Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VfU)
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

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.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 December 30}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 30}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 30|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".



Active discussions

30 December 2024

29 December 2024

Brian Thompson (businessman) (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Brian Thompson (businessman) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:BADNAC. The support for keeping, while strong, was not unanimous or nearly so, and there was considerable support for merging/redirecting the article. The closer made no attempt to weigh votes by the validity of the arguments, and many of the arguments made by keep supporters were weak and should have been discarded/downweighted. I would put the discussion personally at "no consensus", but I wouldn't mind somebody else (preferrably an admin) closing the discussion as "keep" provided that a proper and thorough rationale was provided. 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs)

  • Vacate per WP:NACD and let an admin close or relist. This was a clearly contentious AfD, making it unfit for non-admin closing, especially by a relatively inexperienced one. It's bound to end up at DRV anyway, but that's no reason to skip a proper closing. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Greg Flynn (businessman)

Greg Flynn (businessman) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is clear to me that the subject meets notability guidelines. Several solid sources were found late in the deletion discussion. I think if more editors were involved who examined those sources, the article would have been kept. Thriley (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The discussion clearly shows that you and others made their cases there but failed to convince the other participants. DRV is not for taking a second bite at the apple. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse That was closed correctly. There was a clear consensus the available sources were not good enough for an article, and in reviewing those sources I don't see clear error. SportingFlyer T·C 14:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The close correctly reflected consensus. It isn't the function of DRV to re-review the sources. The title has not been salted. The appellant may create a draft with the additional sources and submit the draft for review. The AFC reviewer is likely to request that a copy of the deleted article be emailed or userfied to them so that they can compare the draft and the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self endorse as closer. To be honest, I don’t remember this AfD, but reading it now as if it were in the queue I’d close the same as I did. The discussion ran about ten days after last source added so I think it’s fair all had time to assess sourcing. That said, Thriley if you want this for draft I have no objection. However, I won’t be able to enact it in a timely manner, as I’m editing on mobile and not that comfortable with multi steps and without scripts so leaving it for another admin if that’s an outcome that would work for you. Star Mississippi 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close as a correct reading of consensus. There is an active WP-wide dispute across AfDs on what kinds of interviews "count" for notability purposes, and until there's a clearer policy, cases for notability based on interviews are going to be based on participants' judgment. I would have probably !voted to count the Forbes and SFGate pieces toward a GNG pass, but clearly the consensus did not. (Thriley would have been advised to supply sources in their keep !vote, not merely assert that they exist.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28 December 2024

Jennifer Parlevliet

Jennifer Parlevliet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Olympian who is also in the Equestrian Victoria Hall of Fame. I don't think sufficient research past a basic google search was done. Australian newspaper coverage online is very poor from the 1990s due to highly concentrated media ownership and tightly held copyright. Should be draftified as a minimum, or redirected to the olympic event she competed in. The-Pope (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try asking the closing admin for a draft to work on? Owen× ☎ 16:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking the closing admin for a draft is going to be the best result I feel, I did my own WP:BEFORE search and could not find any significant coverage of her that wasn't the Equestrian Victoria Hall of Fame, but if you can find sources draft space will be the best option. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notified them as per the instructions of point #2 of not section of WP:DRVPURPOSE. The-Pope (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

27 December 2024

Clock/calendar

Clock/calendar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as delete by a non-admin in contravention of WP:NACD, which states that non-admin closers 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. The actual deletion of the page was carried out by a participant in the discussion, which I interpret as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Additionally, I think this is a close-enough call that it ought to be closed by admin anyway per Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. In particular, arguments involving WP:XY should be interpreted as in support for a retarget to the location that discusses both topics, as that is explicitly a solution to that problem (and the proper alternative to deletion). -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's relevant to this discussion, here's a shameless plug for my essay on non-admin deletions. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that my deletion was okay because it had been closed by an uninvolved user, and I was carrying it out against my own position. I've had others close discussions I was involved in and ask me to implement them before, like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (21st nomination), etc. and didn't see this as any different. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INVOLVED (emphasis added): Involvement is construed broadly by the community...regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INVOLVED also says: In straightforward cases … the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. IMO, pressing a button to delete a page at the behest of someone else is an obvious action, although I can imagine reasons to disagree. Anyway, it would probably be better if that question was discussed at AN and this DRV focused on my closure. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, it would be quite problematic for several reasons to interpret someone's vote for a position as a vote for something else because they cited policy incorrectly, which is what it sounds like you are saying I should have done. (One of those reasons was demonstrated in this very discussion: sometimes people invoke a policy as a way of eliding. If it's pointed out that the policy doesn't actually say what they thought it did, they may flesh out their argument to say what they actually meant, rather than, e.g., changing position.) I could discard their vote as contrary to policy, and if that policy was clearly controlling I could find a consensus solely on its basis, but it would be wrong to pretend that they personally supported something that they didn't. Anyway, XY is relevant here, but it doesn't say that the redirect must be retargeted if possible, only that it may be possible and that the redirect should not necessarily be deleted solely because of its form in such cases. A discussion must then be had on whether the redirect is serving the encyclopedia, and several editors made reasonable arguments that this redirect still wouldn't be doing so with the new target. With good arguments on both sides, but the delete position being supported by far more people (five voted to delete, two for voted for Tavix's retarget proposal, one was okay with either deleting or retargeting to a different place), I found a consensus to delete. I think any other outcome would be quite a stretch given how the discussion unfolded. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that you should not have closed the discussion at all because in doing so you violated WP:NACD. There are no policies at play here; WP:XY is an essay. However, XY says It may be possible, however, for such redirects to point to a location in which both topics are discussed. Once a suitable location was presented, as I had done, "Delete per WP:XY" !votes should also be okay with a retarget because that is the better way to resolve the conflict at hand. I find this akin to a more common situation in which "Delete per no mention" !votes would be okay with a retarget to a place that has a mention if one is found. -- Tavix (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find this akin to a more common situation in which "Delete per no mention" !votes would be okay with a retarget to a place that has a mention if one is found. In many cases that's a reasonable assumption. But if many editors subsequently voted to delete anyway, I wouldn't assume that those editors were unaware of the retarget proposal, or whatever it is that you are proposing a closer should have done here.
As for my not being an admin, I already explained on my talk page why I did that. If editors agree here that I shouldn't have, I'll respect that; I thought I was in the habit of doing this for all kinds of discussions, but looking back over my CSD log, it seems that before today I've only done it for CfD discussions, which WP:NACD explicitly permits. But closures are rarely (never?) overturned solely because the closer wasn't an admin, so I think it would be more helpful to focus on the substance of my closure than the propriety of my doing it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I simply don't see this as a BADNAC nor as a violation of INVOLVED. Not being able to implement the decision probably should have meant it was closed by an administrator, but there's not a lot of people closing these, and consensus was correctly determined. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close was against WP:NACD and the closer admits it, however I feel RfD should be made an exception to this, just like CfD is. The RfD backlogs go upto 25 days of logs, with a time range in months. Closers (admin or non-admin) aren't doing enough to close backlogs. The newer page entries see a good rate of closes, but older (and more participated) ones are ignored for weeks. If a non-admin wants to close older (and this was one of the oldest, from Nov 14) discussions as Delete, I would support that.
On INVOLVED, I do not understand the quoted text enough to see if it is relevant. Does "dispute" equate to "discussion", which the RfD is? I would believe the "dispute" quoted in INVOLVED refers to long-term participation on topics, not one-off RfD discussions where each nomination is a different "topic". I don't know how to interpret involvement with respect to outcome of the dispute. Can someone explain that, or Jclemens who added it, may want to explain the context behind adding that text. I think Tavix's concern here is not that Pppery deleted the page, but that Pppery did not call out the closer for violating NACD, and that is not really an argument for DRV.
Agree that this was a close call, and that the closure summary should have had justified it. Jay 💬 08:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. All I'm seeing here are technical "violations" - correct actions that violated the letter of the law, but not its spirit. The reading of consensus was correct. Compassionate727 is an experienced RfD participant, and while we don't (yet?) have a deletion queue for RfD like we do for CfD, he followed the same process, using the {{Db-xfd}} template for its intended purpose.
I don't see why arguments involving WP:XY should be interpreted as in support for a retarget. WP:XY offers both approaches as an option, and consensus landed on the delete one. The appellant cites WP:ATD, but there is no meaningful history to preserve in this redirect. In its 18 years of existence, this page has never been more than a 19-byte redirect, and one of highly dubious value at that.
As for the "WP:INVOLVED" accusation, I can't help but laugh. An admin responsibly carried out a G6 housekeeping deletion against his own !vote. How much less biased can you get?
WP:NOTBURO applies here: Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. We have a non-admin and an admin who carried out a necessary administrative task, dutifully and without colour of prejudice. They should be thanked, not dragged to DRV. Owen× ☎ 10:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the correct close, with a caution to the non-admin closer. Either the guidelines should be changed to allow non-admin Delete closes, or non-admins should not make Delete closes. If the rule is unnecessarily restrictive, don't ignore it, but change it. My own opinion is that we at DRV have seen that the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Once the RFD was closed, the deleting admin was performing a purely technical function and was no longer involved. Take the guideline to a policy forum. It isn't clear what if anything the appellant wants to change in the outcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because non-admin deletion closes are not allowed per WP:NACD, the closure needs to be vacated and properly closed by an uninvolved admin (ideally explaining how they arrived at their decision). Pppery is involved, so he can't be the admin to take over the close. The guidance is correct, there's no need to change it. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit off-topic so I've responded on your talk page. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BigMacButton1975.png

