published by the org about the subject will (a) be in the context of that subject's involvement with or relationship to the org, and potentially only be of interest to the org; and (b) only be presented in a way that reflects positively on the org. Re: (a), we cannot evaluate such a publication as indicative of wider noteworthiness or impact because an organization will promote any positive news that relates to itself, regardless of whether it is of any interest to anyone outside it. This is why, e.g., college newspaper profiles of candidates for the college's student body president election cannot be used to demonstrate notability of a candidate. A related concept is the Wikipedia policy of WP:DUEWEIGHT. Re: (b), Wikipedia articles must be written in a WP:neutral point of view, and therefore cannot be based on sources that have a clear interest in highlighting only the best and most organization-relevant aspects of a subject. This also plays into the DUE WEIGHT issue above. If all we have on a person is a glowing profile of him winning an award, by the awarding body, who of course want to portray recipients of their award in the best light possible, then there is no way to build a neutral biography.

I hope this explanation clarifies that piece of wiki-jargon. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The keep arguments are remarkably weak and sheer numbers don't make up for that. They sum up to claim that this is inherently notable ("a list of ... is notable") or that notability of the people in it is sufficient (it is not, per both WP:LISTN and WP:NINHERITED) or that it is useful... In contrast, the delete side correctly argued that no source discussing this as a group exists - and even the sources presented in the AfD do not deal at all with the group of "people on the postage stamps of Iceland" but are merely general philatelical works about the postage stamps. In the face of the lack of policy-compliant reasons to keep (and the fact this does fail WP:NOT, as I have argued for similar lists elsewhere); this should be overturned to delete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus - The number of !votes for and against are similar, and the Delete reasoning is stronger but not overwhelming. It looks like No Consensus (which of course keeps the article for a little while). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this topic is cut-and-dried enough to be able to clearly say if LISTN is met or not. I think NC is a better reading of the discussion, but I have to endorse a keep closure as being within discretion--the numbers are toward keep, the strength of arguments, IMO, toward deletion. How to weigh those is tough, but given how strong the numbers are, I think keep is fine. That said, I'd say the best way forward is some kind of an RfC on the general topic of these "people on stamp" lists and see if we can't agree on if (and when) we should have them or if we should never have them, or what. Hobit (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the numbers are towards keep but the strength of argument is towards delete; then the proper outcome is either "delete" or "no consensus" (depending on how strong the arguments are); but certainly not "keep". Discussions are not votes, and half a dozen people repeating the same fallacy or reasoning which is at odds with wider policy does not make that reasoning suddenly be stronger. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A) of course discussions aren't votes, but numbers do matter. WP:IAR is policy. If 99 people say "keep, Wikipedia should have this" and 1 person says "but per <guideline> we should not", we keep. There are policies like BLP and copyright that are non-negotiable. This isn't that. See [23] for a great example of something that met every inclusion guideline but got deleted due to numbers. B) This case isn't cut-and-dried. It's quite unclear if LISTN requires this to be deleted. As I said, I think NC would have been a better close. But keep is well within discretion IMO. The closer isn't clearly wrong to think the delete arguments are weak. Hobit (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, let's look at the "strength" of the keep arguments, in order:

  1. I feel the list is useful, [...] as a useful indicator of possible wp:notables with redlinks needing pages
  2. the people listed here, seem to be important people in Icelandic history and arts
  3. A list of historically significant people who have appeared on the postage stamps of a country is notable
  4. per discussion, would be surely kept if it was a larger nation
  5. the rationale is basically the same as for List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands

  No. 2 and 3 entirely miss the point because notability is not inherited and the subject under discussion was not the notability of the people listed, but that of the group. They should have been dismissed as fallacies of relevance. No. 4 and 5 are a WP:WHATABOUTX argument which don't even attempt to address the specifics. They should similarly have been dismissed out of hand. That leaves 1, which at least provides a plausible claim why it could be useful.

