Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 17

17 February 2019

Tom Crowder

Tom Crowder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The people that reviewed and nominated this case, mentioned that it didn't pass the WP:NGRIDIRON requirement of having appeared in at least one regular season in the National Football League, but I argue that this same requirement also mentions: "or any other top-level professional league".

Because this american football player, also played 8 games in the NFL Europe league (https://www.justsportsstats.com/footballstatsindex.php?player_id=crowdtom001) which was a professional football league, this article shouldn't have been deleted with that argument Tecmo (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This was a G4 from an eight-year-old AfD, can an admin confirm they were substantially similar? Also, NFL Europe doesn't/shouldn't satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON as I believe it was a developmental league. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender

2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus is for deletion not for moving the page elsewhere. DrKay (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Recommend no consideration of DrKay's vote per violation of WP:DRVPURPOSE, section 2 of DRV should not be used (no prior discussion with administrator). Cheesesteak1 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There was prior discussion. DrKay (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• The link above your post is red. The article no longer exists in mainspace, nor is it in draft space or portal space or any other public-facing space. There is no rule prohibiting a closing administrator from archiving deleted material and preserving its edit history in a namespace appropriate to this purpose. If the existence of that content displeases you, feel free to blank the page (except for the tag and my comment at the top). bd2412 T 13:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This is daft. There have been two AfDs for this content, both resulting in clear consensus for delete. Keeping it Will only prolong the agony.Holotony (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Tepid endorse. To save people some confusion, the page is now at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender. This is an unusual way to make a deleted page's contents available for content repurposing. I might have put in my close an offer to userfy the page if anybody wanted it. I don't think archiving it in this manner was necessary, but I can't find any real fault in it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete it properly The result was delete, not merge. The topic is already covered in Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh#Retirement and there is no consensus to expand that. We shouldn't set a precedent for squirrelling away deleted pages in unusual places without any community agreement.--Pontificalibus 16:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • We have drafts of proposed language with references and all made on talk pages all the time. They get archived, like all other talk page content. I considered copying the text to a talk page section for discussion (which any editor can do), but chose to preserve the edit history in case any attribution issues should arise. If I had not specifically noted on the article talk page that I had moved the content to that space, it seems unlikely that anyone would even care that it exists. bd2412 T 18:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I support BD2412's explanation over Pontificalibus as more logical and helpful for WP. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse and Allow recreation "of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation". A decision of "allow recreation" is not a gift but should be standard procedure for most non-joke articles. Even many of the "delete" votes seem to support recreation IF additional developments occur. A decision of "allow recreation of the page if..." (quoted from the Deletion Review page) is a no brainer.

Technically, a decision of Overturn is warranted because of my original closing of the AFD and decision of "no consensus, default to keep" which an IP did not like and reverted it. This is disruptive vandalism because, if allowed to stand, would encourage anyone who didn't like an AFD decision to simply revert it. FOR THIS REASON, the IP should be warned or blocked and the original "no consensus, default to keep" should be the result. However, to save energy, the next step would be Deletion Review, which is where we are at now (albeit skipping a step).

Please note that Deletion Review is not a re-litigation of the AFD but to look at process. The process of reverting an AFD and making a new decision is flawed. Even worse is the administrator who did it is (per his/her claim) an attorney, who should be clear as to what is proper process. It is possible that the attorney did not see that the IP reverted the closed AFD but attorney BD2412 would not admit to that and is being evasive on his/her talk page.

The administrator, BD-numbers, is not clearly a jerk because he/she did not gleefully destroy information but did allow anyone to use the well cited information to use judgment as to what information is helpful to be transferred to the parent article. Many times, people AFD out of spite and want to destroy information and even proceed to follow and harass other users. BD2412 has not done this...3 cheers!

Bottom line is that, for sake of brevity, the decision should be 1. Allow recreation (if...) and 2. Overturn to uphold law and order but, to streamline the process consider it as if a subsequent AFD was run by BD-numbers and his/her decision stands, along with his/her decision to help the WP project and keep a working copy to allow transmittal of some of the information, which would be 3. endorse. Advise and request that all these 3 steps be done, which is the correct way, instead of a stark one word decision. We MUST uphold law and order / correct process, which would be the 1 / 2 /3 decision.