File:BigMacButton1975.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

On the deletion review, there was NO "discussion" or "review". Template:Iruka13 asserted that the image can't be used, I posted the reason that I believe it can be used. Then @Explicit: deleted the image. The image needs to be restored pending an actual review & discussion per WP policy instead of arbitrary actions by individual admins/editors. Christopher Rath (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy @Iruka13: to fix template issue Star Mississippi 15:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn close and Relist at FFD. After no discussion, the FFD should have been relisted, and should be relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was a faithful reproduction of a copyrighted 2d image - not CC-BY-SA-4.0, as labeled - a black disc with the two-all-beef-patties jingle split into three lines at the top (but otherwise with spaces omitted), "McDonald's Big Mac" at the bottom, and a picture of the sandwich in the center. The image of the text isn't copyrightable, beyond the copyright for the text itself; the image of the burger certainly is, and is inarguably redundant to the high-quality free image in the infobox (which I see you also took - thank you!) and other images in the article. There was no discussion of the button in the article other than the caption ("Big Mac button worn by Canadian crew members during the 1975 campaign"), and no attempt at the xfd to show how it increases understanding of Big Mac#"Two all-beef patties" jingle - which already includes the full text, and not a whole lot more.
    Length of the discussion isn't unusual for FFD, and it didn't even need to go there - it was technically an F9 speedy because of the wrong license. That was trivially fixable, of course, but that leaves it as an F7 for a disputed non-free use rationale, and I assure you that F7 tag would've been honored. —Cryptic 18:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the initial dispute, I asked for help with the re-licensing. Unfortunately, no one seems to care to help... speedy deletion is all anyone offers by way of "help".
    Regarding whether or not the image adds value on the page, it also shows how the jingle was used: all lowercase, no spaces (as you noted); moreover, at the very least the image makes the page more interesting.
    If the standard to be applied is whether or not the image "increases understanding", then the next image on the page, captioned "McDonald's playground Officer Big Mac climb-in jail", should also be deleted; as should every album cover posted to WP (because they don't "increase understanding"). Christopher Rath (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no point fixing the licensing if we have to delete the image anyway, which is why I said it was only technically an F9 and trivially fixable.
    The standard for inclusion of non-free imagery isn't just "increase understanding", it's "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" from WP:NFCC#8 (emphasis mine) as mentioned by Iruka13 in the FFD. "Significant" is problematic here - it can be read as having to increase understanding either a lot, or at least a little - but the burger part of the image doesn't meet even the more lenient reading, and that's the part that makes the image non-free in the first place.
    It's not immediately clear whether playground equipment like in the Officer Big Mac photograph is legally architecture or a sculpture; the image would be free in the first case and non-free in the second (Freedom of panorama#United States). There was no such ambiguity in the image of the button.
    I actually agree with you with respect to albums. The cover is solely marketing material, and shouldn't be included unless there's sourced commentary specifically about the artwork or some other aspect of the cover; the nonfree content we should be defaulting to for audio works is a sample of the audio. —Cryptic 18:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that Iruka13's description of the image was correct, this was correctly deleted. I cannot view it to confirm, however. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that the image's license is corrected, what is your objection to it appearing on the Big Mac page? Christopher Rath (talk) Christopher Rath (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:F7. This is not a content issue. SportingFlyer T·C 06:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you believe that the image can be used under a fair use provision? How is use of a photo of the button any different than use of an album cover? Christopher Rath (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Snyder

Principal Snyder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per my (and earlier, Darnios') discussion with Sandstein on his talk page,

1) Sandstein incorrectly characterized two RS'es, journal articles from Slayage which is discussed at Buffy studies, as self published sources when the publication was peer-reviewed and indexed at DOAJ at the time in question.
2) Sandstein raised an objection to the sources as non-RS when this was not only not brought up in the discussion, but the one editor commenting after they were posted in the deletion discussion had specifically mentioned them implying their suitability to expand the article.
3) WP:NEXIST exists for a reason, and this is a textbook case of it: there's now no dispute that this character has RS'ed commentary, so the multiple editors objecting to the current state of the article are not articulating a policy-based reason for deletion. "It sucks since no one has worked on it" has been accepted as a reason for deletion by multiple administrators, when it runs afoul of our WP:NOTPERFECT policy.
While this is a redirection with history intact, I maintain that it is still not a policy-based outcome. WP:BEFORE is designed to filter out such nominations; three separate participants made the correct, cordial observation that no BEFORE was articulated by the nominator, an editor who made numerous questionable deletion discussions, was counseled by Liz for this, and then vanished rather than address criticism here. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC or relist there is reasonable split both in the discussion and at Sandstein's talk that the sourcing was misassessed. NB did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them a how they are referred to has no bearing on their standing in RS. I'm not convinced this is a clear keep, but more time to discuss would be a viable outcome. Star Mississippi 02:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Relist. This was a sloppy AFD by an inexperienced editor who has since left Wikipedia, and a sloppy DRV by an experienced editor. The appellant states correctly that the nominator failed to perform the before AFD search, but that is more of a conduct issue than a content issue, and DRV is a content forum. Failure to do the before search is a waste of the community's time, but is not a basis for a Speedy Keep. Either No Consensus or Merge or Redirect (with history retained) were valid conclusions by the closer. The appellant repeatedly stated that sources exist, but has not inserted the sources into the article, maybe because they are expecting the community to do the work of inserting the sources. (So both the nominator and the appellant were expecting the community to do their work for them.) The appellant's comments on the closer's talk page appear to be expecting the closer to do the work of researching the sources, which is not the closer's responsibility, and the closer was reasonably annoyed. One more week of discussion may clarify whether the community, which is divided, thinks that the stated existence of sources is sufficient to Keep the article. Or someone might be constructive and add the sources to the article for a Heymann keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Speedy Keep was not invoked by any participant in this discussion.
    2) Per WP:NEXIST and WP:VOLUNTEER there is no requirement by anyone, at any time, to take any specific action to improve an article. This is the third and most important point in my argument. Sandstein is far from the only closing administrator to have acceded to arguments that "Yes, there may well be sources enough to establish notability, but WP:NOEFFORT", and it's time to either stop it or change the guidelines to match conduct. Not one of those arguing for redirection asserted a complete lack of sourcing; everyone arguing for keeping asserted that sufficient sources existed even if not present in the article. Does a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS allow an administrator to assign WP:NOEFFORT votes equal weight to those based on WP:NEXIST? Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandstein did not accede to "Yes, there may well be sources enough to establish notability, but WP:NOEFFORT". Sandstein's close is clearly predicated on the lack of any evidence that the page meets GNG after two weeks at AfD. This is also the upshot of the discussion on their talk page. It is a policy based close. It is not the closer's fault if participants at AfD do not bring sources to the table. And looking at the wider argument: those not voting keep cannot prove that they cannot find sources. We don't prove a negative. But AfD is thus heavily biased towards keeping information, in that a failure to achieve consensus keeps an article, and alternatives to deletion are preferred to outright deletion. We cannot then just allow that any hand wave arguments like "I don't believe you looked properly" will do. AfD requires us to do some work. We are not compelled to do that work. No one has to contribute. But if an article is brought to AfD, and if it is not obvious the article is notable, then sources need to be discussed. Rather than saying please search Google Scholar with the additional keyword Slayage it would have been far more productive to have said: I searched Google scholar, and by adding the additional keyword slayage, I was able to find multiple sources including the following secondary sources, [1] [2] and [3]. These meet GNG because... Yes, it is more work. No, you are not required to do any such work, but when an article is up for deletion, this is the time to look at the sources. It is often the only time an article has ever had a proper review of its sources. The attention it gets will greatly benefit the article. That is the added value of AfD. And I am sure you are already preparing to say that deletion is not for cleanup. It is not. But article improvement is often the happy result, and if the attention finds no secondary sourcing, the article should not be here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the passing reference to WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions, but no material policy changes. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I had written an Endorse but Allow Submission of Draft but am persuaded by User:Star Mississippi. This is a difficult DRV because both the AFD and the DRV were sloppy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't say that assessing sources' reliability is a job solely for an afd's participants, but it's pretty close. It would have been reasonable for a closer to discount sources if they were inarguably unreliable - from open wikis, perhaps, or sources listed as unreliable at WP:RSP - but even then, best practice is to comment on the afd instead and leave an easier job for the next closer to look at it. Introducing a new argument like this in the close, when there's any chance at all that it could've been rebutted had the discussion not been simultaneously ended, isn't on.
    This, ironically, would've been a more reasonable close, and a harder one to overturn, if it hadn't included an explanation, just the result. —Cryptic 03:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (but maybe a relist is a good idea) A reasonably articulated close entirely within the closer's discretion for an AfD that had been open for two weeks, and where keep voters had failed to show that sources exist. The two "BEFORE not articulated" !votes were rightly discarded, and although, per the above, these were intended as a "cordial observation", text based communication loses nuance, and they could easily be read as an assumption of bad faith. I see from evidence here that the AfD nom. did have a habit of not searching for sources, expressed on their talk page - but there is no way the closer could be aware of that. It was the job of the keep voters to actually select and present some of the sources they claimed were so easily found, so they could be discussed at AfD. Only one !voter presented sources, but there was no indication in the presentation as to what those sources were or why they met GNG. Sandstein, on their talk page, explained what is equally clear to me, that prima facie, these add nothing. Who wrote them? are they independent, reliable secondary sources? None of this was addressed, and so the last redirect !vote notes GNG is not met. Not one keep voter showed how this met GNG. Also on Sandstein's talk page, I do not think Jclemens' A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep. is a suitable way to address a closer with queries over their close. That is a demand with a threat, not a question. And there is no way in the world that this was a keep outcome. It is closed correctly on the face of it. However, as most of the failure here is on the part of keep !voters who have simply not addressed the issue, and as it is possible that sources do exist, relisting this might be a reasonable outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As closer, I endorse my own closure based on the information presented in the AfD.
If somebody presents new information after a closure (here, that the two sources linked to by Daranios in the AfD were from a supposedly reliable academic journal), that information can not be reflected in the closure because it was not presented to the other AfD participants and could therefore not have been the subject of discussion or consensus. In such cases, the person making such belated arguments must accept (as Daranios in fact did) that the closer will make their own determination about the merits of such a belated argument rather than reopening the AfD to let consensus decide. Here, I concluded that even assuming for the sake of argument that the two sources were reliable academic sources (which remains questionable given their amateurish presentation), they did not establish notability because only one of them covered the subject of the article more than in passing. For that reason, too, I concluded that a relisting was unwarranted.
I note also that this DRV was preceded by a threat by Jclemens against me. DRV should not reward such misconduct. Sandstein 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: You are asserting that my statement that if you did not correct your incorrect close (accompanied in the same edit by a justification of why I reasonably believed your close was incorrect) I would bring the close to DRV constitutes a threat in your mind? If not, please clarify what you thought was a threat. Threat is a very serious word that I do not see can be reasonably used in this case consistent with WP:ADMINACCT. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit conflict, this was written before the statement just above.
Overturn to no consensus or relist, pretty much agreeing with Star Mississippi and Cryptic. (And in that regard I am grateful to Sandstein that they did take the time to elaborate on the closure rather than just posting the result). Since the AfD I've learnt that the way I've posted the two exemplary secondary sources was rather inconvenient and I should have elaborated on those sources. But I believe they are reliable and discussing the sources rather then dismissing them right away is the more helpful way to go. And the information that they are from an ISSN-listed magazine is there now even if that was not clear then. Likewise I agree that the closer would have no obvious way of knowing that the nominator purposfully ommited a WP:BEFORE search, making the nomination flawed. But that information is known now. So in the interest of the project, deciding what to do with the article now while considering those facts is more relevant than figuring out if the closure was wholey justified then or not. Daranios (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess this means that this is a case of a deletion review under 3. of WP:DRVPURPOSE: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion..." Daranios (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree with Star Mississippi that the closer could have better characterized the sourcing of the two pdfs provided by Daranios in the discussion, and that a relist may have been acceptable. It is not the role of the closer to evaluate the sources provided in the discussion - only to characterize them. In this case, the visible links to the pdfs were to "offline.buffy.tv" and "dashboard.ir.una.edu" and described as secondary sources, the former which could be easily seen as an SPS. And the closer only needed to look at the next comment in the discussion (following Daranios' comment) that said that the sourcing did not meet GNG (so we must presume that at least one editor did not feel the sources provided by Daranios was sufficient). In addition, early in the discussion, Jclemens pointed discussants towards Slayage, where the articles Daranios pointed to are hosted. Shooterwalker suggested the sources were "trivial mentions or WP:PLOT and this doesn't pass GNG." So all of this being said, the closer saw at least two editors concluding the sourcing did not meet GNG, with general handwaving by editors supporting a keep decision, and suspected SPS sourcing, a redirect close is well within the closer's discretion. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. It is impractical to the point of absuridity to expect an AfD closer to do their own WP:BEFORE and their own source analaysis. It is also anathema to the administrative role of an unbiased adjudicator reading consensus. I don't know a single admin active in AfD who gives much weight to !votes that are merely, "I've seen sources, they exist!". WP:NEXIST tells us that sources need not be cited in the article to establish notability. It does not--and cannot--tell us that a mere claim about the existence of sources, even when made by an established, trusted WP veteran such as Jclemens, counts as a citation for establishing notability. The entire AfD system would grind to a halt if we gave weight to such claims without substantiation. How would we record such citations in the article - by a link to the AfD where there was a claim about their existence?
As for the two PDFs cited by Daranios in the AfD, please note that six days passed after they were cited before the AfD was closed, and the only interveneing !vote was a Redirect. I don't see why Sandstein was expected to carry out his own source analysis as a closer, especially in the absence of any !vote expressly deeming those sources as RS. The appellant's rebuttal to Piotrus was correct, but neglected to even mention the two identified sources on the AfD. Had Sandstein done his own source analsysis, and used Daranios' sources to overrule the preceding Redirect !votes, he would likely be accused of a supervote.
As for Jclemens' note on Sandstein's Talk page, I see it as unnecessarily combative, but not an actual threat. Under most legal systems, a threat must involve the expression of an intent to carry out an unlawful or punitive action, which clearly isn't the case here. Typically, an appellant would ask the closer for their reasoning, and after some back and forth, one of the two would suggest taking the case to DRV. I like to think Jclemens simply wanted to cut to the chase here. However, I know Jclemens to weigh his words carefully, and therefore cannot escape the conclusion that he chose the belligerent language deliberately. Not a WP:CIVILITY violation per se, but an unnecessary preempive escalation in tone we could have done without. In my dealings with Sandstein, I found him to be very accommodating, and have no doubt this whole thing could have been settled between the appellant and him had Jclemens broached the subject as a question or polite request, rather than as a demand, if not an outright ultimatum. Or as the kids say, "This could have been an email." Owen× ☎ 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Enos and Owen, but if a relist would better solidify consensus then I guess that can be done. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I also would have closed that as a redirect without prejudice for recreation. As a closer, I simply don't think keep !voters were persuasive that this character passes WP:GNG on its own. After making that conclusion I performed the source search and viewed the sources in the discussion just to make sure this wasn't redirected in error and that's not clearly the case. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I see no consensus that the sources mentioned in the AFD fail notability guidelines, nor do I see consensus to either keep or not keep a standalone article. A second relist, along with the added visibility from from this DRV, May be enough to find a consensus at the AFD. Frank Anchor 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evaluating sources is generally outside the scope of DRV, but listing Slayage at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard could clarify its suitability. Does anyone have WP:Canvassing (guideline) or other concerns? Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flatscan: Sounds like a good idea to me, and this being somewhat of a niche area of publication, the more editors and projects are pinged for input the better in my view. Daranios (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alisha Parveen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi can I get the deleted version of this article deleted on 11th November 2023 by @Explicit under G8 in the draftspace. The actress has done multiple significant roles to pass WP:NACTOR Amafanficwriter (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close. A day-old account with zero mainspace edits filing a DRV for two AfDs for articles created by banned socks, with the only Keeps being banned socks? Yeah, I think we all know what's happening here. Sockpuppets don't have standing at DRV. I filed a request on SPI, in the hope of saving us some time here. Owen× ☎ 14:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a sockpuppet. I am a genuine fan of hindi télévision shows and actors. I had been anonymously editing wikipedia till now. I can prove I am not any of those who created these pages in the past. Please I beg you. Because even earlier my ip was blocked even though I had not committed any mistake. Please give me a chance. Amafanficwriter (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There is no error in the close.
      • Allow Recreation in Draft and submission for review. The title has not been salted.
      • Disallow undeletion of article. Editors who want to recreate an article that was deleted for lack of notability often make the mistake of requesting that it be refunded. If the article that was deleted does not show notability, then the appellant may be better off to start over than to work with something that was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Simaran Kaur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Simaran played significant roles in Agnifera, Aghori (TV series), Aggar Tum Na Hote, Tose Naina Milaai Ke and is currently playing the main lead in Jamai No. 1. So, I think the consensus of this XFD can be overturned and the article can be restored either to mainspace or draftspace Amafanficwriter (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 December 2024