  The delete arguments, on the other hand, are that:

  1. (nom) Fails LISTN. [...] Sourced to a general catalogue and the homepage of a stamp dealer for some reason. (i.e. sources available don't qualify as SIGCOV)
  2. the sourcing is not enough to show this topic has been covered adequately as a whole to justify a list (i.e. another editor agreeing with the LISTN assessment)
  3. very little sourcing or verifiability (so fails both LISTN and WP:V)

  I don't know in which world a 5-3 split (more like 1-3 once arguments which are not relevant are dismissed) with arguments so clearly stronger on the delete side can be closed as "keep". If you are saying that sufficient numbers can always outweigh policy, then we might as well get rid of NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One mistake I made is that I counted it as 6-2 somehow. I have no idea how (2 I assume because I dropped the nom, 6 I've no clue on). So yeah, keep is more of a stretch. An I do think you are underplaying the NPOV argument that was made explicitly by one person and implicitly by the rest. We do try to include places where sourcing can be harder to find on a given topic if places where sourcing in English is plentiful on the theory that the sourcing does likely exist, we just can't find it. So the numbers are closer than I thought, but the arguments are nowhere near as far apart IMO as you have them. But at the end of the day this feels like a reasonable topic for us to have and the !voters (and the closer?) reached that conclusion. This isn't promotional or anything else problematic, and it does seem like a notable (using the dictionary definition, not Wikipedia's) topic. I feel it's a topic our guidelines don't address well. YMMV (and clearly does). Hobit (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact I did post an RfC [24] to the philately portal several weeks ago, and the first response is only dated today. So we're not getting much guidance from that quarter so far. In looking at other lists of people, I found List of people on banknotes and even the FL(!) List of people on United States banknotes, which are very nicely done but also raises a question as to why banknote appearances are intrinsically notable but postage stamp appearances are not? They are sibling categories of paper ephemera after all. (If this observation starts a new flurry of deletions, uh, sorry numismatists :-) ) Stan (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. P&G-backed arguments should always outweigh arguments that are explicitly rejected by P&Gs. Not a single source was produced to support the repeated claim that the topic was GNG-notable as a topic -- keep !voters didn't even attempt to rebut the correct assessment that the list failed LISTN and NOT. Closers should not be afraid to close against a numerical majority if that majority is clearly completely unfamiliar with our guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to consider merge or redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE. This failure invalidates any consensus to delete, and usually makes for a messy discussion for “keep” !voters who recognise encyclopedic information but find themselves unable to articulate why. The page is presented unsuitably, and a good answer is Merge and Redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland.
The List of People is properly part of Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, possibly with a rename, and then, it could be a suitable spinout. However, the current page is not couched as a spinout of Icelandic stamps. There are many possible fixes that don’t involve deletion, and the poor BEFORE-failing nomination domed the discussion to a messy failure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• for “keep” !voters who recognise encyclopedic information - whether something is encyclopedic or not is not generally based on whether individual Wikipedia editors think so, but what wider guidelines and policy (WP:NOT, in this case) say and how reliable sources have covered the subject. There are many possible fixes that don’t involve deletion No such fix was presented at the discussion; nor do I personally see any such fix for something that fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN so obviously. There are some things which just don't go on Wikipedia. The rest of your argument seems to be relitigating of the discussion and is off-topic here RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The failure to properly consider BEFORE options is a critical failure in the AfD and is a reason it can’t be overturned to delete, and should be more widely considered a reason for a speedy close. The merge and redirect option is on the table and until removed, talk of deletion is premature. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a difference of judgement (which is why we have AfDs so people can argue these), not a "failure to properly consider BEFORE options". I do not share your opinion that this kind of content belongs on any Wikipedia page, per the WP:NOT arguments I have made elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:ATD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue this line of argument; as it has no bearing on whether the close was correct in light of the discussion which actually happened at the AfD. This is something which could (should?) have been discussed at the AfD. DRV is not AfD-relitigation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating WP:NOT as if it is a reason for deletion. It often doesn’t. Also, I am not finding WP:NOT arguments in the AfD. “Not” is not a good search term, it has 56 matches.

