Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 18

18 October 2023

M43 (Durban)

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

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

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

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

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

• Weak Endorse as a case where consensus and policy conflicted, which should not happen, and the closer chose to follow policy rather than consensus, which is the almost right thing to do, because there is no right thing. I am basing this on the word of both User:Spartaz and User:Cryptic that the article was unsourced, and so deletion was indicated by the verifiability policy, which is non-negotiable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  • You don't have to take our word, since it's been temp-undeleted. That's less obvious since the title had been recreated as a redirect, rather than brought to DRV as a redlink. The last pre-deletion version is linked in the header as "article", an esoteric feature of {{DRV links}} that had apparently been used only once before I stumbled across it last week; maybe it could do with a more explicit label like "revision". —Cryptic 19:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Spartaz and Cryptic are not throwing WP:GEOROAD out the window. They are throwing an unsourced article out the window. WP:GEOROAD, like most notability guides, has to do with what is reported by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Allow Recreation of Draft with proper sources. This is not what the appellant is requesting, but is what she may request. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse I participated in the AfD. The closer made a policy based close. The appellant made up their mind very early and even questioned the admin who granted the AfD nominator's perm. Kudos to the closer for weighing policy and SNG. I think we could likely throw out the last keep as a flawed rationale and we might have a no consensus anyway. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)