List of health insurance executives in the United States

List of health insurance executives in the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I request that the "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States be overturned to no consensus for these reasons:

  1. There was no consensus that the list failed WP:NLIST.
  2. There was no consensus that the list violated WP:CROSSCAT.
  3. There was no consensus that "the list potentially puts people in danger" or that "the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence".
  4. The closer was WP:INVOLVED through having asked a previous closer to reverse a "no consensus" close. The closer showed a clear preference for deletion when writing, "I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons."
    • Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." The closer participated in a discussion about the page by arguing with the previous closer that "no consensus" was wrong and advocating for a "delete" close.

Cunard (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extended comment from DRV nominator:

    WP:INVOLVED

    Sandstein (talk · contribs) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States as "no consensus" on 16 December 2024. OwenX (talk · contribs) posted on his talk page that he believed the close should have been "delete". OwenX wrote:

    1. "It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by Dclemens1971 there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you."
    2. "Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense."

    This sequence of events is similar to an admin starting a deletion review arguing that an AfD should be "overturned to delete", the AfD being reopened and relisted by the AfD closer, and then that DRV initiator later closing that AfD as "delete" before the seven-day relist period had finished even though discussion was ongoing. This would violate WP:INVOLVED as the argument for an overturn to delete goes beyond acting "purely in an administrative role".

    The closer explained:

    Firstly, with regards to the timing of the close, WP:RELIST clearly tells us that A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. The AfD had been open for 13 days and 9 hours. It was not closed early. Since I'll be spending most of tomorrow (Eastern Time) with my in-laws, I figured I'd take care of this tricky AfD now rather than leave it for another admin to struggle with (and with the DRV that will likely follow). There is no policy that obliges a closer to let the relist clock run out, but if you feel you've been short-changed here, I'd be happy to hear the rebuttal you were planning to post on that AfD, and will reconsider and amend my close, if warranted. That said, unless you bring up an argument that turns everything around, I don't see how your reply to Sirfurboy will change the consensus I read there.

    Secondly, I did not edit the article nor !vote in the AfD. To quote WP:INVOLVED, my role in this debate was purely administrative. I told Sandstein that I believe he erred in his N/C close, as I did see a rough consensus, after discarding non-P&G-based votes. That is exactly what an uninvolved admin is supposed to do when closing - or assessing the close - of an AfD. I never weighed the article on its merits, and have no opinion about it either way. My sole input here are the arguments expressed in the AfD, as they relate to our policy and guidelines. Sandstein's close was not overturned. He agreed with my assessment of his close, chose to relist it, at which point any admin--including him or me--was welcome to re-close. The situation you describe is materially different, as the DRV participant in your example was a side to the dispute. In this case, there was no dispute.

    I disagree that OwenX's involvement was "purely administrative". When he "assess[ed] the close of the AfD" by telling Sandstein he should have deleted the article, OwenX became WP:INVOLVED. When he wrote, I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons., he became WP:INVOLVED.

    Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." OwenX should have let someone else close the AfD because he initiated a discussion with the previous closer about how the AfD was wrongly closed and the article should have been deleted.

    WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT

    There was no consensus that the list violated WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT. Numerous established editors argued that the subject met WP:NLIST and did not violate WP:CROSSCAT. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists 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; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.