In contrast, ATD is policy directly speaking to, and limiting deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL#REASON 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people featured on historical stamps is suitable content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:Clearly notable, which is not a suitable argument at AfD, much less at DRV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Below, you raised NOTBUREAU. That demanded a response that there is substance to the question of a merge, and indeed there obviously is. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn None of the keep voters made any policy-based arguments. The complaint that the nomiator failed BEFORE is nonsense, since not only is there no evidence that this is true, but also BEFORE doesn't require that ATDs be stated out loud, only that the nominator give serious thought to it. In any case, a reason for deleting is itself a reason for not ATDing, and no convincing case for the latter was made. If keep voters "find themselves unable to articulate why" the article is encyclopedic, that tells everything. Avilich (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The ATD was mentioned by John Pack Lambert, 15:58, 25 May 2022. It obviously needed consideration. Your concept of nonsense is nonsense. You want to pretend that the nominator did BEFORE, satisfied BEFORE, but then kept it silent? That would not be acceptable, that means the nominator deliberately misled the AfD. That invalidates the AfD, and the nominator requires a TROUT. The ATD was obvious, but the flawed nomination undermined a fair discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Being of the opinion that a merge is not appropriate (for example, in this instance, because the content fails WP:NOT) is not "failure to properly consider BEFORE or ATD". Nominators are in no way required to argue for options they personally disagree with. That invalidates the AfD, and the nominator requires a TROUT. - utter nonsense. Even if you were right about your bureaucratic instruction creep, WP:NOTBURO is rather darn clear that A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The process failed, with blame to the nominator, because the content should be merged, not deleted, per WP:Deletion policy. That trumps your NOTBUREAU argument and devaluing of AfD instructions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty much what you said: nobody likes thought policing, most people don't feel the need to question whether a nominator has done BEFORE unless sources are easily and obviously available, and most nominations don't give explicit, detailed BEFORE reports anyway. The fact that the nominator has a good record, that similar lists have been deleted in the past couple of days, and that none of the keep votes were well-articulated (by your own admission), suggest that the nomination is as good as if a BEFORE had been done (and I'm happy to pretend it has). You're right that more 'consideration' was needed, but for the discussion as a whole rather than just for John Pack Lambert's afterthought of a redirect. Avilich (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where do our P&Gs require a nominator explicitly describe their BEFORE search? None of the keep !votes demonstrated the topic had received SIGCOV -- they just kept claiming a list containing notable subjects is inherently notable as a group -- so there's no evidence that aspect of BEFORE wasn't performed. And it's not like there's much that could be merged into postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, we would basically be copy-pasting an incomplete, undersourced collection of names and partial sentences into the article without any context. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of BEFORE failure is the non mention of the obvious WP:ATD-M possibility.

