Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 18

M43 (Durban) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Despite the consensus that WP:GEOROAD applies, the AfD was closed as delete. The reasoning to delete was incredibly flawed, as SNGs trump GNG. Also, the closer said that the article was unsourced, which is simply untrue. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The appellant is simply mistaken in saying that SNGs trump GNG. The SNG to which she refers is worded to say that numbered roads are usually notable, which subordinates the SNG to general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It appears that the closer overrode the consensus based on policy. A temporary undeletion is requested to review whether Keep would have been inconsistent with policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The last edit before deletion removed almost all of the article, because it was, indeed, unsourced. I'll go further and say that nothing in the infobox or remaining sentence is sourced, either, except for the single factoid that Ushukela (which isn't even sourced to be the same as M43!) used to be called Watson Drive. Endorse. —Cryptic 18:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're gonna be so bold as to throw GEOROAD out of the window, then at least bold your endorsement. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  GEOROAD says this subject "cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG". In so many words. —Cryptic 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect please don't police the contributions of editors. Discussions are not a vote any many of us don't bold recommendations as we prefer the closer to read our comment in its entirety rather than just count bold comments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Endorse as a case where consensus and policy conflicted, which should not happen, and the closer chose to follow policy rather than consensus, which is the almost right thing to do, because there is no right thing. I am basing this on the word of both User:Spartaz and User:Cryptic that theThe article was unsourced, and so deletion was indicated by the verifiability policy, which is non-negotiable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to take our word, since it's been temp-undeleted. That's less obvious since the title had been recreated as a redirect, rather than brought to DRV as a redlink. The last pre-deletion version is linked in the header as "article", an esoteric feature of {{DRV links}} that had apparently been used only once before I stumbled across it last week; maybe it could do with a more explicit label like "revision". —Cryptic 19:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Spartaz and Cryptic are not throwing WP:GEOROAD out the window. They are throwing an unsourced article out the window. WP:GEOROAD, like most notability guides, has to do with what is reported by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation of Draft with proper sources. This is not what the appellant is requesting, but is what she may request. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I participated in the AfD. The closer made a policy based close. The appellant made up their mind very early and even questioned the admin who granted the AfD nominator's perm. Kudos to the closer for weighing policy and SNG. I think we could likely throw out the last keep as a flawed rationale and we might have a no consensus anyway. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Leaving Weak Endorse standing. It is weak not because I hadn't seen the deleted article but because I will only give a weak endorse to a closer who overrides consensus because consensus was wrong. User:Spartaz was in a no-win situation and didn't lose. The one reference was completely useless, and therefore the article failed verifiability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (AfD nominator) The closer came to a decision based on policy which was the right move. Further, to address the appellant's arguemnts– The reasoning to delete was incredibly flawed, as SNGs trump GNG. Also, the closer said that the article was unsourced, which is simply untrue.: GEOROAD states that roads "are presumed to be notable IF they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." Which means that in this case, GEOROAD and GNG essentially have the same notability requirements. For an article with only one source, that doesn't provide SIGCOV, rather one passing mention in a list, and doesn't even mention the author on the website, it cannot be considered a reliable source, and doesn't verify anything in article (apart from 5 words). It doesn't even make mention of "M43". ––– GMH MELBOURNE 01:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - delete was a viable close as the delete votes appeared to be based more in policy than the keep votes, which were based more in guidelines. No consensus would have been a viable close as well. No prejudice against recreation of a properly sourced article. Frank Anchor 02:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I never* endorse my own closes but I'd like to note that the nominator didn't have the courtesy of engaging with me before raising the DRV. *=Hardly ever Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was an oversight on my part, sorry. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GEOROAD states that a national, state, or provincial highway is "typically notable" which creates a presumption of notability, which can be rebutted. It states that a "county road" would need to be covered in multiple sources. The presumption would be rebutted if an AFD came to a consensus that the article should be deleted. That means that in the absence of such as consensus, the article should be kept – because there is a presumption of notability. (This contrasts with, for example, the football player wars of the last two years, where policy was eventually amended to state that there is no presumption that a footballer who has played at $whatever level is notable. In other areas, meeting either GNG or a relevant SNG suffices to prove notability.)
  Assessing the debate, LilianaUWU and Necrothesp's contributions are bare assertions. Geko72290's is little better, an argument that it just needs to be expanded and there are other articles like this, neither of which go to the level of asserting, much less proving, notability. Dough4872 only states that the road "isn't a county road". On the delete side, again we have thin gruel. Ritchie333's argument stands out by stating there are no material sources, but the other arguments add little beyond asserting opinions of what type of road it is.
  All in all, the debate fails to reach a consensus on whether the road is a "national, state, or provincial highway" or a "county road", and fails to reach a consensus on whether to delete it. The proper outcome of the debate was no consensus, not delete, and therefore it should be overturned. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline that GEOROAD redirects into the middle of, Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), states unequivocally that features can't be notable unless they have non-map significant coverage. "Typically notable" means they'll typically have coverage, not that they'll be typically kept regardless of coverage. Further, the page this now redirects to, Metropolitan Routes in Durban, has sources substantiating its statement that numbered M roads are at a level below regional roads (which GEOROAD puts in the same category as the "county roads" oft-repeated in the afd). —Cryptic 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what "typically notable" means. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (note: I !voted "delete" at the AfD) Spartaz' close was well thought out and was based on policies. A redirect (where the page currently stands) is a reasonable compromise, but not one that was asked for by anyone, so that can't realistically be a result. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a handful of passing mentions in this source from Metropolitan Routes in Durban, though it's primary amd I don't think they add up to significant coverage even when taken together. —Cryptic 01:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The OP and one other participant from the AfD have been blocked by a checkuser so they may be unresponsive to pings here. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the block suggested canvassing may have taken place during the AfD, meaning the AfD's consensus may be unreliable. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be an issue, though, because the AfD was closed against the numerical consensus anyway.—S Marshall T/C 18:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. WP:GEOROAD says this type of road is generally notable. I don't see a pertinent reason to WP:IGNORE this rule. No comment on the canvassing or Liliana's block. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 18:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Meeting GEOROADS != establishing notability, it is merely a rebuttable presumption that N will be met. Spartaz correctly down-weighted the !votes that merely asserted the topic met an SNG (something that doesn't seem be a consensus, either) without engaging with the apparent total lack of sourcing to support N (not to mention V).

JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (involved). WP:GEOROAD creates a presumption of notability. An SNG cannot specify a higher standard for notability than GNG, but it can certainly allow for a lower standard. Given this, there was no good reason to go against the majority view at AfD. Citing WP:V is a complete red herring, as its existence can certainly be verified and, as everyone should know, sourcing is about what's available, not what's currently in the article. Keep at best, no consensus at worst. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:V takes precedence over all notability guidelines. The article and the AfD don't include sourcing to support the statement that the subject exists, the one source cited in either says only that somebody proposed renaming a street called "Watson Highway" in Durban to "Ushukela", and doesn't mention M43 at all. Even if it is true that metropolitan roads in South Africa are considered notable under WP:GEOROAD (which seems to be at least debatable), no source was provided to support the assertion that it's a metropolitan road. AfD closers are required to ensure that their closes are consistent with core policies, including verifiability. Hut 8.5 11:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]