    I provided sources showing that "highly paid health insurance CEOs in the United States" "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are other sources that do not just discuss the grouping of "highly paid health insurance CEOs in the United States" such as President Obama meeting with them in 2013. This Washington Post article notes, "The White House hosted a group of health insurance executives this afternoon to discuss - you guessed it! - HealthCare.Gov." This Modern Healthcare article notes:

    Fourteen insurance industry heavyweights were called to the White House Wednesday to advise the Obama administration on how to fix the dysfunctional federal health insurance exchange. ... Kaiser Permanente CEO Bernard Tyson, WellPoint CEO Joseph Swedish, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini and Humana CEO Bruce Broussard were part of the delegation that met with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy Chris Jennings. ... Other healthcare industry leaders participating in Wednesday's meeting were: Patrick Geraghty, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida; Jay Gellert, president and CEO of Health Net; Patricia Hemingway Hall, president and CEO of Health Care Services Corp.; Daniel Hilferty, president and CEO of Independence Blue Cross; Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans; John Molina, chief financial officer of Molina Healthcare; Michael Neidorff, chairman and CEO of Centene Corp.; James Roosevelt Jr., president and CEO of Tufts Health Plan Foundation; and Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association."

    This article also lists the "health insurance executives" who participated in the meeting.

    Concerns about revising the list's scope to better reflect the sources should be handled through a discussion on the talk page per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

    "the list potentially puts people in danger" and "the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence"

    There is no consensus for the viewpoint that the list potentially puts people in danger or the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence. These are not policy-based reasons for deletion. This information is widely publicly available and well-sourced to high quality reliable sources, so the list does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The list passed Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists before the killing happened. Deletion under this basis violates WP:NOTCENSORED. As one AfD participant wrote:

    Finally, I think it's dangerous territory to limit the creation of controversial articles based on timing. Was this page made in response to a terrible event? Yes. But at what arbitrary point would we then be allowed to create controversial articles? Who gets to decide what's controversial? Slippery slope. I think the timing of this needs to be taken out of the equation.

    Cunard (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (involved). AfD is not a vote, but most of the keep voters treated it that way. I counted only four keep voters (including Cunard) who offered policy-based rationales for their !votes. The rest were some mix of WP:PERX, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ILIKEIT. The canvassed votes distorted the debate and the closer was right to discard them when discerning a consensus. As a result, the appellant’s first two points are incorrect. There was a delete consensus on those grounds. (Re: NLIST, Sirfurboy rebutted Cunard’s sources, and I will add that those sources are all about health insurance CEOs, not the broader category of executives, which was the subject of this list. At no point was NLIST met and no consensus existed there.) Point 3 I agree with the appellant; I and a few delete voters made comments on the propriety of this particular list, but I agree that a preponderance of the delete !voters did not discuss this. However, there was a consensus to delete on NLIST and CROSSCAT. Finally, the question of whether the closer was involved. As the other participant in the discussion on Sandstein’s talk page, I do not think so. OwenX expressed his view about whether a consensus had emerged, not what it should be. I think OwenX’s comments about not “leaving this to stabilize” plainly meant that he believed there was a consensus and that a N/C close when a consensus exists on a contentious subject is not the right approach. That’s an opinion about closing procedure, not a supervote or “involvement” that would preclude a later administrative action. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is a tough one to assess for several different reasons, including the length of the DRV, so I copied and pasted the discussion into a word processor, eliminated canvassed votes, and came to my own conclusion before reading the full petition. I completely agree with Cunard here on both counts: that OwenX became involved when they petitioned Sandstein to relist their close, and that the close itself was wrong. I get a no consensus result, after the relist there is clearly no consensus when only looking at votes from long term users, and while I have sometimes disagreed with Cunard about whether the sources they find are good enough at specific AfDs, in this instance their detailed !vote does directly rebut arguments made by delete !votes and more discussion about those sources would be welcome. I think the best result is a relist to give some time to discuss those sources, but an overturn to no consensus would also make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 07:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). It is right that, per Dclemens1971, most of the keeps were non policy based and should be discarded. The closer correctly assessed the consensus. But I was involved so you would think I would say that. But come on. Someone creates a list of health care executives (not just CEOs. Not just the top 10 best paid. All and any of them) on December 8. Created when companies are removing the names of their executives on safety grounds. Created and grouped into a handy list. OwenX did err on one point: It was not just Dclemens1971 who argued for IAR in addition to the failure of this list to meet NLIST. I argued for that too. IAR is policy, and this is a clear and present danger to the encyclopaedia and to the people on the list. Note that we are not hiding information, because we have the information on individual pages. But we should - indeed we must - hide a handy collated list of healthcare executives created in the wake of, and clearly as a response to, the murder of one of the people on the list. We should hide it because the list is dangerous and we should hide it because it obviously brings the whole project into disrepute. I am sorry, but I sincerely believe everyone arguing to keep this list deserves trouting. Recently there were long discussions at ANI about sites that acted in harmful ways, and how Wikipedians should probably avoid them. Well, taking on board those arguments, if this were overturned and kept, I do not see how I could continue to participate on Wikipedia. And I do not say that lightly. IAR is policy. Now is the time to use it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for a while. Strong hit list perception. Potential encyclopedic value doesn't justify. This topic should be censored for a while. WP:IAR.—Alalch E. 13:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTCENSORED. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of that. IAR. Still, I'm actually not opposed to undeleting to draft, which you suggested. Drafts aren't indexed. The lack of incoming links and the obscurity of the page relative to what it would be as an article causes me to believe that the hit list problem would be substantially diminished if this were simply a draft for a while. —Alalch E. 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing for censorship is immediately objectionable. I think you should instead argue Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People who are relatively unknown, with special attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources. WP:BLP and WP:NOT apply to all namespaces, including draftspace.
    I think the hitlist concern is completely addressed by Wikipedia only published what is published elsewhere in reliable secondary sources (I’m not immediately finding the policy prohibition of primary source sleuthing). SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate close and allow an uninvolved admin to close the AFD. The closing admin requested the previous no consensus close be undone and the AFD be relisted , thereby making them an involved party (particularly when the new close differed from the original close). I don’t necessarily disagree with the delete outcome, based on hit list and BLP concerns, but there is a clear bias (albeit likely unintentional) in the current close. Frank Anchor 14:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Why would we vacate the close and re-close for the sake of it if we believe the close was correct? That is just a waste of someone's time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I normally argue against process for the sake of process, there are some exceptions. An involved closer who publicly stated displeasure about a previous close is certainly one of these exceptions. Frank Anchor 17:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate and reclose by an uninvolved editor On balance, it does appear that the closer became involved by questioning the original close. --Enos733 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as closer): I find the whole "INVOLVED" thing ridiculous. When two bureaucrats discuss how to close an RfA, is one of them automatically "INVOLVED"? Are both? What about when several Arbcom members discuss a case before them? Should all but one recuse themselves?
This particular AfD received the attention of two closing admins, rather than the usual one. I don't see how that makes either "INVOLVED". Reading consensus isn't "involvement". And had my read of consensus--and my exchange with Sandstein--been about changing to a Keep close, I doubt Cunard would be here calling foul. Owen× ☎ 16:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse because it's the right close for the right reasons but I'll be honest it doesn't sit well that the closer advocated for a different close to be undone. For those who are concerned about independence, I'll happily substitute my delete close for the actual closers, which I believe now ticks all the necessary boxes to endorse this close. To be clear I did read every word of the nomination but Jeeze Cunard I was really tempted to skim over it because life isn't that long. Spartaz Humbug! 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Vacate for close by an uninvolved admin. There are two questions about this close, one of which is often properly answered. The first question is whether the closer was justified in overriding a significant numeric majority, based on strength of arguments and the recognition that AFD is not a vote. The second question is whether the closer was involved and so should have waited for another admin to close. When the numeric vote is 23 Keep and 14 Delete (including the nom), by my count, there should be a strong dominance of strength of Delete arguments, and the closer should be clearly uninvolved. There is a legal principle that it is not enough for justice to be done, because the appearance of justice is also required. Likewise, the closer must not only avoid supervoting, but must be seen as not supervoting. My own opinion is that the closer was supervoting after having asked for a previous close to be relisted; but even if the closer was making an impartial assessment of strength of arguments, it doesn't look impartial. This doesn't look like an uninvolved close, and it looks like a supervote. I respectfully submit that the close doesn't pass the smell test. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't right to vacate a 'delete' AfD close and leave a running AfD about a redlinked article. There should not be an undeletion for this article, no matter for how short a period. —Alalch E. 01:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oncorhynchus mykiss to both the closer and the appellant. A 1500-word DRV statement is far too long. If you can't explain the issue concisely, there may not be an issue. The appellant didn't explain the issue concisely, but I saw it and explained it more concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help but think that this whole "involved" kerfuffle could have been avoided had I placed a {{closing}} tag on the AfD back on 16 December, while I was working on writing my original closing statement. This would have saved Sandstein the trouble of closing it, prevented me from magically becoming "involved" by sharing my read of consensus with him, saved me the effort of having to amend my original closing statement six days later to account for the views expressed after the relist, and spared all of you from having to read a 1500-word appeal. I mean, chances are I'd still be dragged to DRV by someone who thinks 23 Keeps and 14 Deletes cannot be closed as Delete, even if all but four of the Keeps are canvassed WP:ILIKEIT. But at least we'd be discussing merits, not appearances of a bias that was never there. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially with controversial topics, if two experienced closers try to close a topic at the same time and reach different conclusions, and then don't agree on what the conclusion should be, a relist should be closed by a third experienced closer. From an outside perspective, it really does feel as if you substituted Sandstein's opinion for your own. SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Draftify . I have not got to the bottom of the perception of the closer being INVOLVED. In the AfD I read a consensus that the list was not OK, and did not clearly meet NLIST. However, there were calls for work on the list, and its scope, and the deletion rationales were merely on WP-Notability grounds, which makes the door to draftification sit wide open. User:Cunards sources appear to be new sources, or different sources, to what was in the list (which I haven’t seen), and these sources were criticised by some, and so I think it highly appropriate for the list to be reworked in draftspace, before re-considering whether it meets NLIST. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I don't have an opinion on involved. I do think that there was no consensus to be found in that discussion. And WP:IAR, as the closer mentions, does have a role, but NOTCENSORED is much more on point. And arguing that having a list of CEOs doesn't meet NLIST/WP:N because they tend to be listed in order of pay doesn't really make any sense to me--Cunard's sources put us far over any reasonable bar. Hobit (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTCENSORED is for the BLPs of the executives. The information is not being censored. There is a difference between uncensored information and information that has been collated from uncensored information into a handy dandy list that will be used by people planning copycat attacks. And it wasn't a list of CEOs. It was a list of all executives. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really surprised at how strongly you are pushing this strangely alarmist "danger" argument. You act like there is a table that specifies their phone numbers, home addresses, and schedules. Nobody is using a list of names on Wikipedia in the way you describe. That is obtuse. Mbdfar (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. No one ever searched Wikipedia with anything but the purest of motives. My bad. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just delete every BLP then in case someone somewhere has malintent. Regardless, because of WP:OR, all articles are created by combining largely uncensored information. Effectively, there actually is not a functional "difference between uncensored information and information that has been collated from uncensored information" on Wikipedia. NOTCENSORED applies to all articles, not just ones you like. Mbdfar (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No information is being censored. The collation (which is our synthesis) is what is at issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me rephrase. Every article on Wikipedia, by definition, is collation. Deleting an article because you think that information should not be easily accessible is censorship. Mbdfar (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not the only one. It isn't obtuse. When a health insurance executive was shot dead for reasons which appeared to the public to be with a certain cause (leading to nicknames for the killer such as the "Claims Adjuster" and images of the suspect as a saint), people were looking for information on other health insurance companies' executives on their websites. Then they noticed that the companies removed it from their websites (notorious, widely publicized, fact), which they did for security reasons. Then someone made a Wikipedia page with this information, basically in response. Or seemingly in response. Just needs to be delayed so that it doesn't seem to be in response to the events. —Alalch E. 18:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For how long? Mbdfar (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question. Not very long. Month-ish. —Alalch E. 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems arbitrary. Mbdfar (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no predefined standard for this situation, so it's important to think flexibly and not lose sight of the bigger picture. —Alalch E. 17:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't apply to intentionally making things harder to find? That certainly seems wrong. Hobit (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I can see how OwenX's request could be considered INVOLVED, but I disagree that it was analogous to an editor bringing the close to DRV. Owen disputed Sandstein's assessment of the AfD discussion by pointing out the canvassing on Reddit (noted in TheTechnician27's !vote), and Sandstein agreed enough to change his close to a relist. This was a purely administrative exchange as OwenX had not !voted in the AfD nor put forth personal arguments in favor of deletion. The relist yielded three more policy-based delete !votes, three more obviously useless keep !votes, and Cunard's source-providing !vote that was nevertheless strongly rebutted by Sirfurboy, who pointed out that the list scope is not what is being covered in those sources. The delete result was thus reasonable on its face, and OwenX's participation was not so extensive as to be INVOLVED. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JoelleJay: I'm trying to understand why you feel the sources were not acceptable. Would you agree that the sources Cunard found would easily meet the requirements for A list of the highest paid CEOs in health insurance? Hobit (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if those sources met NLIST for "highest paid CEOs in health insurance", they do not provide direct coverage of the actual topic under discussion. If we could just completely change the scope, format, and criteria of an article to avoid AfD then nothing would ever be deleted. I could maybe envision a (sortable?) table of (American?) health insurance CEOs who at some point have been regarded as "among the highest paid" as some sort of spinoff of Executive compensation in the United States, but that would be a different list that would necessarily exclude the majority of CEOs and would require significant restructuring.
    As for coverage claimed at DRV to be of the actual topic, the WaPO (actually just a press release), Modern Healthcare, and HuffPo articles are just coverage of a White House meeting on October 23, 2013 that lists attendees; if that was enough to count toward NLIST then so would any other set of people listed as attending something in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Recent discussions