Attempts to Overturn BD2412's decision is bordering on bad faith and disrespect for BD2412. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggested draft decision language by Cheesesteak1 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC). Endorse. In Wikipedia, except with the weakest articles, Allow recreation...IF should always be allowed. This article is no different. There was clearly a closure of the AFD and another user, against process, reopened it. Such actions should not be condoned. For this reason, a technical Overturn is declared. However, for the sake of streamlining events, the decision by BD2412 may be considered as if another AFD was subsequently run. This streamlining should NOT be routinely done because it undermines Wikipedia and encourages unauthorized reverting of closed AFD's. The "subsequent AFD" by BD2412 is considered to be an endorse. It is so ordered _________ (signature)

I'm absolutely speechless. Where on earth did you come from?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

From earth where I have a deep understanding of process and fairness. I see the fundamental unfairness of BD2412 tacit approval of an IP reverting an AFD closure but also the logic of it. Since we cannot condone bad behavior, I seek to have BD2412's actions explained as a streamlining measure, as if BD2412's actions were as a separate, subsequent AFD even though there should have been a clear process for it, not just letting an IP reverting a closed AFD go. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete in its entirety. I admire BD2412's attempt to try and please everyone who voted in the AfD, but I suspect (a bit like brexit), the outcome has pleased noone. I have tried to understand why BD2412 decided it may be a good idea to preserve the article content (and acknowledge the reasons given), but the logic is fundamentally flawed, as the article had gone through two lengthy AfDs, both of which were overwhelming for the deletion of the article and it's nature; the incident itself has essentially ceased to be relevant now given no further action is expected beyond what was not even a significant incident itself. Moving it anywhere, be it draft, userspace, sandbox or as was the case, a subpage of a talk page, has in fact given those who supported retention a reason to believe that the closing administrator was sympathetic towards the article's nature and could be referenced in any future recreation attempt (for which there is already a precedent). Any potential for a future case to reinstate ceased to be viable upon the news reports suggesting that there is not expected to be further developments. We can assume the article creator has already kept a copy of the page themself, as perhaps has Cheesesteak1, both of whom show intentions towards trying to circumvent the process to suit their own agenda. Rather than offer any opportunity to allow this to drag on indefinitely, there needs to be some closure and a definitive action that indisputably respects the outcome of the two deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Incredible show of bad faith by Bungle, who is bungling it. "...Cheesesteak1, both of whom show intentions towards trying to circumvent the process to suit their own agenda". Inflammatory. My agenda is to uphold Wikipedia. I merely object to allowing an AFD closure to be reverted by the whim of an IP user. As I have written, I have no skin in the article. Bungle, on the other hand, writes "Delete", which shows a profound misunderstanding of Deletion Review. It is not a keep or delete rehash of AFD. I recommend ignoring Bungle's input as it does not address the fundamental issues of Deletion Review. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion was actually started because of the moving of the article to talk space, and I express my view that it needs to be deleted in its entirety. Secondly, you HAVE shown intentions to cirvumvent process by trying to close an AfD regarding an article and initial AfD you clearly were involved with, and against what was an obvious consensus (to delete). I'm sorry if you took issue with my manner of expression, but in that AfD you acted against procedure which was identified by other editors. However, this should not be a matter of personal views and your suggestion that my own view should not count is indeed a show of bad faith on your part. This is not the AfD or a rehash, as you rightly identify, but expressions of view on the outcome. My view is that it should be deleted in entirety, as per the AfD outcome. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Kartridge

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

Erroneously deleted as CSD A7 despite third party reliable sources. Undeletion refused by deleting admin User:Bbb23 following a request at User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_47#Undelete_Kartridge - hahnchen 11:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. Maybe this was a marginal WP:A7, but I can't see any hope of this being kept at AfD. New website, launched all of three months ago. References are two links to the company's own blog, and three press release reprints. That doesn't come close to meeting WP:NCORP. Beyond that, WP:A7 applies, if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and a good argument could be made that these (non) sources fit that.

Looking closer, half the text of the article is copy-pasted from a press release, so if WP:A7 doesn't fit, then WP:G12 certainly does.

One thing that's curious about the history is that this was created (as a redirect) six months before the site even launched. I assume there was some early notice in the industry press which prompted that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the text from A7 - "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." If you want to argue against the credibility of those sources, you should do so at AFD, CSD offers no forum for argument. CSD is not a place for unilateral deletions based on notability, which is an explicitly defined CSD non-criteria). In this case, the admin deleted it under A7, and then refused to delete it for notability reasons. This is a double standard. - hahnchen 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The creator of this article, User:GregLoire was never notified. I received a notification, despite being inactive, because I think I created the original redirect months ago. - hahnchen 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)