The nominator, User:Fram is a well-known respected experienced editor, and this makes the BEFORE failure much worse. Even you invent against evidence that Fram actually did a silent BEFORE. This is a very good example of how a nominators BEFORE failure poisons the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the merge may well discard some of the content, but not all. People featured on historical stamps looks like missing content at the merge target. You say unsourced, but it is also unlikely to be challenged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to relitigate the AfD by suggesting a merge. I do not think it is an obvious (or even a reasonable) possibility in this case, but DRV is not the proper forum for that. Stop with all of this BEFORE nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You call an expectation to follow AfD instructions to be nonsense? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense is you trying to impose your opinion that this should be merged as a BEFORE failure, when it very much isn't. There are valid reasons for deletion (ones which IMHO mean this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, anywhere); you disagreeing with them does not make them invalid or mean that the nom failed to do BEFORE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not “merged”. “Consideration of merge”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think the closer gave a bit too much weight to the keep !votes here: RandomCanadian does a pretty good job of explaining why several of them are fallacious or at odds with policy. I think the best option here would be to relist in the hope of getting some more policy-based input, as well as to allow for further discussion of the ATD that was suggested (a merge/redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keep closure. Postage Stamps are works of art, instruments of currency, and government publications all rolled into one. To delete, rather than redirect, requires a lot more cogent arguments than what were presented in the discussion. No objection to a merge discussion on the talk pages, or a BOLD merge, but to pretend that a delete outcome is justified by the discussion here is unreasonable, and there's no particular benefit to overturning a reasonable keep closure into a borderline no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Postage Stamps are works of art, instruments of currency, and government publications all rolled into one." is A) not an argument for DRV but for AfD; B) would be a bad argument even at AfD; as the page under discussion was not "Postage stamps of Iceland" but specifically "List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't consider the content worth merging, and it wouldn´t make a good redirect, so my preference was and is for deletion, just like happened with dozens of the other country lists already. No idea why people who disagree need to see the nom trouted as if I made some terrible faux-pas here, or why this would be important for a DRV. If the merge was such an obvious ATD, one would imagine that it would have rapidly gained strenght at the Afd. Fram (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you follow WP:BEFORE? Do you not believe in it? Do you not believe in naming the best merge target and explaining, or even just asserting, that none of the content is suitable there? You may have solid reasons, but by mentioning it you entice others to check, and explicitly agree. It’s not “terrible”, but I have seen a lot of AfDs brought here, where I deduce that a (not “the”) root cause was a WP:BEFORE failure. Following WP:BEFORE, naming then dismissing at least one merge target, correlates to more successful discussion. I am sure that had you named and rejected the merge target, the discussion would have found a clearer consensus more quickly. I think a little more time reporting on your BEFORE process would mean saving a lot of other editors time at AfD and DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it’s worth, I think the article falls way short of being worth a standalone article, but I do believe the content is worth using at the target, although a substantial amount of work is needed, and it would need someone seriously interested in Icelandic stamps. Mostly, it contains seed information, and sources, to get started. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I don't usually discuss all things which don't apply, I think about things like redirecting but I try to keep the nom reasonably concise. Not mentioning that you thought about but rejected merging, redirecting, ... is hardly a Before failure, never mind troutworthy or a reason to dismiss an Afd. Let's not add even more burocracy to our processes. Fram (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your view is a mistake. Notability (including LISTN) is only a deletion reason if there is no merge target. WP:ATD-M is deletion policy. WP:BEFORE is a very clear instruction. Did you do WP:BEFORE, consider, and reject, the merge target raised in the discussion? The bureaucracy is already written into the process, and it is good policy. List of people on the postage stamps of the United States seems ok, but for Iceland, they are not even worth a mention on any page? Is the US special. To resist bias, things should be done properly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  List of people on the postage stamps of the United States could just as well be nominated for deletion, like all the others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't remember ever seeing a nomination statement include the nom's rejected considerations for merge targets. Merging is actually an extremely rare deletion outcome overall in the areas I participate in -- in my last 500 AfDs only two resulted in a merge. Just because you believe noms should explicitly outline their BEFORE procedure (which I agree would be ideal) doesn't mean it's required or even common enough to be expected. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s rarely seen because if there is a merge target, it gets merged, or redirected for someone else to merge, and it doesn’t go to AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Very rarely do I wish Wikipedia had a "thumbs up" tag built in. Hobit (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse "keep" though I might have preferred "no consensus". Too often our P&Gs don't quite say what they are assumed to say. Although WP:LISTN is part of Wikipedia:Notability which says article topics should be, as a whole, "notable", WP:LISTN seems to relax this a bit by saying "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ...". What are the other reasons? In the present case the cross classification criterion comes into consideration where the guideline says there is no present consensus. However the present list topic could reasonably be considered as an intersection of just two notable topics: (1) Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland and (2) Portrait. Such a simple cross classification by notable criteria is least likely to offend WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The AFD closer was correct not to discount the opinions of those !voting "keep". Thincat (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  a simple cross classification by notable criteria - The criteria being individually notable does not mean a cross-categorisation is acceptable (WP:NINHERITED). Something is not notable if it hasn't been discussed in sources. Individual Wikipedians thinking something is notable has never been a suitable reason to keep anything at AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I didn't expect you to voice your agreement. WP:LISTN is simply a guideline and you are not required to support the way it is worded or what it implies. Also, by the way, no one at AFD or here has argued in favour of WP:NINHERITED so it should not be necessary to keep saying it is an argument to avoid. Thincat (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You literally just made the argument that this is "an intersection of just two notable topics"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have closed no consensus, but overturning from keep to no consensus is process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here are the rationales from all the keep votes:

1. "I feel the list is useful as an end in itself" - WP:ITSUSEFUL is at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Not a policy/guidance based reason.
2. "the people listed here, seem to be important people in Icelandic history and arts." - A list of notable people is not the same as the list itself representing a notable collective gorup.
3. "A list of historically significant people who have appeared on the postage stamps of a country is notable" - According to what policy?
4. "per discussion, would be surely kept if it was a larger nation" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
5. "the rationale is basically the same as for List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands, which recently survived AfD" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

There is zero policy-based reasoning behind the keep votes. When did AfD closers decide that policy-based reasoning doesn't matter at all? They've turned WP:NOTVOTE into a lie. If this is going to be the norm, could we please just turn WP:ILIKEIT into a valid criteria notability and go ahead and destroy the encyclopedia? That seems to be all that matters these days, because of the refusal to actually read and consider discussion votes by the closers. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete relist. Zero policy(or guideline)- based keep reasons, policy-based deletion reasons. That's a textbook example of WP:DISCARD.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD is a deletion policy to not delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one even invoked WP:ATD. If you ARE invoking ATD then the fate of the article, unless the matter is improvement, and improvement was not a keep reason, should NOT be "keep". Lurking shadow (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The invocation of ATD-M is mandated by WP:BEFORE instructions and explicitly by deletion policy. The obvious merge target is there. The failure to consider was a process failure. You are !voting to perpetuate the failure by going for “delete” with no evidence you have considered ATD.

I am not arguing for “keep”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your thought policing has no basis in policy. ATD does not force anybody to talk about a merger if they disagree with it. You can't force participants to discuss something they don't find worth discussing: if nobody found about your 'obvious' merge target worthy of attention, then there is simply no support or consensus for it. Avilich (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably why SmokeyJoe wants to overturn and relist instead of overturn and merge. A good idea.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the argument that the nom failed BEFORE cannot be used to support it. Avilich (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support a relist, especially if anyone disputes the redirect option, or if anyone really believes that all of the content is unsuitable of inclusion anywhere. I don’t support the closing statement. Alternatively, an editor could boldly redirect. It would be nice if someone would start adding notable people featured on stamps at the redirect target. This is then no longer a deletion matter.

I asked the nom if they did BEFORE and they didn’t answer, and so I presume the answer is “no”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smokeyjoe, you have long gone from raising an objection into the territory of bludgeoning personal attacks. I have answered multiple time already, e.g. "No, I don't usually discuss all things which don't apply, I think about things like redirecting but I try to keep the nom reasonably concise. Not mentioning that you thought about but rejected merging, redirecting, ... is hardly a Before failure, never mind troutworthy or a reason to dismiss an Afd. " Please stop. Fram (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is ATD "explicitly" mandated by policy? WP:DELETION policy just lists alternatives, it most certainly doesn't demand an AfD nom consider and reject each one. The WP:deletion process guideline also makes no mention of ensuring ATD has been considered. WP:N only "strongly encourages" noms do a BEFORE. In fact, I don't see a single policy or guideline that requires any of what you're claiming @Fram "failed" to do. JoelleJay (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“If editing can be done to improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page”. Converting the page to a suitable redirect is an edit that improves the page.

I think some of the material can be merged, although some work will be needed at the target page.

WP:BEFORE #C4 instructs the nominator to consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. Did they do this?

The usual practice is to ignore ATD when there is no suitable redirect target. This is the problem. AfD participants can read the nomination as implying no suitable redirect target, and yet there is one.

WP:N is only a deletion reason when there is no suitable merge target, or redirect target.

Fram did not mention the suitable merge target. Fram failed to do this. Fram didn’t do this. Maybe one wording is better than another. The discussion would have been better if the “keep” voters addressed the possibility of merging instead of asserting notability. Notability doesn’t mean that the topic must have a standalone article.