21 December 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Luigi Mangione (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed two days early by a non-administrator, despite the AfD having over 30 votes. While the outcome will still likely be keep, it was an improper closure and didn’t give me time to rethink my vote reading through the keeps. Someone on the talk page noted that one in every five votes was something like merge or delete, and given more time could have closed as no consensus. Isn’t there a policy against non-admins closing potentially controversial AfDs, anyways?— Preceding unsigned comment added by EF5 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse but allow early renomination. I agree that this should have been handled by an admin. Many of the Keep !votes are little more than WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:ILIKEIT, completely ignoring WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR. Additionally, some of the most experienced editors make a compelling case to redirect the page to Killing of Brian Thompson, as per our common practice in such situations. Alas, the outcome wouldn't have been any different had an admin closed it, whether immediately, at the end of the seven days, or after a relisting or two, be it as Keep or as No-consensus. There was simply no consensus to delete or redirect the page, as the appellant here readily admits. Per WP:DRVPURPOSE#6, DRV should not be used to argue technicalities, which is what the appellant is doing here. Overturning to No-consensus would achieve nothing. Owen× ☎ 14:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Sure, it would've been preferable if an admin were to close this AfD, but that would be needless bureaucracy at this point considering the non-admin closer was correct in that the AfD was WP:SNOWing towards Keep. By my count of the bolded !votes, roughly 100 users supported Keeping the article (which includes experienced editors and admins) while 19 users voted some other way (and most of these non-keep !votes came early on in the discussion, not towards the end). As an admin opined at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione, "any outcome other than 'keep' would be highly controversial." Some1 (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Overwhelming consensus to keep. A separate merge discussion can take place on the subject article’s talk page to see if there is an interest to merge to Killing of Brian Thompson, though I find consensus to do so unlikely at this point (maybe more likely several months from now). While an admin closure would have probably been better, it was clear the AFD would not close with any result other than keep. And GhostofDanGurney is a very experienced AFD contributor. Frank Anchor 16:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (involved). It's true, "keep" was the overwhelming !vote, but as people always say, AfD is not a vote. Only about 20 of the many, many "keep" !votes articulated an appropriate rationale; most of the rest were WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, WP:WHATABOUTX, or simple unexplained !votes. Meanwhile, there were 9 reasoned "delete" !votes and 9 reasoned "redirect" or "merge" !votes. That's a close to even split between those who believed it currently warranted a standalone mainspace page versus those who didn't. I truly think that if a closer had discarded the non-policy-based !votes, N/C would be closer to the actual outcome. (And, in a handy WP:IAR outcome, it's fundamentally the same result as "keep".) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything you said is true, Dclemens1971. But as I mentioned above, I can't see anyone objecting to an early renomination, which means an overturn to N/C would be symbolic in nature, without any practical impact. Owen× ☎ 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point; I’d missed your comment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would overturning to no-consensus actually change anything? It's not like the article would actually get deleted. guninvalid (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would allow earlier renomination (not that I expect that to happen), but more importantly it would reinforce the principle that drive-by !votes without rationale are to be discounted when looking for consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed my own vote from Endorse to Overturn to No Consensus per your reasoning. Many of the keep votes were not based in policy; it’s important to emphasize that AfDs are not straight votes and that votes without policy based rationales will not be given serious weight. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close - I felt keep !voters such as Locke Cole, Cullen328, and 50.39.97.171 successfully rebutted much of the concerns from the non-keep-!voters regarding BLPCRIME/PUBLICFIGURE and BLP1E. The main concern that did go unanswered, however, was WP:RECENTISM, so I'm okay with an earlier re-nomination. But a consensus for anything besides keep in that discussion, I felt truly had a "snowball's chance in hell" at this stage. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 17:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*overturn to delete As far as I can see, the many, many people who gave the same rationale for deletion— that a string of passing mentions in business news do not add up to notability— were just ignored, both in other responses and in the counting. And it's hardly a WP:SNOW situation. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and disallow (not like it's a hard and fast rule, but still) early nomination. Nothing is going to change in a week or a month. The problem with RECENTISM I've discussed in detail here. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While there is every reason this could have been a NAC close or a SNOW close, a NAC SNOW close is almost always going to end up here, especially on a well-participated AFD, so GhostOfDanGurney I suggest you not try that in the future. We may even want to make a note or strengthen the existing advice against doing this precisely because this DRV is the predictable (inevitable?) outcome of an NAC SNOW close of a contested AfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I referenced the reasoning on the AfD talk page, so to avoid regurgitating my own words: "As far as I can tell from a rough search, the Keep:Delete ratio is very roughly around 5:1. Granted, the numbers alone do not warrant a snow close, but otherwise, the keep !votes would have to be on average 5x better and more relevant than the delete in order to even consider no consensus here. Granted the keep votes probably are overall much better quality than the deletes, but maybe only by a factor or 2-3x at most, leaving it very much consensus for keep at 3:2 at a minimum. I don't think there is an issue with the snow close personally, but sometimes it's worth elaborating on it, such as even bringing this back around to no conesnsus is not a realistic uphill battle; and otherwise time is on the side of the keep !votes, that of the discussion avalanching towards keep more specifically. There are otherwise certainly enough counter-arguments of BLP1E, CRIME and PERP, even if not as much as there should be in such a discussion." CNC (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only WP:BLP1E was provided as a reason by the nominator. It's not on editors to address every single argument levied by !voters, especially when such arguments are meritless. You can cast stones at the original nom for not providing any additional reasons to support deletion, but the process was followed and this was in WP:SNOW territory. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you cite a !vote "Keep Noteworthy" above, which appears to be a claim of WP:N, but you claim your list is a list of every vote that isn't rooted in policy or is just a claim with no evidence. Also, considering many other !voters voting keep provided sources and evidence, why do you suppose everyone else should too? Or are you looking for copy-paste !votes? Seriously, get out of here with this. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF. EF5 19:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. Keep the personal attacks to yourself. EF5 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You first? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV. EF5 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) with an Oncorhynchus mykiss to the non-admin closer. This was the only possible close, but it wasn't necessary for the non-admin to close the AFD early. The close should have known that the close would result in this DRV, and this DRV could have been avoided by not doing a non-admin snow close of a contentious topic. Sometimes a closer cannot avoid being taken to DRV, but a non-admin can avoid being taken to DRV for a snow close by leaving it to an admin. I didn't vote in the AFD, but I voted Keep in the MFD, and said that an article should be kept, and would have voted Keep in the AFD if I had participated. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I expected this AFD to close as Keep or No consensus, it is not what I would define as an appropriate SNOWCLOSE as there were plenty of editors who argued to Delete or Merge/Redirect. Typically, SNOW closes are almost unanimous and this one wasn't unanimous. I think this close happened because an AFD close was requested at WP:AN and I think the closer was responding to that brief discussion.
I don't think this is worth overturning but I do think the NAC closer should get a reminder that they should have probably have left this to a more experienced closer who might have left a more explanatory closure statement. Having seen this AFD earlier, I expected it to wind up at DRV no matter what the close was because it was a controversial subject and the discussion was closed early. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) as I feel there was a consensus to keep. The closer however, should be admonished per Liz's comment above. This definitely wasn't a "Snow Keep"- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a snowball's chance in hell of the deletion proposal being accepted, so there was no need to run it through the entire process. Correct application of WP:NOTBURO and an appropriate application of WP:IAR, both by invoking WP:SNOW, and it doesn't matter that the editor was a non-admin. The discussion was contentious but the outcome was obvious and it can't seriously be stated the keep outcome is now controversial (even the starter of this DRV does not claim this much), the closer is an experienced editor and has not expressed a lack of impartiality or similar (to my knowledge), and the keep result did not require action by an administrator.—Alalch E. 15:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus (involved) This AfD should have been closed by an admin after the full seven day with a reasonable analysis of how they reached the implemented outcome; SNOW NACing this was incredibly inappropriate. I initially recommended overturning the closure and allowing an uninvolved admin to make a fresh decision. However, at the end of the day, this was either going to be closed as Keep or No Consensus. The closer has definitely earned a good trouting, but I don’t believe that the outcome reached (specifically, the article staying up) was substantively wrong. (I’m recommending Overturn to No Consensus rather than a standard Endorse per Jclemens‘s reasoning and my concern that many of the keep votes were not based in policy).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be a good thing to overturn to 'no consensus' when there was a consensus. —Alalch E. 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    my concern that many of the keep votes were not based in policy Many keep !voters routinely mentioned either notability (a clear and direct appeal to WP:N), while many others noted the significant media coverage in reliable sources (an appeal to WP:SIGCOV specifically and WP:GNG indirectly). As to the plain "keep" !votes with little or nothing added, I'd argue that we should abide by WP:AGF: these editors probably saw compelling arguments made earlier in the discussion and felt no need to add to what were already good arguments to keep. The first truly naked "keep" vote didn't occur until after ~25 other !votes, a majority of which were already "keep" and had each provided rationales. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be absolutely clear, I did not intend for my comments to be taken as a personal attack against any voters in the AfD. Rather, I think that the delete side had some very strong BLP related arguments while some on the keep side put forth relatively weak arguments (for the record, I was a Keep vote). While the keeps had a clear numerical advantage, I think this was a lot closer once the strength of the voters’ arguments is factored in. (FYI, I’m probably going to rest my argument here. It looks like there’s growing consensus for a standard endorse; I think endorsing is a perfectly acceptable outcome). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was correct on the merits. There was not a snowballs chance in hell of a delete consensus coming out of that discussion. Much better to revaluate in six to nine months and discuss the possibility of a merge/redirect at that time. On the other hand, any early close of such a contentions discussion was likely to end up at DRV and an early NAC almost certain to. Any close almost certain to be disputed in good faith is a poor candidate for a NAC. So a minnow to "Ghost of Dan Gurney" for a mistake in that regard. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If it's snowing outside, you need to be allowed to say it's snowing. I do agree this should not have been a NAC, but I don't think it quite rises to a level of a BADNAC which needs to be overturned. SportingFlyer T·C 07:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). There were multiple policy based argumements to keep. Clearly, we want new editors to articulate a policy based rationale and should encourage that in various friendly ways. But the recommendations of new editors who are, in effect, echoing the !votes of more experienced editors should not be discounted entirely. They were both persuaded and motivated to !vote. What I see is a number of good faith newbies who noticed that a high visibility article was up for deletion and decided to help out by chiming in. That ought to count for something.
  • I agree that this discussion should have been closed by an administrator after seven full days, but that is nowhere near a big enough problem to overturn the close. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A) Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of expediting things up is self-defeating. B) This was a clear SNOW close--there wasn't a snowball's chance this was getting closed in any other way. Basically: A NAC in such a situation was within the rules, but unwise because of the DRV that was sure to follow. So the closer was right on the rules and wrong on common sense/experience. Learn from this. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would I be forgiven in thinking that people saying that, "Yes, it was a correct SNOW-close" and "But it was always going to go to DRV" at the same time slightly oxymoronic? There are several !votes with this general comment, including one going all the way to say I should be "admonished" for it (which I equate with a formal warning, more so than a "reminder" and much more so than the silly fish), which I frankly find bizarre. Why should someone be punished for doing something that was correct? ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 14:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it's slightly oxymoronic, but it's not an uncommon circumstance on Wikipedia or in life that who does something matters as much or even more as what they do. I, for example, am a CNA. If I saw a sick patient in a Nursing Home and adjusted their medication, I would be fired even if the adjustments were correct and helpful. Because only doctors are allowed to make changes to medicines. Similarly, though in a much lower stakes environment, non-admins closing controversial AfD's (even correctly) are actually making more work for the community because their closes are more likely to be contested at DRV. It is not fair, but those are certainly the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 2024-12-27T23:38:26 (UTC)
I'd put it more akin to continue arguing with your spouse over something you know you are right about even though it doesn't really matter. Sure, you're right, but you probably also could have handled it better. Not wrong, but also not wise. Does that make sense at all? There are fights worth fighting. This wasn't one IMO. Hobit (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). Many "delete" !votes referred to WP:BLP1E which immediately disqualified those !votes (per BLP1E #3). !votes that provided additional rationale would need to be judged on their arguments, but the overwhelming consensus was "keep", and I believe to such a level that it was a clear and convincing WP:SNOW keep. My only WP:NAC feedback would be to provide a clearer rationale in the close of something with this many !votes. Just because it's a SNOW-close doesn't mean you get to skip over the people who will invariably disagree with you and run to DRV over any perceived or actual deficiency in your closure. AFAIK @GhostOfDanGurney: is free to go back and write a long-form explanation for their decision (especially in so far as why the delete/merge/non-keep arguments were unconvincing even without their numeric disadvantage). I'd urge them to consider taking some time to review the close and write an addendum explaining it a bit more. Do not recommend an earlier than normal WP:RENOM per @SmokeyJoe:. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 December 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Even after the deletion discussion's consensus to delete, page has not yet been deleted. Forgive me if this isn't the correct place to post such requests TNM101 (chat) 10:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page was indeed deleted in response to the AFD. It has since been undeleted and moved back and forth in and out of draftspace. The version currently present is significantly different that it is not eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G4. The concerns raised at the AFD, mainly around it being too soon to write about what was then a future tour, are no longer applicable. Accordingly, if you feel the article should be deleted again, the appropriate action would be to make a fresh listing at WP:AFD in the normal way. This DRV will be closed shortly. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 December 2024

