Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 27

List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was nominated alongside List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, however they were not nominated in a multi-article nomination, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (2nd nomination) saw considerably less participation than the other two AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, both of which were relisted three times to the one time for this list, both of which closed as no consensus). Complicating the issue is that both the list of Israeli casualties and Palestinian casualties were transcluded in to the Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada article. Now Im not disputing that taken by itself one could say that there is consensus for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (2nd nomination), even if the participation is sparse, but the end result of all three of these discussions is such a glaring NPOV violation that I dont know how it can stand. Currently, the Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada contains a comprehensive list of every Israeli civilian casualty, and not a single Palestinian casualty and instead has a failed transclusion, despite the approximately 3:1 ratio of Palestinian civilian casualties to Israeli civilian casualties. I think the only reasonable thing to do here is to overturn this to a new multi-article deletion discussion, potentially when the region isnt so actively on fire that it makes it difficult to discuss things calmly. But the idea that we should only document civilian casualties if they are Israeli seems so blatantly non-neutral that I think that is the only way to resolve the issue. I discussed with the deleting admin, he did not seem amenable to reconsideration on his talk page. Nableezy 16:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer comment, just noting that I support this DRV to find some broader consensus per my longer comments at User talk:Seraphimblade#Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada as the situation that came from the three distinct AfDs isn't a longterm solution. Thanks Nableezy for raising this conversation. Star Mississippi 16:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) In case it wasn't clear, noting that I'm the closer of two of the three referenced discussions, Israeli civilian & Civilian casualties. I did not close the Palestinian civilian AfD. Star Mississippi 23:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  inviting @Jay to this discussion per User talk:Liz#Second Intifada AfD in case they have anything to add per the RFU request, which I'm unable to locate. Will leave Liz a note in the section on her Talk as she doesn't use pings I don't believe. Star Mississippi 17:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfU was archived to WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 389#Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Jay 💬 07:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was trying to remember my role in all of this and it's because I originally closed the AFD for Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada as Delete and deleted the article (along with quite a lot of redirects). I was asked to revert and relist so I restored the article and relisted the discussion. So, there was a period of time when two of the three articles were deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist based on limited participation and no convincing arguments to delete. This AFD probably should have been "bundled" with List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, but it was not. The nom, plus the three other delete votes, cite WP:NOTMEMORIAL, Mistamystery explains the NOTMEMORIAL concerns can be cleaned up (therefore making them WP:SURMOUNTABLE concerns). This point is not rebutted by any delete voter. I also find it very unusual that the Israeli civilian casualty list was relisted while the Palistinian civilian casualty list was closed as delete despite similar vote totals and arguments, by the same user (Seraphimblade) within one minute of each other. Frank Anchor 17:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I oppose relisting all three as a bundle. The other two articles were correctly closed as no consensus. Frank Anchor 13:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per Frank above, and the AFDs should have been bundled.VR _talk 19:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Page was deleted prematurely as a cleanup effort was underway. Information on casualties in the Second Intifada is crucial to the subject, and it’s important there is equal representation from all sides in the conflict. Mistamystery (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as a bundle with the other two articles, which had No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist all as one bundled nom. Levivich (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as bundle, those results clearly do not make this encyclopedia better. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn per WP:DRVPURPOSE#5: Deleting the Palestinian casualties list created a technical error in Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada because the table was transcluded there, and now the transclusion is broken. Content being trancluded from one article to another, means that the content is included and exists in the target article as if it had been a part of the target article's wikitext; transcluded content has the same status as native content; the issue of it being transcluded is just technical and not editorial in nature. Deletion of one page broke another page which should never happen and this makes for a substantial procedural error. The Palestinian casualties list could never have been deleted in the first place, as long as the content is either transcluded or substantially copied because of attribution. A consensus to delete could only have led to subtituting the transcluded content into the target page, and the source page then would have to be preserved in the form of a redirect in order to provide attribution. But the separate Israeli and Palestinian casualties lists should have been discussed together, as it is highly odd that one should be deleted and the other not. So relist List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada but *do not relist* Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. The question in the AfD will be whether to fold the separate lists into the existing Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada which they already duplicate. There is no need to rediscuss Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, that AfD was fine, a normal no consensus outcome, and it can wait to be WP:RENOMinated.—Alalch E. 13:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada article is terribly damaged now, and it is really aberrant that there is a table with Israeli casualties but not Palestinian casualties because of a broken tranclusion, this should be done immediately; the state of Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada should not be tolerated for multiple days. —Alalch E. 13:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the fault of the closer, it just happened.—Alalch E. 13:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relist: alongside the parallel Israeli casualties list, if not also the parent. Per the above arguments, and my initial observation at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Second Intifada casualty lists. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are more sources now, see Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf sources overview. Please also undelete Sssniperwolf and SSSniperwolf if their history contains anything usable and merge them into SSSniperWolf. List of AfDs.

