Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 24: Difference between revisions
→Caroline Tran: Reply |
No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:List of IMAX venues]]==== |
|||
:{{DRV links|List of IMAX venues|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_IMAX_venues_(4th_nomination)|article=}} |
|||
The nomination for deleting the article made a claim of [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY]], but didn't include any explanations to back up the claim (and multiple previous nominations already rejected that claim). This goes against [[WP:AFDFORMAT]]: "explain ''how'' the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." In addition, most of the comments were a combination of [[WP:PERNOM]] and/or [[WP:JUSTAPOLICY]]. This also goes against [[WP:AFDFORMAT]]: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." Of the few arguments that were made, most referred erroneously to ''digital'' IMAX theaters, which weren't even part of the list and were actually called out in the intro paragraph as being ''excluded'' from the article (making it clear the commenters didn't even know what was in it). Therefore, the consensus was based on a flawed nomination, flawed votes, no real debate, and arguments against something that wasn't even in the article. Which means per Wikipedia's own guidelines, there was no solid basis for deleting it. |
|||
====[[:Sangerpedia]]==== |
====[[:Sangerpedia]]==== |
||
:{{DRV links|Sangerpedia|xfd_page=|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|Sangerpedia|xfd_page=|article=}} |
Revision as of 00:58, 25 May 2024
The nomination for deleting the article made a claim of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but didn't include any explanations to back up the claim (and multiple previous nominations already rejected that claim). This goes against WP:AFDFORMAT: "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." In addition, most of the comments were a combination of WP:PERNOM and/or WP:JUSTAPOLICY. This also goes against WP:AFDFORMAT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." Of the few arguments that were made, most referred erroneously to digital IMAX theaters, which weren't even part of the list and were actually called out in the intro paragraph as being excluded from the article (making it clear the commenters didn't even know what was in it). Therefore, the consensus was based on a flawed nomination, flawed votes, no real debate, and arguments against something that wasn't even in the article. Which means per Wikipedia's own guidelines, there was no solid basis for deleting it.
Initially deleted as an WP:R3, despite clearly not being eligible under that criterion, subsequently undeleted and redeleted under WP:G6 which it likewise does not qualify for, a rather clear WP:!G6 actually. As an Template:R without mention its retention at RFD is highly questionable, but the community should have the chance to weigh in on this one. Deleting admin has not responded to the request for undeletion in some time, as such I am bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn and send to RfD. I correctly guessed who the deleting admin was before I clicked the link. Her out-of-process speedy deletions, as well as her brusque, dismissive responses to being questioned about them, make regular appearances here at DRV. G6 is not a catch-all "I think this doesn't belong here and I have a Delete button" tool. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy overturn as we don't need 7 days here, just the 7 days at RfD, which is where it belongs as this is clearly not uncontested. Disappointed with the deleting admin's response to the IP's reasonable request. Star Mississippi 21:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Questions - What was this a redirect to? But why isn't the appellant logging on? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Dynamic IP who frequently participates around here if this is the editor I think it is. Citizendium, to which it pointed for 16 years. Star Mississippi 21:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because I don't have an account. I would not call myself a DRV regular by any stretch, but when admins refuse to overturn improper speedy deletions after being given reasonable time I list therm here per procedure. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy overturn another out-of-process deletion. Support sending to RfD procedurally from DRV.—Alalch E. 21:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Undelete all the history and send to RfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
afds are not popularity contests, they are not headcounts. they are based on the strength of policy based arguments. Yes the headcount here is very clearly on the delete side but a small local call does override long term wider policies. The first three delete comments here were based on the fact that this was an unreferenced blp. Once references were provided these three become moot. they are no longer valid and closers should dismiss them. After sources were provided we saw two delete comments. The first was a boilerplate comment from Tim the made a vague wave at wp:sirs which is a policy related to companies which is clearly irrelevant here. The next from Bearian was a vague wave at common outcomes where common outcomes do not actually mention nationally broadcast radio hosts. Neither is a valid policy based call for deletion and neither make any relevant comments on the sources provided. Since no one was made a relevant counter to the presentation of relevant sources claiming GNG pass there is no way this should have been closed delete. Uncomfortable based on headcount then relist asking for discussion of sources or close no consensus. Instead we have a close based on guessing what the previous voters may have thought if they had come back for another look [[1]]. Sorry but afds are not decided on what someone might have had in mind but did not say. They are not decided by guesses by closers. Lets actually look at evidence provided during discussions instead of ignoring the fundamental idea of afDs were the D stands for discussion not for dismissing sources without analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs) t12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse close per essentially User_talk:OwenX#Caroline_Tran_afd. The earlier comments don't become moot just because Duff declares them so. Editors could have returned to revise them following Duff's !vote, but they didn't. If you think you have a case, request the draft and improve it with the sources. It wouldn't be a G4 and you could bring it back to mainspace Star Mississippi 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse largely per StarMississipi. Adding that not only did any of the “delete” voters not change their mind after sources were presented, but two additional “delete” votes came in after the fact with one referencing the sources as not meeting WP:SIRS. Allow restoration as draft if Duff or any other user wants to improve upon it. Frank Anchor 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse discussion was clearly to delete, and the sources presented don't make me think an obvious mistake was made. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as clearly the best closure even based on the case made by the appellant:
- Of the five Delete voters, two did their own searches, and two voted after the appellant provided their sources. Even if the one who said that it was an unsourced BLP (presumably because it was an unsourced BLP) is discounted, that leaves four. There was no need to Relist. There was a consensus to delete either after the appellant's sources or after searching for sources.
- Temporary undeletion is not necessary, but I would be interested in seeing a temporary undeletion. I might want to do a source analysis, but it isn't necessary.
- I am sure that occasionally, maybe very occasionally, when an appellant says that AFD is not a vote count, the appellant really has the stronger case than the majority of participants. However, when I see an appellant say that AFD is not a vote count, it usually means that they are saying that they wanted the closer to supervote.
- There was no need to Relist, and we would be overturning a Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Request temp undeletion. Was the nom misleading with “completely unsourced”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Done. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Allow userfication/draftification and recommend attempts to overcome the deletion reasons follow advice at WP:THREE. The sources listed in the AfD are worth looking at.
- The discussion could have been relisted for detailed examination of new sources, but deletion was well within admin discretion.
- I note that the article began as a 2004 stub, with a source. I also not that the article content did not contain information from the new sources listed at AfD, that the article never had good sources, and that WP:TNT applies in my opinion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)