  • 15.ai – Procedural close. This process for review of the article's delete outcome has been made moot by the filer's creation of an entirely fresh draft with different (newer) sources. Despite a clear consensus to endorse the delete close of the previous AfD, a page on this subject was once again put in pagespace by the filer through the AfC process (while this DRV was running). I reacted to a correct G4 speedy deletion tag, but on approach of the page creator/filer restored the fresh draft. Since this discussion doesn't bear on the new draft, I'm boldly closing this DRV immediately and then opening a fresh AfD discussion where the new draft may be discussed on its merits. All versions of the page are currently viewable for the purposes of this review; unless anyone objects, I'm going to leave them visible during the new deletion procedure. BusterD (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
15.ai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the AfD was closed erroneously. The reason given was There is a consensus among those editors that the sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability, while those supporting keeping, with one exception, suggest the case for keeping is weak or present arguments that get less weighting. This is insufficient to overcome the weight of editors supporting deletion., but this consensus that sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability was established before the new sources were found, and once the new sources that demonstrate significant coverage were found, the consensus was going the other way. I think it's unfortunate that the discussions had sockpuppets and canvassing, but given the popularity of the subject among younger audiences, it was something that was to be expected. I believe that the subject is notable due to the sources that I recovered in my research.

Initially, with only a few reliable sources available, several editors voted in favor of delete. [1] After a week of discussion, the AfD for 15.ai was relisted for further discussion, and I did my due diligence to do some research to find additional sources that could be used for the article. On December 9, I made an edit displaying the research that I did over the weekend, finding several more reliable sources that would be viable to use to establish GNG, such as sources from United Daily News and a newsletter article from an IEEE-published author. [2]. Ever since that edit, all of the subsequent votes have either been Keep votes or previous Delete votes being stricken. I'm confused by how the AfD was ultimately closed as Delete when it looked like the consensus was heading towards a Keep after the new sources were found. Specifically, after the new sources were found, Schützenpanzer changed their vote from Weak Keep to Keep, JarJarInks voted Keep, Aaron Liu expressed his Keep vote (but didn't bold it), and Sirfurboy struck his delete vote after a discussion with him regarding the newly found sources. Importantly, not a single editor expressed a delete vote after the new sources were found and the AUTOMATON source was considered to be reliable, and the editor who submitted the AfD has closed their account. Thank you for your time. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I'm also willing to put in the work to use the new citations in a new version of the article, or at least please reconsider relisting the discussion so that a better consensus of the new sources can be found. After taking a look at the other Deletion reviews, for convenience I've compiled some sources that are candidates to demonstrate reliability and significant coverage as discussed in the AfD (the first three are the new ones): [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ([12] [13] the SIGCOV of these two were debated, but I feel like they're still relevant to the discussion) GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse A pretty badly socked discussion that has already been at DRV once - I think this was clearly the correct close. SportingFlyer T·C 19:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unfortunate that the discussion had socks (though I believe they were only "likely" and not officially "confirmed"?), but still the discussion was headed towards a consensus that the new sources found were enough to establish notability, with one of the active Delete votes striking their vote as a result of the discussion. If I'm reading this correctly, the original decision was a "no consensus" before the closing admin changed it to a "close" only after it was brought to DRV. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there was anywhere close to a consensus those new sources established notability. I also only see one voter who went from weak keep to a struck vote. The fact this was already overturned once also has no bearing on the result of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there was anywhere close to a consensus those new sources established notability. But that's what I mean. The first closing decision was a No Consensus, but it was only changed to a Delete after the person who's still casting suspicion of me being a sockpuppet/SPA brought it here to DRV. There wasn't nearly enough discussion about the new sources. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made one comment about it. In this discussion. Now you're making multiple replies that are WP:POINTy or WP:BLUDGEON. Regardless of sourcing, there's WP:TNT which provides a clean slate for the article. – The Grid (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted at the close I gave considerably less weight to editors who were not extended confirmed given the socking and canvassing. While GregariousMadness correctly notes one delete was struck after relist, one keep whose basis was the previous AfD by Robert McClenon (which another keep explicitly mentioned) was also struck when he realized there had been socking/canvassing at the first AFD. So not all movement was towards keep. Crucially, the socking that was identified happened after the re-list. If I had been looking at this when Liz did, I too would have relisted and likely with a similar message. This new information, combined with the previous knowledge around canvassing, I think justifies my decision to weight non-EC differently and thus means the delete opinions expressed before the relist weigh in on the overall discussion differently. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand where the delete votes were coming from, and I thank you for your quick response! I don't blame you at all for weighing their opinions more due to all the chaos happening in the AfD, but I have to point out that those delete votes were why I spent the weekend researching for new sources that could be used for the article. I didn't want the discussion to be derailed by the suspected canvassing and sockpuppetry, so I tried to steer the discussion toward the right direction by submitting the new sources and giving a detailed explanation for each one. I don't think I'm an EC yet, so I don't think it's fair that my research was weighted differently just because of some bad apples (again, which were to be expected because of how popular the subject was among the younger crowd). And despite all that, after my research was posted to the AfD, there were no additional delete votes made. If at the very least, you could grant me some time to edit the article to include the new sources, I can spend the next week editing it further.
Also, I want to note that the socking was around only two accounts, which were likely to be socks, but wasn't officially confirmed. Socking is bad, of course, but two sketchy SPAs shouldn't nullify the entire argument that the subject meets GNG due to the new sources posted. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was much more than two socks. You can easily be considered a SPA when you have been involved with both AfD and SPI with an account related to the 1st AfD of 15.ai (pinging Ivanvector). – The Grid (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I was first found as "Unlikely" to be associated, and then a subsequent investigation found that technically at best I would be a possilikely, but I already explained that I use a very generic setup that numerous other people use (and live in one of the most populous places in the United States). I haven't even edited the 15.ai article that much recently. Most of my edits were contributing to the mathematical theory of neural networks and various other mathematical articles. You can see my edit history to verify. Are you telling me that all the other people who voted Keep, including the editor who struck their Delete vote, are all socking? Also, I wasn't even present for the first AfD? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (3 edit conflicts. 4th time lucky) as correctly within closer's discretion. I thanked Barkeep for the no consensus close and I thanked them again for the delete close. From which you may infer that I was content with either outcome and thought either was a reasonable assessment of the consensus. I would challenge the view that the new sources had demonstrated notability. I was the one who struck my delete vote, but I did not move to a keep. There were a couple of sources that some editors would have accepted as passing GNG. I did not think so, but decided to step away from pursuing the point further in recognition that a less manipulated discussion might actually have fared better. On socks, two socks were confirmed. Others were suspected but not confirmed. GregariousMadness was one of these latter ones but gave an explanation that I personally found very plausible, and to my mind is clearly not a sockpuppet. But in saying they were drawn to the subject by someone else they had met at college, they came a little close to being regarded as a meatpuppet. Yet I think they are here entirely in good faith, and we should not WP:BITE an interested and willing new editor, but not everyone was here in good faith. GregariousMadness may want to look at a page such as Generative artificial intelligence. This does not mention 15.ai, but could support a sentence or two on it (particularly the legal issues that saw the creator take it down). Their knowledge and research might also be useful for other unrelated improvements there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly? I’m just feeling so sad and helpless over all this. I tried my best to address all of Brocade River Poem’s problems with the article last month starting in October, and time and time again other editors have questioned my intelligence or belittled me for not knowing the rules by heart. And even after I addressed the last of her problems over that weekend, she wrote back “Cheers!” and then immediately nominated the whole article for deletion despite me addressing all of her comments and her not saying anything about it at all. I can't even bring up the diff to show that because the whole talk page is gone. Then I gave my case on why the article should stay and did my extra research over the weekend, but because of people who can’t behave that’s out of my control, my arguments are being un-weighted along with those who agree with me, even though I was under the impression that an AfD wasn't a vote. And then when I’m finally proud of the research I did and was on my way to convince people with the new sources I found (because the Teahouse says that a good rule of thumb is 3 reliable articles that show significant coverage to pass GNG, so I thought I did something good), the whole article gets deleted out of nowhere, leaving me confused and sad and not sure what I did wrong or what I could have done better. And Brocade closed her Wikipedia account so I’m left thinking that she made her account just to try to get the article deleted and be all condescending toward me while doing it, but I don’t even know what I can do about it or if anything can be done about it because it’s all speculation.
    Ever since I came back to Wikipedia, it feels like my voice isn’t being heard, and it’s especially hard for someone on the spectrum and juggling grad school, so I just try to edit stuff that I’m comfortable with, and still random people come at me saying that I’m an SPA or a sockpuppet (like the person doing that in this DRV, who was also the person who asked the closing admin to reconsider the "no consensus" decision) and it’s been really bothering me, sometimes keeping me up and night because I’m so anxiously refreshing the page over and over again thinking that I might get banned at any moment. So much happened so quickly and I can’t keep up. I’ve been trying my best to address everyone’s comments but I go away for a week or two and the whole article goes from being slowly improved on to deleted and gone, just like that.
    All I’m asking is that I be given some time to improve the article because I just haven’t had much time lately, and I thought the no consensus decision would give me enough time to do that. I’ve been trying to learn how Wikipedia works but it feels impossible. To me, it feels so obvious that notability is established with the sources since other AfD have way worse sources than the best ones I found, so I’m left feeling like the whole process is random and arbitrary. It makes me so confused when something like Ai_sponge is a Keep but somehow one of the most influential early voice AI projects is a Delete. I want to be able to edit the article with the new sources that I found, but seeing that it’s all gone makes me feel like it’s not even worth re-submitting it if I have to start all over. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reply more on your talk page, but just to note, you can request the article be restored to your userspace if the deletion is endorsed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Brocade closed her Wikipedia account so I’m left thinking that she made her account just to try to get the article deleted and be all condescending toward me while doing it, but I don’t even know what I can do about it or if anything can be done about it because it’s all speculation.