Update: the article exists now, but I'd still like to examine the old versions for sources I might have missed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also get the article (if it ever gets restored) semi or 30/500 protected? There have been five attempts to get SSSniperWolf on Wikipedia, with one of the attempts being successful. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore what I just said. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Following the AfD, the title was recreated as a redirect to Jacksfilms#Conflict with SSSniperWolf (2022–present), that redirect is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#SSSniperWolf. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2023 versions of this article have history at SSSniperWolf, the December 2019-May 2020, September 2020 and a 2023 redirect from move are at SSSniperwolf (lowercase W). The only history at Sssniperwolf is a single entry recording a move to SSSniperwolf. The correct spelling of the subject's name is "SSSniperWolf". Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The multiple AFDs for this YouTuber illustrate a major case of the gaming of article titles by changing the capitalization, which illustrates that she has ultras, fanatical followers, who are distracting from any real effort to establish notability. It appears that none of the versions of the title have (yet) been locked. The tweaked versions should remain locked, or be made into locked redirects, if a good version is ever accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert McClenon, if the article ever gets restored, would there be any level of protection to it considering the ultra issue? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 23:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Davest3r08 - I don't think that the article will need to be protected if it is accepted. Ultras are not vandals. Genseric was a Vandal. Ultras are trying to get an article for their person. If they succeed, normal editing is sufficient to keep fancruft out of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert McClenon, MER-C regex salted the title on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive355#SSSniperwolf.
    I'm unsure if this was a case of gaming the system, when I created the source assessment page I called her "Sssniperwolf" in the pagename. (the page has been moved since) Careless really, I should have looked up the correct capitalization. And the thread on AN/I was titled "SSSniperwolf" (lowercase W), also wrong. No comment on whether or not she has ultras. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Alexis Jazz - You may have made a capitalization error, but the various forms of capitalization by the SssniperWolf fans are very much a case of gaming of titles, which often involves changing the capitalization. The only difference between this and BFDI is that there may be reliable sources that mention SssniperWolf. The ultras were creating multiple versions of the title to game the system. The only question is whether to accept one of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Robert McClenon, now you called her SssniperWolf, another incorrect variant. ;-) So it's easy to get her name wrong. I'm unsure what (if any) warnings a mobile user (or even a desktop user) might have received years ago when trying to create the article with incorrect capitalization. Without actually knowing the history of the various creations, I assume good faith. (perhaps naively) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Alexis Jazz - .Whether they made good-faith capitalization errors or were trying to game the system is not important with regard to what we should do, but I have seen that changing the spelling or capitalization of a name is often done to be evasive. She is an Internet celebrity, and they have ultras. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow review of draft using the analysis of sources provided by the appellant. I don't mean that the reviewer should agree with the appellant, but should either use the source analysis or use it as a starting point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The RFD can be paused while the draft is reviewed, or subsumed into review of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Should we close the RfD? The latest comment is from 2 days ago. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 15:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Refund to draft. There are some new sources. This doesn't affect the RfD. The redirect, if it isn't appropriate for BLP reasons as said in the RfD can be deleted. Then, when the article is ready for publishing, there will be the article. AfC, as always, is optional. (Just don't move to mainspace without a solid effort to add content sourced to references which demonstrate notability.)—Alalch E. 23:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The draft has been restored. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 00:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one of the draft pages was restored which was written in 2018. Draft:SSSniperWolf and Draft:Sssniperwolf are still deleted and so is everything in article space. I'd suggest history merging all the draft and mainspace pages into Draft:SSSniperWolf. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The pages were started and developed at different times by different authors. History merging is not the right thing to do. Content may be merged after restoration, and all pages may redirect to the central article. Jay 💬 05:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update. The article SSSniperWolf exists now. In my opinion, Alexis Jazz should be granted their desired refund to help make potential improvements to the article. Anything which can be refunded on-site should be restored to Draft:SSSniperWolf, which would then be re-redirected, and that which can not because of disparate histories can be emailed. —Alalch E. 17:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, that is what I stated on RfD. If the deleted versions could be refunded to draft and/or my userspace and/or emailed I'd appreciate that. I mostly want to examine them for sources I may have missed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Emailing isn't really practical. Sssniperwolf only contains a redirect left by a move, but SSSniperWolf and SSSniperwolf each contain hundreds of revisions, heavily edited (and some oversighted) such that it's not at all clear which are the most complete. —Cryptic 18:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Cryptic, do [1] and [2] help? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They do. I'd been looking only at Special:Export, which doesn't include deleted revisions; I'd had a feature request for an option to do so half written-up. —Cryptic 19:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Cryptic, thanks! I received 2 out of 4 mails, not sure what could have happened to the other two? (I checked my spam folder) I replied. Again, thanks, and hopefully the other two mails can be recovered or re-send. :-) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My reply tool pings automatically, I'll try to remember not to ping you.
    I had kicked my watchlist addiction a long time ago but recently I've suffered a relapse. Thanks for sending the other two again, they arrived this time! I extracted a list of URLs and posted it on Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf sources overview#Links from deleted versions of the article to comb through. I looked at the list for obvious defamatory or spam links but didn't notice any. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexis Jazz, is there anything else left to do here, or can this be closed? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Extraordinary Writ, this can be closed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]