Has Fram, or anyone else, argued that the material is entirely unsuitable at the proposed target? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the material is suitable at the proposed target either, or else you would need to include a list of all topics ever shown on the stamps of Iceland, not just people (as there is no reason to single out people over buildings, events, plants, ...). The list would be undue at the merge target, would add no understanding of the topic, basically just isn't suited for it. I don't think the material belongs on enwiki, not as a standalone article and not as part of another article. Can you please stop with the "nom failed this" and "nom failed that" nonsense when you try to fnd excuses for the poor "keep" votes? I answered you before, but you simply ignore the answers because it is much more fun to blame the nom for the failure of the keeps somehow. Fram (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you, or anyone else, argued at the afd that editing could have been done to improve the page? —Cryptic 06:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made a few failed starts to assess the quality of sourced material, but refs #1&3 are newspaper images in Icelandic. Reference #2 directly discusses a President featured on a stamp, and so I think it worthy of mention at the parent article. Ref 4 is an image of an Icelandic book. There is stuff here worth merging. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reusing references doesn't require a merge, merging is for content. Perhaps this is useful for the supposed merge target, perhaps not, but it doesn't require a merge or redirect, it doesn't require keeping the attribution. If you or anyone wants to get the references used in a deleted article, you can ask any admin (or at refund) and they will normally provide these. But we don't keep articles because the references may be useful for another article. Fram (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the AfD, User:Stan Shebs and User:Orland gave weak comments against merging. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all recommendations on the AfD info page, though, not from any policy or guideline. So the claim that doing BEFORE or considering ATD is "mandated" by policy is false, and therefore Fram's nomination was not out-of-process whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No policy-compliant arguments to keep this material were raised at the afd. The bludgeoning above that those advocating for deletion of the article should have proactively argued better against positions nobody held is ludicrous. Overturn to delete. —Cryptic 08:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. The rationale for the AFD was that the list fails WP:LISTN. No counterargument was made to that whatsoever, and the "keep" votes can basically be boiled down to either WP:ILIKEIT, or a misunderstanding of what makes a list notable. To be clear it is not the individual notability of the individuals listed which is relevant, but the concept of listing these people in the first place. When viewed through the lens of our policies and guidelines, this discussion shows a very clear consensus to delete and that's the way the closer should have closed it, irrespective of the repetition of arguments we see above in this DRV. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion contains literally no policy-based rationale for deletion. Even the nom only gestures vaguely in the direction of WP:LISTN, which simply describes "[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable", and thus does not provide a basis for deletion. The guideline is written that way because there is no consensus that it should be stronger. If the proponents of deletion wanted to argue that we should ignore the plain lack of policy authority for deletion and nonetheless delete a cromulent list because doing so would serve the broader interests of the encyclopedia, they needed to use their words and actually make that argument. They didn't, and the closer properly discounted their unreasoned !votes to delete. (That may not be the exact process the closer followed, but since they reached the correct result in any case, it doesn't matter). -- Visviva (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are misapplying WP:LISTN. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." It is correct that it doesn't say that it is the only way for a list topic to be considered notable, but... if you want to keep an article you have to prove notability. If you have an alternate reason for notability you need to make a case for notability. And one that fits our policies. However, the arguments here boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE or original research not backed up by sources. If I'd have seen credible arguments for meeting WP:GNG, that'd be different. Lurking shadow (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I'm not convinced that a good faith attempt at sourcing this list or finding RS relevant to this list per WP:BEFORE was attempted by the nominator and the delete voters. No one mentioned searching for sources and coming up empty. They only commented on the current state of the article, which to my mind is not convincing enough of an argument. As such, I'm not inclined to overturn this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In the discussion, User:Fram says: "Because there are no sources that treat the topic as a group?" This indicates a WP:BEFORE search. Lurking shadow (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s too vague of a comment to assume that was what was meant. It could have easily been limited to an evaluation of the sources in the article, which is how I initially read it. I still think that the comment was evaluation of the cited references extent in the article, and no more than that even after re-reading. It’s up to the delete voters to make it clear that they looked for sources and followed due diligence. I am still not seeing that in evidence anywhere.4meter4 (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a WP:BEFORE search does not need to be really proven in any case. You can normally assume that the nominator made one, and if several keep votes don't dispute that there are no acceptable sources then there is consensus that there aren't any.13:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That has not been my experience with this particular nominator in other AFDs.4meter4 (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]