    The truly ironic part of me seeing this weird conspiracy that is borderline the same accusations the sockfarm were making is that I came back here to say that after reviewing the newer sources you linked, I'd be inclined to change my vote to draftify the article if the AfD were still ongoing. Cheers, though. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The AFD never came to a proper conclusion, with people still debating whether AUTOMATON should be considered a reliable source, as well as GregariousMadness's thorough research and discovery of the new sources. The first "No consensus" closure was probably justified, but the change to a "delete" jumped the gun, IMHO. Relisting to determine a consensus on the sources sounds reasonable. UnstableDiffusion (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I'm hoping more editors will consider the new sources because I spent a lot of time finding them. Please at the very least, if you are looking through this deletion review, consider a relisting to gain some more consensus on the new sources found. Again, I don't think it's fair that my effort is being overshadowed by the bad behavior of editors who have no interest in how Wikipedia actually works. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 01:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close, I was surprised to see that the AfD ended as No Consensus and then switched, but the closer's rationale made sense to me. While I am retiring from the project because I feel I was spending entirely too much time on Wikipedia, I kept my eye on the AfD that I created since I was told people might ask me direct questions. Even if AUTOMATON was a reliable source, that isn't a procedural error. The closer weighed Extended Confirms higher than others and came to the conclusion to Delete. The arguments raised by the Delete cadre was that the coverage provided was trivial. My initial concern about the seeming lack of notability was raised at the Good Article Reassesment, where I was told that the notability should be addressed at AfD, and that is the entire reason I nominated the article and predates any interaction with GregariousMadness. As for the editor who submitted the AfD has closed their account frankly, I do not see how my decision to retire has any bearing on whether the close should be re-evaluated. To my understanding, an article being deleted does not prevent it from one day returning to the encyclopedia, so if the creator wishes to improve it (which is their rationale for overturning the deletion), they can still do so in draftspace and run it through Articles for Creation. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 06:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments raised by the Delete cadre was that the coverage provided was trivial. The argument had merit before the relisting, but the new sources I found demonstrated significant coverage ([14], [15], [16], [17]) but were ultimately ignored in favor of the EC's opinions, which were made before the new sources were posted. All I'm asking is for my sources to actually be examined, and again it feels like my voice isn't being heard. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse GregariousMadness makes the best case for 15.ai being notable -- though I'd discount the Medium source as our existing consensus is that it's generally unreliable as a self-published source -- but I don't see the coverage as significant and enduring enough to overturn a reasonable close. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse (involved) - Deletion Review is not AFD round 2, and the editors participating in the DRV are not closing the AFD, but reviewing the closer's close of the AFD. So the question is not whether we would have closed the AFD as the closer did, but whether the closer's judgment can be justified. If all good-standing !votes are counted equally, the close should be No Consensus. The closer says that they weighed the !votes from Extended-Confirmed editors more than from newer editors. In view of the history of this article, that is reasonable and proper. There is a long history of sockpuppetry associated with this article, the previous AFD, the Good Article review, and the discussions at WP:ANI. The presence of multiple single-purpose accounts is strongly suggesting of off-wiki canvassing. The web site evidently has a fan club on a third web site. The fans may not be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines of notability. I would have preferred to see the closer identify which of the voters were given a higher weighting and which were discounted, but after writing this statement, I see that that is unnecessary, which is why I am striking the Weak from the Endorse. The closer recognized the need to discount editors who were likely to have been recruited for the purpose (or fabricated for the purpose).
      • I initially cast a Weak Keep !vote in the AFD based on the principle of respecting a previous AFD, and then struck that !vote when I saw that the previous AFD had been corrupted by sockpuppetry, and did not cast a replacement !vote.
    • Approve Submission of Draft for Review - The title has not been salted, and a good-faith editor may submit a draft. The draft should preferably be a clean start for the topic, starting over, without reliance on the previous history that was corrupted by sockpuppetry and other misconduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved), I think this was a fair and accurate reading by the closing administrator, of a discussion which was badly-disrupted throughout its life. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Of the non-delete-!voting participants, several expressed what were admittedly "weak" positions. More still either struck their keep !votes or had rationales "as per" editors who later struck their keep votes. The consensus was not going the other way as the appellant attests. Therefore, this was a reasonable close by the closer. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 20:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved as voted at the afd and commented at the resulting SPI) proceduraly I see nothing wrong with the close, which is what DRV is for, DRV is for determining whether the close is compliant with rules etc. it is not afd round 2. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm the one who posted the deletion review, and I want to thank everyone here for your comments. I thought about this whole thing some more today with a cooler head, and I no longer will oppose the deletion. Still, I found a new motivation to do the subject justice, and I'm going to start a draft of a new article, all from scratch, and submit it to AfC when I think that it meets Wikipedia's standards. I'm still learning a lot, and this experience has opened my eyes a lot. Thanks everyone again for helping me out, especially the editors who were kind and patient with me despite my annoying posts. I'm going to get to work now! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Weak endorse reasonable closure. After discounting the sock votes, I see some level of consensus to delete. A second relist would have also been appropriate, but was in no way required. Frank Anchor 14:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that I oppose G4 deletion for the current article regardless of the outcome of this discussion based on the good-faith creation of a new article that is likely sufficiently different than the previous version. (This is not quite a DRV topic, but I feel a need to include it in this discussion anyway). Advice was given to the appellant to go through the draft/AFC process, and that is exactly what was done.Frank Anchor 22:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I responded to a speedy tag on this and deleted it appropriately, reading this discussion. Immediately afterward User:GregariousMadness called on my talkpage and said not only had he created a newly sourced draft, but had convinced an AfC reviewer to pass it before the speedy tag. They asked me to undelete, and I did so, knowing folks in this process would like to know about the speedy passage at AfC. BusterD (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the AFC reviewer in question, I had no knowledge of this discussion prior to passing it, so I apologize if I caused any problems with this. I personally am on the side of the new draft meeting notability criteria, but I have no comment on the current discussion here due to being largely unfamiliar with the broader conversation and original 15.ai article. A quick read seems to indicate to me that the old article had severe problems, but I am unaware of how the stark the difference between the new and old articles is. The creator of the new article has left a source bank on the talk page showing their strongest sources, so I'd recommend editors here take a look at those and see if they feel they're up to snuff. Unsure what the process from here is since I haven't had something like this happen before as an AFC reviewer. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added {{DRV}} to the article, which while not strictly true is true enough. I trust the closer to deal with appropriately depending on the outcome of this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote the whole article last night. You can attest to the fact that I didn’t have access to a draft of the original article because it was never sent to me, and I’m glad you never did because I didn’t want to be biased. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true I never sent the article. I have for ease of comparison for DRV participants undeleted the previous article history. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for restoring the history. I have now looked at the deleted article history and the new version and it does look like a good faith rewrite, but clearly from the same primary author, so it shares similarities of structure and content. The sourcing appears to be largely the same, including sources discussed at the last AfD that were not in the article. I don't really know where we go from here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't the primary author of the original article. I only came back to Wikipedia a few months ago, and the article had already been written by then. When I left Wikipedia to focus on undergrad, this was the status of the article: [18]. The content is completely written from scratch but shares vague similarities because I was the one who wrote the first paragraph of the lead and the paragraph introducing the characters (and also edited the article when I returned to Wikipedia), so while the structure might look similar, it was written without any reference.
    The sourcing is also very different. I added at least eight new sources that weren't found in the original article, including United Daily News, Analytics India Magazine, Inverse, GamerSky, a source written by a machine learning specialist, and a source written by a machine learning professor, and I also deleted multiple sources that were found to be overly unreliable. I also didn't include sources that had significant coverage but wasn't sure about its reliability, whose content could be verified by a different source anyway. I put great care into making sure that every sentence in the article was neutral, objective, and verifiable. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 10:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If I did anything wrong by creating the article from scratch and sending it through AfC (which I was advised to do so by User:Liz and after Robert McClenon suggested that I remake the article since the name wasn't salted), please let me know. I was advised that it was done too quickly, but I only submitted the draft because the top infobox said that it would take up to 8 weeks for a draft to be approved, so I figured I would submit a good enough draft and continue editing it. I didn't expect it to get approved so quickly. As User:Pokelego999 above noted, I had no reference of the old article other than a couple of very small snippets I had saved on a text file while I was editing the original version of the article months ago. You can check the edit history to see how different the article reads now. I'm really, really, really trying my best to improve Wikipedia, and I'm committed to doing everything right this time. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz told you ...if the second AFD closure is endorsed and the article is kept deleted... That didn't happen. This discussion is still open. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 05:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything is fine. This discussion is obviously not going to have any effect now and if someone wants a new AfD, they should start one. The only thing this discussion does is procedurally block the AfD (because of a Wikipedia:Deletion policy provision: A page on deletion review should not be listed on a deletion discussion page until the review closes ...). It needs to be closed so that a potential AfD can be opened. —Alalch E. 09:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action: Notional endorse, but this DRV is now moot and should be closed.—Alalch E. 09:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
15.ai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is the 2nd time an AfD has been tempered by off-site canvassing. (First AfD) I would have paused even to close this 2nd AfD. I would have thrown any input from canvassed parties into the trash. How exactly were E+C editors weighted here, even if they were self-interested parties? The refs provided skimmed the surface for anyone who provided a thorough source assessment table. Either a better look at the participants is needed or the no consensus result should be overturned. – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin here. I will note that the filer didn't discuss this with me before filing the request and so this could have been avoided. I had mis-attributed EC to a couple of editors who didn't have it, which I realized while typing this response. As such I agree there is a delete consensus and have reclosed accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 November 2024

2024 Duki coal mine attack (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2024 Duki coal mine attack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Firstly, AfD is not the right forum for MERGE or REDIRECT discussion. Let me also remind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE.

Secondly, the over a dozen references within the article itself assert notability while fulfilling and meeting the WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:NEVENT which reads:

"Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."

Thirdly, at the expense of being called out for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'll still say that having articles on street brawl and stabbing incidents in the West but not one on a terrorist incident that occurred outside of an active warzone in the Global South is a pure example of WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated to "restore/allow recreation." There's nothing wrong with the AfD, but I'm satisfied there's been enough continued coverage that this no longer fails WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD a poor forum for a merge discussion, but is not the wrong forum. AfD is the right forum on whether to turn a page into a redirect. Sources can assert notability but that notability, i.e. real-world notability, is not wiki-notability. There was a rough consensus to stop the article from being live, redirecting was a valid WP:ATD, and the closer noted that the content can be merged from history.—Alalch E. 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the consensus is concerned, there were 4 Keep, 2 Merge and 2 Delete !votes (excluding the nominator) before @Liz: decided to re-list the AfD discussion for the second time on 28 October. So, there was a rough consensus to Keep the article at that point in time. — Mister Banker (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Youre actually admitting there was not consensus to keep at that point. This is based on numbers and not looking into the reasoning (since AFD is not a vote). Four keep !votes and five delete/WP:ATD !votes (including the nom) is not consensus. A relist at that point was a reasonable choice. Frank Anchor 13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It was a poor nomination, people should not go to AfD with a vague merge proposal. And doing so is usually a train wreck. However, in this case the discussion recovered and I agree that it is a consensus to redirect. AfD is not not good for merges, but is perfectly good with redirection. Elements in the discussion were strong on the points that the article should not continue, and that there is no great ongoing need to merge anything, as the content is already at the target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD is the perfect place for redirect discussions. For poorly sourced articles that have a natural redirect target, a redirect is the best outcome. Once you discard the VAGUEWAVE !votes in this AfD, the redirect result reflects consensus well. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to clarify how the article was poorly sourced? — Mister Banker (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would gladly do so if this were AfD. But this is DRV, where we are asked to review consensus among AfD participants, not to rerun the AfD. Owen× ☎ 07:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Many of the keep !votes were weak while the redirect/merge !votes were more based in policy. Consensus to not keep appeared to form after the final relist. Frank Anchor 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:Mister Banker - What is the right forum for redirect discussions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the article's talkpage. This attack has also received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, thus merits an article. (see: ANI, DAWN) — Mister Banker (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think those articles clear the continued coverage issue, and would vote to restore. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Nominator's statement Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met[19] makes it clear to me that they do not understand that routine events like this do not have or get enduring coverage, AFD is often the venue where the consensus for merging/redirection emerges so the closer was correct in redirecting this article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse - Appellant has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but ...
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1188230539"